The Nevada Forum Phase Two Report
Phase Two — Community Conversations

Nevadans Sat Down Together. Here Is What They Said.

From June to July 2026, hundreds of Nevadans joined face-to-face and online conversations to work out real solutions to the four problems they had already voted as the state's most urgent. From Elko to Boulder City, from Reno to Las Vegas.

Every voice, at every breakout table and on every online call, was captured, anonymized, and synthesized. This report is the record of what your neighbors proposed — including where they still disagree.

686
Nevadans Contributed
15
Events — 7 In Person, 8 Online
4
Priority Issues on the Table
14
Proposals Carried Forward
Housing Affordability
Health Care & Cost of Living
K-12 Education
Growth & Water Supply

How These Conversations Worked

In Phase One, tens of thousands of Nevadans named the problems and voted the list down to four. Phase Two asked the harder question: what should the Legislature actually do about them?

Step One

We invited Nevadans in

Through social media, email, and community outreach, Nevadans registered for a conversation on one of the four priority issues.

Step Two

Everyone got the same briefing

Registrants received an issue brief with background and context, so the discussion started from shared facts rather than from talking points.

Step Three

Neighbors talked it through

In person and online, contributors got to know each other, said why the issue mattered to them, and worked out what they want state legislators to do about it.

Step Four

Every table was recorded

All conversations were synthesized into a constituent voice dataset that informs the proposals below and guides future legislative action. An online survey on each topic ran alongside the events.

A note on what follows: what you'll read below captures table-level brainstorming, not finalized or ranked recommendations. Under every topic there was real, unresolved disagreement. We've kept it in.

Who Showed Up

686 Nevadans took part across fifteen events, including a dedicated event for young Nevadans. All demographic data below is self-identified.

615
Total Event Sign-Ups
501
In-Person Sign-Ups
114
Online Sign-Ups
71
Online Survey Responses

Political Lean

All events · 615 respondents
4.4%
25.2%
26.5%
26.8%
8.9%
8.1%
V. ConsConsModLibV. LibNot Sure

Age

In-person only · 501 respondents
4.8%
7.0%
13.8%
17.0%
26.3%
20.6%
10.6%
18–2930–3940–4950–5960–6970+Unk.

Race / Ethnicity

In-person only · 501 respondents
54.3%
18.8%
8.2%
7.6%
5.8%
3.2%
0.8%
0.8%
0.6%
WhitePrefer N/SHispanicBlackUnk.AsianAI/ANNH/PIMENA

Conservatives, moderates, and liberals turned out in nearly equal numbers — 25.2%, 26.5%, and 26.8%. These rooms were not echo chambers. Nevadans under 40 remain underrepresented at 11.8% of in-person participants, one reason we held a dedicated youth event this phase.

What Nevadans Would Tell Their Legislators

Housing Affordability

The pressure isn't the same everywhere — Clark County, Washoe County, and rural Nevada each face a different mix of rents, home prices, land, and construction costs. Beneath the disagreements sat one shared motivation: keeping Nevadans in Nevada.

Proposal ALimit corporate and institutional ownership of housing

Participants across multiple tables backed limiting corporate ownership of residential housing, arguing that homes should primarily serve residents rather than large investors. One proposal would require large corporate landlords to divest their holdings gradually over a defined 5–10 year period; others supported capping future corporate acquisitions.

Where it gets hard

Pulling institutional money out of housing could slow new development or shrink the rental supply in some markets. Legislators would also have to define ownership limits, protect existing property rights, and balance affordability against market stability.

Proposal BRequire developers to build affordable units or pay into a fund

Contributors proposed requiring larger residential developers to contribute to affordable housing — some through inclusionary zoning that reserves a share of new homes as affordable, others through payments into a state-managed fund for affordable housing, rental assistance, and first-time buyer programs.

Where it gets hard

Carrot or stick? Some favored tax credits for below-market-rate units; others wanted a hard requirement. Several argued zoning reform allowing greater density would do more to cut construction costs than either.

Proposal CReform zoning to build more smaller, denser homes

Many argued that expanding zoning capacity, encouraging multi-family housing, and making it easier to build taller would grow supply while using land and water more efficiently. Contributors also backed modular construction, tiny homes, and adaptive reuse of vacant or underused land.

Where it gets hard

Several noted that current permitting and development fees make buildings above five stories financially unviable. Lowering those barriers would encourage infill on vacant lots — expanding housing without adding sprawl.

Proposal DCap rent increases and limit rental fees

Contributors proposed statewide guardrails on the timing and size of rent increases, with others preferring clearer consumer protections over formal rent control. Many called for transparency and limits on rental fees they described as excessive, poorly disclosed, or changed without notice. Some raised concerns about algorithmic pricing software reducing competition and pushing rents up.

Where it gets hard

Everyone at the table wanted lower rents. They did not agree that rent control gets you there — property rights, political feasibility, and the long-run effect on housing costs were all live objections.

Also proposed
  • Eviction mediation program
  • Down payment assistance
  • Community land trusts
From the online survey · 12 contributors

What does affordable housing mean for working Nevadans?

