LB384 amends the Property Tax Request Act to change how joint public hearings are conducted when counties, cities, or school districts seek to increase their property tax request above the allowable growth percentage. The bill requires each participating political subdivision to designate a representative to attend the joint public hearing, and it requires at least one voting member of each governing body, plus the county assessor for the host county, to be present. It also specifies that the hearing is not considered a meeting under the Open Meetings Act solely because of that attendance.
The bill expands notice and disclosure requirements for these hearings. Counties must send postcards to affected property taxpayers, post hearing information on the county website in larger counties, and publish notice in a legal newspaper. The postcard and related notice must include detailed information about the proposed tax increase, parcel-level property tax estimates, contact information, and a prominent warning that actual taxes may increase or decrease. Participating subdivisions must also provide budget and tax-request information electronically to the county assessor before the hearing.
After the hearing, each participating subdivision must adopt an ordinance or resolution setting its property tax request, and if the request exceeds the prior year’s amount beyond allowable growth, the ordinance or resolution must include specified findings and vote information. The county clerk must compile a report identifying the representatives, speakers, participating subdivisions, growth values, requested increases above allowable growth, and attendance counts, and distribute that report to the participating subdivisions within ten days. The bill also repeals the original section it amends.
The overall impact is to make the property tax request process more transparent, more standardized, and more public-facing, while adding administrative duties for counties, county assessors, clerks, and local governing bodies. It does not change the underlying authority to raise property tax requests, but it adds procedural safeguards and documentation requirements for subdivisions seeking increases above the growth cap.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It advanced and passed with overwhelming margins, including a 49-0 final reading vote, and the recorded votes show only one dissenting vote on a related amendment. The available record suggests general agreement on improving notice, accountability, and public participation in local property tax decisions, with any disagreement likely centered on the details of the amendment process rather than the bill’s core purpose.
LB384 changes the Property Tax Request Act by imposing new procedural requirements on counties, cities, and school districts that seek to increase property tax requests above the allowable growth percentage. It requires designated representatives and voting members to attend joint public hearings, expands notice obligations, adds detailed disclosure content, and mandates post-hearing reporting and certification. The bill affects local governing bodies, county clerks, county assessors, and property taxpayers, but it does not alter the substantive tax authority itself.
The bill was received favorably and passed with strong bipartisan support. Final passage was unanimous at 49-0, and earlier votes on related amendments and advancement were also overwhelmingly positive. The voting record indicates broad consensus that the bill’s transparency and notice provisions were beneficial, with little visible opposition to the legislation as a whole.
The main points of contention appear to have been limited to amendment details rather than the underlying bill. The only recorded dissent in the legislative history was on Bostar FA783, which passed 39-1, suggesting some disagreement over a specific change to the bill’s language or procedure. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate indicating broader opposition; the final vote suggests that any concerns were minor and did not extend to the bill’s overall framework.