Idaho Code § 63-802 defines the process for a county to levy property taxes. The statute outlines the annual budget process, which includes public notice, hearings, and adoption of a budget by the board of county commissioners. Once the budget is adopted, the county assessor is responsible for determining the assessed value of taxable property within the county. The county tax collector then applies the mill levy, which is the tax rate, to the assessed value to calculate the property tax amount. A mill is defined as one-tenth of a cent, or $0.001, of value. Therefore, a mill levy of 10 mills means a tax of $10 for every $1,000 of assessed value. If a property has an assessed value of $250,000 and the county levies 10 mills, the total property tax would be calculated as follows: Assessed Value = $250,000 Mill Levy = 10 mills Taxable amount per $1,000 of assessed value = $10 (since 10 mills * $1,000 = $10) Number of $1,000 increments in assessed value = $250,000 / $1,000 = 250 Total Property Tax = Number of $1,000 increments * Taxable amount per $1,000 of assessed value Total Property Tax = 250 * $10 = $2,500 This calculation demonstrates how the mill levy, when applied to the assessed property value, determines the final property tax liability for a taxpayer in Idaho. The process is governed by Idaho statutes that ensure transparency and public participation in the budgeting and taxation process. Understanding the relationship between assessed value, mill levy, and the final tax amount is crucial for local government finance and property ownership in Idaho.

Idaho Code § 63-3621(1) outlines the distribution of sales and use tax revenue collected by the state. For sales occurring within a city, the law mandates that 100% of the state’s share of the sales tax collected within that city’s incorporated limits is remitted back to that city. Similarly, for sales occurring within the unincorporated area of a county, 100% of the state’s share of the sales tax collected within those unincorporated areas is remitted back to the county. This ensures that local governments receive the full benefit of sales tax generated within their respective jurisdictions. The Idaho State Tax Commission is responsible for administering this distribution. This mechanism is a key component of local government finance in Idaho, providing a significant revenue stream for essential public services. The principle is to directly link the tax revenue to the geographic area where the economic activity generating the tax occurred, thereby supporting local governance and service provision.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically Idaho Code Title 50, outlines the powers and limitations of municipal corporations. When a municipality wishes to annex territory, it must follow prescribed statutory procedures to ensure the legality and validity of the annexation. Idaho Code § 50-221 details the process for annexation by ordinance, which requires a proposal by the municipal governing body, a public hearing, and ultimately, an ordinance adopted by the council. This process is designed to provide notice to affected landowners and residents and to allow for public input. The question focuses on the legal mechanism for a city to incorporate adjacent, uninhabited land that is not already within any municipal boundary. This is a core aspect of municipal expansion and is governed by specific provisions within the Local Government Act. The correct procedure involves a formal legislative act by the city council, not a petition from landowners or a judicial decree, as these are alternative or supplementary mechanisms for different annexation scenarios or disputes. The Idaho Legislature has vested the power to annex in the municipal governing bodies through ordinance, subject to procedural safeguards.

The Idaho Code, specifically Title 67, Chapter 29, governs the formation and powers of cities and villages. When a petition for incorporation of a village is filed, the county auditor is tasked with verifying the sufficiency of the petition. Idaho Code Section 67-2903 outlines the requirements for such a petition, including the minimum number of qualified electors who must sign it. The law stipulates that a petition for village incorporation must be signed by at least twenty percent of the qualified electors residing within the proposed village boundaries. The county auditor’s role is to examine the petition to ensure it meets this threshold and other statutory requirements, such as the clarity of the proposed boundaries and the designation of a name for the village. If the petition is found to be sufficient, the auditor then proceeds to the next step in the incorporation process, which typically involves scheduling a public hearing. The verification process is a critical preliminary step to ensure that the proposed incorporation has the necessary support from the residents.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Idaho is considering a special assessment to fund infrastructure improvements. Idaho Code §50-2901 et seq. governs local improvement districts and special assessments. The key principle is that special assessments must be levied in proportion to the benefits received by the property. When a local government body, such as a county or city in Idaho, decides to undertake a public improvement project that will specially benefit certain properties, it can levy special assessments against those properties to pay for the improvement. The process typically involves establishing an improvement district, defining the scope of the project, preparing an engineer’s report detailing the project and the estimated costs, and importantly, preparing an assessment roll that allocates the costs among the benefited properties. This allocation is based on the principle of special benefit, meaning properties that receive a greater benefit from the improvement should bear a greater share of the cost. Common methods for apportioning costs include frontage, area, or a combination of factors that reflect the anticipated benefit. The Idaho Municipal Government Act and related statutes provide the framework for these actions, emphasizing due process, including notice and an opportunity for property owners to protest the proposed improvement and the assessment. The county commissioners, acting as the governing body, must consider these protests and make a determination based on the evidence presented, ensuring that the assessments are fair and equitable according to the benefits conferred.

