In North Dakota, the process for a municipality to annex adjacent unincorporated territory is governed by specific statutory provisions. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 40-53 outlines the procedures for annexation. For a city to annex territory without the consent of the landowners, it must generally follow a petition-based process. This involves a petition signed by at least 50% of the landowners in the territory to be annexed, or by the owners of at least 50% of the assessed value of the property in that territory. If such a petition is filed, the city governing body, typically the city commission or city council, can then adopt an ordinance to annex the territory after holding a public hearing. The statute also allows for annexation by ordinance without a petition if the territory is contiguous to the city and is being provided municipal services, but this method often involves a more complex judicial review process or specific conditions. In the absence of a landowner petition, a city cannot unilaterally annex territory solely by passing an ordinance if the landowners object and the territory does not meet the specific criteria for involuntary annexation without petition, which typically involves demonstrating a need for municipal services or addressing a public health or safety concern that the county cannot adequately manage. The core principle is that while cities have the power to grow, this power is balanced with the rights of property owners and established procedures to ensure fairness and due process. The question hinges on the requirement of landowner consent or a petition representing a significant portion of landowners or property value when annexation is initiated by the municipality and not driven by a specific statutory exception for involuntary annexation. The correct answer reflects the statutory requirement for a landowner petition or equivalent consent in the absence of specific involuntary annexation conditions.

The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) outlines the procedures for the dissolution of special districts. Specifically, NDCC Chapter 28-33 governs the dissolution of certain special districts. For a special district to be dissolved, a petition signed by at least 25% of the qualified electors residing within the district must be presented to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the district is primarily located. Upon receipt of a valid petition, the board of county commissioners is required to hold a public hearing. Following the hearing, if the board determines that dissolution is in the best interest of the affected area, they can adopt a resolution for dissolution. This resolution is then subject to approval by a majority of the voters in a special election called for that purpose. The question asks about the initial step in the dissolution process that requires a formal expression of public will from the residents of the district. This initial formal expression is the petition, which must meet the signature threshold specified in the law. Therefore, the correct answer involves the petition requirement.

The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 40-22 outlines the procedures for the creation and operation of special improvement districts by cities. When a city council decides to proceed with a public improvement project, such as a new water main extension in a specific area, it must first adopt a resolution declaring its intent to make the improvement and identifying the area to be benefited. This resolution initiates the process. Following this, the city must prepare detailed plans, specifications, and an estimate of the cost for the improvement. Crucially, a hearing must be held to allow property owners within the proposed improvement district to present objections or support. Notice of this hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and mailed to all property owners within the district, as stipulated by NDCC § 40-22-07. If, after the hearing, the city council determines that the improvement is necessary and that the benefits to the property owners justify the cost, it can then adopt a final resolution ordering the improvement. This final resolution is the official authorization for the project to proceed. The subsequent steps involve letting contracts for construction and levying assessments against the benefited properties to pay for the improvement, in accordance with the provisions of NDCC Chapter 40-22. Therefore, the adoption of a resolution ordering the improvement is the definitive step that formally authorizes the city to undertake the project after fulfilling all procedural requirements, including public notice and hearings.

The scenario presented involves a municipal zoning ordinance in North Dakota that restricts the placement of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within single-family residential zones. The ordinance specifies a minimum setback requirement from all property lines for any ADU. A homeowner in a city governed by this ordinance wishes to construct an ADU that is only 5 feet from the rear property line, while the ordinance mandates a 10-foot setback. This situation directly implicates the principle of municipal zoning authority and its limitations, particularly concerning the balance between local control and property rights. North Dakota law, like that in most states, grants municipalities the power to enact zoning ordinances under the general police power to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. This authority is typically exercised through a comprehensive plan and detailed zoning regulations, as authorized by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 28-33, which deals with municipal planning and zoning. However, these powers are not absolute and must be exercised reasonably and in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. When a property owner seeks to deviate from a zoning requirement, they typically must seek a variance. A variance is an administrative procedure that grants a property owner relief from the strict application of a zoning ordinance when unique circumstances, not self-created, impose an unnecessary hardship. To obtain a variance in North Dakota, the applicant must typically demonstrate that: 1) the property possesses unique physical conditions that prevent reasonable use of the property as zoned; 2) the hardship is not self-created; 3) granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public welfare; and 4) the hardship is not merely financial. In this case, the homeowner’s desire to build an ADU that violates the setback requirement necessitates applying for a variance from the local zoning board or planning commission. The homeowner must present evidence to the board demonstrating that adhering to the 10-foot setback would impose an unnecessary hardship due to specific, unique physical characteristics of their lot (e.g., an unusually narrow lot or the presence of unmovable natural features), and that this hardship is not a result of their own actions. The board will then review the application, considering the impact on the neighborhood and public interest, before making a decision. The correct action for the homeowner is to pursue a variance.

