You are on page 1of 38

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATION

BETWEEN

CLARK COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF )


SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND )
PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES, ) DECISION AND AWARD
)
)
ASSOCIATION, )
Compensation and Benefits
)
2015-2016 2016-2017 Contract
and )
))
AAA Case No. 01-16-0002-3204
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ))
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA,

DISTRICT.

_________________________________________

BEFORE
ERIC B. LINDAUER
ARBITRATOR
__________________________________________

May 26, 2017

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE UNION: FOR THE EMPLOYER:

BILL C. BERGER MARK J. RICCIARDI


Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP WHITNEY J. SELERT
410 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 2200 Fisher & Phillips, LLP
Denver, CO 80202 300 S. Fourth St., Ste. 1500
Las Vegas, NV 89101
CHRISTOPHER M. HUMES
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Ste. 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106
NATURE OF PROCEEDING

This is an Interest Arbitration between the Clark County Association of School

Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees and Clark County School District,

Las Vegas, Nevada, regarding the terms of their 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Collective

Bargaining Agreement. During the negotiations over the terms of the successor

Agreement, the parties reached agreement on all contractual issues, except the

compensation and benefits to be paid to School Principals and Administrators. Upon

reaching impasse, the parties submitted the compensation and benefits issues to final

and binding arbitration. In accordance with NRS 288.217, the Arbitrator is to issue an

Award by choosing between the parties written final offers, based on the statutory

criteria set forth in NRS 288.200.

The arbitration hearing was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 7-8, 2016,

and March 14-16, 2017. During the course of the five days of hearing, each party had

an opportunity to make opening statements, introduce exhibits, examine and cross-

examine witnesses on all matters relevant to the issues in dispute. A court reporter was

present during the hearing and prepared a transcript of the hearing, which was

provided, to the parties and the Arbitrator.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed to submit their respective

positions to the Arbitrator in the form of written post-hearing briefs, which included

their final written offers. Upon receipt of the post-hearing briefs, the hearing record

was closed. The Arbitrator now renders this decision based on which parties final

written offer is the most reasonable based on the statutory criteria set forth in

NRS 288.200.

!2
ISSUE

Pursuant to NRS 288.200 7(b), the Arbitrator frames the issue to be decided in

this matter as follows:

Which of the Final Written Offers submitted by the parties on the


Professional Compensation and Health Benefits for School Principals and
Administrators for the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining
Agreement, is the most reasonable based on the criteria set forth in
NRS 288.217 and NRS 288.200?

RELEVANT CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS

In the opinion of the Arbitrator, the following provisions of the Collective

Bargaining Agreement and the Nevada Revised Statutes are relevant to determine the

issues in dispute.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

ARTICLE 20
PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION
***
20-8 For the 2013-1014 contract year and beyond, the compensation for
administrators covered by this Agreement shall be as follows:

The salary schedule in effect for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 will be


reduced by 1% on July 1, 2013, for all administrators to cover the
employee share of the 2% PERS increase.

Eligible administrators will receive annual step and longevity


increases as provided by the contract. Step and longevity
advancements will become effective on July 1, 2013, for 12-month
administrators and on August 1, 2013, for 10- and 11-month
administrators.

The salary schedule in effect for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 will be


increased by 2%. This salary increase will become effective on
July 1, 2013, for 12-month administrators and on August 1, 2013,
for 10- and 11-month administrators.

In addition to the 2% salary increase placed on the salary


schedule, a 1% increase will be placed on the salary schedule to
cover the employees 1% share of the 2% PERS increase. This 1%

!3
increase will become effective on July 1, 2013, for 12-month
administrators and on August 1, 2013, for 10- and 11-month
administrators.

The .375% held in abeyance by the District as a result of the


20112013 negotiations will be restored to the salary schedule
effective July 1, 2013, for 12-month administrators and on
August 1, 2013, for 10- and 11-month administrators, and

It is understood that all salary increases will be provided


retroactively to the effective dates identified in the Agreement
between the District and CCASAPE.

20-9 The salary schedule for the 2014-2015 contract year will be
determined through negotiations. The salary schedule in effect for
2014-2015 will be increased by 2.79%. This salary increase will be
retroactive to July 1, 2014, for 12-month administrators and
retroactive to August 1, 2014, for 10- and 11-month administrators.

ARTICLE 21
HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS AND TRUST
***
21-2 Health Benefits

21-2-1 The District agrees to contribute to the Trust the following


amounts for Covered Employees participating in the
Trusts health benefits:
***
Effective July 1, 2014, the District agrees to increase the
$670.62 contribution for employee health benefits to
$693.62.

NEVADA REVISED STATUTES

NRS 288.217

!4
Submission of dispute between school district and employee organization
to arbitrator: Selection of arbitrator; hearing; determination of financial
ability of school district; negotiations and final offer; effect of decision of
arbitrator; content of decision.
***
3. If the parties to a negotiation pursuant to this section have failed
to reach an agreement after at least eight sessions of negotiation, either
party may declare the negotiations to be at an impasse and, after 5 days
written notice is given to the other party, submit the issues remaining in
dispute to the arbitrator selection pursuant to subsection 2. The arbitrator
has the powers provided for fact finders in NRS 288.210.

4. The arbitrator shall, pursuant to subsection 2, hold a hearing to


receive information concerning the dispute. The hearing must be held in
the county in which the school district is located and the arbitrator shall
arrange for a full and complete record of the hearing.

5. The parties to the dispute shall each pay one-half of the costs of
the arbitration.

6. A determination of the financial ability of a school district must


be based on:

(a) All existing available revenues as established by the school


district and within the limitations set forth in NRS 354.6241, with due
regard for the obligation of the school district to provide an education to
the children residing within the district.

(b) Consideration of funding for the current year being


negotiated. If the parties mutually agree to arbitrate a multiyear contract
the arbitrator must consider the ability to pay over the life of the contract
being negotiated or arbitrated.

Once the arbitrator has determined in accordance with this


subsection that there is a current financial ability to grant monetary
benefits, the arbitrator shall consider, to the extent appropriate,
compensation of other governmental employees, both in and out of this
State.

7. At the recommendation of the arbitrator, the parties may, before


the submission of a final offer, enter into negotiations. If the negotiations
are begun, the arbitrator may adjourn the hearing for a period of 3 weeks.
If an agreement is reached, it must be submitted to the arbitrator, who
shall certify it as final and binding.

