Source: http://www.ago.ne.gov/ag_opinion_view?oid=2222
Timestamp: 2013-12-07 14:43:11
Document Index: 210951041

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§\n77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77']

AGO Opinion 98011
Back to Opinion Listing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-3444(3) (Supp 1997); Procedural Requirements for Town Meetings Where Certain Governmental Subdivisions Seek Voter Approval for Increased Property Tax Levies
Opinion 98011
SUBJECT: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-3444(3) (Supp 1997); Procedural Requirements for Town Meetings Where Certain Governmental Subdivisions Seek Voter Approval for Increased Property Tax Levies
REQUESTED BY: John Breslow, Nebraska Auditor of Public Accounts
LB 1114, passed by the Legislature in 1996, places
limitations upon the property taxes which may be levied by various
local governmental subdivisions in the State of Nebraska. However,
Section 3 of that bill, now codified at § 77-3444, allows
governmental subdivisions to exceed those levy limits in certain
specified instances. For example, subsection (3) of § 77-3444
allows the people of villages and other small governmental
subdivisions to exceed the levy limits for those entities after
approval of the excess levy at a form of town meeting. In that
regard, § 77-3444(3) provides:
In lieu of the election procedures in subsection (1) of
this section [which allow the voters of certain
governmental subdivisions to approve excess property tax
levies by popular vote at an election], any political
subdivision subject to section 77-3443, other than a
Class I school district, and villages may approve a levy
in excess of the limits in section 77-3442 or the
allocation provided in section 77-3443 for a period of
one year at a meeting of the residents of the political
subdivision or village, called after notice is published
in a newspaper of general circulation in the political
subdivision or village at least twenty days prior to the
meeting. At least ten percent of the registered voters
residing in the political subdivision or village shall
constitute a quorum for purposes of taking action to
exceed the limits. If a majority of those casting votes
at the meeting vote in favor of exceeding the limits, a
copy of the record of that action shall be forwarded to
the county board prior to September 30 and the county
board shall authorize a levy as approved by the residents
Section 77-3444(3) obviously offers little guidance as to any
procedures which might surround the town meeting process which it
creates. Therefore, you have posed a number of procedural
questions to us under that statute because you believe that our
answers to those questions will "help [you] . . . determine the
information [you] . . . will need for monitoring compliance with
these levy limits as part of [your] . . . budget review
responsibility." We will set out each of your specific questions
together with our response below.
Question No. 1. "The Statute [§ 77-3444(3)] refers to
residents and registered voters. It is clear a quorum of
10 percent of the registered voters is required. It is
unclear as to whether the majority vote refers to
registered voters or residents at the meeting. Can only
the registered voters vote at the meeting or can all
residents vote? If resident, how shall resident be
defined?" To the extent that § 77-3444(3) is unclear, the legislative
history of that act may be examined to ascertain the Legislature's
intent with respect to that statutory provision. Southern Nebraska
Rural Public Power District v. Nebraska Electrical Generation and
Transmission Cooperative, Inc., 249 Neb. 913, 546 N.W.2d 315
(1996); Omaha Public Power District v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue,
248 Neb. 518, 537 N.W.2d 312 (1995). As a result, we have reviewed
the voluminous legislative history of LB 1114, and while the matter
is not entirely without question, several segments of that history
do strongly support the notion that the vote taken at a town
meeting convened under § 77-3444(3) is to be a vote of the
registered voters who live in the governmental subdivision who are
present, rather than just a vote of those residents who are
present. Our conclusion is based upon those portions of the
legislative history discussed below.
First of all, the Legislature's committee records for LB 1114
indicate that the language at issue was added to the bill by the
Revenue Committee as a result of committee amendments which
replaced the original bill in its entirety. The committee's
explanation of those amendments contains the following discussion:
Section 3 [of LB 1114] allows a political subdivision to
exceed the limits on a majority vote of the registered
voters in the subdivision. The issue may reach the
ballot either by passage of a resolution by a two-thirds
majority voted of the governing body or by petition
signed by 5 percent of the registered voters. The excess
levy shall be limited to 5 years. This section also
allows miscellaneous districts subject to section 2 and
villages to exceed the limits by a majority vote at a
meeting of the voters attended by at least 10 percent of
the registered voters. Special election provisions for
S.I.D.'s are provided by the bill.
