MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-First Session
February 19, 2001
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:49 p.m., on Monday, February 19, 2001. Chairman Wendell Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell Williams, Chairman
Ms. Bonnie Parnell, Vice Chairman
Ms. Sharron Angle
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Mark Manendo
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Mary Drake, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Martha G. Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Assembly Bill No. 124: Requires boards of trustees of certain school districts to provide transportation for certain pupils. (BDR 34-37)
After roll call, Chairman Williams passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Parnell who then chaired the meeting. She asked Mr. Manendo, the chief sponsor of A.B. 124, to come forward and present the bill.
Mr. Manendo, representing Assembly District 18, said he wanted to commend the Nevada State Education Association for providing each legislator a profile of schools within their Assembly districts. The profiles included the breakdown of such statistics as enrollments, capacities, number of portables, and classroom sizes. Mr. Manendo said the profile provided very helpful and useful information for all the legislators.
Mr. Manendo began his presentation by stating he brought A.B.124 forward on behalf of residents of Clark County, although the bill would apply to both Clark County and Washoe County. The purpose of A.B. 124 was to lower the busing radius for elementary school students from two miles to one and one-half miles in order to reduce their walking distance to school. Mr. Manendo said it was his understanding that in Washoe County, elementary school children must reside one mile from school to be eligible for school bus transportation; in Clark County the radius was two miles. He indicated he was uncertain how Washoe County funded this transportation, since Clark County’s fiscal note for A.B. 124 was substantial (around $23 million). Mr. Manendo noted Clark County School District’s (CCSD) cost estimates two years ago to bus all school children within a two-mile radius were about the same amount as the fiscal note for A.B. 124, so the fiscal effect seemed inflated since A.B. 124 only targeted elementary school children.
Mr. Manendo remarked that while attending school board meetings during the legislative interim period, he noticed the one issue that most concerned parents was the safety of their children going to and from school. He cited as an example a mobile home park in his district situated on a major highway where the back portion of the park lay at the two-mile radius. To walk to school, those children must cross a major highway, walk down a side street, and pass a vacant lot where homeless people congregated. Because of problems in the area, the police expressed concern about children walking unattended past the lot. The CCSD sent a letter to parents instructing children not to go that route, and provided directions for an alternate route. The alternate route, however, was to cross a major highway, proceed down a busy commercial district area, then head down a wash to get to the school. Mr. Manendo said that was also a dangerous route, but there were only two alternatives for the children. He was sure there were similar cases in other areas. He noted the most outspoken parents on this issue usually resided within the one and one-half to two mile radius.
Mr. Manendo continued his presentation saying he wanted to see what he could do to lower the busing threshold to one and one-half miles and alleviate some of the concerns of those parents. A.B.124 had a fiscal impact, which was why he referred the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means. He believed the funding was necessary for the safety of the children.
Mr. Collins asked Mr. Manendo if the one and one-half mile threshold was made based on distances solely in his district or outside his district as well.
Mr. Manendo said the problem was first brought to his attention within his district; however, after years of attending school board meetings, he determined the issue was a big concern in southern Nevada. He further commented he did not bring the threshold down to one mile because of the fiscal impacts; one and one-half miles was a compromise. He added that because of the high implementation costs, perhaps the most dangerous areas could be targeted first.
Mr. Collins said he was also suspicious of the fiscal note for the bill. He noted that when these problems began to surface two years ago, CCSD held the Nevada Legislature responsible. Mr. Collins commented that the CCSD claimed it did not want to set a precedent by allowing a bus to stop within two miles, yet they would do it to their convenience. They also gave waivers to overflow vacant seats, starting at 1.99 miles He said he would give Mr. Manendo every effort he could in support of A.B.124. He commented the regulation in the Clark County School District was two miles, or if it was unsafe, they would bus the children. Yet because of budget constraints, areas that were once deemed unsafe were now considered safe, even though they were construction zones. He felt in terms of the CCSD, their judgment was based on their budget, and not the needs of the school children. He commended Mr. Manendo for the bill.
