nevada association of counties (naco) board of directors ... › wp-content › uploads ›...

NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACO) Board of Directors’ Meeting

April 22, 2016, 9:30 a.m. NACO Office

304 S. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703

AGENDA Some NACO Board members may attend via video link or phone from other locations. Items on the agenda may be taken out of order. The NACO Board may combine two or more agenda items for consideration. The NACO Board may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Call to Order, Roll Call, Salute to the Flag

1. Public Comment. Please Limit Comments to 3 Minutes.

2. Approval of Agenda. For Possible Action.

3. NACO President’s Report. .

4. NACO Executive Director’s Report.

5. Viewing of the Lander County Economic Development Authority You-Tube.

6. Approval of Minutes of the March 25, 2016 NACO Board of Directors Meeting. For Possible Action.

7. Presentation on the Nevada Shared Radio System.

8. Update on the Activities of the Nevada Broadband Task Force.

9. Update on the Development of NACO’s New Website.

Note: The NACO Board of Directors May Interrupt the Open Meeting and Exclude the Public from the Meeting for the Limited Purpose of Receiving the Information and for Deliberation Relative to Agenda Item #10 below:

10. Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s and U.S. Forest

Service’s Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plans (ARMP’S) including the The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Filed by Western Exploration LLC, Elko County, Eureka County, Quantum Minerals, White Pine County, Lander County, Humboldt County, Ninety-Six Ranch, LLC, Paragon Precious Metals, LLC, Churchill County, Washoe County and the State of Nevada. For Possible Action.

11. Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Options to Compensate NACO’s Raymond James Financial Advisor. For Possible Action.

12. Discussion and Possible Approval for NACO to Amend its Marketing Agreement with the National

Association of Counties (NACo) for its Prescription Discount Card Program to Add Dental and Health Discount Programs Administered by CVS/Caremark. For Possible Action.

13. Update on Nevada’s Medicaid Program and Impacts to Nevada’s Counties.

14. Presentation by the State Labor Commissioner.

15. Update and Possible Action regarding a Proposal to Consolidate the University of Nevada, Reno College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR), Cooperative Extension, and the Nevada Agriculture Experiment Station (NAES). For Possible Action.

16. Update and Possible Action on AB191 Enacted in the 2015 Legislative Session which Authorizes a County to Place on the Ballot at the General Election on November 8, 2016 a Question which Asks the Voters in the County whether to Authorize the Board of County Commissioners to Impose, for the Period beginning on January1, 2017, Annual Increases to Taxes on Certain Motor Vehicle Fuels. For Possible Action.

17. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Funding Options for the Use of Portable Recording Devices (Body Cameras) by County Peace Officers. For Possible Action.

18. Discussion on Recommendations from the Southern Nevada Forum.

19. Update on Interim Legislative Committees and Studies and Possible Issues for the 2017 Legislature.

20. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Public Lands and Natural Resources Issues Including: a. Report from the NACO Public Lands Committee. b. Report on the Legislative Committee on Public Lands April 15, 2016 Meeting. c. Comments on the Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed 2.0 Planning Regulations.

For Possible Action. d. BLM’s Proposed Sagebrush Focal Area Withdrawal Environmental Impact Statement. For

Possible Action. e. Report on the April 19, 2016 Quarterly Public Lands Breakfast Hosted by Lt. Governor Hutchison

and NACO.

21. NACO Committee of the Emeritus Update.

22. National Association of Counties and Western Interstate Region Board Member Updates.

23. NACO Board Member Updates.

24. Public Comment - Please Limit Comments to 3 Minutes Adjournment. Members of the public who are disabled and require special accommodations or assistance at the meeting are requested to notify NACO in writing at 304 S. Minnesota Street, Carson City, NV 89703, or by calling (775) 883-7863 at least three working days prior to the meeting. Members of the public can request copies of the supporting material for the meeting by contacting Amanda Evans at (775) 883-7863. Supporting material will be available at the NACO office and on the NACO website at: www.nvnaco.org This agenda was posted at the following locations: NACO Office 304 S. Minnesota Street, Carson City, NV 89703 Washoe County Admin. Building 1001 E. Ninth Street, Reno, NV 89520 Clark County Admin. Building 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155 POOL/PACT 201 S. Roop Street, Carson City, NV 89701

The following links and/or pages are additional support for agenda Item 6

NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACO) Board of Directors’ Meeting March 25, 2016, 9:30 a.m.

NACO Office 304 S. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703

UNADOPTED MINUTES

Attendance: (NACO Staff; Jeff Fontaine, Dagny Stapleton, Amanda Evans, Tori Sundheim) President Carson, President Elect Phillips, Vice President Weekly, Immediate Past President Wichman, Elko County Commissioner Dahl, Douglas County Commissioner Johnson, Humboldt County Commissioner French, Washoe County Commissioner Herman, Esmeralda County Commissioner Bates, Storey County Commissioner McGuffey, Eureka County Commissioner Goicoechea, Pershing County Commissioner Irwin, Lander County Commissioner Waits, Clark County Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Washoe County Commissioner Lucey, Churchill County Commissioner Olsen, Carson City Mayor Crowell, Nancy Parent-Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials and Bob Roshak-Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs’ Association. Other Attendee’s: Lyon County Commissioner Alt, Nye County Commissioner Borasky, Nye County Commissioner Schinhofen, Cheva Gabor-USFS, Lee Bonner-NDOT, Sondra Rosenberg-NDOT, Mark Costa-NDOT, Mary Walker, Terry Faff and Lee Gibson-RTC Washoe.

1. Public Comment. None was given.

2. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved on a motion by Commissioner Goicoechea with second by Mayor Crowell.

3. NACO President’s Report. President Carson spoke to her pleasure at the large number of Nevada Commissioners in attendance at the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference in February and the success of the meetings held with Nevada’s Federal Delegation. She completed her remarks with the presentation of the ‘NACO Travel Debacle Award’ to Commissioner Johnson for his years of experience with the trials and tribulations of traveling cross country in winter for the annual event.

. 4. NACO Executive Director’s Report. Jeff reminded the Board of the upcoming National Association

of Counties Western Interstate Region (WIR) Conference in May and their Annual Conference in July. He also noted that Lindsey Harmon of Connect Nevada would be conducting a tour of the rural counties April 11-13 to assess broadband challenges and that if any Board members or county staff would like to meet with her to let him know. He concluded his remarks with the work being done on the new NACO website and that the current schedule is to have something to show the Board at the April meeting.

5. Approval of Minutes of the January 22, 2016 NACO Board of Directors Meeting. President

Carson noted the omission of Commissioner Weekly’s last name in item three and the minutes were approved with this correction on a motion by Commissioner Bates with second by Commissioner Irwin.

6. Discussion and Possible Action for NACO to Recognize April 2016 as National County

Government Month. Jeff reminded the Board that every April is recognized as National County Government Month by NACo and that several counties have already adopted resolutions recognizing the celebration. He passed around additional information and sample proclamations and press releases as well as directed the Board to NACo’s website for additional information. The Board approved formal recognition of the month on a motion by Commissioner Wichman with a second by Commissioner Johnson.

7. Nomination of County Social Services Administrators for Appointment by the Governor to the

Board of the Fund for Hospital Care to Indigent Persons (NRS 428.195). Jeff informed the Board that the position is vacant due to Clark County’s Tim Burch having accepted another position within the County. He reminded the Board that they are to nominate two persons for the Governor’s consideration and those nominations must be a Director of a County Social Services Department. The Association of County Social Services Directors met in the NACO conference room on Wednesday March 23

rd and suggested the nomination of Edrie LaVoie of Lyon County and Michael Pawlak who is

the new director for Clark County. Both were approved for nomination on a motion from Commissioner Waits with second by Commissioner Bates.

8 Update on the Nevada Supreme Court’s Committee to Study Evidence-Based Pretrial Release. Jeff introduced Associate Chief Justice James Hardesty to present the item to the Board. Justice Hardesty thanked the Board for the invitation to update the Board on the status of the Committee and noted that the issue will directly impact counties and noted that following his presentation he would touch briefly on guardianship issues that will also have a direct effect on counties. The Justice noted that the Commission was created surrounding the issue of the use of bail for making pretrial release decisions and that the Association of Chief Justices has taken a specific interest in the issue as bail specifically favors the rich, harms the indigent and the poor and does not account for risk factors to the general public. He noted that the net effect of bail decisions are unconstitutional and unproductive and have consequences that include increased costs to counties for jails as well as the creation of societal problems that can increase county costs for social services. He noted that work has been completed for the past five years and the Committee is using the Kentucky model which outlines 7 risk factors that provide a judge more information than they would typically have when making release decisions. He noted that Judges in NV have almost no information in the first 24-48 hours unless they have seen the defendant before. Therefore, they default to a bail system, but Nevada's bail system is different in every judicial district. The Justice used a test population provided by Jeff Wells in Clark County, where as of November 4, 2014 of the 3400 defendants in the county, a little over a 1/3 of the defendants were there strictly on bail hold and they cannot make, could not make the financial obligation for release. So the key 8-11 questions based on risk factors would be evaluated by either the jail staff or court services officers. They would conduct an interview with the Defendant and complete independent investigations of employment status, prior criminal history, arrests, failures to appear misdemeanors and felonies, and the judge would receive a report within 24 hours. Throughout the country, many of those Defendants’ could be released under their own recognizance or under some other supervision. Other benefits to the use of pretrial release tools include the fact that an individual whose release decision is made within 24 hours is less likely to re-offend at all, because the more time they spend in the jail the more they associate with people who encourage them to participate in criminal activity. For example in Washington D.C. the institution of their pretrial release assessment tool has allowed them to reduce the incarceration of pretrial defendants by 50%. Justice Hardesty said the effort of the committee is to determine the risk assessment tool and the questions that should be in them, and then to validate that tool by testing it against cases from 2014 and what would have been the release decisions had the tool already been implemented. With the assistance of free services from a National Institute to help with studies and statistics and free services from Department of Justice, the Commission at its February meeting unanimously approved Nevada's pretrial release tool. It is currently in a validation process where 1500 cases across Nevada are being tested to validate the tool. The results will be presented to the commission May 16. If as expected, it is validated, it will begin a program with limited jurisdiction judges. Justice Hardesty acknowledged that the counties are in the middle of the budget process and strongly urged the Board to consider what kind of court services they support in their budgets and allow for costs associated with the implementation of the tool toward the end of the summer. He noted that the Supreme Court, by rule, will direct all the judges to use the tool in making pretrial release decisions going forward. He acknowledged that in rural counties implementation will be a challenge. The hope is to create a statewide integrated system so those counties that can’t afford to set something new up can look to other counties to assist them. The other important advantage is that defendants have a way of going from county to county so there would be a mechanism to be able to track these defendants as they move so a judge in one county making a pretrial release decision on limited information when there is a huge history in another county. Justice Hardesty noted that he was grateful to have Dagny on the Commission, that she has provided great input as the NACO liaison to the Commission. He also noted that the Commission is made up of District Attorneys, Public Defenders, 18 jurisdictions and District Court judges for a total committee of 25. He noted that the implementation will be a slow process and that there would not be an emptying of jails but that he foresees a reduction in jail occupancy, while at the same time requiring additional resources for supervision. Commissioner Johnson noted concern with the budget line for court support and how his Commission would figure out what that would be and if there even is a cost savings in this? Justice Hardesty suggested looking at what is spent in Douglas County to operate the jail and asking the Sherriff or a supervisor: How many defendants are in the jail for which bail has been set but cannot make it and are not there for any other reason or charges? Noting that he is anticipating based on national standards; it will be at least 30%. Noting that even if counties don’t cut existing personnel, they can avoid the future cost by having people released. Mayor Crowell echoed Commissioner Johnson’s concern and inquired as to statistics or data to help work through what that might mean for the alternative sentencing personnel within their budgets. Justice Hardesty noted that

there are national statistics and that Dagny would be able to provide that information after a mid-September meeting with the Director of the Pretrial Release Institute. He specifically noted however, that National statistics demonstrate that increase in pretrial supervision is not as great as imagined, noting that with many defendants released using the tool there is no supervision. He also noted that another point in favor of using the tool that can’t be accurately calculated is the costs to county social services programs resulting from people losing their jobs for being in jail for more than 3 days, the cost to family services from having kids who need to be temporarily fostered, and housing resulting from loss of income. As well as increased improvement to public safety for violent offenders who would have made bail but will not pass the test of the risk assessment tool. Commissioner McGuffey noted the costs associated with monitoring devices and that he would like to see that area addressed. The Justice noted that by use of the tool there would more than likely be decreased supervision for those released. Commissioner Lucey noted that he has been active with the issue and that during a recent trip to New York he was informed that the courts in Brooklyn have provided information that the tool has proven to be very effective not only for reduction in jail cost but the social services have been more effective through case migration and that savings have been monumental and the social services side alone had been amazing. Noting that Washoe County is very much in support of this and it has proven to be cost effective. The Justice directed the Board to the Supreme Courts website where they could gain access to a 1,000 pages of reports, studies, documents that reflect presentations the commission has received from administrators from DOJ, NCI, Arizona, Kentucky, etc. Justice Hardesty noted that on May 16

th the Committee will be presented with the results of the

1500 test cases and that expect to have the tool validated at that time and will begin to prepare for implementation. Commissioner Wichman also noted the cost savings to counties when they do not receive Medicare/Medicaid funds when a person is incarcerated. The Justice concluded his remarks by informing the Board of the commission he has established to study and reform issues within the public guardianship program. Noting that what the commission has learned is troubling and that of the files they have looked at there are several with no information other than the order for guardianship, no asset lists or accounting. That the commission has come to the conclusion that the courts in the state are not adequately staffed to supervise the numerous cases involving guardianship, he stated that the costs will be huge to counties if reforms are not completed correctly. Noting that the public guardian system is all over the map in and the public guardian services are overwhelmed. There are only 22 statewide certified guardians and numerous examples of abuses of the system. He noted that the commission is working with the Attorney General’s office, courts and District Attorneys and that county’s should begin to plan for the costs associated with the implementation of stricter standards, reporting requirements and oversight.

9 Update and Possible Action regarding a Proposal to Consolidate the University of Nevada,

Reno College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR), Cooperative Extension, and the Nevada Agriculture Experiment Station (NAES). Dagny updated the Board on the Working Group’s meeting with the Chancellor, Provost and both University Deans where she noted there was good discussion based on the list of assurances that the Board had requested. She noted that the group stressed the funding issues and noted that it is a central issue. She noted that the Provost agreed to respond to the letter listing the assurances in writing and that the letter was received a couple weeks ago and was a part of the Board’s packet. She addressed a new issue of individual cooperative agreements with the counties and noted that both Clark and Esmeralda Counties had discovered decades old agreements dating back to the 1940’s and the agreements articulated that not only did the counties have oversight on programming but that they approved the budgets. She looked at the statute and noted that it does require budget approval. She noted that the Clark County Commission directed staff to develop a draft cooperating agreement and agreed to share their draft and research. Dagny discussed the timeline for the proposed timeline for implementation of the consolidation and that the proposal was currently at the Faculty Senate and that they will vote on April 21

st. She noted that the Provost requested a response to his letter by April 8

th and would include that

response in the document in the material provided to the Senate. Once the Senate votes on the proposal it will go directly to the Board of Regents. Commissioner Wichman inquired as to budget approval being required per the MOU’s and it was clarified that budget approval is required by the NRS and that a county may have a cooperative agreement requiring oversight of programming. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the University concurred on the requirement of budget approval and Dagny noted that it had not been discussed with them at that time. Commissioner Kirkpatrick noted that is important that all counties start working on an MOU and that the programs can’t get federal funding without the participation of the counties. She noted that there is a clear timeframe for when programs started being cut and other changes started occurring.. Commissioner Goicoechea noted that Eureka County was not originally as opposed to the consolidation plan because they approved the budget and assumed the other counties were as well, noting it is clear they are doing different things in different counties. Commissioner French noted that Humboldt County approved the allocation

of funds but not the budget and they can’t find an MOU going back. Commissioner Waits commented on the letter from the Provost and his comment on responses being based on emotion and President Carson noted that she had previously commented on the University minimizing the importance of the issue to the counties. Commissioner French noted that he believes that the inference is based on data the individual counties received from Cooperative Extension employees and was based on emotion from them. Jeff noted that staff was somewhat put off by that component of the letter as well and requested direction as to how to respond to the Provost. Commissioner Wichman made a motion to have staff work with the working group on the response and Commissioner French noted that the MOU’s and budget oversight were not included in previous conversations and that including an interest in enforcing the statute is important to be included in the response. Commissioner Johnson noted that the new information on oversight and budget changed the game and seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

10 Update on the Feasibility of NACO Serving as a Wildfire Grant Clearinghouse for Addressing the State Wildland Fire Issues in Prevention, Suppression and Post Mitigation. Dagny informed the Board that a meeting was held with stakeholders to discuss the options for another agency stepping in to fill the gaps left by the dissolution of the Fire Safe Council and that the consensus was that any new organization formed must be more than simply a clearinghouse for grant funds. She noted that the Nevada Land Trust is also looking into the issue. She informed the Board that she and Jeff had held a meeting with them and agreed that there must be a sustainable funding source for any organization to take on the task, which doesn’t currently exist and that there must be an organizational plan. She informed the Board that there is a new State Forrester and there would be a meeting with the new Forrester to determine if he will be taking a leadership role on the issue. She also noted that updating the county wildfire protection plans needed to be updated since that hadn’t occurred for roughly a decade ago and that is a piece of the puzzle, and funding may be available from the Forrester’s office for those updates. Commissioner Waits inquired as to if NACO became involved in the issue what would be the effect on staff and Jeff noted that the item is much larger than previously thought and that there must be more research and meetings to determine what the organization would look like before going forward.

