►
From YouTube: 5/11/2021 - Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means, Subcommittees on K-12/Higher Education/CIP
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
Here,
thank
you
very
much
and
all
members
are
present
and
just
as
a
reminder
that,
if
you're
on
line
listening,
please
keep
yourselves
muted
as
well
as
our
committee
members,
and
with
that
we
will.
Today
we
have
the
fiscal
education
team
to
walk
us
through
a
budget
closing.
So
we'll
wait
for
the
budget
to
be
handed
out,
and
then
we
are
going
to
take
a
brief
recess
so
that
all
members
have
a
minute
to
look
at
this,
and
the
public
will
be
able
to
view
that
online.
A
So
with
that,
we
are
in.
A
A
Okay
good
morning,
I
think
we
are
all
back
in
our
seats
and
we
can
reconvene
so
I'll
call
the
joint
subcommittee
back
to
order,
and
with
that
today
we
have
the
fiscal
team,
ms
waller,
mr
drost,
and
miss
mangoba
to
walk
us
through
the
budget
closing
and,
I
believe,
miss
waller.
Are
you
at
first
or
miss
mangova,
and
I
am
madam
chair
okay
and
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
Please
thank.
C
C
C
I
would
note
that
the
teacher
incentives
program
consists
of
two
sub-programs
as
follows:
the
incentives
for
new
teachers
in
title
1
are
underperforming.
Schools
provides
incentive,
pay
for
newly
hired
teachers
who
are
employed
to
teach
in
certain
at-risk
schools
during
their
first
two
years
of
employment.
C
C
The
second
sub-program
of
the
teacher
incentives
program
is
the
incentives
for
new
or
transfer
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools.
This
program
provides
incentive,
pay
for
new
or
transfer
teachers
to
title
1
or
underperforming
schools
for
the
2123
biennium.
The
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
2.5
million
dollars
each
year
to
provide
incentive
pay
for
these.
These
teachers
performing
working
in
title
one
or
underperforming
schools.
During
the
31st
special
session,
a
portion
of
the
carryover
funding
for
this
program
was
eliminated,
and
so
the
governor
proposes
to
restore
this
program.
C
When
asked
for
some
information
regarding
the
program,
the
department
indicated
that
certain
information
was
not
collected
or
tracked
as
part
of
these
incentive
programs.
There
does
not
appear
to
be
a
requirement
for
teachers
who
receive
an
incentive
to
continue
working
in
a
title
1
school
in
subsequent
years.
C
Nor
does
the
department
collect
information
regarding
whether
or
not
these
teachers
are
remaining
at
those
title.
One
schools
given
that
sb
543
approved
during
the
2019
session
that
basically
replaced
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula
with
the
people
center
funding
plan
and
that
this
program
contemplated
all
program.
Funding
from
this
budget
would
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
base
per
pupil
funding
in
the
new
people
center
funding
plan,
a
statute
which
creates
the
account
for
programs
for
innovation
and
the
prevention
of
remediation
is
repealed.
Effective
july
1,
2021.
C
During
the
budget
hearing
the
subcommittee
inquired
how
effective
the
incentive
payments
are
in
the
recruitment
and
retention
of
qualified
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools,
and
in
response
the
department
indicated
that
school
districts
have
reported
great
success
and
they
further
noted
that
clark,
county
school
district
has
added
additional
funding
to
incentivize
teachers
to
stay
at
title
1
schools.
However,
no
specific
quantitative
data
was
provided
as
evidence
of
the
program's
success
and
the
recruitment
or
retention
of
qualified
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools.
C
Testimony
provided
by
the
department
indicated
that
the
incentive
funding
were
allocated
through
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
It
would
increase
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
amount
and
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
each
school
district
to
ensure
the
incentives
would
be
allocated
to
retain
or
recruit
teachers
at
title
1
or
underperforming
schools
on
top
of
page
7.
C
If
so,
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
maintaining
this
funding
in
this
in
this
budget
as
a
categorical
grant,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
and
if
so,
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
approve
maintaining
this
program?
If
excuse
me,
if
the
subcommittee
approves
maintaining
this
funding
as
a
categorical
grant,
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
transfer
this
funding
to
another
budget?
C
The
other
state
education
programs
budget
since
the
school
remediation
trust
fund
budget
is
repealed,
effective
july
1
2021.,
or
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
transfer
the
funding
for
new
or
transferred
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools?
Totaling
2.5
million
dollars
in
each
year
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
people-centered
funding
plan
contingent
upon
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan
medicare.
Do
you
wish
to
take
a
motion
on
this
decision
point
or
shall
I
walk
through
all
decision
points.
C
D
So,
madam
chair,
I
guess
I'm
the
first
batter
up
here
so
in
in
the
conversations
that
we've
had
multiple
conversations
about
this
I've
had
reservations
about
title
one
schools
and
underperforming
schools.
I
made
my
case.
I
made
it
twice.
I
made
it
three
times
and
I
struck
out
so,
as
my
colleague
from
reno
says,
I
made
the
case
time
to
move
on,
get
it
done.
D
But
I
still
have
serious
concerns
and
I
really
really
hope
that
this
isn't
one
of
those
mic
drop
moments
that
you
have
to
deal
with
in
the
future
when
a
couple
of
us
aren't
aren't
here
to
deal
with
it.
So
with
that,
realizing
that
I
I
sit
here
in
the
minority,
we'll
go
ahead
and
I
would
move
to
approve
general
fund
appropriations
of
2.5
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium
to
restore
funding
for
incentives
for
new
and
transfer
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools.
D
As
recommended
by
the
governor
in
decision
unit
e
275.
Then
I
would
also
move
item
b,
which
would
transfer
the
money
money
for
new
and
trans
transfer
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools.
Totaling
2.5
million
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan
contingent
upon
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
And
then
I
would
also
like
to
add,
in
item
d,
transferring
the
funding
for
incentives
for
new
teachers
in
title
1
or
underperforming
schools.
D
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
we'll
move
on
ms
waller.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
major,
closing
issue.
Number
two
is
the
restoration
and
transfer
of
funding
for
the
supplemental
support
block
grant
through
the
passage
of
sb
551,
the
2019
legislature
approved
general
fund
appropriations
of
35.1
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
21
or
excuse
me,
2020
and
36.8
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2022
to
support
the
operations
of
school
districts.
C
However,
during
the
31st
special
session,
as
a
result
of
the
fiscal
impact
of
the
pandemic,
the
legislature
approved
general
fund
appropriations,
a
reduction
of
general
fund
appropriations
of
one
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2021
for
this
block
grant
as
a
budget
reduction
measure,
the
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
one
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
upcoming
binam.
C
To
restore
funding
for
this
supplemental
support
block
grant
for
school
districts
on
the
top
of
page
eight,
there
is
a
a
little
table
that
shows
how
districts
expended
this
funding
in
2020,
with
the
bulk
of
it
on
their
operations
and
expenses,
28.1
million
dollars
of
the
35.1
million
dollars.
C
In
addition
to
the
restoration
of
funding
for
the
supplemental
support
block
grant,
the
governor
recommends
transferring
36.8
million
dollars
on
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium
for
the
supplemental
support
block
grant
to
the
distributed
school
account
in
decision
e-929
during
the
budget
hearing
one
question
by
the
subcommittee
how
the
department
determined
that
funding
for
this
program
should
be
recommended
for
restoration,
as
opposed
to
other
programs
which
were
also
reduced.
The
department
responded,
the
governor
included
this
recommendation
in
an
effort
to
restore
funds
that
were
added
at
the
end
of
the
2019
session.
C
A
Thank
you
very
much
questions
committee.
A
C
C
The
governor
recommends
the
transfer
of
funding
totaling
82
82.6
million
dollars,
of
which
80.9
million
dollars
is
general
fund
in
fiscal
year
22
and
82.6
million
dollars,
of
which
81.1
million
dollars
is
general
fund
in
fiscal
year
2023
or
the
english
learner
program.
The
victory
schools
program
and
the
nevada
ready,
21
technology
program
to
the
new
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
phased
implementation
of
the
modified
people
center
funding
plan.
C
As
a
subcommittee
will
recall,
the
english
learner
program
consists
of
two
sub
programs:
the
zoom
schools
program
and
the
english
learner
grant
program.
The
zoom
schools
program
is
based
on
a
whole
school
intervention
for
high
concentration,
english
learner
and
low
performing
schools
in
the
clark
and
washoe
county
school
districts,
whereas
the
english
learner
grant
program
allocates
per
people
funding
based
on
the
number
of
peoples
identified
as
english
learners
in
each
rural
school
district
or
state
public
charter
school
sponsored
charter
school.
C
C
However,
due
the
impact
of
coven
19
pandemic
on
state
revenues,
the
31st
special
session
in
the
legislature
did
approve
the
governor's
recommendation
to
reduce
general
fund
appropriations
by
501
775
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2021
as
a
budget
reduction
measure
in
building
the
base
budget
for
the
2123
biennium.
The
governor
continued
this
reduction
each
year,
resulting
in
a
one
million
dollar
one
million
dollar,
less
funding
recommended
for
the
english
learner
program
in
the
2123
biennium
that
was
originally
approved
by
the
2019
legislature.
C
With
regard
to
the
victory
schools
program,
this
program
provides
funding
for
the
support
of
additional
services
to
underperforming
elementary
middle
and
high
school
students
identified
as
at
risk
and
qualifying
for
a
free
and
reduced
price
lunch.
C
C
The
governor
also
recommends
a
transfer
of
funding
for
the
victory
schools
program
to
the
new
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
fund
the
at-risk
weight
in
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
According
to
the
funding,
for
the
support
of
this
program
would
no
longer
be
provided
as
a
separate
k-12
categorical
grant
program,
with
funding
instead
being
provided
through
the
at-risk
weight
and
like
the
english
learner
program
senate
bill.
C
C
This
program
provides
grants
to
schools
to
provide
students
access
to
one-to-one
portable
devices,
to
connect
wirelessly
to
the
internet
and
provide
educators,
professional
development
in
order
to
optimize
personalized
student
centered
learning,
with
the
approval
of
ab
309,
this
funding
was
transferred
to
a
new
block
grant
which
could
be
used
to
provide
continued
support
of
the
nevada,
ready,
21
technology
program
or
for
other
eligible
uses
outlined
in
assembly
bill
309
of
the
2019
session
for
the
2123
biennium,
the
governor
recommends
re-establishing
general
fund
appropriations
of
10
million
dollars
in
each
year
for
the
nevada,
ready
tech,
2081
technology
program
in
this
budget,
since
the
ab309
block
grant
funding
was
intended
to
be
one-time
funding.
C
However,
under
the
pupil
center
funding
plan,
funding
for
these
services
would
be
provided
to
all
students
designated
as
english
learners
through
the
english
learner
weight
across
all
schools
statewide
the
department
further
noted
this
recommendation
would
result
in
a
change
in
the
way
english
learner
program
is
administered.
However,
it
would
allow
students
who
are
designated
as
english
learners
to
receive
access
to
the
same
supports
and
services
that
previously
may
not
have
been
available
to
all
eligible
english
learner
students
under
the
zoom
schools
model,
as
I
had
previously
mentioned.
C
However,
english
learner
weights,
the
funding
for
english
learner
weights
must
be
used
to
provide
zoom
school
services,
so
those
prescriptive
services
would
be
continued
under
the
english
learner
weight.
C
Concerning
the
nevada,
ready,
21
technology
program,
the
sub
committee
inquired
whether
school
districts
would
continue
to
fund
laptops
and
professional
development
with
the
base
per
pupil
funding.
If
this
program
funding
were
transferred
to
support
the
people's
center
funding
plan
and
in
response,
the
department
advised
that
all
school
districts
in
the
state
public
charter
school
authority
are
committed
to
continuing
to
invest
in
technology
and
the
technological
advances
attained
this
past
years,
as
schools
have
risen
to
meet
the
challenges
created
by
the
pandemic.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
ms
waller.
Any
questions
from
the
committee
senator
keith
keffer.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
ms,
to
be
clear.
The
english
learner
funding
and
the
victory
school
funding
gets
transferred
into
the
the
new
account
and
is
applied
towards
weights.
E
D
Madam
chair,
I
would
move
to
a
transfer
funding
total
82.6
million
in
fiscal
year
22
and
82.6
million
in
fiscal
year
23
for
the
ell
program,
the
victory
schools
program
and
the
nevada
ready,
21
technology
program
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan
contingent
upon
the
implementation
of
the
pupil-centered
funding
plan
with
authority
for
fiscal
staff
to
make
any
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
Thank
you.
A
C
C
C
Forty
four
dollars
in
each
year,
the
twenty
one,
twenty
three
binium
to
restore
funding
for
the
new
nevada
education
funding
plan
program
according
to
documentation
provided
by
the
department
based
on
the
allocation
of
this
program.
Funding
for
2019-2020
school
year,
total
of
469
schools
received
an
allocation
of
1200
per
eligible
student
to
provide
targeted
programs
and
services
to
a
total
of
58
280
students.
C
C
During
the
budget
hearing,
the
department
acknowledged
that
it
it
in
reviewing
for
the
budget
hearing
it.
It
recognized
that
they
had
inadvertently
allocated
that
grant
funding
on
a
per
pupil
basis,
as
opposed
to
the
statutorily
required
twelve
hundred
dollar
per
student
and
as
such,
they
notified
school
districts
of
the
revised
allocation
amounts
and
have
indicated
that
they
have
processed
those
payments
and
received
process
payments
for
districts
that
were
underpaid
in
and
received
return.
Payments
from
districts
that
were
overpaid.
C
This
program
has
also
a
requirement
for
an
independent
valuation.
The
department
indicated
is
working
on
obtaining
this
independent
evaluation.
It
was
not
submitted
within
the
required
time
frame.
Obviously,
the
coven
19
pandemic
did
disrupt
certain
processes
and
functioning
of
state
government.
Therefore,
the
department
indicates
that
they
will
continue
to
pursue
these
independent
evaluations
for
the
statutorily
required
programs,
which
are
victory,
zoom
and
new
nevada
education
funding
plan
programs
that
so
those
programs
will
be
evaluated
in
for
fy
2020
in
fy
2021.
A
Second,
thank
you
very
much
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
All
those
in
favor.
B
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
item.
Number
two
is
the
transfer
of
the
state
of
this
program
funding
to
the
state
education
funding
count
the
governor
recommends
transferring
the
general
fund
appropriations
of
69.9
million
dollars
in
interest
earnings
of
twenty
two
thousand
forty
four
dollars
from
the
new
nevada
education
funding
plan
budget
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation,
people
center
funding
plan.
C
During
the
budget
hearing,
testimony
provided
indicated
that
the
department
indicated
that
to
determine
how
the
funding
from
the
new
nevada
education
funding
plan
would
be
allocated
between
the
english
learner
and
the
at-risk
weights
as
the
state
transitions
to
the
new
people-centered
funding
plan
model.
The
department
reviewed
the
number
of
students
qualifying
as
english
learner
and
at
risk
who
received
services
under
the
new
nevada
fund
education
funding
plan.
