RTC of Southern Nevada warns of looming transit shortfall, backs bill to extend ballot authority and broaden security powers

The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada told the Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure that the agency faces large near-term deficits for both roadway and transit operations unless local funding tools are preserved or expanded.

"At the RTC, our fundamental role is to connect people," said Angela Castro, deputy CEO of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, as she reviewed the agency's 10-year capital and transit funding outlook.

Castro and other RTC staff detailed three top priorities for the 2025 legislative session: continuing Clark County's fuel revenue indexing program, extending the RTC's authority to put measures on the ballot (Assembly Bill 28), and improving transit security. The RTC said fuel revenue indexing has enabled roughly $300 million a year in roadway work across Southern Nevada and that the loss of indexing would begin to reduce local cash balances in 2027 and produce significant annual shortfalls thereafter.

The agency provided specific operating and ridership figures: the RTC operates 404 vehicles over 3,695 stops and reported about 52,000,000 passenger trips in fiscal 2024. On the safety side, Castro said transit security removed 11,904 passengers from vehicles or facilities in FY24 and reported 26 passenger-on-driver assaults and 99 passenger-on-passenger assaults. "This legislation seeks to clarify the RTC's ability to maintain a safe and efficient public transit system by permitting RTC security officers to address unlawful conduct by removing offenders from its transit vehicles," Castro said, referring to a proposed amendment to Nevada Revised Statute chapter 277A.

Castro showed the RTC's transit cash-balance projections and said the agency has been using federal pandemic stimulus funds to cover shortfalls; those one-time federal sources are projected to be exhausted and, starting in fiscal 2028, the RTC projects a roughly $104,000,000 deficit (as presented to the committee). The agency said that without additional revenues it would likely have to make service reductions that could affect paratransit, student routes, reduced-fare passes for college students and other programs.

Committee members asked for more detail. Senator Hansen asked whether the RTC and state partners had modeled electric vehicle fees; Castro said stakeholder work has identified a common model — a flat annual fee in the $50–$200 range — and that initial modeling suggested EV fees would produce tens of millions of dollars statewide but would not fully replace current fuel-indexing revenue. Senator Pizzina asked what would be cut if indexing and ballot authority failed; Castro said staff had prepared district-level impact lists and would brief members in advance of any bill hearings.

Castro also described Assembly Bill 28 as the RTC's vehicle to extend its authority to seek voter approval for funding; the committee heard the presentation but did not take legislative action. Castro said the RTC had consulted unions, law enforcement, legal stakeholders and community groups on the proposed security changes and on transit safety investments such as panic buttons, live-linked cameras and additional security staffing.

The RTC presenters repeatedly framed the measures as tools to preserve current service levels and roadway maintenance rather than new expansions, and urged the Legislature to consider both short-term and long-term funding options as vehicle fleets and travel patterns change.

The presentation was informational; no committee vote on legislation occurred during the session segment recorded in the transcript.