11 Update and Possible Action on AB191 Enacted in the 2015 Legislative Session which

Authorizes a County to Place on the Ballot at the General Election on November 8, 2016 a Question which Asks the Voters in the County whether to Authorize the Board of County Commissioners to Impose, for the Period beginning on January1, 2017, Annual Increases to Taxes on Certain Motor Vehicle Fuels. Jeff reminded the Board as to their previous direction for staff to develop language the counties could use for their individual ballot questions and noted that Clark County had been helpful in the process, as had the county clerks and the Secretary of State’s office. Jeff said that he is still waiting to hear back from the LCB. He indicated that a letter had been sent to the county managers and clerks and that he is waiting on comments back. He again referred to the fact the question is a State question required to be placed on the County ballots and he is still waiting on legal opinions on language. He noted that the counties should appoint their pro and con arguments committee’s and that he is willing to help with language on those items. He reminded the Board that it is imperative to have a list of priorities and projects on which the funds would be used and noted that NDOT has a list of county specific projects on which the state portion of the funds could be used as well. He noted that several people have contacted him in support and who have indicated they are willing to campaign on behalf of passage of the questions statewide. Jeff reiterated that the most important work to be completed is the pro and con arguments and the final question language. President Carson inquired as to the lack of ability to use the funds to hire roads personnel, noting that White Pine County has only one person in the department. Jeff stated that there a two things that control the expenditure of highway funds one being the Constitution and the other being NRS and noted that at the last legislative session there was a bill enacted that allowed expanded use of the funds and there was discussion of the use of funds for direct costs. Jeff said he will review the bill for a more complete answer. Commissioner French inquired as to the development of standardized language for use in all counties and Jeff said that the way the bill was written that each county must have their own ballot question and therefore their own pro and con committees so standardized language cannot be used, unless the LCB states otherwise when they complete the requested review, but sample arguments will be provided. Commissioner Johnson noted some confusion in language and how the question could be written to succeed in a very anti-tax county and Jeff noted that is where the arguments are most important and that setting up the committees now is important because the actual question is not due until July. Terry Faff of Douglas County (at Commissioner Johnson’s request) inquired as to how they would form a committee when they are unsure of the question and therefor are not able to form an opinion. Jeff stated that per the NRS the final language for the question isn’t due to the clerk until the third week of July and that NACO has attempted to provide

sample language and referred to the bill itself that explains what the premise is regardless of the questions language. He referred to the formula included in the Bill for additional information. Carson City Manager Nick Marano noted that they have drafted language in a cost not to exceed manner vs. a percentage but it is unclear if that would be allowed per the NRS. It was clarified that the index is on only the tax amount not on the cost per gallon. Commissioner Bates asked for clarification on the cap and President Carson stated that the cap is 9 cents but that not all counties have the full 9 cents leveraged, Jeff clarified that the index would be based on the full 9 cents whether or not the county fully leverages their taxes at the cap.

12 Briefing on the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94), including the Designation of Interstate 11, and Possible Action for NACO to Participate in a Study of the Northern Alignment of I-11 from Las Vegas to Interstate 80. Lee Gibson of RTC Washoe gave a presentation on the Act and how it affects counties and noted that fuel tax indexing is a large part of the discussion. Noting that those who have been in the industry a long time have had to live through the experience of not having the dollars to build needed infrastructure and believe the pathway is to build infrastructure and the other is indexing of fuel taxes. Returning to the FAST Act he noted that counties are very closely related to the Federal Government because of the receipt of federal funds. He noted that the Act signed Dec 4, 2015 will bring a billion dollars to the nation’s infrastructure but it did not bring new monies- only transfers of new sources from the federal government. These are not permanent long term funding that can be relied on for interstate commerce and to build the economy. He specifically noted that it will be important for to capitalize on the funds provided to continue to build and repair infrastructure. The freight program will bring a new formula program to NDOT in concert with metro planning to help find projects to leverage and build with federal funds for industrial uses and planning centers. He noted that focus from a national perspective is on key highway facts and that $226 billion will go into the highway programs. He noted that the national highway freight program is a fast growing network and that Nevada is a key access point for Asian trade and that design and operation strategy will help improved mobility and accessibility. To help move those projects forward fast lane grants will be 900 million a year. It was noted that another great achievement of the Act is I-11 and noted that NDOT has done a great job to move the concept from Phoenix to Las Vegas. That way it can begin to link to northern neighbors and build a better interstate. He also noted that in Washoe and Storey Counties there will be opportunities to look at connecting the tri-county center to support manufacturing and distribution growth. Mr. Gibson discussed the fact that CMAQ is still there but there is an exception, however the rules will stay the same. He discussed accelerated project delivery by trying to process documents faster but noted that they will not revisit issues once they get resolved. There will be time limits on the period of time for environmental reviews which will help administer Surface Transportation Block Grants which will increase over time and projects include safe routes to school, working on arterial system, work force development and training. Lee discussed some specific areas where RTC Washoe will benefit from the Act including a competitive bus facility program to pursue federal funds, an enhanced mobility program for seniors the 1053 programs will allow and many opportunities for smaller social service agencies to get engaged with services to seniors, as well as allowing localities to become direct recipients. He noted leverage points for I-11 include promoting connectivity. He concluded his presentation with the fact that NACO is a great vehicle and opportunity to bring our state together to look at engineering, environmental, and social to discuss how it can be built and identified four areas of risk: 1. Just because Congress promises does not mean they will deliver money. NDOT must seize the opportunity; 2. Appropriations risk. They have to appropriate it to us to spend it; 3. Regulatory risk: rulemakings in the transportation safety arena which will impact the RTCs and with the reminder that 38% of their budget is from the federal government and 90% of their compliance regulations come from there as well. Commissioner McGuffey inquired if there was a light rail system being discussed on the I-80 corridor and it was noted that it may be included in long range planning. Commissioner Bates inquired if there is a website where the northern route of I-11 could be seen and Sandra Rosenberg from NDOT said that at www.I11study.com has the initial information. Commissioner French noted that it was his understanding that 5310 senior services grants were being phased out and asked if they now being reauthorized and funded, to which Mr. Gibson said that it is his understating that they will be made available. Commissioner McGuffey inquired as to if the counties needed to submit requests for I-11 to be routed through their counties and it was noted that there is still a lot of planning with regards for the route and that funding allocation is a large factor and that if counties can support a portion of the funding that will be a consideration. President Carson asked if AB191 is approved in counties if some of those funds could be used for the purposes of I-11 and Ms. Rosenberg answered yes that it will provide additional resources for important projects, but noted that if some counties pass the initiative and others don’t it will be challenging to enhance those corridors. Commissioner Lucey noted that the Act created a national advisory committee on strategy that Washoe County is actively trying to put a

http://www.i11study.com/

representative on to focus on Northern Nevada as a travel destination. Jeff suggested he work with Lee and the RTC to initiate the process and some of the planning at the county level and that it could be added to a future meeting agenda. Mr. Gibson concluded the item noting that they want to partner with NACO and begin getting the networking infrastructure and to address issues to define the natural, physical, design issues of I-11.

13 Discussion and Possible Approval for NACO to Amend its Marketing Agreement with the National Association of Counties (NACo) for its Prescription Discount Card Program to Add Dental and Health Discount Programs Administered by CVS/Caremark. This item was removed for discussion at a later date.

14 Discussion and Possible Approval of a Letter to Governor Sandoval Requesting that He Not

Include Any New Unfunded Mandates or Cost Shifts to Counties, and to the Extent Possible, Eliminate or Reduce Current Cost Assessments to Counties in His Executive Budget. Jeff reminded the Board that the Governor and state agencies are in the process of developing the Biennium budget request for the 2017 Legislature and that it is a good idea to send a letter requesting no additional mandates, cost shifts, and to reconsider past budget issues and new considerations. Commissioner Kirkpatrick suggested the addition of an item requesting a ‘seat at the table’ if they are looking to change how services are rendered. The letter was approved with the addition and slight verbiage changes on a motion by Mayor Crowell with a second by Commissioner Irwin.

15 Update on Interim Legislative Studies. Jeff informed the Board there is a Water Committee Meeting on April 22

nd, the Public Lands Committee will meet in Winnemucca on April 15th with NACO on the

agenda and the Sunset Sub-committee of the Legislative Commission is due to have the Board for the Fund for Hospital Care to Indigent Persons on their agenda in April and that NACO has also been following the Committee on Healthcare which met the previous day where Commissioner Wichman presented on the situation with the hospital in Tonopah. Jeff then spoke about the Legislative Commission directing Legislative Counsel Bureau staff to work with NACO and others on a property tax study related to SJR13, based on the fact there were enough questions contained within the Resolution (SJR13) that the study was warranted. Jeff noted that the county Treasurers and Assessors have been very helpful with information gathering and that the property tax cap is an important factor as outlined by the property tax estimates, which include several counties that will have their property taxes caped at less than 0.2%. Clark County CFO Yolanda King gave an educational presentation on property tax caps. Ms. King explained that the cap is a formula stating that residential property taxes can’t be more than 3% of the prior year’s taxes with no basis on value increase and that commercial property taxes can’t exceed 8% or the secondary cap based on a 10 year growth of assessed valuation which is 2 times the CPI. The greater of the two is what is compared to the 8%. Residential taxes can’t exceed commercial taxes so residential taxation then drops to the commercial rate, in many counties resulting in caps far less than the 3% allotted by current NRS. Commissioner Wichman asked if there is a way to reset when a property sells and Ms. King said there is not, Commissioner Goicoechea noted that SJR13 contains a provision for resetting of taxable value at that time and Ms. King agreed noting the Resolution would need to pass a statewide vote and there are questions as to what would happen with existing abatements. Commissioner Kirkpatrick noted that it will be 6 years before SJR13 goes into effect, if it does at all and the counties will continue at a property tax rolling deficit for at least 5 years. Commissioner Goicoechea asked what the fix is and Commissioner Kirkpatrick noted that a local government group had been started in Clark County to work with business stakeholders and that discussion includes the possibility of taking the indigent and education tax percentages out of the cap but there is no specific fix at this time. Jeff passed out a preliminary analysis of the property tax caps by county.

16 Appointment of a NACO Legislative Committee Chairman and Discussion of Possible NACO

Bill Draft Requests for the 2017 Legislative Session. President Carson informed the Board that she spoke to Commissioner Lucey who accepted the position of Chairman of the Committee but hadn’t selected a Vice Chair and Mr. Lucey asked Commissioner Kirkpatrick to Vice Chair who accepted the position. Jeff noted that BDR’s are due in either August or September and that any Board member that has interest in a specific issue to contact staff. He also noted that issues that will be returning are Law Enforcement body cameras, that there is interest in voting machine replacement and that infrastructure funding is a big issue as well.

17 Presentation on the Nevada Electric Highway. Angela Dykema, Director of the Governor’s Office of

Energy and Marie Steele of NV Energy presented the Board with an update on their joint venture. Ms. Steele gave an overview of electric vehicles including the fact that there are approximately 2,000 registered electric vehicles in the state comprising 0.6% of the states registered vehicles. It was noted

that there are free public charging stations throughout the state in partnership with private business and public locations and that there are Federal incentives for the program. The installations of stations on the I-95 corridor include stations in Fallon, Hawthorne, Tonopah and Beatty was completed through shared service agreements, abatements and grant funding. They are looking into further locations to finalize the I-95 corridor and expand to Highway 93, 50 and I-80. Commissioner French inquired as to if the Governor’s office has thought about recovery of maintenance as electric vehicles are not paying fuel taxes and how if this program would go the way of net metering. Ms. Steele noted that the PUC has opened and investigatory docket to compare the programs and they are awaiting procedural information. Ms. Dykema stated that maintenance is an issue and there have been ideas tossed about but nothing has been outlined as of yet. Commissioner Dahl inquired how the station locations were chosen and it was noted that it was a competitive open bid process and the business pay for the energy usage through the charging stations for a period of five years.

18 Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Public Lands and Natural Resources Issues

Including: a. Report from the NACO Public Lands and Natural Resources Committee. Commissioner

French spoke to the meeting that took place the day before and spoke to their discussion on

Planning 2.0 and the proposal and how it applies to counties. Specifically the loss of planning

protocol which would/could reset precedent from prior litigation and how it was applied in court.

He also spoke to the discussion on the use of best science being widely open to interpretation and

left question as to the determination of who determines what is and who provides the ‘best

science’ and the ‘resetting’ of planning protocol in the future. Tori expanded the discussion with

regards to consistency with local government involvement which will shift the burden for local

government to bring issues to the agency and the lack of the weight of comments made at the

beginning of the process for those with ‘skin in the game’ because cooperating agency’s

comments would be compiled with all other parties and comments would be given equal weight.

Commissioner French concluded his comments with the group’s discussion on procedural items

that have yet to be resolved within the group to be brought to the Board at a later date. Tori spoke

to issues within standing practices allowing local government that has regulatory and statutory

requirements for land management, public safety etc. also being important.

b. Approval of a NACO Position Paper on the Basin and Range National Monument Designation. Jeff reviewed the designation and the initial paper that has been rewritten due to timing and direction from the Board. He noted that the new White Paper is less editorial and more educational. Commissioner Goicoechea stated that the document is excellent. Dagny stated there is one piece of science that still needed to be affirmed and the paper was approved unanimously on a motion by Commissioner Wichman with second by Commissioner French as long as the science is found sound.

c. Comments on the Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed 2.0 Planning Regulations.

See discussion under 18a d. Cooperating Agency Status for the BLM’s Proposed Sagebrush Focal Area. Commissioner

French noted that it is in the best interest for counties to enter into the agreements and to have a standing in the discussion and or orders issued. He also noted staffing issues and that the ability to appoint an outside person to be active and represent their interests, specifically the addition of Tori to the NACO staff allowed for Nye County and Lander County to appoint the Association as their representative and that NACO had received the MOU requested. Commissioner Goicoechea stated that Eureka County sends a letter yearly requesting the status to all appropriate agencies. The Board voted unanimously for staff to sign the MOU on a motion by Commissioner Goicoechea with concurrent seconds by Commissioner French and Mayor Crowell.

e. Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development. This item was not heard.

19 Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s and U.S. Forest Service’s Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plans (ARMP’S) including the

The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Filed by Western Exploration LLC, Elko County, Eureka County, Quantum Minerals, White Pine County, Lander County, Humboldt County Ninety-Six Ranch, LLC, Paragon Precious Metals, LLC, Churchill County, Washoe County and the State of Nevada. This item was heard in closed session.

20 Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Possible Restructuring of NACO’s 2017 Membership Dues. Jeff informed the Board that he is not expecting action but the item is more informational for the Board. He noted that there is an anticipated shortfall of revenue in future years due to the loss of a substantial sponsor and increased costs. He discussed the fact that the

Associations ability to focus on public lands issues has increased and that there has been some national impact due to the Associations work. He noted that one of the best ways to recover some of the shortfalls is to possibly look at an additional assessment based on PILT payments in future years. He also provided the structure for 2016 dues for county planning purposes. Commissioner French added that there have been two specific changes since he joined the Board, the intensity of work being done on public lands and the addition of staff that has provided incredible support to the counties on those issues. Commissioner Wichman echoed Commissioner French’s sentiments and noted that Nye County only pays dues for NACO and NACo because of the benefits provided.

21 Discussion and Possible Action regarding NACO Employee Health Insurance Renewal. Jeff

noted that NACO is part of a small group insurance pool that came to be after the implementation of the ACA, including age banding which results in higher premiums. He informed the Board that he spoke to LP Insurance, the Associations agent and that when the current policy renews in July rates are expected to increase 33%. He noted that alternatives are being looked into for comparative coverage but that those options won’t be available until after rates are filed with the Insurance Commission in April. He had no recommendations and again noted that the item was for information purposes only and will be brought back to the Board when more information and/or alternatives are available.

22 Update from the County Social Services Administrators. Jeff informed the Board that the

Association met in the NACO conference room that Wednesday and has changed their official name to the Nevada Association of County Human Services Administrators. He noted that they discussed managed care for Medicaid in the rural counties and are concerned about the issue. They also discussed a letter that was sent to the County Commissions regarding Assembly Bill 307 which has to do with children with intellectual disabilities and the reporting requirements, the specific concern from the Directors is that the letter included the names of the children receiving the services, and there will be a meeting with the Director of DHHS about the issue. They also discussed a budget concept where Medicaid can be used for additional services under the ACA and can include expansion to a targeted population for supported living services, the program must be statewide and although Clark County is looking into the program the rural counties don’t feel it is an area where they are spending funds, however, if the state adopts the program it could require additional assessments to all counties.

23 NACO Committee of the Emeritus Update. Commissioner Wichman noted that the last workshop on

County Finances was very successful will well over 40 people in attendance and the presentations and video will be included in the NACO News. Dagny noted the next workshop will be on June 13

th and

the topic will be social media. She also informed the Board that the Committee is working on updating the training and handbook for new commissioners and there was discussion on how to use Home Rule. President Carson said that White Pine County is putting an ordinance together to mandate OHV insurance.

