House Bill 815 rewrites Idaho Code §33-1006 to restate what transportation costs are reimbursable, how the state's share is calculated, and when exceptions apply. The text sets explicit allowable cost categories, defines a “basic vehicle,” preserves an appeals pathway for unusually costly bus runs, and keeps a distinct reimbursement track for home‑based public virtual schools.
The changes matter for district transportation directors, charter schools, and vendors because they reconfirm tight statewide cost controls (a statutory cap tied to statewide averages), preserve a hardship appeal that is narrowly defined, and authorize a higher state match for specific cost categories and for virtual-school connectivity and device expenses. The bill also includes an emergency clause and an effective date of July 1, 2026.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines allowable transportation costs (including vehicle depreciation, driver salaries, maintenance, and contract payments), sets the state's reimbursement share (generally 50%, but 85% for certain training/fee, depreciation and maintenance costs), caps reimbursements at a statewide-average‑based limit (103% by default), and creates a limited hardship appeal mechanism that can raise that cap. It also codifies reimbursement rules for home‑based public virtual schools and lets the state use an earlier fiscal year as the reimbursement base during emergencies.
Who It Affects
Public school districts and public charter school transportation operations that are authorized by the state department of education; contractors and private transport providers that enter contracts with districts; home‑based public virtual schools claiming connectivity and device costs; and the State Department of Education, which administers calculations and appeals.
Why It Matters
The bill preserves centralized cost controls while giving limited flexibility for genuinely unusual runs; that tradeoff will determine whether local operators face predictable funding or strained local budgets. The formalization of virtual‑school reimbursements creates a new, explicit revenue stream for connectivity and equipment that virtual programs can draw on.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amended §33-1006 lays out the universe of costs the state will consider when reimbursing school transportation operations. It treats maintenance, operation, depreciation, insurance, driver salaries and payments under contract as allowable costs, and explicitly references compliance with federal bus testing rules for contracted public transit vehicles.
The statute excludes optional vehicle features from the “basic vehicle” cost and defines the basic vehicle as the vehicle cost without options plus essential safety items and accessibility equipment for students with disabilities.
On funding, the bill keeps a dual approach: most reimbursable transportation costs receive a 50% state match, but the state pays 85% for state department training and fee assessments and for bus depreciation and maintenance. For operations that contract pupil transportation, the state's share is tied to the average state share of district-run operations statewide.
To prevent outlier reimbursements, the statute caps reimbursable costs: an operation cannot claim more than 103% of the statewide average reimbursable cost per mile or per student rider, whichever works better for the provider. An operation that exceeds that cap can appeal to the state board for a higher percentile, but the board’s upward adjustment cannot exceed the percentage of the operation’s runs that qualify as hardship runs.The bill defines hardship bus runs tightly: to qualify an individual run must meet at least two of three criteria — very low riders per mile relative to statewide average, predominantly unpaved miles, or a significant portion of miles with steep grades (5%+).
That creates a targeted exception for geographically challenging or sparsely populated routes while limiting broader cost inflation. The statute also preserves a set of reimbursements for home‑based public virtual schools: connectivity, student devices, toll‑free support lines, limited mileage for face‑to‑face visits, and traditional pupil transportation costs if applicable.
Those virtual‑school reimbursements are largely exempt from the per‑mile statewide cap and receive an 85% state share, though they remain subject to per‑student rider provisions.Finally, the bill includes two special mechanisms. First, it directs the department to calculate and distribute an historical adjustment tied to the 2010 reimbursement change, using a multi-step formula based on support units and statewide changes since 2010.
Second, it provides emergency rules allowing the state to base reimbursement on an earlier fiscal year when disasters reduce service and to reimburse trips tied to continuing educational services (for example, food or instructional material delivery) during declared emergencies. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, under an emergency declaration.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The state generally reimburses 50% of reimbursable transportation costs, but pays 85% for state department training/fee assessments and for bus depreciation and maintenance.
Reimbursable costs are capped at 103% of the statewide average reimbursable cost per mile or per student rider — the operation chooses the method that is more advantageous.
An authorized transportation operation can appeal the 103% cap to the state board, which may raise the cap for that operation only up to a limit tied to the percentage of its bus runs that qualify as hardship runs.
Home‑based public virtual schools can claim reimbursement for internet service, student devices, toll‑free support lines, limited mileage for face‑to‑face visits, and eligible pupil transportation costs; those reimbursements receive an 85% state share and are exempt from the statewide per‑mile cap.
During an emergency that reduces transportation activity (e.g.
extreme weather or an epidemic), the state may base reimbursement on the fiscal year prior to the immediately preceding year and may reimburse miles used to support continuity of educational services (including food and material delivery).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Allowable transportation cost categories
This subsection lists what counts when calculating reimbursable transportation costs: maintenance, operations, depreciation, insurance, driver salaries, payments under contract, and other costs the board allows. It also requires contracted public transit vehicles to comply with federal bus testing rules (49 CFR part 665), which is a practical compliance hook for districts that outsource service to municipal or transit providers.
