(1) Except as provided in sections 13-1111 to 13-1120 and 16-130 and subject to this section, the mayor and city council of a city of the first class may by ordinance at any time include within the corporate limits of such city any contiguous or adjacent lands, lots, tracts, streets, or highways as are urban or suburban in character and in such direction as may be deemed proper. Such grant of power shall not be construed as conferring power upon the mayor and city council to extend the limits of a city of the first class over any agricultural lands which are rural in character.
(2) The invalidity of the annexation of any tract of land in one ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining tracts of land which are annexed by the ordinance and which otherwise conform to state law.
(3) The city council proposing to annex land under the authority of this section shall first adopt both a resolution stating that the city is proposing the annexation of the land and a plan for extending city services to the land. The resolution shall state:
(a) The time, date, and location of the public hearing required by subsection (5) of this section;
(b) A description of the boundaries of the land proposed for annexation; and
(c) That the plan of the city for the extension of city services to the land proposed for annexation is available for inspection during regular business hours in the office of the city clerk.
(4) The plan adopted by the city council shall contain sufficient detail to provide a reasonable person with a full and complete understanding of the proposal for extending city services to the land proposed for annexation. The plan shall (a) state the estimated cost impact of providing the services to such land, (b) state the method by which the city plans to finance the extension of services to the land and how any services already provided to the land will be maintained, (c) include a timetable for extending services to the land proposed for annexation, and (d) include a map drawn to scale clearly delineating the land proposed for annexation, the current boundaries of the city, the proposed boundaries of the city after the annexation, and the general land-use pattern in the land proposed for annexation.
(5) A public hearing on the proposed annexation shall be held within sixty days following the adoption of the resolution proposing to annex land to allow the city council to receive testimony from interested persons. The city council may recess the hearing, for good cause, to a time and date specified at the hearing.
(6) A copy of the resolution providing for the public hearing shall be published in a legal newspaper in or of general circulation in the city at least once not less than ten days preceding the date of the public hearing. A map drawn to scale delineating the land proposed for annexation shall be published with the resolution. A copy of the resolution providing for the public hearing shall be sent by first-class mail following its passage to the school board of any school district in the land proposed for annexation.
(7) Any owner of property contiguous or adjacent to a city of the first class may by petition request that such property be included within the corporate limits of such city. The mayor and city council may include such property within the corporate limits of the city without complying with subsections (3) through (6) of this section.
(8) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, the mayor and city council are not required to approve any petition requesting annexation or any resolution or ordinance proposing to annex land pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 765 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 18× “Sarpy alleged that the annexations were null and void and that an injunction should be issued against the ordinances, because the properties were not contiguous to the municipality, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Reissue 2007). Papillion disagreed and argued that Sarpy…”
Adam v. City of Hastings, 676 N.W.2d 710 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The City enacted these ordinances pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (1) (Reissue 1997), which provides, inter alia, as follows: The corporate limits of a city of the first class shall remain as before, and the mayor and council may by ordinance .”
Swedlund v. City of Hastings, 501 N.W.2d 302 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Reissue 1987) provides: The corporate limits of a city of the first class shall remain as before, and the mayor and council may by ordinance, except as provided in sections 13-1111 to 13-1118, and amendments thereto, at any time, include within the…”
Johnson v. City of Hastings, 488 N.W.2d 20 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 4× “§ 16-117 (Reissue 1987), which grants cities of the first class the power to extend the city limits, states: The corporate limits of a city of the first class shall remain as before, and the mayor and council may by ordinance, except as provided in sections 13-1111 to 13-1118,…”
City of Springfield v. City of Papillion, 883 N.W.2d 647 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Springfield filed suit, claiming the annexation was invalid under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-117 to 16-130 (Reissue 2012).”
Plumfield Nurseries, Inc. v. Dodge Cnty., 167 N.W.2d 560 (Neb. 1969).
· cites it 5× “The property was annexed under the provisions of section 16-117, R. S. Supp., 1967, which provides in part as follows: “The corporate limits of a city of the first class shall remain as before, and the mayor and council may by ordinance, * * * at any time, include within the…”
Doolittle v. Cnty. of Lincoln, 214 N.W.2d 248 (Neb. 1974).
· cites it 6× “The precise question involved is whether the territory purportedly annexed is “contiguous or adjacent” within the meaning of sections 16-117 and ,16-118, R. R. S. 1943.”
Voss v. City of Grand Island, 182 N.W.2d 427 (Neb. 1970).
· cites it 2× “1943, which provides: “* * * the mayor and council may by ordinance * * * at any time include within the corporate limits of such city any contiguous or adjacent lands, lots, tracts, streets, or highways as are urban or suburban in character, and in such direction as may be…”
United States v. City of Bellevue, Nebraska, 334 F. Supp. 881 (D. Neb. 1971).
· cites it 5× “The City of Bellevue, Nebraska, is a city of the first class and its power to annex surrounding territory is governed by Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 16-117 through 16-121 [Reissue 1970].”
Adam v. City of Hastings, 668 N.W.2d 272 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “3718 was based on the City’s failure to follow the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Reissue 1997) in adopting the ordinance.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117(1) — 3 cases
Cnty. of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 765 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 2009).
“Sarpy alleged that the annexations were null and void and that an injunction should be issued against the ordinances, because the properties were not contiguous to the municipality, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Reissue 2007). Papillion disagreed and argued that Sarpy…”
Adam v. City of Hastings, 668 N.W.2d 272 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
“3718 was based on the City’s failure to follow the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Reissue 1997) in adopting the ordinance.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117(2) — 1 case
Cnty. of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 765 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 2009).
“Sarpy alleged that the annexations were null and void and that an injunction should be issued against the ordinances, because the properties were not contiguous to the municipality, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Reissue 2007). Papillion disagreed and argued that Sarpy…”
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.