►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
A
Just
so
that
everyone
is
on
the
same
page
this
evening
we
will
be
going
through
the
document
this
evening.
This
is
not
the
last
conversation
about
education
that
we
are
going
to
have
chair
brooks,
and
I
plan
on
scheduling
another
joint
meeting
tomorrow
morning
at
8.
00
a.m
to
have
further
conversation,
but
we
need
to
have
this
conversation
this
evening,
which
allows
us
to
get
the
data
points
together
to
have
a
future
conversation
tomorrow
morning.
A
So
with
that
assembly,
education
upon
the
adjournment
of
the
joint
meeting
assembly,
ways
and
means
and
senate
education
will
come
together,
then
so
this
is
the
time
of
session
where
we
just
have
to
kind
of
roll
with
the
punches,
and
this
is
one
of
them.
So
with
that,
I
will
ask
staff
to
go
ahead
and
share
the
document.
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
The
subcommittee
recommendations
result
in
a
decrease
of
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
one
thousand
six
hundred
thirty
seven
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
two
thousand
twenty
one.
Twenty
three
biennium
and
the
following
highlights
the
more
significant
closing
recommendations
of
the
subcommittee
for
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
account
2609.
D
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
full
implementation
of
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan
in
the
2021-23
biennium,
which
would
provide
state,
as
well
as
certain
local
revenue
earmarked
for
k-12
education.
Through
the
plan.
The
subcommittee
also
approved
the
updated
projections
for
the
non-general
fund
revenue
sources
for
the
state
education
fund,
reflecting
all
revenue
revisions
directly
in
the
fund,
revising
nrs
387.1212
to
only
allow
interest
to
be
earned
on
non-general
fund
revenue
in
the
fund
and
legislation
that
will
require
boat
registration
revenue
to
be
deposited
in
the
fund
beginning
in
fiscal
year,
22.
D
nevada,
revised
statutes,
387.121
indicates
the
legislative
intent
that
no
school
district
receive
less
money.
Under
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan
than
the
school
district
received
in
fiscal
year
20.,
the
subcommittee
recommended
to
expand
the
hold
harmless
provision
to
include
charter
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils,
but
not
applying
inflationary
increases
to
the
hold
harmless
amounts.
D
A
B
Thank
you
chair.
I
would
just
I
my
question
isn't
necessarily
on
the
actual
decision
point
as
it
is
on
some
of
the
language
before
that.
So
it's
my
understanding.
The
67.2
million
will
bring
us
up,
bring
the
districts
up
to
where
they
were
so
that
no
districts
receiving
less
than
they
did
in
the
2020
school
year.
But
when
it
says
that
there's
no
need
in
the
2022
year
to
balance
is
that
because
of
a
different
formula,
will
be
used
or
different
projections.
D
For
the
record,
jamery
mangova,
the
reason
why
fiscal
year
23
is
not
projected
to
to
require
additional
funding
is
because
the
projected
revenues
in
fiscal
year
23
came
in
higher
than
the
fiscal
year.
20
funding.
A
Level
so,
ms
miller,
it
goes
back
to
the
fact
that
in
2022
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
money,
but
in
2023
the
projections
are
much
higher.
So
it's
up
to
us
to
make
up
that
difference
in
the
first
year
of
the
biennium,
but
we
know
what
those
projections
are
for
the
second
year
of
the
biennium,
so
there
would
not
be
an
impact
to
the
general
fund
in
that
second
year.
A
Thank
you.
I
know
it
reads
a
little
backwards,
so
I'm
glad
you
asked
that
question
we
were
able
to
get
it
on
the
record.
Are
there
other
questions
from
the
committee
members
at
this
time?
Not
seeing
any
so
committee
members?
The
decision
point
before
us
is
to
appropriate
general
funds
of
67.2
million
to
bring
the
funding
level
up
to
the
2020
funding
level
for
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
It
was
never,
I
believe,
anyone's
intent
to
have
anyone
go
backwards
through
this
whole
process.
E
Yes,
I'd
be
prepared
to
make
a
motion,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
crystal
clear
that
the
67.2
million
dollars
in
fy
2022
is
to
bring
to
create
the
baseline
for
the
per
pupil
base
based
upon
the
2020
levels
that
were
agreed
upon
in
the
2019
legislature.
E
A
And-
and
thank
you
senator
this
is
the
first
domino
that
needs
to
fall
for
all
the
other
dominoes
to
follow,
so
that
we
can
get
to
the
end.
E
Thank
you,
chair
carlton.
I
move
that
the
committee
appropriate
general
funds
of
67.2
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2022
to
bring
the
funding
level
up
to
the
fiscal
year,
2020
funding
level
for
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
brooks
a
second
emotion
from
vice
chairman
moreno,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion.
Hearing.
None
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
all
those
members.
President
miss
mangoba.
If
you'd
like
to
proceed,
please.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subcommittee
recommended
budgeting
for
transportation
and
food
services,
costs
or
auxiliary
services
in
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
based
on
a
four-year
average
of
actual
expenditures
providing
this
funding
to
school
districts
on
a
monthly
basis
based
on
the
annual
budgeted
amount
and
not
applying
an
inflationary
increase
to
the
annual
budgeted
cost
for
transportation.
D
And
so
the
decision
points
for
the
money
committees
for
tonight
is.
Do
the
money
committee's
wish
to
approve
the
attendance
area,
size
adjustment
developed
by
the
subject
matter,
experts
and
recommended
by
the
commission
on
school
funding
and
the
governor
that
will
be
used
instead
of
both
the
small
district
and
necessarily
small
schools,
adjustments
and
the
revised
nevada
cost
of
index
that
reflects
updated
regional
price
parities
index
data
and
the
distribution
based
on
the
funding
that
will
be
provided
through
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
A
And
thank
you
very
much.
Miss
van
gogh,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
first
decision
point
and
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
address
this
as
far
as
it
impacts
the
charters.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
julie.
Waller
for
the
record.
As
you
may
recall,
sb
543
did
not
include
the
charter
schools
in
the
attend
in
the
small
district
equity
adjustment,
necessarily
small
school
network
adjustment
charter
schools
were
included
in
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index.
C
However,
as
we
have
run
through
the
model
and
and
have
listened
to
feedback
from
stakeholders,
it
appears
that,
in
order
to
treat
every
public
school
the
same,
the
subcommittee
might
wish
to
consider
adding
the
charter
schools
to
be
included
in
the
computation
of
the
attendance
small
area
attendance
adjustment
and
in
particular
I
would
note.
C
I
would
call
out
that
there
are
some
charter
schools
located
in
rural
school
districts,
such
as
in
elko
and
ely
and
bellen
and
carson
city,
and
you
know
they
would
receive
a
different
basic
support
or
adjusted
base
per
pupil
amount
because
they
are
not
receiving
that
attendance
area
adjustment.
C
They
would
be
receiving
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index
adjustment.
However,
that
that
would
create
a
disparity
between
a
student's
basic
support.
Perp,
not
basic
support.
A
per
pupil
amount
between
a
student
that
attended
a
school
district
school
in
ely
versus
a
student
that
attended
a
charter
school
in
ely.
So
in
order
to
align
that
and
create
parity
between
the
charter,
schools
and
in
the
rural
school
districts,
along
with
the
school
districts
in
the
rural
school
districts
that
receive
a
consideration
and
equity
adjustment
factor.
G
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
and
so
I
I
don't
know
what
the
calculation
is
between.
In
my
mind,
there's
a
couple
scenarios.
One
is:
if
you
have
a
charter
school
in
clark
county,
you
you
make
sure
they
match
up
to
the
dollars,
including
the
small
area,
enrollment
dollar,
for
that
county
or
it
sounds
like
you're
suggesting
you
created
a
district
out
of
all
the
charters
consolidated.
G
C
Thank
you,
a
mentor
to
use
cancer.
The
idea
is
that
allowing
the
charter
schools
to
be
included
in
the
attendance
area
adjustment
factor
for
the
equity
adjustment
factor
there,
it's
based
on
location.
So
if
you
have
a
school,
that's
located
in
ely
or
white
pine
county,
then
they
would
receive
the
same
equity
adjustment
that
a
school
district
school
located
in
white
pine
county
would
receive,
and
likewise
for
clark
or
washoe.
If
they
were
eligible
for
a
attendance
interview.
G
Thank
you
that
that's
kind
of
what
I
had
in
my
head,
so
the
last
example
that
I
remember,
I
think
clark
county
was
67
dollars
per
student.
So
if
you're
a
charter
school
in
clark
county,
the
adjustment
would
be
if,
if
the
numbers
stay
the
same
which
they
may
move
67
a
student.
A
C
The
attendance
area,
the
attendance
area
is
based
on
centralization
of
the
school
and
how
the
distance
from
schools
apart,
and
so
you
know,
in
las
vegas.
C
C
G
Thank
you.
Do
you
mind
if
I
ask
just
one
follow-up
so
so
thank
you.
So
I'd
ask
for
the
spreadsheets
and
those
those
were
sent
to
me
and
I
did
see
how
it
wasn't
all.
Not
all
the
schools
had
enrollment
area,
but
then
at
the
end,
basically
you
you
had
the
small
enrollment
area
for
particular
schools
within
a
school
district,
but
then
they
were
summed
up
and
divided
by
the
denominator
of
all
the
students
in
clark
county.
