Charter schools are using a loophole to bypass Nevada prevailing wage laws, allege an alliance of building trades unions and one state lawmaker, who says he wants the state agency tasked with overseeing the majority of the charter schools to crack down on the practice.

But the Nevada State Public Charter School Authority and Academica Nevada, the largest educational management organization in the state, argue prevailing wage laws don’t apply to construction projects included within lease agreements that charter schools enter into with private companies.

The differing interpretations of state law raises questions about just how public charter schools are. Proponents of charter schools often stress they are public entities subject to many of the same requirements of traditional district schools, but opponents argue charters see themselves as public only when it is convenient to their bottom line, which they see as making profit for their out-of-state for-profit operators.

In Nevada, any public project with a contract price of $100,000 or greater that is wholly or partially funded by public dollars is subject to prevailing wage law. Rates for prevailing wage are set annually by the Nevada Office of the Labor Commissioner, which compares similar projects in the region.

Prior to 2019, charter schools were explicitly exempt from prevailing wage requirements. That exemption was put into place by the Republican-controlled Nevada State Legislature in 2015. After Democrats regained control of the Legislature and secured the governorship, the charter school exemption was removed.

Since 2019, charter schools that have directly built or renovated their own facilities using public dollars have been subject to prevailing wage law and have adhered to it, says Charter School Authority Executive Director Melissa Mackedon. That includes major construction projects undertaken by Beacon Academy in Southern Nevada, Oasis Academy in Northern Nevada, and Elko Institute for Academic Achievement in Elko.

But not all charter schools directly own their buildings. Many, if not most, lease privately owned space, especially in their first few years of operation.

The charter schools who fall under this category aren’t confined to those renting space inside an existing recreation center or church, as some do. It also includes charter schools who have standalone buildings that were essentially built for them.

Mackedon confirmed it is the Charter School Authority’s position that the state cannot force the construction of those charter school buildings to pay prevailing wage.

“The Nevada and U.S. constitutions guarantee private actors contracts without government interference,” she told the Nevada Current. “We cannot infringe or coerce the private actors’ right to contract.”

Democratic state Sen. Skip Daly of Reno believes this is willful evasion of state law by the charter schools and the companies they lease from, which they typically call “facility partners.”

“They say, ‘No, no, no, we’ll magically just build a building on a piece of land that will match your needs. We’ll build it to your specifications — right down to the flagpole out front — meeting all your requirements. Miraculously we’ll have this building on spec right here for your school and we’ll lease it to you.”

Academica Nevada, the educational management organization associated with more than half of all charter school students across the state, disagrees with Daly’s characterization.

“In order to obtain a facility to open a charter school, most Nevada charter schools find it necessary to enter into rental or lease agreements with a private property owner, who constructs and owns the facility, and then rents the facility to the school on a standard, long-term facility lease,” Academica Nevada Chief Operating Officer Ryan Reeves said in a lengthy statement to the Current. “Since these are private dollars, developing private property, with the school having a standard lease agreement … there is no applicable law requiring the payment of prevailing wage on the construction.  The selection of contractors is the purview of the private developer of the property.”

Often, the lease agreements include a provision allowing the charter school to purchase the building after a set number of years. Reeves noted these provisions “are not rent-to-own contracts where monthly payments apply to the purchase price” and therefore don’t change the applicability of prevailing wage law.

Daly points to Senate Bill 226 of the 2023 Legislative Session which put into law that “careful scrutiny of novel leasing and financing arrangements” is necessary to ensure prevailing wage is paid on public works projects. That bill was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, passed on party lines and was signed by Gov. Joe Lombardo.

Daly also pointed to another law, passed as Assembly Bill 190 in 2019, which clarified that prevailing wage laws apply not just to the public body itself but also to the contractors and subcontractors acting on their behalf. Daly, a retired building trades union member, sponsored that legislation.

The charter schools and their private facilities partners are not following the spirit of the state’s prevailing wage laws, argues Daly, though he acknowledged the matter has not been litigated in court.

