Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=17-506&print=true
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 14:29:23
Document Index: 776295291

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 69', '§ 8', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 5107', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4280', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 1', '§ 14', '§ 49', '§ 51']

17-506. Property tax; amount of levy authorized.
Cities of the second class and villages shall have power to levy taxes for general revenue purposes in any one year not to exceed thirty-five cents on each one hundred dollars upon the taxable value of all the taxable property in such cities and villages. The valuation of such property shall be ascertained from the books or assessment rolls of the county assessor.
Source:Laws 1879, § 69, I, p. 211; Laws 1881, c. 23, § 8, I, p. 172; Laws 1885, c. 20, § 1, I, p. 162; Laws 1887, c. 12, § 1, I, p. 291; R.S.1913, § 5107; Laws 1915, c. 91, § 1, p. 231; Laws 1919, c. 51, § 1, p. 149; C.S.1922, § 4280; C.S.1929, § 17-429; R.S.1943, § 17-506; Laws 1947, c. 32, § 1, p. 142; Laws 1953, c. 287, § 14, p. 938; Laws 1979, LB 187, § 49; Laws 1992, LB 719A, § 51.
After the passage of the appropriation bill, power to contract is determined by the amounts appropriated therein plus amounts on hand of previous levies and previous appropriations. LeBarron v. City of Harvard, 129 Neb. 460, 262 N.W. 26 (1935).
A city can levy taxes for city purposes only on property within the city and the property is taxed when the levy is made. State ex rel. Hinson v. Nickerson, 99 Neb. 517, 156 N.W. 1039 (1916).
A village is authorized to levy taxes to pay a judgment for such construction of a light plant, even though a maximum amount of taxes has been theretofore assessed for payment of bonds and general purposes. Village of Oshkosh v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 20 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 1927).
City can acquire waterworks and levy tax to pay for same, without a prior appropriation therefor, as the power to purchase and levy a tax for such purpose comes within the statutory exception. Slocum v. City of North Platte, 192 F. 252 (8th Cir. 1911).