Tag Archives: sparks

Authorities apprehend juvenile after Sparks school shooting risk

Friday, Oct. 13, 2017|10:17 a.m.

RENO– Authorities with a northwestern Nevada school district state a juvenile was jailed in connection to a shooting danger made online against an intermediate school.

The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that Washoe County School District Authorities Chief Jason Trevino states the arrest for the Tuesday risk marks the first time the district has actually apprehended a person based only on a risk and no other criminal actions.

The threat was made against Shaw Intermediate school in Triggers, and Trevino states he might not validate if the juvenile was a trainee at the school.

District authorities state they would look for charges against juvenile under 2 Nevada statutes that include making dangers or conveying false information which prohibit actions that interfere with school assembly.

Reno typical house rates set record, Sparks homes follow

Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2017|3:36 p.m.

RENO– Reno median home costs continue to climb, with Sparks houses tracking closely.

The typical costs for an existing single-family Reno home reached $387,250 in July, going beyond the $380,000 record set in January 2006, according to the most recent numbers from the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. Those numbers do not consist of townhouses, condos, produced and modular homes.

The July price represents an 8 percent boost from June and is 17 percent higher than in July 2016, the Reno Gazette-Journal reported. The paper obtained the numbers from the association as part of data demand made earlier this year.

The association’s numbers put the typical price for a single-family house in Stimulates at $315,000, a 5 percent increase from rates in June and 2016, however still under its average cost record of $335,000 set on July 2005.

The combined average rate for the greater Reno-Sparks came out to $357,500, simply 2 percent under the $365,000 record set in January 2006. As it stands, Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors President John Graham predicts the area could be on track to go beyond that mark this year.

Prices for starter houses in the Reno-Sparks utilized to start from $250,000 and under, inning accordance with Graham. Starter houses are now about $300,000, making it tougher for new house buyers.

He sees the costs as an opportunity for the move-up purchaser market, which took a heavy toll during the economic downturn.

“If you’re still $50,000 down on your house, then you’re not trying to find the next location up that costs more cash,” he stated. “People can a minimum of have thoughts now that it could be possible to move up.”

Shirtless female toddler on splash pad sparks argument

A local splash pad (Google/FOX5).< img src =" /wp-content/uploads/2017/04/13688063_G.jpg" alt=" A regional splash pad (Google/FOX5).

" title=" A regional splash pad (Google/FOX5)

. “border=” 0″ width= “180”/ > A regional splash pad( Google/FOX5 ). LAS VEGAS( FOX5) -A mother says a worker made her put a t-shirt on her 3-year-old daughter while she used the splash pad at Town Square. It’s stimulated a big dispute on whether female young children need to be treated the same as male young children when it comes to what they’re using.

Gwen Buckles said her 3-year-old daughter was playing on the splash pad in her clothing. She went up to her mother and stated she was cold and asked if she could take her wet shirt off. Gwen thought nothing of it and allowed her child to take off her damp shirt. A few minutes later on, an employee approached Gwen informing her it’s policy that all ladies need to use some sort of top.

” I stated well exactly what about my son and she stated no well little boys are fine to run around without their tops. I looked at her and I stated she’s 3 and she’s cold,” Gwen stated.

She says she put the wet t-shirt back on her toddler and went to management. A sign beyond the splash pad states, “swim diapers are needed.” Nevertheless, management sent her a modified list of rules that likewise adds, “correct swim attire.”

” Afterward I’m like ‘why did I just put my child into a cold damp t-shirt, however my boy is playing without his shirt on simply the exact same as she was? It’s ludicrous,”‘ Gwen said.

” I don’t consider it as anything wrong. I mean as they grow older, yes, I would state cover or a little bathing suit, however I wouldn’t believe anything of my daughter not having a little top on in the water,” stated Rocio Roberts, a parent in the area.

” Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I believe that a little lady ought to constantly have a t-shirt on, especially nowadays, we have a lot of issues with individuals that have actually looked at little children,” added parent Maria Deandrade.

Copyright 2017 KVVU( KVVU Broadcasting Corporation). All rights reserved.

NV Energy’s planned natural gas power plant sparks rate-hike worries

Image

Steve Marcus

Outside view of the NV Energy developing Monday, Oct. 20, 2014, in Las Vegas.

Friday, Sept. 11, 2015|2 a.m.

NV Energy prepares to construct a 706-megawatt natural gas power plant that could cost ratepayers up to $1 billion, according to a demand it made in a 4,493-page filing with the general public Utilities Commission.

A representative for NV Energy declined to talk about the proposal, which was made as part of a study needed every three years on supply costs. In the documents, the business described the brand-new power plant as its “chosen strategy.” The company asked the commission for permission to invest $2.4 million to study designs, air quality results and transmission options ought to the plant be constructed. The PUC will certainly vote on the proposal before completion of the year.

Kevin Geraghty, NV Energy vice president of generation, said in testament that the research would be “required to prepare and make a filing with the commission in the future.”

The brand-new plant would be developed by 2020 in North Las Vegas nearby to an existing gas plant that the utility prepares to get from the Southern Nevada Water Authority this year.

The company currently runs or has long-term arrangements to purchase power from 16 nonrenewable fuel source power plants, consisting of coal and gas. The brand-new plant would likely help replace the output of the company’s coal centers, which NV Energy, had by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, will certainly phase out over the next 4 years.

The proposition for the new plant has drawn criticism.

Some argue the brand-new center is unnecessary based upon current need trends, including the prospective exit of 3 Nevada casino operators and the increase in roof solar generation. “NV Energy has every right making a revenue,” stated Randi Thompson, state director for National Federation of Independent Company, which represents 2,000 Nevada businesses. “But we need to look at the sensible expenses to consumers.”