Committee Records on LB 1114, 94th Neb. Leg., 2nd Sess., Committee
Statement 3 (February 1, 1996) (emphasis added).
In addition, portions of the Floor Debate on LB 1114 are also
instructive. On two occasions, Senator Warner, Chairman of the
Revenue Committee, discussed the meeting provisions which are now
a part of § 77-3444(3). The first discussion occurred on March 21,
In all cases, the [levy] limitations here, if they are
inadequate, the local governmental subdivision could
request the registered voters to approve an increase with
a two-thirds vote of the majority vote of the governing
board to be given to . . . or by a petition signed by 5
percent of the registered voters, and then they can set
a levy limit at a higher rate for a period of at least
five years that would remain in their base, at the end of
that time, if they chose not to continue it. In
addition, there is an allowance for those districts which
are those miscellaneous districts, small districts, such
as townships, where in effect at an annual meeting of the
residents of that governmental subdivision are required
(sic) to have at least 10 percent of the people who are
residents of the district, who are registered voters and
residents of the district in attendance, they could then
set a levy that would be higher than . . . than what
would be authorized here by the county board to do.
Floor Debate on LB 1114, 94th Neb. Leg., 2nd Sess. 13495 (March 21,
1996) (Statement of Sen. Warner) (emphasis added). The second
discussion was on March 25, 1996:
Across the state generally, you talk about two or four
cents for the operation of fire districts. There are a
few that are up at the ten or twelve cents, which is the
maximum statutory authorization. As a practical matter,
in those cases, if their needs cannot be met, you know
what is expected to happen is that they would go for a .
. . because they're in that fifteen cents, they can go
the route of a special meeting, which they would, in
fact, need 10 percent of their registered voters in
attendance of which 51 percent of that number could
Floor Debate on LB 1114, 94th Neb. Leg., 2nd Sess. 13766 (March 25,
1996) (Statement of Sen. Warner) (emphasis added).
Therefore, on the basis of the legislative history of LB 1114,
we believe that only those registered voters who are residents of
a governmental subdivision may vote at the meeting contemplated by
§ 77-3444(3). Moreover, in the absence of anything indicating the
contrary, statutory language in Nebraska is to be given its plain
and ordinary meaning. Application of City of Grand Island 247 Neb.
446, 527 N.W.2d 864 (1995). Consequently, only those registered
voters who "reside or dwell in" a governmental subdivision are
registered voters and "residents" of that entity for purposes of §
77-3444(3). BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1177 (5th ed. 1979).
Question 2. Who is responsible for determining whether
ten percent of the registered voters are in attendance
[at a meeting under § 77-3444(3)]? Is a list of
signatures of registered voters required to verify the
Section 77-3444(3) is silent with respect to the specific
issues raised in your second group of questions, and the
legislative history of that statute offers no guidance. However,
it seems to us that the general provisions of that statute, when
considered with the other statutes pertaining to governmental
subdivisions, dictate that the governing body of the subdivision
which called the meeting determines whether the requisite
percentage of registered voters is in attendance at a meeting under
§ 77-3444(3). There are several reasons for that conclusion. First of all, the governing body of the subdivision involved would
be generally charged with the overall authority to conduct the
affairs of the subdivision, and as a result, it would presumably
have the necessary authority to conduct the meeting in question and
determine if the requirements of the statute are met. Second,
under § 77-3444(3), some entity has to make the determination to
call the meeting and publish the notice of the meeting in the
newspaper. Presumably, that entity is the governing body of the
subdivision. Finally, if a property tax levy raised as a result of
the meeting process under § 77-3444(3) is challenged in a taxpayer
lawsuit or otherwise, the governing body of the subdivision may
well be called upon to defend the validity of the meeting which
established the levy increase. Consequently, it seems to us that
the governing body of the subdivision is responsible for making the
initial determination as to whether ten percent of the registered
voters are in attendance at a meeting under § 77-3444(3). The language of § 77-3444(3) also does not set out any
requirement for the preparation of a list of signatures of the
registered voters present at a meeting under that statute. However, in order for the county board of the appropriate county to
authorize a levy by the subdivision consistent with the results of
such a meeting, a record of that meeting must be sent to the county
board, and preparation of a list of the signatures of the
registered voters present at the meeting would undoubtedly be
useful in establishing the underlying basis for that record. More
importantly, as previously noted, it may be necessary for the
governing body of the subdivision to defend the procedures
surrounding a meeting for an increased tax levy under § 77-3444(3). A list of the signatures of the registered voters present at that
meeting would also clearly be useful in such a defense. Consequently, it seems to us that common sense would suggest that
the governing body of a governmental subdivision seeking increased
levy authority under § 77-3444(3) would ask those registered voters
and residents present at a meeting under the statute to sign a list
of registered voters attending and voting at the meeting.
Question 3. The Statute [§ 77-3444(3)] requires a copy
of the record of action to be forwarded to the county
board. What is to be required to be included on the
record of action? Would it need to be certified by the
subdivision board? Who is responsible for forwarding the
record of action? May a subdivision's board vote not to
increase the levy following a vote?
Once again, § 77-3444(3) is silent with respect to the
specific issues presented in the final group of questions set out
in your opinion request, and the legislative history of LB 1114
offers no additional guidance as to those issues. Therefore, we
must rely on the general language of the statute in formulating a
A. Record of action at a meeting under § 77-3444(3).
While § 77-3444(3) does not set out the precise requirements
for the record of a meeting which must be forwarded to the county
board under that statute, it seems to us that the statute would
generally require at least the following items:
1. Proof of publication which establishes that notice
of the meeting was published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the political subdivision or
village at least twenty days prior to the meeting.
2. A listing of the number of registered voters who
reside in the governmental subdivision as obtained
from materials provided by the appropriate county
election or tax officials.
3. A listing of the number of registered voters who
reside in the governmental subdivision present at
the meeting as established by the signature list of
registered voters attending and voting.
4. The language of any motion to approve a property
tax levy by the governmental subdivision in excess
of the levy permitted by statute, and a record of
the number of votes cast at the meeting by
registered voters who are residents of the
subdivision for and against that motion.
Section 77-3444(3) contains no requirement that the record
submitted to the county board be "certified" in any fashion by the
governing body of the governmental subdivision. In addition, since
it appears that the governing body of the subdivision is
responsible for calling and conducting the meeting, it seems to us
that the governing body of the subdivision is also responsible for
"forwarding the record of the action" to the county board. B. Conclusive effect of the vote at a meeting under § 77-
3444(3).
We assume that your final question goes to whether a
subdivision's governing board may vote against increasing a
property tax levy after a meeting under § 77-3444(3) in which the
registered voters and residents of the subdivision voted to
increase the levy. First of all, we are at a loss to understand
why the governing body of a governmental subdivision would expend
all the time, effort and expense necessary to call and conduct a
meeting under § 77-3444(3) so as to authorize an increased property
tax levy, and then follow that effort with a vote not to increase
the levy. Nevertheless, the final portion of § 77-3444(3)
At least ten percent of the registered voters residing in
the political subdivision or village shall constitute a
quorum for purposes of taking action to exceed the
limits. If a majority of those casting votes at the
meeting vote in favor of exceeding the limits, a copy of
the record of that action shall be forwarded to the
county board prior to September 30 and the county board
shall authorize a levy as approved by the residents for
(Emphasis added). Consequently, the portions of § 77-3444(3)
emphasized above contemplate that the registered voters and
residents of the governmental subdivision will actually "take
action" to raise the property tax levy at a meeting under that
statute. Moreover, a record of that action taken "shall" be
forwarded to the county board, and the county board "shall"
authorize the levy as approved by the residents for the year. It
seems to us that the final and mandatory nature of that language
indicates that the action by the registered voters at the meeting
under § 77-3444(3) should be final. Accordingly, the subdivision
board may not subsequently vote to reduce that annual property tax
levy after the meeting.