G
So
when
we,
when
we
put
money
into
that
smaller
enrollment,
does
it
in
fact,
in
the
case
of
school
district,
does
that
the
checks
sort
of
be
written?
Is
that
written
to
the
entire
school
district,
not
to
those
schools,
and
so
in
the
case
of
charters
with
the
schools,
if
they
were
part
of
a
small
school
enrollment
area,
get
funds
directly
or
would
that
money
potentially
be
redistributed
again?
So
I
again
like
clark
county:
did
the
dollars
go
to
the
schools
that
were
identified
or
does
that
check,
get
written
to
the
entire
school
district?
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Yes,
you
are
correct:
senator
ganzar
stevens
cancer
in
the
spreadsheet
that
you're
referencing
they
do
sum
up
all
of
the
attendance
areas,
the
various
attendance
areas
within
clark
county
and
provide
an
average.
You
know
to
show
an
average
attendance
area,
adjustments
for
all
of
those
various
areas,
those
it's
a
weighted
factor
that
gets
calculated
into
the
base
per
pupil
adjustment
for
clark,
county
school
district.
C
To
those
outlying
attendance
areas
as
far
as
the
charter
schools,
they
would
be
depending
on
where
they
are
located.
So
if
you
had
a
charter
school
located
within
the
las
vegas
attendance
area,
they
would
get
that
specific
dollar
amount
identified
for
that
attendance
area
for
which
in
las
vegas
itself,
because
that's
the
urban
core,
the
centralized
area
of
doing
business.
C
There
is
no
small
district
attendance
area
adjustment,
so
we
will
basically
what
we
would
do
if
this
were
to
move
forward,
would
look
at
where
all
the
charters
are
located
and
that
they
would
give
the
same
attempted
area
adjustment
for
those
within
those
counties
and
then
those
what
he
distributed
in
there
for
people
amount
to
those
individual
private
schools.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Senator
gokuchiya.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
think
I
got
a
lot
of
that
there.
I
was
concerned
about
how
they
were
gonna,
even
though
my
schools
like
insanity,
valley
and
moapa,
how
they
were
gonna,
get
this
you
know
they're.
Definitely
it
costs
more
than
a
rural
area
to
educate
them.
That's
sandy
valley
especially
isolated,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
whether
they
were
going
to
get
the
money
they
can't
get
it
directly.
I
A
And,
and
thank
you
senator
gogucci
and
one
of
the
conversation
points
was
in
in
multiple
different
iterations.
That
we've
had
is
as
the
as
we
started,
looking
at
how
those
dominoes
fell
and
how
they
impacted
charters.
What
was
the
best
way
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
charters
were
included
because
it
was
all
over
the
board
so
by
actually
grouping
them
all
together
and
treating
them
like
a
small
area
or
small
district.
A
That
would
allow
them
to
aggregate
it
out
and
smooth
it
across
all
charters
so
that
there
aren't
roller
coasters,
big
hills
and
big
valleys
because
of
the
way
they've
been
funded
differently
across
the
formula.
So
this
would
allow
that
that
smoothing
effect
actually
happen
and
I'm
no
fiscal
person.
But
that's
how
I
put
it
in
my
brain
so
that
I
would
understand
how
we
could
mitigate
some
of
the
adverse
impacts
that
could
possibly
happen
depending
upon
which
toggle
on
that
model.
You
pulled
assemblywoman
tolls.
J
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
appreciate
that
we're
definitely
considering
the
the
geographical
impact
on
these
smaller
charter
schools
in
smaller
areas,
and
I
think
that
I
do
support
that.
We
need
to
adjust
that.
I'm
curious,
though,
because
charter
schools
operate
a
little
differently
than
the
school
district.
So,
for
example,
we
have
a
charter
school,
that's
a
washoe
county
charter
school
and
then
we
have
nevada
charter
schools
and
then
we
have
different
management
companies
behind
them.
So
how
does
that
functionally
work?.
C
C
Where
is
that
charter
school
located
and
then
and
then
add
that,
if
they're
eligible
for
that
tennessee
adjustment,
they
would
get
the
attendance
area
adjustment
for
that
county
in
which
that
particular
charter
school
is
located,
that
that
adds
in
to
their
their
per
their
adjusted
base
per
people.
Dollar
amount
that,
based
on
their
enrollment,
would
then
be
distributed
to
that
individual
charter
school
wherever
they
are
located.
J
Thank
you
chair.
If
so
I,
if
I
can
clarify
what
I
heard
we're,
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
confusion
between
this
lumping
together
versus
each
individual
charter
school
and
maybe
I'm
jumping
ahead,
because
I'm
looking
on
page
10,
where
it
talks
about
that
model,
so
I
can
hold
off,
but
but
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
that
a
charter
school
in
a
county
in
a
smaller
geographical
population
area
would
get
an
adjustment
for
that
specific
charter
school
that
is
equitable
to
a
similar
public
school.
J
B
Thank
you
chair
and
going
off
of
what
my
fellow
assemblywoman
was
asking.
I
think
what
will
clarify
it
for
me
even
further
is
when
we're
saying
charter
school,
are
we
speaking
of
that
physical,
individual
building,
or
are
we
referring
to
the
the
management
company
or
the
group
of
charter
schools
under
one
abra
umbrella?
B
So
if
we
have
one
management
company
that
manages
four
or
five
charter
schools
throughout
the
county,
that's
what
we
see
often
in
clark
county,
is
that
there
may
be
one
management
company
and
those
buildings
are
spread
throughout
the
county.
So
is
that
counting
as
one
individual
charter
school
are
we
talking
about
each
physical,
separate
building.
D
For
the
record
jamerry
mangoba,
it
is
going
to
be
based
on
their
charter
contract,
not
by
charter
campuses.
So,
although
they
have
five
campuses
without
that
one
charter
contract,
it
will
be
based
on
that
charter
contract.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
now
I've
got
a
question
because
the
way
I
understood
it,
you
were
talking
about
individual
schools
just
a
second
ago,
and
there
are
some
management
companies
who
have
different
charter
schools
located
in
different
attendance
zones,
one
for
example
down
in
las
vegas
and
one
up
here
in
washoe
county.
K
So
the
way
I
thought
you
were
explaining
it
at
first
was
that
it
would
be
separated
by
school,
depending
on
the
the
the
attendance
zone,
completely
agnostic
to
who
the
lea
was
because
in
some
cases-
and
I
think
this
might
have
been
mentioned
earlier
by
the
selling
women
tolls-
that
some
schools
located
in
las
vegas,
their
lea
is
the
charter
authority
and
some
schools
located
in
las
vegas
are
their
school
dis.
The
the
ccsd
is
their
their
lea.
C
On
where
they're
located
well,
but
the
payment
is
based
on
the
school
right,
where
they're
located,
we
don't
care
about
like
who
the
national
public
is
yeah.
That's
what
you
say
you
know
you
like.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
julie,
waller
for
the
record.
So
in
our
in
our
model,
we
have
every
charter
school
identified
single
charter
school,
irrespective
of
who
their
management
company
might
be.
C
C
They
receive
their
funds
from
the
school
district,
so
they
would
already,
if
they're
located
in
an
area
of
clark,
they
would
receive
whatever
the
clark
funding
the
per
people
funding
is
so
in
terms
of
the
payment
of
the
per
pupil
funding
to
a
charter
school
and
you,
northern
nevada
or
southern
nevada,
or
in
a
rural
school
district.
The
payment
is
made
to
the
individual
charter
school
and
again,
we're
not
privy
to
necessarily
considering
who
their
educational
management
organization
is,
but
those
funds
would
be
directed
to
that
school.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
miss
waller
with
that
any
other
questions
on
this
particular
item
from
any
committee
members,
not
seeing
any
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
the
next
discussion
point
and
then,
when
we're
done
we'll
take
one
motion
on
all
of
them.
So
would
you
like
to
go
ahead
and
go
over
the
next
discussion
point.
D
Please,
madam
chair.
A
Oh,
I
apologize,
we've
already
been
through
that
we
just
need
to
have
conversation
about
it.
I
apologize
so
with
that.
The
next
discussion
point
is
the
cost
of
education
index
and
how
that
would
actually
affect
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
and
the
committee
has
two
options
before
them.
I
believe
miss
beninez
thompson
had
a
conversa
wanted
to
make
some
comments
on
that
and
then
we'll
have
further
conversation
on
whether
how
we'll
approach
this
cost
of
education
index.
A
F
You,
madam
chairwoman,
I
appreciate
that,
and
so
throughout
the
course
of
the
conversations
on
this,
the
the
indexing
and
the
data
used
to
go
into
those
indexing
was
a
real
hot
topic
of
conversation,
especially
as
the
data
and
the
numbers
landed.
So
I
don't.
F
I
don't
think
there's
been
a
moment
where
much
to
my
committee
members
just
may
I
haven't
talked
about
this,
so
I
would
say
that
I
would
not
be
supportive
of
b
for
the
reason
that
I
asked
for
b,
because
what
we
were
trying
to
do
is
see
if
moving
certain
data
points
in
the
model
made
a
difference
or
not,
and
really
it
didn't.
So
in
our
subcommittee
hearings,
the
data
that
we
looked
at
was
reflected
from
2017.