Mackedon suggested the issue might best be decided by a judge.

“If the trade unions want to talk, if they think the private actors are doing something wrong and out of the confines of (Nevada Revised Statute), I think they should absolutely file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner,” she said. “There are entities that are in the position to deal with this and make judgments, but it’s not the SPCSA.”

When asked about the legality of these types of agreements between public charter schools and private facility partners, Labor Commissioner Brett Harris referenced last year’s SB226, saying it closed such loopholes.

“Prevailing wage, the apprenticeship and payroll requirements, those all apply,” she said.

Harris noted that, in 2020, Laborers International Union Local 169 — then headed by Daly — sued the City of Sparks over prevailing wage issues stemming from the below-market-value transfer of land from its redevelopment agency to a private developer. The Office of the Labor Commissioner determined the workers on that parking garage-condominium project should have been paid prevailing wage. The city and developer appealed.

That case is still awaiting a decision from the Nevada Supreme Court.

“In the meantime, SB226 explicitly says purchase property lease agreements and there is some agreement with the land,” she said. “This applies to all of them.”

Academica Nevada disagrees, saying SB226 revised a portion of the law (NRS Chapter 354, on local government finance) that charter schools are exempt from by NRS 388A.366(1)(n). Furthermore, Reeves argues, the legislative intent of last year’s law was to address situations “where public resources contributed directly to a private development.”

“Standard charter school development involves a private developer purchasing land at market value, developing a building with private dollars, and then renting it to the school with no certainty whether the school will eventually be in a financial position to purchase the project,” he said. “This type of project does not fit within the intent or language of SB226.”

Who’s supposed to be watching?

Prevailing wage and other labor violations are not confined to the charter schools, and Daly acknowledges there have been cases of university foundations and redevelopment areas attempting to skirt prevailing wage laws under similar grounds.

“It’s a lease paid for nearly 100% by public funds,” said Daly. “Liars are gonna lie, that’s what they do. Cheaters are going to cheat.”

For building trades professionals, the skirting of prevailing wage requirements by a charter school is uniquely egregious because many of them approach unions for guidance inside the classroom.

“They ask us for pre-apprenticeship curriculum,” said Southern Nevada Building Trades Union Executive Secretary-Treasurer Vince Saavedra. “You want us to train your students to be pre-apprentices, to get them ready. You want our curriculum to use; but you don’t want us to build your schools.”

Charter schools are granted wide autonomy by the state, and the nature of their oversight in Nevada lends itself to increased confusion, says the labor commissioner.

“There tends to be confusion because (charter schools) are individually operated,” Harris said. “It seems like the (Authority) is confused about being a central body because they are not fronting the money for a project.”

But the labor commissioner says oversight is the responsibility of the Charter School Authority and “they should be driving the compliance portion.”

State agencies overseeing qualified public works projects are supposed to collect payroll breakdowns from contractors and subcontractors and review for potential violations. If they find them, they are supposed to submit a complaint to the Labor Commissioner, which conducts their own investigation.

But in reality, state agencies across the board are understaffed when it comes to compliance officers, says Harris. Most complaints about prevailing wage violations are initiated by third-party observers — typically labor unions who fund their own compliance officers to seek out bad actors.

SNBTU notes they have found prevailing wage violations on projects that are clearly subject to public works laws, including at Clark County School District.

“If it happens on CCSD projects, it’s likely happening on charter schools that aren’t subject to the same scrutiny,” said Aaron Ibarra, chief of staff at SNBTU.

Robert Diaz is one of those union reps who has been looking into the prevailing wage violations at charter schools. He says the Charter School Authority and individual charter school operators have outright ignored him or shuffled him around to different people in hopes he drops the issue.

“The intent seems willful but nobody will tell me that outloud,” he said. “You get the vibe of it when you get told, ‘Oh, visit this office, or this office.’ Then you’ve visited every office. Then, it’s, ‘Speak to our attorneys.’”