24 National Association of Counties and Western Interstate Region Board Member Updates.

Commissioner French informed the Board that the WIR meeting is in May and he will have additional information after that conference. Commissioner Irwin noted the meeting of the Board at the Legislative Conference went well and that the next meeting of the Board of Directors will be in July at the Annual Conference.

25 NACO Board Member Updates. Updates were given by members of the Board on what is occurring

in their counties.

26 Public Comment. Commissioner Waits shared that the NACo position paper on the $500 deductible for catastrophic loss that FEMA is entertaining is excellent and President Carson informed the Board that White Pine County will be getting a Shop-Co and a Loves Truck Stop.


http://dem.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/demnvgov/content/homeland_security/State%20of%20the%20Radio

%20System%20rev%20B.pdf

http://dem.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/demnvgov/content/homeland_security/State%20of%20the%20Radio%20System%20rev%20B.pdf

http://dem.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/demnvgov/content/homeland_security/State%20of%20the%20Radio%20System%20rev%20B.pdf


http://osit.nv.gov/Broadband/TaskForce/

http://osit.nv.gov/Broadband/TaskForce/


http://nvnaco.org/images/stories/board/item%2010%20sage%20grouse%20for%20link.pdf

http://nvnaco.org/images/stories/board/item%2010%20sage%20grouse%20for%20link.pdf

of 3

NACo/State Association Second Amendment to

DISCOUNT PRESCRIPTION DRUG CARD PROGRAM

MARKETING AGREEMENT

This second amendment to MARKETING AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made this

___ day of _________, 2016 by and between National Association of Counties ("NACo"), a

Delaware not-for-profit corporation, and _____________ (“State Association”), (together, the

“Parties”).

WHEREAS, NACo has an agreement with Caremark PCS Health, L.L.C (“Caremark”)to

provide certain discounts on health goods and services to constituents of Member Counties

through a Discount Health Program (“Health Program”) administered by CVS/caremark; and

WHEREAS, NACo has an agreement with Caremark PCS Health, L.L.C (“Caremark”)to

provide certain discounts on dental goods and services to constituents of Member Counties

through a Discount Dental Program (“Dental Program”) administered by CVS/caremark; and

WHEREAS, NACo wishes to engage State Association to endorse and market the

Program(s), and State Association wishes to provide marketing services with respect to the

Program(s).

NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual promises contained herein, and for other

good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,

the Marketing Agreement is amended as follows:

1. The term of the Agreement, as amended, shall continue for a successive two (2) year term

beginning_________, 2016 and expiring on ________, 2018, unless otherwise agreed to by

the Parties in writing. Remaining provisions of Section C of the Marketing Agreement shall

remain in effect.

2. State association agrees, in accordance with the terms in the Marketing Agreement, to

exclusively market as indicated by the check boxes selected below:

The Health Program; and/or

The Dental Program

of 3

NACo will pay State Association an amount equal to forty (40) percent of the gross revenue

received from Caremark from the Health and Dental Program as follows:

i. Quarterly payments will be made within seventy-five (75) days of the end of the

calendar quarter (NACo will receive payment within sixty (60) days of the end of the

calendar quarter from Caremark).

ii. Appropriate reports and summaries of calculations and related information will be

provided with the payment.

3. Section D. (General Provisions) shall be amended by deleting provision 6. in its entirety, and

replacing it with the following:

6. Both parties will disclose the existence and the amount of the fees set forth above, as

may be required, and in accordance with all applicable laws. It is the intention of the

parties, that for the purposes of the Federal Anti-kickback Statute and any required

government reporting, amounts paid hereunder shall constitute and be treated by state

association as a discount against the price of the drugs within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

1320a-7b(b)(3)(A).

Either party may terminate this amendment without cause by giving ninety (90) days written

notice to the other Party. Termination of the amendment will not terminate the original

agreement unless such language is contained in the written notice of termination.

The terms and conditions of the Marketing Agreement remain in effect except as otherwise

agreed herein. With respect to subject matter hereof, this Amendment constitutes the entire

agreement between the parties, superseding all similar terms in any prior understandings,

agreements, contracts or arrangements between the parties, whether oral or written.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

of 3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written

above.

NACo:

_____________________________

Executive Director

____________________________

Date

STATE ASSOCIATION:

____________________________

Executive Director

_____________________________

Date

2014 Caremark. All rights reserved.

This is NOT Insurance.

2


The Live Healthy Discounts Program is NOT Insurance.

The Prescription Discount Card is operated by CVS/caremark.

Discounts are only available at participating pharmacies.

The Discount Medical Organization for NACo Health and Dental

Discounts is Alliance HealthCard of Florida, Inc.

This presentation contains confidential and proprietary information of

CVS/caremark and cannot be reproduced, distributed, or printed

without written permission from CVS/caremark.

2015 CVS/caremark. All rights reserved

Disclaimers and Legal

3


Prescription Discount Program

4


Where the Program Is Today

Since December 2004:

More than 1,350 counties have joined the NACo Prescription Discount Card Program

Over 47 million prescriptions have been processed

Over $600 million has been saved

Based on all claims adjudicated by CVS/caremark for NACo 1/1/15 through 3/31/2015.

5


Who Can Use The Prescription Discount Card?

Uninsured residents

When a prescription is not covered:

Underinsured residents

- Prescription not covered on resident’s plan

- Resident has high front-end deductible or reached maximum benefit

Medicare Plan D participants non-covered drugs

Pet prescriptions

Incarcerated individuals

The NACo Prescription Discount Card can be used

anytime a prescription is not covered by insurance –

even for pets!

6


CVS/caremark Experience

CVS/caremark has administered prescription discount card programs since 1992

Currently more than 18 million discount card program participants

CVS/caremark is Ranked 10th on Fortune 500

CVS/caremark is the number one provider of prescriptions in the nation – more than one billion prescriptions filled or managed annually

7


Participating Pharmacy Network

“Pharmacy-friendly” network contracting philosophy

More than 68,000 participating pharmacies nationwide = over 9 out of 10 pharmacies.

All major chain pharmacies participate, including: Rite-Aid, Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, Target, grocery store chains, most independents

Solid reputation with participating pharmacies since 1969

Optional agreement to accept the prescription discount card

Acceptance of online claims processing system

8


Real Value Program 2014

Average savings of $13.15 per prescription

Actual average savings of 27.9%

Savings up to 75%

Generic medication average savings

34.7% off retail

$12.34 per prescription

Brand medication average savings

14.3% off retail

$19.03 per prescription

Based on all claims adjudicated by CVS/caremark for NACo 1/1/2015 through 3/31/2015.

9


Pricing

What makes CVS/caremark’s pricing the best:

Generic Pricing

- Nearly 90% of all Rx discount card programs are generics. The Live Healthy program focuses on the lowest generic pricing by utilizing an effective MAC list and deep generic discounts.

Scale & Relevance

- The size of CVS/caremark gives the program the negotiating leverage it needs to have the lowest prices, thus driving traffic to the pharmacies.

Partnerships

- A PBM for over 40 years, we have the experience that pharmacies like.

Trust

- Our price estimator is the most accurate in the industry. Combined with an award winning call center, you can be assured that your residents are getting the service they deserve.

10


Health & Dental Discount Programs

11


Why are NACo Dental & Health Discount Programs Important?

Over 100 million Americans lack dental and vision insurance coverage today.

Dental and vision care are NOT included in the Affordable Care Act

Discount programs are a great way to offer discounted negotiated rates for service, without the commitment of an insured product.

12


What Are the Services?

Along with our Dental Discount program, we offer our Health Discount program that includes discounts on:

Vision Care

LASIK & PRK

Hearing

Prepaid Lab

Prepaid Diagnostic Imaging

Prescriptions

Diabetic Supplies

13


Who Can Be Helped By the NACo Dental & Health Discount Programs?

Individuals

Growing Families

Single Parents

Empty Nesters

Caregivers with parents over age 60

Anyone that does not have access to or cannot pay for auxiliary insurance

14


What Does It Cost Residents?

Residents can save on dental and health care, whenever they need and as often as they need with: NO annual limits NO claims to file NO waiting periods Flexibility to move in and out of program as needed

Both Dental Discount and Health Discount Programs have the same monthly and annual fees:

Monthly Annually

Individual $6.95 $69.00

Family $8.95 $79.00

15


Sample Savings – Dental

16


Dental Network

Cigna and Aetna Dental Savings

Save 15% to 50% off most dental procedures

Over 110,000 general dentists and specialist to choose from

Covers everything from routine check-ups, to filling and crowns and even dentures, braces and cosmetic work

Benefit Summary

NO claim forms

NO deductibles

NO age limits

NO waiting periods

NO maximums

NO frequency limitations, and

NO pre-existing condition limitations

Residents of MD, ND, SD and WY

All other states

Dental Savings Network Exclusions: AK, WA, VT

17


Real Solutions for Everyday Health Problems

SAVINGS PROVIDER NETWORK

VISION CARE 35% off retail price of frames with purchase

of complete pair. Discounts on other

products and services in the program

include exams, lenses, accessories, contact

lenses & more.

More than 50,000 participating providers

including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision,

Target Optical, and independent

optometrists, ophthalmologists & opticians

LASIK & PRK VISION 15% off retail prices and 5% off promotional

pricing

More than 600 participating locations

PRESCRIPTIONS Save up to 75% with average savings of

24% off of the retail price of prescription

medications

More than 68,000 participating retail

pharmacies, available for residents & their

pets

DIABETIC SUPPLIES Save on prescription and

over-the-counter diabetic supplies

More than 68,000 participating retail

pharmacies, available for residents & their

pets

PREPAID LAB 20-70% off a wide variety of physician

approved lab testing services, with

confidential results

More than 4,000 participating service

centers

PREPAID DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING 40-75% off MRI and CT scans More than 2,900 radiology centers

HEARING 35% off hearing aid prices & complimentary

screenings

More than 3,000 participating locations

18


Vision Network

EyeMed Vision Care

Save 35% off retail on frames

Save 20% of lenses and lens add-ons

Over 45,000 providers including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, JCPenney Optical, and independent optometrists, ophthalmologists, and opticians

Benefit Summary

Visit multiple participating providers at any time, for any reason

No limit to the number of visits

No waiting period, no paperwork to file

Vision Network Exclusions: AK, WA, VT and Puerto Rico

19


Hearing Network

Connect Hearing

Over 3,000 locations

35% off hearing aids

3 year extended warranties

Complimentary hearing exam, follow up hearing aid fittings & routine cleanings

3 year supply of hearing aid batteries

Price match guarantee

Benefit Summary

One of the largest national networks of independent audiologists

Hearing Savings Network Exclusions: AK, IL, WA, VT & Puerto Rico

20


Prepaid Lab & Diagnostic Imaging Network

Galaxy Health Network

Over 2,900 radiology centers nationwide

Save 40%-75% off MRI and CT scans

Save 20%-70% off blood tests, allergy tests, cardiac & cholesterol screens, maternity & infertility tests

Benefit Summary

Personalized scan scheduling with a service representative

Lab results are confidential

Results for most tests are available via email within 48 hours (Cultures, reflex and specialty test results typically 14-28 days)

Lab & Diagnostic Network Exclusions: AK, NY, NJ, MA, RI, VT, WA & Puerto Rico

21


Program Marketing

NEW design for FREE prescription cards NEW displays & posters

www.NACoHealth.org

NEW plastic membership ID cards

& keyfobs for NACo Health Discount Program members

http://www.nacohealth.org/

22


Easy For Residents To Join

Join online

www.NACoHealth.org

OR

Enroll by phone

1-877-573-2395

http://www.nacohealth.org/

23


Easy For Residents To Save

Start Saving Today

Check email for temporary membership card

Save Again & Again Check mailbox for permanent member materials

24


Service For Residents

Toll-free phone number to the award winning CVS/caremark

Customer Care

Flexible enrollment process – no paperwork

By visiting www.nacorx.org, residents have access to:

Print ID card

Locate a pharmacy

Check drug pricing

http://www.nacorx.org/

25


Resident Communication Materials

CVS/caremark continues to provide standard participant materials at no charge to the county

ID card/brochures, Posters, Display stands

Bill Insert cards are now available

26


Service for Counties Dedicated implementation team

Communication materials

Monthly reports

Review and approval of marketing materials

Program link for county websites (www.nacorx.org)

Marketing support

http://www.nacorx.org/

27


County Benefits

No cost to county Program provided at no cost

Standard marketing materials provided at no cost

Easy to administer No enrollment paperwork

No eligibility transmission required

NACo and CVS/caremark provide full support for the program

Customer Care managed by CVS/caremark

Proven results Average savings of 27.9%*

Over 1,350 counties participate in the program with their residents savings over $600 million dollars on more than 47 million prescriptions*

Savings up to 75%

*Based on all claims adjudicated by CVS/caremark for NACo 1/1/2015 through 3/31/15.

28


County Support

NACo and CVS/caremark’s level of support and service to counties is unmatched, developing custom marketing plans for each county fitting their respective needs. Methods include:

Press releases

Press conference support

Pharmacy mailings

Community facility mailings

Bill insert mailings

29


County Support (cont.)

Press releases

NACo and CVS/caremark will develop and distribute press releases on behalf of the county, including:

Announcing implementation

Keeping program visibility high

Marking savings milestones

Ensuring county officials receive proper credit for

helping residents

30



Pharmacy Mailings

CVS/caremark and NACo work to distribute cards and display stands to local participating pharmacies

Method leads to higher utilization

Follows pharmacy protocols

Hand delivering cards to pharmacies can compromise the network

31



Community Facilities Mailings

CVS/caremark and NACo work to distribute cards and display stands to community facilities

County needs to simply provide contact information for facilities and we’ll produce and ship the cards to the locations at our cost

32



Mailing Inserts

Cards designed for county mailings

Can be inserted in water bills, property tax statements and other various county mailings

Weight of each insert is .063 ounces, or 1.79 grams and typically has no effect on postage

33


County Benefits

The Marketing Fee Reimbursement Option

Counties can now participate in the marketing fee reimbursement option to receive $1 per prescription when their card is used to receive a discount.

Signing the County Agreement and a rider gets your county enrolled.

34


Our Advantages

Network – Largest prescription discount card network in the nation

Marketing – Extensive marketing support for your county

Experience – Administrating the first and best discount card program since 1992!

Fully Integrated Health Organization – PBM, Pharmacy, Specialty

Resident Support – J.D. Power & Associates #1 award winning support for your residents

Legal Support – Legal expertise regarding U.S. laws and registration requirements.

Pricing – Our Prescription Discount Card, Dental Discount and Health Discount programs are the best priced program in the country! (insert savings and usage here for existing counties or states or savings and usage of neighboring counties)


The attached materials include:

4/13 Letter from NACO to NSHE Board of Regents

4/11 Letter from NACO to Faculty Senate 4/14 Faculty Senate Consolidation Review Committee Summary of Recommendations

3/11 Letter from Provost to NACO

Nevada Association of Counties 304 South Minnesota Street

Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org

Nevada Association of Counties

April13,2016ChairmanTrachokandNSHEBoardofRegents2601EnterpriseRoadReno,NV89512DearChairmanTrachokandNSHERegents,Asyoumayormaynothaveheard,UniversityAdministrationisproposingaconsolidationoftheCollegeofAgriculture,BiotechnologyandNaturalResources(CABNR)withtheUniversityofofNevadaCooperativeExtension(UNCE)andtheNevadaAgriculturalExperimentStation(NAES).WehopeyouareawareoftheveryimportantrolethatCooperativeExtensionplaysinthelivesofallNevadans,aswellasthebenefitthatthisprogrambringstotheUniversity.WearewritingregardingtheconversationsthathavebeentakingplacebetweentheChancellor,Provost,andrepresentativesofNevada’scountiesregardingCooperativeExtension(UNCE).AspartoftheUniversity’slandgrantmission,CooperativeExtensionengageswithNevada’scommunities,connectingtheneedsofNevadanswithUniversityresearchersinalldepartments.ThissymbioticrelationshipbenefitsthepeopleinourStatebybringingtheminformationandservicesthatimprovetheirlives,andhelpsUniversityresearchersbybringingthemNevada-orientedquestionsanddata.UNCEisanawardwinningprogramofwhichyoushouldbeproud.UNCEistheonlyextensionprograminthecountrywhosefaculty,withinthepasttenyears,receivedtheNationalExcellenceinExtensionAwardtwice.UNCEhasreceivednumerousotheraccoladesincludingawardsforprogramsthatsimultaneouslysupportandprovideresearchonNevada’skidsandfamilies.CelebratedCooperativeExtensionprogramsinclude:4-H,MasterGardener,seniorandchildnutritionprograms,aprogramresearchingandprovidingsupportforfamiliessurvivingdomesticviolence,droughteducation,andtheLivingwithFireprogram,whichwasheldupasamodelforwildfirepreventionprogramsnationwide.ThoughUNCEisaUniversityprogram,countiesarefullpartnersinExtensionandhavebeensosinceitsinceptionnearly100yearsago.CountiesalsoarenowthelargestfunderofUNCE,contributingmoretotheprogramthantheUniversity,orfederalandgrantfunding.SincetheannouncementoftheproposedconsolidationlastFall,ChancellorKlaichandProvostCarmanhavebeengenerouswiththeirtimeandhavemetwithusregardingconcernsthatthecountieshavehadforsometimeregardingUNCE.ItisourunderstandingthattheCABNR/UNCE/NAESconsolidationproposalwillcome