Definition of 'basic vehicle' and exclusion of optional features
The bill excludes optional vehicle add‑ons from reimbursable base costs and defines a basic vehicle as the vehicle price without options, plus essential safety and disability‑related features. That definition narrows what districts may amortize through state aid and effectively forces localities to absorb costs for non‑essential options.
Specific reimbursable activities and contract payments
These paragraphs enumerate reimbursable activity buckets: regular routes beyond 1.5 miles, certain short routes when approved, payments when transportation isn’t furnished, contracted services (if cheaper than school buses), employer retirement/social security shares, and activity trip transportation as allowed by board rules. The contract language creates a clear cost‑comparison requirement: districts must show contract costs are at or below school bus costs to claim full reimbursement.
State share, statewide cap and hardship appeal mechanism
Subsection (5) sets the default 50% state match and the 85% match for select categories, then imposes a two‑method cap (per‑mile or per‑student rider) at 103% of statewide averages, letting providers pick the favorable metric. If costs exceed the cap, reimbursement is calculated using the cap and the statutory percentage; operations can appeal to the state board for a higher cap tied to hardship runs, but any increase cannot exceed the share of runs that meet the hardship definition.
How a 'hardship bus run' is defined
A bus run qualifies as a hardship only if it meets at least two of three conditions: fewer than 50% of statewide average riders per mile, less than half the miles on the run are paved, or more than 10% of miles are on slopes of 5% or greater. The requirement of two criteria makes the exception narrow and focused on routes that are both low density and geographically challenging.
Reimbursement for home‑based public virtual schools
This subsection allows eligible home‑based public virtual schools to claim prior fiscal‑year reimbursement for connectivity, student devices, toll‑free support, limited mileage for face‑to‑face visits (at state employee mileage rates), and any pupil transportation costs that a district could claim. The statute exempts these virtual‑school reimbursements from the statewide per‑mile cap and sets the state share at 85%, while tying the count of 'student riders' to average daily attendance for these programs.
Historical adjustment, alternative fiscal base in emergencies, and reimbursable emergency miles
Subsection (7) directs a calculated distribution to make up for a 2010 reimbursement change using a multi‑step formula based on 2010 figures and current support units; it includes special rules for districts that split and for charters that began after 2009. Subsection (8) permits the state to base its share on an earlier fiscal year if an emergency during the immediately preceding year caused at least a 10% drop in reimbursable costs. Subsection (9) clarifies that, during such emergencies, reimbursable miles include trips tied to attendance plus delivery trips supporting educational continuity (food, materials).
Definition of 'authorized transportation operation'
This short provision defines who can claim under the section: school districts and public charter school transportation programs authorized by the State Department of Education, and permits use of vehicles authorized under chapter 15, title 33. It closes any ambiguity about the eligible entities and vehicle types.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students in remote or geography‑challenged districts — the hardship mechanism and 85% reimbursement for depreciation/maintenance mean districts can secure extra support when runs truly cost more to operate.
- Home‑based public virtual schools — they gain an explicit revenue path for internet service, devices, toll‑free support, limited in‑person visit mileage and an 85% state share exempt from the per‑mile cap.
- District transportation programs with high maintenance or depreciation costs — those line items receive an 85% state match, improving funding predictability for fleet upkeep.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local school districts and charter operators — overall responsibility for costs not covered by the cap or not qualifying as hardship runs falls on local budgets; optional vehicle features are explicitly excluded from reimbursement.
- Private and public contractors — contractors must ensure compliance with federal bus testing and demonstrate cost competitiveness with district‑run buses to secure reimbursement through a contracting district.
- State Department of Education — the department must perform complex historical calculations, administer appeals and hardship determinations, and apply emergency fiscal‑base rules, increasing administrative workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing statewide fiscal discipline against local realities: strict caps and standardized averages control costs and encourage efficiency, but they risk underfunding services in sparsely populated, unpaved, or steep terrain communities — and the bill’s narrowly drawn hardship pathway may not fully close that gap without creating subjective appeals and administrative burden.
The bill stitches together multiple detailed funding rules that favor statewide cost containment while allowing narrowly circumscribed exceptions. That design creates implementation pressures: calculating the 103% cap using two metrics (per mile and per student rider) favors whichever metric helps the claimant but requires consistent statewide accounting to avoid gaming.
The hardship appeal gives local operators a path to relief, but the formula limiting how far the board may raise the cap — tying increases to the percentage of runs that meet hardship criteria — is mechanically precise and may be difficult to apply fairly across complex route networks.
Virtual‑school reimbursements expand the concept of transportation aid to include connectivity and devices, which will benefit remote learners but also introduces programmatic complexity. The statute exempts virtual reimbursements from the per‑mile cap but still ties them to per‑student rider provisions; that mixed treatment could produce ambiguity in audits and create edge cases where virtual programs claim device/connectivity costs while also seeking transportation‑style per‑student calculations.
The historical 2010 adjustment is formulaic and will require accurate legacy data; districts that split or charters that began later have special treatment, increasing the chances of disputes or recalculation requests. Finally, the emergency rule that lets the state revert to an earlier fiscal year as the reimbursement base is sensible for short shocks but could be contentious if used repeatedly or if operators accelerate or postpone expenses to manipulate the base years.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.