State Democrats’ ‘to-do’ list will spur big changes. But how big?

By Ric Anderson

Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019 | 2 a.m.

In past sessions of the Nevada Legislature, the Democrats’ “Nevada Blueprint” could have been described as a wish list.

Not this year. With Democrats in control of the governor’s office and both chambers of the Legislature, the blueprint — a collection of the party’s goals and top-priority legislative items for the session — is more like a to-do list. Unlike the first two sessions when the Democrats issued their blueprint, there are no Republicans standing in their way to either defeat their objectives in the Legislature or veto them.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no uncertainty to be dealt with during the remainder of the 2019 session. Yes, Democrats will get what they want in a broad sense. But the plan doesn’t deal in specifics — rather, it contains broad objectives such as “Update Nevada’s outdated school funding formula” and “Expand access to the ballot box” — so there are a great many details to work out.

With that in mind, here’s a look at several likely outcomes Nevadans can expect from the session this year, along with key questions that have yet to be answered.

Safe bet: There will be an increase in the minimum wage …

The blueprint, unveiled on Monday by Senate Majority Leader Kelvin Atkinson and Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson, called for an increase to the current minimum wage of $7.25 for jobs offering health insurance and $8.25 for the rest. Gov. Steve Sisolak has said he would sign a bill raising the minimum wage.

Question: … but how much will it be?

Will it be $10? $12? Maybe $15? Atkinson and Frierson wouldn’t set targets.

“We want to make sure this is a collaborative discussion,” Frierson said. “I’m committed to have a conversation with members of the business community, and particularly the small-business community, about ways we can make sure employees aren’t being taken advantage of with low wages that aren’t keeping pace with reality. But we don’t want to run a small business out, so we want to have them at the table to talk about it.”

Safe bet: There will be gun safety legislation in addition to the universal background checks measure that the Legislature has already passed this session and which Sisolak has signed …

The only reference to gun safety in the blueprint is to “Implement background checks on all gun purchases.”

But when asked whether the Democrats were declaring “mission accomplished” on all gun safety legislation after the success on background checks, Atkinson said, “It’s missioned accomplished on that one.”

Question: … but how far will Democrats go?

A bump stock ban would appear to be a gimme, and possibly high-capacity magazines as well. But what about assault-type rifles? Or how about a so-called “Red Flag” law, which allows authorities to seize guns from individuals who are found by the courts to be dangerous to themselves or others? Atkinson said some of the 1,000-plus bills that have been filed deal with firearm safety, and will be considered.

Safe bet: There will be changes in the funding formula for public schools ...

The current formula has been around since 1967, three years before Frierson was born and well before the births of many other lawmakers. Nevada has changed drastically since then, particularly in the number of children in Clark County who are English language learners, have special needs or in some other way require specialized services. Those services cost money.

Question: … so how much of a tax increase are Nevadans looking at?

Welcome to one of the session’s biggest mysteries. Considering that the blueprint also calls for giving a raise to teachers and reducing class sizes, which means building more classrooms, Republicans and critics of public schools say a tax increase is a certainty.

But Frierson insists that’s not necessarily the case. When Democrats discuss “new revenue” for schools, he says, that’s not code for “tax increase.”

“I think we're talking about our budget reflecting our priorities,” he said. “And I think part of that is making some tough decisions about what we do with the limited resources we do have. Some of that is living within our means, and we're going to look at the budget and the projections that come out. But we have some creative options out there that at least give us some more flexibility with the resources we do have.”

Among those is a weighted funding formula, in which money is appropriated to schools on a per-student level, with students who need specialized services getting a proportionally larger share. Frierson said that approach was “a way to more efficiently use the resources we have.”

But that’s a big change from the current formula, which provides funding based on needs as assessed by districts and schools — and which, of course, has been around for 52 years.

“It's going to be a tall task,” Frierson said. “It’s going to be difficult with a funding formula that is that dated. And with school districts that have already laid out their budgets, we want to transition in a way that makes sense.”

Safe bet: Nevada consumers will come away with more options on using renewable energy …

The blueprint calls for an increase in the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard — the amount of energy from renewable sources that is made available to consumers — and the creation of a community-based solar energy program.

Question: … but will lawmakers work toward breaking NV Energy’s monopoly and opening the market to other power companies?

In 2016, Nevada voters overwhelmingly supported the energy choice ballot question. In 2018, they narrowly defeated it after questions arose about how it would be carried out and how it would affect ratepayers. Both times, however, many voters backed the intent of the law — to allow them to choose their power providers like they would their internet provider.

This session, those voters may have to wait it out. The blueprint doesn’t address energy choice or a major restructure of the market, and Frierson offered a flat “I honestly don’t know” when asked whether there would be any movement on the issue. He added that lawmakers were exploring a number of areas related to energy policy, and “we need to be open to conversations across the board.”