Iowa Code Chapter 25B, the Local Option Tax Limitation Act, governs the imposition of local option taxes. A county or city in Iowa may impose a local option sales tax if approved by a majority of the voters in an election held for that purpose. The law specifies that the revenue generated from a local option sales tax must be used for specific purposes, which can include property tax relief, funding for public improvements, or economic development projects. A crucial aspect is the allocation of these funds, which is determined by the proposition submitted to the voters. If a county imposes a local option sales tax, the revenue is typically distributed among the county and its constituent cities based on a formula or agreement, often related to population or the location of sales. The proposition must clearly state the rate of the tax, the effective date, and the specific uses of the revenue. The question tests the understanding of the statutory framework for local option taxes in Iowa, specifically focusing on the requirement for voter approval and the permissible uses of the generated revenue as outlined in Iowa Code Chapter 25B. The statutory authorization and the procedural requirements for implementing such a tax are central to local government finance in Iowa.

In Iowa, a county’s authority to enact ordinances is primarily derived from its constitutional and statutory powers. Specifically, Iowa Code Chapter 331 grants broad powers to counties, including the power to adopt and enforce ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations. One significant limitation is the requirement that county ordinances must not conflict with state law. This principle of preemption means that if the state has occupied a field of regulation, a county cannot enact an ordinance that contradicts or frustrates the state’s intent. Consider a situation where the Iowa Legislature enacts a comprehensive statewide zoning law that establishes specific regulations for agricultural land use across all counties. Subsequently, a particular Iowa county attempts to pass an ordinance that imposes stricter, more burdensome regulations on agricultural land use within its borders than those prescribed by the state law. In this scenario, the county ordinance would likely be deemed invalid due to state preemption. The state law, by its comprehensive nature and statewide application, indicates an intent to occupy the field of agricultural land use zoning. The county’s attempt to impose more stringent rules would directly conflict with this statewide regulatory scheme, rendering the county ordinance unenforceable. This aligns with the general legal principle that local governments derive their powers from the state and cannot exercise powers that conflict with state legislative enactments. The county’s power to zone is a delegated power, and its exercise must be consistent with the delegation.

In Iowa, the authority of a county to annex territory from an adjacent township is governed by specific statutory provisions, primarily found within Iowa Code Chapter 368, which deals with the creation, dissolution, and boundary changes of municipal corporations. When a city proposes to annex unincorporated territory, the process often involves consideration of the impact on adjacent townships. Specifically, Iowa Code Section 368.14 addresses the detachment of territory from a township upon its annexation by a city. This section outlines that when territory is annexed by a city, it is automatically detached from the township in which it was previously located. This detachment is a legal consequence of the annexation process itself, designed to clarify jurisdiction and taxation. Therefore, no separate vote or formal action by the township is required for the territory to be detached once the annexation by the city is finalized and legally effective according to the procedures laid out in Iowa Code Chapter 368. The county’s role is administrative in recognizing and recording these boundary changes as dictated by the annexation ordinance and state law.

The Iowa Code, specifically Chapter 28E, governs intergovernmental agreements. This chapter permits political subdivisions within Iowa, such as cities and counties, to enter into agreements with each other or with political subdivisions of other states for the purpose of jointly exercising powers or performing functions that each subdivision is authorized to exercise or perform individually. Such agreements must be approved by resolution or ordinance of the governing body of each participating subdivision. The scope of these agreements can be broad, covering shared services, joint planning, or the creation of joint agencies. The question centers on the legal authority for a county in Iowa to contract with a private entity for a service that the county itself is empowered to provide. While Iowa Code Chapter 28E primarily addresses intergovernmental cooperation, the general authority for local governments to contract for services is found in other provisions, such as those granting powers to cities (e.g., Iowa Code Chapter 364) and counties (e.g., Iowa Code Chapter 331). These provisions generally allow for contracting with private entities unless specifically prohibited or when the service is a core governmental function that must be performed directly. In this scenario, a county’s ability to contract with a private waste management company for solid waste disposal services, a function typically authorized for counties, is permissible under general contracting powers, not necessarily requiring a Chapter 28E agreement, which is for intergovernmental cooperation. Therefore, the county can enter into such a contract, provided it aligns with its statutory powers and any applicable procurement regulations.

