Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever, in the judgment of the governing board of the school district, the transportation is advisable and good reasons for it exist. Existing law further authorizes the governing board of any school district to contract with the county superintendent of schools to provide necessary transportation services.

This bill would, commencing with data for the 201415 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, require the State Department of Education to request specified pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation. The bill would require the department to post the data received on its Internet Web site, and would require the data to be separated between home-to-school transportation and special education transportation.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever, in the judgment of the governing board of the school district, the transportation is advisable and good reasons for it exist. Existing law further authorizes the governing board of any school district to contract with the county superintendent of schools to provide necessary transportation services.

This bill would, commencing with data for the 201415 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, require the State Department of Education to collect request specified pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation. The bill would require the department to post the data received on its Internet Web site, and would require the data to be separated between home-to-school transportation and special education transportation. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever, in the judgment of the governing board of the school district, the transportation is advisable and good reasons for it exist. Existing law further authorizes the governing board of any school district to contract with the county superintendent of schools to provide necessary transportation services.

This bill would, commencing with data for the 201415 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, require the State Department of Education to collect specified pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation. The bill would require the department to post the data on its Internet Web site, and would require the data to be separated between home-to-school transportation and special education transportation. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

 VETO 

Bill No: SB 497

Author: Vidak (R)

Amended: 4/8/15

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/15/15

AYES: Liu, Huff, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 6/2/15

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 7/16/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pupil transportation: data

SOURCE: School Transportation Coalition

DIGEST: This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and post online pupil transportation data.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. 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.

2. Requires school districts to provide transportation services for special education students whose individualized education programs require such services.

This bill:

1. Requires the CDE, commencing with data for the 2014-15 fiscal year and annually thereafter, to request pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation.

2. Specifies that the provision of the transportation data to the CDE is voluntary on the part of these entities.

3. Requires the data to include, but is not limited to, totals from each entity for all of the following:

1. Revenue received for transportation purposes.

2. Number of buses.

3. Ridership of all pupils.

4. Ridership of pupils with an individualized education program.

5. Ridership of pupils who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

6. Number of miles driven.

7. Approved costs.

8. Cost per mile.

9. Cost per pupil.

4. Requires the CDE to annually post the data collected on its Web site along with the statewide average cost per mile and the statewide average cost per pupil.

5. Requires that the data posted on the Web site shall be separated between home-to-school transportation (HTST) and special education transportation, as specified.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, school transportation data has been collected since the start of the HTST program when it reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) at 100% of their costs. The data was used by the state as maintenance of effort to follow up on the school transportation reimbursement. In 1982-83, reimbursement for the HTST program was frozen and reduced by 20%. The state continued to use the data to adjust the maintenance of effort appropriations and reduce reimbursements if districts spent less money on transportation. The data was last collected in 2012-13 and is no longer collected due to the HTST program allocation being rolled in the Local Control Funding Formula as an add-on to the base grant of LEAs. The author’s office indicates that agencies, including the CDE and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, and LEAs need this data for administrative purposes, including the ability to compare their efficiency levels with other LEAs.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CDE estimates initial start-up costs to develop the web application to collect data and communications from LEAs to be $50,000 to $70,000 and that ongoing maintenance of the application and field support costs are estimated to be $15,000 to $25,000 depending on how many LEAs respond to the CDE’s request. Additionally, because it is discretionary, there is a cost pressure for LEAs to report this information to the CDE without any additional funding.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/28/15)

School Transportation Coalition (source)

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of School Transportation Officials

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/15)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 7/16/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Gordon

GOVERNOR’S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Senate Bill 497 without my signature.

This bill requires the Department of Education to request and post on its website specific school transportation data from local entities that provide transportation services to students.

Current law does not prohibit the Department of Education from requesting or collecting, or locals from sharing school transportation information between interested parties that find it useful to compare data.

While well intended, I am unconvinced that this voluntary data collection would produce meaningful information or is a valuable use of limited resources at the local or state level.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Prepared by: Lenin Del Castillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/13/15 14:55:40

**** END ****

Date of Hearing: July 8, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 497

Author:(Vidak) – As Amended Ver:April 8, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires, commencing with data for the 2014–15 fiscal year, the California Department of Education (CDE) to request pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation. These local education agencies (LEAs) may provide requested information on a voluntary basis. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the data to include, but not be limited to, totals from each entity for all of the following: revenue received for transportation purposes, number of buses, ridership of all pupils, ridership of pupils with an individualized education program, ridership of pupils who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, number of miles driven, approved costs, cost per mile, and cost per pupil.