Diaz and half a dozen representatives of building trade unions appeared before the interim Sunset Committee on Legislative Commission in April to urge lawmakers to investigate the matter and potentially take action.

“We support charter schools but we want to make sure they are following the law when building new schools,” Saavedra told the subcommittee, which Daly chairs. “We’re calling for more transparency.”

Studies have shown that skirting prevailing wage law typically results in the developer making a bigger profit, said Saavedra. Labor cost savings aren’t passed onto the public.

Harris acknowledges the enforcement of prevailing wage issues is reactive and says her office is currently considering sponsoring legislation in the 2025 session to move away from being complaint driven and become proactive with compliance. One idea being floated is to create a centralized reporting system for prevailing wage projects and add additional compliance officers, which could be funded through a small fee charged to contractors.

“If they could set up projects in the same place, the Labor Commissioner can audit,” said Harris. “We can pull data and do compliance ourselves and not rely on these awarding bodies.”

In the meantime, agencies across the state may be confused about what labor laws apply and when. Harris emphasized she’s seen nothing nefarious from the Charter School Authority.

Daly is less forgiving.

“In my view, they are intentionally ignoring (the issue), failing to put (charter schools) on notice, and allowing them to continue skirting, if not flat out violating, requirements,” he said.

Mackedon told the Current the Charter School Authority doesn’t get updated of schools’ maintenance projects, regardless of how costly they might be.

“Obviously, if they’re building a brand new school and location, we would know,” she said of the authority’s role, “but if something happens with the HVAC and it’s over $100,000 and hits that threshold, they don’t notify us of all their maintenance everytime they do it.”

The longstanding facilities funding debate

“It’s important to understand that charter schools not receiving the same funding that traditional schools are is the root cause of this entire problem and argument,” said Mackedon, who was appointed executive director of the Charter School Authority in October.

Charter schools would prefer to own their own buildings because it would save them money, she said. That they can’t is a byproduct of the lack of dedicated facilities funding, which Mackedon says is an estimated $1,200 per pupil that traditional school districts receive from counties on top of the base per pupil funding they receive from the state.

“If charter schools were getting facilities funding, this would be a non-issue,” she added.

Reeves in Academica Nevada’s statement agreed with that sentiment, saying the company “would welcome” paying prevailing wage with dedicated facility funding.

“Instead of providing equal funding to charter schools, discrepancies in funding between school districts and public charter schools have been expanded,” he added.

Reeves pointed to the exclusion of charter school teachers in a bill designed to fund educator pay raises: “You can’t oppose equal funding for charter school teachers and facilities, while simultaneously demanding that charter schools incur the costs that would be applicable only if they received equal public funding.”

The Nevada Facilities Fund, which is partially seeded by the Nevada State Infrastructure Bank and administered by the non-profit Opportunity 180, is designed to provide a below-market rate financing option for charter schools. According to the State Treasurer’s Office and Opportunity 180, any charter school borrowing from the fund will be subject to prevailing wage.

Opportunity 180 declined to speak to the Current more broadly about charter schools and prevailing wage laws, sending only this statement: “The Nevada Facilities Fund is a public-private partnership and does not play a role in the construction or contracting process for school buildings; it is a loan fund dedicated to helping charter schools access low-cost capital for their campuses, providing opportunities for more students to have access to an education that fits their needs.

Reeves noted in his statement that the funds available through the facilities fund are limited “and ultimately the schools are still using operations and instruction funding to pay those loans.”

Diaz of SNBTU said union representatives have spoken to charter school advocates about the facilities funding issue, but he remains unconvinced that it matters.

“We’ve heard them,” he said. “My answer is, once you know the rules of engagement, the laws you have to abide by, the rules are there and prevailing wage is in place, then you can choose to build the school or not. I don’t know any other way to understand it.”

