State board repeals outdated special‑education regulations after heated hearing; Washoe County disputes move

The Nevada State Board of Education voted 5–2 on May 14 to repeal Nevada Administrative Code sections NAC 388.460 through NAC 388.488, after a public hearing in which the Nevada Department of Education urged removal as a cleanup of regulations tied to statutes the department said no longer exist. The vote followed more than two hours of testimony from department staff, Washoe County School District counsel and other public commenters and was carried by members Hughes, Hudson, Dockweiler, Dawson Owens and Braxton; members Orr and Ford voted no.

The repeal was presented by Julie Bowers, director of the Department of Education’s Office of Comprehensive Student Services, who told the board the NAC sections "need to be repealed because they explicitly reference and were designed to implement" provisions that were reorganized into NRS chapter 388. Bowers said the regulatory language reflects an older funding process and that the legislature and department have used a separate case (contingency) application process for extraordinary special‑education expenses. She described how the contingency/case account application is administered, noting the account is replenished annually (to $2,000,000 in the department’s description) and that unused funds do not carry forward.

Why it mattered: Washoe County School District’s general counsel, Neil Lombardo, told the board the repeal would harm students who need costly out‑of‑district or residential placements. Lombardo disputed the department’s legal premise, producing copies of regulations and statutes and saying the NAC language in question cites current NRS sections (for example, NRS 388.5223 and NRS 388.5243 in the materials he provided) and has been updated since the older chapter 395 statutes were reorganized. Lombardo also told the board the department’s case application explicitly states that "case funding may not be used for residential costs of private school placements," and said that in his view the application therefore does not offer a remedial path for students who require residential placement. Lombardo asked the board to pause the repeal, citing notice and open‑meeting concerns and ongoing litigation between Washoe County and the Department of Education.

Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott, who advised the board during the hearing, told members they are "caught in the middle of some legal arguments" and confirmed active litigation between Washoe County School District and the Department. Ott said the case funding system has been the practical funding mechanism since about 2015 and that the department’s position — that the NAC sections point to an unfunded, superseded approach and therefore should be repealed to avoid confusion — is legally defensible; he added the board would see a permanent rulemaking later in the year. Ott also said that one NAC section (3 88.460) had a definitional amendment in 2019, while most other cited NAC provisions dated from the 1990s.

Board debate and concerns: Several board members raised process and policy questions before voting. Member Ford and Member Orr said they were troubled by possible notice or transparency problems and by the practical effects on districts that may face large, near‑term expenses for student placements. Member Hughes moved to repeal the NAC sections; Member Hudson seconded. During discussion, members asked whether the repeal would change districts’ obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE); department staff and the interim state superintendent, Steve Canavero, emphasized that district obligations remain and that the case process is the available mechanism for extraordinary reimbursement, while acknowledging districts had reported implementation and timing challenges under the current system.

Public record, funding and contracts: Lombardo also drew attention to contract actions he said the department had taken, including a contract that he said the board of examiners had approved for outside legal services (which Lombardo described as approximately $800,000) and a separate multiyear contract he said amounted to $1.8 million, details he used to argue the department has other funding priorities and to underscore the district’s burden when required to fund residential placements up front. The department had described the case process to the board as limited in scope and application: a spring application, district scoring against a rubric and state reimbursement when eligibility and scoring thresholds are met.

Board outcome and next steps: After discussion the board adopted the repeal, with members Hughes, Hudson, Dockweiler, Dawson Owens and Braxton voting in favor and members Orr and Ford opposed. Board counsel and the deputy attorney general said the action is part of a regulatory cleanup and that stakeholders will see additional, permanent rulemaking and related draft language later this year; Ott noted the possibility that the litigation will resolve questions about statutory interpretation. Lombardo said Washoe County would pursue its legal claims and asked the board to pause; the board voted to proceed.

What this does and does not do: The board’s repeal removes the NAC sections from the administrative code. Department staff and the board said district obligations to provide FAPE remain in statute. Department staff told the board the case‑based application is the current funding route for extraordinary special‑education expenses and described limits on the account (annual replenishment and no carryover). Washoe County counsel maintains the repeal will remove a regulatory avenue that districts have relied on for residential placements and said the case application does not permit reimbursement of residential private‑school placements. The legal dispute about whether the NAC sections were effectively superseded or still in force will proceed in court, and the board’s regulatory timetable contemplates further permanent rulemaking later in the year.

Why readers should care: The dispute affects districts’ ability to obtain reimbursement for high‑cost special‑education placements and centers on the limits of department authority, statutory interpretation, and how state rulemaking and funding mechanics affect the educational services available to students with the most intensive needs. The board’s action changes the regulatory landscape immediately and leaves unresolved litigation and policy questions that could affect budgets and student placements in the short term.

Ending note: Board and department officials said they will continue to engage stakeholders and that permanent regulatory language will return to the rulemaking process later in the year; Washoe County School District said it will pursue the legal challenge and urged the board to reconsider the repeal pending court resolution.