2. Requires CDE to annually post the data received on its Internet Web site. Further requires the CDE to post the statewide average cost per mile and the statewide average cost per pupil and specifies data on the website shall be separated between home-to-school transportation (HTST) and special education transportation programs.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time General Fund administrative costs to CDE in the range of $50,000 to $70,000 to develop the web application, collect data and provide support to LEAs. Ongoing General Fund costs in the range of $15,000 to $25,000 for maintenance of the application and field support costs. Ongoing costs could increase depending upon the response rate from LEAs, though this increase is not anticipated to be significant.

2. Unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98/GF cost pressure on districts to report data. This reporting requirement is voluntary and would not constitute a reimbursable state mandate.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Existing law authorizes school districts and county offices of education (COEs) to provide transportation services to regular education students attending their schools at the discretion of their governing boards. State law requires school districts to provide transportation services for special education students whose individualized education programs require such services.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) enacted in 2013 replaced nearly all sources of state funding for schools, including most categorical programs. Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) funding, however, remained as a separate funding stream or "add-on" to the LCFF and districts are still required to spend HTST funding on pupil transportation.

2. Purpose. According to the author’s office, school transportation data has been collected since the start of the HTST program when the state reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) at 100% of their costs. The data was used by the state to calculate maintenance of effort for school transportation reimbursement. The data was last collected in 2012-13 and is no longer collected due to the HTST program allocation being rolled in the Local Control Funding Formula as an add-on to the base grant of LEAs. The author’s office indicates that agencies and LEAs need this data for administrative purposes, including the ability to compare their efficiency levels with other LEAs.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 497

Author: Vidak (R)

Amended: 4/8/15

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/15/15

AYES: Liu, Huff, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SUBJECT: Pupil transportation: data

SOURCE: School Transportation Coalition

DIGEST: This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and post online pupil transportation data.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. 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.

2. Requires school districts to provide transportation services for special education students whose individualized education programs require such services.

This bill:

1. Requires the CDE, commencing with data for the 2014-15 fiscal year and annually thereafter, to request pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation.

2. Specifies that the provision of the transportation data to the CDE is voluntary on the part of these entities.

3. Requires the data to include, but is not limited to, totals from each entity for all of the following:

1. Revenue received for transportation purposes.

2. Number of buses.

3. Ridership of all pupils.

4. Ridership of pupils with an individualized education program.

5. Ridership of pupils who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

6. Number of miles driven.

7. Approved costs.

8. Cost per mile.

9. Cost per pupil.

4. Requires the CDE to annually post the data collected on its Web site along with the statewide average cost per mile and the statewide average cost per pupil.

5. Requires that the data posted on the Web site shall be separated between home-to-school transportation (HTST) and special education transportation, as specified.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, school transportation data has been collected since the start of the HTST program when it reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) at 100% of their costs. The data was used by the state as maintenance of effort to follow up on the school transportation reimbursement. In 1982-83, reimbursement for the HTST program was frozen and reduced by 20%. The state continued to use the data to adjust the maintenance of effort appropriations and reduce reimbursements if districts spent less money on transportation. The data was last collected in 2012-13 and is no longer collected due to the HTST program allocation being rolled in the Local Control Funding Formula as an add-on to the base grant of LEAs. The author’s office indicates that agencies, including the CDE and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, and LEAs need this data for administrative purposes, including the ability to compare their efficiency levels with other LEAs.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CDE estimates initial start-up costs to develop the web application to collect data and communications from LEAs to be $50,000 to $70,000 and that ongoing maintenance of the application and field support costs are estimated to be $15,000 to $25,000 depending on how many LEAs respond to the CDE’s request. Additionally, because it is discretionary, there is a cost pressure for LEAs to report this information to the CDE without any additional funding.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/28/15)

School Transportation Coalition (source)

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of School Transportation Officials

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/15)

None received

Prepared by: Lenin Del Castillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105

5/29/15 12:53:59

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 497 (Vidak) - Pupil transportation: data

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill would require the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and post online pupil transportation data.

