23-125. Additional tax; when authorized; limitation.
Whenever the county board deems it necessary to assess taxes the aggregate of which exceeds the rate of fifty cents on every one hundred dollars of the taxable value of all the taxable property in such county, the county board may, by an order entered of record, set forth substantially the amount of such excess required and the purpose for which the same will be required, and if for the payment of interest, principal, or both upon bonds, such order shall in a general way designate the bonds and specify the number of years such excess must be levied and provide for the submission of the question of assessing the additional rate required to a vote of the people of the county at the next election for county officers after the adoption of the resolution or at a special election ordered by the county board for that purpose. If the proposition for such additional tax is carried, the same shall be paid in money and in no other manner. The additional tax shall not have a duration greater than five years, except that such five-year limitation shall not apply to any additional tax approved by the voters of the county for payment of principal and interest on bonded indebtedness. The additional tax is excluded from the limitation in section 77-3442 as provided by section 77-3444.
Source
Annotations
Authority to levy tax in excess of constitutional limit is conferred. State ex rel. Shelley v. Board of County Commissioners of Frontier County, 156 Neb. 583, 57 N.W.2d 129 (1953).
Purpose to authorize taxation beyond constitutional limitation must be stated in proposition. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. County of Gosper, 153 Neb. 805, 46 N.W.2d 147 (1951).
Section does apply to procedure for issuance of bonds under county fair act. Richardson v. Kildow, 116 Neb. 648, 218 N.W. 429 (1928).
Board is not authorized to issue refunding bonds under this section. State ex rel. Otoe County v. Babcock, 23 Neb. 802, 37 N.W. 645 (1888).
This section does not apply to bonds issued before 1879. Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Saunders County, 17 Neb. 318, 22 N.W. 560 (1885).
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.