Mr. Manendo noted that Mr. Collins was a cosponsor of the bill and thanked him for his support. He said he had received many complaints from parents whose children had to walk through construction zones. The frustration level was high due to the length of time it took the CCSD to process paper work to get children bussed who had to walk through construction zones. Typically, it took two to three months. He said the stories he heard from parents were disheartening. The legislature needed to determine if school transportation was an issue they wanted to address. If school children’s safe and timely arrival to school was an issue, then this bill was in the right place.
Chairman Williams said the Clark County School District’s audit indicated they had over 400 adult employees who drove school district vehicles from their homes each day. He said the upkeep of those vehicles alone was expensive. He added the audit also indicated the school district lost $6 million in equipment last year. Chairman Williams felt if the Clark County School District reprioritized its funding, the fiscal note attached to A.B. 124 could be substantially reduced.
Chairman Williams also suggested that perhaps school district employees who drove district vehicles to and from work every day could start walking the one to two miles, since walking would be safer for them than small children. The vehicles could be used to transport the children. He felt the Clark County School District’s position that the Committee on Ways and Means was the only source of money should be challenged. The audit indicated there was money available.
Mr. Manendo concurred with Chairman Williams that the school district should be as fiscally responsible as possible, and he was sure there was money available. He knew the district had looked at having high school students walk the three miles to school. Mr. Manendo also commented that children today were exposed to more dangers than ever before, and with both parents usually working, parents could not always provide their children transportation to and from school. He said he had met with school board trustees over the years to find ways to reduce the walking miles. He felt perhaps some of the fiscal notes were too high.
Chairman Williams said the Clark County School District’s ending fund balance indicated money was available, yet the Clark County Board of School Trustees still contended there was not enough money for teacher salaries, books, and transportation, and that the legislature should give more. He commented that when the legislature looked at the audit, the money was there. He felt money to get the children to and from school should come out of the CCSD’s budget, and not out of the Committee on Ways and Means. He further noted A.B. 124 was not an unfunded mandate; the funds were already there in the CCSD’s budget.
Mrs. Smith asked Mr. Manendo to clarify that the elementary school students walked two miles to school in Clark County. Mr. Manendo confirmed that they did.
Mrs. Smith asked what the mileage was for middle and high school students. Mr. Manendo indicated it was all the same.
Mrs. Smith said she thought in Washoe County there was a different break down for the different levels of education, such as, elementary was one mile, middle school was two miles, high school was three miles. Washoe County also had good provisions for children to cross busy streets. She felt elementary students should not be expected to walk two miles to school if there was no other transportation available. She noted Washoe County had successfully resolved some of its busing issues using methods such as creative bus routes, transporting different ages of children on the same bus, and other solutions that allowed children to have a bus ride to school. Mrs. Smith commented the fiscal note on A.B. 124 was large, and she questioned what those costs involved.
Mr. Manendo said the breakdown on the fiscal note for Clark County alone was: $13.3 million for equipment, $4.3 million for personnel, $5 million for ongoing, and $309,000 for fuel. He noted perhaps part of the solution could be to reorganize bus routes, but his experience over the years was that option had failed. Mr. Manendo said perhaps allocating the money was not the right thing to do to resolve this issue, but he wanted to bring something forward to start the debate, regardless if the solution would be added funds or improved accountability. The issue was to get the children to school safely.
Mrs. Cegavske asked if the State Public Safety Division had conducted a study on safety in Clark County. She also noted that the Clark County School District had conducted studies on the busing issue, and it would be helpful for the committee to obtain that information. She mentioned that she and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had worked a couple of years ago with the Clark County School District and Clark County Area Transit (CCAT) on a bus pass proposal for high school students. Mrs. Cegavske said that to date, CCSD and CCAT had not come to any agreement on that proposal. She asked if Clark County School District eliminated high school busing and bussed only K- 8 and special education students, would there be enough busses?
Mrs. Cegavske mentioned another option that had been discussed was changing school hours. Studies indicated, for example, high school students performed better in late morning than early morning. She also thought Chairman Williams’ point on utilizing Clark County vehicles was another area to explore, such as using small vans to go to the magnet schools Mrs. Cegavske concluded her remarks by stating she felt this was a public safety issue and needed to involve the public safety division.
Mr. Gustavson asked Mr. Manendo if he had specifically asked the Clark County School District for funding for the busing.