The Iowa Code, specifically chapter 384, governs the powers and duties of municipal corporations, including their ability to levy taxes and special assessments. When a municipality undertakes a public improvement project, such as paving a street, the cost can be financed through various means. One common method is through special assessments levied against properties that directly benefit from the improvement. The determination of the amount of a special assessment is typically based on the benefit conferred upon the property, not solely on the frontage of the property. While frontage is often a factor in the assessment calculation, it is not the exclusive determinant. Other factors can include the area of the property, its use, and its proximity to the improvement. In this scenario, the city council’s decision to assess properties solely based on their lineal footage along the improved street, without considering the actual benefit each parcel receives, may be challenged. Iowa law emphasizes that special assessments must be equitable and proportionate to the benefits received. A purely frontage-based assessment, without further consideration of differing property sizes or potential usage impacts, could be deemed arbitrary or confiscatory if it disproportionately burdens some properties compared to others that receive greater or lesser benefit. The principle of “special benefit” is paramount.

The scenario describes a situation where a city council in Iowa is considering a proposal to rezone a parcel of land from agricultural to commercial use. This rezoning is subject to specific procedural requirements under Iowa law to ensure due process and public participation. Chapter 358A of the Iowa Code, which governs county zoning, and similar principles apply to cities. A key aspect of zoning changes is the requirement for public notice and a hearing. Specifically, Iowa Code Section 335.6 outlines the notice requirements for zoning amendments, which generally include publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county (or city, for municipal zoning) at least once, not less than four days nor more than twenty days before the date of the hearing. Additionally, mailed notice to property owners within a certain radius of the affected property is often required, particularly for significant changes like rezoning. The city council must also consider the comprehensive plan and ensure the rezoning is consistent with it. The question focuses on the initial procedural step of public notification for a zoning amendment. The correct answer reflects the statutory requirements for providing public notice before a zoning hearing. The other options present variations in the notice period or method that do not align with the established legal framework in Iowa for zoning amendments, such as requiring notice only after the decision, providing notice solely through internal city memos, or omitting the publication requirement.

The Iowa Code, specifically Chapter 28E, governs intergovernmental cooperation among governmental units in Iowa. This chapter allows cities, counties, and other public agencies to enter into agreements for the joint exercise of powers and performance of functions. Such agreements, often termed “intergovernmental agreements” or “cooperative agreements,” are crucial for efficient service delivery and resource sharing. When a city in Iowa and a neighboring county in Iowa decide to jointly fund and operate a regional animal shelter, this action is facilitated and governed by the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 28E. This chapter provides the legal framework for such collaborations, outlining requirements for the agreement’s content, approval processes, and the respective rights and responsibilities of the participating entities. The core principle is that governmental units can pool resources and expertise to provide services that might be impractical or cost-prohibitive for a single unit to offer alone. This fosters efficiency and broader service access for citizens. The specific mechanism for this joint operation is a formal contract or agreement entered into under the authority of this chapter, ensuring legal compliance and clarity in the partnership.

The scenario describes a situation where a county board of supervisors in Iowa is considering the acquisition of private land for a new public park. Iowa Code Chapter 306 governs the acquisition of land for highway and other public purposes. Specifically, Section 306.20 of the Iowa Code outlines the process for acquiring property for public use, including the requirement for a written appraisal. The board must obtain at least one written appraisal of the property’s fair market value. This appraisal serves as the basis for determining a fair offer to the landowner. While negotiation is expected, the initial offer should be informed by this appraisal. Furthermore, Iowa Code Section 306.21 mandates that the acquiring authority must provide the property owner with a written offer to purchase, accompanied by a copy of the appraisal. The county cannot proceed with condemnation without first making a good-faith offer based on the appraisal. Therefore, the essential first step before making an offer or initiating eminent domain proceedings is to secure a written appraisal. The question tests the understanding of the procedural requirements for land acquisition by local governments in Iowa under state law. The process emphasizes due diligence and fair compensation through a formal appraisal.