The Idaho Municipal Code, specifically Idaho Code §50-1001, governs the establishment of municipal planning and zoning commissions. This statute empowers cities and villages to create such commissions to advise on land use matters. The process typically involves an ordinance adopted by the city or village council. The number of members on the commission is usually specified in this ordinance, with a common range being five to seven members, though the statute allows for variations. Terms of office are also established by ordinance, often staggered to ensure continuity. A key aspect of these commissions is their advisory role; they do not have final decision-making authority on zoning ordinances or plats. Instead, they review proposals and make recommendations to the governing body, which is the city council or village board. This advisory function is crucial for informed decision-making by elected officials. The Idaho Planning and Zoning Law, found in Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 65, further details the powers and duties of local governments regarding land use planning, including the role of planning and zoning commissions. These commissions are instrumental in developing comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations, all of which are subject to public hearings and council approval. The composition and appointment process are designed to bring diverse perspectives to land use planning, often including members with expertise in relevant fields.

In Idaho, the process of annexing territory into an existing city is governed by specific statutes, primarily found in Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 22. Generally, annexation requires either the consent of a majority of the landowners in the territory or a petition signed by at least 60% of the landowners, along with a majority of the electors residing in the territory, if any. The city must then adopt an ordinance describing the territory and the terms of annexation. A crucial aspect of this process involves ensuring that the annexed area meets statutory requirements, such as being contiguous to the existing city limits and not being unreasonably small or large in proportion to the city’s capacity to provide services. Furthermore, the annexation must not be initiated for the sole purpose of preventing the incorporation of a new city or to unduly fragment existing local government services. Idaho Code § 50-22-102 outlines the conditions for annexation by petition, requiring the petition to be signed by at least 60% of the landowners within the territory, and also by a majority of the electors residing within the territory, if any electors reside therein. The petition must describe the territory and state that it is contiguous to the municipal corporation. The city council then considers the petition and, if it meets all statutory requirements, can adopt an ordinance to annex the territory. This ordinance must be published and filed with the county recorder. The law aims to balance the expansion needs of municipalities with the rights of property owners and the orderly provision of public services across local government jurisdictions within Idaho.

The scenario involves a potential conflict of interest for a county commissioner in Idaho. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code Title 18, Chapter 13, addresses crimes and their punishment, including provisions related to public officers and conflicts of interest. Idaho Code Section 18-1352 prohibits public officers from being interested in any contract in which they are an officer, unless the contract is let by competitive bidding. In this case, Commissioner Albright’s private engineering firm is bidding on a road improvement project for the county. This constitutes a direct financial interest in a contract with the county, which the commissioner oversees and votes on. While the project might be subject to competitive bidding, the commissioner’s direct ownership and potential profit from the firm create a clear conflict. The Idaho Code emphasizes that such interests are prohibited to prevent corruption and ensure impartial decision-making. The appropriate action is for the commissioner to recuse themselves from any discussions, votes, or decisions related to the contract to avoid violating conflict of interest statutes. The question tests the understanding of these specific prohibitions in Idaho law concerning public officials and contractual relationships with their governmental entities.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning the powers of cities and counties, outlines the framework for how these entities can engage in intergovernmental agreements. Idaho Code §67-2328 grants broad authority to political subdivisions, including cities and counties, to enter into cooperative agreements for the performance of any function or the exercise of any power that each political subdivision is authorized to perform or exercise individually. This statute is foundational for understanding how local governments in Idaho can collaborate. When a city and a county in Idaho decide to jointly fund and operate a public park, they are exercising their statutory authority to cooperate on a matter of shared interest and benefit. The core principle here is that both entities must possess the independent authority to perform the function they are agreeing to jointly undertake. A city can operate a park within its limits, and a county can operate parks within its unincorporated areas or even within cities if authorized by agreement. Therefore, the legal basis for their joint park operation lies in their pre-existing powers to provide such services and the statutory authorization to cooperate in doing so. This cooperative agreement is a mechanism to efficiently deliver a public service that neither entity might be able to provide as effectively or affordably on its own. The agreement would typically detail the scope of the joint operation, funding contributions, management responsibilities, and dispute resolution mechanisms, all within the bounds of their respective governmental authorities and the cooperative agreement statute.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Idaho is considering enacting an ordinance that would impose a new fee on the development of new residential subdivisions. This fee is intended to fund improvements to local public infrastructure, such as roads and water systems, which are expected to be impacted by the increased population density. The core legal issue revolves around the authority of Idaho local governments to impose such fees and the legal basis for their imposition. Idaho Code Section 63-1330, concerning impact fees, provides the statutory framework for local governments to charge fees to offset the cost of public facilities necessitated by new development. These fees must be reasonably related to the projected impact of the development and must be used for the specific purpose for which they are collected. The ordinance must clearly define the scope of the fee, the infrastructure it will fund, and the methodology for calculating the fee to ensure it does not exceed the actual costs imposed by the development. Without this statutory authority and adherence to its provisions, the ordinance could be challenged as an unauthorized tax or an unconstitutional taking of private property. The county must demonstrate a direct nexus between the fee and the public facility costs attributable to the new development.