Housing a working Nevadan can afford without giving up other basics — several named the 30%-of-income benchmark. Respondents pushed for first-time homeownership pathways, protection from excessive rent increases, and limits on corporate ownership of single-family homes. They also urged the state to use a more realistic yardstick than area median income, and to build for the workforce Nevada already has rather than for higher-income newcomers.

Health Care and the Rising Cost of Living

Housing, health care, and everyday expenses are squeezing Nevada households at once. Every table landed on the same thing: whether you can get care at all, and what it costs when you do.

Proposal AIncrease the supply of doctors and providers

Nevada's provider shortage was named the single biggest barrier to care, especially in rural communities. Contributors shared long waits just to establish primary care and agreed growing the workforce should be the state's top priority — through expanded medical residency programs that keep graduates here, loan forgiveness in exchange for service in underserved areas, and fuller use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

Where it gets hard

Nearly every path requires sustained state funding. Some worried about holding quality standards while expanding fast. Others noted recruitment alone won't work — retention depends on manageable workloads and conditions that make a long career in Nevada attractive.

Proposal BJoin interstate licensure compacts

Making it easier for doctors, nurses, PAs, and NPs licensed elsewhere to practice in Nevada — paired with strong credentialing, certification, and background checks. Some also suggested easing pathways for qualified foreign-trained providers and aiming incentives at the specialties and communities with the greatest need.

Where it gets hard

Concerns about quality standards, and expected opposition from unions and licensing boards — though others questioned the evidence behind those concerns. Everyone agreed any reciprocity program needs rigorous credentialing.

Proposal CCut prior authorization and administrative burden

Treatment decisions should sit with the provider, not the insurer. Contributors were pointed about prior authorization requests increasingly reviewed by algorithms that auto-deny care, and wanted paperwork cut so providers spend more time treating patients.

Where it gets hard

Safeguards are still needed against inappropriate or unnecessary care. And similar reforms have died before under pressure from insurers, lobbyists, and other stakeholders.

Also proposed
  • Standardized medical records
  • Small-business insurance pooling
From the online survey · 19 contributors

Broad and simple assistance, or targeted to the highest need?
47%
Target the households with the greatest need
42%
Keep it broad, simple, or universal
11%
No clear preference — but reform the system now

A near-even split. Those favoring universal access argued health care shouldn't be run as a business and called for stronger oversight of costs, insurance practices, and medical billing. Those favoring targeted help wanted limited resources aimed at demonstrated hardship, with accountability for how assistance is used.

K-12 Educational Outcomes

Nevadans said K-12 students aren't getting the support, staffing, and accountability they need. State data show gains on some measures, but many students test below proficiency and absenteeism stays high.

Proposal ARaise per-pupil funding — and show exactly where it goes

Nevada spends less per student than the national average. Contributors wanted that raised — but with the money going to the classroom: teacher and educator salaries, instructional staff, student support services, and supplies. They paired it with a demand for easy-to-use public dashboards showing how funds are spent and how schools are performing.

Where it gets hard

More funding may mean politically unpopular tax increases. Others argued money alone changes nothing unless a greater share of it — existing and new — actually reaches classrooms rather than administration. There was broad support for tying any new dollars to accountability.

Proposal BTackle chronic absenteeism with integrated student supports

26.6% of Nevada students miss 10% or more of their enrolled school days. Contributors proposed meeting that with supports that reach past the classroom — attendance initiatives, mental health services, and socioeconomic support — recognizing that a hungry child, an unstable home, or untreated mental health needs make learning nearly impossible.

Where it gets hard

Some questioned how much schools alone can do about poverty and mental health. Even so, there was broad agreement that absenteeism won't fall until those underlying barriers are addressed.

Proposal CRevisit the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan formula

Enrollment can fall, but a school still has to teach the students it has and keep the lights on. Participants recommended revising the formula to account for fixed operating costs, strengthen support for at-risk students, and address the particular position of rural districts.

Where it gets hard

Continued enrollment decline could cut rural school funding below what basic operations cost. Across discussions there was broad agreement the formula should be updated to match Nevada's current demographic and educational realities.

Also proposed
  • Teacher pay and retention
  • Early literacy and pre-K
  • Career and workforce pathways
From the online survey · 10 contributors

Who should make education decisions — the state, schools, or communities?

Views were mixed, with real support for both. Many wanted local schools and districts to have the flexibility to set priorities and respond to community needs, with more transparency and less bureaucracy in funding decisions. Others wanted the state to guarantee equitable, high-quality public education statewide, particularly by investing more in traditional public schools. One theme cut across every answer: parents and teachers need a meaningful voice.

Growth, Water Scarcity, and Long-term Supply

Colorado River uncertainty, groundwater stress, growth, data centers, tribal interests, ecosystems. Nevadans weighed reliability against affordability, development, and long-term stewardship of the driest state in the country.

