►
From YouTube: 4/7/2021 - Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance, 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
Thank
you
very
much
broadcast
services
for
helping
us
get
geared
up
this
morning
with
that
good
morning.
Everyone
welcome
to
the
subcommittee
on
education
today.
I
believe
we
can
go
ahead
and
call
the
role.
D
D
B
B
A
And
I
am
here,
thank
you
very
much
so
welcome
to
everyone
here
today
to
the
k-12
joint
subcommittee.
This
is
a
finance
ways
and
means
type
work
session.
It's
not
like
a
normal
type
work
session
that
you
would
see
in
one
of
the
policy
committees.
This
gives
us
a
chance
to
dig
a
little
bit
deeper
into
a
couple
of
the
issues
that
should
have
more
discussion.
A
This
is
merely
to
make
sure
that
we
get
everything
on
the
record
that
we
want
to
talk,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
all
the
members
of
the
committee
have
as
much
opportunity
as
possible
to
ask
questions,
because
k-12
is
in
a
transition
period
right
now,
and
we
think
it
would
be
good
to
be
able
to
have
that
conversation
amongst
the
subcommittee
so
with
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
staff
to
begin.
Thank
you.
E
Specifically,
since
the
majority
of
k-12
funding
is
provided
from
local
source
and
some
local
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
Johnston,
if
I
could
stop
you
for
just
a
moment,
I
think
we
just
that.
That's
one
of
the
biggest
issues
that
I
think
we
need
to
talk
with
the
subcommittee
about
and
make
sure
that
everyone
can
ask
their
questions.
It's
a
a
big
shift.
The
original
proposal
from
the
governor
was
a
phased
implementation
and
just
for
the
the
committee's
information,
as
as
we
were
asking,
questions
and
staff
was
getting
those
answers.
A
So
the
conversation
at
this
particular
point
at
this
time
is
looking
at
and
considering
the
full
implementation
of
543
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
run
into
equity
type
issues.
We
understand
where
the
governor
was
at
that
moment
in
time
when
they
proposed
this,
but
as
we
dug
a
little
bit
deeper,
we
realized
and
had
conversations
many
conversations
with
the
department
of
education
about
this.
A
D
Madam
chair,
mr
roberts,
yes,
ma'am
shirt,
thank
you
and
so,
and
I'm
sure
you'll
get
into
this
later
on.
But
what
does
full
information
full
implementation
mean
like
so
I
I
know
we
probably
don't
have
the
complete
funding
to
go
forward.
So
how
does
that
look
over
the
biennium.
A
And
that's
a
question:
I
can't
answer
right
now,
mr
roberts.
That's
something
that,
as
we
go
through
this
work
session
document,
there
are
so
many
decision
points
that
take
us
down
the
left
side
of
the
road
or
the
right
side,
and
then
that
takes
us
to
another
decision
point
and
those
all
build
upon
each
other.
A
A
The
original
intent
in
543
was
to
have
a
model
built
and
run
it
parallel
to
the
gsa,
so
that
we
could
take
a
look
at
it
and
see
where
the
hiccups
might
be,
because
we
wanted
to
make
sure
we
did
it
right
and
former
senator,
woodhouse
and
and
and
senator
dennis
worked
worked
very
hard
on
that,
but
that
model
never
really
materialized
for
us.
A
So
this
allows
us
to
get
to
through
decision
points
so
that
a
model
can
be
run
so
that
we
can
take
a
look
at
it
and
and
make
sure
that
we
address
all
the
issues.
So
unfortunately,
that's
one
of
those
questions
that
gets
asked
that
we
can't
quite
answer
until
we
get
to
the
end
of
some
of
the
discussion
points.
Sorry
for
being
early
with.
A
D
F
F
Thank
you.
Maybe
staff
could
weigh
in
as
to
where
we
are
in
terms
of
getting
sort
of
the
local
revenue
projections
that
are
such
a
significant
part
of
this
funding.
We
can
we
talk
about
the
model,
but
you
know
the
the
money
that
goes
into.
It
is
primary.
You
know
dominated
by
local
funds
or
what
we
used
to
call
local
funds.
F
I
don't
know
what
we're
going
to
call
them
anymore
so
where
we
are
to
understand
the
distribution
once
once
that
when
some
of
these
decisions
are
made,
it's
going
to
depend
on
how
much
money
is
in
the
pot.
We
don't
know
that
at
this
point.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
adam
drost,
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division,
a
senator
in
response
to
your
question.
The
consensus
forecast
was
developed
between
the
lcb
fiscal
analysis,
division
and
the
governor's
finance
office
for
those
local
revenues
that
was
prepared
for
consensus
forecast
for
the
governor's
recommended
budget
and,
in
addition,
an
update
will
be
provided
in
may,
which
could
be
provided
for
the
full
implementation
model.
F
You
know,
I
think
that,
as
as
we
go
through
it
right,
there
were
a
couple
of
pieces
that
I
think
we
just
need
to
keep
our
keep
our
eye
on
as
we
move
towards
the
full
implementation
and
one
is
which
of
which
of
the
category
which
of
the
categorical
programs
are
going
to
be
sort
of
transitioned
into
base
and
understanding.
F
Whether
as
as
whether
the
revenue
provided
by
state
general
funds,
as
well
as
our
dedicated
funding
sources,
as
well
as
the
local
revenues,
are
going
to
sort
of
meet
the
expectations
of
the
legislature
to
for
for
districts,
to
have
the
resources
necessary
to
fund
or
to
implement
those
programs.
So
if
we're
not
going
to
be
changing
any
of
the
statutory
requirements
for
certain
categorical
programs
that
you
know,
I'd
like
at
some
point
to
hear
from
the
districts
whether
they
believe
this
is
providing
them
the
resources,
they
need
to
actually
do
the
job.
A
And
I
understand
senator
key
kepper
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
everyone's
questions
answered
and
as
we
move
through
each
one
of
these
decision
points,
it
leads
us
to
the
next
one.
So
we
will
work
our
way
through
all
of
these,
but
I
just
sense:
full
implementation
had
not
been
thoroughly
discussed.
A
It's
just
sort
of
evolved
into
it.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
about
that
that
path
that
we're
going
down.
Senator
ratty.
G
A
I
believe
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
will
have
to
address
as
we
move
through
this
and
make
these
changes.
I
believe
543
of
the
19
session
did
a
good
job
the
for
the
first
time
around,
but
we
know
as
things
move
forward
and
we
get
into
actually
implementing
what
was
in
the
bill
that
there
may
have
been
things
that
weren't
addressed
quite
as
deeply
as
they
could
have
been.
So
I'm
sure
we'll
find
those
along
the
way
and
we'll
be
able
to
address
them
as
we
move
through
the
processing
of
the
bill.
G
A
H
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
the
first
policy
issue
to
be
discussed
is
additional
revenue
for
the
state
education
fund
senate
bill
543
of
the
2019
legislature
identified
money
from
sources
of
funding
provided
by
law,
which
must
be
deposited
for
credit
in
the
state
education
fund,
although
not
originally
identified
in
the
bill.
E
Gift
certificates
held
by
the
abandoned
property
trust
account
pursuant
to
statute
funding
in
the
educational
trust,
account
may
expend
it
for
any
purpose
as
authorized
by
the
legislature,
if
it's
in
session
or
for
educational
purposes
by
the
interim
finance
committee.
If
the
legislature
is
not
in
session
in
the
base
budget,
the
executive
budget
recommends
transfers
from
unclaimed
property
of
147
828
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
2123
biennium.
E
E
These
expenditures
include
the
teacher
of
the
year
program,
which
provides
registration,
travel
and
some
minor
operating
costs
associated
with
that
program,
and
that's
about
eight
thousand.
Ninety
five
dollars
each
year
of
the
biennium
also
includes
dues
for
the
interstate
commission
on
educational
opportunity
for
military
children,
and
that
totals
six
thousand
seven
hundred
seventy
five
dollars
in
each
of
the
biennial.
E
Finally,
this
includes
funding
for
the
parental
involvement
summit
in
the
second
year
of
each
biennium,
and
that
totals
ten
thousand
dollars
in
fy
2023.
E
D
G
E
E
E
So
a
decision
to
be
made
when
closing
this
budget
is
whether
to
approve
additional
revenue,
the
state
education
fund
by
redirecting
the
transfers
of
unredeemed
or
uncharged
value
of
expired
or
abandoned
gift
certificates,
as
well
as
the
boat
registration
fee
revenue
to
the
state
education
budget.
Thank
you,
manager,.
A
F
A
General,
mr
drost,
I
lost
the
last
couple
words
of
your
sentence.
A
They
go
into
the
district's
general
fund,
okay,
so
question
follow-up,
senator
key
kepper.
A
No
so
senator
stevens-ganzer.
I
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
and
so
you
talked
about
the
funds
were
overlooked.
So
do
we
have
three
years
that
we
can
transfer
in
because
you've
represented
the
three-year
average,
but
is
there
more
than
729
a
year,
because
we've
got
several
years
that
didn't
get
distributed
or
didn't
get
booked
and
how
many
are?
How
much
is
that.
E
Mad
of
chair
through
you
to
senator
steven
spanzer,
the
three
average
that
funding
was
provided
to
the
districts
in
each
year.
That's
provided.
I
only
provided
the
three
year
average
to
kind
of
indicate
what
the
typical
revenue
is
that
is
generated
by
this
revenue
source.
So
if
this
funding
were
to
be
provided
and
a
three
year
average
were
to
be
used
for
projections
that
hundred
seven
hundred
and
twenty
nine
thousand
dollar
amount
would
appear.
J
E
Be
a
valid
number
to
be
used
for
projections.
I
E
It
was
overlooked
and
included
in
the
bill
for
inclusion
to
be
deposited
in
state
education.
A
K
Thank
you
very
much.
I
just
have
a
point
of
clarification
when
you
said
that
these
funds
are
put
in
the
general
fund.
Does
that
mean
even
though
they
could
be
earmarked
for
something
they
are
not
how?
How
is
that
clarification
done
so
that
when
they're
deposited
in
the
general
fund,
we
know
they're
used,
and
I
know
I
realize,
with
543,
going
forward
they'll
be
in
that
pot
over
here.
That
contains
everything,
but
how
do
we
know
that
they're
used
for
certain.