In North Dakota, the authority of a county to issue bonds for public improvements is primarily governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 6-09. This chapter outlines the procedures for issuing bonds, including the requirement for a resolution by the board of county commissioners and, in many cases, voter approval. Specifically, NDCC § 6-09-05 mandates that for bonds issued for purposes other than those explicitly exempted, a majority of the electors voting on the question must approve the issuance. The scenario describes a county considering issuing bonds for a new courthouse. Courthouses are capital improvements that typically require voter ratification unless they fall under specific exemptions, which are not indicated here. Therefore, the process necessitates a resolution by the board of county commissioners followed by a vote of the electors. The question tests the understanding of the general rule regarding voter approval for county bond issuances in North Dakota, as established by the relevant statutes.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Title 11, Chapter 11-11, addresses the establishment and powers of county park districts. These districts are authorized to acquire, develop, and maintain public parks and recreational facilities. Section 11-11-11 outlines the powers of the board of park commissioners, which include the authority to levy taxes for park purposes. The rate of this levy is subject to statutory limitations. For county park districts, North Dakota law (as of current legislative understanding, subject to periodic updates) generally permits a mill levy for park purposes. While specific mill limitations can change with legislative sessions, the core power to levy taxes for the operation and improvement of park facilities is a fundamental aspect of county park district governance. The question probes the understanding of this taxing authority within the context of North Dakota’s statutory framework for county park districts, emphasizing the board’s power to fund these public amenities through taxation. The ability to levy taxes is a crucial power for local government entities to provide services and infrastructure, and understanding the specific limitations and authorities granted by state law is essential for proper governance and fiscal management. This power is derived from the state’s grant of authority to local subdivisions.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 11-10.1, outlines the procedures for county zoning. When a county proposes to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance, it must provide public notice. This notice requirement is crucial for ensuring transparency and allowing affected parties to voice their concerns. The law mandates that notice be published in the official county newspaper. For a new zoning ordinance, the notice must be published at least once, not less than thirty days prior to the date of the public hearing. For amendments, the notice must also be published at least once, not less than ten days prior to the public hearing. In this scenario, the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance requires a public hearing. The county auditor, acting on behalf of the board of county commissioners, published the notice in the “Prairie Star,” the designated official county newspaper, on March 1st. The public hearing is scheduled for March 21st. To determine the validity of the notice, we calculate the number of days between the publication date and the hearing date. March has 31 days. The period from March 1st to March 21st inclusive is \(21 – 1 + 1 = 21\) days. The North Dakota Century Code, Section 11-10.1-05, states that for amendments, notice must be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. Since 21 days have passed between the publication on March 1st and the hearing on March 21st, the ten-day minimum requirement is met. Therefore, the notice is legally sufficient.

The scenario involves a city council in North Dakota considering a zoning ordinance amendment that would reclassify a parcel of land from agricultural to commercial use. This action directly impacts property rights and land use planning, which are core functions of local government. The question asks about the procedural safeguards required by North Dakota law for such an amendment. Specifically, North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 11-33 governs planning and zoning by counties, and similar principles apply to cities, often detailed in municipal charters and state statutes regarding municipal powers. A key procedural requirement for zoning ordinance amendments, designed to ensure public input and due process, is the holding of a public hearing. This hearing allows affected property owners and the general public to voice their opinions and concerns before the governing body makes a final decision. Failure to conduct a proper public hearing can render the ordinance amendment invalid. Other procedural steps, such as notification of adjacent property owners or referral to a planning commission, are also important but the public hearing is a universally mandated step for significant zoning changes. The process typically involves notice of the hearing, the hearing itself, and then a vote by the governing body. The question probes the understanding of these essential procedural elements mandated by state law to ensure fairness and transparency in local land-use decisions.

