Assembly committee hears bill to create treasurer ‘tech fund’ using small share of tax-sale excess proceeds

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard Assembly Bill 133 on the proposed creation of a treasurer technology fund that would divert a small portion of excess proceeds from county tax-delinquent property sales to pay for hardware, software and staff training in county treasurer offices.

Assemblymember Lisonbee Gurr, the bill’s sponsor, introduced the measure and said it grew out of discussions with county treasurers in rural Nevada. "By ensuring our county treasurers have the resources they need, we can bolster their ability to serve our constituents effectively," Gurr said.

The bill would add a treasurer tech fund modeled on existing language now used for county assessors and recorders. Andrew Raizer, Carson City treasurer and president of the Association of County Treasurers of Nevada, told the committee the fund is meant to supplement — not supplant — existing county technology budgets. "It is not intended to be a primary funding source nor a cure-all," Raizer said.

Nut graf: AB133 would allocate a fixed formula of excess proceeds from tax-sale transactions into a separate interest-bearing account; after one year, if excess proceeds are unclaimed, five percent of those proceeds would be deposited into a county treasurer tech fund that could be used for technology purchases, maintenance, employee training and professional services. The bill also would cap fees recovery agents may charge owners seeking excess proceeds at 10 percent and require an annual report to the county commission by July 1.

Key details and mechanics

Raizer described how excess proceeds are handled under state law: the county initially receives $300 plus the first 10 percent of the first $10,000 (an example Raizer summarized as $1,300), and remaining excess proceeds are held in a separate interest-bearing account for one year. If no valid claim is filed during that year, remaining funds revert to county property, and the proposed bill would then permit the treasurer to allocate 5 percent of those unclaimed excess proceeds into the treasurer tech fund, with the remainder going into the county general fund.

The bill also includes a 10 percent cap on fees charged by recovery agents who help former property owners claim excess proceeds. Raizer listed typical uses the fund could support: data conversions, kiosks, language services, enhanced cybersecurity and staff training for systems such as Tyler Munis.

Questions and concerns from lawmakers

Several lawmakers asked whether the proposal effectively earmarks money that otherwise would be available to county officials. "How is this not dividing that up even more?" asked Assemblymember Carter, who expressed concern that the bill would parse already-limited county revenues. Raizer replied that excess proceeds are volatile and should not be treated as reliable recurring revenue. "This is not money that you can count on," he said, noting some counties have tax sales only rarely.

Other members suggested adding guardrails. Vice Chair Winn and Assemblymember Flanagan asked about caps on fund accumulation and whether population or county-size adjustments would be appropriate; Raizer said he would take those suggestions back to the association membership. Assemblymember Gurr urged support, saying the provision would particularly help smaller counties with limited tax bases.

Support and testimony

The Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) testified in support, saying the fund could improve taxpayer access to services across all 17 counties. Individual treasurers and a Lincoln County commissioner also voiced support on behalf of smaller counties, describing expected proceeds as modest in many rural jurisdictions but potentially meaningful.

No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing. The sponsor said he planned to circulate additional co-sponsors and said he would consider amendments suggested during questioning.

Why this matters

Supporters framed AB133 as a modest, targeted way to help treasurer offices modernize and reduce labor-intensive tasks such as manual check processing and legacy data conversions. Opponents and some committee members asked for limits to avoid creating an open-ended earmark and sought more data on how much revenue larger counties might generate under the proposal.

Next steps

The committee closed the hearing on AB133 and opened the next bill. The sponsor said he would pursue additional co-sponsors and work with county treasurers on potential technical changes and guardrails before further action.