F
The
data
that's
being
used
for
our
closing
is
2019
had
a
good
conversation
with
different
folks
about
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index
and
there's
two
big
pieces
to
it:
right,
there's
cost
of
goods
and
services,
and
then
there's
wages
and
each
one
of
those
have
a
balancing
percentage
and
composites
and
really
what
it
came
down
to
and
the
no
the
work
that
we
know
has
to
continue
at
the
commission
is
the
search
for
more
nevada,
specific
data
and
they're
going
to
begin
that
conversation
this
summer,
and
so
knowing
that
it
will
be
a
continued
conversation
to
make
sure
we
have
better
data,
that's
collected
in
nevada
and
reflected
in
nevada.
F
It
will,
I
think,
look
more
like
what
we
experience
at
the
street
level
right,
because
that
was
my
big
hang
up.
Living
in
washoe
was.
How
can
you
tell
me
that
the
cost
of
services
and
indexes
are
only
a
you
know,
.01
difference
from
some
of
the
rural
counties,
and
so
we
looked
at
even
adjusting
the
rent
index
within
that
thinking
that
that
would
move
it,
but
because
it
was
2017
levels
and
not
2021
levels.
It
it
didn't
make.
F
As
much
as
a
difference,
but
it
did
reflect
more
of
what
we
saw
in
2017
and
there's
always
a
lag
in
this
kind
of
stuff,
so
I
would
recommend
a
because
a
is
kind
of
the
the
best
fit
for
where
we
need
to
be
with
this,
and-
and
so
I
I
hope,
no
one
thinks
that
we
didn't
look
at
this
a
hundred
different
ways,
because
we
really
did
and
and
a
is,
is
where
we're
gonna
land
we
ought
to
land.
I
should
say
thank
you.
A
And
thank
you,
ms
benitez
thompson,
and
thank
you
for
asking
the
question
in
the
subcommittee.
It's
always
good
to
be
able
to
have
those
comparisons
to
see
really.
How
does
this
actually
work,
and
I
know
we
had
a
number
of
concerns
about
it
so
being
able
to
actually
have
that
analysis
and
have
it
come
back
at
the
full
committee
closing
so
that
we
could
make
the
decision
based
on
that
data
point
is
very
helpful.
Senator
key
keffer
did
you
have
a
comment?
I'm
sure
you
did.
I.
L
Have
a
question,
madam
chair:
I
appreciate
it
and
perhaps
the
majority
leader
answered
it
the
way
the
data
was
presented
in
the
subcommittee
showed
significantly
greater
deviation
from
the
from
application
of
the
of
the
cost
index
versus
what
I
think
I
was
probably
expecting.
If
we
applied
a
1.0
floor
to
everybody
so
effectively
making
everybody
equally
applied,
so
I
think
that
you
said
that
was
updated.
Data
is
that,
what's
is
that
what's
driving
the
just
the
difference.
F
So,
looking
at
the
time
the
commission
was
working
on
the
most
relevant
data
was
and
then
we
we're
looking
at
and
staff
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
2019
is
reflected
here,
but
knowing
that
these
are
regional
indexes
that
they're
using
kind
of
larger
west
coast
regional
indexes
and
knowing
that
the
commission,
starting
in
the
summer,
are
going
to
start
looking
at
at
data,
that's
better
generated
within
nevada
that
might
better
reflect
our
unique
nature
or
state
of
having
very
rural
areas
and
then
very
urban
areas,
and
so
I
think
I
think
we're
going
to
get
to
a
better
spot
in
this
conversation
than
also
the
acknowledgment
of
just
the
time
lag
where
we're
living
on
the
streets.
F
Looking
at
2021
house
prices,
for
example,
but
the
data's
got
a
two-year
lag
on
it
so
and
then
the
data
we
were
first
presented
was
a
four-year
lag.
So
if
we
look
back
through
it
at
you
know
a
two-year
look
back
at
that
lens.
It
is
more
reflective
than
what
I
think
we
feel
right
now,
but
inherently
we
just
have
to
wait
for
that
to
catch
up,
because
we
don't
have
data.
That's
reflected
of
you
know
in
any
conversation,
this
given
point
in
time
right
now,.
A
Thank
you
senator
thank
you
majority
leader,
the
north
has
spoken
with
that.
Are
there
any
other
questions
on
that?
I
believe
ms
benious
thompson
is
guiding
the
committee
towards
a
conversation
around
choice,
a
which
I
I
concur
with.
I
believe
that's
where
the
subcommittee
was
originally
headed
until
we
decided
we
needed
some
more
information,
so
I
concur
with
that.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
any
other
committee
members
at
this
time
on
this
issue?
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
move
that
the
committee
approved
the
attendance
area
size
adjustment
developed
by
the
subject
matter,
experts
and
recommended
by
the
commission
on
school
funding
and
the
governor
that
would
be
used
instead
of
both
the
small
district
and
necessarily
small
district
adjustments.
E
Adding
charters
as
described
by
staff
and
and
and
how
they
would
be
treated
as
a
a
group
like
a
district
and
that
the
revised
nevada
cost
of
education
index
that
reflects
updated
regional
price
parities
index
data
and
the
distribution
based
on
the
funding.
That
would
be
provided
through
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
and
also
move
to
utilize.
E
A
And
I
will
second
motion.
Thank
you.
I
have
a
motion
by
senator
brooks
a
second
by
vice
chairman
mourinho,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion.
A
D
D
The
use
of
eligibility
for
free
or
reduced
price
lunch
to
identify
at-risk
students
in
the
2021-23
biennium
and
the
use
of
a
0.12
weight
for
the
gifted
and
talented
education
program,
as
recommended
in
the
executive
budget,
nevada,
revised
statute
387.1213
establishes
the
education
stabilization
account
that
would
provide
funding
to
the
department
of
education
for
distribution
to
school
districts
and
charter
schools.
When
the
interim
finance
committee
determines
the
state,
education
fund
will
receive
97
percent
or
less
its
projected
revenue
in
a
fiscal
year,
since
this
account
would
not
have
any
funding.
D
When
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
is
initially
implemented.
The
subcommittee
recommended
providing
the
education
stabilization
account
with
a
loan
of
50
million
dollars
from
the
general
fund.
This
loan
would
be
repaid
from
the
education
stabilization
account
in
annual
installments
equal
to
the
future
amounts
that
are
transferred
into
the
account.
However,
the
subcommittee
deferred
making
a
recommendation
regarding
the
effective
date
of
this
general
fund
appropriations
to
the
education
stabilization
account.
D
Do
the
money
committees
wish
to
appropriate
general
funds
of
50
million
dollars
as
a
loan
to
the
education
stabilization
account
in
fiscal
year
21
or
in
fiscal
year
22.,
in
addition
to
the
money
committee's
wish
to
recommend
language
be
included
in
the
k-12
education
funding
bill.
That
would
provide
this
general
fund
appropriation
to
the
education
stabilization
account,
which
would
be
repaid
in
annual
installments
equal
to
future
accounts
that
are
transferred
into
the
account
and
madam
chair
will
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may.
A
Have
thank
you
very
much
miss
mangova.
This
was
a
discussion
point
in
the
subcommittee.
We
weren't
quite
sure
what
year
we
did
come
to
consensus
on
the
amount
and
that
it
would
be
a
loan
and
that
it
would
be
repaid
as
money
would
trip
into
the
stabilization
count,
it
would
always
stay
at
50
million.
Anything
extra
that
would
go
in
would
come
back
to
repay
the
loan,
and
once
the
loan
is
repaid
off,
then
the
money
would
constantly
just
trip
into
the
stabilization
account
along
the
lines
of
the
same
theory
as
our
rainy
day
fund.
A
But
the
discussion
point
was:
would
it
need
to
be
21
or
22?
And
I
believe
after
the
analysis
that
has
been
done,
the
committee
myself
I'm
comfortable
with
booking
it
in
2021?
We
don't
want
to
push
it
out
too
far.
We
don't
want
to
put
the
school
districts
in
an
awkward
position
in
the
second
year,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
the
resources
are
there
for
this
to
be
able
to
succeed
so
booking
the
50
million
dollars
and
fiscal
year.
2021
seems
to
be
the
most
reasonable
choice
at
this
time.
A
Not
seeing
any
assemblywoman
tolls.
J
There
you
go
so
thank
you,
and-
and
it
may
be
because
of
this
loan
repayment-
that
this
answers
my
question,
but
I
see
that
we're
taking
50
million
from
general
funds,
and
I
just
wondered
if
the
subcommittee
had
any
discussions
about
all
this
federal
fund
money.
If
that's
something.
Oh,
we
have
talked
about.
A
J
A
E
Now,
I'm
I'm
just
really
concerned
about
funding
k-12
education
with
whatever
monies
we
possibly
can
get
our
hands
on,
but
the
it.
The
stabilization
account
is
like
a
rainy
day
account
in
that
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
an
end
date
when
those
dollars
will
be
spent.
They
could
theoretically,
if,
if
all
goes
well,
they
would
never
get
spent
and
and
just
like
our
rainy
day
fund
for
for
our
state
general
fund.
E
We,
the
the
guidance,
does
not
allow
the
arp
monies
to
be
used
in
that
that
fashion
it
has
to
go
towards
something
where
the
dollars
will
be
spent
and
they'll
be
spent
in
a
certain
way,
so
rainy
day
fund
and
the
stabilization
account,
which
is
in
essence,
a
rainy
day
fund
for
the
pcfp
are
not
allowable
expenses.