C
Does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
the
transfer
of
general
fund
appropriations
of
69.9
million
dollars
on
interest
earnings
of
two
thousand
forty
four
dollars
in
each
year?
The
twenty
one?
Twenty
three
biennium
from
this
budget
to
the
new
education
new
state
education
funding
account
to
fund
the
english
english
learner
and
at
risk
weights
in
the
people
center
funding
plan,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
budget
to
be
considered
is
the
other
state
education,
program's
budget
budget
26.99.
Then
there
are
quite
a
few
grant
programs
in
this
budget.
This
budget
is,
is
design
designated
to
accommodate
grants
and
other
programs
funded
by
the
state,
specifically
for
past
years,
school
districts,
charter,
schools
and
other
entities
for
educational
programs
to
assist
the
subcommittee
in
seeing
an
overall
picture
of
what
is
recommended
in
this
budget.
C
Fiscal
staff
has
prepared
the
tape,
the
tables
on
the
following
pages
on
pages
22
and
23
that
basically
identify
each
program
in
this
budget.
What
the
base
funding
level
the
recommended
restoration,
the
recommended
reduction,
what
that
net
funding
result
would
be,
and
then
the
governor's
recommendation
for
transfer
to
the
state
education
funding,
account
budget
and
then
the
far
right
column
shows
the
dollars
for
the
programs
that
would
be
recommended
to
be
retained.
In
this
other
state
education,
program's
budget.
C
There
are
four
major
closing
issues.
The
first
issue
is
the
restoration
of
grant
funding
for
a
number
of
programs
in
this
budget.
The
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
48.9
million
dollars
in
each
year.
The
2123
biennium
to
restore
funding
for
several
k-12,
grant
categorical
grant
programs
that
were
reduced
during
the
31st
special
session
due
to
the
impact
of
19
pandemic
on
state
revenues.
C
Fiscal
staff
has
identified
a
few
of
the
programs
for
additional
discussion,
the
first
being
the
gifted
and
talented
education
program.
That's
in
decision
unit
e-280,
the
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
5.2
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
21-23
biennium
to
restore
funding
that
was
reduced
during
the
31st
special
session
of
the
legislature.
C
With
respect
to
the
education
leadership
program
decision
unit
e
287,
the
2019
legislature
had
approved
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
each
year
of
the
biennium
for
distribution
to
a
non-profit
educational
entity
for
the
implementation
and
operation
of
educational
leadership,
training
programs.
C
The
executive
budget
recommends
the
restoration
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium,
which
brings
a
total
recommended
funding
to
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
each
year.
The
2123
biennium
the
adult
high
school
diploma
program
in
decision
unit
e
284.
C
On
october
27
2019,
the
department
submitted
the
annual
adult
high
school
diploma
program
report
for
program
year,
2018
2019,
pursuant
to
the
requirements
in
senate
bill
555
of
2019.
C
According
to
this
report,
actual
enrollment
for
2019
was
15
190
students,
a
decrease
of
over
almost
11
000
students
from
the
actual
enrollment
hundred
of
26
students
reported
in
twenty
eighteen.
C
This
is
a
decrease
of
eleven
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
nine
students
from
the
projected
2019
enrollment
figure
of
26
859
students,
which
was
the
enrollment
considered
by
the
money
committees
when
determining
whether
to
approve
a
general
fund
enhancement
of
one
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2019-21
biennium.
C
According
to
the
department's
accountability
report,
nevada
report
card,
a
total
of
69
213
students
enrolled
in
career
and
technical
education
programs
in
fiscal
year,
2020
representing
an
increase
of
2568
students
or
a
3.9
percent
increase
compared
to
the
number
of
students
enrolled
in
2019.
C
in
the
middle
of
page
27.
You
can
see
that
the
for
special
populations,
the
cte
graduation
rate,
is
significantly
higher
than
the
state
graduation
rates
for
those
individual
student
populations
and
in
for
all
students
as
well.
There
was
a
cte
graduation
rate
of
approximately
93.2
percent
in
2020
compared
to
the
state
graduation
rate
of
82.6,
although
the
2019
legislature
approved
a
one
million
dollar
per
year,
enhancement
for
the
career
technical
education
program
in
the
current
biennium,
bringing
total
funding
to
13.5
million
each
year.
C
The
31st
special
session
of
the
legislature
approved
a
general
fund
reduction
of
one
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2021
as
a
budget
reduction
measure,
the
reduced
funding
level
of
12.5
million
dollars
each
year
was
then
carried
forward
in
developing
the
base
funding
level
for
the
program.
In
the
2123
by
biennia.
C
C
In
addition,
jag
indicates
that
donors
are
delaying
making
future
commitments
which
makes
planning
future
programming
difficult.
C
I
would
also
note
that
the
jag
program
incurred
a
budget
reduction
during
the
31st
special
session
when
the
legislature
approved
a
general
fund
reduction
of
588
thousand
230
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
2021.
C
this
fund,
this
reduced
funding
levels
carried
forward
in
developing
the
base
funding
level
of
3.6
million
dollars
for
this
program
in
the
2123
biennium
decision
unit
e286
proposes
general
fund
appropriations
of
252
098
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium
to
partially
restore
the
budget
reduction
for
the
jag
program,
which
would
bring
total
recommended
state
funding
for
the
program
to
3.9
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
21
23
biennium.
C
Moving
on
to
the
discussion
of
the
but
in
the
budget
hearing
of
these
various
program
programs
in
the
for
the
gifted
and
talented
program.
During
the
budget
hearing,
the
subcommittee
asked
the
department
to
discuss
the
factors
the
commission
school
funding
considered
in
determining
its
recommendation
for
a
targeted,
gifted
and
talented
weight
of
zero
point.
One
four,
when
the
school
finance
consultant
again
black
page
and
associates,
recommended
this
weight
to
be
0.05.
C
In
response
the
department
indicated
schools
had
provided
additional
local
funding
for
the
gifted
and
talented
education
program
and,
as
such,
the
commission
on
school
funding
was
hopeful.
There
would
be
additional
funding
in
the
future
to
recognize
this
level
of
spending
on
students
identified
as
gifted
and
talented.
F
C
C
In
regard
to
the
education
leadership
program,
the
subcommittee
asked
how
the
300
000
budget
reduction
would
impact
the
implementation
operation
of
the
educational
leadership
programs.
The
department
indicated
it
would
continue
to
work
with
all
subrecipients
where
budget
reductions
were
contemplated
to
identify
whether
there
were
other
sources
of
funding
that
could
be
used
to
ensure
the
continuity
of
services.
C
His
team
would
be
able
to
refocus
the
teacher
leader
academy
in
partnership
with
the
clark
county
school
district
to
retain
good
degree
early
career
teachers,
as
well
as
reduce
the
attrition
weight
rate
of
good
to
great
teachers
who
are
50
and
older.
This
funding
would
also
allow
the
foundation
to
continue
work
in
the
executive
leadership
academy,
digital
leadership
program,
regional
summits
and
resume
community
roundtables
and
convenience.
C
C
The
department
testified
that
the
budget
restoration
would
support
or
would
help
support
meet
the
maintenance
of
effort
requirements
for
this
program.
C
However,
in
follow-up,
the
department
responded
that
the
match
was
met
through
four
hundred
and
two
thousand
eighteen
dollars
in
state
general
fund
appropriations
and
approximately
one
million
nine
one
point:
nine
million
dollars
in
cash
and
in
kind
from
local
programs.
C
C
As
previously
noted,
since
the
1
million
enhancement
for
the
program
was
approved
by
the
2019
legislature
prior
to
the
significant
decline
in
the
reported
enrollment
for
the
program,
the
subcommittee
could
consider
not
recommending
approval
of
restoration
of
1.2
million
dollars
for
the
adult
high
school
diploma
program.
But
rather
redirecting
this
funding
to
the
state.
Education
funding
account
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
C
The
department
also
noted
during
the
budget
hearing
that
the
restoration
of
the
one
million
dollar
in
funding
would
ensure
that
nevada
continues
to
meet
its
maintenance
of
effort
requirements
for
the
federal
carl
d,
perkins,
five
grant
for
career
and
technical
education.
C
In
july
2020,
the
department
requested
and
received
approval
of
a
five
percent
reduction
in
nevada's
maintenance
of
effort
from
the
united
states
department
of
education,
which
reset
the
baseline
maintenance
of
effort
to
twelve
million
five
hundred.
Seventy
thousand
four
hundred
fifty
two
dollars
beginning
in
fiscal
year
2020.
C
Accordingly,
if
the
department
were
to
expand
more
than
the
new
baseline
maintenance
of
effort
amount
in
fiscal
year
2021,
then
the
maintenance
of
effort
would
increase
to
that
amount.
In
fiscal
year
2022
the
department
advises
the
combined
administrative
and
programmatic
state.
Funding
for
career
and
technical
education
totals
13.3
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2021..
C
The
table
that
follows
in
the
middle
of
page
30
illustrates
how
this
maintenance
of
effort
is
met
and
a
portion
of
the
funding
of
the
general
fund
is
located
in
the
current
technical
education
budget
department's
budget,
and
this
is
where
the
federal
carl
d
perkins
federal
grant
for
career
technical
education
is
located
and
that
funding
level
was
recently
approved
by
the
money
committees
to
be
six
hundred.
Seventy
eight
thousand
thirteen
dollars
in
each
year
and
that
provides
administrative
support
in
that
budget.
C
The
other
component
of
the
maintenance
effort
is
located
in
this
budget
and
that's
the
career,
technical
education
grant
program
and
that's
programmatic
funding,
which
currently
in
2020,
was
12.5
million
dollars
as
well
as
in
in
2021.
C
C
Given
the
slight
reduction
of
the
funding
located
in
the
career
and
technical
education,
administration,
budget
budget
2676
from
726
439
and
fiscal
2021
to
678,
000,
13
and
22
and
23,
there
would
be
an
additional
increase
required
to
maintain
the
13.3
million
dollar
maintenance
of
effort
in
2021.
C
Given
that
the
governor
recommends
one
million
dollars
to
restore
the
funding
level
for
the
current
technical
education
budget,
I
would
note
that
this
additional
increase
of
one
million
dollars
would
increase
the
the
maintenance
of
effort.
So
if
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
maintain
the
existing
maintenance
of
effort
of
13.3
million
dollars,
only
48
426
dollars
would
be
required
to
be
added
to
the
current
technical
education
program
in
this
budget.
C
Moving
on
to
the
job
for
america's
graduates
program.
During
the
budget
hearing
on
march
19th,
the
subcommittee
inquired
whether
the
matching
funds
of
1.2
million
dollars
provided
to
jag
in
the
2019
session
were
included
in
the
base
budget
for
this
program
and
whether
the
department
anticipated
the
match
requirement
would
continue
with
the
funding
for
the
jag
program
recommending
the
governor's
budget.
In
response,
the
department
noted
it
anticipated
the
requirements
for
the
match
to
remain
in
place
for
upcoming
biennium.
C
The
department
also
advised
that
jag
expressed
concern
with
its
ability
to
generate
private
dollars,
therefore,
making
thereby
making
it
more
difficult
to
acquire
additional
donations
to
match
general
fund
dollars.
It
has
received
from
the
state
the
table
that
follows
was
prepared
to
assist
the
subcommittee
in
understanding
the
difference
in
funding
level
approved
by
the
2019
legislature.
In
the
funding
level
recommended
by
the
governor
of
the
2123
biennium.
C
Again,
as
noted
in
the
footnote
of
the
table,
this
funding
level
does
not
include
the
1.2
million
general
fund
appropriation
that
was
approved
by
the
29
legislature
as
matching
funds.
C
The
subcommittee
could
consider
requiring
the
funding
recommended
for
restoration
be
used
as
as
matching
funds
by
jag
and
again
since
there
are
so
many
programs
for
consideration
in
this
closing
item
at
the
top
of
page
32.
The
table
is
presented
again
so
that
the
subcommittee
can
review
each
program.
The
recommendation
for
each
program
for
the
restoration
of
funding.
C
There
are
multiple
options
for
consideration
here
for
the
subcommittee.
The
first
option
would
be
recommend
approval
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
48.9
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
biennium,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
to
restore
funding
for
grant
programs
one
through
ten
identified
in
table
one.
Then
that
is
all
decision
units.
C
The
next
decision
unit
is
for
the
adult
high
school
diploma
program
and
and
the
subcommittee,
if
could
consider,
not
recommending
approval
the
restoration
of
1.2
million
dollars
each
year
for
the
adult
high
school
diploma
program,
but
rather
redirecting
the
funding
to
the
state
education
fund
budget
to
support
the
implementation.
The
people
center
funding
plan
number
eight
is
for
the
career
and
technical
education
program.
C
C
Item
number
nine
is
for
the
job
for
america's
graduates
program.
The
subcommittee
could
consider
not
recommending
approval
of
the
restoration
of
two
hundred
fifty
two
thousand
ninety
eight
dollars
in
each
year
as
ongoing
funding
in
the
base
budget,
but
rather
redirect
this
funding
to
be
utilized,
as
one-time
funding,
to
continue
the
match
requirement
in
the
2123
biennium
for
the
jag
program.
C
A
Thank
you,
miss
waller,
any
questions.
D
D
So
I
think
the
only
two
components
of
this
that
I
believe
really
still
need
just
a
little
more
discussion
are,
is
probably
280
the
the
weight
which
conversation
about
that
and
then
286,
which
is
the
jag
so
I'll,
take
on
280,
and
then
I
believe
the
majority
leader
was
interested
in
in
286
to
have
the
conversation.
D
I
know
in
the
work
session
that
we
had
conversations
about
it
and
and
miss
waller.
If
you
could
help
me,
I
believe
when
the
subcommittee
walked
through
the
work
session
document
that
was
actually
where
we
kind
of
landed
was
the
the
.05.
Do
I
remember
correctly,
or
was
that
there's
been
too
many
meetings
on
this?
Is
that
where
we
were
headed.
D
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
so
so
we
had
had
the
the
conversation
about
it
and
and
and
since
then
there
were
other
conversations
amongst
a
a
separate
group
and
I
believe
their
proposal
is,
is
the
0.12
and
been
in
this
building
a
long
time.
I
can
see
the
writing
on
the
wall.
D
So
the
argument
on
point
one
two
is
still
out
there,
even
though
I
believe
the
the
subcommittee
did
have
some
really
good
conversation
about
that.
I
think
the
point
that
I
want
to
make
about
the
0.05
and
0.12
is
basically
that
no
matter
what
amount
we
pick
if
we
go
with
the
lower
amount,
the
money
that's
left
over
still
stays
in
education.
It
still
goes
towards
the
pupil
centered
funding
formula.
D
The
decision
point
is
how
much
do
we
designate
to
gate
and
the
conversations
that
I
had
over
the
summer
was
everyone
was
feeling
very
comfortable
about
the
.05,
but
that
conversation
has
changed.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
folks
understand
that
even
around
that
conversation
of
.05,
we
weren't
talking
about
taking
money
out
of
education
and
putting
it
someplace
else.
