Assembly committee hears Las Vegas push to use tax-increment financing for transit-oriented development

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on April 30 heard from Las Vegas officials advocating for Senate Bill 28, which would expand the stated uses of existing tax-increment financing to include transit-oriented development, affordable multifamily housing and transportation infrastructure without creating new taxes.

The bill’s proponents said the change would let municipalities capture incremental property-tax growth in designated areas to fund public improvements that make higher-density, mixed-use projects feasible. Randy Robinson, director of government affairs for the city of Las Vegas, told the committee the measure “adds two additional uses” to an existing statute that has been on the books for about 30 years.

The measure’s practical rationale: Las Vegas is largely landlocked and faces demand to build “up” rather than out, proponents said. Mayor Shelley Berkeley, testifying by phone as mayor of the city of Las Vegas, said the city must “focus more intently on growing upward” and described TIF as “simply a way to reinvest existing tax dollars into designated areas that help support and foster transit‑oriented development projects.” Jacob Snow, an infrastructure consultant with Atkins Realis, used out‑of‑state examples — including Salt Lake City’s post‑transit development — to show how capturing the incremental tax revenue from new development can repay bonds used to fund water, sewer, sidewalks and other infrastructure.

Proponents described basic TIF mechanics and limits: an initial tax base is established and frozen so existing taxing entities (schools, cities, counties, libraries) continue to receive their share; new development above that baseline produces incremental property‑tax revenue that is used to retire bonds issued to pay for infrastructure. Snow told the committee that bonds can be structured for up to 30 years under Utah practice and that, in many cases, increment can retire bonds well before that term. He said, “Once the bonds are paid off…there’s just an expanded tax base from the growth that continues in perpetuity.”

Officials said SB 28 would require any TIF area to conform to a local master plan (the presenters repeatedly referenced their “02/1950 master plan” for Las Vegas) and that the financing would not raise existing tax rates. Randy Robinson said the bill’s changes are “pretty simple” and are limited to transportation‑ and housing‑related uses and definitions added to the existing statute.

Several municipal and regional agencies offered support during the hearing: the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, the cities of Henderson and North Las Vegas, the Nevada League of Cities, the Vegas Chamber and multiple labor unions and development trade groups. Nick Schneider, director of government affairs for the Vegas Chamber, told the committee the bill would help address the shortage of attainable housing and specifically cited expanding eligibility from 60% to 120% of area median income in the program language as widening the tool’s reach.

Committee members asked how TIF areas would function across multiple jurisdictions, whether the tool could be used for bus rapid transit as well as rail, and how schools and other public services would be considered when higher‑density housing replaces lower‑density development. Seth Floyd, director of community development for Las Vegas, said regional collaboration occurs regularly in Southern Nevada and that interlocal agreements could be used where multiple jurisdictions participate; he also said mode decisions (bus rapid transit vs. rail) will be determined by corridor studies. Floyd said school‑capacity impacts are reviewed during project entitlement and communicated to the Clark County School District.

Speakers also described on‑the‑ground activity they said aligns with the bill: Maryland Parkway and Boulder Highway projects under construction, ongoing Charleston alternatives analysis, and infill projects such as a 32‑story condominium in Symphony Park. Public and organizational testimony in support emphasized economic development, reduced vehicle miles, and examples from other cities where TIF‑backed transit and infill succeeded.

No formal vote or final action on SB 28 occurred at the hearing; the committee closed the SB 28 hearing after testimony and questions. The next committee meeting was announced and the hearing record was left open for public comment per committee procedure.

SB 28 details discussed in the hearing include the 30‑year bonding term as an upper limit, the requirement that a TIF area conform to a local master plan, and that TIF captures incremental growth (not new or higher tax rates) to retire infrastructure bonds. Proponents repeatedly emphasized that the bill enables — rather than mandates — municipal use of TIF for the listed transportation and housing purposes.

The hearing included multiple presentations, a regional map of proposed transit corridors, and several community and labor groups testifying in favor of the bill. The committee did not take a formal vote on the bill during the April 30 hearing.