!5
8. If the parties do not enter into negotiations or do not agree
within 7 days after the hearing held pursuant to subsection 4, each of the
parties shall submit a single written statement containing its final offer for
each of the unresolved issues.

9. The arbitrator shall, within 10 days after the final offers are
submitted, render a decision on the basis of the criteria set forth in
NRS 288.200. The arbitrator shall accept one of the written statements
and shall report the decision to the parties. The decision of the arbitrator
is final and binding on the parties. Any award of the arbitrator is
retroactive to the expiration date of the last contract between the parties.

10. The decision of the arbitrator must include a statement:

(a) Giving the arbitrators reason for accepting the final offer
that is the basis of the arbitrators award; and

(b) Specifying the arbitrators estimate of the total cost of the


award.

NRS 288.200
***
7. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 10, any fact finder,
whether the fact finders recommendations are to be binding or not, shall
base such recommendations or award on the following criteria:

(a) A preliminary determination must be made as to the


financial ability of the local government employer based on all existing
available revenues as established by the local government employer and
within the limitations set forth in NRS 354.6241, with due regard for the
obligation of the local government employer to provide facilities and
services guaranteeing the health, welfare and safety of the people residing
within the political subdivision.

(b) Once the fact finder has determined in accordance with


paragraph (a) that there is a current financial ability to grant monetary
benefits, and subject to the provisions of paragraph (c), the fact finder
shall consider, to the extent appropriate, compensation of other
governmental employees, both in and out of the State and use normal
criteria for interest disputes regarding the terms and provisions to be
included in an agreement in assessing the reasonableness of the position
of each party as to each issue in dispute and the fact finder shall consider
whether the Board found that either party had bargained in bad faith.

!6
(c) A consideration of funding for the current year being
negotiated. If the parties mutually agree to arbitrate a multiyear contract,
the fact finder must consider the ability to pay over the life of the contract
being negotiated or arbitrated.

NRS 354.6241
***
(f) The balance and retained earnings of the fund.

2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 and NRS 354.59891


and 354.613, to the extent that the reserve in any fund set forth in
paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of NRS 354.624 exceed the amount that is
reasonable and necessary to carry out the purposes for which the fund
was created, the reserve may be expended by the local government
pursuant to the provisions of chapter 288 of NRS.

3. For any local government other than a school district, for purposes
of chapter 288 of NRS, a budgeted ending balance of not more than 25
percent of the total budget expenditures, less capital outlay, for general
fund:

(a) Is not subject to negotiation with an employee organization;


and

(b) Must not be considered by a fact finder or arbitrator in


determining the financial ability of the local government to pay
compensation or monetary benefits.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Background

The Clark County School District (District) and the Clark County Association of

School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees (Association) are parties

to a 2013-15 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Agreement) which expired on June 1,

2015. (JX 2) The parties negotiated a two-year Successor Agreement and agreed their

!7
expired contract would remain in effect during their negotiations. The parties reached

an agreement on all contractual issues except the Professional Compensation

(Compensation) and Health Benefits (Benefits) to be paid to the District's

administrators and professional-technical employees. (Administrators)

Upon reaching impasse on the compensation and benefits issues, the parties

invoked the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) governing the submission of

disputes between a school district and an employee organization to arbitration.

NRS 288.217 sets forth the process the parties are to follow if an agreement is not

reached after eight sessions of negotiations. (NRS 288.217(3))

Following the selection of the arbitrator and the convening of the hearing, each

party is to submit ...a single written statement containing its final offer for each of the

unresolved issues. (NRS 288.217(8)) Following the submission of final written offers,

the arbitrator shall decide which of the final offers is the more reasonable on the basis

of the criteria set forth in NRS 288.200. (NRS 288.217(9)) The arbitrators Award is to

be retroactive to the expiration date of the last contract between the parties. (Id.)

2. The Clark County School District

The Clark County School District is the fifth largest school district in the nation,

providing classroom education opportunities to over 325,000 students from the

metropolitan Las Vegas area and surrounding communities. The District employs 1,400

principals and associate principals, deans, administrators and coordinators who are

represented by Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-

!8
Technical Employees. The school principals and administrators are responsible for

supervising the over 18,000 teachers assigned to teach in the 300 elementary, middle,

and high schools located throughout the District. The teachers, support staff and

school police all have separate collective bargaining agreements and have previously

reached agreement with the District on the terms of their successor Agreements,

including wages and benefits. The School Administrators is therefore the only

unresolved Collective Bargaining Agreement between the District and the four Unions

representing the various classifications of District employees.

3. The Impasse Between District and Association

The 2013-15 Agreement between the District and the Administrators represents

the eighth contract between the parties and the first in which the parties have been

unable to agree on the Administrators compensation and benefits. Articles 20 and 21

are the two articles governing professional compensation and health benefits and the

principal unresolved issues in this proceeding. The parties engaged in extensive

negotiations in an effort to resolve the compensation and benefits issues.

Despite the exchange of numerous proposals and counter-proposals, the

Associations proposals were ultimately rejected by the Districts Board of Trustees,

which led to the parties being at impasse and invoking the interest arbitration provisions

of NRS 288.217.

4. The Parties Final Offers

NRS 288.217 (8) states that in the event the parties are unable to reach

agreement during their negotiation over the terms of a new agreement, each party

shall submit a single written statement containing its final offer on each of the

!9
unresolved issues to the interest arbitrator. In this proceeding, the parties agreed to

submit their written final offers with their post-hearing briefs. The Associations final

offer on each of the unresolved issues is attached as Exhibit A, and the Districts final

offer to each of the unresolved issues is attached as Exhibit B.