D
It's
just
how
the
pie
is
sliced,
so
whether
it's
0.05
or
0.12,
with
0.12
more
money
will
go
to
gate
students
about
a
thousand
kids
in
the
state
at
.05,
they'd
get
a
little
less
money,
but
all
the
rest
of
it
would
go
to
victory.
Zoom
english
language,
learners
read
by
three
all
the
other
programs
that
are
encapsulated
in
that
that
money
would
still
end
up
in
the
education
universe.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
perfectly
clear
that
folks
are
not
out
there
saying:
oh,
they
want
to
spend
less
on
it.
D
That
was
that
is
not
the
case.
The
discussion
point
is:
where
does
the
money
actually
end
up,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
very
clear
on
the
record
that
we
were
not
talking
about
pulling
money
out
of
education
and
putting
it
someplace
else.
It
was
just
a
matter
of
how
do
we
decide
what
the
weights
are?
So
I
personally
was
very
comfortable
with
.05,
but
knowing
where
the
senate
is,
and
they
have
made
this
a
decision
point
at
0.12
and
said
that
is
where
they
are.
D
So
I
believe
the
assembly
would
be
comfortable
in
going
with
the
0.12,
with
the
conversations
that
we've
had
because
basically,
we've
been
said,
this
is
it
so
that's
kind
of
where
we
are,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
the
record
was
absolutely
clear
that
the
conversation
was
not
about
taking
money
out
of
education.
So,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
allowing
me
to
go
down
that
road.
So
I
think
the
only
one
that
we
would
have
a
difference
on,
so
the
motion
would
be
to
cover
everything.
D
I
think
the
only
one
we
would
really
have
the
difference
on
is
286
and
I'd
be
happy
to
turn
that
over
to
the
majority
leader,
I
believe
the
committee
was
comfortable.
The
subcommittee
in
general
was
comfortable
with
making
this
a
matching
fund
and
moving
forward.
That
way,
so
I'll
be
happy
to
allow
the
majority
leader
to
share
the
concerns
and
how
we
got
to
that
point
and
then
try
to
construct
the
correct
motion
for
everyone
to
make
sure
that
we're
perfectly
clear
on
the
record.
What
we're
doing.
Thank
you
very
much
manager.
A
G
You
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
I
appreciate
that,
and
so
we've
had
this
this
conversation,
you
know
cut
and
paste
insert
tbt's
normal
comment
about
non-profits
here,
but
aside
from
that,
the
matching
piece
seems
to
make
the
most
sense
just
because,
through
the
past
two
bienniums,
including
this
one,
we've
had
conversations
about
making
sure
that
the
non-profits
aren't
made
their
their
their
major.
G
G
I
actually
think
the
deter
fit
is
a
is
a
better
way
for
jag
to
be
funded
than
out
of
educational
dollars,
where
educational
dollars
could
go
into
per
pupil
funds,
and
then
job
training
program
dollars
that
we
get
from
federal
governments
could
be
better
served
in
this
job
training
purpose,
but
we're
not
there.
So
I
think
those
matching
dollars
are
going
to
be
important
and
that's
the
way
that
I
would.
I
would
like
to
see
this
move.
It
seems
to
make
the
most
sense.
D
Oh
you're
in
trouble
now,
okay,
so,
madam
chair,
I
believe
we
are
in
agreement,
as
we
said,
except
for
e286,
so
my
motion
would
be
to
process
all
the
all
the
items
recommended,
with
the
exception
of
e286,
making
that
the
matching
fund-
and
I
hope,
miss
waller,
mr
thorley,
ms
kaufman.
I
hope
that
gives
us
everything
that
we
need
everybody's
shaking
their
head.
Yes,
so
I
think
we're
good.
So,
madam
chair,
that
would
be
my
motion.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
need
a
second
second.
Thank
you
very
much
from
senator
ratty
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
H
H
So
I'm
going
to
agree
with
emotion,
but
I
do
think
jag
is
something
that
we
should
look
at
later
to
to
restore,
because
again,
I
heard
repeatedly
from
students
who
really
helped
that
helped
them
get
on
track
for
whether
they
were
going
to
go
to
higher
ed
or
they're
going
to
have
a
career
right
after
high
school.
It
was
transformative,
so
I
really
support
both
programs.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair
and
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
restoring
the
the
gate
funding
to
1.2.
That
percentage,
both
of
my
boys
were
in
gate
and
it
made
a
significant
difference
when
they
needed
it
when
they
were
young
men
and
or
young
boys.
I
guess
now
they're
now
they're
young
men,
but
it
made
a
big
difference
in
their
educational
lives,
and
I
I
just
think
it's
an
important
and
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
You
know.
G
I
want
to
echo
a
little
bit
of
mr
robert's
comrades
because
I
think
that
to
the
point
we
are
awaiting
one
particular
group
of
students
much
higher
than
other
students,
and
a
lot
of
us
here
probably
identify
more
with
one
set
of
funding
than
the
other.
And
I
guess
that's
where
I
want
to
echo
the
assemblywoman
carlton's
point
that
it
can
get
really
hard,
sometimes
to
sit
here
and
feel
like
you're
arguing
against
yourself
or
your
own
family's
best
interest
for
the
better
interest
of
all
students.
A
I
appreciate
that
any
other
comments,
all
right
with
that,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much,
ms
waller.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
item
for
discussion
is
budget
reductions.
C
C
The
department
indicates
this
budget,
which
includes
program,
funding,
restorations
and
then
reductions
is
reflective
of
the
budget
building
process
for
the
2123
biennium.
In
addition,
the
governor's
finance
office
indicated
that
at
the
time,
the
budget
reduction
statewide,
including
the
reductions
for
various
programs
in
this
budget,
were
recommended
by
the
governor
in
order
to
balance
the
executive
budget.
C
The
table
in
the
middle
of
page
33
identifies
the
programs
that
are
recommended
for
a
reduction
of
funding,
and
this
would
include
read
by
grade
3
under
performing
turnaround.
Schools,
college
career
readiness,
advanced
placement
exams
for
a
total
of
24.2
million
dollars
and
24.4
million
dollars
over
the
upcoming
biennium
in
decision
unit
e
686,
as
well
as
reductions
to
the
nevada
institute
on
teaching
and
educated
preparation,
teacher
nursing,
national
board
certification,
reimbursement,
council
certification
speech,
pathologist
increment
for
899
814
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
biennium.
C
The
department
testified
that
budget
reductions
would
have
an
impact
on
students.
However,
the
ability
to
access
federal
funds
received
as
a
result
of
the
cover
19
pandemic
would
allow
schools
to
continue
to
meet
the
needs
of
students
and
teachers
and
would
give
schools
an
opportunity
to
invest
in
education
in
innovative
ways
in
light
of
the
common
19
pandemic.
C
Therefore,
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
general
fund
reductions,
totaling
24.2
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2022
and
24.4
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
2023,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
for
the
following
programs,
read
by
grade
three
under
performing
turnaround,
schools,
college
and
career
readiness
and
advanced
placement
examination
programs,
and
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
general
fund
reductions?
C
Totaling,
eight
hundred
ninety
nine
thousand
eight
hundred
fourteen
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
for
the
following
programs,
nevada
institute
on
teaching,
educator,
preparation,
teacher
and
nursing
national
board,
certification,
reimbursement,
counselor,
certification
and
speech.
Pathologist
increment
programs.
A
A
E
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
You
know
this
is
a
motion
that
I
would
prefer
to
vote
against,
but
I
will
vote
for
because
of
the
process
that
we're
working
through
here.
E
I
think
these
cuts
need
to
be
restored
and
I
sure
have
them
on
the
tops
of
my
list,
along
with
some
others,
as
we
move
forward
in
the
session,
and
you
know
again,
I
can
support
it,
I'm
here
in
subcommittee,
but
if
I
think
an
education
funding
bill
moves
to
the
floor
without
some
of
these
restorations
in
it,
I
might
have
a
hard
time
supporting
it.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
additional
comments.
Senator
gansert.
H
Thank
you
chair,
so
I'm
in
agreement
with
senator
keith
keffer,
particularly
around
the
read
by
grade
three,
but
these
these
are
extremely
important
funds,
and
and
given
the
good
news
the
economic
forum
brought,
I
think
these
are
some
things
we
need
to
put
at
the
top
of
the
list.
Thank
you.
H
Senate
I
look
forward
to
working
with
with
everyone
to
restore
some
of
this
before
it
before
we
get
out
of
here.
So
thank
you
and
I
appreciate
this
as
a
process
and
we'll
go
along
with
it.
I'll
move
it
today,
I'll.
A
H
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
because
chair
carlton
isn't
here.
I
will
just
say
that
many
many
conversations
about
sticky
notes
and
asterisks
as
we
move
forward,
so
I
don't
want
to
leave
the
impression
that
there
lots
of
folks
are
concerned
about
the
cuts
that
we're
making
to
education,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
there's
commitment
to
have
a
conversation.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
seeing
no
more
questions
or
comments,
then
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed
motion
passes
and
I
appreciate
all
the
conversation
with
that.
Ms
waller
we'll
move
forward.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
item
is
the
transfer
of
grant
funding
to
the
state
education
funding
account
and
that's
recommended.
In
two
decision
units
the
governor
recommends
transferring
general
fund
appropriations
of
27
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year
22
and
26.8
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2023
from
the
other
state
education,
program's
budget
to
the
new
state
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
people
center
funding
plan
the
table
in
the
middle
of
page
34
identifies
the
program
funds
recommended
for
transfer
in
decision
e
916
is
a
gifted
and
talented
education
program.
C
C
I
won't
go
over
the
gifted
and
talented
education
as
that
that
topic's
been
discussed
and
it
has
been.
The
decision
has
been
made
to
continue
funding
it
at
8.3
million
dollars,
which
will
result
in
a
maintaining
the
effective
weight
of
0.12.
C
With
respect
to
the
read
by
grade
3
program,
there
was
discussion
during
the
budget
hearing
regarding
the
expectations
regarding
the
read
by
grade
3
program.
If
the
funding
for
this
program
were
approved
for
transfer
to
the
state,
education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
In
response,
the
department
testified
that
the
programs
services
and
the
intent
of
the
read
by
grade
3
program
would
not
change,
as
there
was
no
proposed
change
to
the
statutory
provisions
for
this
program.
C
Currently,
the
program
requires
elementary
school
principals
to
identify
literacy
strategists
at
each
elementary
school,
and
those
literacy
strategists
would
continue
to
provide
professional
development,
technical
assistance,
support
and
services
to
ensure
the
students
in
their
schools
are
reading
at
grade
level,
also
in
response
to
the
subcommittee's
inquiry
regarding
how
many
additional
elementary
students
were
provided.
Literacy
support
interventions
in
2020
with
the
expansion
to
all
17
school
districts
and
additional
charter
schools.
C
The
department
indicated
that
in
2020
all
schools
receive
program
funding
based
on
an
average
salary,
approximately
71
000
per
year
for
a
literacy
strategist
to
provide
services
to
428
schools
and
222
000
students.
C
3
program,
advanced
placement
program,
district
library,
grant
program,
computer
education
technology
program,
special
elementary
counseling
and
the
college
and
career
ready
diploma
programs
based
on
the
subcommittee's
prior
decisions
for
these
programs,
which
was
gov
govrek
from
this
budget
to
the
state.
Education
funding
account
budget
to
support
the
implementation
of
people
center
funding
plan
and
providing
fiscal
staff
with
authority
to
enter
technical
adjustments.
Based
on
previous
subcommittee.
Closing
actions.
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
would
move
for
approval
of
decision
unit
e
19
e
916
and
decision
unit
e
947
as
delineated
by
staff,
and
also
providing
authority
to
make
any
technical
justice
adjustments
as
necessary.
A
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
In
order
to
be
consistent,
I'm
going
to
vote
no
on
this.
I
think
the
read
by
three
grade
three
program
is
extremely
important
and
I
appreciated
that
it
was.
It
was
separate
with
separate
accountability.
I'm
concerned
about
it
getting
deluded
in
the
in
the
big
bucket,
and
I
think
the
least
we
can
do
is
make
sure
our
kids
can
read
by
grade
three.
You
know
another
option,
maybe
down
the
road
because
we
already
have
the
funding
formula
set
up
is
is
weighting.
H
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I'm
sure
everybody
on
this
committee
feels
the
same
way.
There's
a
lot
of
things
in
this
86
pages
that
not
everyone
is
in
agreement
on,
but
we
have
to
be
able
to
close
this
up
and
set
a
formula
and
then
tonight
have
the
conversation
about
the
people
sending
funder
formula
bill
and
put
all
these
pieces
of
the
puzzles
together
so
that
education
will
get
funded
in
this
state.
So
I
understand
concerns
on
certain
components,
but
there's
parts
of
it.
A
lot
of
us
are
not
happy
with.
A
Appreciate
that
any
additional
conversation-
okay
with
that
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed
one,
nay
from
senator
sivers
ganzard
and
with
that
motion
passes
and
thank
you
very
much
and
we
will
move
forward.
Ms
waller,
thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
item
is
funding
recommended
to
be
maintained
as
k-12
categorical
grants,
the
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations,
totaling
39.1
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2022
and
38.7
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2023
to
be
maintained
in
this
budget
as
categorical
grants.
C
C
I
would
note
there
are
programs,
8,
9
10
are
programs
related
to
non-profit
entities.
You
have
the
program
number
11,
which
is
the
career
and
technical
education
program.
That
is
a
maintenance
of
effort
requirement,
so
that
is
not
recommended
to
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
of
funding
account
for
distribution
through
the
people's
center
funding
plan,
and
likewise
the
adult
high
school
diploma
program
is
also
not
recommended
to
be
distributed
through
the
people
center
funding
plan.
C
The
commission
school
funding
did
in
their
review
of
the
available
funding
to
be
transferred
to
the
transferred
and
allocated
to
people-centered
funding
plan
and,
and
then
basically,
they
indicated
that
the
commission
school
funding
when
they
reviewed
the
program
funding
that
targeted
teachers
and
with
respect
to
incentives,
reimbursements
and
attainment
of
national
certification
or
salary
adjustments
for
specific
personnel.
That
recommendation
was
that
that
funding
not
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
funding
account
for
distribution
through
the
people's
center
funding
plan,
and
then
the
department
indicated
the
commission
on
school
funding.
C
During
the
budget
hearing,
the
department
further
noted
that
one
benefit
of
allocating
many
of
the
state
funded
grants
through
the
people
center
funding
plan
is
that
school
districts
would
have
some
confidence
and
continuity
in
what
their
funding
levels
might
be
from
one
year
to
the
next.
The
districts
would
not
need
to
go
through
a
competitive
grant
process
or
wait
for
the
department
to
go
through
a
formulaic
distribution
process.
C
When
funds
are
allocated
through
the
people-centered
funding,
plan,
funding
would
be
be
made
available
to
school
districts
as
part
of
their
monthly
payment
from
the
state
based
on
the
school
district's
respective
per-pupil
funding
amount
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
maintaining
categorical
programs
categorical
grant
programs
1
through
12,
as
identified
in
table
4
and
the
other
state
education
programs
budget,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
A
A
Recess
is
over
we'll
call
our
meeting
back
to
order
and
assemblywoman
carlton.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
for
the
the
public
and
everyone
else
who's
not
in
the
room.
