DATE: 2/5/26
TO: Revenue Committee, Senator von Gillem, Chairman
RE: LB 1219 and LR317CA
Chairman von Gillem and members of the Revenue Committee,
My Name is Kyle Fairbairn, and I represent the Greater Nebraska Schools Association (GNSA) which is an organization that represents 25 of the largE~sst chool districts in the state of Nebraska. These 25 districts represent over 70% of all the children in the state attending public schools. These public schools also represent 88% of all the minority children in the state that attend public schools. I am coming to you today in opposition to LB 1219 and LR317CA. The combination of these two pieces of Legislation would put a 2% cap on tax assessed property in the state along with any actual growth that a district has in its boundaries. A district that has a lot of growth would be better prepared to manage this percentage but any district that is land-locked and rural districts would have very little actual growth in their communities.
This would basically produce a 2 percent growth in district budgets across the state. As I sat in many hearings over the last few years, I have heard a common theme that teachers are not paid enough for the work they do. If that is still the sentiment in the Legislature, then this bill would basically stop any growth in teacher salaries. In most districts teachers’ salaries make up more than 50% of the district’s budget. By limiting the growth to 2 percent, moving the needle on teachers’ pay would be very difficult in most districts. This is because things the district can’t control like the health insurance premiums that are negotiated with unions have gone up between 5 and 8 percent each year over the past few years. The public utility companies continue to raise rates with OPPD raising rates between 6 and 9 percent for the next year. These increases basically would take away any raises in a district.
A district that gets an influx of special education students would also face a potential funding crisis. Federal law says that these children must be provided for and without the funding to do so a district would have to reduce other costs to manage the federal mandates. This could mean reduction in force for general education programs or increased class sizes throughout the district.
These losses in the amount of taxes being raised in most cases would not mean more state aid as a number of these districts are not equalized. Funding is set with limitations in the TEEOSA formula so many districts would not be able to meet their capped spending authority set through the state formula.
To my knowledge no model has been done at the State Department of Education to see what the actual effect of these two bills would be. This makes if very difficult to see what will happen in the future. The Legislature also put a commission in place to study the funding formula, and they are doing very good work. Their work is not finished. I would ask that before we move bills like this out of committee let’s let the commission do the work the legislature tasked them with.