What to watch for this legislative session, plus... (Participant) I have an entire file on my phone of just people that I have taken pictures of within a short walk from my house that are experiencing homelessness.

For a few months, 18 years ago, I was homeless, so I have great empathy for these folks.

But something has got to be done.

(Amber Renee Dixon) The Nevada Democracy Project is enabling the community to share their concerns with state lawmakers.

Hear what both sides had to say this week on Nevada Week.

♪♪♪ Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt.

-Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

The Nevada Legislature is now in session.

It's the second legislative session under Republican Governor Joe Lombardo, who, last month at the State of the State Address, proposed a budget that ended up having a $335 million deficit.

So where does that budget stand now?

For that, we turn to Tabitha Mueller, Capitol Bureau Chief for The Nevada Independent.

Tabitha, thank you for joining us from Carson City inside the Legislative Building.

(Tabitha Mueller) Thanks for having me.

I'm excited to be here today.

-So Tabitha, this sounds like a simple question, but as you and I have discussed ahead of this interview, the answer is not simple.

The question, though, is the budget now balanced?

-So the deficit has been eliminated after the Governor's Office made changes to how some programs were funded and incorporated certain items that were left out of the original revenue projections.

So, yes, I can say that the deficit was addressed.

-So then, do Democrats believe that the deficit has now been erased?

Are they buying that?

-I think that the deficit has been addressed is something that most parties can agree on.

The way it was addressed is now where the contention lies.

So a lot of when the Governor's staff went through the amendments yesterday, a lot of Democrats had questions about some of the changes that they made.

And some of those changes surrounded proposals that the Governor made during his State of the State Address that theoretically could be ongoing, right, continuations into future years.

But what they said is, You know what?

We don't know if we have the revenue for this in the future, so we're going to make these one-time funding allocations.

For example, one of the proposals was pre-K programs, right, and extending those.

And they said, We know that we have money in the pot now.

We don't know if we have money in the future, and so we're going to fund these with one-time allocations.

That means that in two years, lawmakers are going to come back and have to discuss that and say, Do we continue to fund these programs; do we have the money for them?

And I think that Democrats were really hesitant to say we're going to fund this if we can't continue them in the future.

-And I think, when we spoke ahead of this, how you made it make sense to me is that there are different pots for ongoing funding and for one-time funding, is that correct, and that's why this one-time funding makes such a difference in the budget?

Because, to me, it sounds like it's the same amount of money.

It's the same dollar figure.

Aren't you just putting a new title on it?

-So we know that there's money that comes back to the state from unspent funds, right?

We allocated it, it might not have been used, so it comes back.

We have a vacancy rate, so maybe we allocated some money for a teacher salary or for salaries that aren't being used.

So when that money comes back into the state, the State has the ability to use it for these one-time allocations, and that is the key point here, I think.

-Okay.

Thank you for helping me understand that.

So then, how big of a deal is this, in the first place, that the Governor submitted a budget that the State could not pay for?

-That is-- it was very unprecedented.

I think that the point is, the Governor proposes the budget, the legislature then has to go through the budget amendments, make changes, and address them.

We have 120 days to get those addressed.

I think in the short term, it's a really big deal, right?

Lawmakers are going to have to have late nights.

They're going to have to work through the changes.

They're going to have to have committee hearings, have conversations about it.

In the long term, though, hopefully, we'll be able to iron everything out by the end of the 120-day session.

-You did note that they were able to identify some savings.

What were those savings?

-So I think some of the savings that folks talked about is kind of some savings within the Medicaid realm, right, within healthcare services.

The State is moving to a statewide managed care organization instead of a fee-for-service model.

And that's a little bit complicated, but we can say that that is going to cost the State less money over time, and it's going to then reflect some increased revenue sources that wasn't originally noted in that first budget, right?

It was like they accounted for it, but it wasn't actually in the budget, and so I think that was something lawmakers were talking about yesterday.

-Now, will these changes impact the legislation that seems to be, or seems to have, at least at this point, bipartisan support?