The scenario involves a county in North Dakota attempting to annex a portion of an adjacent township to expand its municipal services. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code Chapter 11-04, governs township organization and powers. Annexation of township territory by a city is typically governed by statutes related to municipal incorporation and boundary changes, such as North Dakota Century Code Chapter 40-53, which outlines procedures for cities to annex adjacent territory. However, the direct annexation of township land by a county is not a standard procedure for service expansion in the same manner as city annexation. Counties in North Dakota primarily provide services within their unincorporated areas or through intergovernmental agreements with cities and townships. The process described, where a county unilaterally annexes township land for service provision, bypasses the established legal frameworks for municipal boundary adjustments and intergovernmental cooperation. Therefore, such an action would likely be challenged as exceeding the county’s statutory authority. The appropriate legal avenues for expanding county services into adjacent township areas would involve formal agreements, such as service contracts or joint powers agreements, authorized under North Dakota Century Code provisions like Chapter 11-11, which allows counties to cooperate with other governmental units. Without a specific statutory grant of authority for a county to annex township land for service provision, this action would be considered ultra vires, meaning beyond the legal powers of the county government.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 11-33, outlines the procedures for the formation of a county water resource district. A petition for formation requires signatures from at least ten percent of the landowners in the proposed district or twenty-five percent of the landowners, whichever is the lesser number. This percentage is calculated based on the total number of landowners within the proposed geographical boundaries of the district. For example, if a proposed district contains 100 landowners, the petition would need signatures from at least 10 landowners (10% of 100). If the proposed district contained 300 landowners, the petition would need signatures from at least 75 landowners (25% of 300). The statute aims to ensure significant local support for the creation of such a district, which will have the authority to manage water resources, including flood control, irrigation, and drainage. The formation process also involves public hearings and approval by the county commission, ensuring transparency and local input.

The scenario involves a county in North Dakota considering the establishment of a new special assessment district for road improvements. The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) governs the process for creating such districts and levying assessments. Specifically, NDCC Chapter 11-36 outlines the procedures for counties to establish special improvement districts and levy assessments for public improvements, including roads. The process typically requires a petition from a majority of landowners or a resolution by the board of county commissioners. Following this, a public hearing must be held to allow landowners to voice objections or concerns. The county auditor is responsible for preparing an assessment roll, which details the proposed assessments for each property within the district. The board of county commissioners then adopts a resolution approving the final assessment roll and authorizing the levy. The NDCC also provides for the issuance of special assessment bonds to finance these improvements, with the repayment of these bonds secured by the levied assessments. The question tests the understanding of the statutory framework and procedural steps involved in establishing a special assessment district for a road improvement project within a North Dakota county, emphasizing the role of the county auditor in the assessment process and the legal basis for such levies.

The scenario involves a dispute over the proper interpretation of a county zoning ordinance in North Dakota concerning agricultural land use and its potential conversion for commercial development. The key legal principle at play is the deference given to local government zoning decisions, particularly when they align with established state land use planning principles and do not arbitrarily restrict property rights. North Dakota law, as generally reflected in its statutes concerning counties and townships, empowers local governing bodies to enact and enforce zoning ordinances to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. This includes the authority to classify land and regulate its use. The North Dakota Supreme Court has historically upheld local zoning authority, provided it is exercised reasonably and not in a manner that is discriminatory or confiscatory. In this case, the county’s interpretation of its ordinance, which prioritizes the preservation of agricultural land unless a compelling economic or public interest justification for commercial development is demonstrated, is a valid exercise of its zoning power. The ordinance’s language regarding “primary agricultural use” and the requirement for a conditional use permit for non-agricultural activities, subject to a finding of compatibility with the surrounding agricultural landscape, directly supports the county’s decision. The county’s action is consistent with the state’s interest in protecting its agricultural base, a significant component of North Dakota’s economy and heritage. Therefore, the county’s denial of the rezoning request, based on its interpretation of the ordinance and the lack of demonstrated compatibility for commercial use with the prevailing agricultural character of the area, is legally sound under North Dakota law.