H
B
A
I
E
E
In
addition,
I
I
move
to
recommend
language
be
included
in
the
k-12
education
funding
bill
that
would
provide
this
general
fund
appropriation
to
the
education
stabilization
account,
which
would
be
repaid
in
annual
installments
equal
to
future
amounts
that
are
transferred
into
the
account.
B
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
brooks
a
second
from
vice
chair,
monroe,
moreno,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion.
Seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
all
members
present
miss
mangoba.
If
you
could
proceed,
please.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subcommittee
recommended
the
issuance
of
a
letter
of
intent
to
the
department
of
education
requiring
the
department
and
the
commission
on
school
funding
to
study
various
topics
over
the
2021-22
interim,
including
the
review
to
review
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index,
including
a
plan
and
timeline
to
eliminate
the
floor
of
1.0
for
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index.
D
D
Regarding
the
post
closing
or
we
are
going
to
provide
both
closing
updates
and
new
informations
for
the
money
committees
tonight
after
the
subcommittee
closed
the
state
education
planning
account
on
may
11
2021
fiscal
staff
received
new
information
regarding
potential
equity
concerns
with
including
the
local
funding
used
by
the
school
districts
charter,
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
or
special
education
in
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding.
The
total
local
funding
utilized
by
these
entities
for
special
education
in
fiscal
year
20
was
445.1
million
to
address
the
potential
equity
concerns.
D
It
should
be
noted
providing
this
local
special
education
funding
through
a
tier
would
reduce
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
amount
previously
approved
by
the
subcommittee
of
6954
in
fiscal
year,
22
to
6
627,
inclusive
of
the
additional
funding
of
67.2
million.
That
is
needed
to
meet
the
fiscal
year,
20
funding
levels
and
from
seven
thousand
ninety
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
three
to
six
thousand
six
hundred
fifty
one.
D
Do
the
money
committees
wish
to
include
the
local
funding
utilized
by
school
districts,
charter,
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
for
special
education
as
a
separate
tier
in
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
which
would
reduce
the
statewide
base
for
people
funding
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
and
allocate
this
funding
back
to
each
school
district
charter,
school
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
on
a
monthly
basis
based
on
the
annual
budgeted
amount?
And
madam
chair
will
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
And
thank
you
very
much,
and
this
did
come
up
after
subcommittee
closing,
so
it
is
a
new
item.
I
want
to
make
sure
everyone
is
comfortable
with
it.
So,
as
I
walk
myself
through
it,
we
had
always
had
a
conversation
about
special
education
being
in
its
its
own
place.
Now
we
have
another
component
where
special
education
at
the
district
level
is
also
involved
in
this
conversation,
so
by
those
dollars
were
originally
included
in
the
base
as
the
per
pupil.
But
now,
knowing
that
it
is,
they
are
special
education
dollars.
A
The
color
of
those
dollars
have
changed
and
the
maintenance
of
effort
that
is
required
to
go
along
with
those
dollars.
Those
need
to
be
separated
out
so
that
they
can
legally
be
distributed
in
the
appropriate
way.
We
would
not
be
wanting
to
spend
education
special
education
dollars
through
the
base
funding
that
would
not
be
going
to
special
education
students,
so
we're
going
to
separate
that
out,
it
will
lower
the
base,
but
those
dollars
are
just
being
moved
and
then
sent
back
to
the
students
that
those
dollars
would
have
originally
supported.
D
Madam
chair,
that
is
correct.
This
is
this,
would
also
there's
vast
variation
between
school
districts
and
charter
schools
on
the
amount
of
funding
they
provide
for
special
education.
So
this
would
maintain
that
equity
and
will
not
be
diluted
by
placing
those
funds
in
a
statewide
base
for
a
people
amount.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
just
wanted
to
provide
additional
information
again.
You
absolutely
everything
you
said
is
correct
that
these
dollars
have
been
identified
as
dollars
of
the
school
districts
and
charter
schools
transferred
out
of
their
general
fund
to
support
their
local
contribution
for
special
education
services
and
by
allowing
that
funding
to
be
pulled
apart
and
identified
as
local
funding
for
special
education
services.
C
C
C
The
local
maintenance
of
effort-
that
is
a
local
decision
in
terms
of
the
services
that
they
need
to
provide,
so
we
will
return
those
dollars
that
have
been
identified
as
supporting
special
education
students,
and
then
the
districts
will
continue
to
use
those
for
those
students
and,
and
then
one
of
the
main
concerns
about
leaving
those
in
the
base
and
running
it
through
the
model
is
that
they
would
then
be
processed
through
the
equity
adjustments
and
again,
with
the
wide
variations
of
dollars
that
are
spent
on
local
dollars
that
are
spent
on
special
education.
E
Thank
you,
and
I
just
just
want
to
clarify
that,
while
while
we
are
redirecting
the
way,
this
goes
mainly
for
the
purposes
of
transparency
and
accountability,
it's
the
same
amount
of
money,
and
that
is
we're
not
talking
about
less
money,
we're
just
redirecting
it
so
that
there's
more
clarity
and
transparency
when
you
look
at
it
and
so
I'll
refer
back
to
page
21,
our
attachment
and-
and
please
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong-
this
is
the
money
that's
in
the
table.
I
guess
it
would
be
tab,
2.1.1,
special,
ed,
local
funding.
E
E
C
Well,
yes,
that
is
correct
in
terms
of
of
what
is
being
funded
out
of
the
state
education
fund.
There
are
additional
k-12
dollars
that
are
distributed
that
will
be
distributed
out
of
different
budget
accounts,
such
as
the
state
special
education
funding,
as
well
as
other
categorical
grants,
such
as
proof,
technical
education.
That
will
add
to
this
average
spending
by
per
people
that
will
be
reflected
in
the
k-12
funding
bill.
A
And
with
that
senator
hammond,
did
you
have
a
question.
K
K
What
I
don't
know
is
you
know:
what's
the
difference,
if
you
left
it
in,
and
I
don't
know
if
we
really
need
to
know
that
I
think
it's
more
of
a
curiosity
thing
to
kind
of
see
where
we
would
have
been
because
again
I
understand
that
the
money
goes
back
into
education.
It
goes
back
into
those
schools,
so
we're
not
losing
those
dollars.
I
just
wanted
to
see
what
it
looks
like
I
think.
I
K
K
Until
next
week,
so
I
guess
I
I
don't
want
to
know
that,
but
I
just
want
to
know
if
there
was
a
you
know,
somebody
could
say:
hey
it's
a
difference
of
three
hundred
dollars
per
pupil
or
something.
A
Well,
I
I
think
at
the
top
of
of
of
page
nine,
you
get
an
idea
of
what
those
dollars
would
would
have
looked
like
before
and
I'll
I'll
hand
it
back
over
to
miss
waller.
But
I
I
think
the
ultimate
conversation
point.
This
is
this.
These
are
special
education
dollars
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
those
special
education
dollars
get
to
special
education
students
and,
if
you
put
them
in
the
base,
they
will
be
diluted
and
spread
across
all
students
rather
than
going
back
to
those
particular
students.
A
So
I
think
that's
the
major
conversation
point
and
what
happened
after
the
subcommittee
closed
was.
There
were
not
only
state
special
education
dollars,
but
there's
local
special
education
dollars,
which
we
needed
to
corral
off,
as
you
would
to
make
sure
that
those
dollars
are
well
accounted
for.
They
come
in
and
they
go
back
out
right
where
they
need
to
be
so.
Yes,
it
does
in
essence,
it
has
the
perception
of
lowering
the
base
because
those
dollars
originally
in
the
the
conversations
we
did
not
know,
we
had
to
coordinate
those
particular
dollars
from
the
locals
off.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
that
that
helps
out
in
in
if
you
are
right
and
it's
top
page
nine-
I
think
that
answers
my
questions
and
sometimes
belaboring.
The
point
is
actually
good
in
this
case,
because
that
is
the
focus
of
so
many
people
on
how
much
we
spend
per
pupil
and
to
let
them
know
that
the
money
is
still
there,
it's
being
spent
where
it's
supposed
to
be
spent
in
special
education.
A
And
and
you're
very
welcome
senator
hammond
and
also
keep
in
mind
that
the
k12,
the
actual
k-12
funding
bill
that
first
page
delineates
every
single
thing
in
a
line
and
then
there's
that
total
number
at
the
bottom.
That
shows
all
dollars
that
are
going
to
every
single
student
in
the
state.
So
it
is
broken
down
by
components
there.
So
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
account
for
each
one
of
those
in
each
one
of
those
lines.
A
L
I
do
manager.
Thank
you.
Ms
bengo
is
the
are
the
dollar
figures
associated
with
each
district
out
of
their
387
reports,
or
where
did
we
land
on
those
numbers.
L
Okay,
so
there
are
some
districts
that
are
at
their
13
cap
for
for
state
support
for
special
ed
and,
if
they're
already
there
and
they
get
get
more
students,
some
of
their
local
expenditures
for
special
ed
are
going
to
grow
year
over
year.
So
is
this
going
to
be
a
a
calculation?
That's
done
sort
of
every
biennium
when
we
go
through
to
calculate
the
base
amount
in
the
even
numbered
year
for
special
ed,
based
on
direct
reports
that
we
get
back
from
the
district.
D
Out
senator
to
your
question,
it
will
be
based
on
their
actual
expenditure
so
for
this
particular
one
it's
based
on
fiscal
year
20.