And I'm saying bipartisan support because we saw both Republicans and Democrats applaud these proposals when the Governor made them at the State of the State Address, one of them being permanent teacher raises.

So as you mentioned last session, these raises happened with one-time funding.

State of the State this year, the Governor says, Let's make those permanent.

Will they now be permanent under these changes?

-So, yes, the way that these amendments are written is that it doesn't cut or eliminate programs, is what the Governor's staff said.

The ongoing teacher pay raises are included in this budget as written.

Now, maybe that changes as time goes on.

Maybe, you know, Democratic lawmakers say, Hey, maybe this, we can't afford this, or we need to think of other programs.

But for now, that is in the budget as proposed, and lawmakers will be addressing that in the coming weeks.

-What about raises for charter school teachers, which is also something that the Governor proposed?

-So that is included in his proposed budget.

Now, whether or not Democrats will include that is another matter altogether.

We don't have much insight yet into what Democrats plans are for that type of proposal, but I know that they didn't fund it in 2023, so that could be a point of contention in the future.

-Right.

And so the charter school teachers falls under the school choice umbrella, which Governor Lombardo is a proponent of, but was unable to get a whole lot accomplished last session.

Any indication that Democrats will budge on this topic?

-So we saw that in the amendments there, about $6 million over the next two years for opportunity scholarships.

And in those scholarships are state scholarships for students from low- and middle-income households to attend private or religious schools.

Now, last night what we heard from the Governor's Chief of Staff, Ryan Cherry, is that the first year of funding in the budget amendments is about, which is about $2 million, is for coverage of existing students within the program, students that already have those scholarships.

And Democrats have kind of indicated that they're fine with students continuing if they have those scholarships, because they don't want to, you know, hinder their education or put a stop in that for some reason.

But the most interesting point is in the second part, which is the second year of the state budget, and that is $4 million in funding for increased scholarships.

Now, Chief of Staff Ryan Cherry said that that will-- they're also planning to have increased transparency and requirements, but Democrats did push back on that, and I think there will be an ongoing discussion about whether they'll fund that initiative.

-And I wonder what his chief of staff is saying when asked, How did this happen in the first place, that you had such a big budget deficit?

-So last night, lawmakers did kind of push the chief of staff into talking about that.

And what he basically said is that there-- he was-- this is his first time as chief of staff.

You have new staff members.

It was a new budget process to do this, and he took responsibility for the errors and said, you know, This is my fault, and we need to address this moving forward, but we are fixing it.

He said the amendments were a fix, they're working on it, and he said he took full responsibility for the errors because it happened on his watch.

-Another area of seeming bipartisan support was in the proposed splitting of the Department of Health and Human Services into two separate entities.

The new entity would be called the Nevada Health Authority.

Why do Democrats and Republicans appear to be on board with this splitting, at least right now?

-So the Department of Health and Human Services is the second largest state entity, state agency, that we see.

And I think that by splitting it, what the goal is, is to say we can streamline services.

We can say-- we can enact cost savings by getting everyone kind of on the same page and organizing, you know, public employees' benefit system, health insurance negotiations, putting them all kind of under one roof.

-And you bring up federal law.

Underneath that Nevada Health Authority, there is a proposed Office of Mental Health.

How did that come to be?

That involves the federal government, correct?

-That Office of Mental Health, from my understanding, is helping to address some issues that the State has had staying in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

There was a DOJ, Department of Justice, investigation that found that we didn't have support, enough supports or community-based services for kids to actually be living and staying here in state.

They were being shipped out of state to out-of-state facilities away from their homes and communities and away from their families and support.

And what they said is, We have to fix this.

You need to do it.

And what the State has done and said, We're working on it.

We have a plan.

They've reached a plan agreement and a settlement with the Department of Justice, and they're going to be implementing that in the future.

I think it's going to take probably at least five years, is what we're looking at, to fully kind of come into compliance.

And I think that Office of Mental Health, we still don't have a lot of details on it, but it's going to kind of be the place for organizing, making sure that behavioral health needs are kind of being met and sort of fulfilled there.