The Iowa Code, specifically Chapter 28E, governs intergovernmental cooperation. This chapter allows political subdivisions of Iowa, including cities and counties, to enter into agreements to jointly exercise powers, privileges, or authority. Such agreements, often referred to as 28E agreements, must be authorized by the governing bodies of the participating subdivisions and typically require a written contract that specifies the purpose, duration, and operational details of the joint undertaking. These agreements are crucial for efficient service delivery, cost-sharing, and addressing regional issues that transcend individual governmental boundaries. For instance, multiple municipalities might enter into a 28E agreement to jointly fund and operate a regional animal shelter or a shared public safety dispatch system. The formation of a joint board or commission to oversee the cooperative venture is also a common feature, with its powers and responsibilities clearly delineated in the agreement. The key principle is that the participating entities retain their sovereign powers, but delegate specific operational responsibilities to the joint entity or to one of the participating subdivisions under the terms of the agreement. This framework promotes collaboration and avoids duplication of services, aligning with the efficient administration of local government in Iowa.

The scenario involves a county board of supervisors in Iowa considering a zoning amendment that would impact a specific agricultural property. Under Iowa Code Chapter 335, county zoning ordinances require a public hearing for any proposed amendments. Specifically, Iowa Code Section 335.8 mandates that the board of supervisors shall hold a public hearing after giving notice of the time and place of the hearing. This notice must be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, not less than four days nor more than twenty days before the hearing. Furthermore, for zoning map amendments, Iowa Code Section 335.8 also requires that notice be mailed to the owners of the property affected and to all property owners within a specified distance, typically 500 feet, of the property boundary. In this case, the board failed to provide mailed notice to the adjacent property owners, which is a procedural defect. While the board’s decision to rezone was based on a perceived public benefit of promoting diversified agriculture, the failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements renders the amendment potentially invalid. The proper procedure requires adherence to both published and mailed notice provisions for zoning map changes.

In Iowa, the process for a city to annex unincorporated territory is governed by specific statutory provisions, primarily found within Iowa Code Chapter 368. Annexation by mutual agreement, also known as voluntary annexation, requires a petition signed by a majority of the property owners in the territory to be annexed, representing a majority of the assessed value of the land. The city council then must adopt an ordinance approving the annexation. This method is often preferred for its relative simplicity and mutual consent. Alternatively, Iowa law provides for involuntary annexation, which can be initiated by the city under certain conditions, such as when the territory is contiguous to the city and lacks essential municipal services. However, involuntary annexation is subject to more stringent procedural requirements and potential objections from affected landowners or the county. The question focuses on the mutual agreement pathway. For a city to annex a contiguous unincorporated area by mutual agreement, Iowa Code § 368.14 outlines the requirements. A petition must be filed with the city clerk, signed by at least fifty percent of the resident electors residing in the territory and by the owners of at least seventy-five percent of the assessed value of the property in the territory. Upon receiving such a petition, the city council must adopt a resolution of intention to annex. After a public hearing, if no valid objections are filed by affected landowners, the city may adopt an ordinance to annex the territory. The provided scenario describes a petition that meets the property owner and assessed value thresholds, but it does not specify the number of resident electors. Iowa Code § 368.14(1)(b) requires both the majority of resident electors and the specified percentage of property owners by assessed value. Therefore, the annexation cannot proceed solely based on the property owner and assessed value percentages if the resident elector requirement is not met. The question tests the understanding of the dual requirements for voluntary annexation under Iowa law.