The scenario involves a dispute over the interpretation of North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 40-05-01, which grants cities the power to enact ordinances for the “health, safety, and welfare” of their inhabitants. The city of Oakhaven passed an ordinance regulating the placement of solar panel installations on residential properties, citing concerns about aesthetic blight and potential impacts on property values. A homeowner, Mr. Abernathy, who wishes to install solar panels, argues that the ordinance exceeds the city’s authority because his installation is primarily for energy generation and does not directly threaten public health or safety in the traditional sense. The core legal principle at play is the scope of municipal police power as delegated by the state. North Dakota law, like that in many states, grants broad authority to cities to protect public welfare, which is generally interpreted to include economic well-being and community aesthetics, not just immediate physical safety. The Supreme Court of North Dakota has historically upheld broad interpretations of municipal police powers when they serve a legitimate public purpose, even if the connection to traditional health and safety is indirect. Therefore, an ordinance aimed at preserving community character and property values, which are components of the general welfare, would likely be considered within the city’s purview. The question tests the understanding of how broad grants of police power are applied to contemporary issues like renewable energy development and local land use controls. The correct answer hinges on recognizing that “welfare” encompasses more than just immediate physical safety and can include economic and aesthetic considerations that contribute to the overall quality of life and property values within a municipality.

The question concerns the process by which a county in North Dakota can annex territory from an adjacent county. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Section 11-05-01 outlines the procedures for county boundary changes. Specifically, for annexation of territory from one county to another, NDCC 11-05-01.1 details the requirements. This section mandates that a petition signed by a majority of the electors residing in the territory proposed for annexation must be presented to the board of county commissioners of both the petitioning and the affected counties. Following the presentation of the petition, both county boards must hold public hearings. The ultimate decision on whether to approve the annexation requires a resolution passed by a majority vote of the county commissioners in both the petitioning county and the county from which the territory is to be detached. Therefore, the critical step involves obtaining the requisite signatures on the petition and securing the favorable votes from the county commissioners of both affected counties.

The scenario involves a county in North Dakota seeking to annex a portion of unincorporated land that is adjacent to its existing boundaries. The primary legal mechanism for such annexation by a county in North Dakota is typically governed by state statutes that outline the procedures, requirements, and potential objections. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 23-03.1 addresses the annexation of territory by cities, but county annexations are often handled through different statutory frameworks or may be more limited in scope, focusing on services or specific types of land use. However, a common method for expanding county jurisdiction, particularly in relation to providing services or establishing special districts, involves a process that requires a petition signed by a certain percentage of landowners or residents in the affected area, followed by a public hearing and a vote by the county commission. The NDCC does not explicitly grant broad powers to counties for unilateral annexation of unincorporated territory in the same way cities might annex. Instead, county powers are often derived from the ability to create or expand special service districts, which can effectively bring unincorporated areas under a form of county governance for specific purposes. The question probes the fundamental legal basis for such an action, which would necessitate adherence to specific procedural requirements laid out in North Dakota law, often involving public notice and a formal resolution by the county governing body after considering any objections. The core concept is that any expansion of county authority over territory, even if not a full annexation in the municipal sense, must be authorized by and conducted according to state legislative directives. The specific statute that would most directly govern the county’s ability to formally incorporate adjacent unincorporated territory into its administrative structure, as opposed to merely providing services through a special district, would likely involve a petition and a resolution process. Without a specific statute allowing for direct county annexation of unincorporated land, the county’s action would be ultra vires. Therefore, the question tests the understanding that such actions are not based on inherent county power but on specific statutory authorization.