For
your
understanding.
The
reason
why
we
caused
call
to
pause
is
a
a
typographical
issue
we
caught
at
the
last
moment.
So
thank
you
very
much,
mr
thorley,
for
for
catching
it
looking
at
this
at
11
o'clock
last
night
didn't
help
us
either.
So
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
would
move
as
staff
had
gone
through
our
options
for
the
closing
of
the
subcommittee.
D
I
would
move
for
item
b
and
within
that
changing
the
programs
instead
of
from
one
through
eight
to
one
through
seven,
as
identified
in
table
four
moving,
those
to
the
state
education
funding
account
to
support
the
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan
with
the
authority
for
fiscal
staff
to
make
any
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
I
think
I've
made
that
about
as
clear
as
mud
as
possible,
so
I'm
pretty
sure
everybody's
on
the
same.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
a
second
from
senator
keith
keffer,
and
that
is
with
one
through
seven
identified
in
table
four.
With
that
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much.
Ms
waller.
C
C
The
overall
number
of
required
retirement
credit
purchases
per
school
continues
to
decline
as
eligible
teachers
reach
the
maximum
retirement
credit
purchase
of
five
years.
At
the
time
the
governor's
budget
was
developed.
The
department
estimated
that
of
the
original
5449
eligible
participants
opting
to
continue
the
purchase
of
the
retirement
services
service
credits,
an
estimated
705
participants
in
fiscal
year,
2022
and
599
participants
in
fiscal
year.
2023
would
continue
to
be
eligible
to
earn
retirement
service
credits
at
a
total
projected
cost
of
four
million
dollars
and
three
point
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
22
and
23
respectively.
C
On
march
5th,
the
department
provided
updated
estimates
for
this
program
and
the
total
estimated
cost
of
funding
the
one-fifth
retirement
credits
for
73.
Projected
participants
totals
four
hundred
forty
one
thousand
one
hundred
seventy
eight
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium,
which
is
a
decrease
of
eighteen
thousand
six
hundred
seventy
one
dollars
in
each
year
when
compared
to
the
recommended
funding
and
the
exact
executive
budget.
C
However,
in
light
of
the
uncertainty
of
the
per
credit
cost
of
the
one-fifth
retirement
credit
to
be
claimed
and
the
potential
for
additional
participants
beyond
those
projected
to
claim
the
credit,
fiscal
staff
does
not
propose
a
technical
adjustment
to
reduce
the
recommended.
Four
hundred,
fifty
nine
thousand
eight
hundred
forty
nine
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium
by
the
eighteen
thousand,
six
hundred
seventy
one
dollars
the
department
and
the
governor's
finance
office
concur
with
maintaining
the
funding
level,
as
recommended
by
the
governor.
C
Additionally,
to
ensure
funding
is
available
to
fund
the
purchase
retirement,
purchase
of
retirement
service
credits
in
each
fiscal
year.
The
subcommittee
may
wish
to
consider
continuing
to
provide
the
department
with
authority
to
transfer
appropriations
for
the
purchase
of
retirement
service
credits
earned
between
fiscal
years
of
the
2123
biennium.
C
The
2019
legislature
provided
this
authority
through
section
40
of
senate
bill
555,
the
k-12
education
funding
bill
for
the
2019-201
biennium.
Although
this
provision
has
not
been
needed
during
the
current
biennium
fiscal
staff
recommends.
This
budget
be
closed,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
with
authority
for
staff
to
include
language
to
allow
appropriation
transfers
as
needed
between
fiscal
years
of
the
2123
biennium
for
the
purchase
of
retirement
service
credits.
Fiscal
staff
also
request
authority
to
make
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
next,
adam
drost
will
walk
you
through
the
state.
Supplemental,
school's
support
account
budget.
Thank.
A
B
B
B
This
the
state,
supplemental
school
support
account,
contains
the
room
tax
revenue
and
the
legislature
has
approved
the
transfer
of
room
tax
revenues
to
the
distributive
school
account
as
a
state
funding
source
in
prior
fiscal
years
for
fiscal
year
2011
through
2021.,
with
the
passage
of
sb
543
during
the
2019
legislative
session,
the
state
supplemental
school
support
account
is
scheduled
to
be
retired,
beginning
in
fy
22,
with
all
roon
tax
revenue
deposited
directly
in
the
state
education
fund
pursuant
to
nrs,
387,
122,
1212
and
nrs387191.
B
There
are
no
major
closing
issues
in
this
budget
and
the
other
closing
items
can
be
found
on
page
44
of
your
packet,
and
that
includes
the
transfer
of
roon
tax
revenues
as
part
of
the
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
The
governor's
recommended
budget
calculated
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding,
which
serves
as
the
basis
for
the
transfer
of
state
funding
from
the
dsa
to
the
state
education
funding
account
budget.
B
The
governor
recommends
room
tax
revenue
to
be
transferred
from
the
state.
Supplemental
school
support
account
to
the
dsa
as
a
state
funding
source
which
reduced
general
fund
appropriations
of
the
dsa
by
approximately
307.4
million
dollars
over
the
21-23.
Biennium
would
note
the
room.
Tax
revenues
have
been
reprojected
for
the
upcoming
biennium
by
staff,
from
the
lcd
fiscal
analysis,
division
and
the
governor's
finance
office
and
based
on
his
updated
revenue
forecasts
there's
reflects
a
slight
decrease
of
approximately
to
approximately
300
million
dollars
over
the
biennium,
and
this
also
excludes
interest
earnings.
B
The
fiscal
staff
request
authority
to
enter
technical
adjustments
to
reflect
the
transfer
of
room
tax
revenue
to
the
dsa
as
a
fund
transfer,
rather
than
an
interagency
transfer,
reflect
the
updated
room.
Tax
revenue
projections
in
the
state
education
fund
and
enter
other
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
I'm
chair.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
budget
is
the
distributive
school
account
and
that
can
be
found
on
page
45
of
your
packet.
The
distributive
school
account
was
the
budget
through
which
the
state
distributed
direct
financial
aid
to
school
districts
and
charter
schools.
However,
with
the
passage
of
sbp
543,
all
state
and
local
funding,
support
was
approved
to
be
provided
to
the
new
state
education
fund
and
the
people
center
funding
plan,
beginning
in
fy
22.,
as
I
previously
mentioned,
as
part
of
the
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan.
B
The
governor's
recommended
budget
calculated
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding
and
the
state
share
for
the
upcoming
biennium,
with
the
transfer
of
state
funding
from
the
dsa
to
the
state
education
fund
to
support
the
pupil-centered
funding
plan.
Page
61
of
your
packet
details,
the
calculation
of
the
nevada
plan,
funding
formula
or
the
upcoming
biennium,
and
that
is
also
detailed
on
page
46
and
47
of
your
packet.
D
D
D
B
So,
on
page
48
begins
the
first
major
closing
issue,
and
that
is
the
funding,
reduction
and
transfer
of
the
class
size
reduction
program
as
background
the
governor
in
calculating
the
class
size
reduction
program,
the
governor
calculated
to
finance
the
salaries
and
french
benefits
of
teachers
hired
to
meet
the
required
ratios
of
17
pupils
per
teacher
in
first
and
second
grades
and
20
per
pupils
per
teacher
in
third
grade
to
continue
the
class
size
reduction
program.
B
The
governor's
projected
based
on
those
projection,
the
governor's
budget
in
calculated
a
class
size
reduction
need
of
100
155.5
million
dollars
in
fy
22
and
158.9
million
dollars
in
fy23
would
be
needed.
Those
amounts
include
adjustments
for
salaries,
benefits
and
enrollment
growth.
However,
as
previously
mentioned,
the
governors
also
recommends
reductions
to
the
program
of
78
million
dollars
in
each
of
the
biennium.
B
B
Although
charter
schools
are
not
eligible
for
class
size
production
program
funding,
and
I
would
note,
the
reduction
proposed
by
the
governor
is
much
larger
than
the
18.1
million
dollars
the
nde
indicated.
The
funding
reductions
for
the
class
size
reduction
program
were
in
response
to
the
governor's
finance
office
request
that
agencies
provide
12
percent
budget
reserve
proposals
for
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium.
B
The
dsa
budget
request
totaled
139.6
million
dollars
in
each
of
the
biennium,
as
requested
by
the
governor's
finance
office
to
comply
with
this
request.
The
department
of
education
chose
to
maintain
the
per
pupil
funding
that
would
be
provided
through
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding
and
reduce
the
class
size
reduction
program.
Funding
with
the
final
governor
recommended
reduction
being
lower
than
the
amount
originally
requested
by
the
governor's
finance
office.
B
As
previously
mentioned,
the
class
size
reduction
program
funding
is
recommended
by
the
governor
to
be
transferred
to
the
people's
center
funding
plan
to
support
the
base
per
pupil
funding
provided
by
the
state.
This
funding
would
no
longer
be
provide
targeted
funding
for
class
size
reduction
and
would
also
be
available
for
collective
bargaining
by
school
districts.
B
I
would
note
the
nde
recently
commissioned
a
study
by
data
insights
partner
to
study,
nevada
class
sizes
and,
as
part
of
this
study,
the
study
found
that
4th
graders
in
nevada
performed
in
line
with
their
national
peers
in
the
national
assessment
of
education,
educational
progress,
reading
assessment.
For
the
first
time,
the
researchers
suggested
that
student
performance
improvement
may
be
the
result
of
recent
investments
in
early
k-12
education,
including.
G
B
When
asked
what
analysis
was
performed
on
the
effect,
this
reduction
would
have
on
the
class
size
reduction
program
if
it
remained
as
a
categorical
program,
the
department
responded
it
did
not
analyze
the
effect.
Since
the
class
size
reduction
program,
funding
was
always
contemplated
to
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
fund
to
support
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
B
The
department
also
noted
that
the
statutory
requirements
for
class
size
reductions
reflected
in
nrs
388
about
700
will
remain,
in
effect,
with
generally
established
school
district
pupil
to
teacher
ratios
of
16
pupils
per
license
teacher
in
kindergarten
through
grade
2
and
18
pupils
per
licensed
teacher
in
grade
three
pursuant
to
nrs
388
700.
If
school
districts
exceed
these
ratios,
they
may
submit
a
variance
request
to
the
state
board
of
education
and
provide
the
reasons
for
the
request,
justification
for
exceeding
the
ratio
and
a
plan
of
actions.
The
school
district
will
take
to
reduce
the
ratio.
D
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'd,
like
to
echo
my
comments
from
when
we
discussed
some
of
the
other
categorical
reductions,
but
I
think
this
one
it
needs
to
be
highlighted
a
little
bit.
It's
it's.
E
Incorporating
this
much
money
and
a
cut
of
this
size,
rolling
it
into
base
will
keep
base
funding
and
the
new
people
center
funding
plan
artificially
low,
and
it
will
frankly
eliminate
the
ability
of
districts
to
fund
the
class
size
reduction
targets
that
we've
outlined
in
the
statute.
It's
nonsensical
to
think
that
they
would
be
able
to
meet
those
targets
when
we
provide
them
less
funding
to
do
so
and
not
having
enough
money
is
a
perfectly
adequate
reason
for
not
complying.
E
I
think
that
if,
if
we're,
we've
already
got
class
sizes
above
40
in
core
subjects
in
high
school,
and
we
don't
need
to
be
there
for
kindergarten
first
grade
and
second
grade
and
third
either.
So
I
would
suggest
that
this
is
an
item
that
that
really
needs
to
be
reevaluated
as
we
go
forward,
and
so
my
comments
about
future
votes
on
this
subject
stand
as
it
relates
to
the
previous
motion.
Thank
you.
A
Not
seeing
any
all,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed
motion
passes.
Mr
drost,
please
move
forward.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
second
major
closing
issue
can
be
found
on
page
50
of
your
packet
and
that's
the
funding
enhancement
or
the
nevada
plan
for
formula
funding.
The
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
28.6
million
dollars
in
fy22
and
three
point.
Six
million
dollars
in
fy
23
provide
a
funding
enhancement
for
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding.
This
is
based
on
projected
revenue
from
the
10
excise
tax
imposed
on
the
retail
sales.
B
Formula
funding
would
allow
for
an
offset
or
reduction
in
general
fund
appropriations
due
to
increases
in
non-general
fund
revenue
sources
under
the
plan,
since
the
general
fund
provides
the
final
funding
for
the
plan.
However,
the
governor
recommends
an
enhancement
instead
be
provided
for
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding,
based
on
the
projected
increase
for
this
revenue
when
compared
to
the
amount
that
was
legislatively
legislatively
approved
for
fy
2021..
I
B
Can
see
the
top
is
the
number
is
the
revenue
projection
of
the
executive
budget
for
the
reven,
the
10
excise
tax
in
fy,
22
and
23
less
the
fy
2021
legislatively
approved
revenue
projections
and
the
difference
is
provided
as
an
enhancement
in
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula,
as
recommended
by
the
governor,
although
the
2019
legislature
approved
utilizing
the
revenue
from
the
10
excise
tax
imposed
on
the
retail
sales
of
recreational
marijuana
products
as
a
funding
enhancement.
Continuing
to
do
so
is
not
required
in
nrs
during
the.
G
B
Hearing
the
department
indicated
this
enhancement
was
intended
to
increase
per
pupil
funding
amount
provided
through
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding.
The
subcommittee
asked
the
department
why
this
enhancement
was
recommended,
while
other
k-12
education,
budget
reductions
were
recommended,
and
the
department
indicated
the
executive
budget
reflected
a
point
in
time
and
included
budget
restorations
reductions
and
enhancements
that
allowed
in
total
the
budget
to
be
balanced.
B
So
the
decision
for
the
subcommittee
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approving
the
governor's
recommendation
for
general
fund
appropriations
of
28.6
million
dollars
in
fy
22
and
33.6
million
dollars
in
fy23
provide
a
funding
enhancement
for
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding.
Thank
you.
Manager.
A
B
B
For
those
peoples
that
exceed
the
13
threshold,
the
2019
legislature
approved
1.5
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2019-21
biennium
to
fund
one
half
of
the
per
pupil
amounts
for
people
with
disabilities
to
school
districts
and
charter
schools,
with
enrollment
of
pupils
that
exceed
that
13
threshold
and
the
governor
also
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
1.5
million
in
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium
for
the
same
purpose.
I
B
Biennium
nrs
387-1214
requires
the
funding
for
people
with
disabilities
to
also
be
provided
as
a
weighted
funding
provided
through
the
state
education
fund.
However,
the
commission
on
school
funding,
which
was
established
to
assist
with
the
implementation
of
people
sending
center
funding
plan,
recommends
the
requirement
to
determine
a
weighted
people
amount
for
special
education,
be
removed
from
statute
and
the
executive
budget
recommends.