The Iowa Code, specifically chapter 384, governs the powers and duties of municipal corporations, including their authority to levy taxes and special assessments. When a city undertakes a public improvement project that specially benefits certain properties, it may levy special assessments against those properties to fund a portion of the project’s cost. The total amount of special assessments levied by a city in any fiscal year for any public improvement project cannot exceed twenty-five percent of the assessed value of the property against which the assessments are levied. This limitation is crucial for protecting property owners from excessive financial burdens. In this scenario, the city of Harmony Creek is planning a street resurfacing project. The total cost of the project is \$500,000. The city council has decided to fund \$300,000 of this cost through special assessments levied against the benefited properties. The total assessed value of the properties subject to these special assessments is \$1,500,000. To determine the maximum amount that can be levied as special assessments, we apply the twenty-five percent limitation: \(0.25 \times \$1,500,000 = \$375,000\). Since the proposed special assessment amount of \$300,000 is less than the maximum allowable amount of \$375,000, the city’s plan to levy \$300,000 in special assessments is legally permissible under Iowa Code section 384.38. The remaining \$200,000 of the project cost would need to be funded through other means, such as general obligation bonds or other legally available revenue sources. The explanation focuses on the statutory limitation on special assessments as a key principle in Iowa municipal finance, ensuring that the burden on individual property owners remains within statutory bounds.

The Iowa Code addresses the authority of cities to enact and enforce ordinances, including those related to public health and safety. Specifically, Iowa Code Chapter 364, “Powers and Duties,” grants cities broad authority to adopt and enforce ordinances for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to state preemption. State preemption occurs when state law occupies a particular field of regulation to the exclusion of local government. In Iowa, the legislature has explicitly preempted certain areas, such as environmental regulation and certain aspects of business licensing, meaning cities cannot enact ordinances that conflict with or attempt to regulate these preempted areas. When a city ordinance conflicts with a state law, the state law generally prevails. The question asks about the validity of a city ordinance that imposes stricter regulations on a matter already regulated by state law, but not explicitly preempted. In such cases, the Iowa Supreme Court has generally held that cities can enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state law, as long as they do not directly conflict with the state law’s intent or provisions. This principle is often referred to as the “home rule” power, allowing local governments to address local concerns. The scenario describes a city ordinance that is more stringent than state regulations concerning waste disposal practices. Since waste disposal is a matter of public health and safety, and the state law does not explicitly prohibit more stringent local regulations, the city ordinance is likely valid. The key is whether the city ordinance *conflicts* with the state law. If the state law sets a minimum standard, a city can generally impose a higher standard. The scenario does not indicate a direct conflict that would render the ordinance invalid under the principle of state preemption.

The scenario presented involves a conflict between a county’s zoning ordinance and a state statute regarding agricultural land use. In Iowa, county zoning authority is established by Iowa Code Chapter 335, which grants counties the power to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances. However, this authority is not absolute and can be preempted by state law. Iowa Code Chapter 172C, specifically concerning agricultural land, aims to protect and promote agricultural operations. When a county ordinance directly conflicts with a state statute that exhibits a clear intent to occupy the field or to supersede local regulation, the state law prevails under the principle of state preemption. In this case, the county’s ordinance restricts a farming practice explicitly permitted and protected by state statute. The Iowa Supreme Court has consistently held that state statutes, particularly those with a clear statewide purpose like promoting agriculture, will preempt conflicting local ordinances. Therefore, the county ordinance is invalid to the extent it prohibits the use of agricultural land for a purpose expressly allowed by state law. The county cannot enforce its ordinance in a manner that directly contradicts the state’s legislative intent to foster agricultural practices. The core legal principle at play is that local governments derive their powers from the state, and any local ordinance that conflicts with a valid state law is generally void.