The question revolves around the principle of Dillon’s Rule and its application in North Dakota, which traditionally adheres to a strict interpretation of this rule. Dillon’s Rule posits that local governments only possess powers expressly granted to them by the state legislature, powers necessarily or fairly implied by express powers, and powers essential to the accomplishment of their stated purposes. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 40-01-01 grants cities the power to enact ordinances for the “general welfare, health, safety, and morals of the inhabitants,” which is a broad grant. However, the extent to which this general grant allows for powers not explicitly enumerated, or whether it represents a shift towards home rule, is a matter of interpretation and legal precedent. Considering North Dakota’s historical adherence to Dillon’s Rule, even with broad grants, the presumption remains that powers are limited unless clearly defined or necessarily implied for the stated purpose of general welfare. Therefore, a city’s authority to establish a novel regulatory framework for drone usage, if not expressly authorized or clearly implied by existing statutes for the promotion of general welfare, would likely be challenged under a strict Dillon’s Rule interpretation. The core concept is that local government powers are derivative and limited by the state’s delegation.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 11-10, governs the duties and powers of county officials, including the county auditor. County auditors in North Dakota are responsible for various administrative and financial functions. One significant aspect of their role involves the administration of elections, including the preparation of ballots and the canvassing of results. Furthermore, county auditors manage county finances, including budgeting, accounting, and the issuance of warrants for payments. They also oversee property tax assessment and collection processes, ensuring compliance with state and local regulations. The county auditor acts as the chief fiscal officer of the county and is accountable for the accurate and transparent management of public funds. In the context of intergovernmental agreements, county auditors may be involved in the financial aspects of cooperative ventures with other governmental entities, such as neighboring counties or municipalities, as authorized by North Dakota law, particularly concerning shared services or infrastructure projects. These agreements require careful financial planning and reporting to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and proper allocation of resources.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 11-11 outlines the powers and duties of county sheriffs. Specifically, Section 11-11-11 addresses the sheriff’s authority to appoint deputies. This statute grants the sheriff the power to appoint deputies, but these appointments are subject to the approval of the board of county commissioners. The board’s approval is a crucial check on the sheriff’s executive authority, ensuring a degree of fiscal and administrative oversight. This requirement for board approval is a fundamental aspect of North Dakota’s county governance structure, reflecting a balance between the sheriff’s operational independence and the broader accountability to the elected county board. Therefore, a deputy sheriff’s authority and tenure are intrinsically linked to this approval process.

The scenario involves a dispute over the proper application of North Dakota’s Century Code provisions concerning municipal annexation and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Specifically, the question probes the legal basis for a city’s authority to extend its planning and zoning regulations beyond its corporate limits into unincorporated areas of adjacent counties. North Dakota law, particularly in Chapter 40-55, grants cities extraterritorial zoning authority, allowing them to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances within a specified distance from their corporate boundaries. This authority is typically limited to a distance of one mile for cities with populations under 25,000 and three miles for cities with populations of 25,000 or more, as outlined in NDCC § 40-55-01. The purpose of this provision is to allow for orderly growth and development around municipalities, preventing incompatible land uses that could hinder future expansion or negatively impact the city’s environment. The county planning commission, while having a role in reviewing proposed extraterritorial zoning ordinances, does not possess the ultimate authority to veto the city’s adopted regulations within this zone, provided the city follows the statutory procedures for adoption, including public hearings and proper notification. The county’s role is primarily advisory and collaborative in this context. Therefore, the city of Grand Forks, by adopting its zoning ordinance under the authority granted by Chapter 40-55 of the North Dakota Century Code and adhering to the procedural requirements for establishing its extraterritorial jurisdiction, can legally enforce its zoning regulations within the specified one-mile radius of its corporate limits, irrespective of the county’s differing land use plan for that specific unincorporated area.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 11-10.1, outlines the process for county zoning. Section 11-10.1-06 addresses the establishment of a county planning and zoning commission. This commission is responsible for preparing and recommending a comprehensive land use plan and zoning ordinances to the board of county commissioners. The establishment of this commission is a prerequisite for the board to enact zoning regulations. Without the commission’s recommendation or a waiver under specific statutory conditions, the board cannot legally implement zoning. Therefore, if a county board of commissioners in North Dakota wishes to enact a zoning ordinance, the initial and fundamental step is to establish a planning and zoning commission as mandated by state law. The board cannot directly enact a zoning ordinance without this foundational step or a statutorily permitted alternative.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 40-11, governs the establishment and operation of special improvement districts by cities. When a city council, such as in Bismarck, proposes to create a special improvement district for a new public park, it must follow a defined procedural path. This path includes a preliminary resolution, a public hearing, and a final resolution. The preliminary resolution, as outlined in NDCC § 40-11-04, must specify the nature, object, and approximate extent of the proposed improvement. It also requires notification to property owners within the proposed district, informing them of the proposed improvement and the date of the public hearing. During the public hearing, property owners have the opportunity to present objections or suggest modifications. If the council proceeds after the hearing, it adopts a final resolution confirming the improvement and authorizing its construction, as per NDCC § 40-11-08. The financing of such improvements is typically through special assessments levied against the properties directly benefited by the improvement, with the assessment roll being subject to further review and potential objections before final confirmation. The key procedural step that initiates this entire process, requiring a detailed description of the proposed improvement and notification to affected landowners, is the adoption of the preliminary resolution.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 40-05.1, governs the authority of cities to issue revenue bonds for public improvements. This chapter outlines the process, requirements, and limitations associated with such bond issuances. For a city to legally issue revenue bonds for the purpose of constructing a new municipal auditorium, it must adhere to the procedures detailed in this statute. This includes obtaining voter approval if the bonds are not fully self-supporting through the revenue generated by the improvement itself, or if they are to be repaid from general city funds. North Dakota law distinguishes between general obligation bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the municipality, and revenue bonds, which are repaid solely from the income derived from the project being financed. The scenario implies a need for voter consent because the question implies a potential reliance on general funds or an insufficient revenue stream from the auditorium alone, which necessitates a public vote as per the statute’s provisions for such situations. Therefore, the correct procedure involves securing voter approval.

