Committee advances bill letting districts use non‑yellow buses for small student trips; safety and funding debate continues

The Idaho House Committee on Education voted to advance House Bill 396 with a due‑pass recommendation after testimony that sharply split along safety and cost lines.

Sponsor Rep. Dan Garner told the committee HB 396 simplifies student‑transportation statutes and allows districts, charters and contracted operators to use vehicles other than full‑size yellow school buses for small groups of students or short trips. Garner said the change would give local districts more options and, in some cases, yield savings when transporting small groups for extracurricular activities, appointments or short runs.

Gideon Tolman, financial officer at the State Department of Education, told the committee the bill aligns statute with current practice and does not change district authority; rather it updates statutory language to reflect existing contracted and charter arrangements.

Opponents focused on student safety and funding equity. Brent Carpenter, who identified himself as representing Brown Bus Company and said he has 33 years of student‑transportation experience, urged a “no” vote and said the yellow school bus is a “purpose‑built vehicle” that meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for crash protection, rollover integrity and compartmentalization. Carpenter warned that vans and passenger vehicles proposed as alternatives do not meet the same construction or crash‑testing standards and should not be treated as equivalent.

Lynette Dow, representing the Boise School District, also urged a no vote and criticized the bill for failing to fix an outdated and uneven transportation‑funding formula. Dow said the measure removed a prior proposal’s block‑grant change and that differences in reimbursement across districts remain unaddressed. She provided cost‑and‑depreciation examples presented at the hearing: a Ford Transit passenger van (about $70,000, depreciated over eight years) versus a Type A small school bus (about $115,000, depreciated over 12 years), and said the van is not necessarily cheaper when depreciation and useful life are considered.

Carpenter and Dow argued that safer alternatives already exist — smaller Type A school buses that meet school‑bus construction standards and can carry roughly 10–24 passengers — and should be used where full‑size buses are unsuitable. Carpenter also noted driver training and licensing as critical safety factors and said that, while drivers are the single most important safety element, vehicles provide protective standards the driver cannot substitute for in a crash.

Supporters, including several committee members representing rural districts, said the bill restores flexibility for districts that provide long rural routes or mixed brick‑and‑mortar and virtual programs. Representative Hawkins noted some rural districts face high maintenance and fuel costs on gravel roads and argued local boards are best placed to choose appropriate vehicles. Representative Sauter moved the motion to send HB 396 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

During floor deliberations in committee, Representative Tanner recorded a nay on the motion, citing an absence of comparative crash‑test evidence showing other vehicle types are as safe as conventional school buses. The chairman then called the motion carried and the bill will move to the House floor for further debate.

The committee did not adopt a change to the state transportation funding block grant in this bill; sponsors said that topic was outside the current measure’s scope and remains under separate consideration.