Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 13
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804 (2026)

Public agencies; powers; agreements

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Any power or powers, privileges, or authority exercised or capable of exercise by a public agency of this state may be exercised and enjoyed jointly with any other public agency of this state and jointly with any public agency of any other state or of the United States to the extent that laws of such other state or of the United States permit such joint exercise or enjoyment. Any agency of state government when acting jointly with any public agency may exercise and enjoy all of the powers, privileges, and authority conferred by the Interlocal Cooperation Act upon a public agency.

(2) Any two or more public agencies may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Appropriate action by ordinance, resolution, or otherwise pursuant to law of the governing bodies of the participating public agencies shall be necessary before any such agreement may enter into force.

(3) Any such agreement shall specify the following:

(a) Its duration;

(b) The general organization, composition, and nature of any separate legal or administrative entity created by the agreement together with the powers delegated to the entity;

(c) Its purpose or purposes;

(d) The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and maintaining a budget;

(e) The permissible method or methods to be employed in accomplishing the partial or complete termination of the agreement and for disposing of property upon such partial or complete termination;

(f) The manner of levying, collecting, and accounting for any tax authorized under sections 13-318 to 13-326 or 13-2813 to 13-2816; and

(g) Any other necessary and proper matters.

(4) In the event that the agreement does not establish a separate legal entity to conduct the joint or cooperative undertaking, the agreement shall, in addition to items enumerated in subsection (3) of this section, contain the following:

(a) Provision for an administrator or a joint board responsible for administering the joint or cooperative undertaking. In the case of a joint board, the public agencies party to the agreement shall be represented; and

(b) The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking.

(5) No agreement made pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act shall relieve any public agency of any obligation or responsibility imposed upon it by law except to the extent of actual and timely performance by a joint board or other legal or administrative entity created by an agreement made pursuant to the act, which performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsibility.

(6) In the event that an agreement made pursuant to this section creates a joint entity, such joint entity shall be subject to control by its members in accordance with the terms of the agreement; shall constitute a separate public body corporate and politic of this state, exercising public powers and acting on behalf of the public agencies which are parties to such agreement; and shall have power (a) to sue and be sued, (b) to have a seal and alter the same at pleasure or to dispense with its necessity, (c) to make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers, and (d) from time to time, to make, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations, not inconsistent with the Interlocal Cooperation Act and the agreement providing for its creation, to carry out and effectuate its powers and purposes.

(7) No entity created by local public agencies pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act shall be considered a state agency, and no employee of such an entity shall be considered a state employee.

(8) Any governing body as defined in section 13-503 which is a party to an agreement made pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act shall provide information to the Auditor of Public Accounts regarding such agreements as required in section 13-513.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2010–2017 · leading case: Estermann v. Bose, 892 N.W.2d 857 (Neb. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Estermann v. Bose, 892 N.W.2d 857 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 13× “On April 30, 2014, the office of the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, in which it stated that it sought to offer guidance regarding an opinion that was issued by the Attorney General and its impact on the court’s interpretation of § 13-804 of…”
City of Falls City v. NE MUN. POWER POOL, 777 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2010). · cites it 4× “" [3] Under § 13-804(2), any two or more public agencies may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.”
Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation Dist. v. Heineman, 974 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Neb. 2013). · cites it 6× “”); see also 36 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804 (6)(a). They are governed by an elected Board of Directors.”
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 13× “On April 30, 2014, the office of the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, in which it stated that it sought to offer guidance regarding an opinion that was issued by the Attorney General and its impact on the court’s interpretation of § 13-804 of…”
White v. Kohout, 286 Neb. 700 (2013). · cites it 3× “Although section 5.04 failed to support the challengers’ claim, the challengers nonetheless demonstrated a sufficient basis for their contention to create doubt as to whether their complaint was frivolous.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804(1): 2 cases
Estermann v. Bose, 892 N.W.2d 857 (Neb. 2017). “On April 30, 2014, the office of the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, in which it stated that it sought to offer guidance regarding an opinion that was issued by the Attorney General and its impact on the court’s interpretation of § 13-804 of…”
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2017). “On April 30, 2014, the office of the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, in which it stated that it sought to offer guidance regarding an opinion that was issued by the Attorney General and its impact on the court’s interpretation of § 13-804 of…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804(2): 3 cases
Estermann v. Bose, 892 N.W.2d 857 (Neb. 2017). “On April 30, 2014, the office of the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, in which it stated that it sought to offer guidance regarding an opinion that was issued by the Attorney General and its impact on the court’s interpretation of § 13-804 of…”
City of Falls City v. NE MUN. POWER POOL, 777 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2010). “" [3] Under § 13-804(2), any two or more public agencies may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.”
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2017). “On April 30, 2014, the office of the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, in which it stated that it sought to offer guidance regarding an opinion that was issued by the Attorney General and its impact on the court’s interpretation of § 13-804 of…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804(3): 1 case
City of Falls City v. NE MUN. POWER POOL, 777 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2010). “" [3] Under § 13-804(2), any two or more public agencies may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804(6): 2 cases
City of Falls City v. NE MUN. POWER POOL, 777 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2010). “" [3] Under § 13-804(2), any two or more public agencies may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.”
White v. Kohout, 286 Neb. 700 (2013). “Although section 5.04 failed to support the challengers’ claim, the challengers nonetheless demonstrated a sufficient basis for their contention to create doubt as to whether their complaint was frivolous.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804(7): 1 case
Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation Dist. v. Heineman, 974 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Neb. 2013). “”); see also 36 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-804 (6)(a). They are governed by an elected Board of Directors.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.