Between 1951 and 1963, when an international treaty banning above-ground nuclear tests was signed, 100 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted at the Nevada Test Site, about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. While the United States declared its testing program successful in preventing World War III, the people living in the path of the fallout from those tests paid a terrible price.

My family moved to Las Vegas in 1955 and enjoyed an unobstructed view of the atomic blasts from our front yard. A brilliant flash lit up the predawn sky, followed by a mushroom cloud rising up from the desert floor. Like most Southern Nevadans, we were proud to be on the front lines of the Cold War, testing ever-more potent nuclear weapons to deter Soviet aggression. The U.S. government assured us again and again that fallout from the tests was minimal and posed no health risk. We believed what we were told, we drank the Kool-Aid. We also drank the milk from nearby dairies whose cows grazed on irradiated land and produced contaminated milk.

Then people started getting sick. Cancer rates in Southern Nevada and nearby St. George, Utah, were on the rise, as were other health conditions. At age 9, I developed an autoimmune disorder that affected my kidneys throughout adolescence and early adulthood, nearly taking my life on two occasions. It never occurred to the doctors that the exposure to radiation might have played a role. Years later, my father found blood in his urine; six months later, he was dead of bladder cancer.

By then, the federal government had adopted the position that it could not be held responsible for people getting sick and dying, claiming that you couldn’t prove that this case of leukemia or that autoimmune disease was caused by radiation exposure. This argument was successfully employed by the government in a lawsuit filed by the families of four test workers who were exposed to a radiation leak and within two years had all died of leukemia.

In the face of this miscarriage of justice — and to prevent future lawsuits — Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990. Under this statute, the “downwinders” — people exposed to fallout during the above-ground testing — could apply for compensation if they became ill with certain types of cancers or lost family members to those conditions.

Having learned about the legislation only a few years ago, I filed an application. It was not easy, tracking down original documents from 50 years ago. But I persevered, checking every box save one: We had lived in Clark County, most of which was not covered by the act. The Justice Department rejected my application.

The notion that radiation reached the Clark County border and went around the outskirts seems utterly absurd. On a map of counties covered by the legislation, Clark County is a white rectangle surrounded by covered areas, marked by swaths of yellow and green. In retrospect, this seems like a callous attempt by the government to reduce costs by excluding the majority of Las Vegas residents from eligibility.

Nearly all the African American population, who then lived on the Westside and lacked access to quality health care, undoubtedly suffered a disproportionate rate of illness and deaths because of radiation exposure. But if they sought redress under the act, most would have been denied — the map excluded them.

In March, the Senate passed an amendment to extend coverage to Clark County, with the Navajo Nation in New Mexico and other affected populations across the country. This bill, which had widespread bipartisan support, was sent to the House, where it languished for three months. Its opponents, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, are concerned about the cost. They think it’s too broad, and they claim there is insufficient data to justify compensating all the potential claimants.

The National Cancer Institute begs to differ, having linked as many as 212,000 cases of thyroid cancer across the country to exposure to radioactive fallout from the nuclear tests in Nevada. If you want statistics but with a human face, talk to Dr. Laura Shaw, principal investigator for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program and the Nevada Test Site Screening Program. “Many of the patients we see are very ill and have personal and extensive family histories of cancer,” Dr. Shaw said. “Just last week, we screened a mom, daughter and aunt, all with cancer. It’s heartbreaking to hear these stories, and we want to help in any way we can.”

Surely Congress would demonstrate similar concerns for the welfare of the citizens who elected it. Yet the Republican leadership in the House let the clock run out, and the original RECA bill expired June 7.

But there is still time to do the right thing. On behalf of my fellow Nevada downwinders, members of Navajo Nation and all the other individuals and groups who suffered illness and loss as a direct result of the nuclear testing program, I implore Speaker Johnson to bring the Senate’s expansion bill to the floor before Congress adjourns for the summer. Give the people’s representatives a chance to bring a measure of justice to the downwinders and others who even today are fighting desperate battles for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Linda Chase grew up in Las Vegas and currently lives in California.