The Iowa Code, specifically chapter 384, governs the powers and duties of municipal corporations. Section 384.12 outlines the authority of cities to levy taxes. Regarding special assessments, Iowa cities possess the power to levy assessments against benefited property for public improvements. This power is typically exercised under provisions like those found in Iowa Code chapter 386, which details the procedures for making public improvements and levying special assessments. The ability to levy assessments for services rendered, such as garbage collection, is also a recognized municipal power, often derived from general welfare clauses or specific statutory grants of authority related to public services. A city council, acting as the legislative body of the municipality, is the entity empowered to enact ordinances and resolutions to authorize and levy such assessments. The process generally involves identifying the improvement or service, determining the benefited area, calculating the assessment amounts based on benefit, and providing for notice and hearing for property owners. The question asks about the legal basis for a city to impose charges for services. While general property taxes are levied under a different authority, assessments for services are a valid exercise of municipal power, provided they are authorized by statute and follow due process. The key is that these charges are typically tied to a specific service provided to or benefiting a property, distinguishing them from general revenue-raising taxes. The authority for cities to levy assessments for services, like waste management, is a core aspect of their ability to provide essential public services and recover costs from those who directly benefit.

The scenario involves a city council in Iowa considering a proposal to rezone a parcel of land for a mixed-use development. The city is operating under its comprehensive plan, which designates the area as primarily residential. Rezoning requires adherence to Iowa Code Chapter 384, specifically provisions related to municipal planning and zoning. The core legal principle at play is that zoning ordinances must be in accordance with the municipality’s comprehensive plan. While a city has the authority to rezone, this power is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably and in furtherance of the public welfare, as guided by the comprehensive plan. If a proposed rezoning significantly deviates from the comprehensive plan without a compelling justification demonstrating changed conditions or a flaw in the original plan, it could be challenged as arbitrary or capricious. The city must demonstrate that the rezoning serves a legitimate public purpose and is consistent with the long-term vision outlined in its comprehensive plan, even if it introduces a new element. The comprehensive plan serves as a guiding document, and deviations must be well-reasoned and legally defensible. The council’s decision-making process should reflect a careful consideration of how the proposed development aligns with or diverges from the established community development goals.

The question pertains to the Iowa Code concerning the powers of a county board of supervisors regarding the establishment and maintenance of county roads. Specifically, it tests the understanding of the process for vacating a county road and the conditions under which such a vacation can occur. Iowa Code Chapter 313 outlines the procedures for highway relocation and abandonment. Section 313.12 addresses the vacation of roads by the board of supervisors. A key aspect of this process involves a determination that the road is no longer necessary for public travel. This determination requires a formal resolution by the board and often involves a public hearing. The statute also specifies that the board may require the petitioner for vacation to pay for any damages sustained by reason of the vacation. Furthermore, the board must consider whether the road is essential for access to any property. If the road provides the sole access to a property, its vacation would generally not be permitted without providing alternative access or compensation for the loss of access. The question focuses on the statutory authority and limitations placed upon the board of supervisors when considering a county road vacation petition. The correct answer reflects the statutory requirement for the board to consider the necessity of the road for public travel and potential impacts on property access, as well as the possibility of requiring petitioner payment for damages.

The scenario involves a county in Iowa considering the establishment of a special taxing district for the purpose of funding a new regional library. Iowa Code Chapter 441.35 grants county boards of supervisors the authority to levy taxes for county purposes, including the support of public libraries. However, the creation of a special taxing district for a specific project like a regional library often involves additional statutory provisions that may require voter approval or specific procedural steps beyond a simple board resolution. When a county establishes a special taxing district for a particular service or improvement, such as a library, it must adhere to the enabling statutes that govern such districts. These statutes typically outline the powers, organization, and financing mechanisms for these entities. In Iowa, the formation of various special districts is often governed by specific chapters within the Iowa Code, which may differ from general county taxing authority. For instance, the establishment of a county library service might fall under Iowa Code Chapter 336, which details county library services and their funding. If a special taxing district is envisioned to operate somewhat independently or to levy a tax specifically for the library beyond general county funds, the process would likely involve adherence to procedures for creating such districts, which often include public hearings and potentially a referendum if a new or additional levy is proposed that exceeds statutory limits or requires specific voter consent for the district’s creation. The question hinges on whether the county board can unilaterally create this district with a new levy, or if specific statutory procedures for special districts, which might involve voter consent, are mandatory. Given the creation of a *special taxing district* for a specific purpose, and the potential for a new levy or a dedicated funding mechanism, the most prudent and legally sound approach, reflecting common statutory requirements for special districts in Iowa, would involve ensuring compliance with any applicable voter approval provisions for the district’s establishment and its associated taxing authority. This aligns with the principle that significant local governance changes, particularly those involving dedicated taxation for a new entity, often require public input and consent.

