Revenue Committee
March 20, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Brad von Gillern | Bills Heard: 4 | Full Transcript (PDF)
LB484: Repeal exemption from agricultural land valuation for land used for commercial renewable energy purposes
Introduced by: Sen. Dan Quick | Testimony: 2 proponents, 0 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Sen. Quick seeks to undo renewable energy tax conflict created by last year's bill. LB484 would repeal a provision in LB1317 that excluded land used for solar and wind farms from agricultural classification, restoring prior practice where land remains classified as agricultural even with renewable facilities present.
Why it matters: County assessors lack clear guidance on whether entire parcels or only portions with turbines lose agricultural status, creating inconsistent valuations across Nebraska. The bill affects how counties tax renewable energy projects while maintaining the nameplate capacity tax that generates over $12 million annually for counties.
What they're saying: - Proponents: LB1317 created statutory conflict and ambiguity; wind farms typically lease entire 160-acre parcels but occupy only half an acre with turbines, making it unclear if entire parcels must be reclassified as commercial property. The renewable energy industry depends on agricultural partnership. - Neutral (NACO): Clarification is needed, but the committee should decide which direction; the 2010 law established a deal to maintain prior classification while facilities are in place. - Committee skeptics: Sen. von Gillern questioned whether the bill merely undoes LB1317 without adding clarity, suggesting clarifying language instead. Sen. Murman noted solar farms could occupy entire sections and are primarily for power generation, not agriculture.
What's next: No vote was taken. Sen. von Gillern encouraged Sen. Quick to consider working on clarifying language rather than complete elimination of LB1317's provisions.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Mike Jacobson Skeptical: Sen. Brad von Gillern, Sen. Steve Murman
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB330: Increase sales tax on alcohol products to fund addiction treatment, enforcement, and education
Introduced by: Sen. Margo Juarez | Testimony: 4 proponents, 1 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Youth leaders push alcohol tax increase to combat Nebraska's binge drinking crisis. LB330 would raise the sales tax on all alcohol products from 5.5% to 15.5%, generating approximately $122 million annually for addiction treatment, enforcement, and education programs.
Why it matters: Nebraska has worse binge drinking rates than 45 other states, and alcohol-related deaths nearly doubled from 582 in 2009 to 1,001 currently. Research shows alcohol tax increases reduce consumption and related harms; Maryland's 3% increase cut youth binge drinking by 28%.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Youth from Project Extra Mile shared personal stories of family members struggling with addiction. Testified that excessive alcohol consumption costs Nebraska $1.2 billion annually and that tax revenue would fund treatment and prevention programs. Maryland's experience shows significant reductions in binge drinking and alcohol-related injuries. - Opponents: Associated Beverage Distributors argue the tax places disproportionate burden on small businesses and consumers, could reduce sales and force job cuts, and raises border bleed concerns with Iowa where taxes are lower. - Committee questions: Sen. Kauth questioned fiscal projections and administrative burden of creating two new funds. Sen. Jacobson raised concerns about border bleed with Iowa, particularly in Omaha area.
By the numbers: $122 million projected annual revenue; 55% increase in alcohol-related deaths nationally 2000-2016; 28% reduction in youth binge drinking from Maryland's 3% tax increase.
What's next: No vote was taken. Sen. Juarez identified and corrected a drafting error in the amendment regarding the state sales tax rate.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Brad von Gillern, Sen. Matt Dungan Skeptical: Sen. Mike Jacobson Unclear: Sen. Kathleen Kauth
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB234: Expand Urban Redevelopment Act to include adjacent census tracts
Introduced by: Sen. Danielle Conrad | Testimony: 1 proponents, 0 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Conrad seeks modest expansion of urban redevelopment incentives to adjacent neighborhoods. LB234 would expand the Urban Redevelopment Act to include census tracts adjacent to those currently eligible, increasing eligible tracts from 74 to 94 and raising median income threshold from $46,000 to $56,000.
Why it matters: Omaha's urban core has lost 21,000 jobs since 1963 and faces potential landlocking by 2040s when outward expansion becomes impossible. Targeted investment in urban cores is increasingly critical for regional growth as cities compete nationally.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Expanding to adjacent census tracts captures spillover of jobs and economic activity while making incentives more accessible. Entrepreneurship accounts for majority of net new jobs and offers path to generational wealth. - Committee skeptics: Sen. Jacobson questioned why state should spend $200,000 annually on program benefiting only Omaha and Lincoln when other communities like Scottsbluff, North Platte, Kearney, and Grand Island face similar challenges and state has lowest unemployment in nation.
By the numbers: Omaha urban core lost 21,000 jobs since 1963; expansion would increase eligible census tracts from 74 to 94; median income of eligible areas would increase from $46,000 to $56,000 (compared to $75,000 statewide).
What's next: No vote was taken. Sen. Conrad clarified that the program is relatively new (took effect 2022) and offered to provide utilization data to the committee.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. Kathleen Kauth Opposed: Sen. Mike Jacobson Unclear: Sen. Brad von Gillern
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB683: Revise property tax notification process to improve transparency and timing
Introduced by: Sen. Jane Raybould | Testimony: 3 proponents, 1 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Raybould proposes earlier property tax notices to let citizens participate when budgets are actually being set. LB683 would move property tax notification from September (after budget decisions) to on or before June 1 (when budgeting begins), consolidate valuation notices with budget hearing information, and have the state produce and mail notices rather than counties.
Why it matters: Current pink postcard arrives after most budget decisions are made in May-June, leaving citizens frustrated and unable to influence outcomes. Earlier notification would direct taxpayers to budget hearings where they can actually affect tax levy decisions, while separating valuation protests (to assessors) from tax levy concerns (to budget hearings).
What they're saying: - Proponents: Notice of valuation change already goes out June 1 to 40-50% of taxpayers; consolidating with budget hearing information would reach all taxpayers at the right time. Budget hearings can be held in evenings to maximize attendance. Having state produce notices eliminates unfunded mandate on counties. - Opponents: LB683 eliminates the direct postcard notification and joint public hearing processes from LB644, which have been effective at getting taxpayers to attend. Preliminary valuations alone don't show actual tax impact. Attendance at daytime budget hearings is low, and taxpayers must attend multiple meetings for different taxing entities. - Neutral: Support improved transparency but suggest retaining pink postcard while adding budget hearing information rather than replacing it.
By the numbers: Notice of valuation change currently reaches 40-50% of taxpayers; LB683 would send to all property owners. Lancaster County fiscal note: $139,000 first biennium, $124,000 second biennium.
What's next: No vote was taken. Committee indicated willingness to continue discussing the proposal.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Brad von Gillern, Sen. Mike Jacobson Unclear: Sen. Tony Sorrentino
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
Committee Chair von Gillern opened the hearing with procedural instructions regarding testifier sheets, sign-in sheets, three-minute light system, and written position statement deadlines (8 a.m. day of hearing via Legislature website). Committee members present: Sen. Tony Sorrentino (LD39), Sen. Kathleen Kauth (LD31), Sen. Mike Jacobson (LD42), Sen. Teresa Ibach (LD44). Legal counsel: Sovida Tran and Charles Hamilton. Committee clerk: Linda Schmidt. Pages: Kymberli Dykstra (UNL sophomore, political science) and Lauren Nittler (UNL second year, agricultural economics). The hearing covered four bills: LB484, LB330, LB234, and LB683. No votes were taken on any bills during this hearing.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.