When
we
move
to
the
next
biennium,
it
will
be
based
on
their
fiscal
year,
22
actual
expenditures.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
move
that
the
the
committee
include
the
local
funding
utilized
by
school
districts,
charter
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
for
special
education
as
a
separate
tier
in
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan,
which
would
reduce
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium
and
allocate
this
funding
back
to
each
school
district
charter.
School
and
university.
Schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
on
a
monthly
basis
based
on
the
annual
budgeted
amount.
A
I
have
a
motion
by
senator
brooks
the
second
by
vice
chair,
monroe
moreno.
Are
there
any
other
questions
or
comments
in
the
motion
at
this
time,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passage
unanimously
of
all
the
members
present
miss
mangoba.
We
can
proceed.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
methodology
utilized
in
the
model
provided
to
fiscal
staff
balances
the
school
district
and
charter
schools
hold
harmless
amounts
by
modifying
only
the
adjusted
base
for
pupil
funding.
However,
effective
july
1st,
2021
nrs
387.1
contemplates
a
proportional
reduction,
be
made
in
the
base
and
weighted
funding.
If
money
contained
in
the
state
education
fund
decreases
from
the
preceding
fiscal
year,
fiscal
staff
request
authority
to
modify
the
model
to
balance
the
school
district
and
charter
schools
hold
harmless
amounts
consistent
with
nrs
387.1214
consistent
with
current
practice.
D
The
model
further
evaluates
eligibility
for
hold
harmless
at
an
individual
charter
school
level,
which
differs
from
the
evaluation
of
hold
harmless
for
school
districts
that
are
evaluated
for
hold
harmless
eligibility
at
the
school
district
level.
As
a
result,
there
are
two
different
methodologies
to
determine
eligibility
for
hold
harmless
for
charter
schools
and
school
districts.
D
Do
the
money
committees
wish
to
approve
applying
the
methodology
in
evaluating
hold
harmless
eligibility
currently
used
for
school
districts
by
treating
all
charter
schools
as
one
group,
as
opposed
to
individual
charter
schools?
In
addition,
did
the
money
committees
wish
to
provide
fiscal
staff
with
authority
to
balance
the
model
related
to
hold
harmless
consistent
with
nrs
387.1214,
and
madam
chair
will
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
K
C
C
Thank
you
very
much.
The
the
school
district
charter
schools
are
not
separated
out
as
a
separate
charter
school
in
the
evaluation
of
the
whole
homeless,
they're
locked
in
within
the
school
district,
so
they're
they're,
not
part
of
this
disparity
in
how
we're
evaluating
the
whole
harvest
between
the
the
charter,
schools.
It's
the
charter,
schools
that
would
be
sponsored
by.
C
C
D
H
C
That,
in
the
model
that
all
charter
schools,
regardless
of
sponsors,
are,
are
separated
and
this
proposal
would
to
align
the
whole
harmless
evaluation
to
the
same
school
district
level.
As
a
combined
level
for
charter
schools
doesn't
include
the
charter
school
sponsored
by
school
district.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
that
would
work,
because
I
I'm
not
sure
what
those
numbers
would
look
like
intuitively
charter.
Schools
are
very
unique
in
that
there's
very
few
that
are
grouped
together
that
have
a
management
organization.
That's
the
same
they're
sort
of
one-offs,
at
least
the
ones
in
washer
county.
Very
few
of
them
are
centralized
as
far
as
management,
and
so
I
guess
I
I
have
a
hard
time
making
a
decision
like
this.
G
So
can
you
tell
me,
if
do
you
expect
to
lump
them
together,
figure
out
what
a
whole
harmless
is
and
then
they
are
supposed
to
jointly
redistribute
funds
or
or
if
we,
if
we
do
it
this
way
versus
going
school
by
school,
recognizing
the
money
that
they've
received
in
the
past
per
pupil
versus
the
money
they'll
potentially
receive
in
the
future.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
to
senator
seaver's
cancer.
This
whole
harvest,
it's
it's
kind
of
it
gets
confusing
when
we
use
the
term
hold
harmless
broadly,
and
it
applies
to
multiple
decision
points.
The
decision
point
here
that
we're
talking
about
is
in
the
evaluation
in
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
model
of
whether
or
not
a
charter
school.
Based
on
again.
C
As
you
recall,
the
committee
has
approved
the
evaluation
of
whole
harmless
of
whether
or
not
a
school
district
or
a
charter
school
would
be
on
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
that
they
would
if
they
would
gain
funding
on
a
per
people
basis
on
the
people's
center
funding
plan
or
if
they
would
lose
funding
on
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
C
C
That
comparison
is
done
at
a
school
district
level
and
then
based
on
past
practice
or
current
practice
in
evaluating
whole
farmers
for
enrollment
changes
in
whole
pharmacies
evaluated
at
the
individual
school
district
level,
that
that
provides
an
additional
advantage
for
these
charter
schools
in
terms
of
the
of
their
changes
in
funding,
because
it's
easier
for
them
to
it's,
not
apples
to
apples
in
terms
of
a
school
district
which
is
much
larger
may
have
you
know
three
or
four
hundred
schools
have
to
meet
a
certain
threshold
before
they
would
rise
to
hold
harmless
level
as
opposed
to
the
charter
schools,
and
so
this
proposal
would
basically
sum
all
charter
schools,
the
funding
they
would
receive
on
people's
in
their
funding
plan
and
compare
it
to
the
funding
they
received
in
total
on
the
in
2020
and
at
that.
C
Would
say:
hey
you
receive
more
on
the
people,
send
their
funding
plan
charter.
Schools
are
on
the
people's
center
funding
plan,
or
if
they
receive
less
funding
on
the
people's
in
their
funding
plan,
then
they
would
be
on
the
whole
harmless
at
a
per
pupil
level.
Now
the
whole
part
of
the
per
pupil
level
is
by
individual
school
district.
G
Well,
that
that
helps
me
because
if
it's
still
going
back
to
per
pupil,
hold
harmless
or
at
an
individual
school
that
helps,
and
so
I
guess
I'm
not,
and
maybe
that's
all
I
need
to
know
because
when
you
lump
them
together,
maybe
that's
just
for
your
calculation
purposes,
so
you
don't
have
to
break
them
into
a
lot
of
little
pieces.
But
as
long
as
it's
per
pupil
individually,
I
think
that's
helpful.
Thank
you.
A
C
So
the
decision
point
of
whether
or
not
the
charter
schools
would
be
on
the
new
formula
or
remain
on
the
old
formula
whole
harmless.
The
2020
amount
is
made
at
the
combined
charter
school
level
as
though
they
were
an
18th
school
district.
Once.
C
Of
the
funding
that
they
would
receive
in
total
is
made
and
they
would
be
on
the
purple
people
center
funding
plan.
Then
all
charter
schools
will
be
on
the
people
center
funding
plan
and
then
the
per
pupil
amount
that
they
would
receive
under
the
people's
center
funding
plan
would
be
what
they
would
be
paid
on
on
their
enrollment
that
they
would
have
in
just
the
year
22
and
23..
C
If
the
evaluation
in
the
model
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan
shows
that
they
would,
as
a
combined
group
all
charter
schools
similar
to
an
18
school
district
would
receive
less
funding
than
on
the
people
center
funding
plan,
then
they
would
be
on
the
whole
harmless
per
people
now
and
all
charter
schools
would
be
received
there
per
people
that
they
would
be
entitled
to
on
the
whole.
On
the
2020,
whole
heart
per
people
hold
harmless
level.
C
B
C
A
group
they
stay
on
the
people's
center
front
or
on
the
2020
hold
harmless
or
if
they
move
over
to
the
people
center
funding
plan
and
then
once
they
are
identified
as
the
whole
harmless
provision
of
the
new
model,
they
would
all
be
paid
individually.
There
per
pupil
amount,
that's
determined
according
to
the.
C
Calculations,
I
would
point
out
that,
because
the
committee
has
approved
the
evaluation
of
the
2020
whole
harmless
amounts
on
a
per
pupil
basis.
This.
F
C
Just
to
determine
the
rate
that
they
will
receive
on
a
per
people
basis.
Now
the
charter
school
is
deemed
to
be
on
the
people's
center
funding
plan
and
they
receive
a
certain
amount.
C
Then
they
would
this.
This
concept
would
also
apply
that
we
would.
We
would
look
at
the
charter
schools
combined
in
a
year
and
say
if
they,
if
their
enrollment
dropped
greater
than
five
percent,
then
they
would
be
eligible
to
be
to
count
their
students
from
the
prior
year
and
then
they
would
be
paid
accordingly
and
that's
similar
to
the
process.
That's
used
currently
for
the
school
districts
in
evaluating
cold,
harmless
or
enrollment
drops.
A
And
as
ms
waller
just
alluded
to,
the
5
hold
harmless,
that
is
in
statute,
is
still
there,
so
that
backstop
is
there
to
protect
districts
that
with
that
variation
it
can.
It
cannot
fluctuate
past
that
five
percent,
and
if
it
does,
then
they
get
to
fall
back
to
the
previous
year
to
be
able
to
address
that
that
issue,
so
assemblywoman
tolls.
J
Thank
you,
sharon
and
I
I
do
appreciate
this-
is
giving
me
a
little
bit
more
comfort
that
we
keep
coming
back
to
each
charter
school
we'll
be
we'll
get
the
amount
hold
harmless
on
the
individual
school
level.
