Nebraska’s property tax debate is often framed as a simple question: Are property taxes too high?

For most Nebraskans, especially in rural communities, the answer is yes. Property taxes are one of the greatest financial pressures facing homeowners, farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and retirees on fixed incomes. People are not asking for luxury. They are asking for breathing room.

The debate is not over whether property taxes should be reduced. The real challenge is how to reduce them without weakening the very institutions that hold rural Nebraska together, and simply shifting the burden to another tax paid by the same Nebraskans, and/or further consolidating the power of purse to the state.

In rural Nebraska, the local school is more than a school. It is often the largest employer, the center of community life, the place where families gather, and one of the strongest reasons young families choose to stay.

Rural schools educate children across long distances, serve communities with fewer economies of scale, and often operate under circumstances very different from larger urban districts. Any property tax plan that ignores those realities risks solving one problem by creating another.

At the same time, Nebraska cannot continue asking property taxpayers to carry such a heavy share of the load. We need a balanced tax system that reflects fiscal responsibility, accountability and promotes economic growth.

The numbers show why taxpayers are frustrated.

For years, property taxes have grown faster than inflation and faster than many household incomes. State leaders have supported efforts to give property tax relief to the tune of $1.7 billion, while local property tax collections have continued to rise.

The current property tax credits simply cannot keep up with the rate that property taxes are increasing. It’s not sustainable. That creates the central tension in Nebraska’s tax debate: the state can send more money to reduce property taxes, but if local spending continues to grow at a faster pace, taxpayers may never feel lasting relief. The state is providing relief through credits but they do not collect property taxes or set the tax ask (the levy.) That is done by locally elected boards.

The state’s School District Property Tax Relief Credit is an example. The state has now moved a major portion of school property tax relief directly onto the property tax statement, rather than relying only on taxpayers to claim a credit on their income tax return. The fund began at $750 million for fiscal year 2024-25, rose to $780 million in 2025-26, and is currently scheduled to continue increasing in future years.

That is a major state commitment.

But it also raises an important question: will state-funded credits actually reduce the burden on taxpayers, or will the credits simply be absorbed by future spending growth? The answer is in the numbers. Under the income tax credit, property taxes were rising at approximately 3.9% a year and under the “front loading” school property tax relief mechanism, they are rising at 5.4% a year. The bottom line is that the state is providing millions more in “relief” and the result is accelerating property taxes.

This is where debate becomes difficult. Nebraskans value local control. We believe decisions about schools, public safety, roads, and community priorities should be made as close to home as possible. Local control also comes with local taxing authority. If the state wants to reduce property taxes in a meaningful way, it must either replace revenue, restrain spending growth, change how schools are funded, or some combination of all three.

There is no honest solution that pretends otherwise.

A successful property tax plan must begin with a few principles. 1) it should protect rural schools from being forced into cuts that damage educational quality or accelerate consolidation. 2) it should preserve meaningful local control, not replace locally elected boards with one-size-fits-all mandates from Lincoln. 3) it should ensure that state-funded property tax credits create real, measurable, and lasting reductions on tax statements. Finally, it must include spending discipline at every level of government, including the state.

The answer is not to pit taxpayers against teachers, farmers against schools, or rural communities against urban ones. Those divisions may make for easy politics, but they do not solve the problem.

Rural Nebraskans want strong schools and lower property taxes. They want local decision-making and fiscal restraint. They want their communities to survive, not be taxed into decline.

That balance is hard. But hard is not impossible.

Nebraska needs a property tax solution that respects the taxpayer, protects the classroom, and trusts local communities while demanding accountability. The goal should not be to dismantle local government nor abandon rural schools. The goal should be to build a fairer system where the cost of education and essential services is not placed heavily on property alone, and both local and state leaders are held accountable for spending.

Property tax relief cannot be just a slogan. It must be a structural reform that gives families, farmers, ranchers, and small-town communities a future they can afford. If Nebraska can meet that challenge, we will do more than reduce taxes. We will strengthen the foundation of rural life for the next generation.

The solution is not simple but also not impossible. There is also not a quick fix and simply raising taxes is most certainly not the fix. It requires the commitment of both state and local leaders as well as the oversight of each and every tax payer.

The most effective public policy is grounded in the realities of the communities it impacts. Across rural Nebraska, families, agricultural producers, and local leaders see firsthand the unique challenges and opportunities facing our state.

I value these insights and welcome you to contact me or my office at any time with your ideas, questions, or concerns.

© 2026 The North Platte Bulletin. All rights reserved!