E
Things
I
would
say
that
if
it's
deposited
in
the
district's
general
fund,
it
can
be
used
for
unrestricted
purposes
by
the
district.
So
I'm
not
certain
if
any
districts
use
it
for
something
you
know
restricted
purposes,
but
it
appears
that
they're
just
placed
in
their
general
fund
and
used
for
unrestricted
purposes.
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
it
was
just
to
confirm
that
so
the
vote,
registration
fees
from
the
from
wherever
the
boat
is
registered
goes
to
that
county.
Correct.
Is
that
the
way
I
understand
this.
A
You're
welcome
mr
roberts
other
questions
from
other
committee
members.
At
this
time.
A
So
the
decision
point
that'll
be
made
in
in
the
future
is
with
the
philosophy
of
543,
with
funds
going
into
the
pupil
center
funding
plan.
Should
these
dollars
go
into
the
funding
plan?
So
is
there
any
conversation
along
that
line?
I
believe
the
intent
was
for
this
money
to
go
there.
It
might
have
been
overlooked,
but
we
don't
know
so.
Are
there
any
comments
or
questions
from
the
committee
moving
forward
on
that,
like
the
idea
is
to
figure
out
where
we
are
and
moving
forward.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
item
is
hold
harmless
calculation
in
the
application
nrs387121
indicate
it
indicates.
It
is
the
intent
of
the
legislature
to
accomplish
the
transition
to
the
people-centered
funding
plan
without
causing
an
unexpected
loss
of
revenue
to
any
school
district
which
may
receive
less
money.
Under
the
pupil-centered
funding
plan
than
the
district
received
during
the
fiscal
year
ending
on
june
30th
2020.,
it
should
be
noted.
This
provision
indicates
legislative
intent
and
legislative
intent
does
not
carry
the
full
weight
of
law.
E
However,
consistent
with
nrs387121,
the
governor's
recommended
phased
implementation
of
the
people's
center
funding
plan
did
it
did
not
include
charter
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
in
the
calculation
of
hold
harmless.
However,
the
commission
on
school
funding
recommended
charter
schools
and
university
schools
from
profoundly
gifted
pupils
also
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
old
harmless.
E
Accordingly,
the
subcommittee
could
consider
including
charter
schools
and
university
schools
for
profoundly
gifted
pupils
in
the
calculation
of
hold
harmless
for
some
additional
background.
The
2019
legislature,
when
approving
sb
543
indicated
its
intent
that
hold
harmless
was
to
be
based
on
amounts
provided
in
fiscal
year
2020.
E
E
E
I
would
also
note
that
some
members
of
the
commission
on
school
funding
expressed
interest
in
providing
an
inflationary
increase
to
the
hold
harmless
amounts.
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
cost
since
the
fy
2020
old,
harmless
amount
was
calculated
if
this
were
to
be
considered.
F
Their
student
enrollment
trends,
so
I'm
sort
of
curious.
F
An
analysis
of
what
that
looks
like
across
the
state.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record.
Adam
draws
fiscal
senator
in
response.
I
would
note
you're
correct
that
enrollment
we
are
seeing
it
drop
due
to
the
kobit
19
pandemic.
At
this
point
you
know
who
knows
what
the
recovery
looks
like
and
what
enrollment
you
know
will
will
trend.
We
have
not
seen
final
models,
obviously
we're
looking
for
some
direction
before
those
final
models
are
created.
E
However,
I
would
note
that
you
know,
under
the
current
nevada
plan
reduction,
changes
in
enrollment
would
be
reflected
in
the
payments
on
a
per-pupil
basis,
so
this
pupil-centered
funding
plan
would
also
provide
per-pupil
funding
and
providing
a
hold
harmless
per
pupil
amount
would
be
consistent
with
how
they
would
be
destroyed.
A
And
with
that,
the
whoever
at
the
department
would
like
to
answer
address
the.
J
Please,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
for
the
record
state
superintendent,
joan
ebert.
J
F
F
Well,
I
think
it's
you
know.
I
think
it's
particularly
interesting
when
we
start
talking
about
charter
schools
right
because
there
are
some
charters,
for
example,
that
opened.
Maybe
they
opened
in
2020
with
an
under
the
charter
agreement.
They
open
with
you
know,
k
through
five
and
then
they're
contractually
obligated
to
start
adding
classes
right,
so
they
could
have.
They
could
see
you
know
per
people.
They
could
see
their
population
growth
spike
over
the
past
couple
years
due
to
their
contractual
obligations
with
the
state
to
add
classes.
F
If
we
hold
them
harmless
at
a
flat
2020
level,
the
the
per
pupil
amount
that
they're
going
to
receive
is
going
to
decrease
pretty
substantially.
So
the
actual
amount
that
we're
funding
those
kids
at
will
be
significantly
less
than
what
we
actually
budget.
If
we
hold
them
at
2020
levels,
potentially.
A
F
Well,
if
the,
if
we
look
at
the,
if
they're,
if
they're,
if
they're
in
a
whole,
harmless
scenario,
then.
A
H
You,
madam
chair,
just
for
clarification.
The
way
current
law
is
structured
under
sb
543
that
it's
a
comparison
of
funding
between
the
current
funding
formula,
the
nevada
plan,
funding
formula
and
the
new
people-centered
funding
plan,
and,
whichever
is
higher
then
that's
what
the
the
school
district
or
charter
school
would
receive.
H
However,
senator
key
kepler
is
correct
that,
under
the
current
structure,
where
it
would
be
based
on
a
a
total
funding
level
at
the
2020
level,
and
if
they
were
on
a
hold
harmless,
if
they,
if,
if
they
would
receive
less
money
under
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
which
would
mean
they
would
retain,
they
would
be
on
the
hold
harmless
provision
that
if
they
did
have
growth
growth,
that
a
growth
excuse
me
that
they
would
essentially
receive
a
less
less
funding
per
people,
because
it
would
be
based
on
a
total
pot
of
money,
as
opposed
to
a
per
pupil
rate.
H
And
that's
one
of
the
decision
points
here
is
whether
or
not
the
committees
wish
to
provide
that
hold
harmless
on
a
per
pupil
rate.
Compare
the
rate
from
the
2020
to
the
rate
under
the
new
people
center
funding
plan
and
whichever
is
higher
then
those
school
districts
or
charter
schools
will
be
paid
that
per
pupil
rate
based
on
the
enrollment
that,
whatever
the
enrollment
that
they
receive
either
higher
or
potentially
lower.
As
well.
A
A
A
Apologize
senator
don
darrell
lupe.
I
lost
you
for
just
a
little
bit
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
thoroughly
understand
the
direction
that
you're
coming
from
so
are.
Are
the
concerns
about
the
dollars
following
the
pupil
through
the
funding
plan
having
a
possible
adverse
effect
on
some
of
the
districts,
even
with
the
hold
harmless
component.
K
I
just
feel
like
I,
while
I
appreciate
what
senator
kiker
is
saying
that
if,
if
a
charter
has
contractually
said
they're
going
to
add
fourth
and
fifth
grade
now
they're
going
to
have
more
students,
I
also
am
looking
at
the
other
side,
where
you
may
have
a
school
district
that
has
lost
students
and
now
they're
funding,
they're,
eventually
going
to
have
less
if
they've
lost
students,
and
also
on
top
of
that,
I
feel
like
we
may
as
a
school
district,
meaning
the
county
school
districts
in
general,
not
just
clark
county.
K
Everyone
in
the
state
may
actually
get
students
back,
because
I
personally
know
parents
who
have
taken
their
kids
out
put
them
in
private
school
during
this
pandemic
because
they
want
them
in
school
and
they
have
no
intentions
of
leaving
them
there
and
then
they're
going
to
put
them
back
in
public
schools.
So
I
think
there's
just
some
fluctuation.
K
That's
going
to
go
on
and
I
think
that
this,
but
when
we
do
543,
I
think
that
the
school
districts
and
charter
schools
will
be
funded
appropriate
appropriately.
K
I
hope
that
made
sense,
chair,
carlton.
A
G
And
so
I
believe
that
we
want
to
do
a
hold
harmless
so
that
nobody
goes
backwards,
because
if
we
just
implemented
it
without
the
hold
harmless,
then
we
would.
We
would
see
schools
that
had
a
had
more
students
who
didn't,
who
were
less
expensive
to
educate
would
then
be
hurt
in
ways
that
we
don't
want
to
see.
But
we
do
want
to
facilitate
the
shift
to
making
sure
that
if
you
are
at
risk
special
education
gifted
and
talented
and
therefore
require
additional
resources
that
we
are
starting
to
move
resources
to
follow
that
child.
G
And
so
I
think
whether
it
was
intended
as
part
of
the
model
or
not.
It
could
create
an
incentive
to
make
sure
that
more
english
language
learners,
more
special
education
students,
more
gifted
intelligence
students,
more
at-risk
students,
look
more
desirable
to
charter
schools
that
want
to
grow,
and
we
might
see
some
outcomes
in
that
way.
So
am
I
misunderstanding
that,
but
I
think
what
the
population
base
of
the
school
is
is
very
important.
Part
of
this
conversation.
E
Senator
in
response,
I
would
note
yes
based
on
the
proposal
or
the
suggestion.
That's
before
you,
if
you
they
did
calculate
it
on
a
per
pupil
basis
that
would
take
into
account
those
changes
in
enrollment.
So
if
their
enrollment
increased,
they
would
be
based
on
that
per
pupil.
They
would
benefit
and
it
would
not
be
as.
E
If
only
a
single
pot
of
money
were
to
be
provided
to
those
districts
or
charter,
schools
with
increasing
enrollment
we'd
have
to
see
the
model
to
kind
of
see
to
follow
along
the
logic
related
to
those
weights,
because,
obviously
it's
going
to
look
at
which
is
higher.
You
know
people
your
amount
that
you
receive
under
the
people,
centered
funding
plan
or
the
amount
that
you
received
on
a
per
pupil
basis
in
fy
2012.
A
So
the
the
the
discussion
point
started
with
miss
finis
thompson
at
the
very
beginning.
Is
why
wouldn't
we
in
the
decision
point
moving
forward
will
be?
Why
wouldn't
we
include
the
charters
and
the
university
schools
for
the
profoundly
gifted,
so
that
ultimately
a
lot
of
great
questions
in
conversation?
But
that's
that's
the
decision
point
that
we're
working
towards
so
senator
sievers
ganzart.
A
I
You
chair
carlton,
and
you
know
I
appreciate
where
we
started
out
with
someone
when
media
vivites
thompson's
comments
and
also
they
ask
the
quest
for
information
about
the
enrollment,
because
I
think
what
may
have
happened
is
that
there's
been
a
shift
from
some
of
the
traditional
public
schools
into
charter
schools.
Plus
some
charter
schools
had
requirements
that
they
were
they
needed
to
add
grades
or
needed
to
add
students,
and
so
I,
my
understanding
from
what
ms
smaller
said,
is
that
currently
the
hold
harmless
is
a
flat
amount.
I
But
if
enrollment
has
gone
up
that
needs
to
be
considered
or
else
you're
going
to
get
substantially
less
per
student
is
that
the
per
pupil
funding
will
be
less
if
enrollment's
gone
up
and
you
still
receiving
the
same
flat
amount.
So
I
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
and
consider
the
charters
and
the
gifted
and
talented
school
to
be
to
make
sure
they
have
at
least
the
same
amount
per
pupil
as
the
other
schools.
I
So
again,
if
enrollment
has
gone
down
or
is
flat
a
certain
amount
say,
the
hundred
thousand
dollars
would
be
appropriate,
but
if
you
have
increased
your
enrollment,
I
think
they
their
whole
home
should
really
reflect
the
pupil.
Centered
amounts
of
the
money
is
following
those
students,
because
all
the
schools
have
overhead
and
the
districts
have
overhead.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
cover
we
help
them
cover
those
costs.
A
Thank
you
senator
so
with
that
I
believe
I
have
missed
bedina's
thompson
and
then
I'll
go
back
to
oh
and
then
I
have
mr
hayman
afterwards
so
and
then
senator
I'll
come
back
to
you
after
I
get
some
of
the
other
books
miss
benita
thompson.
I
appreciate
that
mom
chairman.
D
And
I
think
that
there
are
two
other
decision
points
in
here
that
are
going
to
be
important
and
I
think
will
allow
us
to.
I
think
we,
you
know
we're
hearing
a
lot
of
concerns
about
where
amounts
will
fall.
D
Right,
it's
always
based
on.
I
mean
that's
just
the
same
concerns
about
overhead,
and
and
I
mean
we-
we
hear
those
all
the
time,
but
I
do
think
that
there's
a
couple
pieces
in
here
that
will
help
kind
of
as
we
set
this
up.
So
I'm
looking
at
the
decision
point
on
the
last
two
bullets
providing
an
inflationary
increase
to
hold
harmless.
So
I
think
this
is
going
to
make
a
lot
of
sense
because
it's
going
to
give
us
a
little
bit
of
a
buffer
there
and
then
also
applying
any
remaining.
D
Funding
or
though
the.
J
Weighted
funding-
and
that
makes
sense
too,
because
that
gives
us
another
point
where
we
can
assess
and
see
how
things
are
looking.
So
I
see
this
as.
D
To
the
hold
harmless,
I
think
I
see
this
conversation
is
giving
a
lot
of
consideration
to
the
the
footing
and
the
foundation
for
which
we
start
at,
and
so
I
think
that
if
we
look
at
them
as
a
package,
we
end.
J
Up
in
a
we
end
up
in
a
in
a
in
a
good
place,
although
I
would.
D
J
That
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
starting
that
calculation
off.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
miss
benitez
thompson
and
I
I
think
the
conversation
about
the
inflationary
increase
was
further
down
the
list,
but
it
they
all
fit
together.
So
I
appreciate
you
wrapping
all
the
pieces
of
the
puzzle
back
into
one
conversation.
Mr
haytham,
did
you
have
a
question
or
comment.
A
Have
a
question
again
regarding
the
floor
of
the
hold.
D
Harmless
when
it
comes
to
some
of
the
rural
counties
we're
starting
to
see
some,
you
know
big
growth
in
up
north
here
in
story
and
then
down
south
and
nye.
With
that
population
growth.
D
Are
they
going
to
see
a
an
increase
in
the
per
pupil?
Are
they
going
to
be
stuck
at
that
hold
harmless
level
until
the
funding
formula?
I
don't
know
the
correct
terminology.
Apologizes
spreads
out,
I'm
just
concerned
that
we're
going
to
start
seeing
some
growth
in
some
of
these
school
districts
and
they're
they're
not
gonna,
have
the
additional
funds
for
their
per
pupil,
and
so
I'm
just
curious.
How
that
all
it's
gonna
work
out.
Thank
thank
you,
madam
chair.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
assemblyman.
In
response,
I
would
just
indicate
that
the
suggestion
before
you
is
to
look
at
the
per
pupil
amount
that
was
provided
in
fy
2020,
based
on
the
awarded
amounts
calcul,
as
well
as
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula
that
was
provided
to
the
school
districts
and
charter
schools.
E
The
idea
would
then
be
to
run
the
model
based
on
the
projections
for
those
districts
and
compare
what
their
per
people
would
be
under
the
model
under
the
people's
center
funding
plan,
as
well
as
the
fy
2020
per
pupil
hold
harmless
amount
and
the
district
would
receive
the
greater
amount.
So
it
would
kind
of
be.
Various
scenarios
would
have
to
be
considered,
but
it
would
be
a
comparison
of
the
two
and
provide
them
with
the
higher
amount.
D
If
there
is
growth,
their
whole
harmless
would
continue
to
grow
with
the
you
know,
student
population
increase
is
that
that
correct.
E
As
the
suggestion
is
before
you,
it
is
calculating
a
hold
harmless
amount
on
a
per
pupil
basis,
so,
as
their
enrollment
increased
the
hold
harmless
amount
would
that
was
basically
fy.
2020
per
people
hold
harmless
amount
would
be
applied
to
that
growing.
Enrollment
and
again.
You
know
that
would
be
compared
against
the
people-centered
funding
model
and
to
see
which
is
greater.
A
You're
welcome
mr
hayden,
so
other
committee
members
at
this
time,
senator
I'll
come
back
to
you
and
then
I
would
like
to
give
an
opportunity
to
the
department
to
weigh
in
on
this.
Also
so
senator
go
ahead
and
then
I'll
be.
H
K
K
Exactly
I
think
these
are
sort
of
two
different
paths:
we're
going
down,
so
you've
got
the
charters
that
are
going
to
be
held
home,
held
harmless
and
then
we
sort
of
are
talking
about
the
district,
so
I'd
like
superintendent
or
whoever
she
chooses
to
weigh
in
on
this,
because
I
think
we're
going
down
two
parallel
roads
here.
So
if
we
could
have
some
clarification,
I
would
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
chuck
carlton
for
a
second
bite
at
the
apple.
A
That's
what
these
conversations
are
about,
so
that's
why
we
do
these
work
sessions
to
get
input
from
everyone,
so
superintendent,
ebert
or
who,
whoever
your
phone
a
friend,
is
on
this
one
yep.
J
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
for
the
record.
This
is
superintendent
ebert
and
I
I
first
want.
I
appreciate
the
conversation
and
you
know
we're
changing
something:
that's
over
54
years
old
and
what
I
shared
with
someone
earlier
is
it's
not
it's
not
taking
a
model
and
tweaking
it
we're
reinventing
the
future
on
how
the
beliefs
are
of
the
state
and
and
what
all
of
you
voted
for
last
time
and
the
example
that
I
used
with
a
friend
was
tesla
when
they
built
the
car.
J
They
didn't
say:
let's
take,
you
know
the
motor
and
the
engine
and
everything
that
drives
the
way
it
is.
They
wanted
to
reinvent
cars,
and
it
wasn't
a
tweaking
and
that's
the
thought
process
I
can
see
it
happening
here
as
well
is,
is
what
is
that
future
that
we're
building
for
all
of
our
children
and-
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
and
thank
all
of
you
for
having
this
discussion,
and
we
look
forward
to
all
of
your
decision
points
that
you'll
be
making.
That
being
said,
mr
dross
said
start
out.
J
Thank
you
I'll
start
with
the
first
part.
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
okay,
the
first
part
of
of
what
I
believe,
you're
you're
contemplating
and
the
commission
on
school
funding
did
as
well,
and
that
is
that
charter
schools
and
the
university
school
for
profoundly
gifted
should
be
placed
into
a
holds
harmless
status
in
sb
543.
J
They
were
completely
left
out
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
of
should
they
be
put
in,
and
the
answer
or
the
recommendation
excuse
me
from
the
commission
is-
is
to
place
them
in,
and
so
I
know
that's
what
one
of
the
things
you're
contemplating
the
second
piece,
which
I
think
is
getting
conflated
in
the
conversation.
So
I
wanted
to
separate
that
out
and
say
if,
if
you
make
the
determination
as
a
body
to
have
charter
schools
hold
harmless
is
great.
J
So
what
I'd
like
to
start
with
is
that
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan
is
exactly
that.
It
is
people
censored,
and
I
heard
many
of
the
senators
and
assembly
people
talk
about
exactly
that,
the
pupil
censored,
and
so
when
the
formula
runs
it
it
takes
into
consideration
and
calculates
the
base
after
you
take
all
of
the
revenue.
That
is
a
massive
shift
as
well.
J
It's
based
on
revenue
taking
that
revenue
in
funding
the
department
funding
school
operations,
so
transportation
and
food
service
and
then
going
to
the
base
funding
for
our
students
across
the
state,
so
that
right
there,
you
can
see
some.
You
know
parallels
of
base
funding
within
the
nevada
plan,
the
past
and
now
the
people-censored
funding
plan.
So
we
have
a
base
where
the
shift
then
comes
in
are
the
weights
and
identifying.
J
We
know
that
our
children
are
capable
of
earning
a
diploma
and
that
some
children
need
additional
resources
to
get
to
that
diploma,
so
they
can
be
productive
citizens,
and
so
we
have
the
ell
weights.
We
have
our
students
that
are
differently,
abled,
gifted
and
talented,
as
well
as
our
ell
students,
and
so
then
those
dollars
flow
through
the
formula
and
creates
a
weight.
J
Then
every
single
school
district
we've
identified
now
the
funding
per
child.
So
there
is
a
per
student
funding
that
is
created
based
on
the
identification
of
the
child's
needs,
so
that
is
across
the
entire
state
of
nevada,
all
17
school
districts,
our
state
public
charter
schools
and
our
charter,
schools
that
are
in
with
it
within
school
districts
that
is
determined
there.
So
now
you
have
a
list
to
look
at
and
how
the
districts
and
charter
schools
should
be
funded.
J
Based
on
that
methodology,
when
you
compare
now
because
you've
now
driven
an
equity
formula
right
you're,
not
it's
not
an
equal
formula.
You're
not
saying
every
single
child
receives
a
certain
amount
of
money,
you're
saying
every
single
child
receives
what
they
need
to
get
across
and
earn
a
diploma.
J
When
you
compare
that
new
run
with
fy20
in
most
instances,
there's
a
difference
and
when
you
look
at
that
difference,
there
are
school
districts
in
our
state
which
may,
if
we
went
just
said,
you
know
what
we're
not
doing
a
whole
time
list
we're
implementing
this
completely.
They
would
receive
fewer
dollars.
There
are
other
districts
that
would
receive
more
dollars
because
now
you're
basing
it
on
a
per
pupil
and
what
the
children
look
like
you,
the
legislature,
the
governor,
had
signed
in
before
as
we
transition
and
it's
going
to
be
a
transition.
J
That
being
said,
you
have
not
done
that.
What
you
have
said
is
we're
in
transition.
We
recognize,
we
don't
want
the
school
district
to
receive
less
funds
in
one
day
and
do
a
huge
shift
with
staffing
with
programming
with
educating
all
the
children.
We
want
to
have
a
transition,
and
so
when
you,
if
you
did
make
the
determination
policy
wise
to
implement
for
us
to
implement
that,
then
the
school
district
is
held
harmless
in
that
instance.
J
If
they
were
to
receive
fewer
dollars
if
they
were
to
receive
more
dollars
that
continues
to
to
move
forward
over
time
as
well
as
you
reach
the
equilibrium.
If
you
will
so,
I
just
wanted
to
take
the
time
to
separate
adding
in
charter
schools
and
the
gifted
and
talented
schools
into
that
thought
process
of
the
entire
formula.
J
They
receive
the
funds
that
they
would
that
are
from
fy20,
so
hopefully
that
helped
in
the
conversation.
Thank
you
for
the
time.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
I
appreciate
the
the
breakdown
and
the
separation
as
we
work
through
this,
and
I
think
you
and
all
of
your
staff
for
all
the
time
that
you've
spent
working
with
our
staff
trying
to
get
all
the
questions
answered,
that
we've
been
asking
as
we've
been
moving
through
this
process.
So
thank
you
very
much
with
that
committee
members.
Are
there,
mr
roberts?
Did
you
have
another
question.
D
Thank
you,
madam
sharon,
and
it
was
actually
a
follow-up
to
superintendent
ebert's
explanation
which
I
believe
she
did
a
a
very
good
job.
And
so
my
question
would
be:
is
the
hold
harmless
in
perpetuity?
D
F
A
J
If
the
enrollment
declines
for
two
or
two
or
more
years,
the
legislature
then
will
determine
the
method
to
mitigate
those
financial
effects.
So
the
mitigation
may
include
funding
based
on
an
average
enrollment
over
a
three-year
time
period,
which
is
what
we
currently
do
with
the
nevada
plan.
D
A
Right
other
committee
members
at
this
time,
senator
ratty
did
you
wish
to
be
recognized.
Thank
you.
I.
G
I
wasn't
sure
if
the
superintendent
answered
the
first
part
of
the
question
which
is
is
the
hold
harmless
in
perpetuity?
Does
sb
543,
based
on
what
the
superintendent
said
about
other
states,
locking
it
in
forever?
G
A
E
My
members
of
lcb
k12
team
can
correct
me,
but,
as
I
read
sp
543,
it
appears
that
that
comparison
against
by
2020
continues.
So
the
model
future
by
name
would
be
compared
to
see
as
additional
funds
provided
for
the
funding
plan
that
school
districts
maintain
that
whole
timelessly.
E
It
would
be
reflecting
the
increased
cost
from
fy
2020
by
adding
that
generic
increase
or
the
hold
harmless.
Okay.
H
So
in
response
to
is
it
ongoing?
It
depends
on
the
comparison
of
the
2020
funding
level
with
what
the
the
new
pupil
center
funding
plan
model
is,
if,
whichever
is
higher,
so
if
you
have
the
the
current
sb543
whole
harmless,
which
is
a
flat
amount,
if
you
have
a
district
that
perhaps
has
declining
enrollment
or
or
just
maintains
that
enrollment
they
can
be
on
the
whole
harmless
for
several
years
until
such
time
as
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan
would
provide
a
higher
amount
for
that
district.
H
If
enrollment
is
growing
in
any
in
either
a
school
district
school
or
a
charter
school
and
you
have
a
flat
hold
harmless
rate
amount,
and
that
is
that
is
higher
than
what
you
would
get
from
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
Your
rate
per
pupil
will
be
less
than
it
was
in
2020.
H
And,
conversely,
if
you
have
a
decline
in
enrollment
from
the
2020,
you
would
be
getting
a
rate,
that's
higher
than
your
2020
per
pupil
funding.
So
that's
where
the
distinction
is.
Is
that
your
rate
would
be
your
rate
would
not
be
the
same
using
a
flat
amount,
because
your
enrollment
is
the
variable,
whereas
if
you
calculate
a
2020
rate,
you're
going
to
use
that
2020
rate
and
then
you're
going
to
adjust
the
actual
total
payment
based
on
what
your
enrollment
does
over
the
subsequent
years,.
H
Julie
waller
for
the
record
in
response
to
your
question
you're
correct.
At
this
time
there
is
no
time
frame
included
in
the
in
when
sb543
was
passed.
There
is
no
time
frame
that
could
be
a
decision
point
that
the
money
committees
may
wish
to
consider
again.
The
purpose
of
a
whole
harmless
is
to
phase
into
transition
to
a
new
funding
formula
to
adjust
and
provide
time
to
adjust
to
a
new
cost.
You
know
to
a
new
funding
structure,
so
that
certainly
could
be
a
consideration
by
the
money
committees
as
well.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
I
wanted
to
just
try
to
round
it
up
really
quick.
So
in
terms
of
the
decision
points
that
we
need
to
you
make
whether
we
want
to
include
charters
in
university
school
for
profoundly
gifted
in
the
calculation
we've
talked
about
that.
I
think
the
you
know
whether
we
want
to
include
20
the
2020
calculation
prior
to
any
budget
reductions.
We
haven't
really
talked
about
that,
but
I
think
it
would
generally
make
sense.
F
From
my
perspective,
this
issue
of
whether
it's
a
gross
amount
or
a
per
pupil
amount,
clearly
talked
about.
One
of
the
things
that
we
didn't
really
discuss
is
this
issue
of
remaining
funding.
Mr
justin,
the
in
the
document
at
the
top
of
page
four
says.
G
F
Nde
indicated
they
want
to
develop
models
that
considered
fully
implementing
the
people
centered
funding
plan.
It
appears
that
there
may
be
remaining
funding
available
after
providing
base
per
pupil,
cost
adjustment
and
current
weight
funding.
I
don't
I
don't
necessarily
know
what
that
means.
Can
you
talk
about
how
much
that
is
and
where
that's
coming
from.
E
Certainly
adam
draws
for
the
record:
nd
has
run
some
preliminary
models
and
obviously
everything
can
change
based
on
decisions,
but
some
of
the
preliminary
models
the
nde
has
calculated.
D
E
Department
indicated
that
there
was
some
remaining
funding
after
they
went
through
the
tier
funding,
the
base
funding,
the
adjustments
and
the
initial
weights
based
on
the
current
weights,
that
additional
funding
in
the
future
is
to
be
provided
to
the
weights.
However,
as
a
suggestion
to
stand
up
the
model
in
the
first
year
of
implementation,.
J
F
So,
but
that's
so
after
they
sort
of
run
the
model
based
on
existing
weights
or
targeted
weights,
the
not
targeted
existing
weights.
There
was
funding
left
over,
but
there
was
still
cuts
to
base
programs.
That's
after
cuts
to
some
of
the
base
programs.
That's
being
rolled
over
into
the
education
funding
amount
for
some
of
the
categoricals,
like
the
50
cut
to
class
size
reduction
or
read
by
three.
E
The
senator
you're
correct
as
as
you're
aware,
the
nevada
plan
funding
formula
as
well
as
some
of
the
transfer
funding
from
some
of
the
categorical
programs
was
used
as
a
starting
point
for
revenue
for
the
state
education
fund.
D
E
Department
will
touch
upon
this
in
a
in
an
upcoming
policy
item
discussing
the
base
amount
per
pupil.
But
yes,
that
considers
that
the
department's
calculation
of
that
initial
base
per
people
amount
based
on
the
available
funding.
A
C
C
C
Law
or
interest
387.1214
subsection
2b
requires
an
amount
be
provided
to
each
school
district
as
determined
to
be
sufficient
by
the
legislature
to
provide
food
services
and
transportation
for
pupils.
The
governor's
recommended
face.
Implementation
does
not
address
this
funding
and
recommends
food
and
nutrition
services
to
be
funded
entirely
by
the
individual
school
districts,
with
their
local
funding
in
follow-up
communication
with
fiscal
staff.
C
If
the
people
send
centered
funding
plan
were
fully
implemented,
the
department
indicates
it
would
budget
for
transportation
costs
by
using
a
four-year
average
of
actual
cost
reported
by
school
districts,
adjusted
by
an
annual
2.5
increase
for
inflation
and
projected
enrollment
growth,
which
is
consistent
with
equity
allocation
model.
Under
the
existing
nevada
plan
formula
funding,
however,
it
is
unclear
why
an
annual
2.5
inflationary
increase
would
continue
to
be
used
when
a
consumer
price
index
is
already
being
used
for
other
calculation
in
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
C
In
addition,
it
is
unclear
how
the
department
would
distribute
transportation
funding
to
school
districts
under
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
To
address
this
issue,
the
subcommittee
could
consider
calculating
the
budget
for
transportation
funding
in
a
number
of
ways,
and
staff
had
provided
three
option.
C
This
methodology
is
similar
to
the
methodology
that
the
department
is
currently
using.
However,
it's
not
going
to
use
the
standard
inflationary
index
of
2.5
percent,
but
instead
use
the
cpi
that's
currently
provided
for
in
sb543.
C
The
third
option
is
basing
the
budget
on
the
actual
cost
reported
by
school
districts
in
fiscal
year
20.
However,
that
amount
could
have
been
affected
by
the
kova
19
pandemic
once
the
budgeted
amount
is
determined.
The
subcommittee
will
also
need
to
determine
how
this
funding
should
be
distributed
to
the
school
districts.
The
subcommittee
may
consider
allocating
the
funding
back
to
the
school
districts
based
on
the
budgeted
amount.
C
So
the
decision
to
be
made
at
closing
is
whether
to
approve
the
budget
for
transportation
funding,
including
an
inflation
factor
that
will
be
provided
to
school
districts
in
each
year
of
the
2021-23
biennium.
The
subcommittee
will
also
need
to
determine
how
this
funding
will
be
distributed
under
the
new
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
If
any
changes
should
be
made
to
the
governor's
recommendation
for
transportation
costs
for
peoples
from
indian
reservations,.
A
So,
committee
members-
I
guess
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
and
I'm
a
little
lost
on
the
2.5,
because
the
inflation
up
that
came
the
2.5
proposal.
Where
did
that
actually
come
from.
C
For
the
record
again,
james
raymond
go
by
the
2.5
percent.
Inflation
is
currently
included
under
the
nevada
plan
formula
which
had
been
set
for
several
years.
That
said,
that's
a
that
is
currently
being
applied
on
transportation
costs.
C
For
the
record
again,
jamri
mangova,
so
sp
543
contemplated
using
a
cpi
on
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
amount,
and
so
the
recommendation
before
you
is
whether
the
com,
the
subcommittee,
may
wish
to
add
that
cpi
inflation
factor
to
transportation,
funding.
Okay,
as.
A
Underdone
the
decision
is,
do
we
still
go
with
what
was
in
the
nevada
plan,
or
do
we
move
forward
with
what
was
in
543
leading
towards
the
cpi
funding?
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
clear
and
thank
you
committee
for
allowing
me
to
restate
it.
So
I
could
hear
it
and
wrap
my
brain
around
it.
A
So
with
that
questions
from.
H
I'm
sorry
I'm
sorry,
madam
chair,
just
for
a
point
of
clarification.
This
is
julie
waller.
Just
for
a
point
of
clarification
there,
the
potential
decision
would
be
no.
No
inflation
applied
to
transportation
continue
the
existing
inflation,
which
is
the
2.5
into
the
nevada
plan,
or
apply
a
cpi.
So
there
are
three
decision
points
that
you
could
consider.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
clarifying
that.
I
appreciate
it
so
with
that
committee
members
questions
on
this.
I
on
this
issue,
there's
two
components.
D
H
Madam
chair,
this
is
julie
waller
that
would
be
for,
if
you
had,
inflation
exceed
a
2.5
and
you
needed
to
use
some
of
your
base
funding
to
cover
the
difference.
You
would
be
correct.
D
H
This
is
julie
waller.
That
would
be
correct
because
you
are
carving
out
the
tier
of
transportation
funding
before
you
arrive
to
your
calculation
of
your
people-centered
funding
model.
D
A
H
Funding,
madam
chair,
this
is
julie.
Waller,
you
are
correct.
Sp
543,
contemplates
that
the
food
services
and
the
transportation
would
be
a
tier
outside
of
the
funding.
H
The
per
pupil
funding
formula
that
and
the
the
bill
basically
directed,
or
that
the
commission
on
school
funding
should
determine
the
parameters
surrounding
how
to
distribute
the
transportation
funding,
and
you
are
correct
that
it
did
not
indicate
that
inflation
factor
should
be
applied,
but
that
certainly
could
be
a
recommendation
that
would
come
forward
from
the
commission
on
school
funding,
although
they
did
not
during
this
interim
address
the
transportation
funding.
A
So
as
we
move
forward,
we
could
actually
not
do
any
inflation
at
this
time
and
ask
the
commission
to
look
at
it
moving
forward
after
this,
after
the
implementation
to
see
where
we
really
need
to
be
with
transportation.
That's
a
possibility.
H
That
would
be
a
decision
point
for
consideration
as
well.
Thank.
A
You
senator
donderolu.
K
K
Well,
I
just
think
that
since
it's
outside
of
543
that
we
need
to
consider
the
fact
that
there
is
some
increase
in
expenses,
and
I
think
the
cpi
would
help
us
with
that.
K
K
A
A
C
For
the
record,
jamie
jamery
mangova,
as
miss
waller,
had
indicated
earlier.
Transportation
cost
is
a
separate
tier
which
is
funded
first,
so
potentially,
the
impact
of
that
is,
if
you
add,
an
inflation,
it
will
lower
the
amount
of
money
available
to
fund
the
statewide
base
per
people,
ultimately
the
weights,
because
it
you
take
the
whole
revenues
that
you
have
available.
C
A
And
thank
you
very
much
miss
mango.
I
was
pretty
sure
I
was
thinking
the
right
thing,
but
I
know
it's
only
wednesday,
but
I
really
feel
like
it's
friday.
I
have
friday
brains.
So
I
really
appreciate
you
clarifying
that.
I
knew
there
was
something
that
had
an
impact
on
and
as
I
when
we
started
the
meeting
earlier,
a
lot
of
these
decision
points
will
lead
to
impacts
further
down
the
model,
so
I
would
be
concerned
about
adding
it
if
it's
going
to
have
an
adverse
impact
to
the
actual
base
funding
that
would
be
going
forward.
H
In
terms
of
it
reducing
the
amount
available
for
the
base
per
pupil
funding,
that
is
correct.
However,
any
shortfall
that
a
district
would
have
for
their
transportation
costs
would
need
to
be
funded
from
their
their
general
fund
or
their
per
pupil
funding.
G
Senator
ready,
I'm
sorry,
I
was
trying
to
let
it
go,
and
I
thought
I
understood
it
until
that
last
comment.
So
my
apologies,
so
so
yes,
they
would
just
have
to
make
it
up
out
of
their
base.
So
where
the,
where
the
real
impact
would
be,
is
getting
to
weights
right,
getting
to
weight,
getting
to
a
place
where
we
can
fully
fund
the
weights,
because
we
know
for
the
foreseeable
future,
we
don't
have
enough
revenue
in
the
model
to
fully
fund
the
weights.
G
C
J
C
A
Great
thank
you
and
thank
you
senator
and
thank
you.
Miss
mangolo
that,
though
the
waterfall
helps
me
process
all
the
way
through
how
these
dollars
are
going
to
flow
through
each
one
of
these
decision
points.
So
thank
you
very
much.
So
are
there
any
other
questions
on
this
particular
decision
provision.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
julie,
waller
for
the
record
and
I'll
walk
you
through
the
base
per
pupil
calculation
on
this
initial
implementation
of
either
the
modified
plan
or
the
full
implementation.
If
that
is
the
direction
that
the
money
committees
go
under,
the
modified
people-centered
funding
plan
recommended
by
the
governor,
the
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
was
projected
at
two
thousand
nine
hundred
thirty
six
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
Twenty
twenty
two
and
two
thousand
eight
hundred
thirty
nine
dollars
in
fiscal
year.
2023
this.
H
These
are
the
statewide
base,
which
excludes
the
adjustment,
cost
adjustment
factors
or
the
weighted
funding
and,
as
you
recall,
under
the
modified
people-centered
funding
plan,
this
represents
only
the
state
funding.
It
does
not
include
the
local
dollar,
such
as
the
you
know:
lsst
property
tax
and
various
others.
H
H
This
percentage
change
that
was
applied
in
the
governor's
recommended
budget
was
a
factor,
a
change
from
june
to
june
2019.
To
june
2020,
if
the
pupil
center
funding
plan
were
to
be
implemented,
the
department
indicates
it
would
calculate
the
fy
2021
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
by
determining
the
amount
that
would
maintain
the
2020
weighted
funding
levels.
H
The
department
indicates
this
process
would
be
used
as
a
starting
point
to
initially
implement
the
model
in
20
to
fy
2022,
then
going
forward.
You
know
the
the
provisions
of
sb543
would
kick
in
on
how
the
base
is
calculated,
but
it's
just
this
first
year
of
implementation
of
the
model,
where
there's
some
discretion,
because
the
bill
did
not
identify
how
that
was
to
be
determined
as
a
starting
point
for
its
draft
model
of
a
full
implementation
of
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
H
The
department
indicates
this
amount
was
determined
since
it
provides
the
approximate
weights
that
were
provided
in
fiscal
year,
2020
based
on
actual
weighted
funding
expended
and
the
enrollment
for
the
weighted
categories
in
that
fiscal
year,
and
I
would.
I
would
also
note
that
this
amount,
the
6835
dollar
fy
average
statewide
base
per
people
amount,
does
not
include
the
special
education
funding,
as
that
was
not
a
recommendation
of
the
commission
on
school
funding
to
be
included
in
the
base
per
pupil
funding
or
the
weighted
funding
model.
H
So
the
2021
average
statewide
base
per
people
then,
would
be
adjusted
by
the
cpi,
and
this
amount,
then,
would
be
the
starting
point
for
the
implementation
of
the
people
center
funding
plan,
which
would
provide
a
fy
22
average
statewide
base
per
pupil
amount
of
six
thousand
eight
hundred
and
seventy
six
dollars.
H
This
amount
would
then
be
carried
forward
into
2023
model,
and
then
again
they
will
go
through
the
process
of
applying
the
enrollment
growth,
as
well
as
the
cpi
factor
to
determine
what
the
new
adjusted
statewide
base
per
people
would
be
for
fy,
2023
and
again.
This
would
just
be
the
process
going
forward,
as
in
the
first
year
of
the
implementation
of
either
the
modified
or
the
full
implementation
of
the
people
center
funding
plan.
H
It
should
be
noted
that
nrs387
one
two
one
0.1214
d
requires
that
pupils
that
are
enrolled
in
a
full-time
program
of
distance
learning
or
online
schools
provided
by
a
charter
school
or
university
school
for
profoundly
gifted
peoples
receive
only
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
amount
as
you'll
recall,
they're
in
the
people
centered
funding
plan,
you
calculate
a
statewide
average
base
per
pupil,
and
then
you
go
through
the
process
of
applying
applying
cost
adjustment
factors
or
the
equity
factors,
meaning
that
you're
going
to
adjust
that
base
per
pupil
for
costs
of
district
costs,
as
well
as
the
cost
of
doing
business.
H
They
too,
this
too
would
be
a
consideration
for
deliberation
on
whether
or
not
they,
these
type
of
students
that
are
receiving
all
of
their
services
through
the
institutions
of
higher
education,
should
also
receive
a
statewide
average
base
per
people,
as
opposed
to
that
adjusted,
cost
adjusted
base
per
pupil,
because
presumably
they
would
have
lower
costs
for
those
types
of
students
that
are
not
attending
their
their
schools.
H
However,
we
learned
that
the
dual
enrollment
is
currently
being
studied
by
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
and
the
department
of
education
through
a
joint
dual
enrollment
task
force.
That
is
developing
recommendations
that
would
expand
equitable
access
to
dual
enroll,
dual
enrollment
opportunities
and
the
subcommittee
could
con
consider
having
the
commission
on
school
funding
review
the
task
force's
recommendations
once
this
work
is
completed
and
develop
recommendations
for
possible
changes
to
the
funding
provided
to
those
students
through
the
people
centered
funding
plan.
H
So
at
this
time
a
decision
point
would
be
whether
or
not
the
subcommittee
wishes
to
approve
the
nevada
department
of
education's
calculation
of
the
base
per
people
funding
model
in
either
one
of
the
models
standing
up,
the
modified
people,
center
funding
plan
or
the
full
implementation
which
would
be
used
as
the
starting
point
for
this.
This
model
going
and
secondly,
the
subcommittee
would
need
to
may
wish
to
consider
determining
if
any
changes
are
needed
to
funding
the
students
who
attend
online
schools
in
school
districts
on
a
full-time
basis.
H
This
would
bring
to
be
in
parity
with
those
same
students
that
attend
full-time
online
schools
and
charter
schools
and
then,
lastly,
the
subcommittee
may
wish
to
determine
if
it
wishes
to
have
the
commission
on
school
funding
review
the
funding
that
should
be
provided
to
students
who
participate
in
full-time
dual
enrollment
programs.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Miss
waller,
there's
multiple
components
of
multiple
decisions.
I
believe
I'm
comfortable
with
the
nde's
methodology
as
far
as
what
they're
looking
at
in
moving
towards
full
implementation.
But
please
everyone
ask
questions.
If
you
need
any
more
clarification
on
that,
I
I
believe
the
the
conversations
have
gone
well
on
that
and
I
I
think
we
have
a
solid
base
on
what
we're
looking
at
with
that
methodology,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone
gets
their.
Their
questions
asked
on
that
particular
component.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
it
so
the
the
base
is
going
to
be
used,
calculating
or
start
for
the.
This
is
a
calculation
we
have
to
do
once
right
so
and
we're
going
to
be
using
weighted
funding
from
2020
is
that
right,
rather
than
sort
of
the
base
per
pupil
amount.
H
This
is
julie
waller
for
the
record,
so
the
in
determining
what
the
2021
base
per
pupil
funding
statewide
average
base
for
people
funding
that
would
be
needed
to
move
into
the
22
people-centered
funding
plan
development
of
that
base
for
people
to
go
forward.
The
department
determined
what
the
base
would
be
that
would
maintain
the
the
weighted
funding
amounts.
The.
J
F
B
F
H
For
clarification,
this
is
julie,
waller,
again
they're,
not
using
the
weighted
funding
in
the
base
they're
backing
into
what
the
base
would
be
to
equate
to
the
weights
that
are
existing.
Those
those
categorical
programs
are
deriving.
F
So
the
six
thousand
eight
hundred
and
thirty
five
dollars
that
we're
using
as
the
base
for
fiscal
year
21,
does
not
include
the
zoomer
victory
funding
or
anything
like
that.
F
I
misunderstood
what
you
meant
by
weighted
levels
and
then
just
on
the
cpi.
How
do
you
choose
which
cpi
they're
using
that
seems
low?
Oh.
H
Thank
you.
You
said
you
give
our
julie
walla
for
the
record.
Sp
543
does
require
a
specific
cpi
and
upon
further
review
of
what
wasn't
utilized
in
the
governor's
recommended
budget,
it
appears
there
may
need
to
be
an
adjustment
that,
in
addition,
the
cpi
that
was
used
was
from
based
on
a
fiscal
year
2019
to
june
2020.
H
However,
the
cpi
requirement,
that's
in
sb
543
indicates
that
it
needs
to
be
based
on
a
calendar
year
so
moving
forward.
It
would
be
the
cpi
west
and
it's
based
on
the
most
recent
calendar
year,
so
for
2022,
the
most
recent
calendar
year
would
be
2020,
and
it
appears
that
that
cpi
would
be
modified
moving
forward
to
1.74
for
the
first
year
of
the
biennium.
F
K
I
did
so
under
the
decisions
to
be
made
at
closing,
since
they
referenced
the
department
of
ed's
calculation
on
the
base
per
pupil
funding
amount.
Would
it
be
possible
to
have
them
weigh
in
on
that
since
they're,
here
with
us.
A
Yes,
we
can
do
that.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
finish
any
other
questions,
then
we'll
go
to
the
department
of
education.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
committee
members,
any
other
questions
of
the
staff.
A
I
think
I
would
like
to
circle
back
to
to
one
item
that
we
heard
that
the
system
of
higher
ed
is
actually
looking
at.
Has
a
dual
enrollment
task
force.
That's
developing
some
recommendations.
A
I
would
think
that
we
might
want
to
wait
for
those
recommendations
before
we
include
this.
As
as
we
move
forward
because
we
could
come
up
with
one
thing:
they
they
could
come
up
with
another,
and
then
we
would
have
to
make
adjustments
in
the
future.
So
I
think
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
want
to
definitely
keep
in
the
back
of
our
minds
as
we
move
forward.
A
Okay,
with
that,
I
don't
see
anyone
else
that
has
any
questions
so
superintendent
ebert,
I
believe,
senator
don
darrell
loop
had
asked
for
you
to
weigh
in.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
dr
dr
hart.
Heidi
hearts
will
step
in
here
and
maybe,
if
we
can
repeat
the
question
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page
that
the
senator
have,
I
think,
it'd
be
helpful.
K
Cheryl,
chair
carlton,
marilyn,
dondero
lube.
I
just
asked
a
superintendent
one
of
the
decisions
that
we
will
be
making
a
closing
is
whether
to
approve
the
nevada
department
of
education's
calculation
of
the
base
per
pupil
funding
amount
for
fiscal
year
2022,
which
would
be
used
as
a
starting
point
for
the
people-centered
funding
plan
for
2021
23
biennium.
B
With
respect
to
funding
charter
schools
sponsored
by
school
districts
at
the
statewide
base
per
pupil
funding
amount,
the
department
would
need
to
do
some
modeling
to
look
at
the
fiscal
impact
of
that.
Up
to
this
point,
our
modeling
at
the
school
district
level
has
been
based
on
the
number
of
students
enrolled
in
each
school
district.
A
K
Thank
you
so
that
may
be
why
that
answer
was
given.
A
K
Correct,
thank
you,
but
I'll.
Let
this
heart's.
C
B
A
K
Chair
just
as
a
point
of
reference,
I'll
give
you
an
example:
we
have
a
a,
not
a
charter,
but
we
have
a
full
line
of
bank
of
courses
that
we
teach
right
there
at
channel
10
with
students.
A
C
That's
correct,
madam
chair
for
the
record
jeremy
mandova
from
the
lcd
fiscal
analysis,
division
and
another
decision
points
for
the
subcommittee's.
Consideration
of
closing
is
the
cost
adjustment
factors
as
required
by
law
or
sd
543,
specifically
on
page
seven
is
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index,
which
is
a
nevada
specific
index
that
is
intended
to
adjust
the
state-wide
base
per
people,
funding
based
on
variations
for
the
cost
of
wages
and
goods
across
the
17
counties
in
the
state.
C
Specifically,
this
floor
impedes
redistribution
of
funding
that
would
otherwise
occur
by
reducing
funding
for
those
counties
with
a
lower
index
which
could,
in
turn
be
allocated
to
those
counties
with
a
higher
index
and
the
following.
Information
in
the
middle
of
page
seven
provides
the
comparative
wage
index
and
the
regional
price
parities,
which
are
components
or
indices
of
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index.
C
The
table
on
the
top
of
page
8
provides
the
calculation
of
the
nevada
cost
of
index,
as
provided
by
the
department
and,
as
you
can
see
on
the
table,
five
school
districts
would
benefit
or
not
lose
funding.
With
the
governor's
recommendation
of
maintaining
a
1.0
floor
for
this
nevada
cost
education
index
staff
would
note
that
the
nevada
cost
of
education
index
floor
could
be
used
in
the
2021-23
biennium,
as
the
people-centered
funding
plan
is
initially
implemented.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
miss
mangola,
so
the
governor
recommendation
in
this
particular
component
is
setting
up
war
at
1.00
and
I
believe
another
one
of
our
conversation
points
is
moving
forward.
Having
this
gradually
phase
out
this
angle
would
would
the
phase-out
language
actually
would
it
be
appropriate
for
it
to
be
encapsulated
in
this,
or
would
that
that
be
one
of
the
future
decision
points
of
other
of
the
the
commission
working
with
the
governor
in
the
future
and
then
future
legislators?
C
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
so
with
that
committee
members,
conversations
on
setting
the
floor
at
1.0
to
give
some
stabilizing
effect
across
all
these
districts.
F
F
Another
study
just
came
out
to
show
that
reno
has
the
highest
per
square
footage
housing
cost
in
the
entire
country
of
any
metro
area,
and
it's
the
the
reason
given
in
our
notes
that
that
it's
a
I
gotta
have
to
look
back
at
it.
It
basically
says
people
will
pay
higher
wages,
because
it's
a
great
place
to
live
sounds
a
lot
more
like
an
excuse
than
a
reason,
and
I
just
it's.
F
I
know
it's
difficult
and
I
know
that
there
may
not
be
a
perfect
solution,
but
if
everyone
knows
that
it's
not
accurately
reflecting
what
what
reality
is
on
the
ground,
then
maybe
we
should
consider
whether
we
want
to
include
it
or
find
another
way
to
wait
a
way
to
do
it.
I
mean
I
recognize
that
the
1.0
floor
sort
of
helps
mitigate
that
problem,
but
the
problem
is
not
going
away.
F
If
we're
going
to
say
okay,
we'll
just
we'll
phase
that
out
over
time,
so
I'd
like
us
to
end
up
back
at
the
drawing
board
to
solve
the
problem
rather
than
rather.
J
A
F
I
think
my
concern
is
the
is
the
end
product
of
the.
I
think
it
was
the
commission
on
school
funding
that
came
up
with
the
methodology
for
how
these
factors
were
going
to
be
were
recommended
to
be
implemented.
F
So
I
recognize
that
there
is
that
there
are
differential
costs
in
different
parts
of
the
state.
I
just
don't
believe
that
what
is
presented
accurately
reflects
those
costs.
H
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
for
clarification
to
senator
kikifer's
comment.
H
The
commission
on
school
funding
is
indicated
that,
while
they
recognize
the
that
there's
still
significant
amount
of
work
to
do
on
developing
this
nevada
cost
of
education
index,
they
did
vote
unanimously
unanimously
to
move
forward
with
what
what
what
had
been
developed
thus
far
in
order
to
stand
the
model
up,
and
so
I
believe
that
there
will
be
ongoing
work
in
future
in
the
future
interim
with
respect
to
this
particular
index
and
trying
to
refine
it
and
get
it
to
be
a
basically
reflective
of
the
different
communities
and
the
costs
to
do
business
in
those
communities.
A
Thank
you,
ms
muller,
with
that
senator
sievers
ganzart.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
too
am
concerned
about
the
methodology
when
you
think
of
your
expenses,
the
largest
expense
frequently,
if
not
always,
is
your
housing
expense
and
to
leave
that
out
of
the
equation,
I
think,
creates
a
flawed
starting
point,
and
so
I'm
concerned
about
starting
with
something
that
we
already
know
is
is
is
flawed,
even
though
there
was
a
strong,
it
sounds
like
agreement
that
this
would
be
would
be
the
starting
point.
I
Housing
is
just
too
large
of
an
expense
to
not
include
when
you're
looking
at
distributing
funds
and
waiting.
So
I
would.
I
too
would
agree
that
this
is
this
is
flawed,
and
I
really
don't
want
to
start
with
something
that
we
already
recognize
has
issues
related
to
not
including
housing
costs.
Thank.
E
A
Not
seeing
or
hearing
any,
I
believe
we
can
go
ahead
and
move
forward
to
the
next
item
that's
listed,
which
is
funding
for
pupils
with
disabilities.
E
However,
the
commission
on
school
funding
recommended
transferring
state
maintenance
of
effort
and
federal
funding
for
people
with
disabilities.
These
are
special
education
students
to
account
to
an
account
separate
within
the
state
education
fund
and
removing
the
requirement
to
determine
a
weighted
per
pupil
amount
for
those
peoples
from
statute.
E
E
However,
the
governor
recommends
the
continuation
of
the
13
funding
cap
in
the
upcoming
biennium
and
the
governor
recommends
general
fund
appropriations
of
1.5
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium
to
fund
one
half
of
the
per
pupil
amount
for
pupils
with
disabilities
to
school
districts
and
charter
schools,
with
enrollment
of
people
with
disabilities.
That
exceed
13
percent
of
the
total
people.
E
Enrollment
would
note
there
is
a
state
and
local
maintenance
of
effort
requirement
associated
with
funding
for
people
with
disabilities,
and
generally
the
state
must
budget
and
expend
at
least
the
same
amount
for
these
people
from
one
fiscal
year
to
the
next
school
districts
and
charter.
Schools
must
also
generally
expend
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
A
Thank
you,
mr
drost,
so
the
governor's
recommendation
to
provide
special
education
funding
outside
of
the
pupil-centered
funding
plan-
I
I
believe
is,
is
very
reasonable
with
the
conversations
around
pupils
with
disabilities
and
then
also
maintaining
that
13
percent
cap
at
this
time
and
until
I've
it's
my
impression
until
more
information
is
given
about
how
this,
how
this
plan
will
actually
grow
in
the
future
to
hold
that
cap.
So
we
have
an
idea
of
where
we
are
moving
forward.
So
am
am
I
correct
mr
drost.
H
Weight.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
julie.
Waller
from
the
record.
The
commission
on
school
funding
recommends
a
targeted
weight
for
gifted
and
talented
education
of
0.14,
and
the
executive
budget
recommends
funding
to
provide
a
weight
of
0.12
for
gifted
and
talented
pupils.
However,
these
targeted
and
recommended
weights
are
greater
than
the
weight
currently
funded
for
gifted
and
talented
peoples
of
0.05
in
fy
21,
which
is
the
weight
recommended
for
these
peoples
in
the
2018
nevada
school
finance
study
conducted
by
agun,
blick
payletch
and
associates
as
background.
H
This
reduced
funding
level
provided
a
calculated
weight
of
0.05
for
gifted
and
talented
pupils,
which
was
equal
to
the
amount
recommended
in
the
2018
nevada
school
finance
study
report.
The
executive
budget
recommends
for
the
2123
by
me.
Biennium
to
restore
funding
for
the
gift
and
talented
education
program
to
8.3
million
dollars
in
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium,
which
the
department
indicates
would
provide
a
weight
of
0.12
for
gifted
and
talented
pupils.
H
A
This
was
a
topic
of
discussion
in
ab3
of
the
first
special
session
and
I
remember
very
clearly
and
very
distinctly
the
conversation
that
I
had
with
former
senator
woodhouse
about
trying
to
true
up
some
of
these
weights,
as
we
moved
forward
that
this
particular
weight
had
been
adjusted
a
a
number
of
times
and
that
the
true
reflection
of
where
the
weight
should
be
was
the
0.05
and
that's
where
the
adjustment
was
made
in
ab3
of
the
first
session,
and
I
believe
that's
where
the
weight
needs
to
be
moving
forward.
A
It's
an
accurate
weight
and
it
allows
allows
for
those
services
to
still
be
provided,
and
it's
it's
a
little
more.
I
believe
realistic,
so
I'll
open
it
just
for
the
history
of
it
all
for
those
that
might
not
have
been
involved
in
that
particular
conversation
of
ab3.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
adam
draws
with
lcb
fiscal
a
pursuant
to
nrs3871213.
The
educational
stabilization
account
would
provide
funding
to
the
nevada
department
of
education
for
distribution
to
school
districts
and
charter
schools.
When
the
interim
finance
committee
determines
the
state
education
fund
will
receive
97
percent
or
less
of
its
projected
revenue
in
a
fiscal
year.
However,
the
educational
stabilization
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
biennium.
E
E
Therefore,
the
committed
subcommittee
could
alternate,
alternatively,
consider
providing
a
loan
from
the
general
fund
to
the
educational
stabilization
account
to
provide
that
initial
funding
to
address
revenue
shortfall
issues.
The
educational
stabilization
account
could
then
reimburse
the
general
fund
once
it
has
the
resources
to
do
so.
E
The
subcommittee
could
consider
revising
that
statute
to
require
these
transfers
to
occur
at
the
end
of
each
biennium
instead
of
each
fiscal
year.
That
would
allow
any
remaining
funding
in
the
first
year
of
the
biennium
to
be
transferred
to
the
second
year
of
the
biennium
to
also
address
any
possible
revenue
shortfalls
and
or
unanticipated
increases
in
enrollment
that
may
occur.
E
E
Third
third
consideration
is
revising
nrs3871213
to
require
the
balance
remaining
in
the
state
education
fund
to
be
transferred
to
the
educational
stabilization
account
at
the
end
of
each
biennium
rather
than
each
fiscal
year.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
And-
and
thank
you,
mr
drost,
so
if
we
could
go
back-
and
I
just
want
to
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
the
request
for
a
supplemental
currently
right
now-
we
allow
money
to
be
drawn
down
from
the
second
year
into
the
first
year.
First
year
go
into
the
second
year
and
we
true
it
up
after
two
years
it
was.
A
It
was
my
impression
that,
under
the
new
funding
formula,
that
with
the
local
dollars
and
the
state
dollars
that
we
will
have
contributed
our
amount,
so
I'm
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
brain
around
the
department
coming
back
and
asking
for
a
supplemental,
since
this
is
this
is
based
on
everything
all
going
into
one
pot.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
the
commission
on
school
funding
was
concerned
about
the
educational
stabilization
account
not
having
funding
during
this
initial
implementation.
In
the
future.
You
know
all
funding
would
be
retained
in
the
state
education
fund,
so
funding
would
be
available
to
cover
these
unex
unexpected.
You
know
decreases
in
in
revenue
or
increases
enrollment.
E
So
this
would
be
kind
of
that
initial
implementation.
However,
that
kind
of
contradicts
the
original
intent
that
you
know
we
create
the
state
education
fund
that
retains
funding.
So
these
other
options.
You
know
a
loan
from
the
general
fund
that
could
be
paid
back
or
possibly
using
state
federal
funding.
A
seed
money
for
the
educational
stabilization
account
our
ideas
in
lieu
of
that
supplemental.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Mr
just,
would
you
please
would
you
please
give
me
some
additional
information?
I
know
you
just
went
through
some
of
this,
but
would
you
tell
me
about
under
the
decisions
to
be
made
when
you
said
revising
nrs387
1213,
would
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
for
me.
E
Certainly
nrs3871213
currently
requires
that
any
remaining
funding
in
that
state
education
fund
be
transferred
to
the
educational
stabilization
account
at
the
end
of
each
fiscal
year.
What
is
being
suggested
here
is
instead
that
that
transfer
occurred
at
the
end
of
the
biennium,
and
that
would
allow
that,
if
there's
any
remaining
funding
at
the
end
of
the
first
fiscal
year,
that
it
would
basically
be
balanced
forward
and
be
available
in
the
second
year
of
the
biennium,
if
needed,
to
kind
of
finish
out
the
biennium
and
provide
that
funding.
K
E
And
just
a
point
of
clarification,
I
would
note
that
third
option
that
I
mentioned
revising
387
one
two,
one
three
that
can
be
in
addition
to
the
other
two
that
I
mentioned.
You
know
the
first
two
that
I
mentioned
were
kind
of
providing
funding
ideas
to
provide
funding
if
needed,
the
third
option:
revising
nrs387
one,
two
one
three
could
be
a
suggest:
a
recommendation
of
the
subcommittee
regardless.
K
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
yeah.
I
I
understand
that
and
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
I
just
felt
like
revising
that
and
making
that
whole
so
that
it
doesn't
kind
of
flip-flop
or
change
or
have
different
ideas
going
forward
that
that
kind
of
gives
to
me
like
a
stabilized
stabilization
piece
to
it.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
F
Got
sort
of
a
two-part
question
that
that's
you
know
we'll
see
so
due
to
covid
right
in
the
pandemic
and
shutdowns,
there
were
certainly
probably
some
anticipated
expenditures
for
school
districts
that
were
not
completed
in
fiscal
in
in
current
fiscal
year,
21.
they
during
in
in
the
formula
bill.
They
were
allowed
to
keep
anything
above
16.6
as
an
ending
fund
balance
for
2020.
What
about
for
the
current
school
year
and
then
sort
of
part?
E
In
response,
I
would
note
you're
correct
the
16.6
ending
fund
balances
in
in
sb
543.
In
addition,
as
I
mentioned,
section
77
allows
districts
to
retain
additional
funding
if
their
fy
2020
ending
fund
balance
was
greater
than
that
amount.
So
it's
kind
of
those
two
calculations
can
be
used
by
districts
to
determine
that
transfer
related
to
federal
funding.
You're
correct
there
is,
you
know,
between
the
ussr
and
gear
funding,
and
now
the
american
rescue
plan.
E
There
is
quite
a
bit
of
funding
to
be
provided
to
school
districts
that
would
be
available
to
cover
expenditures
in
the
upcoming
biennium.
Obviously,
that
would
not
be
placed
in
their
general
fund
that
would
be
placed
in
you
know
their
special
use
funds,
but
it
would
be
available
to
for
expenditure
for
districts.
F
So
there's
no!
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
anticipation
is
not
that
any
funds
that
are
coming
in
through
those
those
federal
sources
are
going
to
be
swept
into
the
education.
Stabilization
account
they're,
going
to
remain
with
the
districts
and
be
eligible
for
expenditure
from
pupils
in
those
districts.
E
That
does
not
seem
likely.
I
would
because,
as
I
mentioned,
that
would
not
be
in
their
general
fund
that
would
be
in
their
special
news
fund.
In
addition,
the
department
indicates
that
the
federal
funding
is
provided
on
a
reimbursement
basis,
so
it's
often
not
sitting
in
an
account
as
it
were,
they're
spending
the
funding
and
then
getting
reimbursed
for
those
expenditures
that
helps.
F
E
F
A
Okay,
senator
you
got
one
of
my
questions,
so
that's
good
any
other
members
have
any
other
questions
at
this
time.
A
I
think
the
the
big
question
in
the
room
is:
if
we
need
to
continue
the
conversation
about
providing
a
loan,
we
would
probably
need
to
understand
what
the
number
in
front
is
and
how
many
zeros
are
behind
it.
So
do
we
have
any
idea
of
what
that
number
might
possibly
look
at.
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
probably
a
part
of
the
decision
that
we
would
run
away.
I
mean,
of
course,
we
want
to
make
sure
this
account
is,
is
funded
it's
moving
forward,
and
this
would
be
the
first
time
and
then,
after
that,
if
it
was
alone,
it
would
come
back
or
if
there
are
other
ways
to
do
it,
but
I
think,
in
part
of
the
final
conversation
is
we
really
do
need
to
understand
what.
J
A
A
lot
is
going
to
change
and
evolve
over
the
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
No,
we
hopefully
we
get
getting
more
information
and
be
able
to
narrow
these
down,
but
this
was
excellent
conversation
and
we
have
an
idea
of
where
folks
are
we'll
continue
to
have
these
conversations
and
unwork
on
this.
As
we
move
forward,
please
don't
hesitate
to
reach
out
to
myself
or
to
chair
don
darrell
loop
in
the
senate
on
these
issues.
A
A
So
with
that,
I
believe
the
only
other
item
on
our
agenda
for
this
morning
is
public
comment,
so
it's
a
10
31
with
our
time
delay.
I
want
to
give
folks
time
to
call
in
if
they
would
like
to
call
in
so
since
they're
a
minute
behind
us,
let's
give
it
till
about
10
33
somewhere
in
there.
So
if
everyone
would
just
stand
at
ease
for
a
moment
and
broadcast
services,
if
you
would
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
line
for
public
comment,.
D
D
D
Bailey
d-a-l-y
nevada
state
education
association
since
the
introduction
of
sd543
two
years
ago,
nfcs
expressed
policy
concerns
at
every
opportunity,
a
lack
of
educator
voice,
no
new
revenue,
watering
down
zoom
in
victory,
schools,
freezing
and
squeezing
school
district
budgets,
a
giveaway
to
charter
schools
and
undoing
the
rules
of
collective
bargaining.
Let's
be
real
nevada
ranks
near
the
bottom
of
states
and
education
funding.
The
new
school
funding
plan
without
new
and
ongoing
revenue
feels
a
lot
like
rearranging
the
debt
chairs
on
the
titanic.
D
Nfca
maintained
that
it's
bad
policy
to
effectuate
a
seismic
shift
in
the
state's
education
funding
formula
during
the
coca-19
crisis,
especially
as
further
general
fund
cuts,
are
proposed
for
our
schools.
But
if
the
legislature
feels
compelled
to
move
forward
with
the
new
funding
plan
now,
three
changes
will
ensure
the
new
plan
does
significantly
less
harm
to
nevada
students
and
educators.
First
grandfather,
existing
zoom
and
victory
schools
located
in
nevada's
poorest
community
serving
the
highest
percentage
of
at-risk
students
and
proven
models
of
education
equity.
D
Second,
hold
districts
truly
harmless
by
using
the
greater
the
2020
total
budget
or
per
pupil
amount
by
district,
adjusted
by
the
inflationary
costs
of
doing
business
modeling.
The
new
funding
plan
showed
most
districts
would
end
up
with
frozen
budgets
for
years.
This
means
growing
districts
like
ny
or
story
county
could
have
serious
reduction
in
their
per-pupil
funding
level.
Also,
without
inflationary
increases,
the
revenue
revenues
districts
underhold
harmless
would
have
to
shift
funds
away
from
classrooms
to
cover
increasing
fixed
costs
like
utilities,
health
care
and
step
increases.
D
D
One
of
the
most
serious
unintended
consequences
of
scp-543
was
the
impact
this
provision
would
have
when,
coupled
with
another
provision,
sweeping
district
aiming
fund
balances
over
16.6
percent
taken
together,
education
unions
would
be
unable
to
negotiate
over
any
item
with
a
cost
like
salaries
and
benefits
and
proposals
for
worker
and
school
safety.
This
would
adversely
impact
our
educator
shortage
and
would
jeopardize
labor
peace
in
nevada.
Thank
you
very.
D
D
D
Madam
chair
members
of
the
subcommittee,
thank
you
for
your
time.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
victor
salcedo
s-a-l-c-I-d-o,
with
the
charter
school
association
of
nevada.
We
represent
public
charter
schools
throughout
the
state,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
discussion
this
morning.
On
the
issue
of
concerning
the
application
of
hold
harmless
protections
to
public
charter
schools.
G
D
G
D
D
D
The
hold
harmless
provision
as
written
right
now
would
be
calculated
at
the
bottom
line
number
as
opposed
to
a
per
pupil
funding
number.
As
a
result.
If
there
is
not,
if
this
provision
isn't
altered
it,
it
is
very
possible
that
we
would
find
school
districts
and
public
charter
public
charter
schools
that
see
any
level
of
increased
enrollment
actually
be
funded
less
per
pupil,
even
with
the
pro
hold
harmless
protections.
D
D
D
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
brad
keating
for
the
record
b-r-a-d
k-e-a-t-I-n-g,
representing
the
clark
county
school
district.
I
wanted
to
provide
some
comments,
as
it
relates
to
the
people-centered
funding
plan,
which
has
been
discussed
at
great
length
today.
We
appreciate
the
legislature
passing
sb
543
and
the
governor
signing
this
bill
into
law
in
2019..
D
This
new
funding
formula
is
truly
people-centered
and
addresses
the
needs
of
every
student
throughout
the
state.
I
urge
the
legislature
to
consider
the
recommendations
of
the
commission
on
school
funding
who
have
been
working
on
this
for
the
past
18
months.
This
panel,
with
experience
and
education
and
funding,
have
been
working
tirelessly
to
ensure
every
weight
and
aspect
of
this
funding
formula
meets
the
needs
of
our
school
districts
for
far
too
long.
Shortcomings
of
the
nevada
plan.
D
Now
more
than
50
years
old,
have
hindered
important
discussions
regarding
education
funding
adequacy,
the
people-centered
funding
formula
removes
those
obstacles
and
has
paved
the
way
for
a
long
overdue
discussion
about
equity
and
adequacy
for
all
students.
We
also
believe
that
the
nevada,
k-12
education
funding
must
recognize
our
state's
greatest
asset
diversity.
D
The
cost
to
prepare
students
for
a
college
or
career
is
not
uniform,
and
our
state's
school
funding
model
must
reflect
that
this
new
plan
is
student-centered
accounting
for
these
differences
and
providing
equity
for
all
students
throughout
the
state.
We
appreciate
the
conversation
today
and
look
forward
to
working
with
the
legislature
over
the
next
few
months
as
we
look
to
implement
this
funding
formula
for
the
benefit
of
all
students
across
nevada.
Thank
you.
D
D
B
Good
afternoon
committee
chairwoman,
carlton
and
committee
member
members,
my
name
is
dr
brenda
pearson
v-r-e-n-d-a-p-e-a-r-s-o-n,
and
I'm
here
representing
the
clark
county
education
association,
the
clark
county
education
association
is
the
official
bargaining
partner
for
the
clark
county
school
district
and
represents
more
than
18
000
licensed
professionals.
We
engage
in
bipartisan
advocacy
for
advancing
public
education
in
clark,
county
and
nevada.
Ccea
is
in
support
of
full
implementation
of
senate
bill
543
and
the
pupil
centered
funding
plan.
Many
important
decision
points
have
been
put
before
this
committee
today
and
cca
appreciates
the
diligence
of
the
committee.