Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Voucher Incentive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews AB 131 amendment that would exempt ADUs from property tax when rented to voucher holders
Summary
Assembly Bill 131's amendment would create a property-tax exemption for one accessory dwelling unit per parcel when that ADU is leased for at least 12 months to a tenant holding a housing choice voucher, with verification submitted to the county assessor by the local housing authority.
Assembly Bill 131 returned to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs as a substantially amended measure proposing a targeted property-tax exemption to incentivize homeowners to rent accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to tenants who hold Housing Choice Vouchers (also known as Section 8 vouchers).
The sponsor, Assemblymember Jovan Jackson, described the bill as a response to Nevada's housing shortage and said ADUs are a cost-effective form of infill housing. Under the amendment presented in committee, to qualify an ADU must: be located on the same parcel as the owner's primary residence; be rented to a tenant receiving a housing choice voucher (tenant-based assistance) under a lease of at least 12 consecutive months; meet applicable local zoning; and be verified by the local housing authority on a form submitted to the county assessor. Only one ADU per parcel may qualify for the exemption.
Bill Brewer, executive director of Better Rural Housing Authority, testified in support and described ADUs as "one of the most efficient and cost effective forms of infill housing." Louis Jordan, executive director of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, told the committee the authority has used landlord incentives and that in 2024 his agency provided about $184,000,000 in rent subsidies to local landlords in the voucher program; he said the proposed exemption would be another tool to encourage landlord participation.
Presenters and committee members discussed operational details and limits. Committee members asked about size limits, homeowner association rules, whether ADUs without full kitchens would qualify under voucher program standards, and how a tax exemption would interact with existing assessor statutes. Mindy Elliott, representing housing authorities, said the amendment is effectively a pilot intended to test a narrowly targeted incentive and that the bill replaces the original ADU language. Washoe County and the Nevada Association of Counties said assessors and treasurers need more time to evaluate fiscal impacts and requested time to review the late amendment; Washoe County staff noted technical interactions with NRS 361.4723.
Committee members also asked about tenant types that would benefit. Presenters and housing authority representatives said a substantial share of voucher holders are elderly or disabled and that ADUs could particularly expand options for single-person voucher households, veterans using VASH vouchers and seniors who prefer smaller units.
Public testimony included support from disability organizations and local advocates; the Nevada Urban Counties Consortium and the Nevada Association of Counties asked for more time to analyze the amendment. The sponsor said he and staff will work with counties and stakeholders; the committee closed the hearing on the amended measure with no recorded vote during the session.
Context and next steps: Presenters called the change an incremental, low-cost pilot to expand housing choice for voucher holders. County assessors and treasurers asked for clarifying LCB language and fiscal analysis; sponsors and local housing authorities said they will coordinate with county officials as the measure moves forward.