Fiscal Impact:

• Administrative costs: The CDE estimates initial start-up costs to develop the web application to collect data and communications from LEAs to be $50,000 to $70,000. Ongoing maintenance of the application and field support costs are estimated to be $15,000 to $25,000 depending on how many LEAs respond to the CDE’s request. (General Fund)
  
  

• Cost pressure: Because it is discretionary, there is a cost pressure for LEAs to report this information to the CDE without any additional funding.

Background:

Current 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. Additionally, current law requires school districts to provide transportation services for special education students whose individualized education programs require such services. (Education Code § 39800 and § 41850 et. seq.)

Federal law requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to transport the following three groups of students: students with disabilities; students attending federally sanctioned schools; and homeless students.

In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted, which replaced almost all sources of state funding, including revenue limits and most of the 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 that serve students who are low-income, English language learners, or foster youth. However, one categorical program not rolled into the LCFF was the Home-to-School Transportation (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 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). Further, state law continues to require that districts spend HTST funding on pupil transportation.

The 2014 Budget Act provides approximately $496 million in Proposition 98 General Fund for the Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program, which includes both allocations for home-to-school transportation and allocations for some pupils with disabilities, specifically “severely disabled and orthopedically impaired” pupils.

In 2013, the LAO was requested to consider new approaches that could address historical inequities and include incentives for efficient and effective pupil transportation services. The report was issued February 2014 and included a description and assessment of three options: (1) funding pupil transportation services within the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); (2) creating a new, targeted program to help districts facing extraordinarily high transportation costs; and (3) creating a broad-based program whereby the state pays a share of each district’s transportation costs.

The author’s office indicates that agencies, including the CDE, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), and LEAs need the information required by this measure for administrative purposes, including the ability to compare their efficiency levels with other LEAs.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires the CDE, beginning with data for the 2014-15 fiscal year and annually thereafter, to request student transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides student transportation. The bill provides that it is voluntary for these entities to provide the requested information to the department.

This bill requires the data requested to include at least, totals from each entity for all of the following:

1. Revenue received for transportation purposes;
   
   

2. Number of buses;
   
   

3. Ridership of all students;
   
   

4. Ridership of students with an individualized education program;
   
   

5. Ridership of students who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals;
   
   

6. Number of miles driven;
   
   

7. Approved costs;
   
   

8. Cost per mile; and
   
   

9. Cost per student.
   
   

This bill requires the CDE to annually post the data received on its website, along with the statewide average cost per mile and the statewide average cost per student, and to separate data between home-to-school transportation and special education transportation, as specified.

Related Legislation:

SB 191 (Block) would provide for school districts to be funded at a minimum of 50 percent of approved transportation costs by the 2021-22 fiscal year, thereby providing equalization funding for school districts that are reimbursed at less than 50 percent. SB 191 has been placed on this committee’s suspense file.

SB 1137 (Torres, 2014), nearly identical to SB 191, would have provided for school districts to be funded at a minimum of 50 percent of approved transportation costs by the 2020-21 fiscal year. SB 1137 passed this Committee on April 9, 2014 but failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1166 (Vidak, 2014) would have required school districts to receive state reimbursement for the full cost of home-to-school transportation of pupils through an appropriation in the annual Budget Act. SB 1166 failed passage in the Senate Education Committee.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 497

Subject: Pupil transportation: data

SUMMARY

This bill would require the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and post online pupil transportation data.

BACKGROUND

Current 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. Additionally, current law requires school districts to provide transportation services for special education students whose individualized education programs require such services.

(Education Code § 39800 and § 41850 et. seq.)

Federal law requires local educational agencies to transport the following three groups of students: students with disabilities; students attending federally sanctioned schools; and homeless students.

In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted, which replaced almost all sources of state funding, including revenue limits and most of the 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 that serve students who are low-income, English language learners, or foster youth. However, one categorical program not rolled into the LCFF was the Home-to-School Transportation (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 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). Further, state law continues to require that districts spend HTST funding on pupil transportation.

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), commencing with data for the 2014-15 fiscal year and annually thereafter, to request pupil transportation data from each school district, charter school, county office of education, joint powers authority, and regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation.

