NRD bond authority discussed

Natural resources districts (NRDs) would be able to issue general obligation bonds under a bill heard by the Natural Resources Committee Feb. 21.

LB1003, introduced by Omaha Sen. Rick Kolowski, would authorize NRDs to issue general obligation bonds to finance all or part of the cost of nonrevenue-producing water projects authorized by law. Kolowski said without bonding authority, NRDs are forced to pay for projects slowly over time.

“Without bonding authority, NRDs do not have the ability to raise the dollars it takes to complete projects within one year,” he said. “The ability to bond for these projects will help spread the costs out over time, eliminating unnecessary delays.”

Under the bill, issuance of bonds would require a two-thirds approval of members of an NRD’s board of directors. Bonds would be retired using the district’s tax revenue and any other funds available to the district not pledged for another purpose.

John Winkler, representing the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, testified in support of the bill. He said bonding authority has allowed NRDs to complete projects for less money and ahead of projected deadlines.

“We had several projects estimated to cost $125 million without bonding authority,” he said. “With bonding authority we’ll be able to complete the projects for $85 million. The projected construction period without bonding is 25 years, but with bonding authority it’s only 10 years.”

Papillion Planning Director Mark Stursma also supported the bill, saying that general obligation bonds would allow NRDs to more easily complete municipal projects on time.

“This would allow NRDs to more accurately predict the schedule of projects making it easier to partner with and be in support of private development,” he said. “Municipalities use general obligation bonds to great effect. We see no reason why they shouldn’t have the same tools.”

Mick Mines, representing the Papio Valley Preservation Association, testified in opposition. He said there are too many unanswered questions in the bill.

“We need to remember that not all projects are worthy and not all projects are necessary,” he said. “Not all elected boards are fiscally responsible and this bill has very few protections for taxpayers.”

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.