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org

Nevada Association of Counties

beforeyourBoardinJune,andwehopetohaveamutuallyagreeduponlistofassurancesthatwillaccompanytheconsolidationproposalbeforethattime.However,asyourJunemeetingisfastapproaching,wewantedtomakesurethatyouwereawareoftheconversationsthathavebeentakingplace.Webelievewearemakingprogressinthesenegotiationsandverymuchappreciatetheengagementoftheadministration.Theenclosedletterprovidesanoutlineoftheissuesthatwehavebeendiscussing,aswellassomeoutstandingconcerns.Pleasedon’thesitatetoreachouttousifwecanprovideyouwithanyadditionalinformationorbackgroundmaterials.Thankyouforyourtimeandattention.Sincerely,ClarkCounty EurekaCountyCommissionerMarilynKirkpatrick CommissionerJ.J.GoicoecheaHumboldtCounty WashoeCountyCommissionerJimFrench CommissionerJeanneHermancc:PresidentMarcJohnson,ChancellorDanielKlaich,ProvostKevinCarman,DeanWilliamPayne,DeanMarkWalker,JeffreyFontaine(NACO),DagnyStapleton(NACO)Enclosure


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org

Nevada Association of Counties 1

April11,2016KevinR.CarmanExecutiveVicePresident&ProvostOfficeoftheProvostClarkAdministration,Room110UniversityNevada,Reno/0005Reno,NV89557-0005DearProvostCarman,ThankyouforyourMarch11,2016responsetoNACO’slistofrequestedassurances.WeappreciatebothyourandtheChancellor’sworkonthisissue,aswellasyourwillingnesstotakethetimetoaddressourconcernsbothinpersonandinwriting.WelookforwardtocontinuingtoimprovethedialogueandengagementbetweenthecountiesandtheadministrationregardingUNCE.WehavereviewedyourletteranddiscusseditwithourworkinggroupaswellaswiththeNACOBoard.OnbehalfoftheNACOBoardofDirectorswehavelistedbelowinboldtheresponsesfromyourletterthatweagreeserveas“assurances”foranimprovedrelationshipgoingforwardbetweentheUniversityandthecounties.Wehavealsooutlinedsomeofouroutstandingconcerns,and,initalicsbelowprovidedadditionalassurancelanguagethatwethinkaddressesthoseconcerns.Dependingonhowthelistbelowlookstoyou,perhapswecandiscusstheseitemsfurtherinafollow-uptoourFebruary26thmeeting.ThankyouagainforyourwillingnesstoworkwithustorebuildthetrustandpositiverelationshipbetweentheUniversityandthecounties.Weknowthatthisrelationshipiskeytoahealthyandwell-functioningCooperativeExtensionProgram.ThefollowingexcerptsfromyourlettercorrespondnumericallytotherequestedlistofassurancescontainedintheNACOPositionPaperthatwedistributedinNovemberof2015.Wewanttothankyouforconsideringtheseissuesandbeingwilling,aswediscussedinourFebruarymeeting,toincludethislanguageinthefinaldocumentregardingconsolidationthatwillgotoFacultySenateandthensubsequentlytotheBoardofRegents.1.Ifthe2017UNRlegislativeproposalissuccessful,wewillcommittofundingthreeFTEpositionsinUNCE.WeplantoexplicitlyincludeUNCEfundinginthe2019legislativerequest.Wewillworkonastrategicplantoimproveservicesto


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


Nevada’scountiesduringthefirstorganizationalyearofconsolidation(July1,2016—June30,2017).Thiswillprovideasoundplanforre-investmentintheNevadaAgriculturalExperimentStationandUniversityofNevadaCooperativeExtension.

Thankyouforyourcommitmenttotheseadditionalthreepositions.Weunderstandyourpositionandhopefullyyouunderstandours.WehavesomeadditionalthoughtsonthisthatwehaveoutlinedbelowandalsowanttoreiteratewhywefeelsostronglyabouttheissueofUNCEfunding:

- TheUniversity’sStateAppropriationlineitemisnow99%ofwhatitwasin2008-09.Asaresultofthisrestoredfunding,in2015-16,unitssuchastheCollegesofScienceandEngineeringareat122%and129%oftheir2008-09stateappropriations,respectively.Despitetheseincreases,however,UNCE’sstateappropriationsremainatamere48%of2008-09,andUNCEisbyfartheleast-restoredunitoncampus.Threepositions(5.5ifweincludethe2.5positionsthathavebeengiventoUNCEthroughtherecentjointappointments)don’tcomeclosetorestoringevenaquarterofthe39UNCEpositionsthatwerecutin08-09.WeaskyouhowthisisequitableandhowyouplantomeaningfullysupportUNCEintothefuturewithoutrestoringfundingandpositionsin2017?TheUniversityhasmadesubstantialcutstoUNCEacrosstheboard,cutsthathavenotbeenrestored;yet,despiteseverebudgetconstraintsatthecountylevel,countiescontinuetocontributegenerallythesameamounttoCooperativeExtension.CountiesdidnotdecreaseorremovetheirdedicatedfundingforCooperativeExtensionprogrammingduringtherecession,andsincethen,inspiteofthefactthatcountyrevenuesarenotrecoveringatthesamepaceasthoseofotherpublicandprivateentities,countyCooperativeExtensionfundinghasforthemostpartbeenkeptwhole.Furthermore,formanyyearstherehavebeencountiesthatcontributerevenuetoUNCEeventhoughtheydonotreceiveanystateUNCEfundingorhaveextensioneducatorsorprogramsoftheirown.

- RegardingthefundingforthefivenewjointUNCEpositions,weareawarethatthesewerenotfundedwithUNCEgeneralfunddollars,andmostcertainlynotwithcountydollars,andappreciatetheadditionalclarificationyouprovidedinyourletter.However,inyourletter’sreferencetothesenewpositions,anadditionalissuewasraised,onethatwebelieveisalsoveryimportant.Yourletterstates:“Inallcases,institutionalfunds(fromstudentfeesandstateformulafunding)wereusedtofundthepositions.”WeunderstandthattheUniversityisrelyingmoreandmoreonstudentfeesandthatstateformulafundinghastobestudentoriented.WhatthisimpliestousisthatthesecrucialstatefundingsourcesarelessandlessavailableforUNCE.


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


Wewouldliketoseedocumentationonformulafundsandwheretheycanbespent,because,ifthisisinfacttruedoesn’tthisincreasetheimportanceoftheneedforlineitemfundingforUNCE?AsthemajorityfunderofUNCE,countiessupportthemissionofengagementandmutuallybeneficiallysynergybetweenUniversityresearchandtheneedsoftheNevadansinourcommunities.Inconsiderationofthis,however,ifitistruethatthecurrentUniversityfundingformulapotentiallyremovesfundingopportunitiesforUNCE,acommitmenttoanincreasetothegeneralfundlineitemappropriationforUNCEbecomesevenmoreimportantinthe2017LegislativeSessionandbeyond.Withoutseekingthesefundsandinlightofthefundingformulas,weask,howdoestheAdministrationseeafinancialwayforwardforUNCE?

WebelieveyouwhenyousaythatyoudosupportthemissionandworkofUNCE.Asmentionedabove,andasyouknow,countieshavecontinuedtocontributegenerallythesameamounttoCooperativeExtensionandhavenotmadecuts;however,thecost-benefitratiorealizedbythiscontributionhasdwindled,andasyoualsoknowsomecountiesarereconsideringwhethertheirtaxpayers’contributionswouldnowbebetterspentelsewhere,withsuchadeclineinthe“match”bytheUniversity.ItisforallofthesereasonsthatwestandfirminourrequestthatNSHEincludeinitslistof2017Legislativeprioritiesanincreaseintheline-itembudgetofUNCE,andarestorationofatleast25%ofthepositionsthatwerecutin2008-09by2018.WehaveheardthattheAdministrationhasannouncedplanstohireasignificantnumberoffacultyinthecomingbiennium.WebelieveDeanPaynewhenhesaysthatheknowshecan“fight”forsomeofthesepositionsandknowthathewill,however,webelievethatasapriorityyoushouldcommitnowtoassigningmoreofthesetoUNCE.Thoughotherdepartmentshavebeenrestoredto100%oftheir2008-09appropriations,wewouldbewillingtoofferacompromisefromaskingforacompleterestorationimmediatelyandinsteadaskthatyouincludethefollowingwiththeassurancesthatwillbeforwardedtoFacultySenate:NSHEwillincludeinitslistof2017Legislativeprioritiesasubstantialincreaseintheline-itembudgetofUNCE.Althoughweareawarethatcountieswouldlikethis2017LegislativerequesttobringUNCE’sstateappropriationssimilartowhattheywerein2008-09,intheinterestofcompromise,wewillworkwiththecountiestocreateaplanthatwould,somewhatequally,betweenthe2017Legislativesessionandthe2019Legislativesession,restoreUNCE’sline-itemfundingtolevelsatleastsimilarto2008-09.KnowingthattheoutcomeoftheLegislativeprocessisalwaysuncertainwewouldfurtherguaranteethatUNCE,intheeventaUNCElineitemincreaseisnotapproved,willreceiveaportionofanyfundingapprovedforthepurposesofrestoringfacultypositions,sothatwecancommitto


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


restoringatleast25%oftheUNCEpositionscutin2008-09byJanuaryof2018.Andfinally,asubstantialportionofanyrestoredpositionsshouldbelocatedinthecountiesasopposedtooncampus,andshouldbe100%UNCEappointmentsasopposedtojointappointments.Wewouldgladlyofferto,andindeedexpecttobe,afullpartnerwithNSHEininformingourLegislatorsofthebenefitsucharestorationinfundingwouldbeforNevadans.Thoughweknowthat“AdvancedManufacturing”hasbeenmadeaprioritybytheGovernorwebelievewecanmakeacasetotheGovernorandourLegislatorsforthepositiveimpactUNCEfundingwillhaveforNevada,especiallysinceboththeGovernorandLegislaturesawtheworthofincreasedUNCEfundingduringformersessions.Additionally,giventhedifficultyingainingnewpositionsforUNCEitisimportantthatasfundingisrestored,joint-positionswithUNCEfundsshouldbemadesparingly,sothatthosefundscanbededicatedto100%UNCEappointments,asopposedto49%.Ifthesejointappointmentsaremade,weappreciatethelanguageinassurancenumbers11,12,and13belowwhichrecognizetheimportanceofstrongMOUs,andwouldalsolikelanguageaddedthatstates:JointpositionsmadewithUNCEfundsmustbelimitedtoonenewjointpositionforeverytennewUNCEpositionsapproved,unlesstheacademichomefortheappointmentiswithinUNCE,andtheappointmentis51%UNCE.Andfinally,youmentioninassurance#1above,“WewillworkonastrategicplantoimproveservicestoNevada’scountiesduringthefirstorganizationalyearofconsolidation(July1,2016—June30,2017).”ThankyouforyourcommitmenttocarryingoutastrategicplanningexerciseregardingUNCE.Aswehaveindicatedtoyouinpreviousdiscussionswehavebeenverydisappointedthatthisconsolidationproposalhasnotbeenputforthwithanyoftheanalysisorplanningthatwouldusuallyaccompanysuchachange.Thisismostworryingforusinregardstothehealthoftheprogram,as,organizationally,wewonderhowanyentitycouldbesuccessfulwithoutaclearvisionandarticulationofprioritiesandgoals.Weknowthatwearenotaloneinourviewthatthislackofplanning,priortoconsolidation,isconcerningforthehealthofUNCEandNAESasawholeandalsoregardinghowprogrammingwillbecarriedoutatthecountylevel.Despitethesestrongconcernshowever,wedoappreciatetheyouhavemadeacommitmenttoundertakeaplanningprocessimmediatelyafterconsolidation,intheeventthatconsolidationisapproved,and,inadditiontotheassuranceabovewewouldaskalsoforthefollowing:1)thatcountiesareincludedintheplanningprocessand;2)thatthisprocessisextendedtoincludecountyprogrammingaswell.Theadditionofthefollowinglanguagetoyourassurancewilladdressthis:


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


ThisstrategicplanningprocesswillincludecountystakeholdersandwillalsobeextendedtoincludecountyprogrammingsothatanyanalysisandplanningexercisethatisundertakenforUNCEandNAESasawholeshallincludeeachcountyCooperativeExtensionprogramaswell.2.WewillassurethatallUNCEfundshavebeenandwillbeusedfortheirintendedpurposeasdescribedunderNRS549.010andNRF549.050.3.TheUNCEAdvisoryCommitteewillresume,ataminimum,quarterlymeetings,effectivefirstquarter2016.Aswasthecasepriorto2013,itwillhaverepresentatives/stakeholdersfromthroughoutthestatewithdiverseinterestsinUNCEprograms–rural,urban,variousprograms,variousgeographicareas,etc.,selectedbyUNCEleadership(Dean,Director,AreaDirectors,ExtensionEducators,etc.),inconsultationwiththeNACOBoardofDirectors.NACOshallhavetwoappointmentstothisBoard.Thankyouforagreeingtothelanguageabove–welookforwardtoworkingwithyousoonthroughthiscommittee.Inaddition,andaswediscussed,weagreethatsomeothermechanismshouldbeputinplaceforcoordinationamongstcountiesandtheadministration,whereallcountiescanweighinonspecificissues(includingMOUs,positions,andfunding-manyofthethingswehavebeendiscussing)withtheadministrationortheDeans.WhiletheAdvisoryBoardisimportantandweappreciateitbeingreinstated,twoseatsoutofmany,atquarterlymeetingswhereissuesaretakenupatmoreofa50,000-footlevel,maynotcoverallofthegapsthatcurrentlyexistintherelationshipbetweentheUniversityandthecounties.IdeassuchastheNACO“liaison”,orthe“partnershipcommittee”mentionedbyDeanPaynemaybeagoodfithere.Weagreewiththelanguagebelowregardingtheliaisonbutwouldrequesttheadditionofthefollowingsentenceattheend:EithertheNACOBoardofDirectors,orthe“partnershipcommittee”,ifsomethinglikethatweretobeestablished,wouldhavefinalinputonchoosingtherightindividualforthisposition.InourmeetingwithNACOrepresentativesonFeb.26,2016,weagreedthataUNCEliaisonwithNACOwouldbemutuallybeneficial.Weagreedinprincipletodothisanddiscussedvariouswaysthattheliaisonpositioncouldbestructured.Whilewehavenotfinalizedaplan,wearecommittedtoestablishingaformalliaisonwithNACOandwelookforwardtodefiningascopeofworkthatarticulatestheexpectationsandannualoutcomesforthisposition.


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


4.TheUniversityguaranteesthatUNCEfundswillbedistinctandclearlyidentifiable,thatUNCEfundswillbeusedonlyforUNCEprograms,andthatCountyfundswillbeusedonlyforthesupportofcountyactivities.Wewillprovideannualfinancialreportsforpublicreviewandcomment.UNCEwillretainitsdistinctidentity.[UNCE]willmaintainseparatefinancialaccountsandwillprovidetransparentaccountingofassets.Morespecifically,UNCE,CABNR,andNAEShavedistinctaccountcodeswithinUNR,andthesedistinctcodeswillbemaintained.Fiscalofficersandareafiscalstaffwillprepareannualreportsforeachcontributingcountytoclearlytrackhowfederal,state,county,andgrantfundshavebeenused.Pleaseaddthefollowingafterthelastsentenceabove:Countyreportsshallbedeliveredtoeachcountycommissionatthebeginningofeachcalendaryear,priortothecountybudgetprocess.WeappreciatethecommitmentheretoincreasethefinancialtransparencyregardinghowallUNCEdollarsarespent,includinggivingannualreportstoeachcountythattracktheuseofallUNCEfundingsources.NACO’soriginalrequestwasforUNCEtohaveitsown“CFO/FinancialDirector”.ItwasindicatedinourdiscussiononFebruary26th,thatthatwasnotpossiblebutthatUNCEhasadedicatedfinanceperson,isthatpersona“fiscalofficer”ofsomesort?WithwhatseemstobeacomplexbudgetprocessthatincludestrackingandreportingregardingvariousfundingsourceswewouldlikeassurancethatUNCEwillcontinuetohaveitsowndedicatedfinanceperson,independentofanysuchpositioninCABNRorNAES.Insteadofthelanguagefromouroriginalproposal,wewouldaskthatyouconsideraddingtotheassuranceabove:UNCEwillcontinuetohaveitsownFiscalOfficer,independentofanysuchpositioninCABNRorNAES.5./6.When/IftheproposedadministrativeconsolidationisapprovedbytheBoardofRegents,anationalsearchwillbelaunchedimmediatelytoidentifytheAssociateDirectorofUNCE.ThesuccessfulincumbentwillhavesignificantexperiencewithCooperativeExtension.WerecognizethathavingaDeanorDirectorofUNCE,whoisnotanAssistantDeanreportingtoa“SuperDean”overAg,NAES,andUNCE,isanon-negotiablepointfortheUniversity.ThoughwestilldisagreeandwouldpreferUNCEbeledbyitsowndirector,weappreciatethecommitmenttodoanationalsearchforanAssociateDean,ifconsolidationisapproved,andwouldrequestassurancethatNACOwillbeafulland


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


equalpartnerindeterminingthequalificationsforthisposition,throughoutthesearchprocess,aswellasbeconsideredapartnerindecidinganyfuturechangestothisposition.Wewouldaskthatyouaddthefollowingtotheassuranceabove:NACOwillbeafullandequalpartnerindeterminingthequalificationsforthisposition,andprovidinginputthroughoutthesearchprocess.NACOwillalsobeconsideredapartnerindecidinganyfuturechangestothisposition.7./8./9.WhenExtensionEducatorpositionsarefilled,[theUniversity]willworkcloselywithindividualcountiesandinparticulartheircommissionerstodeterminetheExtensionEducatorcredentialsandqualificationsthatwillbestservethecounty.Wearestillconcernedregardingthetenureissue-thattenurestillbeallowedinsomecasesforcandidateswithmaster’sdegrees,aswediscussedinourFebruary26thmeeting.UNCEfacultyhastraditionallybeenamixofPhDsandfacultywithotheradvanceddegrees-thisreflectsthevariedacademicandprofessionalbackgroundsrequiredtomeetthecomplexneedsoftheCooperativeExtensionmission.Wewouldproposetheassuranceaboveincludethefollowing:ForExtensionEducators,tenuretrackshallbeanoptionforcandidateswhohaveamaster’sdegree,dependingonboththecandidate’sfieldofexpertiseandtheneedsofthecounty.Universitypolicyshallbethatawaiverwillnotberequiredtoobtainan“exception”toprovidetenuretrackforExtensionEducatorpositionswherethecandidatehasamaster’sdegree.10.Nocountyfundsareusednownorwillbeusedinthefuturetofundcampus-basedpositions.

11.WesupporttheideaofMOUsforjointpositionsandwilltakethesuggestionfurther.WearecurrentlyexecutingMOUsforallfacultywhoholdjointappointmentsbetweenUNCEandUNRacademicprograms.TheseMOUswillclearlydescribeexpectationsforfaculty,includingteaching,research,andoutreach.TheMOUswillincludeclearandspecificdescriptionsofexpectationsforUNCEactivities,includinginteractionswithExtensionEducatorsandcountystakeholders.RolestatementswillbeexplicitlytiedtostateneedsthatcanbeaddressedbyUNRandUNCEprograms.TheMOUswillcomplementandguidethestandardUNR“rolestatements”thataredevelopedforeachfacultymember


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


annually,andwhichdescribetheresponsibilitiesagainstwhichfacultyisevaluated.AndtheywillspecifytermsunderwhichtheMOUscanbediscontinued.12.TheseMOUs[forjointappointments](androlestatements)shouldclearlyidentifyfacultyobligationsforUNCEactivities.WefurthersupportconsultingwiththeAdvisoryCommitteeontheseMOUsaspartofacultureoftransparencyandaccountabilityregardingtheuseofUNCEandUniversityfunds.13.WesupportthesuggestionofprovidingforanexitclauseforthejointappointmentifthegoalsforUNCEarenotbeingmet.Theexitclauseneedstobebilateral(i.e.,eithertheacademicunitorUNCEmaypetitiontowithdrawfromthejointappointmentiftheirgoalsarenotbeingmet).WeappreciatetheseassurancesregardingrequiringMOUsforjointpositions.Thankyouforincludingthislanguageandforworkingonthisconcernwithus.Wewouldliketosuggestoneadditionalsentencebeaddedto#11toclarifythatthesepoliciesregardingjointappointmentsapplywithinCABNRaswell:Wereconsolidationtobeapproved,MOUswouldalsoberequiredforjointappointmentsbetweenCABNRandNAESandUNCEfaculty.14.OurproposalspecifiesthatUNCE,CABNR,andNAESwillretaintheiridentitieswhileallbeingpartoftheadministrativelyconsolidatedunit.WehavefurthersuggestedinourproposalthatUNCEretainitsfullrepresentationontheFacultySenateandUniversityPromotionandTenureCommittee.TheUNRFacultySenatehasauthoritytodeterminerepresentationontheSenateandthePromotionandTenureCommittee.Finally,asyouknowandhaveaddressedintheletterwereceivedfromyouonApril10th,oneadditionalissuethathascometoourattentionisthat,inyearsgoneby,countieshadCooperativeAgreements,orMOUs,withCooperativeExtension(UNCEorCollegeofAgriculture,dependingonthedecade).TheseagreementsweremadeatthecountylevelandarticulatedboththatcountieshadoversightandinputintoCooperativeExtensionprogramming,aswellasapprovalovertheextensionbudget,forthatcounty.Asyoudid,wehaveresearchedthisissueandfoundthatNevadaStatelawsuggeststhateachcountyshouldhavesuchanagreement,andthateachcountyshouldapprovethebudgettowhichtheircountyfundsmakeupsuchasignificantcomponent.Webelieve


Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7863

www.nvnaco.org


thatthesecooperativeagreementsmaybeanothermissingpiecethatcouldincreasethecommunicationandtransparencybetweenUNCEandthecountiesandappreciateyourcommitmenttoensuringthatnewonesbecreatedforeachcounty.Wesawtheexamplethatyousent,ofanMOUusedbyColoradoState.Weagreethatthisexamplecouldbeagoodstartingpoint,however,fromourperspectivewealsothinkthatincludinglanguageaboutoversightandcollaborationindeterminingcountyprogramingiscriticalandthatsuchlanguageshouldincludecountyinputintothegoalsandworkplansofcountyextensionfacultyaswellashowCooperativeExtensionprogramsaretiedtotheworkforce.Again,wethankyouforworkingwithusontheseissues.AsyouknowcountiescareverymuchaboutCooperativeExtension,bothfortheconnectionthatitcreatestotheUniversityandUniversityresearch,aswellasthebenefitthatitbringstoourcommunities.Webelievethattheconcernswehaveraisedaregroundedinfactsandhistory;however,ifthereissomethingelsethatweneedtoaddressorsomewaythatwehavebeenmisinformed,wehopethatyouwillcorrectus.Regardingtheconsolidation,thoughwearestillconcernedthatthisproposalisbeingbroughtforthwithoutthedata,metrics,oranalyticsthatbestpracticeswouldsuggestshouldoccuralongwithsuchasubstantialadministrativechange,andwhilewewouldstillurgethatthatplanningprocessoccurbeforegoingforwardwithconsolidation,yourwillingnesstospendtimeinnegotiationsandcloseconversationswithus,webelieve,hasmovedustowardsprogress.ItisourgoaltoensurethatthemissionofCooperativeExtensioniscarriedoutsothatitcreatesasymbioticrelationshipbetweentheacademicresearchandeducationalprogrammingattheUniversityandthepeopleinNevada’scommunities.Weknowthatifwedothisright,CooperativeExtensioncancontinuetobeacelebratedassettotheUniversity,aswellanentitythathelpsmakeadifferenceinthelivesofeverydayNevadansinourstate’sruralandurbancommunities.Tothatend,welookforwardtocontinuingthisconversationwithyou.Sincerely,ClarkCountyCommissionerMarilynKirkpatrickEurekaCountyCommissionerJ.J.Goicoechea,HumboldtCountyCommissionerJimFrenchWashoeCountyCommissionerJeanneHermancc:NSHEBoardofRegents,PresidentMarcJohnson,ChancellorDanielKlaich,DeanWilliamPayne,DeanMarkWalker,ChairDavidSanders,AdHocCommitteeChairScottMensing,JeffreyFontaine,DagnyStapleton

1

Faculty Senate

Ad Hoc UNCE CABNR AES Administrative Consolidation Review Committee

2015-16 Year-End Report – Summary of Recommendations

Submitted by Scott Mensing

Date Submitted: April 14, 2016

Presented to the Faculty Senate April 21, 2016

Recommendations:

By a vote of 5 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstentions, the committee recommends that the faculty

senate endorse the proposal submitted by the Provost February 15, 2016 for an Administrative

Consolidation of the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. College of Agriculture,

Biotechnology and Natural Resources, and the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, with

any appendices that might accompany that proposal.

While the committee supports the proposal, we also make several recommendations in response

to concerns raised through comments received through the public forum as well as in relation to

the process as it continues to develop. The full context for these recommendations is provided at

the end of this report. Our recommendations are as follows:

1. The committee recommends that a working group be developed that includes UNCE

faculty and appropriate members of the administration (similar to the existing working

group with county commissioners and members of the administration) to address

UNCE faculty concerns:

2. The committee recommends that the administration develop, with input from faculty

and constituents, a strategic plan that builds on the specific synergies and

collaborations that will accrue from consolidation that lays the ground work for the

consolidated unit.

3. Given the concerns over the consolidation and the need to increase transparency,

particularly in relation to financial matters, the committee recommends a working

group of faculty, constituents and administrators be formed to work on the strategic

plan to improve services to Nevada’s counties during the first year of consolidation

(July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017). As noted by the in Provost, this plan would be intended

to “provide a sound plan for reinvestment in UNCE and NAES.

2

Faculty Senate

Ad Hoc UNCE CABNR AES Administrative Consolidation Review Committee

2015-16 Year-End Report and Recommendations

Submitted by Scott Mensing

Date Submitted: April 14, 2016

Presented to the Faculty Senate April 21, 2016

Members:

Chair: Scott Mensing, Geography

Cheryl Hug English, Student Health Services

Jodi Herzik, Extended Studies

Graham Kent, Seismology

Kathleen Carrico, Small Business Development

Maryann Demchak, Education

Elizabeth Raymond, History

Fred Harris, Computer Science and Engineering, Executive Board Liaison

Holly Gatzke, Cooperative Extension, Liaison (non-voting)

Glenn Miller, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources, Liaison

(non-voting)

Senate Charges and Ad Hoc Committee Disposition:

2015-16 Charges:

1. Review Existing Information

a. Review the information provided by and to be provided by the Provost.

b. Review additional information provided by university and external communities.

2. Discuss the proposal with communities that might be impacted including students, faculty,

staff, administrators, and constituents. The ad hoc community chair will present the

discussion method with the Faculty Senate Executive Board in advance.

3. For the Proposal:

a. Determine the impact on current resources (budget, personnel, facilities, etc.)

b. Determine the impact on the students, faculty, curriculum, accreditation and

constituents.

4. Report and Make Recommendations: The report and recommendations will be

submitted in writing, and the chair of the committee will present them to the senate. The

report will include, but is not limited to, the information below.

a. Names of the Committee Members

b. A summary of the process used by the committee to review and discuss with

constituencies the proposal, as well as a summary of the findings based on the

discussions.

3

c. If applicable, confirmation that all the information required by the Board of Regents

is included in the proposal.

d. An opinion from the committee as to whether the proposal is sound and/or

reasonable.

e. A recommendation as to whether the committee thinks the senate should endorse

or oppose the proposal.

f. Other recommendations, as the committee deems appropriate.

Background and Process:

In October, 2012, a planning group was tasked with developing a plan for consolidation of

CABNR and UNCE under the leadership of a single Dean and Director, as well as to review

other possible models of leadership. That committee provided their report to Kevin Carman

February 1, 2013. During the spring semester of 2013 the proposed consolidation was discussed

with UNCE and CABNR faculty, community stakeholders and the faculty senate. This proposal

was eventually put aside to be returned to after a new dean of CABNR was appointed. Between

June 2013 and summer 2015 different representatives of the UNR administration attended

NACO (Nevada Association of Counties) meetings quarterly and Bill Payne was hired as dean of

CABNR. In August of 2015 the Provost submitted a letter to the faculty senate informing them

that the administration was once again recommending the consolidation of UNCE, AES, and

CABNR with Dean Bill Payne as the Dean and Director of UNCE and CABNR and the Director

of AES. The Faculty Senate charged an ad hoc committee to review the proposal from the

Provost on August 25, 2015. Between September and December NACO held several meetings to

develop their position in response to the proposal, with the Chancellor in attendance at some

meetings. During this period, individual county commissioners met with UNR representatives

and Deans Payne and Walker travelled to meet with some individual counties. The ad hoc

committee met for the first time in December, but was informed that a process was in place

including CABNR/UNCE/NAES for discussion of the Provost’s plan to be held in January, and

that the Provost would develop a response to their report in February. The Ad Hoc committee

decided that they would not meet until they had both the CABNR/UNCE/NAES report and the

Provost’s formal Organizational Unit Change form.

CABNR/UNCE/NAES report

The Provost charged faculty in UNCE, CABNR and NAES to provide input on identifying major

challenges and opportunities regarding the proposed consolidation, and to identify concerns and

suggestions on how these could be addressed. To address the Provost’s charges, Deans Walker

and Payne used a participatory, two-phase process led by a professional facilitator that included

five two-hour brainstorming sessions and one two-day planning session between January 5 and

January 14 with nearly 170 participants from UNCE, CABNR, and NAES. This process was

seen as a start to achieving consolidation to be followed by a participatory process that maintains

4

dialogue with stakeholders, faculty and staff. It is noted in the summary of those initial meetings

that the initial meetings did not result in a proposal of a well-defined consolidated set of

programs and administrative structure, but instead initiated an iterative process both because of

the complexity of the task and the need to build trust among the different units and with key

stakeholders, including NACO and individual counties. The report of those meetings was

provided to the Provost.

Committee process and ongoing communications:

February 15, 2016 the Provost presented his proposal for reorganization. The faculty senate then

opened a public forum for comments in relation to the Provost’s plan. The committee received

these documents in mid-February and subsequently held three meetings. Additional meetings

were held between Dean Payne and NACO to discuss the sixteen assurances NACO had

requested be addressed as part of any consolidation plan.

An active dialogue between the administration and stakeholders has continued to take place

throughout this process. NACO prepared a list of 16 assurances (provided in Appendix C of the

report from the UNCE/CABNR/NAES workshops in January) that they wanted addressed as part

of the reorganization process. On February 26, 2016 a Cooperative Extension Working Group

meeting was held including a subcommittee of four NACO designated members and Mark

Walker and Bill Payne, to find common ground with respect to the list of assurances requested

by NACO. March 11, 2016 Provost Carman sent a response to each of the 16 assurances to the

four county commissioners that compose the NACO representatives of the working group. As

part of the committee’s deliberations, they received the Provost’s response to each of the 16

assurances (dated March 2016, see Provost’s web site). The Provost’s response to NACO’s

assurances will be an appendix to the proposal submitted to the Board of Regents.

To date, these meetings, and requests for information from NACO to the administration have

focused on use of funds and development of Memorandums of Understanding between the

University and the Counties. Provost Carman has been directly involved with writing responses

to these various requests and has kept the committee informed of each communication,

indicating that even while the ad-hoc committee was writing their report, new information has

continued to be presented.

NACO representatives have requested additional information from the administration on various

financial management information in UNCE, including revenues and expenditures of county

dollars for the last two fiscal years. These requests have been responded to by Dean Walker as a

continuation of the dialogue within the working group. It was also found that there are no

operating agreements between NSHE and the counties and the working group is reviewing

examples to develop a good template. The latest communication between the Provost and county

5

commissioners responded to the financial requests and included a template for creating MOUs.

This letter was dated April 10, 2016,

A letter dated April 11, 2016 from NACO to the Provost responded to the letter of March 11,

2016 in which the Provost detailed his response to the 16 assurances. The counties response

accepted a number of those assurances outright and has suggested language changes (in some

cases significant changes) for others. Increasing the level of resources to UNCE continues to be

an area of active discussion with NACO seeking some addition of resources as a 2017 legislative

priority. In this most recent communication from the counties, they state that they still feel the

proposal lacks the data and analysis that should accompany a substantial administrative change,

and urge the planning to go on before going forward with consolidation, yet agree that the

negotiations and conversations that have been taking place has resulted in progress and that they

look forward to continuing the conversation.

As is evident from this description of activities, the iterative process of communication, planning

and trust-building between the administration, units and stakeholders has continued throughout

the deliberations of the committee. On the whole, this has been seen by the committee as a

positive sign that the parties are collaborating to create a thoughtful process that addresses the

concerns associated with the consolidation plan. At the same time, it has raised concern within

the committee that many critical details are only now being addressed even as we are asked to

make a recommendation on whether to move forward. We recognize that it is not necessary or

necessarily desirable to have every detail worked out prior to moving forward with

consolidation, however the comments received through the public forum point to some

fundamental concerns of the multiple parties affected by the consolidation that still need to be

addressed in a timely manner.

Public Input

The Faculty Senate set up a site for accepting comments from the faculty and the public. Below

is a summary of the key points raised in those comments. This forum was open for two weeks

from February 19 until March 4. A total of 39 comments were submitted in the faculty section

and nine in the public section. Both positive and negative comments were received in each

group.

Faculty comments:

Comments in support of consolidation:

Both support and opposition for the reorganization were expressed. Comments in support noted

that the missions of CABNR, UNCE and AES were generally aligned and that as a unit there

6

would be greater potential for collaboration, increased efficiency in use of resources, and

potential for a stronger bargaining position within the university.

Some of the positive comments noted that the consolidation would allow for more

collaborations, create increased efficiency across the units, create unity among partners that was

lacking, streamline resources and maximize transparency across related units, improve the

stature and bargaining power of the unit, and allow for more university involvement in 4-H

programming. It was noted that this model is consistent with what other institutions have done

and the missions of the affected units are already closely related. UNCE and CABNR would be

stronger in services, research, and recruitment as a result of the consolidation and Extension

programming throughout the state would be enhanced.

Concerns expressed:

An overarching concern has been the question of why the consolidation is needed and how it

would improve Cooperative Extension and the service to the counties and constituents. The

argument has been made in the Provost’s proposal that Administrative consolidation is in the

best interest of all concerned and “would result in significant synergies and increased efficiencies

for all programs” (Part I.B), but a number of comments question how this will occur beyond

current levels of collaboration.