In summary, the Associations final offer requests the Arbitrator to award to an

increase in Administrators salaries by 2% for 2015-2016 and 3% for 2016-2017, and to

reinstate the 1.125% PERS reduction, as well as the steps and longevity increases. The

projected cost of the Associations final offer is $19,504,305. In summary, the Districts

final offer requests that the Arbitrator award a 1.125% salary increase effective January

1, 2017, an additional 1.125% increase effective April 1, 2017, a two-step increase for

annual step and longevity pay for 2016-2017 effective July 1, 2016, and movement of

full steps from F to G on the salary scale effective July 1, 2015. The total cost of the of

the Districts final offer is $6,159,789. Therefore, the difference between the two final

offers is $13,344,516. The Arbitrator must determine which partys Final Written Offer

on the Compensation and Benefits for the 20152016 and 2016-2017 Collective

Bargaining Agreement is the more reasonable based on the criteria set forth in

NRS 288.217 and NRS 288.200

5. NRS Statutory Criteria

NRS 288.200, Section 7 (a) and (b), sets forth the decision making criteria for an

interest-based award. In applying the statutory criteria in this case, the Arbitrator must

first determine whether the District has the financial ability to pay the Associations

requested increases in compensation and benefits. (NRS 288.200 (7)(a)) If the District

!10
has the financial ability to grant the requested compensation and benefits, then the

Arbitrator shall consider:

comparison of other government employees, both in and out of the


state, and use normal criteria for interest disputes regarding the terms
and provisions to be included in the agreement in assessing the
reasonableness of the position of each party as to each issue in
dispute. (NRS 288.200(7)(b)

Finally, the Arbitrator is to consider the Districts financial ability to pay over the

life of the contract being administered, which in this case is a two-year contract.

In addition to reaching a decision based on the criteria set forth in

NRS 288.200 (7) (a) and (b), the interest arbitrators decision must include a statement:

(a) Giving the arbitrators reason for accepting the final offer
that is the basis of the arbitrators award; and

(b) Specifying the arbitrators estimate of the total cost of the


award. (JX 1)

Based on the criteria and requirements set forth in NRS 288.217 and

NRS 288.200, as applied to the evidence submitted in this case, the Arbitrator has

reached the following decisions on which partys final offers, on the Administrators

Compensation and Benefits for the 20152016 and 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining

Agreement, is the more reasonable.

DECISION

I. The District has the Financial Ability to Pay the Associations Requested
Monetary Benefits

The threshold issue for an interest arbitrator under the Nevada Revised Statutes

is a determination of the financial ability of the local government entity, in this case the

Clark County School District, to pay the Associations requested monetary benefits.

!11
This initial determination, as it applies to school districts, is set forth

NRS 288.217(6), which states:

6. A determination of the financial ability of a school district must


be based on:

(a) All existing available revenues as established by the school


district and within the limitations set forth in NRS 354.6241, with due
regard for the obligation of the school district to provide an education to
the children residing within the district.

(b) Consideration of funding for the current year being


negotiated. If the parties mutually agree to arbitrate a multiyear contract
the arbitrator must consider the ability to pay over the life of the contract
being negotiated or arbitrated. (JX 1)

NRS 288.217 (3) states that an interest arbitrator has the powers provided under

the fact finder statute, NRS 288.200. Under the fact finder statute, the financial ability

to pay is set forth in NRS 288.200 (7)(a) which states:

(a) A preliminary determination must be made as to the financial


ability of the local government employer based on all existing available
revenues as established by the local government employer and within the
limitations set forth in NRS 354.6241, with due regard for the obligation of
the local government employer to provide facilities and services
guaranteeing the health, welfare and safety of the people residing within
the political subdivision. (JX 1)

!12
In reaching a determination regarding whether the District has the ability to pay

the Associations requested increases in compensation and benefits, the Arbitrator

makes the following findings based on the criteria set forth in the NRS 288.217 (6) and

NRS 288.200 (7)(a) and the testimony and exhibits submitted during the five-day

hearing.

A. The District has the Financial Ability to Pay the Associations Requested
Benefits Without Compromising the School Districts Obligation to
Provide an Education to the Children Residing within the District

In reaching a decision on the Districts financial ability to pay, the Arbitrator must

first consider the obligation of the school district to provide an education to the

children residing within the district as set forth in NRS 288.217(6)(a) and its obligation

to provide facilities and services guaranteeing the health, welfare and safety of the

people within the political subdivision, as required by NRS 288.200(7)(a). The District

offered no specific evidence indicating that teachers would be laid off if the

Associations final offer was granted, class sizes would be increased, days in the school

year would be curtailed, or the Districts ability to educate children within the District

would otherwise be adversely impacted.

The evidence did establish that cuts in the Districts budget would have to be

made, but there was no compelling evidence indicating the District would be unable to

fulfill its primary obligation of providing education to the children residing within the

school district if the Associations Final Offer was granted. In the absence of such

evidence, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the financial ability to pay the

Associations requested Final Written Offer without compromising its obligation to

provide an education to the children residing within the School District.

!13
B. The District has the Financial Ability to Pay the Associations Requested
Benefits over the Term of the TwoYear Contract

The parties final offers recognize the monetary funds that will be necessary for

the requested increases in compensation and benefits will necessarily extend over the

life of the two-year agreement. Therefore, the Districts financial ability to pay must be

considered in the context of a two-year obligation for fiscal years 2015-2016 and

20162017. The Arbitrator has considered this two-year obligation in determining the

Districts financial ability to pay the Associations requested increases in compensation

and health benefits.

The Districts budget over the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 contract is projected at

$4.6 billion. (DX 5)1 The parties final offers are basically $13 million apart. (See

Exhibits A and B) As argued by the Association, its final offer represents less than

half of one percent of the Districts $4.6 billion budget over the two-year contract and

therefore is clearly within the Districts financial ability to pay the requested increases.

Further, the Association argues the District has historically, and by a significant amount,

carried over an unassigned ending fund balance. As reflected in the Districts

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and its Comprehensive Annual Budget

Report (CABR), the Districts annual expenses are consistently well below its budget

projections. Annual expenses were over $31 million below budget in 2015; $37 million

below in 2016 and a projected $42 million below in 2017. (DX 6)

1 In this Decision, the Associations Exhibits shall be identified as AX, the Districts Exhibits shall be
DX, and Joint Exhibits shall be JX. Transcript references shall be TR. Date __, page __.

!14
The parties disagree as to whether an interest arbitrator in Nevada is foreclosed

from considering a school districts ending fund balance in determining whether the

school district has the financial ability to pay the requested monetary benefits.

