IBJNews

Legislators advance ban on school bus fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legislative committee has endorsed a bill that would prohibit Indiana's public school districts from charging fees for school bus service.

The Senate's education committee voted 7-3 Wednesday in favor of the proposal. It follows protests from parents in a suburban Indianapolis district who last fall began facing bus fees of at least $40 per month per child.

Leaders of the Franklin Township district say eliminating free bus service was necessary to help close an $8 million budget shortfall. Attorney General Greg Zoeller has said he believes the district acted unconstitutionally by contracting with an outside agency and then imposing the arrangement on parents.

The House approved the bill last month. It now faces consideration by the Senate appropriations committee before advancing to the full Senate.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Mitch has no commment on this
    Your man Mitch says they can ahve a right to ride the bus for free. That way we can ensure the students are getting to class...... wait there are no quality instructors there, why - because we had to lay them off in order to get the buses going. Wonder how Speedway has managed all these years without a bus system for their students. Mitch should demand they get a bus system too. Or maybe Mr. Bosma can pick them up in his spare time.
  • Corrupt School Administrators
    Indiana is really bad about charging fees for many things. There should be NO fess for anything for grades K-12. That is why we pay taxes. There needs to be jail time involved for officials of any school that charges fees. tj
  • For once
    Our wonderful government (not), did a good thing. I hope the Senate does it too.
  • So Why Have A School Board?
    We now realize, the State Government of Indiana will dictate what our citizens will get for free, and what our citizens will pay for, one item at a time. So, fire some teachers, forget the repairs for the roof system, but get those buses rolling. Thank you for your vote!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT