Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would codify county commissions on nameplate capacity (renewable energy) tax distributions
Summary
Sen. Barry DeKay told the committee LB 770 would clarify that counties keep a 1% commission when distributing nameplate capacity taxes and to codify 2% commissions for reclamation districts and agricultural societies; supporters said the change restores prior practice after last year’s funding‑model changes.
Senator Barry DeKay introduced LB 770 as a technical clarifying bill to ensure counties continue to receive a 1% commission when distributing nameplate capacity taxes generated by renewable energy facilities and to codify longstanding 2% commissions for distributions to reclamation districts and county agricultural societies.
DeKay said the change stems from last year’s funding‑model modifications and LB 50, which altered distribution flows and inadvertently reduced certain community‑college receipts. "These taxes are collected by the state then sent to the counties for distribution with 5% for the community colleges coming off the top and [then] distributed to the local taxing entities," DeKay said, describing steps in the distribution.
John Cannon (NACO) testified the 1% commission reflects the administrative role counties play in setting values, certifying taxes, distributing statements and collecting and distributing receipts. Courtney Wittstruck of the Nebraska Community College Association said the group had no objection and explained that order‑of‑operations differences created a modest fiscal‑note discrepancy (about $6,000) because of whether the 1% or the 5% is taken first in the calculation.
Committee members asked whether the 5% community‑college allocation was already restored by prior legislation; DeKay and witnesses said LB 50 restored that allocation in practice and LB 770 simply codifies commissions and the order of operations to avoid ongoing confusion. Witnesses noted no state fiscal impact because the money involved is nameplate capacity tax revenue itself.
The committee closed the LB 770 hearing after proponent and neutral testimony; members asked no substantive policy changes and sponsors offered to work with stakeholders on any drafting questions.