B
Generally,
the
state
must
budget
and
expand
at
least
the
same
amount
for
these
pupils
from
one
fiscal
year
to
the
next
and
school
districts
and
charter.
Schools
must
also
generally
extend
the
same
amount
of
local
and
state
funding,
either
in
aggregate
or
on
a
per
pupil
basis
from
one
fiscal
year
to
the
next.
E
B
Fiscal
staff
would
note
the
governor's
finance
office
submitted
sb
439
and
which
proposes
proposes
to
remove
special
education
pupils
as
a
weight
under
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
B
Although
special
education
pupils
would
be
removed
as
a
weight
under
the
governor's
recommendation,
these
pupils
would
not
receive
any
other
weighted
funding,
since
the
special
education
multiplier
would
be
greater
than
the
greater
than
the
other
weights.
That
is
somewhat
consistent
with
requirements
in
nrs
that
indicate
a
pupil
who
belongs
to
more
than
one
weighted
category
only
receive
weighted
funding
for
the
single
category
to
which
the
pupil
belongs,
which
has
the
largest
multiplier
fiscal
staff.
B
The
subcommittee
may
wish
to
consolidate
all
state
special
education
funding
into
a
single
budget.
If
this
consolidation
is
recommended,
the
special
education
funding
from
the
dsa
budget
could
be
transferred
to
the
contingency
account
for
special
education
services
and
that
budget
could
be
renamed
in
statute
as
the
account
for
state
special
education
services.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
any
questions
from
the
committee
senator
keith
keffer.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
indulgence
mr
drost,
at
the
top
of
page
52,
when
you're
talking
when
you're
outlining
the
increases
for
special
ed
funding,
this
biennium
versus
the
next
indicates
that
the
the
primary
driver
of
that
increase
is
adjustments
for
salaries,
but
if
it's
an
enrollment
growth
that
are
discussed
below,
but
I
couldn't
find
them
below
so
is
that
are
those
increases
driven
by
enrollment
growth,
because
our
enrollment
growth
is
not
exceptionally
substantial.
Right
now,.
B
Senator
keith
kepper
in
response
in
other
closing
items,
you
will
note,
there's
a
discussion
of
the
two
percent
roll-up
increase
reflecting
educators
moving
on
the
salary
scale
based
on
years
of
service
or
attainment
of
additional
educational
credits,
as
well
as
benefit
changes
due
to
increases
in
health
insurance
costs,
as
well
as
the
pers
benefirs
rate
increase
in
the
group.
D
A
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
fourth,
a
major
closing
issue
can
be
found
on
page
54
of
your
packet.
This
is
the
transfer
of
state
funding
for
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding
to
the
state
education
funding
account.
The
governor
recommends
the
state
share
of
funding
for
the
nevada
plan
formula
funding
of
1.378
billion
dollars,
which
includes
830.9
million
dollars
in
general
funds
in
fy,
22
and
1.324
billion
dollars,
which
702.5
million
dollars
is
general
fund
and
fy23
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
funding
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
B
As
you're
well
aware,
the
governor
recommends
a
phased
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
which
would
only
provide
state
funding
through
the
plan
for
the
upcoming
biennium
under
the
governor's
phased
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
Local
funding
sources
such
as
property
taxes,
in-state
local
school
support,
tax
and
governmental.
G
B
During
the
budget
hearing,
the
subcommittee
expressed
concerns
with
the
governor's
recommended
phased
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
specifically
since
the
majority
of
k-12
funding
is
provided
from
local
sources
and
some
school
districts
have
both
greater
per
pupil
expenditures
and
a
reduced
ability
to
generate
local
revenue.
The
phased
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan
appeared
to
create
an
equity
issue
for
k-12
funding
provided
to
school
districts
across
the
state.
A
Thank
you,
mr
drost.
Any
questions
not
seeing
any
I'll
accept
a
motion.
D
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
fifth
major
closing
issue
in
this
budget
can
be
found
on
page
55
of
your
packet
and
that's
the
transfer
of
remaining
funding
from
the
discontributive
school
account
budget.
The
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
735
of
1
362
in
fy,
22.,
736
thousand
fy23
to
fund
transportation
costs
for
certain
native
american
pupils
and
the
national
school
lunch
program
state
match
and
providing
this
funding
through
the
dsa
budget.
B
for
background
nrs
392.015
allows
a
pupil
from
an
indian
reservation
that
is
located
in
two
or
more
counties
to
attend
the
school
nearest,
the
people's
residence.
Without
regard
to
the
school
district
in
which
the
people's
residence
is
located
effective
july
1
2021,
the
amount
is
to
be
reimbursed
from
the
state
education
fund
for
those
costs.
The.
B
The
executive
budget
also
continues
the
national
school
lunch
program
state
match
of
588
732
in
each
year
of
the
21
23
biennium.
As
a
categorical
item
in
the
dsa
budget,
the
department
of
agriculture,
which
administers
the
state
national
school
lunch
program,
distributes
this
funding
proportionally
to
school
districts.
B
The
department
of
education,
the
department
of
agriculture
and
the
governor's
finance
office
concur
with
these
proposed
transfers,
and
I
would
note
the
department
of
agriculture
change
is
also
reflected
in
sb
439.
However,
transitory
language
may
be
needed
in
the
k-12
education
funding
bill
for
the
native
american
transportation
costs.
A
B
It
came
out
of
the
chair.
Other
closing
items
include
the
salary
and
fringe
benefit
rate
adjustments
that
I
discussed
earlier.
This
includes
a
two
percent
roll-up
with
a
general
fund
funded
with
general
fund
appropriations
of
62
million
dollars
in
fy22
and
125.3
million
dollars
in
fy23
to
reflect
the
cost
of
school
just
school
employees.
Earning
merit
increases
due
to
detainment
of
additional
education
and
or
additional
years
of
service,
also
includes
fringe
benefit.
B
Adjustments
for
group
insurance,
health
costs
for
school
personnel,
increasing
by
3.52
in
fy,
22
and
3.68
in
fy
23,
as
well
as
the
project,
the
increase
for
the
public
employees,
retirement
system,
contribution
rate
increase
and
to
fund
those
fringe
benefit
rate
increases.
The
governor
recommends
total
general
fund
appropriations
of
15.7
million
dollars
in
fp22
and
28.7
million
dollars
in
fy
23
to
fund
those
increases.
B
On
other
closing
item
number
two:
the
projected
enrollment
growth
due
to
covid
the
enrollment,
has
seen
a
decline.
However,
the
governor's
recommended
budget
reflects
fy
22
enrollment
returning
to
fy
2020
levels,
with
a
slight
increase
of
0.22,
also
projected
in
fy
2023
in
the
governor's
recommended
budget
in
preparing
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula
other
closing
item
three
includes
the
transfer
room,
tax
revenue
to
the
dsa,
and
this
decision
was
discussed
in
the
state.
Supplemental
school
support
account
and
fiscal
staff
request
authority,
tender
technical
adjustments
to
reflect
the
subcommittee's
decision
in
that
budget.
B
Likewise,
other
closing
item
four
includes
the
transfer
of
senate
bill
551
of
the
2019
session
block
grant
funding
to
the
dsa,
and
that
was
discussed
in
the
school
remediation
trust
fund
and
this
decision
and
fiscal
staff
request
authority
to
their
technical
adjustments
to
reflect
the
subcommittee's
decision
in
that
budget.
Finally,
other
closing
items:
five
includes
the
equipment,
replacement,
enhancement
decision
unit
or
the
nevada
plan.
Funding
formula
fiscal
staff
request
recommends
other
closing
items.
One
two
and
five
be
closed,
as
recommended
by
the
governor
other
closing
item
three
be
closed.
Consistent
with
the
committee's
subcommittees.
B
Closing
action
in
the
state,
supplemental
school
support
account
and
other
closing
item
four
be
closed,
consistent
with
the
subcommittee's
closing
action
in
the
school
remediation
trust
account
budget
fiscal
staff
request
authority
to
make
other
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
D
A
B
B
Nrs3871212
establishes
the
state
education
fund,
beginning
in
fy22,
as
a
special
revenue
fund
for
supporting
the
operation
of
public
schools
in
the
state.
The
governor
recommends
creating
a
new
budget.
The
state
education
funding
account
that
would
contain
the
revenue
and
expenditures
associated
with
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
B
Ability
to
generate
local
revenue,
the
phased
implementation
of
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
appeared
to
create
an
equity
issue
for
k12
funding.
To
address
this
issue,
the
subcommittee
expressed
interest
in
full
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan
in
the
upcoming
biennium
during
the
subsequent
work
session
that
was
held
on
april
7.
under
full
implementation.
B
D
And
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
and
thank
you,
mr
drost,
for
bringing
up
all
these
decision
points
and
getting
us
through
them
expeditiously.
So
I
guess
this
is
the
moment
in
time
where
we
actually
do
this
we've
been
kind
of
waiting
for
it
for
a
while.
D
So
I
guess
I
have
the
duty
to
recommend
full
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan
for
the
2123
biennium,
which
would
provide
state,
as
well
as
certain
local
revenues
earmarked
for
k-12
education
through
the
plan
and
providing
fiscal
staff
with
the
authority
to
enter
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
decision
point
are
revenue
updates
the
table
on
page
75
of
your
packet
reflects
the
re-projections
of
the
non-general
fund,
k-12
education
revenue
with
a
comparison
of
the
december
2020
and
the
may
20
2021
consensus
forecast
prepared
by
the
fiscal
analysis,
division
and
staff
from
the
governor's
finance
office.
B
As
noted
in
the
table,
non-general
fund
revenue
increased
by
approximately
154.8
million
dollars
in
fy
22
and
approximately
174.4
million
dollars
in
fy23.
B
Finally,
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
reflects
an
increase
of
4.9
million
dollars
in
fy22
and
6.9
million
dollars
in
fy23.
A
fiscal
staff
request
authority
to
their
technical
adjustments
to
reflect
these
updated
revenue.
Projections
in
the
state
education
fund,
rather
than
the
dsa
since
the
dsa
will
reflect
the
governor's
recommended
calculation
of
the
nevada
plan.
Funding
formula
as
of
december
2020.
B
during
the
closing
of
the
nde
educational
trust
account.
The
subcommittee
recommended
the
year-end
transfers
of
the
unredeemed
or
uncharged
value
of
expired.
Urbana
gift
certificates
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
fund,
and
this
revenue
is
projected
to
total
approximately
148
000
in
each
year
of
the
biennium
and
is
reflected
in
the
earlier
table,
and
I
would
note
that
change
in
the
revenue
is
also
reflected
in
sb
439.
That
has
been
submitted
by
the
governor's
finance
office.
B
B
B
C
B
327-1212
to
only
allow
interest
to
be
earned
on
non-general
fund
revenue
in
the
fund
drafting
legislation
that
would
require
boat
registration
revenue
to
be
deposited
in
the
state
education
fund,
beginning
in
fy
22,
and
that
again,
that's
included
in
sb
439
and
providing
fiscal
staff
with
authority
to
your
technical
adjustments
as
necessary
map.
Chair.
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
would
move
as
staff
had
indicated
on
the
gray
box,
approving
the
updated
projections
for
the
non-general
fund
revenue
sources,
revising
nrs,
387.1212
and
also
drafting
legislation
that
require
the
boat
registration
revenue
to
be
deposited
in
the
state.
Education
funding
account
and
giving
fiscal
staff
to
make
the
authority
have
the
authority
to
make
other
technical
adjustments
as
necessary.
Second,.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
decision
point
is
the
hold
harmless
calculation
and
the
application
of
performance
nrs387121
indicates
it
is
the
intent
of
the
legislature
to
accomplish
the
transition
of
to
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
without
causing
an
unexpected
loss
of
revenue
to
any
school
district
which
may
receive
less
money.
B
However,
the
commission
on
school
funding
recommended
charter
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
also
be
included
in
a
calculation
of
hold
harmless.
Accordingly,
the
subcommittee
will
need
to
consider
whether
charter
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
should
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
hold
harmless.
B
B
The
nde
indicates
that
it
worked
with
school
districts
to
identify
various
k-12
education,
categorical
programs
that
could
provide
expenditure
reductions.
However,
these
conversations
with
the
school
districts
occurred
rather
late
in
the
fiscal
year,
with
some
schools
able
to
provide
savings,
while
others
were
not
since
funding
had
already
been
committed
or
expended.
B
Therefore,
if
the
amount
expended
in
fy
2020
is
utilized
to
calculate
hold
harmless
amounts,
there
could
be
possible
in
equities,
since
some
school
districts
may
have
experienced
larger
budget
reductions
than
other
school
districts.
To
address
these
possible
inequities.
The
nda
has
calculated
the
fy
2020
hold
harmless
amounts
for
each
school
district
and
charter
schools,
based
on
the
amount
of
revenue
provided
through
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula
and
the
amounts
awarded
from
the
categorical
programs
prior
to
budget
reductions.
B
B
Regarding
the
legislative
intent
for
hold
harmless,
there
are
various
ways
this
could
be
implemented
by
the
legislature.
The
subcommittee
could
recommend
that
hold
harmless,
be
provided
based
on
the
total
amount
of
funding
provided
to
school
districts
in
fy
2020,
which
would
ensure
that
no
school
district
receives
less
funding
than
it
received
in
fy
2020.
B
B
Accordingly,
it
may
require
a
true
up
of
the
funding,
provided
so
that
school
districts
at
the
end
of
a
fiscal
year
were
ensured
that
they
did
receive
no
less
funding
than
it
received
in
fy
2020,
and
that
may
cost
some
additional
administrative
tasks
in
the
department
providing
holds
harmless
planning
is
a
total
amount
provided
to
each
school.
B
The
subcommittee
could
also
consider
providing
an
inflationary
increase
to
the
calculation
of
hold
harmless,
and
this
would
allow
those
school
districts
that
would
receive
funding
based
on
the
hold
harmless
amounts
to
receive
additional
funding.
That
would
recognize
the
increases
in
costs
since
fy
2020..
B
B
A
Being
none,
I
think
that
go
ahead.
Assemblywoman
and.
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
seeing
the
decision
points
that
we
have
in
the
gray
box
at
the
top
of
page
78
and
knowing
the
conversations
that
we
had
moving
through
this
whole
process
and
through
the
the
work
session
document.
That's
why
we
have
works
work
session.
The
decision
points
between
not
including
charters
and
including
charters.
D
I
believe
there
was
a
feeling
that,
what's
good
for
one
is
good
for
all
and
that
the
consensus
of
the
subcommittee
was
to
go
ahead
and
include
the
charters
and
university
schools
for
the
profoundly
gifted
skipping,
the
second
one,
because
we're
going
to
come
back
to
that
going
down
to
the
third,
not
applying
the
inflationary
increases
to
the
hold
harmless
account
was
part
of
the
conversation,
but
going
back
to
the
middle
one.
The
way
it's
written
in
the
conversation
that
I
had
with
with
mr
drost
as
we
were
reviewing.
D
D
So
I
don't
believe
it's
an
or
there
mr
drost,
it's
sort
of
a
half
of
an
and
if,
if
you
would
so,
if
you
could
just
clarify
that
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
because
you
did
say
the
2020
numbers
were
not
quite
where
they
needed
to
be,
but
we
could
adjust
them
to
make
sure
that
we
had
a
a
good
solid
base.
