Board hears legislative update as members raise concerns about third‑grade retention and a 2% property‑tax cap

The Millard Public Schools board received a legislative update March 2 that focused on proposals the district is monitoring at the statehouse, including a bill that would affect promotion from third to fourth grade and a proposal to limit property‑tax growth.

The district’s legislative liaison told the board the legislative calendar had moved beyond hearings and into floor debate, and noted that LB1050 had been designated an education priority bill. “LB1050 … would limit the advancement of students to fourth grade without the third grade reading proficiency level,” the liaison said, noting the bill had attracted “lots of amendments” and that options under consideration include summer‑school assessments or alternate measures developed by the Nebraska Department of Education.

Superintendent Dr. Schwartz and board members expressed concerns about the practical implications and cost. Dr. Schwartz explained that a draft amendment discussed in the update could move a special‑education reimbursement rate from 80% to an estimated 78% even as overall special‑education funding would still grow; she also raised questions about how summer programming would be paid and staffed. A board member added that requiring repeated testing and expanded summer school for third graders would divert classroom time and could be burdensome for young students.

The liaison also briefed members on LB653, which the presenter said passed last Friday. The bill adds a narrowly defined exception to suspend K–2 students if they act violently and pose a safety risk, requires additional written notices and documentation for those suspensions, and contains an option affecting sibling acceptance across districts. The liaison said many of the documentation and notice elements are already practices Millard uses.

The most detailed staff presentation addressed LB1219, a proposed cap that would limit local property‑tax levies to no more than 2% above the prior year plus “real growth” (new construction). A district staff member who modeled the bill told the board that, if the measure had been in place for the previous five years, the district’s maximum budget would be approximately $15.5 million lower than it is today on a roughly $290 million budget. “That is potentially catastrophic,” the staff member said, noting that about 80% of the district’s budget is people costs and roughly 60% of the budget goes to teachers.

Board members said they supported the goal of reducing property taxes but voiced concern that the bill treats only one side of the funding equation and offers no exception for years when state aid falls. A member asked whether carve‑outs (for public safety or other political subdivisions) have been discussed for schools; staff said they had not seen such an exception yet. The legislative presenter said the district would continue to engage senators and monitor amendments and committee action.

What’s next: staff said they are continuing outreach with state senators and will return updates as bills move through amendments and floor debate. The board did not take formal action on legislative positions at the meeting.