2. Specifies that the provision of the transportation data to the California Department of Education (CDE) is voluntary on the part of these entities.

3. Requires the data to include, but is not limited to, totals from each entity for all of the following:

1. Revenue received for transportation purposes.

2. Number of buses.

3. Ridership of all pupils.

4. Ridership of pupils with an individualized education program (IEP).

5. Ridership of pupils who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

6. Number of miles driven.

7. Approved costs.

8. Cost per mile.

9. Cost per pupil.

4. Requires the CDE to annually post the data collected on its website along with the statewide average cost per mile and the statewide average cost per pupil.

5. Requires that the data posted on the website shall be separated between home-to-school transportation and special education transportation, as specified.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, school transportation data has been collected since the start of the Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program when it reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) at 100 percent of their costs. The data was used by the state as maintenance of effort to follow up on the school transportation reimbursement. In 1982-83, reimbursement for the HTST program was frozen and reduced by 20 percent. The state continued to use the data to adjust the maintenance of effort appropriations and reduce reimbursements if districts spent less money on transportation. The data was last collected in 2012-13 and is no longer collected due to the HTST program allocation being rolled in the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) as an add-on to the base grant of LEAs. The author’s office indicates that agencies, including the CDE and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), and LEAs need this data for administrative purposes, including the ability to compare their efficiency levels with other LEAs.

2. 2014 Budget Act. The 2014 Budget Act provides approximately $496 million in Proposition 98 General Fund for the Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) program, which includes both allocations for home-to-school transportation and allocations for some pupils with disabilities, specifically “severely disabled and orthopedically impaired” pupils.

3. Legislative Analyst Office Report (LAO). In 2013, the LAO was requested to consider new approaches that could address historical inequities and include incentives for efficient and effective pupil transportation services. The report was issued February 2014 and included a description and assessment of three options: (1) funding pupil transportation services within the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); (2) creating a new, targeted program to help districts facing extraordinarily high transportation costs; and (3) creating a broad-based program whereby the state pays a share of each district’s transportation costs.

To assist the Legislature’s deliberations, the LAO identified three options for funding pupil transportation moving forward. The options primarily differ in the degree to which they account for transportation costs separately from the other costs districts face. These three options are to (1) fund transportation costs within the LCFF; (2) fund only extraordinary transportation costs; or (3) fund a share of all transportation costs. Although the basic approach for each option differs, all contain some key advantages. Most notably, all three options provide a means to phase out the use of allocations linked to historical factors and apply the same funding rules to all local education agencies, addressing key problems with the state’s existing approach. In addition, all of the options would encourage efficiency by requiring local budgets to cover a notable share of total costs. Finally, all three options would be relatively simple to implement and easy for districts and the public to understand.

4. Problems with the existing program are not new. The Bureau of State Audits (BSA) released a report on the HTST program in 2007, acknowledging many problems with the existing program funding formula. Some of the findings include:

1. The current funding mechanism prevents some school districts that did not receive HTST program funds in the immediately preceding fiscal year from receiving these funds because of the basis of allocation.

2. Allocation increases are not always consistent with student population growth. Some school districts have experienced dramatic increases in student population over the years; however, their allocations have not always increased at the same rate.

3. Most school districts had to use other funding sources to pay for some transportation costs and many reported it had varying levels of fiscal impact on other programs.

5. Related and prior legislation

RELATED LEGISLATION

SB 191 (Block) would provide for school districts to be funded at a minimum of 50 percent of approved transportation costs by the 2021-22 fiscal year, thereby providing equalization funding for school districts that are reimbursed at less than 50 percent. The equalization adjustments would occur over a seven-year period beginning in 2015-16. SB 191 passed this Committee on March 18, 2015 and is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 1137 (Torres, 2014) nearly identical to SB 191, would have provided for school districts to be funded at a minimum of 50 percent of approved transportation costs by the 2020-21 fiscal year. SB 1137 passed this Committee on April 9, 2014 but failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1166 (Vidak, 2014) would have required school districts to receive state reimbursement for the full cost of home-to-school transportation of pupils through an appropriation in the annual Budget Act. SB 1166 failed passage in this Committee on April 9, 2014.

SUPPORT

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of School Transportation Officials

School Transportation Coalition

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --