Lawmakers approved $15 million in SB 231 funding for several rural school districts whose plans encompassed both their educators and support staff. Those amounts included $5.3 million to Carson City School District, $4.2 million to Nye County School District, and $4.5 million to Douglas County School District.
Lander County School District requested $590,000 in funding, which would have supported raises for only one of the two relevant collective bargaining units. That vote for approval was deferred to a future meeting, “for consistency” with the decision for CCSD, added Monroe-Moreno.
Lyon County School District requested $6.2 million in funding but that vote was deferred after several lawmakers took issue with how the district would distribute those funds. Lyon County School District planned on dividing the funding equally among all eligible employees over the remainder of the biennium, as opposed to providing each employee with a percentage-based raise, which all other districts have done.
That money would have been on top of the 14.5% cost-of-living raises negotiated with the district and the teachers and support staff unions.
Superintendent Wayne Workman said his school board believed this option was more transparent and more appropriate for their district than providing percentage-based raises.
Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas), who sponsored SB 231, said she felt this approach amounted to providing bonuses, not raises, and didn’t seem to meet the intent of the bill.
Workman pushed back, saying Lyon’s approach cleared their legal counsel and was not flagged by the Legislative Counsel Bureau as problematic. Several Republican lawmakers agreed.
“It’s tough to read minds in how exactly some of you envisioned this playing out,” remarked Workman to the committee at one point.
Churchill County School District submitted a request for $2.3 million in funding. But Monroe-Moreno announced that representatives from the school “had the wrong time” and were more than an hour away from appearing before the committee, therefore the vote would be deferred to a future meeting.