In this proceeding, the evidence established the District has a practice of

underestimating its ending fund balance and recently used the ending fund balance as a

source of funding to resolve the interest arbitration with the Support Staff. As reflected

in the 2016-2017 Amended Budget, the District allocated $6.3 Million from its ending

fund balance to fund the ESEA contract. (AX 16, Page 8)

NRS 288.217(6) states the financial ability of a school district to pay the

requested monetary benefits must be based on All existing available revenues as

established by the school district and within the limitations set forth in NRS 354.6241.

NRS 354.6241 states an interest arbitrator, in determining the issue of financial ability to

pay, may not consider an ending fund balance if the balance is less than 25% of the

total budgeted expenditure. However, NRS 354.6241 (3) establishes the statute applies

to local governments other than school districts. (JX 1) In the Arbitrators view all

existing available revenues, as referenced in NRS 288.217 (6), includes the

undesignated ending fund balances to the extent they are not restricted from

consideration in this proceeding by Nevada statues. The most compelling support for

this contention is the Districts use of $6.3 million from the ending fund balance to fund

the Support Staff contract. It is therefore disingenuous for the District to now argue

the ending fund balance cannot be used to fund the Administrators contract.

!15
C. The Districts Evidence Failed to Establish its Inability to Pay the
Associations Requested Monetary Benefits

The burden of proving an inability to pay in an interest arbitration case rests with

the employer. Whether in private or public sector interest arbitrations, the employer

has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it does not have the

ability to pay the requested monetary increases.

Employers who have pleaded inability to pay have been held to have the
burden of producing sufficient evidence to support the plea. The alleged
inability must be more than speculative and failure to produce sufficient
evidence will result in a rejection of the plea.

Elkouri and Elkouri,


How Arbitration Works,
(BNA 8th Ed.) Page 22-65

Even without a consideration of the Districts ending fund balance, the Arbitrator

concludes the Districts evidence failed to establish an inability to pay the Associations

requested monetary benefits. The District offered no documented evidence or

witnesses, or other direct evidence, that it lacked the financial ability to pay the

Associations requested monetary proposal. Nor was there evidence that accepting the

Associations monetary proposal would result in the District being required to lay off

teachers, increase class size, or compromise the Districts obligation to provide an

education to the children residing within the district as required by NRS 288.217(6).

As argued by the Association, if the District had the financial capacity to fund the

$135.5 million to settle the Teachers contract, and $18 million to settle the Support

Staff contract, it has the financial ability to fund the Association's requested

$19,504,305 in compensation and benefits for the term of their two-year agreement.

The evidence established the School District Board of Trustees did not reject the

Association's proposal based on a lack of ability to pay but instead did so as a matter of

!16
the District's financial priorities. (AX 53) Jim McIntosh, the Districts former Chief

Financial Officer, testified he was not aware of any evidence to suggest the District

Board rejected the Associations proposal based on an inability to pay and it was simply

a matter of priorities, and the budget is a matter of priorities. (TR. 3/14/17,

pages 266-267)

In public sector interest arbitrations, the employers financial ability to pay is a

statutory mandated criterion and is the first step in determining which of the final offers

is the more reasonable. In this case, no evidence was offered to suggest the District

had reached a point that, if the Associations proposal was granted, it would be unable

to adequately provide educational services to the children in the Clark County School

District.

In absence of such evidence, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the

financial ability to pay the Associations requested monetary benefits in the form of

increased compensation and benefits over the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Collective

Bargaining Agreement. However, simply because the District has the resources to pay

the Associations requested monetary benefits is not sufficient to justify the adoption of

the Associations proposal. The remaining issue focuses on which of the two final

written offers is the more reasonable when considered in the context of the remaining

statutory criteria.

II. The Comparison of Other School Districts Compensation for


School Principals and Administrators

!17
If an interest arbitrator determines the employer has the financial ability to pay

the requested monetary benefits, Nevada law instructs the arbitrator to consider

compensation paid by other comparable employers, in and out of the state, in

determining which of the two final offers is the most reasonable. NRS 288.217 6(b)

states:

Once the arbitrator has determined in accordance with this subsection


that there is a current financial ability to grant monetary benefits, the
arbitrator shall consider, to the extent appropriate, compensation of other
governmental employees, both in and out of this State. (JX 1)

Similarly, NRS 288.200 7 (b), the fact finder statute, states:

Once the fact finder has determined in accordance with paragraph (a) that
there is a current financial ability to grant monetary benefits, and subject
to the provisions of paragraph (c), the fact finder shall consider, to the
extent appropriate, compensation of other governmental employees, both
in and out of the State and use normal criteria for interest disputes
regarding the terms and provisions to be included in an agreement in
assessing the reasonableness of the position of each party as to each
issue in dispute and the fact finder shall consider whether the Board found
that either party had bargained in bad faith. (JX 1)

Consistent with the above Nevada statutory criteria, the Arbitrator has

considered the compensation paid to school administrators in comparable school

districts within the State of Nevada and in large school districts in other states. The

parties offered no evidence to suggest that during their past negotiations they have

agreed on a group of school districts to use for comparison purposes. In the absence

of such evidence, the Arbitrator must rely on the evidence of comparable school

districts submitted by the parties during the hearing, as well as internal equity with the

compensation increases paid to the other bargaining units within the District.

A. Comparable School Districts

!18
The Association contends the Administrators in the Clark County School District

are paid considerably less than their counterparts in comparable school districts both in

the State of Nevada and in other states throughout the country. Bill Garis, the

Association's Deputy Executive Director, testified he compared compensation paid to the

District's Administrators with administrator compensation in other similar school districts

throughout the country. (AX 14, 59) Based on this analysis, Mr. Garis testified that,

when compared to the compensation paid to administrators in other similarly sized

school districts in geographic proximity to Las Vegas, the District's Administrators are

among the lowest paid in the nation. (AX 59)

Stephen Augspurger, the Association's Executive Director, testified the

Administrators in the Clark County School District have not received their negotiated

annual salary step increases since July 1, 2014. (TR. 12/8/16, page 25) Mr. Augspurger

explained that, pursuant to Senate Bill 241, Administrators will not receive the

negotiated pay increases until the conclusion of this proceeding when the new CBA

takes effect. Senate Bill 241 also places on hold all increases in longevity pay that have

been in place since July 1, 2015, until the effective date of the new CBA. (TR. 12/8/16,

page 28) Although beyond the control of the CCSD, the legislative impact of Senate

Bill 241 has compounded the economic consequences for Administrators pending the

resolution of the parties impasse in reaching a new CBA.

