Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Caps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hard 2% property‑tax growth cap proposal prompts debate over TIF, bonds and school funding
Summary
Sen. Tom Brandt’s LB12‑19 (and fallback constitutional measure LR317CA) would cap local property‑tax growth at 2% plus real growth. Proponents called it necessary long‑term restraint; municipal leaders, schools, ESUs, community colleges and county officials warned it removes vital exceptions (bonds, TIF, public safety and existing backstops) and could require steep cuts without a clear state replacement plan.
Lincoln — Senator Tom Brandt introduced LB12‑19 and an identical constitutional fallback (LR317CA) proposing a 2% hard cap on property‑tax growth for all political subdivisions, with an allowance for real growth. Brandt said the proposal is intended to make property‑tax relief durable and to prevent annual increases that outpace taxpayers’ ability to pay.
"These proposals offer a clear and predictable limit on property tax growth for all political subdivisions, a 2% hard cap, plus an allowance for real growth," Brandt told the Revenue Committee. Proponents — including Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom and Farm Bureau representatives — argued prior caps contained loopholes and exceptions that allowed levies to continue rising in practice.
Opponents — including municipal finance directors, NACO, the League of Nebraska Municipalities, the Nebraska Association of School Boards, ESUs, community colleges and Omaha Public Schools — warned the bills remove critical exceptions for bond payments, public safety, tax‑increment financing (TIF) accumulation, and community college backstops. Witnesses said those changes would constrain long‑term debt financing and could force service cuts or legal complications with existing bond covenants.
Local officials also raised concerns that the bill as drafted does not clearly accommodate redevelopment financing (TIF) or the statutory mechanisms that allow community colleges to levy to cover state funding shortfalls. Several witnesses urged the committee to allow more time to see how recently implemented levy caps (LB34) operate before layering a stricter 2% cap on top of them.
Public comment included farmers and citizens describing acute affordability pressures and urging long‑term restraint; many testifiers urged careful drafting of exceptions or concurrent state funding changes so that essential public services and bond obligations are not compromised.
The committee closed the hearings after receiving many written comments and public testimony; sponsors said they are open to working with stakeholders on technical fixes and exceptions.