Idaho Code §63-1302 governs the allocation of state sales tax revenues to cities and counties. Specifically, it outlines the distribution formula for a portion of the state sales tax collected within a county. The statute establishes a mechanism where a percentage of the sales tax revenue generated from retail sales within a county is remitted back to that county. This distribution is intended to provide local governments with a revenue source to fund public services. The calculation involves a percentage of the state sales tax collected on sales within the county. For the purposes of this question, we will consider a hypothetical scenario where a county collects \$5,000,000 in state sales tax revenue in a given fiscal year. According to Idaho Code §63-1302, 1.5% of this collected revenue is designated for distribution back to the county. Therefore, the amount distributed to the county would be calculated as follows: \( \text{Amount Distributed} = \text{Total Sales Tax Collected} \times \text{Distribution Percentage} \) \( \text{Amount Distributed} = \$5,000,000 \times 0.015 \) \( \text{Amount Distributed} = \$75,000 \) This distribution mechanism is a critical component of local government finance in Idaho, providing a direct link between economic activity and local revenue capacity. The purpose is to support local services and infrastructure funded by sales tax. Understanding the specific percentage and the basis of calculation is vital for local government budget planning and financial management.

In Idaho, the process for a city to annex unincorporated territory is governed by Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 22. This chapter outlines various methods of annexation, including consent annexation, annexation by ordinance, and annexation of territory surrounded by city limits. For annexation by ordinance, a critical element is the determination of whether the territory meets the statutory requirements for incorporation or annexation, which typically involve population density and contiguity. Idaho Code § 50-2212 specifically addresses annexation by ordinance, requiring a petition signed by a majority of the landowners representing at least two-thirds of the value of the property within the territory, or a petition signed by at least 60% of the electors residing in the territory. If these conditions are met, the city council can adopt an ordinance annexing the territory. The ordinance must describe the territory with reasonable certainty and include provisions for extending city services. A significant procedural safeguard is the right of affected landowners or residents to challenge the annexation in district court within 30 days of the ordinance’s adoption, as per Idaho Code § 50-2214. This challenge can be based on procedural defects or failure to meet statutory requirements. The question focuses on the procedural aspect of annexation by ordinance and the potential legal challenges that can arise from it. The correct answer reflects the statutory timeframe for initiating such a challenge.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically regarding the formation of special districts, outlines procedures for initiating such formations. A petition for the creation of a new special district must be signed by a certain percentage of electors or landowners within the proposed district’s boundaries. Idaho Code §50-2907 details that for most special districts, the petition must be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the electors residing within the proposed district, or by the owners of at least twenty percent (20%) of the assessed valuation of the real property within the proposed district. However, specific types of districts might have different requirements. For instance, water and sewer districts might have variations. The critical element is that the petition must demonstrate sufficient support from the affected populace or property owners as defined by state statute to trigger the review and potential establishment process. The subsequent steps involve a hearing before the board of county commissioners and potentially an election, but the initial threshold for petition submission is paramount. The statute aims to ensure a demonstrable local interest before proceeding with the creation of a new governmental entity.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Idaho is considering adopting a new ordinance that would restrict the types of agricultural operations allowed within a specific zoning district. Idaho Code § 63-3621 grants cities and counties the authority to levy sales and use taxes, but this authority is generally limited to specific purposes, such as funding public safety or infrastructure projects. However, the power to regulate land use and zoning is primarily derived from Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 65, the Local Planning Act. This act empowers local governments to adopt comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. When a local ordinance conflicts with state law or exceeds the powers granted to the local government, it can be challenged. In this case, the proposed ordinance attempts to regulate agricultural practices, which are often subject to state-level agricultural law and can be considered a fundamental aspect of the state’s economy. While counties have broad zoning powers, these powers are not absolute and must be exercised in a manner consistent with state law and public policy. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently held that local ordinances cannot infringe upon fundamental state interests or powers reserved to the state. Regulating agricultural practices, particularly those that are lawful and established, could be viewed as an attempt by the county to exercise authority beyond its delegated powers, potentially impinging on the state’s interest in promoting agriculture. Therefore, the ordinance would likely be challenged on the grounds that it exceeds the county’s statutory authority under Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 65, by attempting to regulate matters that are primarily within the purview of state agricultural law or that represent a fundamental state interest that cannot be unduly burdened by local regulation.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning intergovernmental cooperation, allows for the creation of joint agencies or authorities by political subdivisions. Idaho Code § 67-2328 outlines the framework for such agreements. When two or more political subdivisions, such as a county and a city within Idaho, agree to jointly exercise powers or provide services, they may form a public agency. This agency is established through a written agreement, often termed an “interlocal cooperation agreement.” This agreement details the purpose, powers, responsibilities, financing, and governance of the joint entity. The formation of such a joint agency does not create a separate municipal corporation unless the agreement explicitly states so and meets specific statutory requirements for incorporation. The primary purpose is to facilitate shared service delivery or joint project execution, leveraging resources and expertise more efficiently. The question probes the legal status and operational framework of such a collaborative venture under Idaho law, focusing on whether it constitutes a new, independent municipal entity by default.

The scenario describes a situation where a city council in Idaho is considering a zoning ordinance amendment that would significantly impact agricultural land use within its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Idaho Code Section 63-119 establishes the framework for agricultural land valuation for property tax purposes, specifically addressing how land used for agricultural purposes is assessed. When a local government, such as a city, enacts a zoning ordinance that changes the use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural, it can trigger a rollback of property tax benefits previously afforded to agricultural land. This rollback is intended to recapture the tax revenue that would have been collected if the land had been assessed at its market value rather than its agricultural use value. The rollback typically involves a period of several years, often five, during which the difference between the agricultural use value and the market value assessment is applied as an additional tax. In this case, the proposed zoning amendment would constitute a change in use, thereby initiating the rollback provisions under Idaho law. The correct response must reflect this statutory consequence of altering agricultural land’s zoning classification.