The District submits the only reliable evidence of comparable school districts is

set forth in its exhibit, which utilizes the median salaries paid to school administrators

as the basis for comparison. (DX 3) The District argues that when the median salaries

are compared, the District's Administrators are being paid at a level that is consistent

!19
with the median salaries in other school districts throughout the country. The

Association contends the District's median salary comparison is misleading because it

fails to take the school district size into consideration and, even when it does, half of

the nations school administrators are still being paid more than the District

Administrators. Andre Long, the District's Chief of Human Resources, acknowledged in

his testimony that in considering comparable school districts ...you first need to start

comparing with the larger districts because we are in that group. (TR. 3/15/17,

page 209)

The Clark County School District is the largest school district in the State of

Nevada and the fifth largest in the United States. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain

what would constitute a comparable school district within the State of Nevada that

could be used to measure the levels of compensation paid to Administrators. Washoe

County School District, in the Reno area, is the next largest school district in Nevada

with a student enrollment of 63,000. As reflected in the compensation analysis,

Washoe County School District consistently compensates its school principals and

administrators at a higher rate of pay than the District pays its Administrators. (AX 59)

If the District is to be competitive in attracting and retaining its administrators, it

necessarily must provide compensation and benefits that are comparable to those paid

to administrators in the Nevadas next largest school district.

Based on this record, the Arbitrator finds that the Administrators in the CCSD are

being compensated at a level that is less than their counterparts holding similar

positions in other similar sized school districts in and out of the State of Nevada.

B. Internal Equity

!20
The consideration of internal equity in terms of compensation among the

employer bargaining units is an additional criteria used to determine which of the final

offers submitted by the parties is the more reasonable.

In this proceeding, the Association placed considerable emphasis in comparing

the compensation and workload between Administrators and teachers. As a matter of

internal equity, the Association contends the Administrators salaries are not keeping

pace with either inflation or the salary increases the District has granted the teachers.

In support of this contention, the Association argues that, although Administrators

receive higher pay than teachers, when the salaries are compared on an hourly rate

basis, Administrators receive a lower rate of compensation than the teachers they

supervise. (AX 15-A)

The District submits the Associations hourly rate comparison is fictional in

nature and thus without merit and unreliable. The District argues the more reasonable

approach is to compare the compensation paid to administrators, teachers and support

staff based on the cost per full time equivalent. (FTE) Utilizing the FTE method, the

District argues the cost of the Associations $19 million final offer proposal is nearly

twice the amount spent per FTE on the Teachers contract and eight times the amount

spent per FTE on the Support Staff contract. In order to preserve internal pay equity,

Administrators should not receive a percentage increase in compensation that is greater

than awarded to the teachers or support staff. Therefore, the District argues its final

offer is the more reasonable and is internally consistent with compensation increases

paid to the other bargaining units and should be awarded by the Arbitrator.

!21
The Arbitrator has considered the contentions advanced by the parties on the

issue of internal equity. In the Arbitrators view, a necessary consideration in

determining internal equity among the Districts bargaining units is the comparison of

not only compensation but comparable job responsibilities. Based on these two well-

recognized criteria, the Arbitrator makes the following findings.

(1) Job Responsibilities

The District is correct in contending the job responsibilities of the Administrators

are much different than the teachers and it is inappropriate to compare them for

purposes of establishing internal equity. However, it is appropriate for the Arbitrator to

consider whether there has been an increase in job responsibilities. The evidence

before the Arbitrator clearly established the workload of Administrators has significantly

increased since their last salary increase. The three school principals called as

witnesses by the Association provided compelling testimony regarding the increased

demands on their time and expectations in fulfilling their responsibilities as building

principals. School Principals Anthony Nunez, Louis Markouzi and Debbie Brockett, each

described their work schedule during the day at school, at home after school, and on

weekends. Although Principals are compensated on an eight-hour day basis, the

testimony of the three principals was persuasive in establishing they are not only

working much longer hours but are also dealing with a much more complex myriad of

issues and obligations for which they receive no additional compensation. Specifically,

the Principals testified they are now required to comply with and perform duties

associated with the new anti-bullying law, a new teacher evaluation process, a new

school organization team program, and a new professional development program.

!22
The Principals testified they spend an additional 100 to 200 hours a year in

administering each of these new programs.

The Arbitrator found the testimony of the three Principals to be credible and

persuasive in support of the Association's contention the workload of the Administrators

has significantly increased without a corresponding increase in compensation. The

District acknowledged the critical role school principals and administrators serve in

supervising teachers and ensuring student achievement. Ultimately, they are held

accountable for the performance of the teachers and the academic achievement of the

students. As stated by Andre Long, a former teacher, assistant principal and school

principal, and currently Chief of Human Resources, the work of the District's

Administrators is integral to student outcomes. (TR. 3/15/17, Page 207)

Jim McIntosh, the District's former Finance Director, in reviewing the Districts

Open Book, acknowledged the District's Administrators ranked last in the State in the

number of administrators per student, reflecting they are the most overworked

administrators in the state. (TR. 3/14/17, page 247) (AX 44, pages 6 -7)

Based on this record, the Arbitrator concludes the evidence established the

District's Administrators workload has significantly increased and they deserve a

corresponding increase in compensation in order to maintain internal equity with the

teachers and support staff.

(2) Compensation Comparison

The Association argues the Administrators salaries are not keeping pace with

inflation or the salary increases granted to the teachers they supervise. Therefore, the

Association submits there is a clear absence of internal pay equity that can only be

!23
remedied by the pay increases requested in its final offer. In calculating internal equity

between Administrators and teachers, the Association argues that, because

Administrators work a minimum 8-hour day, 10, 11 and 12 months a year depending on

the position, and teachers work a 7-hour-and-11- minute day, and only during the

school year, the only fair basis for comparing their respective levels of compensation is

to convert the Administrators and the teachers salaries to an hourly pay rate.