Mr. Manendo said he had been involved over the years in numerous discussions with both school board and transportation officials; however, nothing was ever put in writing. Mr. Manendo acknowledged he did not know how to resolve this issue; there were many possibilities. He said his purpose in bringing the bill forward was to open dialog on the issue and bring it to resolution. Parents were very concerned about the safety of their children.
Mr. Gustavson said he would like to see the distance reduced to one mile. He questioned the high cost on the fiscal note, and added that the issue needed to be debated. Mr. Gustavson asked where the line was to be drawn in terms of the state’s protection of its children.
Mrs. Von Tobel said she walked for exercise every day on a tread mill and it took her one-half hour to walk two miles at a very fast pace. She said the children who walked two miles to school couldn’t possibly make it in 30 minutes. As a substitute teacher, it had been her experience that children who were chronically late usually walked to school. She noted that during Dr. Herron’s presentation last week on replacement schools in the Clark County School District, he raised the option of busing children out of their communities into Las Vegas schools. Mrs. Von Tobel questioned how the CCSD could afford to bus children out of their communities into Las Vegas, but could not afford to bus children one and one-half miles to their neighborhood schools. She added that she supported the measure, and felt CCSD should be able to find the funds in their budget to pick up additional routes within the one-half mile radius.
Mr. Collins said there was a work session scheduled tomorrow in the Committee on Transportation related to busing. One measure under consideration by the Committee on Transportation was a graduated drivers’ license bill, which could potentially increase the number of students who needed rides to school. Mr. Collins stated children should not be bussed out of their communities; they should be provided a neighborhood school. He further added that reasonable safety should be the minimum standard in determining when children needed to be bussed. Children should not be walking across 100-foot highways with 3 lanes of traffic in each direction.
Mrs. Smith said the issue went beyond safety. She felt expecting an elementary school student to walk two miles was too much, regardless of the safety concerns.
Chairman Williams commented he lived near Advanced Technology Academy, a magnet school, and had never seen more than ten students on the school bus. After making inquiries, he discovered the children were bussed from the Henderson area. Chairman Williams questioned why a van could not be used in place of a school bus to transport such a small number of high school students. That would be another option to explore. Chairman Williams reiterated he felt the money for the busses was in the Clark County School District budget.
Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, spoke in support of the concepts in A.B.124 and the allocation of additional financial resources which supported the goal of reducing the walking distance to one and one-half miles for elementary school students. She wanted to offer clarification on some of the issues. She confirmed that the busing distance in Washoe County was three miles for high school; two miles for middle school; and one mile for elementary school. In Clark County, all grade levels were bussed two miles.
In regard to the number of students and busses, Ms. Tittle said Clark County School District had over 980 busses and over 90,000 students eligible for daily transportation. Students were bussed approximately 16.5 million miles per year.
Ms. Tittle said she felt there was some confusion on the fiscal note. The first fiscal note submitted addressed all grade levels. Clark County’s copy of the fiscal note addressed only the elementary school level, and was significantly less. Clark County School District’s letter to Kevin Welsh, Legislative Counsel Bureau’s fiscal analyst, (Exhibit C) dated February 14, 2001, indicated the fiscal impact was $12.3 million and covered the elementary school student population. She further explained CCSD had staggered bell times, so one bus transported more than one grade level. Busses also made different runs at different times. She did add that the possibility of using smaller vehicles for smaller numbers of children was something to examine.
Ms. Tittle said the Clark County School District Transportation Division was analyzing options and exploring a variety of funding methods to cover the increased costs for fuel and busses. They had considered Clark County Area Transit (CCAT) passes for students; however, CCAT indicated they couldn’t accommodate all the secondary students. They would consider some cases, such as the magnet school students or the program students in athletics who stayed after school.
Ms. Tittle said since the CCSD currently provided transportation for the secondary students at two miles, to increase that to three miles would not be a popular notion, although decreasing the elementary to one and one-half would be. CCSD was more than willing to look at the issues, keeping in mind the funding considerations.
Mrs. Cegavske asked if anyone had gone to the local entities and asked for funding assistance in a public safety arena.
Ms. Tittle said that the Clark County School District’s Transportation Division did have interlocal agreements with various local entities. She would check for Mrs. Cegavske to determine if they had looked at the busing issue.
