Assembly committee advances bill to extend Clark County property levy that funds LVMPD officers

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Revenue advanced Senate Bill 451 on a unanimous voice vote of members present on May 13, sending the proposal to the next stage of the legislative process.

SB451 would require the Clark County Board of Commissioners and the City of Las Vegas to impose an ordinance extending an existing 20¢ per $100 of assessed value levy that voters first approved in 1996 for the purpose of employing additional officers with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). The bill, as presented to the committee, would extend that levy for 30 years beginning July 1, 2027, and ending June 30, 2057.

The levy does not raise the rate, sponsor Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro told the committee. Cannizzaro said the 20¢ stream currently generates roughly $158,400,000 annually and “supports nearly a quarter or about 825 officers of LVMPD’s sworn workforce,” a figure many supporters cited as the rationale for extending the revenue. Clark County Sheriff Kevin McMahill said his office’s accounting shows the levy funds about 860 department members and warned a failure to extend the levy would force immediate personnel decisions, including hiring freezes and nonreplacement of retirees.

Why it matters: proponents said the dedicated levy underwrites patrol staffing and investigatory units that respond to violent crime and to large tourist‑area events. Critics urged the Legislature to consider permanent or alternative funding and noted the levy’s continued use shifts revenue allocation among taxing entities rather than lowering taxpayers’ bills.

Background and mechanics

Cannizzaro summarized the levy’s history: voters in unincorporated Clark County and the city of Las Vegas approved an 8¢ per $100 assessed value levy in 1988 and an additional 20¢ in 1996; the 1996 increment was set to expire June 30, 2027. SB451 would keep that 20¢ increment in place as a dedicated portion of property taxes that flows to LVMPD. The sponsor and several witnesses repeatedly described the measure as an “extension” of an existing levy, not a new tax or a rate increase.

Becky Dutra of the Nevada Taxpayers Association cautioned the committee on the mechanics of Nevada’s property‑tax abatements: even if the LVMPD rate is not imposed or is reduced, many taxpayers will not see a reduction in their current tax bills because of statutory abatement caps; rather, that revenue would be reallocated to other taxing entities. Dutra illustrated the point with a personal example and told the committee the change “will not lower my tax bill” if the levy lapses.

Supporters’ testimony and arguments

Clark County Commissioner Jim Gibson described multi‑year county efforts to study alternatives and concluded there is no ready replacement for the dedicated stream. Sheriff McMahill described operational impacts he would expect if the funding disappears: a hiring freeze, fewer detectives for complex investigations, and curtailed community‑oriented units. McMahill recounted the creation of a “shoot team” that solved a high percentage of nonfatal shooting cases as an example of investigatory work he said would be at risk without the funding.

Elected officials and industry groups also testified in favor. Las Vegas Mayor Shelley Berkley (via Zoom) said the funding is “absolutely essential to economic development and business growth.” Labor and business groups — including the largest police union (represented by John Abel), the Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association (Harrison Porter), the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades (Vince Sevadra), the Nevada Resort Association (Nick Fasiliatis), and the Vegas Chamber (Mary Beth Stewald) — urged passage, saying the levy preserves public safety services relied on by residents, workers and visitors.

Questions and dissent

Several assembly members pressed for more permanent solutions. Assemblymember O’Neil, citing four decades in law enforcement, said he supports police but asked why the Legislature should extend a temporary measure again rather than pursue a permanent fix or a ballot initiative. Cannizzaro said early drafts did not include a 30‑year cap but that stakeholders and the governor’s office requested a 30‑year term to allow future legislative review; she said the cap was added to provide an accountability checkpoint.

Assemblymember Gray and others questioned framing the extension as a “new tax” and sought clarity on whether taxpayers would see any reduction if the levy were allowed to expire; department and county witnesses reiterated that most taxpayers would not experience a lower bill because of abatement provisions and distribution rules.

Actions and next steps

The committee received testimony, held a work session after the hearing with the speaker’s waiver of the 24‑hour rule, and voted to advance the bill out of committee. A motion to “do pass” was made and seconded; the committee recorded the motion as carrying “unanimously with those present.” The bill sponsor and county representatives said they will continue stakeholder discussions and legislative steps ahead of floor consideration.

Provenance

This article is based on testimony, presentations and committee discussion during the Assembly Committee on Revenue hearing on May 13, 2025, including the bill presentation by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and testimony from Sheriff Kevin McMahill, Commissioner Jim Gibson and others.