23-908. Budget revision; power of county board; hearing.

348 words·~2 min read·/ne/chapter-23/23-908

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

The county board shall consider the budget document, as submitted to it by the budget-making authority, of the county, and may, in its discretion, revise, alter, increase or decrease the items contained in the budget, but not without first having a hearing with the office or department affected; Provided, however, that when it shall increase the total proposed expenditures of the budget it shall also increase the total anticipated income so that the total means of financing the budget shall at least equal in amount the aggregate proposed expenditures, including the operating reserve.

A county board can use its general budgetary authority to reasonably reduce an officer's overall budget as long as it does not budget the office out of existence or unduly hinder the officer in performing his or her duties. Wetovick v. County of Nance, 279 Neb. 773, 782 N.W.2d 298 (2010).

This section does not control a budget dispute when a more specific statute applies. The controlling statute for a budget dispute over salary and working conditions for an elected county official's employees is section 23-1111. Wetovick v. County of Nance, 279 Neb. 773, 782 N.W.2d 298 (2010).

The power of a county board to reduce requests submitted by various offices does not give the county board the authority to budget a particular office out of existence or to unduly hinder an officer in the conduct of his or her duties. State ex rel. Garvey v. County Bd. of Comm. of Sarpy County, 253 Neb. 694, 573 N.W.2d 747 (1998).

This section does not give a county board the authority to budget a particular office out of existence or to unduly hinder the officer in the conduct of his duties. Meyer v. Colin, 204 Neb. 96, 281 N.W.2d 737 (1979).

This section confers authority to revise, alter, increase, or decrease general county budget documents. State ex rel. Agricultural Extension Service v. Miller, 182 Neb. 285, 154 N.W.2d 469 (1967).

Under facts recited, county was liable for reasonable value of services of auditor making investigation. Campbell v. Douglas County, 142 Neb. 773, 7 N.W.2d 764 (1943).