-And that is a topic that you covered so thoroughly recently, a four-part series called "We've Got to Talk," discussing mental health access in rural Nevada.

I encourage everyone to go and read that.

Thank you so much for your time, Tabitha Mueller of The Nevada Independent.

And you can read Tabitha's reporting at thenevadaindependent.com.

That's also where you can find coverage of the Nevada Democracy Project.

That is a joint project between Vegas PBS and The Nevada Independent.

We are holding community listening sessions, and at our most recent session, we invited state lawmakers to take questions from the public.

One of the first questions was about nonprofits that rely on the federal funding that President Donald Trump is proposing be cut.

(Participant) Kim Small, CEO of Signs of HOPE.

And Signs of HOPE has been serving Southern Nevada for over 50 years, giving-- supporting victims of sexual violence and exploitation, specifically human trafficking.

And as you're aware this, earlier this week, we-- a lot of nonprofits were thrown into a frenzy, those of us that receive federal funding.

And so now we are being proactive, as we have always been.

But I'm asking you, what does that look like if this should come again, which probably will, and how can you assist us that are in your community doing work to support those that are in need?

(Sandra Jauregui) After Monday, one of the things we started asking every single agency is, What percentage of your budget is federally funded?

And I will tell you that 37%-- over 30% of Nevada's budget is funded through federal dollars.

That's just our state government.

That doesn't include all of the various nonprofits that get federal funding to provide services to Nevadans.

You know, one of the nonprofits from Northern Nevada that also deals with domestic violence has a housing program to house women and children.

That's 100% funded by federal grants.

And so we are talking about a real problem if these cuts happen, right?

If these cuts to vital services happen, we are looking at a deficit of probably $8 billion that we're going to need to fund programs.

I mean, we're talking about, think about it, veterans programs, right?

We're talking about housing programs.

We're talking about-- I know they mentioned that maybe Medicaid isn't going to be included, but Medicaid portals froze and weren't allowed to accept money.

So we're talking about 800,000 Nevadans who get their health care from Medicaid.

We're talking about women and children who use WIC, the women and children program.

We're talking about SNAP.

So all of these are going to be in jeopardy.

These are cuts for Nevadans, services that Nevadans depend on to live.

-And Kim, your question was, What are they going to do if that funding ends up not continuing to come?

Do you have an answer to that at this point?

-We're going to have to look at our budget, because we won't even have enough money to fund budget.

And I will tell you that as Democrats, some of our priorities are making sure public education is funded and healthcare is funded, but we're going to have to look at programs that might not have the money.

-Assemblywoman Gallant, would you like to add anything?

(Danielle Gallant) So domestic violence is a really important issue.

It's something I've actually worked on since I was in college.

I have a mental health background.

That's where I started out, was working with groups of women in domestic violence areas, and I know how much of a struggle it is when it comes to funding and grants.

I sat on the board for S.A.F.E.

House for eight years, which is similar to what you guys do.

And I live right down the street from St. Jude's in Boulder City now.

So I'm a big supporter of that.

So I think there are state funds, I mean, like, you guys have the VOCA, with the marriage license.

And so honestly, I know this pause is very scary, and I believe by February 10 is when everybody, the department heads need to come in and sort of do an audit and say like, What are the essential and the important services?

And I think at that point we'll have a better idea about if or how much of assistance we need to work on here at the state level in order to support organizations like yours.

(Participant) My question really comes as a graduate of university now and then being born and raised here in Las Vegas, I've had the privilege to go to public school, zoned school, magnet school, as well as private school.

I was happy to see bipartisan legislation passed for increasing school funding, right?

We now spend on par or more than more-educated state counterparts per pupil, and our teachers are some of the most well-paid teachers in the country, right?

So why do we consistently rank lowest in education?

What are those states doing, like California, like Massachusetts, that we're not doing here at home?

-I'm very, very fortunate that every single session that I've served at the legislature, we've sent more money to public education than the session before.

And last session, we sent historic money to public education, $2.3 billion, right?