One concern voiced through several comments was about the Children, Youth, Families and

Community (CYFC) programs. This includes five program teaching areas (Youth Education and

Development, School Readiness/Parent Engagement, College and Career Readiness,

Strengthening Vulnerable Families and Community Capacity Building. These programs play a

large role in Extension outreach and a repeated concern was that there is not a clear academic

alignment for these faculty within the consolidated college. Several comments noted that faculty

who do not have a natural fit within CABNR should be allowed to declare a department/unit with

which which they would prefer to be associated.

A related concern is over the promotion and tenure process and performance evaluation. This

includes several concerns. One is that many in UNCE are social scientists and there is a concern

that CABNR peers within the college will generally be unfamiliar with different forms of

research and may not value it highly. (As a note from the committee, there are social scientists

within the College of Science so there is precedent for social scientists being reviewed by non-

social scientists). There was also the suggestion that in, some cases an MS or MA is not the most

appropriate degree for faculty, and that potentially a category such as Academic Professional

(apparently there are models of this in other land grant institutions) may be appropriate.

There is concern that the resources available to Cooperative Extension have been reduced in

recent years and there was no specific mention in the proposal of how resources might be

7

channeled into Cooperative Extension through the reorganization. In fact, there is still a level of

distrust with the university and concern that clear and transparent guidelines need to be

articulated to ensure that UNCE funds remain with UNCE.

There is an overarching concern that if the reorganization were to proceed, too many decisions

will remain unresolved before the consolidation is approved. Many of the questions and concerns

of faculty that influence them directly (P/T, home department/unit, access to resources) will not

have been answered by the time the decision is made. In moving forward these concerns need to

be addressed in a timely manner.

There was a concern articulated that insufficient input was solicited from those most affected in

UNCE through a survey or other mechanism.

The suggestion was made that if the reorganization is undertaken, the name of the college should

change to reflect the units within the college.

The request was articulated that in selecting the permanent and interim Associate Dean/Director

of UNCE, the search committee should be composed of a majority of Extension faculty and staff.

The question was raised as to whether Extension faculty would have an opportunity to obtain

funding through AES as part of the consolidation.

Public comments:

Comments in favor:

A number of comments in favor of the proposal were submitted. These generally expressed

support without providing lengthy details.

Concerns expressed:

A common opinion was that UNCE has functioned well as a separate unit, is serving the needs of

the community and fulfilling its mission, and that placing it within CABNR would detract from

that mission.

A concern was expressed that the plan has insufficient detail concerning budgets and fiscal

impacts and that the plan relies too heavily on figuring these out as we go rather than developing

a detailed coherent plan prior to making decisions.

One of the concerns articulated is that if there are no changes proposed in the missions of either

CABNR or UNCE, then what benefits are derived from the merger beyond some administrative

savings – and could those savings be achieved through less drastic measures – such as targeted

8

joint staff positions. The statement is made that UNCE are constantly collaborating with all

colleges at UNR and all institutions within NSHE.

A concern was expressed that the current structure, established in the 1990s is the best way to

serve Nevadans, and that placing UNCE within CABNR would draw Extension resource and

focus away from communities and towards the campus – a step in the wrong direction.

Some comments suggested that the outreach efforts to the community would be lost through a

consolidation.

Recommendations with supporting context

The committee had access to all of the reports noted above, plus the comments from faculty and

public, and conversations with Deans Payne and Walker as part of their deliberations prior to

taking a vote. Communications have continued to be presented to the committee and relevant

information from those communications have been added to this report. Below we again provide

the committee’s recommendations, with additional context from our deliberations.

1. The committee recommends that a working group be developed that includes

UNCE faculty and appropriate members of the administration (similar to the

existing working group with county commissioners and members of the

administration) to address UNCE faculty concerns: The committee makes this

recommendation because we have seen that the working group between the

administration and the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) representatives has

spurred much needed dialogue aimed at addressing the assurances the counties

wanted addressed as part of the consideration of the Provost’s consolidation proposal.

Our understanding is that that dialogue has largely focused on financial

considerations and the creation of MOUs between the administration and the

counties. There is an equally pressing set of concerns among the UNCE faculty and

our committee feels that a comparable group must be established to begin dialogue on

the multiple concerns of faculty who will be affected by the consolidation. Those

concerns, noted in the public forum and discussion of the ad-hoc committee include:

a. Promotion and tenure process for UNCE faculty within CABNR and the

identification of tenure homes and evaluation process of faculty who may be in

colleges outside of CABNR(e.g. CYFC- Children, Youth, Families and

Community).

b. The role of UNCE faculty in selecting a new Associate Dean/Director

c. The appropriate degree needed for different extension faculty positions given the

work involved - perhaps a category such as Academic Professional should be

created for some extension positions.

The committee notes that these are extended discussions and have not been addressed

to this point partially because of the state of uncertainty surrounding the

consolidation. If however the faculty senate recommends approval of the Provost’s

9

plan, it is imperative to set up such a working group as soon as is practical to initiate

these discussions, build trust, reduce uncertainty, and begin to resolve some of the

personnel details of the consolidation. A set of guiding principles (Appendix F of the

CABNR/UNCE/NAES report) has already been developed to help facilitate this

process.

2. The committee recommends that the administration develop, with input from

faculty and constituents, a strategic plan for the units that builds on the specific

synergies and collaborations that will accrue from consolidation and that lays the

ground work for the consolidated units. In a recent letter posted on the Provost’s

website (http://www.unr.edu/provost/consolidation-proposal-2016 “University

response to NACO assurances) the Provost framed the importance of consolidation

in relation to new federal reporting requirements that would provide the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) direct evidence of close collaborations

between UNCE and NAES. He also noted that consolidation of the units is a best

practice among western states. The CABNR/UNCE/NAES Consolidation Report

(also on the Provost’s site) describes general areas of potential collaborations. Dean

Payne informed the committee of a recent close collaboration between UNR and

UNCE regarding teff production in Nevada. A concern raised in committee

discussion is that the majority of extension work is non-agricultural related and

without a plan for faculty working in these areas there is a great question of overall

benefit of this consolidation. It has been noted that the missions of the units will not

change, and there are no significant cost savings to consolidation, thus a model for the

consolidated unit moving forward must be developed. The development of a strategic

plan must include faculty and constituent input. Long range objectives must be

developed and communicated, and examine the entire UNCE and AES as well as

departments within those sections

3. Given the concerns over the consolidation and the need to increase transparency,

particularly in relation to financial matters, the committee recommends a working

group of faculty, constituents and administrators be formed to work on the strategic

plan to improve services to Nevada’s counties during the first year of consolidation

(July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017). As noted by the in Provost, this plan would be

intended to “provide a sound plan for reinvestment in UNCE and NAES.” Through the earlier budget cutting and program review at UNR, UNCE budgets were

significantly reduced and there is concern under the new consolidation about

transparency of resource allocation and determining the resources necessary to have an

effective UNCE and NAES within CABNR. This concern is currently being discussed

through the NACO/administration working group. Providing more information or

assurances in this area as this dialogue continues and including different stakeholders in

the process will be important. In the Provost’s response to the sixteen NACO assurances

he notes that the university cannot provide assurances that budgets will be restored to

previous levels, but that for the 2019 legislative session there is a plan to explicitly

include UNCE funding and that the university will work on a strategic plan to improve

services to Nevada’s counties during the first organizational year of consolidation (July

1, 2016—June 30, 2017). In a letter from NACO to Provost Carman dated April 11, the

http://www.unr.edu/provost/consolidation-proposal-2016

10

counties have accepted this as an ‘assurance’ for improved relationship going forward

although they also reiterate the need to address resource needs sooner than the 2019

legislative session. Evaluation of necessary resources continues to be a major point of

concern. Including UNCE stakeholders (e.g. UNCE faculty) in developing this plan could

help increase transparency.

Kevin R. Carman Executive Vice President & Provost

Office of the Provost Clark Administration, Room 110

University of Nevada, Reno/0005 Reno, NV 89557-0005

(775) 784-1740 main (775) 784-6220 fax

http://www.unr.edu/provost

11 March, 2016 Clark County Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick Eureka County Commissioner J.J. Goicoechea Humboldt County Commissioner Jim French Washoe County Commission Jeanne Herman

Dear NACO Colleagues, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you recently and discuss your concerns about the proposed administrative consolidation of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources (CABNR), Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station (NAES), and the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE). As promised, attached please find our responses to the “assurances” that you submitted to us. The assurances can be distilled into a few general themes:

• Integrity of Funding Resources and Identity. We guarantee that UNCE funds will be distinct and clearly identifiable, that UNCE funds will be used only for UNCE programs, and that County funds will be used only for the support of county activities. We will provide annual financial reports for public review and comment. UNCE will retain its distinct identity.

• Personnel. There is concern that UNCE faculty who hold joint appointments with UNR academic programs will not serve the needs of counties. As described below, we will provide transparent processes to assure that all faculty who hold partial appointments with UNCE are fulfilling their obligation to serve the counties. There is also concern about whether UNCE faculty appointments are tenure-track of not. We will work with counties to determine the best credentials and type of appointment to serve the needs of its citizens.

• Advisory Committee. We will reestablish the UNCE advisory committee and include NACO representation as suggested by NACO. The Advisory Committee (AC) will be consulted on UNCE activities, including staffing. In particular, MOUs that will be executed for all joint appointments will be reviewed by the AC to provide assurance that faculty are serving the needs of counties and Nevada citizens.

• Funding and Identity. We understand that UNCE funding is the overarching issue with which NACO is concerned. The NACO list of assurances includes a request to restore UNCE funding to 2008-09 levels. As indicated in the assurances, we have already made partial restoration through five joint appointments, which have been funded with student fees. We are actively exploring options to enhance statewide funding for 4-H. We are committed to include UNCE




(775) 784-1740 main (775) 784-6220 fax


positions as a component of our 2017 legislative request to the Board of Regents. Beyond these direct efforts to restore funding, we simply do not have the ability to restore additional funding at this time.

There seems to be confusion as to why an administrative consolidation is needed and why it would be beneficial to UNCE and the counties. The primary reason relates to the closely linked mission of Cooperative Extension and NAES and the fulfillment of legislative mandates, including reporting requirements. The federal government, through the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), provides formula-based matching funds and oversight for state Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension. NIFA is phasing in requirements that Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experiment Stations submit joint annual plans of work and joint reports of annual accomplishments for review and approval prior to release of federal capacity funds. Thus, NIFA will be looking for direct evidence of close collaboration between UNCE and NAES. NIFA also has several grant programs for education, research, and extension. Accordingly, the programs that CABNR, UNCE, and NAES carry out are broadly defined by NIFA (http://nifa.usda.gov/topic): Advanced Technologies (Bioenergy, biotechnology, and nanotechnology); Animals (Animal breeding, health, and production, and aquaculture); Business and Economics (Markets and Trade, Natural Resource Economic, and Small Business); Education (Minority Serving Institutions, Teaching and Learning, and Workforce Development); Environment (Climate Change, Ecosystems, and Invasive Pests and Diseases); Farming and Ranching (Agricultural Safety, Agricultural Technology, Farmer Education, Organic Agriculture, Small and Family Farms, and Sustainable Agriculture); Food Science (Food Quality and Safety); Health (Nutrition, Obesity, and Wellness); International (Global Engagement and Food Security); Natural Resources (Air, Forests, Grasslands and Rangelands, Soil, and Water); People (Communities, Families, and Youth); and Plants (Crop Production, Pest Management, Plant Breeding, and Plant Health). In addition, UNCE is legislatively mandated to provide programs pertaining to Agriculture, Community Development, Health and Nutrition, Horticulture, Personal and Family Development, and Natural Resources in the rural and urban communities in the State of Nevada. Administrative consolidation of Cooperative Extension and agriculture programs is also a best practice among western land-grant universities. Among 12 western land-grant universities, Extension is linked with Agriculture at nine institutions (Univ. of Alaska, Univ. Arizona, UC Davis, Univ. Hawaii, Univ. Idaho, New Mexico State Univ., Utah State Univ., Washington State Univ., and Univ. Wyoming); institutions where Extension and Agriculture are not directly linked are Colorado State Univ., Montana State Univ., and Oregon State Univ. Given the incipient NIFA reporting requirements noted above, those universities that do not have formal linkages will likely be moving towards establishing them in the near future.




(775) 784-1740 main (775) 784-6220 fax


There is good reason that administrative consolidation is the overwhelming best practice. In addition to administrative efficiency leaving more funds for programs, bringing Extension closer to the University allows it to pull the resources, research, and programs of the University more seamlessly out to the counties as specific county needs are identified. Dean Bill Payne has deep knowledge of Cooperative Extension and fully understands the scope of its obligations, including the unique programs that serve urban communities such as Las Vegas. We are extremely fortunate to have an individual with his knowledge, commitment, and energy to lead a consolidated program. Indeed, failure to consolidate UNCE, CABNR, and NAES would be a sadly lost opportunity. I will close by noting that the issue of consolidation has been something that I have been involved with, literally, since my first day on the job at UNR a little over three years ago. I have learned much over that time, and have come to better understand the sensitivities and unique challenges of Nevada’s rural communities. I have learned much about the needs of urban communities and the unique challenges and needs of Clark County. I have also become keenly aware of political sensitivities regarding UNCE. Some of those sensitivities have a legitimate historical foundation, and some are based on emotions and inaccurate information. I firmly believe that the issue at hand falls under the latter category. Regardless, I can only look to the future. I believe to my core that the proposed consolidation is in the best interests of the citizens of Nevada, rural an urban. As leaders of your communities, you have to consider many perspectives and competing interests. As you contemplate the proposed consolidation, I ask only that you consider what is best for the citizens of Nevada.

Sincerely,

Kevin R. Carman Executive Vice President & Provost Cc: Jeffrey Fontaine, Dagney Stapleton, Marc Johnson, Daniel Klaich, William Payne, Mark Walker Attachment

NACO List of Assurances Requested - Cooperative Extension

1. UNR and NSHE will request and support restoration of state-appropriated resources for Extension programs throughout the state similar to the FY 2008-09 levels in the next Legislative session. This funding proposal should be developed in collaboration with Extension Leadership and based on needs identified at the county level. UNR Response: Unfortunately, we cannot provide assurance that budgets will be restored to previous levels. As with other programs that took deep budget cuts during the recession, we are now looking forward. We are making and will continue to make strategic investments that make sense for the citizens of Nevada and the University. For the 2017 legislative session, UNR has submitted to NSHE a proposal that would allow for substantial investments in faculty and staff to build expertise in “Advanced Manufacturing.” No specific programs, departments, or colleges are being singled out in the umbrella proposal. If we are successful in obtaining these additional resources, UNR programs will participate in a competitive process for allocation of funds and positions. UNCE, and 4-H in particular, can play a critical role in workforce development related to Advanced Manufacturing. 4-H’ers are nearly two times more likely to participate in science programs than non-4-H'ers, and 4-H girls are nearly three times more likely to take part in science programs compared to girls who are not members of 4-H. 4-H youth are twice as likely to go on to a post-secondary education than their peers, and more likely to pursue careers in a STEM field. "Advanced Technology" is a USDA/NIFA topic in which UNCE is currently underinvested and we are seeking ways to expand 4H programs. UNCE Extension Educators specializing in Advanced Technology will go a long way to support NSHE's efforts to promote Advanced Manufacturing, and may be key to promoting STEM workforce development in Title 1 schools, where current STEM programs are woefully inadequate. If the 2017 UNR legislative proposal is successful, we will commit to funding three FTE positions in UNCE. We plan to explicitly include UNCE funding in the 2019 legislative request. We will work on a strategic plan to improve services to Nevada’s counties during the first organizational year of consolidation (July 1, 2016—June 30, 2017). This will provide a sound plan for re-investment in the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station and University of Nevada Cooperative Extension.

2. ALL UNCE funds shall be used for UNCE activities only, activities intended to be carried out “in the rural and urban communities in the State of Nevada” (NRS 549.010): Per NRS.549.050, “All moneys appropriated pursuant to NRS 549.040 must be expended under the direction of the Director.” The UNCE Director shall have all authority of expending all Extension funds and managing its resources – state-appropriated, county and federal, in accordance with state and federal laws. UNR Response: We certainly have obeyed and will continue to obey both state and federal law. More explicitly, we will assure that all UNCE funds have been and will be used for their intended purpose as described under NRS 549.010 and NRF 549.050. It is our understanding that the inclusion of this assurance may be related to faculty who hold joint appointments with

UNCE and an academic program on the UNR campus. We specifically address such joint appointments below under assurances #10-13.

3. The UNCE Advisory Committee will resume, at a minimum, quarterly meetings, effective first quarter 2016. As was the case prior to 2013, it will have representatives/stakeholders from throughout the state with diverse interests in UNCE programs – rural, urban, various programs, various geographic areas, etc., selected by UNCE leadership (Dean, Director, Area Directors, Extension Educators, etc.), in consultation with the NACO Board of Directors. NACO shall have two appointments to this Board, one county commissioner, and either the NACO Executive Director or Deputy Director. UNR Response: We agree. Indeed, it is a federal requirement that UNCE have an advisory board. Its composition must reflect the make-up of the population served. We would welcome participation by the NACO board as described.

4. UNCE shall maintain separate financial accounts and management of its funds, and UNCE funds shall be under the exclusive control of the UNCE Director. This shall include UNCE having its own CFO/Financial Director, who is separate from any other entity/college. UNR Response: We will maintain separate financial accounts and will provide transparent accounting of assets. More specifically, UNCE, CABNR, and NAES have distinct account codes within UNR, and these distinct codes will be maintained. Fiscal officers and area fiscal staff will prepare annual reports for each contributing county to clearly track how federal, state, county, and grant funds have been used.