Nathan Trenholm, a Data Analyst called by the Association, testified regarding

the process he followed in converting teacher and Administrator compensation to an

hourly rate. Mr. Trenholm testified that, based on his analysis, he concluded

Administrators are currently making less per hour than the teachers. (TR. 12/7/16,

pages 96-97) As a part of his analysis, Mr. Trenholm testified he analyzed the 160

teachers who were promoted to Administrator positions during the time period

extending from August 2015 to October 2016. Based on hourly rate comparison,

Mr. Trenholm concluded the teachers who were promoted to an Administrator position

took an average hourly pay reduction of $4.81 per hour. Based this analysis,

Mr. Trenholm concluded it would take an 11% pay increase to equalize the

compensation of Administrators with the teachers. (TR. 12/7/16, page 11 7) (AX 15A)

Using the hourly rate comparison, the Association contends the Administrators

deserve the pay increases set forth in its final offer in order to begin to equalize their

pay with the teachers.

The District places little value on the Association's use of an hourly rate

comparison as a method of determining fair compensation between the teachers and

administrators and argues it is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the job

!24
responsibilities of the Administrators and the teachers are very different and therefore it

makes no sense to compare the two positions in terms of compensation, hourly or

otherwise. Second, the Association's use of an hourly rate analysis fails to take into

consideration the generous fringe benefits that are received by Administrators but not

afforded the teachers. Third, there are far more applicants for administrator positions

than there are positions available. (DX 20) Thus, based on the supply and demand for

administrator positions, the compensation currently paid to administrators, when

measured against the market, is reasonable. For these reasons, the District contends

the Arbitrator should reject the Association's hourly rate compensation analysis.

The Association and District have both advanced compelling arguments in

support of their respective contentions. However, on balance the evidence supports a

finding that Administrators' compensation has not kept pace with either inflation or the

increases granted the teachers. The Arbitrator has reached this conclusion based on

the following findings.

The last pay increase received by the Administrators was 2.79% increase on

July 1, 2014. A year later, on July 1, 2015, 1.125% of that increase was taken back as

a result of the mandatory PERS contribution. In addition, although beyond the control

of the District, the Administrators have not received their negotiated longevity pay

increases since July 1, 2015, due to Senate Bill 241.

As a result of recent negotiations, the District agreed to give pay increases to

both the teachers and support staff. Although the District argues the pay increase

offered and agreed to by support staff is the same as being offered to the

!25
administrators, there was no evidence indicating there has been a corresponding

expansion of work responsibilities for the support staff as there has been for the

Administrators.

In resolving the internal compensation issue between the Administrators and

teachers, the Arbitrator necessarily must decide which of the two methods of

compensation analysis is the more reasonable the hourly rate conversion submitted

by the Association or the cost per FTE comparison contended by the District. The

Arbitrator resolves this issue in favor of the Association primarily based on parties

existing use of this conversion methodology in both the Administrators and teachers

CBAs. Articles 15.15 states that Administrators who perform District related

assignments outside their normal workday or weekends will be compensated at their

hourly rate of pay as determined by their placement on the Administrative Salary

Schedule . (JX. 2)

The District offer no evidence indicating the use of the cost per FTE of the

parties proposals during their past bargaining as a method of comparing compensation,

nor were any expert witnesses called to establish this as an accepted method of

compensation comparison.

The Arbitrator, having accepted the Associations hourly conversion comparison

analysis, finds the testimony of Nathan Trenholm and his accompanying exhibits

established that, when compared on an hourly rate basis, Administrators are being paid

less than teachers. Mr. Trenholm testified that, when measured solely on the basis of

hourly pay comparison, school principals at every level and classification are being paid

less than the teachers they supervise. (TR. 12/7/16, Pages 116-117) (AX. 15, Tab A)

!26
The Arbitrator recognizes, in reality, the District's administrators are paid more

than teachers in terms of total compensation and benefits. However, for the sole

purpose of establishing a basis for meaningful comparison in determining internal

equity, the hourly rate comparison advanced by the Association supports a finding the

Administrators' current compensation is not keeping pace with either inflation or

teachers compensation.

The most persuasive evidence in support of the District's contention that there is

currently internal pay equity between the teachers and administrators is supply and

demand. Andre Long, the District's Chief Human Resources Officer, testified a majority

of the applicants for administrator positions are teachers within the District and when

vacancies are posted, the positions are immediately filled. (TR. 3/15/17, page 180) The

District's evidence established there are more teachers applying for administrator

positions than there are available positions. (DX. 20) Thus, in the District's view,

administrators are being reasonably compensated in comparison to teachers, otherwise

teachers would not be applying for the administrator positions. However, a teacher may

wish to move from classroom teaching to an administrative position for reasons of

professional development. Thus, there may be both economic and non-economic

reasons that a teacher may apply for an administrator position and since there are

approximately 18,000 teachers and only 1,400 administrative positions, it is

understandable that there would be more teacher applicants than administrative

vacancies.

!27
For the reasons set forth above, the Arbitrator has concluded the Administrator's

compensation has not kept pace with either inflation or the increases in pay that have

been granted to the teachers. Therefore, based on the criteria of internal equity, the

evidence supports a finding the District has not treated the Administrators equally with

the teachers based on their comparative compensation.

III. Normal Criteria Considered in Determining the Reasonableness


of the Parties Final Offers

NRS 288.200 7 (b) states, in part, that once an interest arbitrator has

determined there is a current ability to pay the requested monetary benefits, the

interest arbitrator, as fact finder, shall consider the use of ... normal criteria for interest

disputes in determining the reasonableness of the final offers. (JX 1) In this

proceeding, in addition to considering in and out of state comparable compensation for

Administrators and internal equity considerations, the Arbitrator has also considered the

District's budgetary capacity and the parties bargaining history leading up to impasse.

A. The District's Budgetary Capacity

The Arbitrator has previously concluded the District has the financial ability to

pay the Association's requested monetary benefits. The District's financial ability to pay

is necessarily inter-related with a determination of where the funds can be sourced

within the District's budget to fund the Association's final offer.

The two-year budget to fund the operations of the Clark County School District is

$4.6 billion. Approximately 88% of the budget is allocated to employee salaries and

benefits. (DX. 1) In contending the District has the ability to pay its final offer, the

Association advances two basic arguments. First, the District can access its ending fund

balance to fund the requested monetary benefits. The ending fund balance for the

!28
fiscal year ending 2017 is projected to be in excess of $42 million. (AX. 12) Despite the

District's contention to the contrary, the Association argues the ending fund balance

may be used to fund the Association's final offer, as it did, in part, to fund the

$18 million Support Staff contract. Second, the Association argues its final offer of

$19 million represents only a small fraction of the District's total two-year budget. The

District can realign its budgetary priorities, as it did to fund the $135.5 million Teachers

contract.

