Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-617

The mayor and city council of any city of the first class shall have power to construct and make improvements of any street, streets, alley, alleys, sidewalk, sidewalks, public way, public ways, other public spaces, or any part of any street, streets, alley, alleys, sidewalk, sidewalks, public way, public ways, or other public spaces, in the city, a street which divides the corporate limits of the city and the area adjoining the city, or within a county industrial area as defined in section 13-1111 contiguous to such city, and for that purpose to create suitable improvement districts, which shall be consecutively numbered, and such work shall be done under contract. Such districts may include properties within the corporate limits, adjoining the corporate limits, and within county industrial areas as defined in section 13-1111 contiguous to such cities. The improvements in such districts may be funded at public cost or by the levy of special assessments on the property especially benefited in proportion to such benefits. The mayor and city council shall create an improvement district or districts by ordinance.

Laws 1901, c. 18, § 48, p. 259;

Laws 1901, c. 19, § 4, p. 307;

Laws 1907, c. 13, § 1, p. 114;

R.S.1913, § 4916;

Laws 1915, c. 86, § 1, p. 225;

Laws 1917, c. 95, § 1, p. 254;

C.S.1922, § 4084;

Laws 1925, c. 50, § 1, p. 191;

C.S.1929, § 16-613;

Laws 1933, c. 27, § 1, p. 202;

C.S.Supp.,1941, § 16-613;

R.S.1943, § 16-617;

Laws 1967, c. 67, § 3, p. 219;

Laws 1969, c. 81, § 2, p. 413;

Laws 1979, LB 136, § 1;

Laws 2016, LB704, § 84;

Laws 2025, LB90, § 1.

City acted within its authority when it made improvements to a street located along the city's corporate limits. Iverson v. City of North Platte, 243 Neb. 506, 500 N.W.2d 574 (1993).

City acted within its authority when it made improvements to a street located along the city's corporate limits. Iverson v. City of North Platte, 243 Neb. 506, 500 N.W.2d 574 (1993).

Ordinance is required to state the kind of improvement that is proposed to be made. Danielson v. City of Bellevue, 167 Neb. 809, 95 N.W.2d 57 (1959).

Ordinance is required to state the kind of improvement that is proposed to be made. Danielson v. City of Bellevue, 167 Neb. 809, 95 N.W.2d 57 (1959).

Where city council found property owner failed to file sufficient objection within twenty days of creation of district, it acted judicially, and unless appealed from such finding was final. Hiddleson v. City of Grand Island, 115 Neb. 287, 212 N.W. 619 (1927).

Where city council found property owner failed to file sufficient objection within twenty days of creation of district, it acted judicially, and unless appealed from such finding was final. Hiddleson v. City of Grand Island, 115 Neb. 287, 212 N.W. 619 (1927).

Under prior act, a petition of the property owners was not necessary for the creation of a paving district. Broghamer v. City of Chadron, 107 Neb. 532, 186 N.W. 362 (1922).

Under prior act, a petition of the property owners was not necessary for the creation of a paving district. Broghamer v. City of Chadron, 107 Neb. 532, 186 N.W. 362 (1922).

Description in paving ordinance was sufficient. Chittenden v. Kibler, 100 Neb. 756, 161 N.W. 272 (1917).

Description in paving ordinance was sufficient. Chittenden v. Kibler, 100 Neb. 756, 161 N.W. 272 (1917).

In absence of a limitation in the act granting it authority to issue bonds, the city had power to levy sufficient taxes to pay the same. United States ex rel. Masslich v. Saunders, 124 F. 124 (8th Cir. 1903).

In absence of a limitation in the act granting it authority to issue bonds, the city had power to levy sufficient taxes to pay the same. United States ex rel. Masslich v. Saunders, 124 F. 124 (8th Cir. 1903).