Idaho Code Section 63-1301 et seq. governs property tax administration, including the duties of county assessors and the process for property valuation and assessment. For property tax purposes, the market value of real property is defined as the price that would be paid for it in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell, and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. This valuation is to be determined as of the assessment date, which is January 1st of each year, as per Idaho Code Section 63-302. The assessor is tasked with annually discovering, listing, and valuing all taxable property within their county. This includes real property, which is assessed at its market value less any applicable exemptions. The principle of uniformity and proportionality, mandated by the Idaho Constitution and statutes, requires that all property similarly situated be treated alike for tax assessment purposes. When assessing agricultural land, Idaho law utilizes a productivity or income approach, considering the land’s capability to produce income, rather than its potential for other uses, to ensure fairness and to support agricultural operations within the state. This distinction is crucial for understanding how different types of property are valued under Idaho’s tax system.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning the formation of new cities, outlines a detailed process that requires adherence to statutory requirements. When a petition for incorporation is submitted, the county recorder’s office is responsible for verifying the signatures against the voter registration records of the county. This verification is a crucial initial step to ensure that the petition meets the minimum threshold of valid signatures from eligible electors within the proposed municipal boundaries. Idaho Code §50-101 governs the petition requirements for incorporation, mandating that the petition must be signed by a specified percentage of the qualified electors residing within the proposed territory. The county recorder’s role is to confirm the authenticity and validity of these signatures, ensuring that only registered voters within the specified area have signed, and that each signature is genuine. This verification process is not about assessing the feasibility or desirability of the incorporation, but rather about confirming the procedural prerequisite of sufficient public support as demonstrated by the signatures. Subsequent steps, such as the feasibility study and the election, address the substantive aspects of the incorporation proposal. Therefore, the county recorder’s primary function in this initial stage is the validation of the electors’ signatures on the incorporation petition.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning intergovernmental cooperation, allows for joint exercise of powers. Idaho Code §67-2328 outlines the framework for such agreements. When a city and a county in Idaho decide to jointly provide a service, such as solid waste management, they typically enter into an intergovernmental service agreement. This agreement must specify the purpose of the cooperation, the powers to be exercised jointly, the manner of financing, the organization and legal status of the joint undertaking, and the term of the agreement. Crucially, the act emphasizes that such agreements do not alter the fundamental governmental status of the participating entities. A city remains a city and a county remains a county, each retaining its distinct legal identity and powers not delegated or shared through the agreement. The agreement itself is a contract, and its terms are binding on the parties. However, the ability of one party to unilaterally withdraw from such an agreement is generally governed by the terms of the agreement itself and the principles of contract law, rather than an automatic statutory right of withdrawal. The Idaho Code does not grant an automatic right for a participating local government to unilaterally terminate an intergovernmental service agreement without cause or adherence to the agreement’s provisions, unless the agreement explicitly allows for it with specified notice. The primary mechanism for modifying or terminating such agreements involves mutual consent or the procedures stipulated within the agreement itself.