The District argues that it should not be punished for being fiscally conservative

in its budgeting process, which results in a fiscal year end in which revenues have

exceeded expenditures. Although Mr. McIntosh went through the menu of potential

budget cuts that were prepared for the February meeting of the Districts Board of

Trustees, he explained why few, if any, of the potential budget cuts were realistic.

(TR. 3/14/17, Pages 30-90) As to the availability of the ending fund balance, the

District contends the Arbitrator is precluded from requiring the District to access those

funds for purposes of satisfying the Associations final offer, as those funds are left to

the discretion of the Board of Trustees, not the Arbitrator.

The starting point in evaluating the District's capacity to fund the Association's

final offer is a consideration of the District's revenue projections. There is no dispute

that in recent years the Clark County economy, like the rest of the nation, has

rebounded from the 2008 recession, which has resulted in an increase in tax revenues

for the School District. The Association's evidence established that tax revenues for the

District have increased by $23 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, while the

District's overall budgetary expenditures came in below budget by nearly $22 million for

!29
the same year. (AX. 12) During the same period, property taxes received by the District

were $8 million over projected budget for FY 2016-2017. (AX. 54) Therefore, in the

Association's view, the District has underestimated its revenues and over estimated its

expenditures resulting in an ending fund balance that in recent years has exceeded $30

million. The Association argues the District has the capacity to fund its final offer but,

as a matter of budgetary priority, the School Board has simply elected not do so. The

District's former Chief Financial Officer, Jim McIntosh, acknowledged as much when he

testified he was not aware of any evidence to suggest the District Board rejected the

Associations proposal based on an inability to pay and it was simply a matter of

priorities, and the budget is a matter of priorities. (TR. 3/14/17, pages 266-267)

Given the sheer size of the School District's two-year budget at $4.6 billion, it is

understandable the Association would have little trouble finding items in the budget

where cuts could be made or expenditures questioned resulting in millions of dollars the

Association contends could be more appropriately used to fund its final offer. However,

as previously indicated, simply because the District has the financial resources, through

budget cuts, to fund the Associations final offer, is not sufficient to justify acceptance.

In deciding which final offer is the more reasonable, the Arbitrator is mindful of

the magnitude of the District's mission in educating over 320,000 students each day of

the school year and the necessary financial resources required to successfully fulfill that

obligation. However, the evidence also established the critical role the District's

Administrators, like the teachers and support staff, serve in ensuring student

achievement and they should be appropriately compensated.

!30
It is evident the Las Vegas region, like other parts of the country, has shown

significant recovery from the recession that began in 2008. Despite the economic

recovery, the District has not been able to restore its unassigned ending fund balance to

the 2% minimum goal it has set to protect against a precipitous drop in revenues or

unplanned expenditures. However, as previously noted, the District offered no evidence

it has been required to implement staff layoffs, increase class sizes, or eliminate

educational programs to the degree it compromised its ...obligation to provide an

education to the children residing within the District as required by NRS 288.217 6 (a).

Nor did it offer evidence that, if the Association's final offer were accepted,

implementing any of the above curtailment measures would become necessary.

In the judgment of the Arbitrator, the District has the budgetary capacity to fund

the Association's final offer. As it did with the Teachers and Support Staff contracts, the

District has the ability to make any necessary adjustments in its budget and, if

necessary, access its ending fund balance to fund the Association's final offer, as it did

in the Support Staff arbitration.

The Arbitrator found the testimony of the District's former Chief Financial Officer,

Jim McIntosh to be credible, forthright and persuasive. Mr. McIntosh, to his credit,

acknowledged during cross-examination that potential cuts in the current budget could

be made that would be ... well in excess of the amounts ... requested in the

Association's final offer. (TR. 3/15/17, page 25) (AX. 35) Further, Mr. McIntosh testified

that if the Association's final offer were ordered by the Arbitrator, the District staff

would propose a list of budgetary cuts to the school board:

We would bring them proposals. We would bring them a menu, a list of


things that could potentially be cut in order to meet these proposals, in

!31
some cases, or revenue increases or how we could go about doing some
of these things. (TR. 3/15/17, Page 13)

Mr. McIntosh went on to indicate where specific cuts could be made in the

budget to fund the Association's final offer, which included a draw down on the District's

ending fund balance, as District did in funding the support staff salary adjustment in

their arbitration. (TR. 3/14/17, page 100)

In the final analysis, this is an issue of the District's budgetary priorities. From

the record in this case, it is apparent the District's Administrators play a critical and

expanding role in the District's mission to ensure student achievement. The

Administrators should be compensated consistent with their responsibilities and with

their peers in comparable school districts in and out of the State of Nevada.

Accordingly, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the financial capacity, through the

use of budgetary cuts, a realignment of priorities and, if necessary, accessing the

ending fund balance, to fund the Association's final offer.

B. The Parties Bargaining History

Ultimately, it is the interest arbitrator's responsibility to select from the final

offers the one that most closely represents what the parties might have negotiated, but

for the impasse. The Association contends that during the course of bargaining leading

up to impasse the Association and the District had actually reached a tentative

agreement that closely reflects the Association's final offer and therefore it should be

selected by the Arbitrator in this proceeding. The District denies that any tentative

agreement was reached either before or after impasse.

The parties began bargaining over a successor agreement in December 2015.

Between December 2015 and April 2016, they conducted 15 negotiation sessions.

!32
During the negotiations, Executive Director Stephen Augspurger represented the

Association and Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky represented the District.

Mr. Augspurger kept extensive notes of the parties bargaining sessions, which he

shared with the District. (AX. 2) The negotiation sessions culminated on March 9, 2016,

when the Association proposed a salary and benefit package that costed out at

$16,806,104 over the two-year term of the contract. (AX. 41) The District made no

counter-offer and on June 3, 2016, the District Board of Trustees rejected the

Association's proposal. On June 6, 2016, the Association filed its Notice of Impasse.