And so I'm proud of that, but you hit the nail on the head, right?

We need more transparency.

We need more accountability, right?

We need to do something to make sure that we're sending the money and that our schools are succeeding.

And Senate Majority Leader Cannizzaro is actually introducing a bill, the Education Accountability bill, which is aimed to do just that, right?

We've done a lot.

We created an education accountability subcommittee, a subcommittee of interim finance to bring the Clark County School Districts before us so that we can ask them questions about how they're spending the money.

Last session we passed a bill to order a forensic audit of the Clark County School District, which hasn't been completed, but you better believe once it does, I bet we're all going to be nose deep in that and reading it and making sure that they are, you know, resolving the findings.

But now the Senate Majority Leader is introducing the Education Accountability bill, which is going to create an oversight board that will also have enforceable tools within their disposal, and that's something I'm really excited about.

-Do any of you know whether that's what other states are doing that have led to their success with the same amount of pay, as he brought up?

Any thoughts on that or knowledge of that, Assemblywoman Gallant?

-Well, you take a look at some other states that are on par with the spending, and a lot of them have-- a handful of them also have school choice or some form of it, and so it allows for more options for parents in an environment that's going to be more conducive to maybe that student's learning style.

But I also think that there, there is a-- it's not a spending issue, right?

I mean, we definitely have some issues here in Nevada in terms of, like, just the systemic problems in our schools.

I also think that we probably need to be a little less stringent and more supportive of growing our charter school districts.

I mean, they run-- their teachers don't get paid as much.

They, unfortunately, were not included in the pay raises last session.

I'm hoping that they will be included this session.

But they have less per pupil spending; yet their test scores are higher across the board because their infrastructure, their system works, and our public school system is struggling.

I think one of the other issues that we run into is that there's Title I schools where the funding incentives is sort of screwed up.

So these Title I schools, they've got kids that are, might have some extra needs.

But if their scores are low, they get more money.

Their teachers get paid more money.

So it's almost like you're getting rewarded for having lower test scores, rather than getting rewarded for having higher test scores.

Human nature is what it is; we're going to keep doing the behavior we get rewarded to do, whether it's good or bad.

[applause] -The main issue I wanted to address is something I haven't heard talked about here and is extremely important in my neighborhood, and that is homelessness.

I have an entire file on my phone of just people that I have taken pictures of within a short walk from my house that are experiencing homelessness.

For a few months, 18 years ago, I was homeless, so I have great empathy for these folks.

But something has got to be done.

We've actually called paramedics for people that have passed out in front of our house.

There have been so many people, and I've talked to them, and these are real people.

And I think a lot of people don't look at them as real people.

But the status quo is unacceptable.

I had our commissioner, Tick Segerblom, he actually came to my house because I had to show him some of the RVs that we could not get off the street.

(Melanie Scheible) So I think, you know, addressing homelessness, it has to be a multifaceted approach.

And one of the main issues that we have to address is figuring out the underlying causes.

I think that in recent years we've learned that a lot of people are struggling with mental health problems and with substance abuse problems and addiction.

And so, again, we're going to go back to the conversation we started with, with funding and ensuring that we're-- that we have the funding available to provide services.

And I think that we have seen in other communities where the services are funded to provide people with options and to provide them with alternatives to homelessness, they take advantage of those opportunities.

And so we're working in Nevada on continuing to invest in our public and behavioral health system.

We're working on investing in opening up more beds in the, in the facilities that treat people who have mental health problems or who are experiencing a mental health crisis.

We've been working on setting up a crisis line in Nevada, a 988 number that people can call, that does not produce a police response, but produces kind of like a mental health first aid or a mental health first responder who can-- so we have the number set up, but we're still working on funding the crisis response teams and the crisis response centers.

And having a place where, you know, once an ambulance, or right now it's a volunteer, once somebody is deployed to a place like your neighborhood to interface with someone experiencing a mental health crisis, they have to have somewhere they can take them, somewhere that, you know-- and we have to be able to do this in a way that is responsive to the community, because I think that where you live, they're not going to respond well to police officers coming in with lights and sirens.

