LB1049 would change Nebraska law to require the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to prepare an economic impact report, in addition to the existing fiscal note, for any legislative bill that would require a state agency to take regulatory action if enacted. The report would have to include a cost-benefit analysis covering direct benefits, cost savings or financial benefits to society, the number and types of businesses or other entities affected, the localities and industries particularly affected, compliance costs, impacts on private property and real estate development, effects on state expenditures, secondary or indirect costs, and key assumptions and sources of uncertainty. State agencies would be required to cooperate with the Legislative Fiscal Analyst by providing relevant information.
The bill also would revise the Secretary of State’s duties regarding the Nebraska Administrative Code. It would require the Secretary of State to maintain an indexed and computerized codification system for rules and regulations, post current accepted rules and regulations on the Secretary of State’s website, distribute copies and amendments to interested persons for a fee covering costs, remit collected fees to the State Treasurer for the Secretary of State Cash Fund, and submit an annual report to the Clerk of the Legislature listing the number of new and amended rules and regulations adopted and promulgated during the year. The bill repeals the original section of statute being amended.
In practical terms, LB1049 would add a new layer of analysis to the legislative process for bills with regulatory consequences and would expand the administrative and reporting responsibilities of the Secretary of State. It would affect the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, state agencies, the Secretary of State, the Legislature, and regulated businesses, local governments, property owners, and other entities that could be impacted by future regulations.
The general sentiment reflected by the available record is limited, but the bill was introduced and later indefinitely postponed, which suggests it did not advance to enactment. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the materials supplied. The bill’s structure suggests a policy interest in greater transparency and accountability for regulatory impacts, but also a potential concern about added workload, delay, and administrative burden.
The main point of contention likely would have been whether the added economic impact reporting requirement would improve legislative decision-making enough to justify the extra analysis, time, and administrative costs. Supporters would likely favor more detailed information about regulatory effects on businesses, property, and state spending, while critics might object that the requirement could slow legislation and impose additional duties on the Legislative Fiscal Analyst and state agencies.
LB1049 would amend Nebraska statutes governing legislative fiscal analysis and the Secretary of State’s administration of rules and regulations. It would create a statutory requirement for economic impact reports on bills that trigger regulatory action, expand the content of legislative analysis beyond fiscal notes, and impose new reporting, publication, and distribution duties related to the Nebraska Administrative Code. It would also require annual reporting to the Legislature on rulemaking activity and direct fee revenues to the Secretary of State Cash Fund.
The available record shows little direct debate, because no committee transcript or vote detail is provided. The bill’s eventual indefinite postponement indicates it did not gain enough support to move forward. Overall, the measure appears to have been framed as a transparency and accountability proposal, but one that may have raised concerns about administrative burden and the practicality of requiring detailed economic analysis for regulatory bills.
The likely central dispute was whether the benefits of mandatory economic impact reports would outweigh the added workload, cost, and potential delay in the legislative process. Supporters would be expected to emphasize better information on regulatory costs, business impacts, property effects, and state expenditures. Opponents would likely focus on the increased responsibilities for the Legislative Fiscal Analyst and state agencies, the possibility of duplicative analysis, and the administrative complexity of maintaining and distributing updated rule compilations and annual reports.