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning the formation of new cities, outlines a rigorous process that balances the desire for municipal incorporation with the need to protect existing governmental structures and taxpayer interests. Idaho Code §50-1-101 et seq. details the requirements for incorporation, including population thresholds, land area, and the submission of a feasibility study and a proposed budget. A critical aspect of this process is the petition phase, where a significant percentage of resident freeholders must sign a petition to initiate the incorporation proceedings. Idaho Code §50-1-102 mandates that the petition must be signed by at least 60% of the resident freeholders within the proposed municipal boundaries. Freeholders are defined as individuals who own real property within the proposed area. The petition must also include a clear description of the proposed municipal boundaries. Following the submission of a valid petition, the county board of commissioners reviews the application, holding public hearings to gather input from affected residents and stakeholders. If the petition meets all statutory requirements and the board finds that incorporation is in the public interest, an election is called. The election requires a majority vote of the qualified electors within the proposed territory for the city to be incorporated. This multi-stage process ensures that incorporation is a well-considered decision, supported by a substantial portion of the affected property owners and the electorate, while also safeguarding against the fragmentation of local governance without demonstrable need or benefit.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning intergovernmental cooperation, outlines the framework for how political subdivisions within Idaho can collaborate. Idaho Code § 67-2326 grants broad authority to cities, counties, and other local units to enter into agreements for joint performance of governmental functions, powers, or responsibilities. This includes the ability to establish joint agencies or authorities. The crucial element for the validity of such agreements, particularly when they involve the transfer or sharing of funds or personnel, is the requirement for a formal written agreement. This agreement must clearly define the scope of the cooperation, the responsibilities of each participating entity, the financial contributions, and the duration of the arrangement. Without a properly executed written agreement, any purported joint action or transfer of resources would be legally questionable and potentially unenforceable under Idaho law. The statute emphasizes that these agreements are not limited to specific functions but can encompass any governmental activity that the participating entities are authorized to perform individually. This fosters efficiency and resource optimization within the state’s local governance structure. The absence of a written agreement, especially when financial or operational commitments are involved, leaves the arrangement vulnerable to legal challenge and can lead to disputes over authority and liability.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning intergovernmental cooperation, permits various forms of collaboration between political subdivisions. Idaho Code §67-2327 outlines the authority for such agreements, allowing counties, cities, and other local entities to enter into contracts for the performance of any or all of their functions or powers. This includes joint exercise of powers. The key principle is that such agreements must be for a public purpose and benefit the participating entities. When considering the creation of a joint planning commission by a city and a county, the relevant Idaho statutes, such as those found in Title 67, Chapter 65 (County and City Planning), and the general intergovernmental cooperation provisions, support this type of arrangement. The establishment of a joint planning commission is a direct mechanism for shared responsibility in land use planning, which is a fundamental governmental function. The agreement would detail the scope of authority, funding, staffing, and decision-making processes of the joint commission. This type of cooperative venture is designed to achieve efficiencies, avoid duplication of services, and provide more comprehensive planning for areas that cross jurisdictional boundaries, thereby serving a clear public purpose.