Mrs. Cegavske said it was worth looking into because the majority of elected officials had children and recognized the problem. From what she was hearing, it seemed to be more of a southern Nevada issue, so the local entities should be looked to for assistance.
Mrs. Chowning stated she agreed with the concept of the bill; looking out for the safety of children was the uppermost responsibility, and in the long run would be the most cost effective because of the litigious society in which we lived. Mrs. Chowning agreed the local entities should be involved. She asked about the use of advertising on school busses. Legislation passed in the 69th Session (A.B. 146 from the Sixty-Ninth Session) authorized commercial advertising on district school busses. Mrs. Chowning noted that other states had raised significant amounts of funding by the use of advertising on school busses. Mrs. Chowning wanted to know why all the school districts in Nevada were not utilizing advertising as a source of funds, specifically for transportation purposes.
Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, addressed Mrs. Chowning’s question concerning advertising on school busses. She referenced a letter from Dr. Walt Rulffes, Assistant Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer for the Clark County School District, (Exhibit D) recently provided to Mr. Manendo that addressed the issue of advertising. The letter stated the school district was in the process of reviewing advertising proposals on school busses and hoped to enter into a contract in the near future.
Ms. McKinney-James said the CCSD supported the concept of reduction in the walking distance for elementary school students, and there was a true interest in making an effort to address the issue. The suggestions made by the committee would be taken back for further review. The fiscal note on A.B. 124 represented the “big picture.” Clark County School District had provided what they believed to be the basic funding implications for the measure; however, the hearing process provided opportunities to explore additional options. There was, however, a substantial fiscal impact on the CCSD in terms of purchasing busses. Options such as CCAT passes, use of vans, and increased revenue sources through advertising could be explored.
Ms. McKinney-James commented to Chairman Williams she was not familiar with the specific audit he referenced. She would appreciate specific information in order to determine where the additional dollars might be to prioritize the resources.
Vice Chairman Parnell asked the committee members who represented Las Vegas districts to write down their comments and present them to Ms. McKinney-James and Ms. Tittle.
Mr. Collins asked Ms. Tittle and Ms. McKinney-James if they would address the question of how the legislature could assist in obtaining adequate funding in order to change the public perception that Nevada had a bad school system because it was not funded correctly.
Ms. McKinney-James commented to Mr. Collins there was more than a willingness to address the funding issue. She proposed that a committee session with Dr. Rulffes and his senior staff would be valuable in explaining how the CCSD would like to see resources allocated. She suggested Dr. Rulffes make a presentation to the committee which addressed the fiscal implications.
Mr. Manendo asked Ms. McKinney-James to submit for the record the CCSD’s fiscal note (Exhibit C) that addressed the cost for elementary school students only. He had not seen it as yet.
Mrs. Tittle said the CCSD fiscal note stated A.B.124 would require an additional 125 buses at a cost of over $12.3 million. The annual operating cost would be $1.7 million. These figures would not include depreciation of the school busses. The reason the cost reduction was not proportional to the student reduction was CCSD’s ability to use the same bus at each grade level due to staggered bell times.
Mr. Manendo observed that the new fiscal note from CCSD called out a $12.5 million price for equipment for elementary school only, yet the costs to include all grades was $13.3 million. Adding on middle school and high school only increased the cost by $800,000, which, to Mr. Manendo, did not add up. Mr. Manendo said the committee needed to have Dr. Rulffes present to discuss the fiscal note. Mr. Manendo added this was not a recent issue; it had been on-going for years. He concluded that whether the answer was creative busing routes, not busing high school students, or CCAT bus passes, something needed to be done. He did not want to leave this legislative session with no resolution. He believed that looking at other options could reduce the fiscal note. He felt the money was there. The legislature may have to come up with some, but $23 million was too high.
Vice Chairman Parnell said she would like to discuss this measure with the Chairman. She was not in a position today to appoint members to a subcommittee, but it did sound as if A.B. 124 would go to a subcommittee for discussion and would most likely include members of the committee who represented the Clark County School District area.
Vice Chairman Parnell concluded the testimony on A.B.124 and closed the hearing. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mary Drake
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Chairman
DATE: