Clark County School Board opposes Sandoval plan for funds

The proposal was criticized by School Board member John Cole as an irresponsible one-time fix that would be “robbing the future to pay for today.”

Because the transfer would deplete the Clark County School District’s reserves for debt service payments on school bonds, the district’s capacity for financing new capital projects would be limited, officials said. The district has identified $4.9 billion in capital needs over the next 10 years, including computers and school maintenance.

Joyce Haldeman, associate superintendent for government relations, said the proposal would make the district like a deeply indebted credit card user who only makes the monthly minimum payment instead of paying off the balance.

“How long is it going to be before you use the credit card again?” Haldeman said. “To do all the renovation we need to do, we can’t wait 10 years to have more money.”

School Board member Chris Garvey spoke with emotion about constituents in northern District B who are desperate for construction jobs.

Darren Enns, secretary/treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, pledged support in fighting the governor’s proposal. He said his group represents 20,000 local construction workers.

“Some of our construction trades are reporting more than 50 percent unemployment,” Enns said .

Because the governor has promised no new taxes, many speakers compared his proposal to a “shell game” because local property taxes probably would have to be increased within two years to replenish the district’s capital reserves. If the district refinanced its debt, taxpayers would still be on the hook because the district would have to pay a higher interest rate and extend the life of the “mortgage” another 10 years, officials said.

School Board member Deanna Wright said the governor’s proposal was similar to “a big brother going into the little brother’s room to steal from his piggy bank.”

In a statement released by the governor’s office, Sandoval said he was “committed to working with the Legislature to find solutions which improve our schools. No one wants to see cuts to education. I understand the school board’s position, however, I firmly believe it is more important to use this money for salaries and classroom needs. Despite our differences on this issue, I look forward to working with the school district on efforts to reform education.”

Without $150 million from debt service reserves to help offset operating expenses for next year, the school district’s budget shortfall would grow to about $400 million.

A shortfall of $250 million is equivalent to about 14 more students per classroom or 33 fewer days in the school year.

Jeff Weiler, the district’s chief financial officer, suggested there are other sources of revenue the state could consider.

For example, the school support sales tax could generate $80 million next year for the district if it remains at its current rate of 2.6 percent. It was raised as a temporary fix during the 2009 session of the Legislature, but the tax is scheduled to “sunset,” or return to its previous rate of 2.25 percent, on July 1.

Contact reporter James Haug at jhaug@reviewjournal.com or 702-374-7917.