Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Banking Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Nebraska bill would shift bank oversight fees from asset-based to activity-based assessments

Nebraska Legislature Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee · January 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sen. Mike Jacobson introduced LB836 to let the Department of Banking and Finance assess non‑depository entities based on activity (transaction volume, loan originations) instead of assets; the department and banking groups backed the change as revenue‑neutral and more predictable for regulated firms.

Sen. Mike Jacobson, sponsor of LB836, told the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee the bill was requested by the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance to “modernize how we fund and enforce our state's financial regulations.” He said the state’s current statutes use an asset‑based model that poorly fits fintech and other non‑depository businesses that process large transaction volumes with relatively few on‑balance‑sheet assets.

Kelly Lammers, director of the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, testified the proposal would let the department assess fees based on activity — including transaction volume, loan originations and servicing — rather than relying solely on asset size. Lammers said the change would be revenue‑neutral and eliminate hourly examination charges for routine visits, allowing the department to set an annual assessment that better reflects examination costs and federal comparables.

Industry witnesses including Ryan McIntosh of the Nebraska Bankers Association and Dexter Schrott of the Independent Community Bankers Association urged the committee to advance LB836, saying the assessment model will give regulated institutions predictable, up‑front costs and reduce billing variability tied to irregular exam timing. McIntosh described the measure as a modernization that “will streamline those charges.”

Jacobson said the bill also strengthens enforcement authority by allowing the department to suspend or revoke registrations and to require entities that lose hearings over nonpayment to cover hearing costs. No opposition testimony was recorded; the hearing concluded with proponents responding to committee questions and the chair noting no written opposition or neutral testimony on file.

The committee did not take a vote on LB836 during this hearing; proponents asked that the bill be advanced to general file for further consideration.