J
I
guess
I'm
still
just
trying
to
wrap
my
head
functionally
around
how
this
is
distributed,
because
you
know
we
have
a
school
district
with
their
own
cfo
and
with
their
budget,
and
you
know
they
are
function.
They
function
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
to
be
able
to
distribute
to
each
of
the
schools,
whereas
the
charter
schools
are
unique.
Has
the
charter
school
authority?
C
Thank
you
bad
sheriff
to
you
to
something
woman
told
so
for
that's
a
great
question
and
for
clarification.
C
This
is
for
the
evaluation
in
the
pupil
center
funding
plan,
of
which,
basically,
which
per
people
rate
the
school
districts
or
charter
schools
would
receive
as
we
transition
to
the
full
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan
once
they
know
what
their
per
pupil
rate
is.
C
The
the
department
of
education
will
continue
to
pay
the
school
districts
individually
for
the
their
their
count
of
enrollment
and
the
dollars
that
they're
entitled
to
for
their
adjusted
base
per
pupil,
their
english
learner
populations
at
risk
gait,
and
so
they
will
continue
to
process
the
payments
directly
to
those
charter
schools.
This
is
not
a
payment
consolidation.
C
This
is
just
the
evaluation
at
a
consolidated,
18th
district
level
and
then
determining
which
plan
you
are
on
and
then
proceeding
forward
as
such
with
the
model
spitting
out
the
dollars
that
each
charter
school
would
then
be
eligible
to
receive
in
that
school
year,
and
the
department
of
education
would
continue
to
pay
them
in
the
same
manner
that
they
are
currently
being
paid.
F
C
Yes,
that
is
that
is
one
of
the
issues,
and
the
other
issue
is
that,
in
moving
to
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
model,
there
have
been
changes
the
way
that
the
funding
is
allocated
to
the
charter
schools.
And
so,
if
you
do
the
whole
harmless
on
the
school
by
school
basis.
When
you
had
at
the
under
the
existing
funding
formula
online
charter,
schools
were
eligible
to
receive
the
per
pupil
funding
from
wherever
their
whatever
county
their
students
reside,
and
so
they
had
a
variation
of
per
people.
C
Funding
from
various
counties
and
that
would
be
baked
in
as
their
whole
harmless
amount,
as
opposed
to
looking
at
the.
In
total
of
the
charter,
schools
and
the
under
the
people
center
funding
plan
and
as
well
as
what
their
2020
funding
was
received
and
then
determining
which
per
pupil
amount
they
would
be
on
so
that,
under
the
new
funding
formula,
the
state-wide
average
per
people
is
eligible
for
those
online
schools.
L
I
wonder
if
we're
at
a
district
level
right,
if
there's
there
will
be
some
schools,
that
individually
would
would
probably
do
well
under
the
under
the
new
plan
versus
the
old
one.
But
the
district
as
a
unit
has
the
ability
to
manage
that
influx
or
reduction
of
dollars
by
moving
and
balancing
out
their
funding
for
individual
schools.
L
Charters.
Don't
have
that
so
there
could
be
a
certainly
be
a
charter
that
would
receive
more
funding
during
the
or
under
the
people-centered
funding
plan
for
serving
students
that
are
receiving
weights,
but
still
be
put
at
a
lower
level.
Due
to
the
sort
of
aggregation
of
the
of
the
weighted
plan
right.
L
C
Schools
do
receive
funding
individually
and
again,
as
we
transition
to
the
new
funding
formula.
There
is
a
you
know:
the
the
change
in
the
the
the
school
district.
Excuse
me.
The
charter
school
received
the
statewide
average
base
per
people
with
the
ncei
adjustment
as
well
as
now.
The
recently
approved
attendance.
F
C
Adjustments
and
plus
any
additional
funding
they
would
receive
from
any
special
student
populations
that
would
be
their
funding
level.
That's
a
that's
a
bit
of
a
change
that
from
the
way
that
the
charter
schools
are
funded
currently,
so
it
is
a
policy
decision
and
again
it
would
be
akin
to,
as
you
say,
that
school
districts
are
are
evaluated
at
the
school
district
level,
which
could
include.
C
You
know
several
hundred
schools,
whereas
a
charter
school
only
has
the
single
school
information
to
to
compare,
and
so
it
it
makes
those
comparisons
sort
of
disparate
in.
Under
the
current.
L
A
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
move
to
approve,
applying
the
methodology
and
evaluating
hold
harmless
eligibility
currently
used
for
school
districts
by
treating
all
charter
schools
as
one
group,
as
opposed
to
individual
charter
schools.
In
addition,
I
moved
to
provide
fiscal
staff
with
authority
to
balance
the
model
related
to
hold
harmless
consistent
with
nrs
387.1214.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
brooks
in
a
second
from
vice
chair
monroe
moreno:
are
there
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion?
The
citation
is
the
five
percent
backstop
hold
harmless.
That
was
referred
to
earlier,
just
to
make
sure
everybody's
aware,
seeing
no
other
questions
or
comments
all
those
in
support.
Please,
I'm
sorry
did
I
miss
something.
C
A
C
This
is,
this
is
in
reference
to
the
new
people,
center
funding
plans
or
any
decreases
of
revenue
to
be
proportionally
reduced
between
the
base
and
the
weight.
A
I
stand
corrected
and
it
won't
be
the
last
time
in
the
next
week
that
that
will
happen
so
with
that
committee
members,
that
citation
is
corrected
any
other
questions
or
comments,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present
miss
van
gogh.
If
you'd
like
to
proceed.
D
A
So
with
that
committee,
are
there
any
questions?
I
know
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversations
about
making
sure
that
we
get
as
many
dollars
back
into
the
base
as
possible.
It's
been
an
ongoing
conversation.
I
know
at
one
time
there
was
discussion
points
about
if
there
was
any
leftover
money,
where
would
it
go,
but
the
way
the
model
is
supposed
to
work,
it
should
balance
out.
There
shouldn't
be
any
extra
money.
The
money
should
be
going
back
into
the
base,
but
we
think
there's
still
a
couple
of
glitches
there.
A
So
that's
the
the
inclination
of
the
committee
was
basically
to
make
sure
that
everything
is
built
on
the
base
and
the
more
we
do
to
build
that
up
the
better
it'll
flow
and
stand
up
on
its
own
for
the
first
year
and
run
on
its
own
after
that.
So
this
is
about
building
up
the
base.
A
E
A
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
brooks
a
second
from
vice
chair
monroe,
moreno,
any
other
questions
or
conversations
on
the
motion.
Seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
all
the
members
that
are
present,
miss
mangoba.
We
can
proceed.
D
Given
the
transition
to
the
people-centered
funding
bond,
the
money
committees
may
wish
to
restore
funding
for
the
additional
support
of
english
learners
and
at-risk
pupils
to
the
fiscal
year.
20
legislatively
approved
funding
level.
Do
the
money
committees
wish
to
restore
the
funding
reduced
during
the
31st
special
session
for
english
learners
and
at-risk
pupils
to
the
fiscal
year?
20
legislatively
approved
funding
level
which
would
require
general
fund
appropriations
of
2.3
million
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
to
the
state
education
funding
account.
A
Committee
members
any
conversation,
I
know
that
during
the
special
session,
when
we
had
these
conversations,
I
can
remember
sitting
in
this
actual
room
with
my
caucus
and
the
concerns
that
they
shared
with
us
and
the
commitment
that
we
all
made
to
do
whatever
we
could
to
bring
these
programs
back
because
they
are
so
significant
for
those
at-risk
pupils.
So
I'm
very
happy
to
see
this
encapsulated
in
our
discussion
points
senator
seavers
cancer.
G
G
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
julie,
waller
for
the
record,
so
the
federal
dollars
to
which
you
reference
are
the
one-time
dollars,
and
these
would
be
the
weighted
funding
that
would
be
run
through
the
model
and
current
law
related
to
sb
543
and
the
people
center
funding
plan
does
not
run
any
federal
dollars
through
the
model.
The
funding
formula
is
to
the
funding
sources
that
are
directed
to
the
state
education
funding
account
and
they
do
not
include
federal
dollars.
E
Senator
sievers
cancer,
I
had
similar
questions
and
so
you're,
referring
to
the
arp
funding
right
that
that's
set
aside
for
lost
revenue
and
is
flexible
funding
that
can
be
used
to
backfill
lost
things
caused
by
lost
revenue,
and
I
think
that
there's
still
some
conversation,
whether
or
not
that's
allowable,
but
you
know
I
would
advocate
for
that
myself
and-
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
that
you
know
we've
identified,
I
think,
as
a
direct
link
to
lost
revenue.
G
Thank
you,
and,
and
I'm
thinking
along
the
same
lines,
and
I
think
we
have
to
be
able
to
resolve
this
model
and
what
the
dollars
are
and
there
may
be
opportunities
to
trade
dollars
after
we
balance
everything
you
know,
so
we
should
track
it.
Thank
you.
F
Not
so
much
a
question
just
part
of
that,
I
think
that
I
don't
want
anyone
to
think
that
we
haven't
thought
or
that
there
hasn't
been
conversations
slicing
and
dicing
at
500
different
ways
about
how
to
make
that
that
those
dollars
work
and
where
we
can
apply
them.