The scenario involves a North Dakota county considering a bond issuance for a new infrastructure project. The county auditor has presented projections for property tax revenue. To determine the maximum allowable debt, we need to consider North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Section 11-32-02, which limits the total bonded indebtedness of a county to 10% of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the county. First, we need to find the total assessed valuation of taxable property in the county. The problem states that the total taxable property valuation is \$2,500,000,000. Next, we calculate 10% of this valuation to find the maximum allowable bonded indebtedness. Calculation: Maximum Bonded Indebtedness = 10% of Total Taxable Property Valuation Maximum Bonded Indebtedness = \(0.10 \times \$2,500,000,000\) Maximum Bonded Indebtedness = \$250,000,000 Therefore, the county cannot issue bonds exceeding \$250,000,000. The question asks about the legal limit for bonded indebtedness based on the provided taxable property valuation. The explanation should focus on the statutory limitation and how it is applied. North Dakota law, specifically NDCC Chapter 11-32, governs county bonding authority. This chapter outlines the procedures and limitations for issuing bonds to finance public improvements. The core principle is that a county’s debt cannot exceed a certain percentage of its taxable property base, ensuring fiscal responsibility and preventing over-indebtedness that could burden taxpayers. The specific percentage is a critical factor in local government finance and is designed to align borrowing capacity with the economic base of the jurisdiction. Understanding this percentage and its application is crucial for local officials responsible for financial planning and capital projects.

The question pertains to the application of North Dakota’s Century Code, specifically concerning the process by which a newly incorporated city can annex adjacent, unincorporated territory. North Dakota law, as codified in Chapter 40-22 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines the procedures for annexation. For a city incorporated under the general law, the annexation of territory that is adjacent and unincorporated requires a petition signed by a majority of the landowners within the territory to be annexed, or by a majority of the electors residing within that territory, along with a resolution by the city governing body approving the annexation. Alternatively, if no petition is submitted, the city can initiate annexation through a resolution, which then requires a majority vote of the electors within the territory to be annexed, provided that the city’s governing body also approves the annexation by resolution. The key is that the process is initiated either by the landowners/electors or by the city, but both require a formal resolution from the city commission or council. The scenario describes a situation where the city commission wishes to annex land without a petition. In this case, the city must adopt a resolution proposing the annexation. Following the adoption of this resolution, the annexation must be submitted to and approved by a majority of the electors residing in the territory proposed for annexation. This ensures that the residents of the affected area have a direct say in whether their land becomes part of the city.