NV Energy consumers pay the highest rates in the Mountain West, according to the Energy Details Administration. “The company’s efforts appear to be driven by a desire to add to its rate base to enhance profits,” said Mark Garrett, an energy specialist dealing with MGM Resorts on its efforts to cut ties with NV Energy. “It must be trying to find methods to lower rates, not raise them.” Garrett approximated that construction of the new plant could increase ratepayer expenses by $70 million each year.

The Chief law officer’s Bureau of Customer Defense, which acts as a guard dog for ratepayers, declined to comment on the case, but said that it would be testifying on the topic in October.

For Star West Generation, the proposed power plant is bad news. The company provides NV Energy with gas power from its Arizona power plant from June through September– the greatest demand durations in the year. That contract ends in 2017, and it appears most likely that NV Energy will not renew it. Star West has offered to sell the plant to NV Energy, saying that move might save ratepayers money, however NV Energy has actually not shown it would take Star West up on the offer.

Malcolm Jacobson, president and CEO of Star West, said he is stressed over the lack of specifics in NV Energy’s three-year plan. “NV Energy has wheeled their Trojan horse of a plan approximately evictions of the PUC and on the in is a billion-dollar surprise for consumers,” he said.

Education funding sparks spat in between state, district authorities

The Clark County School Board provoked a sharp response from state officials when trustees last week blamed Gov. Brian Sandoval and the Nevada Legislature for the Clark County School District’s decision to get rid of all pay enhances for its 40,000 workers.

District officials advised the pay freeze, which board members authorized on June 29 as part of a $2.3 billion spending plan for the 2015-16 academic year, in order to conserve $32.3 million and help balance a $67 million deficit. They blamed that deficiency, at least in part, on a $15 reduction in per pupil funding that the state assigns to the district.

Board members described the decrease as “disgusting” and “insulting” and expressed indignation on behalf of district employees. Other trustees specified that Clark County schools “got the shaft” and forecasted legislators would later on regret what they did to education in Nevada.

The guv’s workplace, however, did not take kindly to that evaluation.

“The Clark County School Board’s inability to offer instructors a pay raise is not a financing problem. It’s a management problem,” spokeswoman Mari St. Martin said in an email.

She noted that lawmakers pumped an extra $400 million into the state’s public education system, consisting of about $100 million over the next two years for districts to provide 2 percent raise for durability and benefit pay.

However Dale Erquiaga, state superintendent of public instruction, acknowledged the Nevada Department of Education can not control how the district invests that cash.

“It’s a huge, block amount of money. What they do with it is their decision,” he stated.

Nonetheless, Erquiaga added, “it’s disingenuous to attempt to describe their budgeting problem by indicating that small ($15) number because it makes an excellent soundbite.”

At the heart of the conflict is the complicated formula that the state uses to money public schools.

Lawmakers, who closed their recent session on June 1, approved a statewide average of $5,710 in basic per pupil funding for the 2015-16 school year. That’s up less than 1 percent from $5,676 last year.

After receiving the average quantity, Erquiaga’s workplace works the figure through a formula that weighs local tax incomes, transportation costs and other elements to determine a specific dollar quantity for each district. Which formula, for the very first time in a minimum of a years, actually reduced the standard per pupil funding that Clark County schools would get compared to the previous year.

“I’ve never seen this occur before, even throughout the economic crisis,” stated Jim McIntosh, chief monetary officer for the district. “In 2010, we went up $4. As limited as that was, it still implied massive cuts for the district.”

For the 2015-16 academic year, the state will certainly send the district $5,512 per pupil, a $15 decrease from 2014-15 that results in a total decrease of $4.7 million.

In contrast, almost every other district in the state, with the exception of Nye and Storey county schools, will see an uptick in their standard per pupil funding.

State authorities, though, were quick to mention that a boost in regional profits, such as sales and franchise taxes, drives any decline in state funding.

“When local profits decrease, as held true throughout the current recession, the state duty or share increases,” St. Martin said. “Also, when regional incomes increase, the state responsibility lowers.”

McIntosh strongly disagreed with that statement and once again indicated the economic crisis, when both state and local revenues nosedived.

In 2010, legislators returned to Carson City for a special session and cut the state’s education budget. They did the very same throughout a regular session one year later on.

“They generally came in and cut per pupil funding,” McIntosh stated. “… Essentially the state informed us that they didn’t have any money.”

Erquiaga conceded that point, however another conflict stayed.

Echoing the governor’s office, the education department stressed that the district gathers added income outside the moneying formula. That includes continuing to be property taxes and government services and franchise taxes.

Projections put the estimated additional profits available to the district at about $340 million.

Still, the combination of all earnings, both inside and outside the formula, ought to enhance total per pupil funding in the district by 0.46 percent, which isn’t sufficient to even cover the anticipated inflation rate of 1.49 percent, according to the Guinn Center for Policy Priorities.

As for the future, McIntosh shared a rosier assessment.

In the 2016-17 school year, he kept in mind, the state will include $61 to the district’s per pupil funding, which ought to lead to an overall gain of $43 million. Erquiaga also soon will identify a new formula to offer more cash for schools with high populations of special education students, English language students and at-risk kids.

“It’s truly transformational to the state of Nevada,” McIntosh said. “No one’s happier than us for the (money) they gave us.”

He added, “The (funding) formula just didn’t prefer us this year.”

Contact Neal Morton at nmorton@reviewjournal.com!.?.! or 702-383-0279. Find him on Twitter: @nealtmorton.