F
I
think
what
we
want
to
do,
though,
is
kind
of
make
sure
that
we're
rooting
being
kind
of
just
sufficiently
cautious,
because
we
have
you-
know,
staff
reading
over
guidance
at
the
same
time
as
they're
working
to
produce
185
page
closing
budgets
for
us,
so
I
think
everything
will
sort
out
in
time.
I
know
that
we're
under
the
crunch
with
the
calendar
we
have,
but
I
think
it's
it
is
all
hands
on
deck,
to
kind
of
figure
out
how
we
piece
the
jigsaw
puzzle
to
go,
and
we
know
we're
we're
not
at
a
conversation.
E
Thank
you.
I
move
to
restore
the
funding.
I
move
that
we
restore
the
funding
reduced
during
the
31st
special
session
for
english
learners
and
at-risk
pupils
to
the
fiscal
year.
2020
legislatively
approved
funding
level
which
would
require
general
fund
appropriations
of
2.3
million
in
each
year
of
the
20
21
23
biennium
to
the
state
education
funding
account.
A
I'll
second,
the
motion
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
brooks
a
second
from
miss
monroe
moreno,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
hearing
no
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
miss
mangova.
D
D
While
the
assembly
members
of
the
subcommittee
recommended
not
approving
the
governor's
recommendation,
the
recommendation
to
transfer
the
instruction
in
financial
literacy
program
funding
to
the
new
state
education
funding
account
is
part
of
the
governor's
recommendation
to
implement
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
recommendation
would
eliminate
the
funding
in
the
instruction
in
financial
literacy
budget
and
senate
bill.
439
also
proposes
to
eliminate
the
account
for
instruction
in
financial
literacy
in
statute.
A
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
at
this
time?
The
assembly
is
comfortable
in
moving
forward
with
this
provision.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
move
that
we
approve
transferring
the
instruction
and
financial
literacy
program
funding
to
the
new
state
education
funding
account
in
the
2123
biennium,
thereby
eliminating
the
funding
in
this
budget.
A
D
D
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
general
fund
reductions
of
78
million
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
for
the
class
size
reduction
program
and
transferring
general
fund
appropriations
of
77.5
million
in
fiscal
year.
22
and
81
million
in
fiscal
year,
23
associated
with
a
class
size
reduction
program
from
the
distributive
school
account
budget
to
the
new
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
D
The
subcommittee
also
recommended
enabling
legislation
be
drafted
and
included
in
the
k-12
funding
bill
to
implement
these
transfers.
With
these
transfers,
the
subcommittee
recommended
retiring.
The
distributive
school
account
budget
at
the
end
of
fiscal
year,
21
as
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan
would
be
initially
implemented.
D
However,
the
subcommittee
recommended
that
the
restoration
of
two
hundred
fifty
two
thousand
ninety
eight
dollars
in
each
year
in
each
fiscal
year
for
the
jobs
for
america's
graduates
program
in
decision
unit
e-286,
they
considered
one-time
funding
to
continue
a
match
requirement.
In
the
2021-23
biennium.
D
D
The
subcommittee
further
recommended
approval
to
transfer
the
net
funding
of
4.2
million
for
the
great
teaching
and
leading
fund
and
1.3
million
for
the
peer
assistance
and
review
program
from
the
professional
development
programs
budget
to
the
new
state.
Education
funding
account
to
support
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
Finally,
the
sub-committee
recommended
including
language
in
the
k-12
funding
bill
or
other
other
enabling
legislation
to
eliminate
the
great
teaching
and
leading
fund
from
statute.
D
The
subcommittee
further
recommended
approval
of
the
governor's
recommendation
to
transfer
82.6
million,
which
includes
80.9
million
in
general
fund
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
82.6
million,
which
includes
81.1
million
in
general
fund
in
fiscal
year
23
for
the
english
learning
program
that
includes
49.
totaling
49.4
million
each
year.
The
victory
schools
program
totaling
23.2
million
in
each
year,
and
the
nevada
ready,
21
technology
program,
totaling
10
million
in
each
year
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
D
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
governor's
recommendation
to
restore
and
reduce
funding
for
the
social
or
other
licensed
mental
health
worker
program
and
transfer
the
net
general
fund
of
corporations
of
18.3
million
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
from
the
school
safety
budget
to
the
new
state.
Education
funding
account
budget
contingent
upon
implementation
of
the
pupil-centered
funding
plan.
D
The
subcommittee
also
recommended
approval
of
the
governor's
recommendation
to
restore
and
reduce
funding
for
the
school
resource
police
officer
program
and
transfer
the
net
general
corporations
of
4.3
million
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
from
the
school
safety
budget
to
the
new
state.
Education
funding
account
budget
contingent
upon
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
D
The
subcommittee
recommended
approval
of
the
governor's
recommendation
for
general
fund
appropriations
of
45
000
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium
to
restore
funding
in
the
bullying
prevention
account,
as
well
as
the
transfer
of
this
funding
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget.
The
subcommittee
also
recommended
the
elimination
of
the
bullying
prevention
account
from
statute
by
including
such
language
in
the
bill
that
would
revise
various
provisions
related
to
the
people,
centered
funding
plan
or
other
enabling
legislation.
D
The
subcommittee
recommended
closing
the
following
k-12
education
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
or
as
recommended
by
the
governor
with
minor
technical
adjustment.
The
state
supplemental
school
support
account
budget
account,
2617
teach
nevada,
scholarship
program
budget
account,
27-18
incentives
for
licensed
education
personnel
budget
account
26-16
contingency
account
for
special
education
services,
budget
account
26-19
and
madam
chair.
D
That
concludes
our
subcommittee
report.
Closing
report.
A
A
E
A
A
Not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
in
opposition
passes
unanimously
of
the
members
present.
That's
a
good
thing
so
with
that
that
accomplishes
our
mission
for
this
evening
as
far
as
k-12
goes
just
to
let
folks
know
this,
isn't
the
last
conversation
about
k-12.
A
A
In
this
room
immediately,
following
that
meeting
assembly
ways
and
means
and
assembly
education
will
go
into
a
joint
meeting
to
discuss
the
policy
bill
of
pupil
centered
funding,
so
we
will
be
dealing
with
that
and
then
I
believe
senate
has
its
own
senate.
Finance
has
its
own
agenda
immediately
following
that.
So
the
only
thing
that
we
have
left
before
us
this
evening
is
public
comment.
A
B
Hello
and
thank
you,
committee
chair,
brooks
chairwoman
carlton
for
the
record.
My
name
is
hava
ahmed
h-a-w-a-h-a-h-m-a-d
and
I'm
here
representing
the
clark
county
education,
association,
ccea
represents
over
18
000
licensed
educators
and
as
the
largest
independent
teachers
union
in
the
country,
we
engage
in
bipartisan
advocacy
to
advance
public
education
in
nevada.
B
Ccea
would
like
to
thank
this
committee
for
your
hard
work
on
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
As
we
transition
to
the
pcfp
ccea
encourages
this
body
to
review
the
commission
on
school
funding's
april
23
2021
report
that
suggests
four
plans
to
gradually
increase.
Excuse
me,
revenue
to
put
our
students
first
and
fund
education
in
nevada.
B
Ccea
understands
that
to
pass
new
revenue
to
fund
the
pcfp,
we
need
a
bipartisan
effort
led
by
the
governor,
and
we
are
cautiously
optimistic
that
that
can
still
happen.
Most
importantly,
ccea
believes
that
the
arp
funds
should
and
can
and
should
be
utilized
to
invest
in
the
hardest
hit
communities
by
this
pandemic.
Specifically
our
students,
however
one-time
funding,
is
not
enough.
We
also
need
new
revenue
that
is
ongoing
to
fund
our
k-12
education
system.
This
can
happen
this
session,
but
we
need
your
help.
B
L
L
Thank
you
chairs
and
committee
members.
My
name
is
brian
rippett
b-r-I-a-n-r-I-p-p-e-t,
I'm
a
chemistry
and
physics
teacher
from
douglas
county,
currently
serving
as
the
president
of
the
nevada
state
education
association,
as
sheriff
carlton
noted
at
the
outset
of
the
meeting,
and
just
also
a
few
moments
ago.
This
is
not
the
last
conversation
we're
having
on
education
or
education
funding.
Thankfully,
and
this
gives
me
hope
that
students
and
communities
still
have
a
chance
to
have
their
educational
meet
needs
met
here
in
nevada
in
the
next
biennium.
L
The
restoration
of
cuts
that
were
made
in
the
31st
special
session
is
a
good
start.
This
fulfills
promises
that
many
of
you
made
last
summer
yet
still
to
be
addressed,
are
the
recommendations
of
the
commission
on
school
funding
to
make
significant
investments
in
our
students
in
order
to
get
nevada
out
of
48th
place
and
up
to
adequate
within
the
decade.
L
B
Time
good
evening,
committee
members,
my
name
is
andrea
dimicheli.
I
am
a
school
counselor
at
proctor,
r,
hug,
high
school
in
washoe,
county
school
district
and
the
nsa
secretary
treasurer.
I
am
very
concerned
about
sb
439
and
the
new
school
funding
formula.
Hug
high
school
is
a
victory
funded
school
and
we
received
an
additional
1.6
million
dollars
in
funding.
It
is
imperative
that
we
keep
victory
funding
in
its
current
form
of
directly
helping
the
most
at-risk
schools.
