Nebraska Revised Statute 31-411
Directors; duties; plans; apportionment of benefits; area method of allocation, authorized.
The board of directors having adopted the plans of public works and apportionment of benefits method of financing, shall apportion the benefits thereof accruing to the several tracts of land within the district which will be benefited thereby, on a system of units. The land least benefited shall be apportioned one unit of assessment, and each tract receiving a greater benefit shall be apportioned a greater number of units or fraction thereof, according to the benefits received. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the district from establishing separate areas within the district so as to permit future allocation of costs for particular portions of the work to specific areas. This area method of allocation shall not be used in any district which has heretofore made a final apportionment of units of benefits and shall not thereafter be changed except by compliance with the procedure prescribed in sections 31-411 to 31-412.
- Laws 1907, c. 153, § 11, p. 479;
- R.S.1913, § 1876;
- C.S.1922, § 1823;
- C.S.1929, § 31-511;
- R.S.1943, § 31-411;
- Laws 1961, c. 139, § 1, p. 403;
- Laws 1969, c. 245, § 2, p. 897;
- Laws 1972, LB 1053, § 5.
Adoption of detailed plans is a jurisdictional requirement. Prucka v. Eastern Sarpy Drainage Dist., 157 Neb. 284, 59 N.W.2d 761 (1953).
Assessing of one-half units not out of line proportionately with assessment of benefits for tract involved is not a jurisdictional defect. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Payne Creek Drainage Dist., 148 Neb. 139, 26 N.W.2d 607 (1947).
Compliance with requirement of first making detailed plans of the work to be done is a condition precedent to the apportionment of benefits to lands within a drainage district. Haecke v. Eastern Sarpy County Drainage Dist., 141 Neb. 628, 4 N.W.2d 744 (1942).
Special taxes should not be levied in excess of benefits conferred. Scottsbluff Drainage District v. Scotts Bluff County, 113 Neb. 187, 202 N.W. 455 (1925).
Apportionment was unequal where lands were charged on the basis of one-fifth of their value, and railroad and county on total value of losses saved. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Platte Valley Drainage District, 113 Neb. 49, 201 N.W. 648 (1924).
Section is constitutional, though it does not require notice before adopting plan of drainage, or that apportionment precede construction of improvements, etc. O'Brien v. Schneider, 88 Neb. 479, 129 N.W. 1002 (1911).
Section sustained as constitutional against claim of taking property without due process of law. State ex rel. Harris v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 738, 117 N.W. 412 (1908).