The content of these pages is developed and maintained by, and is the sole responsibility of, the individual senator's office and may not reflect the views of the Nebraska Legislature. Questions and comments about the content should be directed to the senator's office at email@example.com
Lincoln, NE–As many Nebraskans celebrate the start of the Holiday season this week, statistics show that too many people will make the poor choice of drinking and driving. Sen. Harr stated: “In order to gain a better understanding of how to prevent drinking and driving, we need an effective review of Nebraska’s DUI statutes. We need to determine what works and what doesn’t work.”
Today, Nebraska State Senator Burke Harr, Legislative District 8, submitted the findings on Legislative Resolution 249 (LR 249) to the Judiciary Committee. LR 249 examines the cost and prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving in Nebraska, evaluates how Nebraska is addressing the problem, and compares Nebraska’s efforts to the 13 states that border Nebraska or who are members of the current Big Ten Conference. LR 249 is the first comprehensive study of Nebraska’s DUI laws since 1991. The last comprehensive study on Nebraska’s DUI laws was LR 84, a report by the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee. LR 84 was an overview of Nebraska DUI laws in relation to other states, but it did not examine their effectiveness in preventing drinking and driving. Between 1991 and the present, the Legislature passed over 120 changes to its statutes regarding driving under the influence. The Legislature has made no efforts to determine the effectiveness of these changes.
LR 249 makes several recommendations for the Legislature to consider. LR 249 recommends the Legislature research the effectiveness of current statutes to prevent drinking and driving and reduce recidivism, to evaluate best practices, and learn what can be done besides increasing penalties.
Sen. Harr will bring the findings of LR 249 to the Judiciary Committee next session and suggest implementation of the findings of the study.
Lincoln, NE – Nebraska State Senator Burke Harr, Legislative District 8, announced he plans to introduce legislation requiring public school board members obtain professional development training.
During the interim session, Senator Harr’s office has studied how public school boards can be more effective. Harr stated, “This legislation is not being introduced as a reaction to the recent events involving Omaha Public Schools, but I think those events highlight the importance of having well informed school board members with a clear understanding of their responsibilities. If this legislation passes, Nebraska will join nineteen (19) other states that require some type of professional development training for public school board members. Nebraska’s public school board members will be another group of professionals, like attorney’s and physicians, that must undergo regular professional development training.”
The proposed legislation would require public school members to receive training concerning:
The powers and duties of school board members;
Compliance with public records laws;
Compliance with education standards;
The financial and fiduciary duties of school board members;
Financial planning training;
Labor law; and
In addition, public school board members would be required to obtain training on the topic of their district’s:
Drop out rates;
Truancy levels; and
Senator Burke Harr, Legislative District 8, introduced a bill to change provisions relating to sales
and property tax exemptions for a 63-20 Corporation (“63-20 Corporation,” as defined below).
The Property Assessment Division of the Nebraska Department of Revenue (the “Department”)
revised existing law regarding exemption from sales and property taxes. The Department
determined that a 63-20 Corporation is not property of the government nor its governmental
subdivision and therefore, not entitled to an exemption from sales and property taxes.
A 63-20 Corporation is a private, non-stock corporation formed under the Nebraska Nonprofit
Corporation Act. A nonprofit corporation must be for a lawful purpose other than for pecuniary
profit, including, without limitation, any charitable, benevolent, educational, civic, or scientific
purpose. Charitable purposes include “lessening the burdens of government,” which can be
accomplished when a nonprofit corporation provides a benefit or service traditionally offered by
the State or its governmental units. Like other nonprofit corporations, no dividends are paid and
no part of the income or profit of a 63-20 Corporation may be distributed to its members,
trustees, or officers. A 63-20 Corporation is regulated by the State Attorney General for
compliance with the Nonprofit Act, by State tax authorities for compliance with the requirements
relating to their state income tax exemption, and by the Internal Revenue Service for compliance
with the requirements relating to their federal income tax exemption and the issuance of taxexempt
A 63-20 Corporation issues bonds to generate money to acquire, construct, and equip public
buildings, which are then leased to the sponsoring governmental unit in exchange for lease
payments sufficient in amount to pay the debt service on the bonds. When the bonds are paid at
maturity, which coincides with the expiration of the lease, title to the building must be
transferred to the governmental unit.
The Department’s determinations contradict current case law and research has found no other
state that interprets a 63-20 Corporation’s sales and property tax exemptions in this manner.
Cities rely on this manner of financing for the construction of public buildings, including
hospitals, libraries, auditoriums, convention centers, city halls, court houses, and schools.
Without this bill, the City of Omaha estimates the city and MECA will pay at least an extra $7.5
million dollars in sales and property taxes per year. The City of Norfolk estimates that they
would have to pay an additional $24,000 to $36,000 per year in property taxes for 20 years if its
lease-purchased city hall is subject to property tax.
You are currently browsing the District 08 Blog blog archives for the year 2012.