Senate committee hears bill to create $20 million state fund to reimburse local affordable-housing fee waivers

CARSON CITY — The Senate Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 51 on March 17, a proposal to create a $20,000,000 account in the State of Nevada to reimburse local jurisdictions that waive or reduce development fees for statutorily defined affordable housing projects.

Supporters said the account would help cities and counties continue fee-waiver programs that incentivize construction of affordable units without unduly burdening local enterprise funds. “The intent of the account for housing expansion through local partnerships … creates a $20,000,000 fund within the housing division of the State of Nevada to reimburse local jurisdictions that have waived fees for affordable housing projects,” said Kelly McNeil, executive director of the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities.

Why it matters: Local jurisdictions including Reno, Henderson and Las Vegas already use fee waivers to lower development costs for affordable projects; supporters said state reimbursement would let jurisdictions continue those programs without shifting long-term costs to enterprise funds that pay for infrastructure such as sewers. The bill would require projects to reach certificate of occupancy before reimbursement and make state payments contingent on approval by the Interim Finance Committee, supporters said.

Committee members questioned details about how the fund would operate. “Is there some type of match where the city has to have buy-in and not just say, ‘we can give all these waivers and we’re going to get reimbursed from the state’?” asked Senator Daley. Elaine Wiseman, housing manager for the City of Reno, said she would follow up on whether the bill establishes a local match requirement but described the city’s experience with its waiver program: “Since 2021 was our first approval, we’ve spent or we have waived over $12,000,000 in fees, and that’s just in the city of Reno alone.”

Several municipal officials and housing agencies told the committee the proposal would be a practical tool. Nick Ciccone, representing the City of Reno, said waivers are provided “at the front end” to help a project pencil and that reimbursement would allow cities to reinvest in future projects. David Cherry, government affairs manager for the City of Henderson, and representatives from the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, Nevada Rural Housing Authority and the Nevada Housing Coalition also testified in support.

Committee members raised other implementation questions. Vice Chair Orenshaw asked whether the $20 million appropriation is likely to be adequate for the coming biennium and requested information on how other states administer similar programs. Kelly McNeil said the league and local partners had discussed the bill with the governor’s office but would return with details about the appropriation’s origin and any comparable programs elsewhere. McNeil also said the housing division would adopt policies and procedures through rulemaking and that reporting requirements could be added as an amendment.

Public testimony included developers and advocates who said waiver reimbursements make projects more feasible. Cedric Crear, vice president of government relations at Onda Housing Group, said fee reimbursements can be “a huge impediment” when they do not exist. A caller with the Nevada Disability Action Coalition urged that accessible transportation and other accommodations be considered in the program.

What the bill says (as described by proponents): Section 2 creates the account; reimbursement is contingent on Interim Finance Committee approval; Section 3 allows jurisdictions to apply for a percentage of the waived fees (the bill text as presented used a percentage placeholder); fee waivers are available only for affordable housing as defined by statute (tier 1 projects serving households up to 60% of area median income); and reimbursement is paid after a project receives a certificate of occupancy.

No formal committee vote was taken during the hearing. Sponsors and supporters said they are open to adding reporting language or clarifying match and administrative details through amendments as the bill moves to fiscal review.

Looking ahead: Committee members requested additional documentation about the $20 million figure, comparisons with programs in other states, and whether reporting or matching requirements should be added. Supporters said they would provide follow-up materials to the committee staff.