Proposal ACreate an independent expert body for statewide water forecasting

Modeled on Nevada's Economic Forum: a standing, expert-led body that periodically assesses groundwater, surface water, and imported supply against current and projected demand. Nevada has agencies that manage water, but no independent commission whose job is recurring, nonpartisan statewide forecasts for lawmakers. The panel would be advisory — objective analysis in, elected officials still making the calls.

Where it gets hard

Contributors were firm that the panel must be water experts rather than legislators — drawn from local planning commissions, counties, universities, and Nevada's desert research institutions. Its credibility rests on staying nonpartisan and evidence-based. Some cautioned that any statewide framework must respect differences in county capacity and not become a rubber stamp for unlimited growth.

Proposal BDevelop new supply through desalination partnerships

Partner with Arizona and Mexico on desalination in the Sea of Cortez under a cost-sharing agreement: desalinated water supplies Arizona, Arizona leans less on the Colorado River, and Nevada gains access to a larger share through future interstate agreements. A California desalination trade for Colorado River allotment was raised on the same logic.

Where it gets hard

Brine disposal, enormous energy requirements, and the legal complexity of altering Colorado River allocations under existing interstate and international agreements. Cost and feasibility at that scale drew major concern, and some judged the international cooperation required to be out of scope. Broad agreement that more supply is needed; real divergence on whether this is the realistic way to get it.

Proposal CPetition for an interstate water pipeline

A federally declared interstate pipeline in the tradition of the Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Interstate Highway System, carrying water from the Columbia River to Nevada. Proponents noted the Columbia discharges roughly 190 million acre-feet into the Pacific each year and argued a portion could be diverted without harming existing users. They recommended Nevada's legislative resolution process, which lets the Legislature petition the federal government without the governor's signature.

Where it gets hard

Others held it was out of scope for a state legislature and dependent on federal action, and that cooperating states may simply refuse — the same objection raised against desalination.

Proposal DRequire data centers to manage their own water and power

Data center water use came up in conversation after conversation. Contributors consistently wanted these facilities to be self-sufficient and to carry their own environmental costs: closed-loop cooling that recirculates water or alternatives that don't use it, and their own renewable generation rather than tax abatements. The principle was plain — growth is welcome, but it should pay for itself. Most favored statewide standards over a county-by-county patchwork, with real public notification before projects break ground and citizen working groups informing oversight.

Where it gets hard

Some questioned the technical feasibility and environmental tradeoffs of closed-loop cooling. Others split over whether data centers should be barred outright or accepted as part of economic development. Nobody disagreed that they should bear the full cost of their impacts rather than shift them onto communities and taxpayers.

Also proposed
  • Statewide water audit
  • Public input before ground-breaking
  • Metering and turf limits
From the online survey · 18 contributors

What would make you trust that water decisions serve the long-term public good?

Transparency, overwhelmingly. Respondents wanted open decision-making, clear public information on who benefits, and accountability for leaders — several said plainly that they have little trust in the current process. Many also wanted residents, local businesses, and communities to have real say, with some calling for public votes on major projects, and named data centers, developers, and other large users as needing stricter scrutiny. A third theme: match growth to the water that actually exists, pausing new development until supply can sustain it.

In the Room

Seven in-person events across Nevada, plus eight online. Real tables, real neighbors, real disagreement and consensus.

Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Reno
Reno

In Their Words

Anonymous feedback shared by participants in our post-event survey.

"There were a variety of viewpoints even within a small group of people and each person had the opportunity to express their thoughts. A consensus was fairly quickly reached as people were able to have their point of view explained and included in the final responses."

"Members of our group had a wide variety of experiences, so we had several different perspectives. It was not an echo chamber!"

"I was expecting a boring discussion on politics and found a very lively discussion on the problems that we all need to have a hand in to solve."

"It was a very refreshing interaction, especially being able to speak with people about these issues that I normally never would outside of a Facebook comment section."

"Everyone had the chance to share, nobody was left out of the discussion. No idea was 'wrong' or 'stupid'."

"Good discussion with a bipartisan group… I liked seeing that we all agree that water issues in NV are existential for all of us, but our solutions differed until we discussed further. I really liked our solutions in the end."

What Happens Next

These proposals aren't the end of the process. Here's the road from a table conversation to a bill.

1
July 30 & August 4, 2026

Working Group Review

A small, representative working group reviewed these proposals alongside legislative and expert perspectives, helping decide which citizen-generated proposals go to the civic assembly.

2
August 28–30, 2026

The Civic Assembly

50 delegates chosen by lottery gather for three days at The Palms Resort in Las Vegas to evaluate, sharpen, and ratify proposals. Only those with at least 70% cross-partisan support advance to the Nevada Legislature.

3
September 2026 – Early 2027

Champions Take It to Carson City

Citizen champions mobilize to advance the consensus proposals and encourage state legislators to sponsor and pass corresponding bipartisan legislation.

The Nevada Forum

Become an NV Forum Champion

Proposals only become law when Nevadans push for them. Sign up to help advance the consensus proposals with your legislators — or join the newsletter for regular updates.

Sign Up as a Champion Get the Newsletter
The Nevada Forum · nvforum.org · Phase Two Report, July 2026