B
This
extra
money,
this
extra
money
we
received
from
victory,
allowed
us
to
hire
more
staff,
improve
academic
interventions
and
eliminate
barriers
to
education.
We
hired
25
new
staff
members,
including
teachers,
counselors
and
educational
support
staff.
The
extra
counselor
brought
my
caseload
down
to
250,
which
is
also
in
line
with
the
recommended
national
council
ratio
of
250
to
one
for
student
council
to
student.
In
the
past.
My
caseload
has
been
up
to
two
to
up
to
500..
B
This
smaller
caseload
has
allowed
me
to
give
individual
attention
to
my
students
and
families
to
help
them
graduate
career
and
college
ready.
In
addition,
the
extra
funding
means
our
students
do
not
have
to
pay
fees
for
for
core
classes.
We
cover
the
cost
of
ap
exams
to
help
eliminate
those
barriers
to
a
rigorous
curriculum.
B
We
also
purchase
materials
for
our
performing
arts
programs.
This
year
we
were
able
to
buy
extra
technology,
including
hotspots
for
our
students
for
distance
learning.
Victory
funds
also
help
improve
instructional
support
by
providing
supplies
and
stipends
to
teachers
to
meet
their
needs
in
the
classroom.
Overall
victory
funds
help
to
lower
chronic
absenteeism
and
improve
the
school's
average
daily
attendance
and
graduation
rates.
Since
the
induction
of
victory
funds.
The
graduation
rate
at
hug
high
school,
has
increased
from
50
percent
to
80
percent.
B
The
extra
funds
allow
the
staff
to
focus
on
the
safety
and
social
emotional
learning
needs
of
our
students,
with
the
removal
of
victory
grant
funding
from
school
budgets.
All
of
the
extra
time
and
effort
that
my
school
has
spent
to
improve
academic
achievement
will
be
lost,
not
to
mention
25
staff
members,
a
dean,
a
behavior
specialist,
six
intervention,
preventionists
three
campus
monitors
three
bilingual
clerks
one.
It
tech
and
ten
teachers
had
to
find
new
jobs
because
of
loss
of
our
school's
victory
funds.
B
M
Hello,
my
name
is
selena
larue,
hatch,
l,
a
space
r-u-e-h-a-t-c-h.
I
made
the
early
morning
drive
on
saturday
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
my
class
and
I'm
here
on
a
school
night.
To
tell
you
a
little
bit
more
and
just
so
you
know,
educators
usually
go
to
bed
around
nine.
So
this
is
a
big
commitment
and
I
think
it's
it
shows
how
critical
these
issues
are,
and
so
I
want
to
tell
you
a
little
more
about
my
class.
M
M
I
asked
my
students
this
week
if
they're
excited
to
come
back
to
normal
school
next
year,
and
many
of
them
said
no,
because
they
don't
want
to
be
on
the
floor
again,
they
don't
want
to
be
in
a
classroom
of
40
again
they
felt
like
they've
gotten
attention
this
year
that
they
haven't
gotten
because
of
our
overcrowding,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
implore
you
to
help
us.
Be
better
than
48th
you'll
notice,
a
lot
of
us
are
wearing
our
48
stickers
because
we
are
better
than
48.
M
I
hear
that
you're
going
to
be
talking
a
little
further
about
education.
I
will
be
in
the
classroom,
so
I
won't
be
here
with
you
tomorrow,
but
I
hope
that
we
see
investment
in
education.
I
hope
we
see
restoration
of
the
cuts
that
have
been
made
and
I
hope
that
you
will
invest
in
our
students,
so
we
are
better
than
48th.
Thank
you.
I
Madam
chair
chris
daley
nevada
state
education
association,
the
voice
of
nevada
educators
for
over
120
years,
so
for
two
years
I
think
you
all
know
this.
By
now,
nsca
has
consistently
expressed
policy
concerns
with
the
new
funding
plan
passed
as
sb
543
last
session,
we've
talked
about
the
lack
of
educator
voice,
the
lack
of
new
revenue,
a
watering
down
of
zoom
and
victory
schools,
freezing
and
squeezing
school
district
budgets
and
an
undoing
of
the
rules
of
collective
bargaining
that
will
slant
things
entirely
in
the
favor
of
employers.
I
We've
also
talked
about
how
nevada
ranks
48th
among
the
states
in
education
funding.
Despite
efforts
of
many
of
you
in
this
room
over
the
last
several
sessions,
you
know
yet
the
new
funding
plan
contains
no
new
funding
and
it's
been
mentioned.
The
funding
commission
has
recommended
a
10-year
plan
for
nevada
to
increase
education
funding
by
2
billion
per
year.
These
recommendations
so
far
have
not
been
thoroughly
vetted.
They're,
certainly
not
included
in
sb
439
the
543
trailer
bill.
I
It's
clear,
though,
the
legislature
is
intent
on
pulling
the
trigger
on
the
new
funding
plan
and
in
doing
so
nsa,
would
strongly
encourage
you
to
address
just
three
issues
in
order
to
make
sure
that
it
works
for
all
nevada,
educators,
educators
and
students.
First
grandfather
existing
zoom
in
victory
schools.
You
heard
from
one
victory
school
teacher,
andrea
michelle
this
evening,
zoom
and
victory
schools
currently
are
being
told
that
they're
looking
at
budget
cuts
for
their
school
district
budget
for
the
next
year,
based
on
the
new
funding
plan.
I
But
if
you
allow
them
the
opportunity
to
pay
those
increased
utility
costs
to
pay
those
increased
health
care
costs
or
whatever
those
fixed
costs
that
go
up
every
year
are
there
they
won't
be
constricted
in
terms
of
their
budgets
and
out
years
and
then
finally,
the
anti-union
ending
fund
language
balance.
I
We
talk
a
lot
in
committee
policy
committees
about
recruiting
and
retaining
teachers,
and
you
know
the
pipeline.
If
you
take
away
the
ability
for
education
unions
to
negotiate,
you
know
even
two
percent
raises
at
the
bargaining
table.
It's
just
gonna
make
the
teacher
shortage
in
that
pipeline
that
much
worse.
A
couple
of
cuts
that
are
outstanding
class
size
reduction
reap
by
three
we've
discussed
these.
We
are
hopeful
that
you're
able
to
fix
those
important.
I
You
know
line
items
in
the
budget
in
the
coming
days
and
we
appreciate
all
of
your
work
and
attention
to
this
budget.
Thank.
M
M
First,
we
want
to
recognize-
and
thank
you
for
the
months
and
months
of
hard
work
that
you
and
your
staff
have
done
to
get
to
the
point
that
you
made
decisions
tonight,
starting
back
with
the
special
sessions
and
the
cuts
that
you
had
to
make.
That's
our
first
things.
Second,
we
deeply
and
sincerely
appreciate
including
charter
schools
in
the
adjustment
by
attendance
area.
That
is
really
an
enormous
move
to
equity,
and
we
deeply
appreciate
that.
M
Second,
we
admit
some
confusion
about
the
per
pupil
and
hold
the
hold
harmless
decisions
tonight,
and
we
are
hopeful
and
confident
that
some
communication
can
happen
between
and
among
you,
the
spcsa
and
your
fiscal
staff
to
to
clarify
that
issue,
because
the
spcsa
has
some
lea
functions
but
is
not
in
itself
a
district
able
to
redistribute
money
at
a
charter
school
basis.
Some
schools,
initial
calculations
say
to
us
that
some
schools
will
not
in
fact
be
held
harmless,
but
we
are
hopeful
for
some
additional
clarity
and
work
on
that.
A
B
H
H
Your
kids,
our
students,
deserve
the
very
best
education
we
can
provide.
This
is
the
reason
why,
for
years,
our
educators
have
looked
to
carson
city
to
ask
the
legislature
to
ask
to
beg
to
plead
for
more
money.
Yet,
instead
of
getting
help,
they
are
given
budget
cuts.
Programs
such
as
three
by
three
read
by
grade
three
cuts:
refusals
to
lower
classroom
sizes
and
refusals
to
place
agr1
on
the
ballot,
so
our
people
can
vote
for
it.
H
My
guess
is
probably
never
yet
our
educators
spend
almost
as
much
time
with
your
children
as
you
do.
We
teach
them
every
single
day.
How
to
read.
Write
and
and
and
do
arithmetic
yet
we
have
to
go
out
and
buy
our
own
supplies.
Our
classes
are
so
large
that
we
have
students
sitting
on
the
floor
and
many
who
are
without
books.
Many
of
our
support
professionals
are
even
below
or
at
the
poverty
line.
I'm
asking
you
point
blank.
Why
do
you
insist
on
treating
your
children
when
it
comes
to
their
education?
H
H
We
may
start
to
mean
something
besides,
nobody
being
their
home,
our
parents
are
watching.
They
may
start
to
consider
arizona,
michigan,
tennessee
or
even
rhode
island
for
their
place
to
get
a
good
education.
Please
allow
agr1
to
be
placed
on
the
ballot.
Please
fund
our
schools.
Please
do
not
allow
any
more
budget
cuts.
We
want
the
best
for
your
children
as
much
as
you
do.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
broadcast
services
for
being
with
us
this
evening
and
helping
us
through
this
meeting
committee
members.
I
believe
our
tasks
for
this
evening
are
complete.
I
will
see
everyone
at
9.
00
am
sharp
in
this
room.
Thank
you
all
very
much.
We
are.