But
then
we
could
move
forward
on
per
pupil,
hold
harmless
based
on
enrollment.
So
do
I
have
that
correct.
B
I
can
state
it
if
you'd
like
option
b
applying
harmless
amount
on
a
per
pupil
basis
based
on
the
amount
of
fy
2020
revenue
received
awarded.
That
would
account
for
changes
in
enrollment
over
the
21
23
biennium.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
we
are
clear
but
senator
keith
keffer.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
usual,
I'm
not
clear,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
do
understand
so
under
the
proposal
as
it's
outlined,
mr
drost,
it
would
when
you're
saying
2020
revenue
received
by
the
districts.
Are
you
saying
20
they're
20
20
per
pupil
amount.
B
Under
option
b,
it
would
be
calculated
for
pupil
amount
from
fy
2020
and
then
that
would
be
their
whole
harmless
amount
that
if
they
were
on
hold
harmless
and
upcoming
biennium.
That
would
establish
for
that
whole
harmless
right,
and
then
that
would.
E
B
B
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
additional
questions
so
with
that.
I
believe
the
motion
is
to
include,
b,
b
and
b
with
the
caveat
on
clarification
of
in
the
middle
one
that
we
will
apply.
The
hold
harmless
amount
on
a
per
pupil
basis,
using
2020
as
the
based
account
and
for
changes
in
enrollment
for
the
2123
biennium.
Is
that
correct?
Mr
drost.
B
A
D
A
I
Good
morning,
madam
chair
for
the
record
jamery
mangova
from
the
fiscal
analysis,
division
and
I'll
be
covering
the
auxiliary
services
on
page
78,
which
include
transportation
and
food
services,
funding
which
is
a
separate
tier
and
is
funded
first
in
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
Funding
is
provided
to
each
school
district
as
determined
to
be
sufficient
by
the
legislature
to
provide
food
services
and
transportation
for
pupils
if
the
pc.
I
The
subcommittee
could
consider
not
applying
an
inflationary
increase
to
transportation
costs,
since
school
districts
could
utilize
their
base
for
people
funding
to
offset
any
additional
transportation
costs
that
may
be
incurred.
Alternatively,
the
subcommittee
could
consider
applying
an
inflationary
increase
for
transportation
costs
using
the
consumer
price
index
of
1.74
that
is
used
in
the
funding
model.
If
the
subcommittee
chooses
this
option,
the
compounded
inflationary
adjustment
would
be
applied
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
also
in
fiscal
year
23..
A
D
I
believe
where
we
were
on
this
one
as
we
had
worked
through.
All
the
discussion
points
was
budgeting
for
transportation
and
food
service
costs
based
on
the
my
motion
would
be
to
budget
for
transportation
and
food
service
costs
based
on
the
four-year
average
of
actual
expenditures
and
provide
this
funding
to
school
districts
based
on
the
budgeted
amount,
with
the
annual
amount
paid
on
a
monthly
basis
and
going
with
item
a
not
applying
the
consumer
price
index
to
the
annual
budgeted
cost
for
transportation.
A
I
I
The
department
indicates
that
this
amount
was
calculated
as
the
amount
that
was
provided
the
approximate
weights
that
were
provided
in
fiscal
year
20
while
allocating
all
available
revenue.
I
This
amount
would
then
be
increased
with
the
consumer
price
index
of
1.74,
which
would
provide
a
fiscal
year.
22
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
amount
of
6900
6954.
fiscal
staff
would
know
that
the
department
calculates
the
fiscal
year.
23
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
amount
as
7
075,
which
was
calculated
by
multiplying
the
fiscal
year,
22
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
a
month
of
the
6954
and
adding
a
consumer
price
index
inflation
of
1.74.
I
However,
nrs
387.12455
requires
the
governor
to
also
include
enrollment
growth
in
this
calculation,
which
is
projected
to
increase
by
0.22
in
fiscal
year.
23.
accordingly,
the
subcommittee
may
wish
to
also
include
a
projected
enrollment
growth
in
the
calculation,
which
would
increase
the
amount
to
seven
thousand
ninety
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
three,
the
decision
for
the
subcommittee
today
is:
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
the
nevada
department
of
education's
calculation
of
the
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
amount
of
six
thousand
nine
hundred
fifty
four
dollars
in
fiscal
year?
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
any
questions,
senator
keith
kiffer.
E
E
So
I'm
curious
as
to
if
we
make
this
decision
today
and
then
forward
it
on
to
the
full
committee,
is
there
opportunity
to
change
this
number
on
a
go
forward
on
a
go-forward
basis?
So,
for
example,
if
we
were
to
restore
the
class
size
reduction
money
and
read
by
three
money
and
roll
that
into
base,
how
does
that
get
accounted
for?
Do
we
then
adjust
the
base
per
pupil
money
and
run
it
back
through
the
entire
formula.
I
You
could
certainly
choose
to
add
additional
funding
to
increase
the
base,
so
it's
whatever
the
legislature
deems
is
appropriate
to
fund
it.
The
base
per
people
amount.
B
Senator
katie
keffer
in
response
would
just
know
that
the
model,
currently
any
additional
funding,
is
applied
to
weights
and
that's
how
the
model
is
currently
built.
However,
especially
as
this
model
is
being
initially
implemented
by
the
legislature,
the
legislature
has
discretion
to
modify
the
base
funding
or
the
weighted
funding,
as
as
it
sees
fit.
C
Madam
chair
also,
you
addressed
senator
keith
first,
additional
funding
that
the
legislature
may
wish
to
add
to
the
state
education
fund
could
also
be
directed
to
the
stabilization
account
to
provide
seed
money
for
future
declines
in
revenue
that
may
be
needed
to
be
accessed
by
the
school
districts
could
also
be
placed
in
the
state
education
fund,
also
as
kind
of
a
cushion
for
this
first
biennium.
C
As
we
stand
the
model
up
and
not
be
run
through
the
people
center
funding
plan
per
se
as
an
increase
of
base
or
weights,
but
rather
it
would
be
in
the
state
education
fund
to
basically
again
be
that
cushion
for.
If
revenue
projections
don't
materialize,
they
come
in
lower
than
projected,
then
that
funding
would
be
available
to
make
that
per
pupil
and
a
weighted
funding
whole
and
and
then
likewise
again.
If
revenue
projections
come
in
higher,
then
that
funding
will
roll
forward
and
and
be
transferred
to
the
state
education
stabilization
account.
E
I
think
I
mentioned
for
a
little
bit
of
leniency,
so
I
I
think
I
may
disagree
a
little
bit
with
how
the
the
model
is
set
up,
that
it
goes
exclusively
to
weights.
If
you
look
at
in
and
I'm
going
to
refer
to
the
bill,
because
I
don't
have
the
statute
in
front
of
me,
but
if,
in
section
4
of
the
of
the
bill
as
it
was
passed,
there's
a
direct
correlation
tied
between
increases
and
decreases
in
weights
based
on
additional
revenue
and
proportional
increases
and
decreases
in
base
per
pupil
funding
amounts.
E
So
I
I
believed,
as
we
were,
passing
it
and
as
I
reread
the
bill
again
to
make
sure
that
I
didn't
misremember,
that
there
was
a
relationship
directly
tied
between
the
two
funding
categories,
and
so
if
the
suggestion
is
that
if
we
decided
to
appropriate
200
million
dollars
and
put
it
into
put
it
into
the
formula
that
it
would
all
have
to
go
to
weights,
I
just
think
that's
inaccurate
and
I
don't
think
that's
how
it
was
designed.
C
Madam
chair
key
keffer
again
with
the
first
year
of
implementation
of
the
model,
the
legislature
has
a
discretion
as
to
what
the
the
initial
starting
base
for
pupil
funding
should
be.
You
are
correct
that
said,
bill
543
does
provide
direct
directives
on
how
funding
will
be
calculated
for
the
base
and
the
weights
moving
forward,
but
it's
not
that
it's
automatically
because,
again
again,
that's
the
way
the
funding
model
works.
C
If
we
did
if
there
were
no
specific
decisions
where
the
funding
went-
and
let's
say
there
were
you
know,
based
on
the
forums
projections-
and
there
was,
you
know,
500
million
dollars
that
was
increased,
that's
how
the
model
would
work
until
the
weights
are
funded
entirely.
C
The
funding
is
to
go
to
the
weights
and
then
there's
proportional
increases.
However,
again
because
it's
the
first
year
of
the
implementation
of
the
model,
the
legislature
can
direct
that
funding
proportionally
to
the
base
and
the
weights
all
to
the
weights
all
to
the
base
or
to
the
stabilization
account.
So
the
legislature
has
discretion
in
where
you
desire
additional
funding
to
go.
E
I'm
sure
I'll
I'll
stop,
but
I
I
do
think
that
if
you
look
at
section
4
sub
section
5,
it
indicates
that
if
the
multipliers
of
all
categories
of
pupils
in
a
fiscal
year
are
increased,
then
a
proportional
increase
is
considered
for
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
amount,
and
I
think
that
that's,
I
think
they
move
together.
But
again,
that's
the
subsequent
years.
E
I
just
think
that
it's
important
that
we
look
at
how
we
fund
the
base
this
year,
because
that's
what's
going
to
bring
school
districts
out
of
hold
harmless
to
start
with,
and
if
we
want
to
have
the
formula
work
as
designed,
so
that
it
is
allocating
funding
equitably
on
a
per
pupil
basis.
Getting
districts
out
of
hold
harmless
as
quickly
as
possible
is
the
best
way
to
do
that
and
allocating
money
in
base
is
how
we
accomplish.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much
all
right,
I'm
not
not
seeing
any
other
questions
I'll
accept
a
motion.
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
I
would
move
for
approval
of
the
nevada
department
of
education's
calculation
on
the
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
amount
of
6954
in
fiscal
year,
22
and
7090
in
fiscal
year,
23,
which
would
be
used
to
establish
the
people-centered
funding
plan
for
the
2123
biennium
and
give
staff
authority
to
make
any
technical
adjustments.
Based
on
the
final
decisions
of
the
subcommittee.
A
I
I
I
The
governor's
recommended
calculation
of
the
ncei
was
based
on
the
actual
distribution
of
salary
and
benefits,
and
and
operational
expenses
for
school
districts
and
charter
schools
operating
funds,
which
includes
general
funds,
special
education
funds,
governmental
funds,
state
grant
funds
and
federal
grant
funds
which
are
not
which
some
of
which
were
not
recommended
to
transfer
to
the
state
education
funding
found
such
as
the
special
education
funds
and
federal
grant
funds.
I
The
second
adjustment
factor
is
the
size
adjustment
factor,
so
sb
543
approved
both
a
small
district
and
a
necessary
small
schools
adjustment.
However,
the
commission
on
school
funding
and
the
governor
instead
recommending
in
consultation
with
a
consultant,
recommended
that
a
size
adjustment
factor
be
applied
at
the
attendance
area
level,
and
I
would
note
that
this
change
of
using
attendance
area
adjustment
factor
is
included
in
sb
439.
I
So
the
decision
for
the
subcommittee
for
today
is
this.
Thus,
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
the
revised
nevada
cost
of
education
index
that
reflects
updated
regional
price
parities
index
data
and
the
distribution
based
on
the
funding
that
will
be
provided
through
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
and
utilize
the
floor
of
1.0
for
the
ncei
for
the
2021-23
biennium
and
using
the
attendance
area
size
adjustment
developed
by
the
subject
matter,
experts
and
recommended
by
the
commission,
school
funding
and
the
governor
that
will
be
used
instead
of
the
small
district
and
necessary
small
schools.
Adjustments.
G
So
much,
madam
chairwoman,
I
appreciate
it,
so
this
is
one
that
from
the
first
moment,
out
of
the
gate
I
kind
of
came
out
hot
on
this
conversation
way
back
when
we
were
having
the
initial
discussions
on
this
piece.
G
I
think
we
have,
I
think,
the
commission
on
school
funding.
I
think
the
department
of
education,
I
think
our
legislative
staff
have
all
worked
really
hard
to
try
to
make
this
piece
work,
but
I
I
am
at
the
place
where
I
I
do
not
believe
we
have
something
that
is
meaningful
and
relevant,
and
that
works.
Yet
I
don't
know
how
we
move
forward,
saying
that
high
cost
of
housing
and
high
cost
of
living
can't
be
accounted
for
when
you're
accounting
for
the
cost
of
living.
G
So
I
I
at
this
point
it
makes
the
most
sense
to
me
to
say,
pull
this
out
and
then
let
the
money
flow
to
the
other
weights.
Let
it
flow
downstream
we're
we
just
haven't
gotten
this
to
work
yet
and
it's
become
almost
arbitrary.
Now,
we're
kind
of
you
know
franken
monstering
different
indexes
to
come
up
with
something
to
suit
a
need,
but
I've
lost
sight
of
what
that
need.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
You
know.
I
agree
that
leaving
housing
off
the
comparative
wage
index,
which
is
a
big
portion
of
these
factors,
doesn't
make
any
sense,
because
the
cost
of
living
across
the
state
varies
significantly,
whether
in
washington,
county
or
clark,
county
or
eureka
or
wherever
you
are,
and
also
just
talking
about
the
size
adjustment.
H
My
understanding
is
that
the
charter
schools
were
left
out
of
some
of
these
adjustments
and
charter.
Schools
are
pretty
unique
because
some
are
sponsored
by
the
districts.
Some
are
sponsored
by
the
state,
but
they
operate
independently,
so
they
in
fact
are
kind
of
small
all
the
way
across
the
board
and
and
they
weren't
included
and
those
adjustments.
Especially
if
you
look
at
say
you
look
at
like
washoe
county
and
the
amount
that
was
adjusted
for
washoe
county,
which
is
relatively
the
same
size
as
what
all
the
charter
schools
are
together.
H
So
we're
looking
at,
I
think,
64
000
versus
maybe
66
000
students
in
each
of
those
and
so
not
to
have
any
adjustment
for
charters,
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
So
again,
I
would
agree
that
the
the
index
calculation
leaving
out
the
housing
doesn't
make
any
sense
in
that
housing
is
the
highest
expense
or
the
largest
expense
in
many
households,
and
then
also
the
small
size
adjustment,
and
some
of
the
other
adjustments
has
my
understanding.
H
I
Joey
mango
for
the
record,
you
are
correct.
Senator
charter
schools
are
not
currently
provided
the
small
schools
or
attendance
area
district
adjustments.
However,
I
would
note,
though,
that
on
the
last
page
of
your
package
is
a
recommendation
for
the
school
commission
on
school
funding
to
revisit
or
review
this
cost
adjustment
factors
to
see
if
there
are
necessary
changes
or
possibly
eliminating
the
1.0
floor
over
time.
So
that
could
be.
That
is
a
recommendation
before
you
today
as
well,
but
mr
dos
would
discuss
that
later
on.