5. UNCE shall be led by a Dean or Director, not an Assistant or Associate Director. UNR Response: We agree. The Dean of CABNR and Director of NAES (Dr. Bill Payne) will also be the Director of UNCE. This the national norm and a best practice.

6. UNCE shall conduct a national search for the Dean/Director of the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. UNR Response: As noted in #5, Dean Bill Payne will serve as Director of UNCE. If /When Dean Payne no longer serves in this capacity, a national search will be conducted to identify his replacement. When/If the proposed administrative consolidation is approved by the Board of Regents, a national search will be launched immediately to identify the Associate Director of UNCE. The successful incumbent will have significant experience with Cooperative Extension. S/He will report directly to the Director and will oversee day-to-day activities of UNCE, and work closely with the other Associate Deans to effectively integrate the missions of teaching, research and outreach.

7. The terminal/advanced degree required for Extension Educator positions will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the appropriate UNCE Area Director, in consultation with the UNCE Director, and the UNCE Advisory Committee.

UNR Response: As we are doing now, when Extension Educator positions are filled, we will work closely with individual counties and in particular their commissioners to determine the Extension Educator credentials and qualifications that will best serve the county. In some cases, a terminal degree (Ph.D.) may be appropriate, while in others a M.S. degree may be most appropriate. The Advisory Committee will be kept informed of all appointments, but we feel that individual counties should have the primary input on the credentials of the Educator(s) that serve them.

8. The terminal/advanced degree required for other UNCE faculty positions with regional or statewide responsibility will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the UNCE Director, in consultation with other UNCE leadership (Dean, Director, Area Directors, Extension Educators, etc.), and the UNCE Advisory Committee. UNR Response: We agree that the Advisory Committee should and will play an active role in determining the types of faculty that should be hired to serve statewide and regional needs. In most cases, we would expect these specialists to be highly trained and hold a terminal degree (Ph.D.). However, there may be cases where other credentials and qualifications and other options for position titles may best serve the needs of the state.

9. All UNCE faculty positions and Extension Educator positions shall remain tenure track positions. UNR Response: All UNCE faculty who were hired into tenure-track positions will remain in tenure-track positions. As has been the case for the past two years and as noted above, decisions regarding whether new appointments will be tenure-track or non-tenure-track will be made on a case-by-case basis in consultation with county stakeholders and the advisory board. As per UNR policy, faculty who are appointed on the tenure track must hold a terminal degree (in most cases, the Ph.D.). Faculty compensation will be based on the position responsibilities, not on whether the appointment is tenure-track or not. It is worth noting that there are differing views on the desirability of tenure-track positions both within UNCE and among county commissioners.

10. No joint appointments located on campus with UNCE and other NSHE units shall be instituted from this point on with county funds, or with any state-appropriated funds specifically designated for Extension (including general fund, as well as federal and county pass-through funds). UNR Response: There seems to be a misunderstanding. As noted above, the recently hired joint faculty appointments between UNCE and UNR academic appointments were established using funds from student-fee and state-formula funding (which is based on weighted student hours). No county funds are used now nor will be used in the future to fund campus-based positions. Over the past three years we have funded five positions that have joint appointments in UNR academic programs and (2 in Education, 1 in Geography, 1 in Economics, and 1 in Agriculture, Nutrition, and Veterinary Science). All of these faculty have majority appointments in the

academic program that is their tenure home and minority in UNCE. In all cases, institutional funds (from student fees and state formula funding) were used to fund the positions. No UNCE funds were used for any of these positions. In all cases, these positions provide expertise in areas that are relevant to UNCE statewide.

11. The UNCE Dean/Director may, in consultation with the UNCE Advisory Committee, recommend approval of MOUs for joint appointments located on campus with UNCE and other NSHE units that are to be funded by UNR’s general state appropriations or other NSHE funds, funds not specifically appropriated to UNCE. UNR Response: It should be recognized that there are already long-serving UNCE joint appointments on campus that have been financed by funds specifically appropriated to UNCE. These include Dr. William Evans (College of Education), Dr. Tom Harris (College of Business) and Dr. Sherm Swanson (College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources), who have served the state and counties well. Further, as we stated in assurance #10, the five recent joint appointments were not financed with UNCE funds. If the intent of this recommendation is to keep UNCE appointments largely in the counties, then we support that intent. But a blanket statement that no funds specifically appropriated to UNCE can be used for on-campus positions would be unprecedented at UNR as well as other land grants. Some flexibility, including the ability to make joint NAES/UNCE appointments in the counties, should be retained. We support the idea of MOUs for joint positions and will take the suggestion further. We are currently executing MOUs for all faculty who hold joint appointments between UNCE and UNR academic programs. These MOUs will clearly describe expectations for faculty, including teaching, research, and outreach. The MOUs will include clear and specific descriptions of expectations for UNCE activities, including interactions with Extension Educators and county stakeholders. Role statements will be explicitly tied to state needs that can be addressed by UNR and UNCE programs. The MOUs will complement and guide the standard UNR “role statements” that are developed for each faculty member annually, and which describe the responsibilities against which faculty is evaluated. And they will specify terms under which the MOUs can be discontinued.

12. The UNCE Director may, in consultation with the UNCE Advisory Committee and NACO Board of Directors, recommend approval of MOUs that use proportional Extension-appropriated funds for joint appointments located off campus with UNCE and other NSHE units. UNR Response: As indicated in the response to item #11, we fully support the execution of MOUs (and associated annual role statements) for joint appointments that include UNCE, NAES, and UNR academic programs. These MOUs (and role statements) should clearly identify faculty obligations for UNCE activities. We further support consulting with the Advisory Committee on these MOUs as part of a culture of transparency and accountability regarding the use of UNCE and University funds.

13. In future MOUs for joint positions, or for any current joint positions, with UNCE, despite the origin of the funding, an MOU shall be created that includes measurable goals and evidence that the position is meeting UNCE’s mission to provide education, outreach, and service programs to people outside of the University, “in the rural and urban communities in the State of Nevada,” (NRS 549.010). The MOUs shall also provide a mechanism for ending the relationship if the UNCE Director concludes these goals are not being satisfactorily met, and provide that the UNCE Director may redirect the UNCE portion of the funding to other programs supporting the UNCE mission as he/she sees fit, and as defined by state and federal law. UNR Response: As indicated in responses to items #11 and #12, we fully support clear and transparent MOUs regarding all joint appointments between UNR and UNCE. Item #13 includes a suggestion of providing for an exit clause for the joint appointment if the goals for UNCE are not being met. We support this recommendation; the exit clause needs to be bilateral (i.e., either the academic unit or UNCE may petition to withdraw from the joint appointment if their goals are not being met).

14. UNCE shall have the rights and responsibilities of a “major unit,” as defined by NSHE and UNR bylaws and codes. This is to guarantee that any changes in status would have to be approved at the level of the Board of Regents. UNR Response: Our proposal specifies that UNCE, CABNR, and NAES will retain their identities while all being part of the administratively consolidated unit. We have further suggested in our proposal that UNCE retain its full representation on the Faculty Senate and University Promotion and Tenure Committee. The UNR Faculty Senate has authority to determine representation on the Senate and the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

15. If there is consideration of elimination of any faculty or staff positions, or combining of positions, resulting in termination of UNCE employees that may result from the consolidated leadership, the UNCE Advisory Board shall be consulted and given the opportunity to voice their opinions; and, any such terminations must be approved by the UNCE Director, as well as the Northern and Southern Area Directors, unanimously. Any such terminations shall strictly adhere to procedures and give due notice, as dictated by NSHE and UNR bylaws and codes. UNR Response: There are no plans or expectations that any employees (UNCE, CABNR, or NAES) will be terminated as a result of the proposed consolidation. While we are committed to engaging with the Advisory Board and consulting with them on programmatic and organizational issues, we can’t commit that the Advisory Board will be consulted on all personnel decisions, as such matters are confidential. Certainly the Director would consult with the Associate Director of Extension and the cognizant Area Director on any personnel matter and would follow UNR and NSHE policies. The Director must have authority to make recommendations for terminations (the President has final authority on all terminations). Any terminations under any circumstance will follow NSHE code and UNR bylaws.

16. Per NRS 549.070, “All supplies, materials, equipment, property or land acquired for the use of county agricultural extension offices under the provisions of chapter 213, Statutes of Nevada 1919, shall remain the property of the county extension offices set up under the provisions of this chapter.” UNR Response: We will certainly obey the law. We will not appropriate, move, or transfer supplies, materials, equipment, property or land from county offices to any other location.

Finally, in our meeting with NACO representatives on Feb. 26, 2016, we agreed that a UNCE liaison with NACO would be mutually beneficial. We agreed in principle to do this and discussed various ways that the liaison position could be structured. While we have not finalized a plan, we are committed to establishing a formal liaison with NACO and we look forward to defining a scope of work that articulates the expectations and annual outcomes for this position

Dear County Manager;

Cc: County Clerks

NACO Board of Directors RE: AB191- Motor Vehicle Fuel Indexing 2016 Ballot Question The Board of Directors of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) has asked staff to coordinate and assist counties with the motor vehicle fuel indexing 2016 ballot question. This letter provides the most current information available as well as suggestions to help counties coordinate on this process. AB191, which was enacted during the 78th (2015) Session of the Nevada Legislature, requires all counties, except Washoe and Clark, to place on the ballot at the November 8, 2016 General Election, a

question which asks all voters in a county whether to authorize their Board of County Commissioners (Supervisors) to impose, for the period beginning on January1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2026 annual

increases to taxes on certain motor vehicle fuels. If the question is approved by the voters, the Board of County Commissioners (Supervisors) is required to impose an ordinance to index motor vehicle fuels which must stay in place until 2026. In 2026 another ballot question will be required that will ask county voters whether they would like the annual increases to continue. The fuel tax indexing question on the November Ballot will be a county by county question which means that motor vehicle fuel indexing could pass in one county but not in another. The requirements of each county are the same except for in Clark and Washoe Counties: Clark County must have a ballot question if it wants to continue motor vehicle fuel indexing approved in 2013; and the Washoe County Commission approved motor vehicle fuel indexing in 2003. Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 293.481, the language for the ballot questions is to be developed by the Board of County Commissioners (Supervisors) of each county with the assistance of the County Clerk, District Attorney and Secretary of State. Once the language is approved at the county level, it must be transmitted to the County Clerk and the Secretary of State. As with other local ballot questions, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 295.121, the County Clerk must make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners or Supervisors on individuals to appoint to the committees that will write the pro and con arguments for the ballot question. The Board appoints the two committees, one consisting of three people who support the question and another consisting of three people who oppose the question. NACO staff is not aware of any requirement that the committee members be county residents or that the final language of the question be adopted prior to appointing the committees. However, each clerk should check with their district attorney. The final language for the ballot question must be submitted to the County Clerk on or before the third Monday in July which falls on July 18

th.

What is motor vehicle fuel indexing?

Motor vehicle fuel indexing is the practice of tying the fuel tax to the rate of inflation to provide funds for transportation infrastructure projects. Unlike the sales tax, which is a percentage of the total price of an item, the fuel tax is currently a fixed amount per gallon. The Federal gas tax has not been increased since 1993 and the State fuel tax has not been increased since 1992, however, the cost of building and maintaining streets and highways has increased significantly just like the prices of other goods and services. Thus, the intent of fuel revenue indexing is to enable the taxes paid at the pump to better support the current costs of maintaining and improving our transportation infrastructure.

How does AB191 work? As outlined in AB191, if the fuel tax indexing ballot question passes in a particular county, then, each year, the tax will increase by a percentage equal to the lesser of the “applicable percentage” or the “adjusted average highway and street construction inflation index.” The “adjusted average highway and street construction inflation index” has a complex definition in the bill - it starts with the Producer Price

Index (PPI) for Highway and Street Construction, averages that over 10 years, then adjusts that number if it was higher than the “applicable percentage” in the previous year. The “applicable percentage” is determined by the County as part of the ordinance and is one of the few items over which the Board of Commissioners or Supervisors will have discretion. The “applicable percentage” cannot exceed 7.8%, but the Board could establish a lower rate in the ordinance. According to AB191, if fuel tax indexing passes, it will apply to Federal, State and County taxes on gasoline and special fuels including diesel, propane and methane. The current taxes per gallon are as follows: Federal State County Mandatory County Optional Gasoline 18.4 cents 18.455 cents 6.35 cents *Up to 9 cents Diesel 24.4 cents 27.75 cents None None Propane 18.3 cents 22 cents None None Methane 18.3 cents 21 cents None None Indexing of the county optional gas tax for all counties would be based on 9 cents even if the county has not imposed the full optional gas tax. *Carson City, Churchill, Clark, Douglas, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Washoe and White Pine are at 9 cents. Esmeralda, Lincoln and Storey are at 4 cents.

How much money will fuel tax indexing generate and how will it be spent? If passed, each of the portions (county, state and federal) of the fuel tax will be indexed. The revenue generated from indexed federal and county taxes on gasoline as well as the indexed federal tax on diesel and other special fuels will be returned to the county where the fuel was purchased. Rural counties and cities have never before been eligible to receive a portion of the diesel tax. The amounts that this will generate for each county will vary. Revenue projections for each County were prepared by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and are contained in the attached spreadsheet. These are projections only and are subject to change based on various factors. The revenue generated from the indexed state portion of the taxes on gasoline, diesel and other special fuels will be distributed to the State Highway Fund; however, AB191 stipulates that revenues generated from the state portion of the fuel taxes must be used by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to complete projects in the county where the fuel was purchased. NDOT, in consultation with the County, will decide on which project(s) the additional state revenue will be used for. NDOT’s list of projects in each county can be viewed at the following website: http://estip.nevadadot.com/default.asp#tabs-4 The county and federal portions of revenue generated from any approved fuel tax indexing that are

returned to the county will also be distributed to any cities and towns with town boards within the county in

accordance with NRS 365.180, NRS 365.190, NRS 365.192, NRS 365.196, NRS 365.550, NRS 365.560

and NRS 373.030. These revenues are for use on state or local roads and must be used in accordance

with NRS 365.535-365.56 for the construction, maintenance or repair of any public road, highway, street

or alley or any real property or any interest therein that is acquired, dedicated or reserved for the

construction, operation and maintenance of a public road, highway, street or alley. Furthermore, Article

IX, Section 5 of the Nevada Constitution requires that the proceeds from the imposition of any excise tax

on gasoline or other motor vehicle fuel shall, except costs of administration, be used exclusively for the

construction, maintenance, and repair of the public highways of this State.

http://estip.nevadadot.com/default.asp#tabs-4

The county, city or regional transportation commission will decide which projects will be funded by

revenue from fuel tax indexing.

Nevada’s counties and cities maintain 22,211 miles of road which carry nearly half of all vehicle miles (13.1 billion) travelled (VMT) in the State. Specific county road miles and VMT data is attached.

How should the Question appear on the Ballot?

It is up to each county to decide the exact wording of their ballot question. However, the NACO Board directed staff to draft sample language that all counties could use. The draft language presented below is still under review and will be presented to the NACO Board of Directors at their March 25th meeting.

Draft Sample Question

Shall the Nevada County Board of Commissioners enact an ordinance to impose, for the period beginning on January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2026, annual increases in the taxes on certain motor vehicle fuels based on construction inflation not to exceed 7.8 percent for the purpose of funding repairs and maintenance of roads (and projects that will reduce traffic congestion and enhance public safety) in Nevada County?

Draft Sample Explanation

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 191 enacted during the 78th (2015) Session of the Nevada Legislature, all counties except Washoe and Clark are required to place on the ballot at the 2016 General Election a

question which asks the voters in the county whether to authorize the Board of County Commissioners (Supervisors) to impose, for the period beginning on January1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2026

annual increases to taxes on certain motor vehicle fuels (e.g. gasoline and diesel). If voters approve the ballot question the Board of County Commissioners (Supervisors) is required to impose an ordinance to index motor vehicle fuels based on street and highway construction inflation which cannot exceed 7.8% annually. However, the Board of County Commissioners (Supervisors) could establish a lower rate of indexing in the ordinance. The revenue from indexed motor vehicle fuels will be used on streets and highways in the county where the fuel was purchased.

Clark County must have a ballot question if it wants to continue motor vehicle fuel indexing approved in 2013. Washoe County approved motor vehicle fuel indexing in 2009.

A “YES” vote would permit Nevada County to index the applicable rate of tax on motor vehicle fuels in

Nevada County beginning January 1, 2017 until December 31, 2026 to reflect inflation in the cost of

construction. The proceeds of this fuel revenue indexing collected in Nevada County may only be

used for street and highway improvements located in Nevada County.

A “NO” vote would prevent Nevada County from indexing the applicable rate of tax upon motor vehicle

fuels and preclude the construction of the Nevada County street and highway improvements that

would be financed through the indexing of the fuel revenue rate of tax

What else can a county do?

Nevada Revised Statutes 281A.520 prohibits a public officer or employee from requesting or otherwise causing governmental entity to incur expense or make expenditure to support or oppose ballot question or candidate in certain circumstances. However, counties can provide information to their voters regarding their transportation needs including the condition of their streets and highways and what projects or how many miles of roads would be improved or maintained with the additional tax revenues if the ballot question is approved by voters.