The question pertains to the Iowa Code regarding the delegation of authority by a county board of supervisors. Specifically, it tests the understanding of which types of powers are generally non-delegable by a county board of supervisors to a subordinate official or committee. Iowa law, particularly within chapters related to county government and administrative procedures, outlines the principle that certain core governmental functions, often referred to as legislative, quasi-judicial, or discretionary powers, are inherently vested in the elected board and cannot be broadly delegated. This includes the power to levy taxes, enact ordinances, and make final decisions on significant administrative matters that require the exercise of independent judgment and accountability to the electorate. While ministerial or administrative tasks can often be delegated, the ultimate decision-making authority on policy and fundamental governance issues remains with the board. Therefore, the power to approve a county budget, which involves setting tax rates and allocating public funds, is a quintessential example of a non-delegable power. This is because budget approval represents a core legislative and fiscal responsibility of the board, requiring its direct oversight and approval.

The scenario involves a county board of supervisors in Iowa considering the acquisition of a privately owned parcel of land for the expansion of a public park. The county has identified a specific parcel, and negotiations with the owner have reached an impasse regarding the purchase price. Iowa Code Chapter 306, particularly sections related to eminent domain and public land acquisition, governs this situation. Specifically, when direct negotiation fails, a public entity like a county can initiate eminent domain proceedings. This process requires the county to formally adopt a resolution declaring the necessity of the land for public use and outlining the public purpose. Following this, a petition must be filed in the district court. The court then appoints commissioners to appraise the property and determine just compensation, which is defined as the fair market value of the property at the time of taking. The owner has the right to contest the necessity of the taking and the amount of compensation awarded. The key legal principle is that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and mirrored in Iowa’s state constitution. The county must follow the statutory procedures for eminent domain, including providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The question asks about the *initial* formal step the county must take if negotiations fail, which is the formal declaration of necessity.

The scenario involves a county board of supervisors in Iowa considering a zoning amendment that would reclassify agricultural land to commercial use. This action directly implicates the authority of local governments in Iowa to enact and amend zoning ordinances. Iowa Code Chapter 335 grants county boards of supervisors the power to adopt and enforce zoning regulations in unincorporated areas. However, this power is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with established legal principles, including due process and adherence to the comprehensive plan. When amending a zoning ordinance, the board must follow specific procedural requirements outlined in Iowa Code § 335.8, which typically include public notice and a public hearing. Furthermore, zoning decisions must generally be consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan, which serves as a guiding document for land use development. The question asks about the primary legal constraint on the board’s action. While factors like the comprehensive plan and procedural requirements are important, the most fundamental legal constraint on a local government’s zoning power is that the regulations must be enacted for a legitimate governmental purpose, such as promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare. This is often referred to as the “police power” of the state, delegated to local governments. If a zoning amendment is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or not rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, it can be challenged in court. Therefore, the primary legal constraint is ensuring the amendment serves a valid public welfare objective.

The scenario involves a municipal corporation in Iowa considering the issuance of revenue bonds to finance a public improvement project, specifically the construction of a new convention center. Iowa Code Section 384.24 outlines the authority of municipal corporations to issue bonds. Specifically, subsection 2 of this section permits the issuance of revenue bonds for the purpose of purchasing, erecting, condemning, improving, extending, repairing, or equipping any public utility, or for the purpose of constructing or improving any public works or improvements, including convention centers, and the acquisition of any land, existing buildings, or interests in land or buildings that are necessary or convenient for such purposes. The key aspect here is that revenue bonds, as defined in Iowa Code Chapter 298, are to be repaid from the revenue generated by the project itself or from other specified sources, not from the general credit or taxing power of the municipality. The question probes the understanding of the statutory basis for such financing. The correct option reflects the broad authorization for revenue bond issuance for convention centers under Iowa law. The other options present plausible but incorrect scenarios or legal bases. One might incorrectly assume that general obligation bonds are the only method for public works financing, or that specific legislative authorization beyond the general revenue bond provisions is always required for a convention center. Another incorrect option might misinterpret the scope of revenue bond financing, suggesting it’s limited to traditional utilities rather than broader public works.