H
Thank
you
and
I
think
these
choices
that
we
make
are
very
critical
because
we're
setting
the
standard
and
again
leaving
the
charter
schools
out.
I
don't
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
especially
the
way
that
they
operate
in
that
and
given
their
size
and
then
again
you
know,
as
as
several
at
least
two
of
us
have
stated
the
issue
around
housing,
I
think,
makes
a
difference.
So
thank.
A
So
with
that,
I
would
entertain
an
emotion,
madam.
D
Chair
and
in
hearing
my
majority
leader
and
and
her
concerns
on
this
particular
item,
I
know
we've
tried
to
close
as
closely
as
we
can,
but
then
also
hearing,
senator
sivers,
ganzart's
concerns
and
the
question
that
the
majority
leader
posed
on
being
able
to
run
the
model
and
see
what
it
looks
like
on
both
sides
of
the
coin.
D
For
this
not
wishing
to
sideswipe
anyone
out
there
and
please
don't
let
anybody's
hair
get
on
fire
on
this
one.
D
I
think
it's
really
is
purely
out
of
being
able
to
get
enough
information
to
make
this
decision,
and
now
that
we've
gotten
this
far
down
the
road,
I'm
getting
the
indication
from
the
assembly
that
they
would
prefer
not
to
close
this
item
at
this
time,
be
able
to
get
that
information
and
to
discuss
this
in
just
a
couple
of
days
when
we
get
to,
I
believe
friday,
mornings,
closing
and
and
to
go
from
there
so
would
have
loved
to
have
given
you
much
more
heads
up,
but
I
believe
with
the
conversation
that's
where
the
assembly
is
leaning
at
this
time.
D
But
that,
and
and
and
madam
chair,
if
I,
if
I
wasn't
clear-
I
I
I
truly
apologize,
but
the
1.0
is
part
of
that
discussion
of
the
education
index
and
being
able
to
see
what
it
looks
like
with
the
1.0
and
then
letting
it
naturally
flow
to
have
that
comparison
between
if
churchill
was
at
1.027
versus
one.
What's
that
really
going
to
look
like
for
churchill,
if
lion
was
at
.965
versus
one?
What
does
that
really
look
for
lyon?
D
A
Thank
you
very
much.
So
if
just
thinking
off
the
top
of
my
hat
right
here,
would
the
motion
be
for
us
to
request
that
staff
run
the
numbers
so
that
we
mark
push
everybody
to
one
that
is
above
one
and
run
the
numbers
so
that
we
can
revisit
this?
Is
that
where
you're
at
assemblywoman.
D
And
madame
chair,
I,
I
think
what
what
the
majority
leader
and
a
couple
of
folks
and
personally
myself
would
like
to
see
is
if
it
flowed.
Naturally,
as
was
stated,
and
just
without
the
index,
what
would
it
be
and
then
with
the
floor
of
one?
What
would
it
be
and
being
able
to
compare
those
numbers
in
committee
and
for
the
different
counties.
G
And
I-
and
I
appreciate
that
assemblywoman
carlton,
because
what
I
don't
want
to
do
is
inadvertently
walk
ourselves
down
a
math,
a
path
where
we
we
end
up
doing
some
harm
or
commit
to
numbers.
We
don't
know
what
what
I
would
like
to
propose
is
that
we
could
have
staff
look
to
see
if
we,
if
we
took
this
piece
out,
how
the
money
flows
through
the
rest
of
the
formula.
G
If
we,
if
we
effectively
set
it
at
one
for
everyone,
I
mean
you're,
effectively
kind
of
making
it.
You
know,
let
it
wash
out
on
its
own.
So
I
there's
a
couple
ways
that
you
could
come
at
it,
but
I
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
is
is
just
give
ourselves
a
breath
in
a
moment.
Let
staff
get
us
a
number
so
that
we
can
be
prudent.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
I'd
like
to
phone
a
friend
and
I'd
like
to
see
if
mr
thorley
could
jump
in
there
for
me
please
thank
you.
Thank.
B
You,
madam
chair
wayne,
thorley
for
the
record,
lcb
fiscal,
the
majority
leader,
I
think,
hit
it
right
on
the
head
as
far
as
if
the
instruction
for
staff
is
to
run
the
model
not
including
the
ncei.
B
D
So,
madam
chair,
I
believe
that's
where
the
folks
sitting
in
this
corner
of
the
room
feel
the
most
comfortable.
D
At
this
time
I
mean
we're,
making
significant
decisions
on
how
this
model
is
going
to
be
stood
up,
and
this
is
one
that
has
had
a
lot
of
conversation
as
we
have
moved
through
this,
and
the
conversation
hasn't
quieted
down
at
all.
It's
it's
gotten
more
comprehensive,
so
I
think,
having
real
numbers
would
give
us
a
level
of
comfort
to
be
able
to
address
this
on
friday.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
so
would
that
be
your
motion.
D
A
H
That's
the
discussion.
Sorry
senator
ready
I'll
take
it.
No,
I
just
I
appreciate
the
conversation.
I
do
think
this
is
important
and
you
know
for
clarity.
I
think
we
we're
going
to
look
at
it
with
the
cost
index
and
look
at
it
without
a
cost
index
and
see
where
we
are,
which
I
think
will
be
incredibly
helpful.
So
just
want
to
thank
you
for
that.
D
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'll,
step
back
in.
The
next
item
is
on
page
81
of
your
packet,
and
this
is
enrollment
and
weighted
people
counts,
as
previously
mentioned
during
the
closing
of
the
distributive
school
account.
The
kobit
19
pandemic
has
caused
enrollment
decreases
in
the
state.
In
the
current
fiscal
year,
however,
the
governor's
recommended
budget
projects
enrollment
returning
to
fbi,
2020
levels
in
fy
22
and
then
increasing
by
0.22
in
fy
23..
B
Fiscal
staff
would
note
that
nrs
387-123
allows
school
districts
and
charter
schools
to
utilize
quarterly
enrollment
from
the
prior
school
year
if
they
experience
a
decrease
in
enrollment
of
five
percent
or
more
and
given
the
uncertainties
related
to
enrollment
as
the
state
recovers
from
the
pandemic.
The
subcommittee
may
also
wish
to
recommend
back
language,
be
included
in
the
k-12
funding
bill
to
temporarily
revise
the
provisions
of
nrs,
387-1233
or
fy22
only
and
allow
school
districts
and
charter
schools
to
base
this
enrollment
comparison
on
a
two-year
period.
B
School
districts
and
charter.
Schools
could
then
receive
the
higher
enrollment
account
from
either
fy
2020
or
fy21
if
their
enrollment
decreases
greater
than
five
percent
in
fy
22
when
compared
to
the
either
years.
That
would
provide
additional
flexibility
if
school
districts
and
charter
schools
will
recover
from
them
pandemic
and
enrollment
begins
to
stabilize,
and
that
would
also
complement
the
earlier
decision.
B
Basing
per
pupil
funding
hold
harmless
on
the
per
pupil
amount,
allowing
districts
and
charter
schools
to
use
the
fy
2020
amount
if
their
enrollment
falls
greater
than
five
percent
for
the
weighted
pupil
counts,
nevada,
revised
statute,
nrs,
3,
387,
1
214
provides
weighted
funding
for
english
learners,
at-risk
pupils,
peoples
with
disabilities
and
gifted
and
talented
peoples
that
would
be
provided
to
each
school
district
and
charter.
Schools.
B
Nrs
also
requires
a
pupil
who
belongs
to
more
than
one
category,
to
receive
weighted
planning
for
the
single
category
to
lead
to
people
belongs,
which
has
the
largest
multiplier
and,
as
previously
discussed
in
the
closing
of
the
gsa
budget,
the
governor
recommends
funding
for
special
education
to
be
provided
outside
the
people
funding
plan,
and
that
change
is
reflected
in
sb439,
since
nrs
does
not
specify
how
pupils
who
belong
to
these
various
categories
will
be
counted.
The
subcommittee
could
clarify
the
accounts
that
would
be
utilized
to
distributed
weighted
funding.
The
department
indicates
final
audited.
B
People
counts
for
these
various
categories.
Our
available
audited
accounts
are
available
for
prior
october
1st
each
spring,
since
these
counts
are
audited
and
reflect
actual
enrollment.
These
accounts
could
be
used
to
distribute
weighted
funding
for
the
following
fiscal
year,
so
in
other
words,
the
october
1st
2020
accounts
will
be
utilized
to
distribute
weighted
funding
for
fy2022.
B
B
B
D
Also,
the
audited
october
first
enrollment
counts
to
determine
weighted
funding
that
would
be
allocated
to
pupils
in
the
following
fiscal
year
and
use
the
eligibility
for
free
and
reduced
price
lunch
to
identify
as
risk
students,
and
I
won't
take
a
run
at
gifted
and
talented
again,
because
I've
already
done
that
and
it
didn't
work.
So
that
would
be
my
motion.
D
A
B
The
next
closing
issue
is
the
education
stabilization
account
pursuant
to
nrs3871213,
the
educational
stabilization
account
will
provide
funding
to
the
denied
department
of
education
for
distribution
to
school
districts
and
charter
schools.
When
the
interim
finance
committee
determines
state
education
fund
will
receive
97
percent
or
less
of
its
projected
revenue
in
a
fiscal
year,
however,
the
account
would
not
have
any
funding
as
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan
is
initially
implemented,
and
the
governor's
recommended
budget
does
not
provide
any
initial
funding
for
the
account
in
the
upcoming
biennium.
B
Nrs
also
generally
requires
the
balance
remaining.
In
the
state
education
fund,
excluding
the
balance
remaining
in
the
state
of
educational
stabilization
account
that
is
within
the
fund
that
has
not
been
committed
for
expenditure
on
or
before
june
30
of
each
fiscal
year
be
transferred
to
the
education
stabilization
account.
B
This
may
provide
additional
funding
for
the
educational
stabilization
account
in
future
fiscal
years.
However,
the
subcommittee
may
wish
to
consider
revising
this
statute
to
require
this
money
to
be
transferred
to
the
education
stabilization
account
at
the
end
of
the
biennium
rather
than
the
end
of
each
fiscal
year.
B
Funding
in
that
second
year,
if
needed,
given
the
educational
stabilization
account
may
not
have
any
initial
funding.
The
subcommittee
could
consider
various
options
that
are
detailed
on
page
84
of
your
packet
option.
A
is
allowing
general
fund
appropriations
in
the
state
education
fund
to
be
transferred
between
fiscal
years
in
the
biennium
and
providing
a
supplemental
general
fund
appropriation
in
fy
2023.
B
If
additional
funding
is
necessary,
this
mechanism
is
currently
provided
under
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula.
However,
this
would
reflect
a
departure
from
the
funding
concepts
established
in
sb543
specifically
created
a
separate
state
education
fund
that
does
not
revert
funding
to
the
general
fund
and
was
intended
to
operate
utilizing
only
the
funding
provided
in
the
fund.
B
B
B
Option
d
is
deferring
any
decision
until
a
later
date,
including
a
possible
special
session
that
may
be
called
fiscal
staff
would
note
that
funding
for
the
educational
stabilization
account
is
not
a
requirement
to
implement
the
people
centered
funding
plan,
so
this
decision
could
be
deferred
until
a
later
date
and
that
and
that
general
fund,
appropriation
or
loan
or
state
funding
could
be
included
determined
at
a
later
date.
Based
on
that
decision,
so
the
options
are
again
relayed
in
page
85
of
your
packet
I'll
go.
B
Again,
does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
approval
to
revise
nrs3871213,
to
require
remaining
funding
in
the
state
education
fund
to
be
transferred
to
the
education
stabilization
account
at
the
end
of
each
biennium
rather
than
each
fiscal
year?
In
addition,
the
subcommittee
may
wish
to
recommend
approval
of
one
of
the
following
options
related
to
funding.
This
educational
stabilization
account
option
a
is,
allowing
general
fund
appropriations
in
the
state
education
fund
to
be
transferred
between
fiscal
years
in
2021,
23
biennium
and
providing
a
supplemental
general
fund
of
corporation
in
fy
23.
B
J
B
A
Thank
you
very
much
questions
on
this
one
assemblywoman.
D
D
D
On
that
point,
I
would
propose
item
b
providing
the
education
stabilization
count
with
a
loan
of
50
million
dollars
to
get
started
with
the
conversation
that
that
has
been
about
the
pegging
point
for
the
supplementals
over
the
year
and
the
way
that
it's
my
understanding
and
to
make
sure
it's
clear
that
the
way
the
loan
would
work
is.
We
would
see
this
account
with
50
million
dollars,
then
any
amount
that
would
have
gone
that
would
have
transferred
into
the
account
through
its
natural
tumbling
in
would
pay
the
state
back.
D
So
there
would
always
be
that
50
million
dollars
there
to
handle
the
stabilization
purposes
behind
it,
but
anything
in
addition,
would
come
back
to
the
state
to
repay
the
loan
and
then,
after
the
loan
was
repaid.
Those
dollars
would
just
tumble
into
the
stabilization
count.
Do
I
understand
that
correctly,
mr
drost.
D
It's
only
taken
me
a
few
hours
to
get
there
so,
madam
chair,
I
would
be
leaning
towards
that.
I
know
and
b
there's
a
conversation
about
american
rescue
plan
dollars.
I
don't
believe
we
need
to
go
down
that
road
this
time.
I
believe
the
loan
with
the
repayment
with
the
top
discussion
is
where,
where
I've
got
an
indication
where
the
committee
is
leaning,
thank
you
very
much.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
using
if
we
use
general
funds,
is
there
any
requirement
what
year
those
general
funds
come
out
of?
Could
we
spend
them
out
of
our
current
fiscal
year
ending
fund
balance
rather
than
dedicating
next
year's
anticipate
or
next
biennium's
anticipated
revenue
since
they're?
Ultimately,
one
shot
dollars
to
start
with.
A
H
D
So
senator
kitkefer,
you
threw
a
pitch
we're
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
it
gets
caught.
So
there's
a
picture
and
a
catcher
mechanism
here.
A
Okay,
ms
kaufman,
please.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Some
of
the
concerns
was
that
the
the
account
isn't
actually
established
right
now,
and
so
I
think
mechanically.
What
would
have
to
happen
is
the
stabilization
account
would
have
to
be
established
in
fiscal
year
2021..
It
could
in
fact
be
funded
with
2021,
and
so
we
we
would
just
have
to
work.
I
think,
with
the
controller's
office
to
get
that
established
first,
so
that
that
funding
can
then
be
placed
in
there.
If
that
was
the
desire
of
the
committee.
D
That
amount
could
come
out
of
the
second
year,
the
biennium.
Also
when
we've
seen
other
things,
so
it
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
be
now.
It
could
even
be
pushed
out
even
further,
so
that
we
can
have
those
other
conversations
about
add,
backs
and
backfill,
and
then
talk
about
this
in
possibly
the
second
year
of
the
bietium
senator.