The scenario involves a municipal planning and zoning commission in Idaho reviewing a proposed mixed-use development. The commission must consider various factors, including the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, potential impacts on infrastructure, and compliance with zoning ordinances. Idaho law, particularly through Title 67, Chapter 65 of the Idaho Code (the Local Planning Act), governs these processes. The comprehensive plan serves as the foundational document guiding land use decisions, ensuring orderly development and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. When a proposed project conflicts with the comprehensive plan, the commission must carefully evaluate the reasons for the deviation. If the deviation is minor and serves a compelling public interest or addresses unforeseen circumstances not contemplated in the original plan, it might be permissible. However, substantial deviations typically require amendments to the comprehensive plan itself, a process that often involves public hearings and approval by the elected governing body. The commission’s role is to act as an advisory body to the governing body, recommending approval or denial based on thorough review. The question focuses on the specific procedural requirement when a proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Idaho Code § 67-6521 mandates that if a proposed zoning ordinance or amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the planning and zoning commission must include in its recommendation to the governing body a written statement explaining the reasons for the inconsistency and the proposed action. This statement is crucial for transparency and for informing the governing body’s decision-making process. Therefore, the correct action is for the commission to provide a written explanation of the inconsistency.

The Idaho Municipal Code, specifically Title 50, governs the powers and duties of cities and villages. Idaho Code Section 50-101 outlines the general powers of a city, including the authority to purchase, hold, lease, sell, and convey property, both real and personal, for the use of the city. This broad grant of authority encompasses the ability to enter into various contractual agreements for the acquisition of necessary assets. When a city council decides to acquire a piece of land for a public purpose, such as a new park or administrative building, it must follow established procedures for property acquisition. These procedures typically involve appraisal, negotiation, and formal approval by the city council through a resolution or ordinance. The ability to use eminent domain is also a recognized power of municipal corporations in Idaho, as detailed in Title 7 of the Idaho Code, but this is a separate mechanism from voluntary purchase agreements. The question focuses on the general authority to acquire property through a standard transaction, which is inherently part of a city’s power to manage its affairs and provide public services. Therefore, the fundamental legal basis for a city council to purchase land in Idaho is derived from its statutory powers of property acquisition and management as granted by the Idaho Legislature.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning the formation of special districts, outlines a rigorous process that requires adherence to statutory requirements to ensure legitimacy and prevent arbitrary creation. When a petition for the formation of a new special district is filed with the board of county commissioners, the Act mandates a series of procedural steps. These steps are designed to provide public notice, allow for remonstrance, and ultimately determine if the proposed district is in the public interest and meets the statutory criteria. The board must first review the petition for compliance with legal requirements, including the number of signatures and the specificity of the proposed district’s boundaries and purpose. Following this initial review, a public hearing is scheduled. Notice of this hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the affected county, as prescribed by Idaho Code § 31-1509, which dictates the requirements for legal notices. This notice serves to inform all interested parties, including potential remonstrators, about the proposed district and the opportunity to voice objections. Idaho Code § 50-103, in conjunction with provisions for special districts, generally requires that a majority of the property owners within the proposed district, representing a majority of the assessed valuation of the property within the proposed district, must not file a remonstrance for the petition to proceed without further significant hurdles or potential dismissal. If a sufficient remonstrance is filed, the board of county commissioners has the authority to dismiss the petition. If no sufficient remonstrance is filed, the board then proceeds to consider the merits of the petition, which may involve further hearings and a determination of public necessity and feasibility. The correct option reflects this procedural safeguard where a majority of property owners’ opposition, measured by both number and value, can halt the formation process.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning the formation of new cities, outlines a rigorous process that balances the desire for self-governance with the need for fiscal responsibility and the impact on existing governmental structures. Idaho Code Section 50-101 et seq. governs municipal incorporation. A key requirement for incorporation is demonstrating that the proposed municipality can provide essential services and has a sound financial basis. The law requires a petition signed by a requisite percentage of eligible electors within the proposed boundaries. Following the petition, a public hearing is held, and then an election is conducted. The election must result in a majority vote in favor of incorporation. Crucially, the proposed city must demonstrate that it will not unduly burden existing infrastructure or services of surrounding areas, and that it has the capacity to fund its own operations, often through property taxes and other revenue sources. The process is designed to prevent the fragmentation of local government services and to ensure that new entities are viable and sustainable. The threshold for demonstrating the ability to provide services and financial viability is a critical hurdle, requiring detailed planning and projections.