They need a different kind of, what we call a warm handoff, somebody who is going to take them in a normal looking car to a place where they can sit down inside, especially in the heat where they can have a glass of water, and someone will talk to them like a human being and figure out what's going on and what can we do for your crisis today.

And not just today, but tomorrow and the day after.

And what kind of services do we need to connect you to?

What kind of services do you need long term?

And so that's something that, you know, I've been working on for, you know, since I started in the legislature back in 2018, developing these crisis response centers, and it is a slow-moving process to get all of the pieces into place.

But I think that today it's more important than ever.

(Participant) I know that the sheriff has talked about the possibility of installing red-light cameras to try to catch all these people who are running red lights.

And it's a daily thing.

I lived in Alameda County for 16 years, in Fremont, where they have cameras, and they seem to work, and also one of neighboring cities, Union City, had cameras, and they actually took them out because they weren't working.

So are we talking to other jurisdictions about that, try to get an idea of what works and what doesn't?

-So we have worked with delegations or legislators from other states.

We have worked with some national organizations on traffic safety.

Again, I chair the Judiciary Committee, and so a lot of-- in addition to the Growth and Infrastructure Committee-- a lot of traffic laws come through my committee.

And we have been trying to figure out what we can do to increase road safety and to decrease these pedestrian collisions, especially.

And we've had so many conversations about traffic cameras, including red-light cameras.

And I'm confident in saying right now the data is mixed on whether or not they are effective.

And we've also been talking so much today about government spending.

I think this is, you know, an excellent, excellent example of the kind of debate that we have in the legislature, because, generally, those traffic cameras are run by private corporations, and it is a money-making operation for them.

So we, as a government, today, if somebody writes you a ticket for running a red light and you pay a $250 fine, that full $250 goes to the government.

It might be split between the city and the county and the highway fund, but it all goes to the government.

When you put a red-light camera in there, you start paying $10 of every $250 fine to the red-light camera company.

And so is that how we want to spend our money as Nevadans?

Do we want to pay a third-party corporation to get rich off of Nevadans who are running red lights?

I don't think so.

I'm not sure if that was obvious or not.

But you know, those are, those are the kinds of conversations that we have.

And so I actually, I do have a bill, a traffic infrastructure bill, that does, you know, a small thing to increase traffic safety by increasing the width of a crosswalk and by increasing the buffer zone outside of crosswalks.

And that has been studied on a national level to show that when you don't have cars within 20 feet of a crosswalk, you have fewer collisions when people are utilizing that crosswalk.

-When it comes to the traffic cams, this is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans equally do not like for various reasons, right?

But we also do like the idea of reducing traffic crashes, right, and fatalities within these, these intersections that seem to be problems.

I've had a lot of discussion with Metro about this, and Sheriff McMahill.

So one of the things that I said, like, I will consider this provided that we can actually prove that it works.

So maybe pick 20 intersections over the next two years to show that it's actually reduced these traffic fatalities in these accidents.

My other request was that I did not want this to be a money maker for the state.

So the hard costs of the cameras are funded by those private companies, but then anything above that would definitely like, go to the the police department, right?

And I don't want them to be incentivized.

So my request is that any of that extra money would actually be given out to vouchers to various bars or establishments to be able to do Ubers or cab ride for anybody that's drunk so that they can get them home safely.

-I think this is one issue we can all agree on.

I'm open to the discussion.

That's what we do.

We hear arguments, right?

Then we take in the information and make decisions.

One thing I also do is reach out to my district to find out, and my constituency, I mean, they are well informed like, This is the way the government's trying to make money.

We don't want this in our district.

-Or Big Brothers is watching.

That's what I keep hearing.

So people are nervous about that.

I think it's worth looking into, but I just think that we, they need to prove proof of concept.

-A thank-you to State Senator Melanie Scheible; Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui; and Assemblywoman Danielle Gallant for their participation.

You can see the entire Nevada Democracy Project Listening Session at vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.

And I'll see you next week on Nevada Week.