The North Dakota Century Code outlines specific procedures for the dissolution of a county. Under Chapter 23-01.1, a county can be dissolved if its population falls below a certain threshold and if a majority of its electors vote in favor of dissolution following a petition process. The process involves a petition signed by at least 20% of the electors of the county, which then triggers a resolution by the board of county commissioners to hold an election on the question of dissolution. If the election results in a majority vote for dissolution, the board of county commissioners must then adopt a resolution formally dissolving the county. This resolution must specify the effective date of dissolution and how county assets and liabilities will be distributed to adjacent counties. The code also mandates that notice of the election be published in newspapers of general circulation within the county for a specified period prior to the vote. The distribution of assets and liabilities is typically based on the proportionate assessed valuation of the territory being transferred to adjacent counties. Therefore, the crucial step following a favorable election outcome is the formal adoption of a resolution by the board of county commissioners to effectuate the dissolution.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in North Dakota, through its board of county commissioners, seeks to acquire a parcel of private land for the expansion of a public park. The county’s authority to exercise eminent domain is governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 32-15, which outlines the general provisions for eminent domain. Specifically, NDCC § 32-15-01 lists the public uses for which private property may be taken. Public parks are explicitly recognized as a valid public use under this statute. However, the acquisition process must adhere to constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing “just compensation” to the landowner, as mandated by both the U.S. Constitution (Fifth Amendment) and the North Dakota Constitution (Article I, Section 16). This compensation is typically determined by the fair market value of the property. The county must also follow procedural due process, which involves providing notice and an opportunity for the landowner to be heard, and if agreement on compensation cannot be reached, a condemnation action must be filed in court. The county’s ability to condemn is not contingent on the landowner’s consent to sell, but rather on demonstrating a public necessity for the taking and the willingness to pay just compensation. The county’s internal policy on voluntary acquisition is a procedural matter that may be encouraged but does not override the fundamental power of eminent domain if voluntary purchase fails.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 11-10.1, governs the formation and operation of county water resource districts. These districts are empowered to undertake projects for water conservation, flood control, and other related water management activities. The formation of such a district requires a petition signed by at least twenty-five percent of the landowners within the proposed district or by a majority of the landowners if the proposed district contains fewer than fifty landowners. The county board of commissioners then holds a public hearing to consider the petition. Following the hearing, if the board finds that the formation of the district is in the public interest and that the petition meets the statutory requirements, it can adopt a resolution creating the district. The question asks about the primary legal basis for the existence and powers of county water resource districts in North Dakota. This authority is derived from state legislative acts that establish these special-purpose districts and define their governmental functions and operational frameworks. Therefore, state statutes are the foundational legal authority.

The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) outlines the procedures for annexation of territory by cities. Specifically, NDCC Chapter 23-01, concerning Municipal Annexation, establishes the conditions and methods by which a city can expand its boundaries. For a city to annex unincorporated territory, it must demonstrate that the territory is contiguous to the existing city limits and that the annexation is in the best interest of the city and the residents of the territory. A common method involves a resolution passed by the city governing body followed by a petition signed by a majority of the landowners in the territory to be annexed, or if no petition is feasible, a public hearing and a vote by the city electors. The statute aims to balance the growth needs of municipalities with the rights and interests of residents in adjacent unincorporated areas. Consideration is given to factors such as the provision of municipal services, zoning compatibility, and the overall economic development of the region. The process generally requires adherence to specific notice requirements and public participation opportunities to ensure transparency and due process for all affected parties. This legal framework ensures that annexations are not arbitrary but are based on demonstrable need and benefit, and are conducted with proper legal oversight.

The question concerns the process by which a county in North Dakota can initiate the creation of a new township. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 11-02 outlines the procedures for organizing new counties and, by extension, the framework for township organization within existing counties. Specifically, NDCC § 11-02-03 addresses the petition requirements for organizing a new county, which involves a significant portion of the county’s electors. While this section pertains to county formation, the underlying principle of requiring a substantial number of electors to initiate a governmental change is mirrored in township organization. NDCC § 11-04-01 details the petition process for organizing a township. This statute requires that the petition be signed by a majority of the electors residing within the proposed township’s boundaries. The term “majority of the electors” is crucial here, as it signifies more than fifty percent of the qualified voters. The process also involves a hearing before the board of county commissioners and a potential vote by the electors of the affected area. The correct answer is therefore based on the statutory requirement for a majority of electors to sign the initial petition.

The question revolves around the statutory authority of North Dakota counties to levy special assessments for public improvements. North Dakota law, specifically Chapter 23-11 of the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC), grants counties the power to construct and maintain drainage systems and to levy special assessments to fund these projects. This authority is typically exercised when a specific improvement provides a direct benefit to a defined area, such as a watershed or a particular group of properties. The process generally involves a petition from affected landowners, a resolution by the board of county commissioners, the preparation of plans and cost estimates, a public hearing to allow for objections, and finally, the adoption of an assessment roll. The amount of the assessment is usually based on the benefit received by each property, often determined by factors like acreage, frontage, or estimated impact on the drainage system. In this scenario, the proposed improvement is a flood control berm and channelization project for the Willow Creek watershed, which directly addresses a recognized public need within that specific geographic area. The county commissioners are acting within their statutory powers to address this issue and finance it through special assessments levied upon the properties that will benefit from the flood mitigation. Therefore, the county possesses the legal authority to proceed with such an assessment.