(AX. 3)

Thereafter, Mr. Augspurger and Superintendent Skorkowsky continued to meet

during six additional sessions in an attempt to break the impasse. Despite their

determined efforts, they were unsuccessful in reaching an agreement. On October 7,

2016, the District sent a letter to the Association indicating the Board was authorizing

$4 million in compensation increases for the Administrators two-year contract. (AX. 9)

The Association rejected the District's offer and the parties proceeded to invoke

the interest arbitration provisions of NRS 288.217. The Association argues the

bargaining notes maintained by Mr. Augspurger are the only record of the parties

negotiations and provide a clear roadmap of where the parties were headed at the

time of impasse, which the Association argues is representative of its current final offer

and therefore should be accepted.

During the hearing, Superintendent Skorkowsky adamantly denied he had

reached a tentative agreement with Mr. Augspurger on the terms of the new contract

!33
and instead asserted the bargaining notes maintained by Mr. Augspurger were simply

concept documents representing an overview of their discussions. Mr. Skorkowsky

was clear in his testimony that he never drafted any contract language, never initialed

any proposals as being agreed upon, never submitted any formal proposals to the

Association, and that his responsibility was limited to presenting the Associations

proposals to the school board. (TR. 3/16/17 Pages 31-34) Finally, Mr. Skorkowsky

testified there was never any joint settlement proposals submitted to the Districts

Board of Trustees. (TR. 3/16/16, page 31)

During the hearing and in its post-hearing brief, the Association devoted

considerable attention to the bargaining history as representative of what the parties

might have agreed upon had impasse not been reached. The Arbitrator understands

the Association's contentions but did not find them persuasive. Although

Mr. Augspurger was faithful in keeping detailed bargaining notes of his discussions with

Superintendent Skorkowsky, they fell considerably short of constituting a tentative

agreement as that term is typically used and accepted in the bargaining process.

Although Mr. Augspurger and Superintendent Skorkowsky are to be given

considerable credit for their dedicated efforts in an attempt to reach an agreement after

impasse was declared, there was simply no evidence to indicate the District had agreed

to the proposals set forth in Mr. Augspurger's bargaining notes. Silence is not assent.

At most, Superintendent Skorkowsky represented he would present the Association's

proposal to the School Board for their review, which he did.

Although the evidence of the parties bargaining history reflected a determined

effort to resolve their differences on the issue of the administrators compensation, it

!34
did not provide a sufficient basis for the Arbitrator to reach any conclusion as to what

that settlement might have been if their negotiations had been successful. During their

negotiations, the Association's compensation proposal amounted to a total cost to the

District of approximately $16 million over the term of the two-year agreement. The

District's response was to offer $4 million to be structured by the Association. These

proposals are basically the same position the parties took at the commencement of the

arbitration hearing. There was no indication during the negotiations leading up to

impasse that either side was willing to move off their respective positions. Therefore,

impasse and the resulting arbitration were inevitable.

From this bargaining history, the Arbitrator is unable to determine which of the

two final offers most closely represents the compensation level for Administrators the

parties might have reached had they been successful in their negotiations.

Therefore, the parties bargaining history was not found to be reliable by the

Arbitrator as a factor in reaching a decision on which of the two final offers was the

more reasonable.

IV. The Final Offers

NRS 288.200 7 (a) states that in reviewing final offers, the interest arbitrator

should assess the ... reasonableness of the positions of each party as to each issue in

dispute.... (JX 1) There being no further statutory directive, the Arbitrator framed the

!35
issue in terms of which of the two final offers submitted by the parties for the twoyear

contract is the more reasonable based on the criteria set forth in NRS 288.217 and

NRS 288.200.

In summary the Association, in its final offer, is requesting an Award that would

provide a 2% salary increase for Administrators for the first year of the contract and 3%

salary increase for the second year of the contract; the reinstatement of the 1.125%

salary reduction (PERS) and the steps and longevity increases set forth in the

2013-2015 CBA. The Association is also requesting an increase of the year-round

stipend by $1,000 for Principals and $2,500 for Assistant Principals and increasing the

contract for LVISPA and SECTA Principals to 12 months. The total cost of the

Association's final offer is projected to be $19,504,305. (Exhibit A)

In summary, in its final offer, the District is requesting an Award that would

provide a 1.125% salary increase for Administrators effective January 1, 2017 and an

additional 1.125% increase effective April 1, 2017. The District's final offer provides

annual and longevity increases will be moved two steps only for the 2016-2017 school

year and also to include the movement of full steps from F to G on the salary schedule

effective July 1, 2015. The District's final offer also includes increases in contribution to

the employee health and life insurance benefits. The projected cost of the District's

final offer is $6,159,789. (Exhibit B)

For the reasons set forth in this decision, the Arbitrator concluded the

Association's final offer to be the more reasonable of the final offers submitted by the

parties.

!36
CONCLUSION

NRS 288.217 10 (a) and (b) states the decision of the interest arbitrator must

include:

(a) Giving the arbitrators reason for accepting the final offer that is the
basis of the arbitrators award; and

(b) Specifying the arbitrators estimate of the total cost of the award.

A. The reasons the Arbitrator accepted the Association's Final Offer

Although the Arbitrator has set forth in the Decision the reasons the Associations

final offer was found to be the more reasonable, the Arbitrator summarizes these

reasons as follows.

First, the evidence established the District has the financial ability to pay the

Association's requested monetary increases in Administrators compensation and

benefits. The Arbitrator concluded there was no compelling evidence offered by the

District to indicate otherwise. Second, the evidence established that compensation paid

to Administrators in the Clark County School District was less than paid to

administrators in comparable school districts, both in the State of Nevada and in other

larger school district in other states. Third, there was persuasive evidence establishing

the Administrators' work responsibilities have significantly increased since their last

increase in compensation. Finally, the District has the financial capacity, through the

use of budgetary cuts, a realignment of priorities and, if necessary, accessing the

ending fund balance, to fund the Association's final offer. For all these reasons, and

those additionally set forth in the Decision, the Arbitrator concluded the Associations

final offer was the more reasonable of the two offers.

B. The Total Costs of the Association's Final Offer

!37
The Arbitrators estimate of the total cost of the Association's final offer, over the

term of the twoyear Agreement, is $19,504,305.

In accordance with NRS 288.217 5, the costs of the arbitration are to be shared

equally between the parties. The Arbitrator shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for

period of sixty (60) days from the date of the Award for the purpose of resolving any

disputes arising out of the implementation of the Award.

!38