18-405. Public utility districts; extension or enlargement of service; cost; payment; assessment.
Upon the completion of an extension or enlargement of any water or gas main or other utility service in any such district, the actual cost thereof shall be duly certified to the council or directors of such city, village, or metropolitan utilities district when done by contract, but when done by utilizing the equipment and employees of any such city, village, or metropolitan utilities district, the average cost, based upon the average cost per foot to such city, village, or metropolitan utilities district in the previous calendar year, of installing water or gas distribution mains, as the case may be, shall be thus certified. Thereupon it shall be the duty of such council or directors to assess, to the extent of special benefits, the cost, not exceeding the actual cost or average cost, as the case may be, of installing such water main or gas main or other utility service, upon all real estate in the district, in proportion to the frontage of the real estate upon the main or utility service. The cost of any such extension or enlargement in excess of the actual or average cost of installing the water main or gas main or other utility service, as the case may be, heretofore authorized to be assessed and levied against the real estate in the district shall be paid out of the water fund or gas fund or other utility fund, as the case may be, of such city, village, or metropolitan utilities district, if there is such a fund, and if such city or village has no water fund or gas fund, then the same shall be paid out of the general fund. No real estate in any city, village, or metropolitan utilities district shall be subject to more than one special tax assessment for the same extension or enlargement of water or gas mains or other utility service.
Source
Annotations
A finding by the Board of Equalization that lands are specially benefited to full amount of assessment is tantamount to finding that such benefits are equal and uniform, warranting the adoption of foot front rule. Murphy v. Metropolitan Utilities District, 126 Neb. 663, 255 N.W. 20 (1934).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.