In Idaho, the process for a county to annex unincorporated territory requires adherence to specific statutory provisions to ensure legal validity and public interest. Idaho Code §67-6601 et seq. outlines the procedures for municipal incorporation and boundary changes, which generally apply to annexations. For a county to annex unincorporated territory, a formal petition process is typically involved, often requiring signatures from a significant portion of the landowners within the territory to be annexed, or a resolution from the county itself. Following the petition or resolution, a public hearing must be conducted, providing an opportunity for affected residents and property owners to voice their concerns or support. The county commissioners then review the petition, the public testimony, and relevant planning documents, such as comprehensive plans, to determine if the annexation is in the public interest and meets statutory criteria. These criteria often include considerations of economic feasibility, provision of services, and impact on surrounding areas. If approved, the county commissioners will adopt an ordinance formally annexing the territory. This ordinance must be filed with the Idaho Secretary of State and the county recorder. The key legal principle is that the annexation must be undertaken in accordance with the powers granted to counties by the Idaho Legislature and must follow the prescribed procedural safeguards. This ensures that such significant boundary changes are not arbitrary and are undertaken with due process for all stakeholders.

In Idaho, the process for a city to annex territory is governed by specific statutory provisions, primarily found within Title 50 of the Idaho Code. Annexation can occur through various methods, including consent of property owners, or by a petition signed by a certain percentage of landowners or electors. Idaho Code § 50-221 outlines the requirements for a “consent annexation,” which often involves a majority of the landowners within the territory to be annexed, who also own a majority of the assessed value of the property within that territory. The city council must then adopt an ordinance approving the annexation after following procedural steps, which typically include public hearings and a review of feasibility studies, such as the impact on essential services. The question tests the understanding of the foundational legal basis for annexation in Idaho and the critical element of property owner consent as a primary driver for this type of municipal expansion. This is distinct from other methods like annexation by election or by court order, which have different procedural and consent thresholds. The emphasis is on the statutory framework that empowers cities to grow by incorporating adjacent unincorporated areas, ensuring that such expansion is legally sound and respects property rights.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning the formation of new cities, outlines a process that requires a petition signed by a specified percentage of eligible electors within the proposed boundaries. Idaho Code Section 50-101 details these requirements. For a city to be incorporated, the petition must be signed by at least 20% of the electors residing within the proposed municipal boundaries. These electors must also be property owners within the proposed area. The petition must then be presented to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the territory is situated. The county commissioners then review the petition for compliance with statutory requirements, including the sufficiency of signatures and the proper description of the proposed boundaries. If the petition is found to be sufficient, the commissioners can then call for an election on the question of incorporation. This process ensures that there is substantial local support and landowner interest before an election is held. The explanation focuses on the foundational requirement for initiating the incorporation process, which is the petition’s signature threshold and the property ownership prerequisite, as stipulated by Idaho law.

The Idaho Local Government Act, specifically concerning intergovernmental cooperation, permits agreements between political subdivisions for shared services or joint projects. Idaho Code §67-2328 outlines the authority for such agreements, allowing cities, counties, and other local entities to contract with each other. These agreements can cover a broad range of functions, including but not limited to, public safety, infrastructure development, and administrative services. A critical aspect of these agreements is the requirement for formal adoption by ordinance or resolution by the governing body of each participating political subdivision. This ensures public accountability and proper legislative review. Furthermore, Idaho law generally requires that such agreements be filed with the Idaho Secretary of State, though specific filing requirements can vary based on the nature and scope of the agreement. The intent behind these provisions is to foster efficiency and cost-effectiveness in local governance by enabling collaborative solutions to common challenges faced by Idaho’s diverse communities. The ability to form these cooperative ventures is a cornerstone of modern local governance, allowing smaller or resource-constrained entities to access services or undertake projects that might otherwise be prohibitive. The question hinges on understanding the statutory framework that empowers and regulates these interlocal agreements within Idaho.