BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1137|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1137
Author: Torres (D), et al.
Amended: 5/27/14
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/9/14
AYES: Liu, Wyland, Block, Galgiani, Hancock, Huff, Monning
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Hueso
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/14
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SUBJECT : School transportation: apportionments
SOURCE : California School Boards Association
DIGEST : This bill provides for school districts to be funded
at a minimum of 50% of approved transportation costs, thereby
providing equalization funding for school districts that are
reimbursed at less than 50%; this equalization will occur over a
seven-year period beginning in 2014-15. In addition, this bill
provides that the 2013-14 fiscal year (FY) school transportation
funding receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), as
specified. This bill only becomes operative to the extent it is
funded by the Budget Act, or another statute.
ANALYSIS : Federal law requires local educational agencies to
transport the following three groups of students: (a) students
with disabilities, (b) students attending federally sanctioned
schools, and (c) homeless students. School districts generally
CONTINUED
SB 1137
Page
2
use one of two types of funding for pupil transportation:
general purpose or categorical. General purpose funds can be
spent on everything from teacher salaries to utility bills.
Categorical funds must be spent for specific purposes. One
example of a categorical program is the Home-to-School
Transportation (HTST) program, which is intended to help school
districts provide transportation services to special education
and regular education students.
Existing state law authorizes school districts and county
offices of education to provide transportation services to
regular education students attending their schools at the
discretion of their governing board. State law requires school
districts to provide transportation services for special
education students whose individualized education programs
require such services.
In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted.
The LCFF replaces almost all sources of state funding, including
most categorical programs. The LCFF establishes a per-pupil
funding target that is adjusted for differences in grade level,
but otherwise is uniform across the state. The LCFF also
provides supplemental funding for districts to serve students
who are low-income, English language learners or foster youth.
However, one categorical program not rolled into the LCFF is the
HTST program. This program retained its separate funding
stream; such that any district that received HTST funding in
2012-13 continues to receive that same amount of funding in
addition to its LCFF allocation each year. However, the HTST,
unlike in prior years, would not be eligible for future COLAs.
And state law continues to require that districts spend HTST
funding on pupil transportation.
This bill provides for school districts to be funded at a
minimum of 50% of approved transportation costs, thereby
providing equalization funding for school districts that are
reimbursed at less than 50%; this equalization would occur over
a seven-year period beginning in 2014-15. In addition, this
bill provides that the 2013-14 FY school transportation funding
receive a COLA, as specified. More specifically, this bill:
1.Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the
2014-15 through 2020-21 FYs, to apportion to each school
district, county office of education, entity providing
SB 1137
Page
3
services under a joint powers agreement, or regional
occupational center or program that provides pupil
transportation services either 100% of its school
transportation apportionment for the 2013-14 FY, as adjusted
for COLA; or the following amount, whichever is greater:
A. For the 2014-15 FY, 41% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
B. For the 2015-16 FY, 42.5% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
C. For the 2016-17 FY, 44% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
D. For the 2017-18 FY, 45.5% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
E. For the 2018-19 FY, 47% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
F. For the 2019-20 FY, 48.5% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
G. For the 2020-21 FY, 50% of its approved transportation
costs for the prior FY.
2.Requires for the 2013-14 FY school transportation
apportionment amount described above shall be adjusted by the
percentage change in the annual average value of the Implicit
Price Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases of
Goods and Services for the United States, as published by the
U.S. Department of Commerce for the 12-month period ending in
the third quarter of the prior FY. This percentage change
shall be determined using the latest data available as of May
10 of the preceding FY compared with the annual average value
of the same deflator for the 12-month period ending in the
third quarter of the second preceding FY, using the latest
data available as of May 10 of the preceding FY, as reported
by the Department of Finance.
3.Makes the funding augmentation contingent on an annual Budget
Act appropriation.
SB 1137
Page
4
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, creating a
"state share" of school transportation funding as a percentage
of school district costs, while holding harmless the school
districts that receive an allocation above that percentage of
their expenditures, substantially increases the state's General
Fund contribution to school transportation. The exact costs
will vary year-to-year, based on transportation expenses of
certain school districts. Establishing a COLA for all
participating school districts also substantially increases
state funding over time.
2014-15 - 2017-18: $165 million - $220 million (General Fund)
annually.
2018-19 - 2020-21: $220 million - $270 million (General Fund)
annually.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/27/14)
California School Boards Association (source)
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of School Transportation Officials
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Central Unified School District Transportation Department
Central Valley Education Coalition (Fresno, Kings, Madera,
Mariposa, Merced, and Tulare county offices of education)
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
Red Bluff Joint Union High School District
Rural County Representatives of California
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
School Transportation Coalition
SEIU California
Small School Districts' Association
West County Transportation Agency
Wilsona School District Transportation Department
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/27/14)
SB 1137
Page
5
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
PQ/AL:k 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****