E
Yeah,
I
appreciate
that
I
just
you
know
this
is
not
an
ongoing
operating
expense,
so
incorporating
it
in
out
of
our
resources
that
we
do
have
available
for
operating
for
the
next
biennium
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
So
I
just
if
there's
a
way
to
to
do
that,
and
I
don't
know
when
the
decision
has
to
get
made,
but
I
mean
sooner
rather
than
later,
but
I
just
it
seemed
more
logical
to
me
to
use
one-time
money
for
it
rather
than
putting
it
on
our
balance
sheet
for
the
next
biennium.
D
And
men,
I'm
sure
if
I
may,
I
totally
understand
the
one
time
perspective,
I'm
just
not
sure
what
that
time
is.
I
don't
want
to
hamstring
us
right
now
when
we've
seen
the
cuts
that
we've
had
to
make
and
the
commitments
that
we've
made
to
backfill
medicaid
child
welfare,
all
those
other
things
not
backfill
add
back.
D
So
I'm
not
sure
where
that
conversation
is.
But
I
believe
what
we're
discussing
right
here
is:
do
we
do
the
loan
50
million
general
fund?
Is
it
paid
back
and
then
there
will
be
other
discussions?
I
believe
when
we
we
do
the
bill.
I
think
that
could
be
a
continuing
conversation
I'll
give
my
commitment
to
that.
A
I
I
would,
I
would
agree
that
I
choice
b
with
the
loan
without
the
american
rescue
plan
funding,
is
where
we're
at,
and
so
I
would
take
that
motion.
D
So,
madam
chair
I'll,
do
it
again
just
to
make
sure
the
record
is
crystal
clear
that
the
committee
recommend
approval
to
revise
nrs38712
to
require
remaining
funding
in
the
state
education
funding
to
be
transferred
to
the
education
stabilization
count
at
the
end
of
each
biennium,
rather
than
the
end
of
each
year,
going
with
item
b
providing
the
education
stabilization
count
with
a
loan
of
50
million
dollars
from
the
general
fund
to
provide
initial
funding.
This
loan
would
be
repaid
from
the
educational
stage.
A
And
I
will
thank
you
and
entertain
a
second.
Oh
sorry,
senator
sivers.
A
D
D
A
Thank
you
very
much,
assemblyman
assemblywoman
carlton.
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
I
think
we
have
a
motion.
I
think
we
have
a
second
we've
had
discussion
and
with
that
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
A
All
those
opposed
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
conversation
and
with
that
we
have
one
last
piece:
miss
mangova.
Please
go
ahead.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
adam
drost,
with
lcd
fiscal.
The
last
item
is
a
letter
of
intent.
The
subcommittee
could
also
consider
recommending
a
letter
of
intent
issued
to
the
department
of
education
requiring
the
department
to
work
with
the
commission
on
school
funding
to
study
his
various
topics
over
the
2021-22
interim,
including
a
plan
and
timeline
to
eliminate
the
floor
of
1.0
for
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index.
B
The
letter
intent
could
also
include
a
review
of
high
school
dual
enrollment
programs
and
any
recommendations
for
the
funding
provided
to
students
who
participate
in
those
programs.
Since
dual
enrollment
is
currently
being
studied
by
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
and
the
department
through
a
joint
dual
enrollment
task
force.
B
Does
the
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
the
issuance
of
a
letter
of
intent,
the
nevada
department
of
education
requiring
the
department
and
the
commission
on
school
funding
to
study
various
topics
over
the
2021
2021-22
interim,
including
a
plan
and
timeline
to
eliminate
the
floor
of
1.0
for
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index?
So
the
index
may
function
as
intended
by
redistributing
funding
a
review
and
comparison
of
students
identified
as
at-risk
based
on
eligibility
for
free
reduced
price
lunch
and
the
revised
methodology
using
data
from
the
infinite
campus
system.
And
that.
B
B
A
review
of
online
schools
operated
by
school
districts
to
determine
if
the
funding
provided
to
full-time
students
at
those
schools
should
align
with
the
funding
provided
to
online
charter,
schools,
which
only
received
the
statewide
base
per
people,
funding
amount
and,
finally,
a
review
of
the
funding
provided,
transportation
and
food
services
and
any
recommendations
for
revisions.
Now.
B
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
just
and
with
that
any
questions.
D
Madam
chair,
I
would
make
a
comment
that
the
first
bullet
point
is
a
plan
and
timeline
on
the
1.0
on
the
cost
indica
education
index,
which
we
had
previously
discussed.
So
we
haven't
made
a
final
decision
on
that,
so
I
would
defer
that
decision
to
be
made
jointly
with
with
the
other
decision,
but
I'm
comfortable
with
all
the
other
bullets
that
are
encapsulated
in
this
final
closing
page.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
assemblywoman,
okay,
very
good,
any
other
questions.
Okay,
with
that
assembly
woman
carlton.
Would
you
make
a
motion.
D
Okay,
madam
chair,
I
would
move
to
recommend
the
issuance
of
letters
of
intent,
nde
requiring
the
department
and
commission
on
school
funding
to
study
various
topics
over
the
interim,
including
a
review
and
comparison
of
students
identified
and
asked
at
risk
based
on
eligibility
for
free
or
reduced
lunch,
and
the
revised
methodology
using
the
data
from
the
infinite
campus
system.
D
A
review
of
oh
this
comparison
should
consider
the
effect
these
changes
would
have
on
the
unduplicated
accounts
for
the
counts,
for
these
students
who
may
also
belong
to
another
weighted
category.
Also,
the
review
of
high
school
dual
enrollment
programs
and
any
recommendations
for
the
funding
provided
to
students
who
participate
in
those
programs.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Do
I
have
a
second
thank
you,
senator
ratty.
Second,
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
all
right
with
that,
all
those
in
favor
say
all
those
opposed
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
I
would
like
to
we'll
move
to
public
comment,
but
I
would
like
to
thank
the
fiscal
staff
for
the
colossal
amount
of
work
that
you
have
done
and
your
time
that
you
have
spent
with
probably
many
of
us
discussions,
many
discussions.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
we'll
go
to
public
comment.
H
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Chris
daley
nsca
reading
comments
on
behalf
of
selena
ru
hatch,
who
is
teaching
high
school
social
studies
right
now
in
the
washoe
county
school
district,
I'm
a
teacher
and
a
member
of
nsca
and
wa,
and
I'm
begging
you
to
make
some
critical
adjustments
to
the
new
funding
formula
prior
to
full
implementation.
F
Under
the
current
plan,
most
districts
across
the
state,
including
my
own,
will
be
frozen
at
our
current
amounts
for
years
to
come
with
the
rising
costs
of
living
in
inflation.
In
my
area,
this
effectively
cuts
our
budget
for
the
foreseeable
future,
which
will
be
incredibly
harmful
to
our
children
as
it
stands
now,
I'm
set
to
have
class
sizes
of
40
or
more
next
year.
That
equates
just
six
minutes
of
instructional
time
per
student
per
week
and
sadly,
that's
the
norm
for
classrooms
across
nevada.
My
geography
textbook
lists
911
as
a
current
event.
F
My
world
history
textbook
talks
about
this
new
thing
called
the
internet.
How
are
we
supposed
to
teach
when
our
classrooms
are
overcrowded
and
our
materials
are
out
of
date?
The
new
funding
plan
must
have
a
hold
harmless.
That
accounts
for
both
increasing
student
accounts
and
the
cost
of
doing
business
in
each
district
and
not
including
housing
as
a
part
of
cost
of
living,
would
be
laughable
if
it
weren't
so
devastating.
Teachers
in
washoe
county
cannot
afford
to
buy
homes,
but,
according
to
current
calculations,
we
live
in
a
low-cost
area.
F
Moreover,
I
urge
you
to
end
the
anti-union
ending
fund
balance
language
that
allows
districts
to
wall
off
up
to
16.6
percent
of
their
budget
from
collective
bargaining.
There's
no
legitimate
reason.
This
needs
to
be
a
part
of
the
funding
plan
only
ensures
that
educators
across
the
state
will
no
longer
be
able
to
collectively
bargain
for
improvements
to
education
or
the
profession.
Educators
have
already
been
pushed
past
our
limits
this
year,
our
workloads
have
doubled,
and
we
have
risked
our
lives
and
health
to
keep
students
learning.
F
Sadly,
our
voices
have
been
silenced,
as
we
have
been
shut
out
of
every
major
policy
decision
and
budgets
have
been
slashed.
This
absurd,
ending
fund
balance
language
demonstrates
a
severe
lack
of
care
or
understanding
about
the
position
of
educators.
People
can
only
be
pushed
so
far
before
they
break.
F
Those
were
comments
from
selena,
ru
hatch,
but
I'd
like
to
make
a
quick
personal
observation
as
well.
Nevada
was
ecstatic
last
week
when
juliana
urtube
was
named
national
teacher
of
the
year
juliana
teaches
and
serves
as
a
learning
strategist
at
booker
elementary
a
victory
school
and
previously
taught
at
crestwood
a
zoom
school
zoom
and
victory
schools
offer
additional
resources
and
supports
for
amazing
teachers
like
juliana.
It
is
profoundly
disappointing
to
watch
these
model.
Equity
programs
get
watered
down
and
resources
removed
from
our
most
inspiring
educators.
H
Hello
and
thank
you,
committee
chairwoman,
don
darrell,
loop
and
carlton
and
committee
members.
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
is
the
largest
independent
teachers
union
in
the
country.
We
engage
in
bipartisan
advocacy
to
advance
public
education
in
nevada.
H
H
H
J
J
Everything
we
want
for
our
state's
future
is
dependent
on
how
much
how
well
and
how
long
our
leadership
supports
the
needs
of
our
children,
our
future
workforce
dollars
that
are
not
spent
towards
successfully
educating
our
kids
just
become
dollars,
demanded
for
prisons,
welfare,
housing
and
other
social
services
with
each
biennium.
The
legislature
is
even
more
hamstrung,
regardless
of
pandemics,
and
especially
when
politics
overrun
policy
and
prioritization
of
funds
with
federal
dollars.
J
We
have
an
incredible
opportunity
to
break
this
cycle
and
give
our
children
the
tools
they
need
to
be
successful
and
to
help
our
economy
grow.
We
look
to
you
to
not
only
restore
all
previous
cuts
to
the
education
budget,
but
also
to
shore
up
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
You
must
also
take
action
in
this
session
to
secure
enough
state
revenue
to
support
the
plan
moving
forward
when
one-time
funds
have
been
expended.
We
cannot
let
another
biennium
go
by
without
a
plan.
J
We
know
this
has
been
a
difficult
time
for
our
state
and
has
required
some
gut-wrenching
decisions
on
your
part.
As
you
look
at
the
state's
revenue
and
while
the
most
recent
forecast
is
more
positive,
we
hope
you
will
still
take
the
time
to
bolster
our
state
against
future
economic
fluctuations
and
embrace
a
culture
of
the
same
grit
and
determination
we
try
to
model
for
our
children.
Thank
you.
J
My
name
is
ed
gonzalez
e-d-g-o-n-z-a-l-e-z
and
I'm
the
community
member
of
the
hickey
elementary
school
organizational
team,
I'm
going
to
express
some
concern
about
the
future
implementation
of
the
people's
center
company
plan,
especially
when
it
comes
from
funds
that
were
used
to
be
part
of
the
asp-178
program.
Well,
I'm
thankful
that
the
clark
county
school
district
used
their
federal
dollars
to
essentially
recreate
an
sb
170
like
program
called
academic
support
funds.
J
J
J
However,
we
heard
at
the
initial
budget
hearing
in
this
hearing
too,
that
anthony
campus
with
its
many
data
points,
could
be
used
to
help
come
up
with
a
better
metric
or
at-risk
students.
My
concern
about
the
possible
change
is
the
lack
of
transparency,
as
a
formerly
would
not
be
accessible
to
parents
and
constituents
due
to
its
complexity.
J
Additionally,
no
other
state
uses
infinite
campus
for
this
purpose.
Similar
concerns
were
mentioned
by
members
of
the
commission
on
school
study.
There
is
a
real
fear
that
future
state
funding
will
move
dollars
away
from
more
at-risk
communities
to
manage
schools
and
career
and
technical
academies,
and
we
will
not
have
the
level
of
transparency
in
the
formula
to
know
why
this
is
being
done.
We
have
seen
this
issue
with
ccsc
federal
dollars.
J
J
I'm
the
principal
for
akipo
academy
in
east
las
vegas,
near
sunrise,
manor,
where
the
previous
caller
just
spoke
from.
I
want
to
call
in
to
express
my
concerns
about
this
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
formula.
I
specifically
want
to
join
the
comments
and
support
of
protecting
zoom
funding
and
victory
school
funding.
This
is
special
and
important
funding
for
schools
like
ours
that
work
with
special
student
populations.
J
It
funds
roles
to
protect
rights,
to
make
sure
that
students
have
access
to
aids
and
materials
in
their
classroom
that
they
might
not
otherwise
meant
to
create
coordinator
roles
that
can
coach
and
support
teachers
and
better
serving
students
such
as
emergent
bilingual
students.
I
also
want
to
ask
that
the
this
committee
and
others
that
are
working
on
this
work.
J
We
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you're
doing.
We
know
there
are
difficult
questions
and
issues
that
need
to
be
resolved
within
it,
but
I
want
to
ask
that
you
consider
making
sure
that
there's
equity
and
funding
between
public
school
students,
no
matter
the
public
school
that
they
go
to.
That
means
a
student
in
clark
county
should
receive
the
same
dollars
for
their
education,
whether
they
go
to
a
magnet
school,
a
career
school,
a
traditional
public
school
or
a
charter
school.
J
A
I
I
G
J
John
derrell
luke,
chair
carlton
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
michelle
booth,
m-I-c-h-e-l-l-e,
b-o-o-t-h
speaking
on
behalf
of
educate
nevada.
Now
we
appreciate
the
thoughtful
discussions
around
the
pcfp
and
the
k-12
budget.
Over
the
course
of
the
session,
members
have
plainly
identified
several
concerning
issues
brought
on
by
transitioning
to
the
pcfp
without
sufficient
funding
issues
exacerbated
by
the
current
economic
crisis.
J
Recent
guidance
from
the
u.s
treasury
makes
clear
that
austerity
measures
after
the
great
recession
hampered
growth,
and
nowhere
is
that
more
apparent
than
in
public
education,
where
nevada
lagged
16
behind
pre-2008
recession
funding
levels
even
before
the
pandemic.
As
such,
it
provides
broad
latitude
in
the
use
of
recovery
dollars,
including
for
budget
deficits
and
for
educational
services.
J
The
direct
federal
aid
provided
to
school
districts
are
meant
to
support
critical
initiatives
such
as
addressing
learning
losses,
opening
school
safely
and
helping
close
equity
gaps
widened
by
the
pandemic.
Using
these
dollars
to
cover
general
operating
expenses
or
state
funding
shortfalls
would
come
at
the
cost
of
those
key
initiatives.
J
H
D
A
Thank
you
broadcasting,
and
I
appreciate
you
as
well
hanging
in
there
with
us
and
with
that.
I
thank
you
all
for
the
long
meeting
that
we
had
and
all
your
comments
and
help
and
with
that
will
adjourn
the
meeting.
Thank
you
very
much.