FY15

BASE GALLONS

COUNTY NAME

TOTAL GASOLINE/

GASOHOL GALLONS

PROJECTED

GALLONS* PROJECTED TAX**

PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED


PROJECTED

GALLONS* PROJECTED TAX**CARSON CITY 35,253,634 35,606,170 1,068,185.11$ 35,962,232 2,157,733.92$ 36,321,854 3,268,966.89$ 36,685,073 4,402,208.75$ 37,051,924 5,557,788.55$ 37,422,443 6,736,039.72$ 37,796,667 7,937,300.13$ 38,174,634 9,161,912.15$ 38,556,380 10,410,222.68$ 38,941,944 11,682,583.24$ CHURCHILL 8,891,375 8,980,289 269,408.66$ 9,070,092 544,205.50$ 9,160,793 824,471.33$ 9,252,400 1,110,288.06$ 9,344,924 1,401,738.67$ 9,438,374 1,698,907.27$ 9,532,757 2,001,879.07$ 9,628,085 2,310,740.41$ 9,724,366 2,625,578.79$ 9,821,610 2,946,482.87$ DOUGLAS 20,736,883 20,944,252 628,327.55$ 21,153,694 1,269,221.66$ 21,365,231 1,922,870.82$ 21,578,884 2,589,466.03$ 21,794,672 3,269,200.87$ 22,012,619 3,962,271.45$ 22,232,745 4,668,876.52$ 22,455,073 5,389,217.47$ 22,679,624 6,123,498.36$ 22,906,420 6,871,925.93$ ELKO 30,897,923 31,206,902 936,207.07$ 31,518,971 1,891,138.28$ 31,834,161 2,865,074.49$ 32,152,503 3,858,300.31$ 32,474,028 4,871,104.14$ 32,798,768 5,903,778.22$ 33,126,756 6,956,618.67$ 33,458,023 8,029,925.55$ 33,792,603 9,124,002.90$ 34,130,529 10,239,158.81$ ESMERALDA 228,179 230,461 6,913.82$ 232,765 13,965.92$ 235,093 21,158.37$ 237,444 28,493.28$ 239,818 35,972.76$ 242,217 43,598.99$ 244,639 51,374.14$ 247,085 59,300.44$ 249,556 67,380.12$ 252,052 75,615.47$ EUREKA 1,767,574 1,785,250 53,557.49$ 1,803,102 108,186.13$ 1,821,133 163,901.99$ 1,839,345 220,721.35$ 1,857,738 278,660.71$ 1,876,315 337,736.78$ 1,895,079 397,966.50$ 1,914,029 459,367.05$ 1,933,170 521,955.81$ 1,952,501 585,750.40$ HUMBOLDT 13,960,639 14,100,245 423,007.36$ 14,241,248 854,474.87$ 14,383,660 1,294,529.43$ 14,527,497 1,743,299.63$ 14,672,772 2,200,915.78$ 14,819,500 2,667,509.93$ 14,967,695 3,143,215.87$ 15,117,372 3,628,169.17$ 15,268,545 4,122,507.22$ 15,421,231 4,626,369.22$ LANDER 4,543,149 4,588,580 137,657.41$ 4,634,466 278,067.98$ 4,680,811 421,272.99$ 4,727,619 567,314.29$ 4,774,895 716,234.29$ 4,822,644 868,075.96$ 4,870,871 1,022,882.84$ 4,919,579 1,180,699.05$ 4,968,775 1,341,569.29$ 5,018,463 1,505,538.87$ LINCOLN 2,651,541 2,678,056 80,341.69$ 2,704,837 162,290.22$ 2,731,885 245,869.68$ 2,759,204 331,104.50$ 2,786,796 418,019.44$ 2,814,664 506,639.56$ 2,842,811 596,990.28$ 2,871,239 689,097.35$ 2,899,951 782,986.86$ 2,928,951 878,685.26$ LYON 26,226,492 26,488,757 794,662.71$ 26,753,644 1,605,218.67$ 27,021,181 2,431,906.28$ 27,291,393 3,274,967.13$ 27,564,307 4,134,646.00$ 27,839,950 5,011,190.95$ 28,118,349 5,904,853.34$ 28,399,533 6,815,887.85$ 28,683,528 7,744,552.57$ 28,970,363 8,691,109.00$ MINERAL 2,257,148 2,279,719 68,391.58$ 2,302,517 138,151.00$ 2,325,542 209,298.77$ 2,348,797 281,855.67$ 2,372,285 355,842.78$ 2,396,008 431,281.46$ 2,419,968 508,193.31$ 2,444,168 586,600.28$ 2,468,610 666,524.57$ 2,493,296 747,988.69$ NYE 23,096,763 23,327,731 699,831.92$ 23,561,008 1,413,660.48$ 23,796,618 2,141,695.62$ 24,034,584 2,884,150.10$ 24,274,930 3,641,239.51$ 24,517,679 4,413,182.28$ 24,762,856 5,200,199.79$ 25,010,485 6,002,516.33$ 25,260,590 6,820,359.18$ 25,513,195 7,653,958.63$ PERSHING 3,959,721 3,999,318 119,979.55$ 4,039,311 242,358.68$ 4,079,705 367,173.41$ 4,120,502 494,460.19$ 4,161,707 624,255.98$ 4,203,324 756,598.25$ 4,245,357 891,524.94$ 4,287,810 1,029,074.50$ 4,330,689 1,169,285.91$ 4,373,995 1,312,198.63$ STOREY 1,641,007 1,657,417 49,722.51$ 1,673,991 100,439.47$ 1,690,731 152,165.80$ 1,707,638 204,916.62$ 1,724,715 258,707.23$ 1,741,962 313,553.16$ 1,759,382 369,470.14$ 1,776,975 426,474.10$ 1,794,745 484,581.20$ 1,812,693 543,807.79$ WHITE PINE 7,320,929 7,394,138 221,824.15$ 7,468,080 448,084.78$ 7,542,760 678,848.44$ 7,618,188 914,182.57$ 7,694,370 1,154,155.49$ 7,771,314 1,398,836.46$ 7,849,027 1,648,295.63$ 7,927,517 1,902,604.09$ 8,006,792 2,161,833.90$ 8,086,860 2,426,058.05$

TOTALS 183,432,957 185,267,287 5,558,018.60$ 187,119,959 $11,227,197.57 188,991,159 17,009,204.31$ 190,881,071 22,905,728.47$ 192,789,881 28,918,482.20$ 194,717,780 35,049,200.43$ 196,664,958 41,299,641.17$ 198,631,608 47,671,585.80$ 200,617,924 54,166,839.37$ 202,624,103 60,787,230.85$

*Projected growth of 1% per year

**Projected increase of $0.03 per year based on FY16 PPI indexing factor of 5.25%

This is a cumulative tax so subsequent increases are added to prior years indexed taxes

Clark and Washoe Counties are excluded from this spreadsheet as they have already enacted Indexing.

COUNTY INDEX TAX REVENUE PROJECTIONS - FY17 - FY26

GASOLINE/GASOHOL

FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

Totals County Portion State Portion62,382,941.14$ 40,330,571.45$ 22,052,369.69$ 15,733,700.63$ 10,171,837.45$ 5,561,863.17$ 36,694,876.67$ 23,723,237.77$ 12,971,638.90$ 54,675,308.42$ 35,347,586.90$ 19,327,721.53$

403,773.33$ 261,039.46$ 142,733.87$ 3,127,804.21$ 2,022,125.42$ 1,105,678.79$

24,703,998.49$ 15,971,135.02$ 8,732,863.47$ 8,039,312.96$ 5,197,415.83$ 2,841,897.13$ 4,692,024.83$ 3,033,394.05$ 1,658,630.78$

46,408,994.51$ 30,003,414.95$ 16,405,579.56$ 3,994,128.12$ 2,582,203.83$ 1,411,924.29$

40,870,793.83$ 26,422,968.21$ 14,447,825.62$ 7,006,910.04$ 4,529,967.34$ 2,476,942.70$ 2,903,838.03$ 1,877,331.29$ 1,026,506.74$

12,954,723.56$ 8,375,228.78$ 4,579,494.78$

324,593,128.77$ 209,849,457.75$ 114,743,671.02$

The following links and/or pages are additional support for agenda Item 20 b

BLMPlanning2.0:ImpactstoStateandLocalGovernmentPlanning

TheNevadaAssociationofCounties

PresentationRoadmap

Overview

OverarchingConcerns

SpecificCodeSections

Questions

WhyIsPlanning2.0Important?• TheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)isreviewingthewayitdevelopsandupdatesResourceManagementPlans(RMPs).ItchangestheBLM’sRegulations,andthereforethewaytheBLMinteractswithState,local,andtribalgovernmentsforlandmanagementplanning.

• Website:https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/02/25/2016-03232/resource-management-planning

Overview OverarchingConcerns

CodeSections

WhoShouldGetInvolved?

• Anylocalgovernment,State,ortribewithjurisdictionoverlandadministeredbytheBLM.


CodeSections

WhenIsTheCommentPeriod?

• Planning2.0waspublishedFridayFebruary26,2016intheFederalRegisterat81F.R.9674.InterestedpartieshaveuntilMay24thtosubmitpubliccomments.

• ThepriordatewasApril25th.Severalassociations,states,andcountiessubmittedcommentperiodextensionrequests.


CodeSections

SixMainIssues1. Landscape-levelplanningratherthanlocalproject-levelplanning.

2. Re-defining(wateringdown)whatFLPMArequiresforconsistencyreview.1. E.g.limiting whatqualifiesas“officiallyapprovedandadoptedlanduseplans.”2. E.g.shiftingtheburdentolocalandStategovernmenttoraise“specific inconsistencies.”

3. Thedefinitionof“publicinvolvement”focusesontheinputofindividualsandspecialinterestgroupsratherthanontheinputofStateandlocalgovernmentandtheirplanningefforts.

4. TheStateDirectorwillnolongerbethedefaultplanningofficial.5. TheProtestprocessandwhatconstitutesa“validprotestissue.”

6. NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)v.FederalLandManagementAct(FLPMA)


CodeSections

WhatAretheMostImportantSectionsforStateandLocalGovernment?• §1601.0-2Objectiveandchangesinpriority(81F.R.9683)• §1601.0-5Definitions.(81F.R.9685)

• Consistent(eliminating),Cooperatingagency(adoptingNEPARegs),DecidingOfficial(notStateDirector),Officiallyapprovedandadoptedlanduseplans(limiting)

• § 1601.0-8.Principles (81F.R.9688)• Willnotconsiderimpactstolocaleconomiesandthelocalusesontheland

• § 1610.3Coordination (81F.R.9701)• § 1610.3-1Eliminates section (d)addressing inconsistencies• § 1610.3-2BLMplans not required to be consistentwith Stateand localprograms/policies

• §1610.4Planning Assessment (81F.R.9705)• Consistency reviewdoesn’t take placeuntil the development ofAlternatives

• § 1610.5-2ProtestProcedures (81F.R.9714)• Adds requirements thatwill make itharder forthe publicto protest


CodeSections

1601.0-5Definitions:Consistent

“Consistent meansthattheBLMplanswilladheretotheterms,conditions,anddecisionsofofficiallyapprovedandadoptedresourcerelatedplans,orintheirabsence,withpoliciesandprograms,subjecttothequalificationsin§ 1615.2ofthispart.”

BLMExplanation:• Thisdefinition isunnecessaryasthis iscommonlyusedterminology.81F.R.9685


CodeSections

1601.0-5Definitions:Officiallyapprovedandadoptedlanduseplans

(j)Officiallyapprovedandadoptedresourcerelatedplans landuseplansmeansplans,policies,programsandprocesses prepared...

BLMExplanation:• Therewouldbenoregulatoryrequirementsforconsistencywiththe‘‘policies,programs,andprocesses’’ofotherFederalagencies,Stateandlocalgovernments,andIndiantribes.• Thisproposedchangeisconsistentwithsection202(c)(9)ofFLPMA.81F.R.9686.

…ISTHISCHANGETRULYCONSISTENTWITHFLPMA202(c)(9)?


CodeSections

WhatDoesFLPMA§ 202(c)(9)Require?• landuseinventory,planning,andmanagementactivities

• landuseplanningandmanagementprograms

• including,butnotlimitedto,thestatewideoutdoorrecreationplans

• consideringthepolicies ofapprovedStateandtriballandresourcemanagementprograms.

• plans thataregermaneinthedevelopmentoflanduseplansforpubliclands;

• assistinresolving,totheextentpractical,inconsistencies betweenFederalandnon-FederalGovernmentplans,

• RMPswillbeconsistentwithStateandlocalplans tothemaximumextenttheSecretaryfindsconsistentwithFederallawandthepurposesofthis Act.

(Seehandoutforexactlanguage (43USCS§ 1712(c)(9)))


CodeSections

1601.0-5Definitions:DecidingOfficial

(d)DecidingOfficial. ThisproposednewdefinitionreferstotheBLMofficialwhoisdelegatedtheauthoritytoapprovearesourcemanagementplanorplanamendment.81FR9686• Replacestheterm“StateDirector”• ThereisnorequirementthattheDecidingOfficialhavejurisdictionoveranyoftheplanningarea.• TheBLMDirectorchoosestheDecidingOfficialfortheplanningarea.• ThispotentiallyreducestheBLM’sinternallocalinput.


CodeSections

§ 1601.0-8.Principles.

• TheBLMnolongerneedstoanalyze,“theimpactonlocaleconomiesandusesofadjacentornearbynon-Federallandsandonnon-publiclandsurfaceoverfederally-ownedmineralinterestswillbeconsidered.”• TheBLMwillconsidertheimpactsofresourcemanagementplansat“appropriatescales”,ratherthanjuston“localeconomies.”81F.R.9688


CodeSections

§ 1610.3-1Coordinationofplanning efforts.• (d)...the StateDirectorshall: (1)Ensure that itis asconsistentaspossible withexisting officially adopted and approved resource related plans,policies orprogramsofother Federalagencies,Stateagencies, Indiantribes and localgovernments...(2)Identify areas where the proposed guidance is inconsistentwith such policies,plans orprograms and provide reasons why theinconsistencies existand cannot be remedied;and (3)Notify the other Federalagencies,Stateagencies, Indiantribes orlocalgovernments with whomconsistency is not achieved and indicateany appropriate methods,procedures,actions and/orprograms which the StateDirectorbelieves may lead to resolutionofsuch inconsistencies...”• BLMExplanation:

• Thissection isunnecessaryandinappropriateintheregulations.FLPMAprovidesdirectionthatBLM’sresourcemanagementplansmustbeconsistentwithState,local,andtriballanduseplanstotheextentpracticalandtotheextentconsistentwithFederallawsandregulations.81F.R.9703


CodeSections

§1610.3-2Consistency Requirements.

• (b)Intheabsenceofofficiallyapprovedoradoptedresource-relatedplansofotherFederalagencies,StateandlocalgovernmentsandIndiantribes,guidanceandresourcemanagementplansshall,tothemaximumextentpractical,beconsistentwithofficiallyapprovedandadoptedresourcerelatedpoliciesandprogramsofotherFederalagencies,StateandlocalgovernmentsandIndiantribes.Suchconsistencywillbeaccomplishedsolongastheguidanceandresourcemanagementplansareconsistentwiththepolicies,programsandprovisionsofFederallawsandregulationsapplicabletopubliclands,including,butnotlimitedto,FederalandStatepollutioncontrollawsasimplementedbyapplicableFederalandStateair,water,noiseandotherpollutionstandardsorimplementationplans.

BLMExplanation:• Weproposetoremoveexisting§ 1610.3–2(b).Theexistingsectionexceedsthestatutoryrequirementsofsection202(c)(9)ofFLPMAbyprovidingthatintheabsenceofofficiallyapprovedandadoptedplans,resourcemanagementplansshouldbeconsistentwith‘‘policiesandprograms’’ofotherFederalagencies,Stateandlocalgovernments,andIndiantribes.


CodeSections

§1610.4Planning Assessment

• Addedinformationgatheringsteppriortoscoping• Wouldnotinclude"specificrequirementsandconstraintstoachieveconsistencywithpolicies,plansandprogramsofotherFederalagencies,StateandlocalgovernmentsandIndiantribes."• BLMExplanation:Atthisearlystageintheprocess,theBLMwouldidentifytheseplans,butwouldnothavesufficient informationtoidentify"requirementsandconstratints"relatedtoconsistency,astheBLMwouldnotyetbedevelopingresourcemanagementalternatives.81F.R.9709.


CodeSections

1610.5-2ProtestProcedures.

• Addedrequirementsthatprotestersubmit• Howtheyparticipated inpreparationofRMP• StatementofhowRMPisinconsistentwithfederallaworregulation


CodeSections

FLPMA§ 202(c)(9)RequiresMore,NotLess• FLMPAexpresslymentionsplans,policies,andprograms

• Morewordsshouldbeaddedlike“activities,”and“inventories”

• FLPMAdoesnotconfinetheBLMto“officiallyapproved”or“landuse”plans• FLPMAsaysany“resourcerelated”plans,programs,activities,inventories,policiesor“plansgermane”tofederallanduseplans

• Requiresconsistencyunlessthe localorStateplan,policyorprogramviolatesFederallaw• ThereisnothinginFLPMAthatrequiresaStateorlocalgovernmenttoraiseinwritingspecificinconsistencies

• YetthesechangesremoveacrosstheboardthelanguageneededtosupportandimplementFLPMA§202(c)(9).

(Seehandoutforexactlanguage (43USCS§ 1712(c)(9)))


CodeSections

Questions?

nevada association of counties (naco) board of directors ... › wp-content › uploads ›...

Documents