Proposal to raise doc‑stamp tax by $1.50 to fund workforce housing draws broad support and opposition
Loading...
Summary
LB1067 would raise the documentary stamp tax from $2.32 to $3.82 per $1,000 and dedicate the $1.50 increase to rural and middle‑income workforce housing funds (75¢ each). Housing advocates and lenders supported the dedicated revenue stream; realtors opposed the increase as an added closing‑cost burden. No committee vote was taken.
Senator Bob Hallstrom introduced LB1067, proposing a $1.50 per $1,000 increase in the documentary stamp tax assessed on most real‑estate transactions, increasing the rate from $2.32 to $3.82 per $1,000 of sales price. Hallstrom said the additional $1.50 would be divided equally (75¢ each) between the Rural Workforce Housing Investment Fund and the Middle‑Income Workforce Housing Investment Fund and that the fiscal note projects roughly $12 million in the first year to each fund.
A broad coalition of housing and business groups testified in favor. Matt Williams of the Nebraska State Chamber, Carol Bodine of the Nebraska Housing Developers Association, representatives of Spark, the Nebraska Investment Finance Authority, developers who have used the funds, Lutheran Family Services, chambers of commerce, the Center for Rural Affairs, community bankers and others described the funds as revolving financing tools that have leveraged local matching dollars to produce new housing units statewide. Supporters emphasized that the funds revolve and can multiply impact over time and that dedicating predictable revenue will sustain the programs without tapping the general fund.
Opponents led by the Nebraska Realtors Association argued the increase would raise closing costs for sellers (often passed through in practice), could reduce mobility and inventory, and disproportionately affect sellers and households relying on home equity. Charles Chadwick for the Realtors said the tax was increased recently (2025) and cautioned that additional costs “in the real world impacts are meaningful,” citing an industry study on how increased transaction costs can reduce market participation.
John Cannon of NACO testified neutral, noting counties historically received a share of doc‑stamp revenue and expressing concern about the distribution to the state and whether counties should receive a larger share. Committee members questioned incidence (who ultimately pays), effects on prices and market behavior, and protections in the bill that would lock funds to housing purposes. Senator Hallstrom and proponents emphasized safeguards in LB1067 preventing transfers from the dedicated funds to the general fund and said the revenue would be used expressly for the designated housing funds.
The committee closed the hearing on LB1067 without taking a vote; members asked for continued conversation on county shares and program protections.