The scenario involves a county board of supervisors in Iowa considering a zoning amendment that would reclassify a parcel of agricultural land for commercial development. Iowa Code Chapter 335 governs county zoning. Specifically, Section 335.23 outlines the procedures for amending zoning ordinances. This section mandates that any proposed amendment must be submitted to the county planning and zoning commission for a report. Following the commission’s report, the board of supervisors must hold a public hearing, with proper notice provided as per Iowa Code Section 335.6. The question tests the understanding of the procedural prerequisites for adopting a zoning amendment. The county board of supervisors cannot directly adopt an amendment without first obtaining the planning and zoning commission’s recommendation and conducting a public hearing. The absence of a recommendation from the commission and a public hearing renders the amendment procedurally defective. Therefore, the amendment is invalid.

The Iowa Code addresses the dissolution of special districts in various sections, with Chapter 358A (now repealed and largely incorporated into other chapters) and related provisions governing the process. When a county auditor receives a petition for the dissolution of a sanitary district, a specific procedural framework is activated. The auditor must first verify the sufficiency of the petition, which typically requires a certain number of signatures from eligible electors within the district. Following verification, the auditor is mandated to provide notice of the proposed dissolution. This notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the district is located, as well as served on the district’s board of trustees. The Iowa Code, specifically provisions related to county auditor duties and special districts, outlines the requirement for a public hearing to allow for input from affected residents and stakeholders. After the hearing, if the petition is deemed valid and the dissolution is found to be in the public interest, the county board of supervisors will typically issue an order of dissolution. This order dictates the transfer of assets and liabilities of the dissolved district, often to the county or another appropriate governmental entity. The question hinges on the initial procedural step the county auditor must take upon receiving a valid petition.

The scenario involves a county board of supervisors in Iowa considering the rezoning of agricultural land for a commercial development. Under Iowa Code Chapter 335, counties have the authority to adopt and enforce zoning regulations. When a board of supervisors initiates a rezoning action that affects agricultural land, they must follow specific procedural requirements. Iowa Code Section 335.8 mandates that before the board of supervisors takes final action on a proposed zoning amendment, the proposed amendment must be submitted to the county planning and zoning commission for review and recommendation. Following the commission’s report, the board must hold a public hearing. Notice of this hearing must be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per Iowa Code Section 335.9. The question tests the understanding of these procedural prerequisites for rezoning agricultural land. The correct answer reflects the statutory requirement for commission review and public hearing notice.

In Iowa, the process for a city to annex adjacent unincorporated territory is governed by specific statutory provisions designed to balance the interests of the city, the residents of the territory, and the county. Iowa Code Chapter 368 outlines these annexation procedures. For a city to annex territory by ordinance, it must meet certain criteria. One of the primary methods of annexation is through a petition signed by a majority of the property owners in the territory, representing a majority of the assessed value of the property. Alternatively, a city can annex by ordinance if the territory meets specific criteria related to contiguity, population density, and the provision of municipal services. Specifically, Iowa Code Section 368.7 details the requirements for annexation by ordinance. This section allows a city to annex territory if it is contiguous to the city and if the territory is being provided, or is capable of being provided, municipal services by the city. The statute also sets forth a process that includes notice to the county and a public hearing. If the territory is not petitioned for annexation, and the city wishes to annex it by ordinance, the city council must adopt an ordinance that explicitly states the reasons for the annexation and how the territory will be served by municipal services. The annexation becomes effective upon the filing of the ordinance with the county auditor and the Iowa Secretary of State. The key consideration for this type of annexation, when not initiated by property owner petition, is the demonstrable ability of the city to provide essential services such as water, sewer, police, and fire protection to the annexed area, and the contiguity of the territory. Without these prerequisites, an ordinance-based annexation would be legally vulnerable.

The core principle tested here is the Iowa Code’s provisions regarding the formation of new cities, specifically the minimum population threshold and the geographical contiguity requirements. Iowa Code Section 360.1 outlines the conditions for incorporating a city. It mandates that the territory to be incorporated must contain at least 200 persons who are residents and electors of the state. Furthermore, the territory must be platted and contiguous, meaning that the parcels of land must touch or be in close proximity, forming a continuous area. The process involves a petition signed by a specified percentage of eligible voters within the proposed territory, followed by a public hearing and a vote by the residents of the area. The rationale behind these requirements is to ensure that a proposed municipality has a sufficient population base to sustain itself, provide essential services, and that the territory is geographically cohesive, preventing the incorporation of scattered or isolated parcels that would be impractical to govern. The requirement for contiguity is crucial for efficient administration and service delivery, such as police, fire, and public works.

The Iowa Code Chapter 384 outlines the powers and duties of municipal corporations, including their authority to levy taxes. Specifically, Section 384.12 grants cities the power to levy taxes for general corporate purposes. This includes the authority to levy an annual tax on all taxable property within the city for the purpose of funding general municipal operations, such as public safety, public works, and general administration. The question asks about the maximum annual levy for general corporate purposes in a city of the first class in Iowa, without any special levies authorized by law. Iowa Code Section 384.12(1) states that a city may levy an annual tax not to exceed $8.10 per thousand dollars of assessed value for general corporate purposes. Therefore, the maximum annual levy for general corporate purposes, in the absence of specific statutory authorization for additional levies, is $8.10 per thousand dollars of assessed value.

The question revolves around the authority of a county board of supervisors in Iowa to levy a special assessment for a public improvement, specifically a rural road resurfacing project. Iowa Code Chapter 468, particularly sections related to county road improvements and special assessments, governs this scenario. The board of supervisors has the power to initiate and fund such projects through general county funds or by levying special assessments against properties directly benefiting from the improvement. The key consideration for the validity of a special assessment is whether it is levied in proportion to the benefits received by the properties. If the assessment is arbitrary, discriminatory, or exceeds the actual benefits conferred by the road resurfacing, it can be challenged. The law requires that the assessment be equitable and bear a reasonable relationship to the enhancement in value or utility of the affected properties. A flat rate per acre, without considering factors like proximity to the improved road, existing road condition of the property, or specific usage, might be deemed inequitable if it does not reflect the actual benefits. Therefore, an assessment based on a uniform per-acre charge for all properties within a designated benefit district, regardless of their individual benefit, could be legally vulnerable. The Iowa Code provides for notice and hearing procedures for special assessments, allowing property owners to voice objections. The board must demonstrate that the assessment methodology reasonably reflects the special benefits conferred. If the assessment is demonstrably disproportionate to the benefits, it may be invalidated or modified by a court.

The core of this question lies in understanding the procedural requirements for a county board of supervisors in Iowa to vacate a public highway. Iowa Code Section 306.10 outlines the process for vacating roads. This process typically involves a petition from affected landowners or a resolution by the board itself, followed by a public hearing. Notice of this hearing must be given to all landowners whose property abuts the highway to be vacated. The notice must be published and also mailed to these landowners. Crucially, the board must consider any objections raised during the hearing. Following the hearing, if the board determines that the road is no longer necessary for public travel and that vacation is in the public interest, it can adopt a resolution vacating the highway. This resolution must be officially recorded. The explanation of why other options are incorrect involves recognizing that the specific notice requirements and the consideration of landowner objections are statutory mandates. A simple majority vote without proper notice or a hearing would be procedurally deficient. Furthermore, vacating a road does not automatically transfer ownership of the underlying land to adjacent landowners; that requires a separate process, often involving an appraisal and sale, as per Iowa Code Section 306.12. The idea of a simple resolution without any public input or notification to affected parties directly contravenes the established legal framework for road vacation in Iowa.