NACO director briefs Lincoln County on 2025 session: inheritance tax, property-tax cap fixes and nameplate tax among key outcomes

John Cannon, executive director of the Nebraska Association of County Officials (NACO), told the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners on June 30 that the 2025 legislative session produced several measures and ongoing discussions that will affect county operations and budgets.

Cannon said LB468, a recently introduced inheritance-tax bill, did not pass this session but generated substantial debate. He said much of NACO’s work this year focused on seeking replacement revenues if an inheritance-tax repeal were to move forward, so counties would not lose funding used to pay for local services. Cannon described conversations about locally collected replacement options such as documentary-stamp (doc stamp) tax adjustments and motor-vehicle tax changes, noting differences of opinion on which mix of revenues would be acceptable.

Cannon also described LB647, a technical cleanup to LB34 (the 2023 property-tax request cap statute). He said LB647 corrected several technical problems from the cap law’s initial implementation — for example, ensuring that local growth is counted separately from the cap multiplier — and that the changes were passed to give counties clearer budgeting rules going forward. He warned, however, that the property-tax request cap creates a need for more forecasting and careful use of exceptions (for example, public safety and bonded indebtedness) because reliance on exceptions can reduce future flexibility.

On energy taxes, Cannon summarized LB50, which establishes the nameplate-capacity tax for wind and solar projects (a per-megawatt excise replacing certain property-tax treatments). He said LB50 calls for state collection and distribution to political subdivisions using property-tax distribution formulas. Cannon said community colleges successfully sought a 5% set-aside from the top of the nameplate-capacity distribution, a change NACO did not oppose though it noted policy trade-offs.

Cannon listed additional bills of interest to counties that passed this session or were NACO priorities, including measures on UTV/ATV titling, sheriff-fee increases, bond sale terms, tax-sale cleanup, earlier notice for TIF cessation to assessors, withholding certain addresses of law enforcement from county records, and adjustments to drone procurement language. He said NACO had generally positive results on many of its priorities and urged counties to share data about local unfunded mandates for use in an interim study.

Cannon also described organizational resources: a county-by-county one-pager and online county explorer NACO has prepared; a planned elected-officials and county-employee salary study and dashboard to inform local compensation decisions; and training and conferences for county officials. He encouraged local officials to submit county stories and data that would assist NACO’s advocacy and research work.

Why it matters: Cannon framed the session as one where counties gained certain technical fixes and protections but face ongoing policy debates over revenue replacement and distribution choices that could redistribute funds among local political subdivisions. He urged local engagement with state senators and participation in NACO’s data collection so the association can better represent county concerns in interim studies and the next legislative session.

Meeting participants asked clarifying questions about the property-tax cap’s implications for budget planning and about specific bill details. Cannon noted the cap index (Slice) this year was cited at about 5.17% and recommended careful use of exceptions to preserve long-term flexibility.