977 N.W.2d 486
Iowa2022Background
- In 2012 Mahaska County and the cities of Pella and Oskaloosa formed the South Central Regional Airport Agency (SCRAA) by a chapter 28E agreement to plan, build, and operate a new regional airport (Site A) in unincorporated Mahaska County.
- The 28E Agreement created a six‑member SCRAA board (3 Pella, 2 Oskaloosa, 1 Mahaska County); the Cities would bear construction costs; the County retained regulatory powers and eminent‑domain authority for unincorporated land.
- Key provisions: Article X authorized eminent domain actions by SCRAA or by asking a Party to bring them; Article XII required parties to cooperate and use best efforts; Article XI barred amendment or termination without approval of each party (effectively preventing unilateral county withdrawal).
- Opposition arose from landowners at Site A and a later‑elected county board that sought to withdraw the County from the SCRAA; the Cities sued for declaratory relief and specific performance; district court granted summary judgment for the Cities.
- Separate suit by Site A Landowners challenged the 28E Agreement; the district court held the Landowners lacked standing and that prior rulings precluded relitigation. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding Article XI unconstitutional and severing it so the County may withdraw by a valid board vote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county may join a joint airport authority under a chapter 28E agreement rather than under chapters 330 or 330A | Cities: chapters 330/330A are nonexclusive; counties may use 28E to form joint airport authorities | County: sections make chapters 330/330A the exclusive statutory mechanisms; 28E entities cannot bypass substantive statutory limits | Court: chapters 330/330A are not exclusive; counties may use 28E for joint airport projects so long as constitutional limits are respected |
| Whether Article XI unlawfully binds future county boards by preventing unilateral amendment/termination | County: Article XI lets one board bind successors, infringing constitutional rule that legislative bodies can't bind successors | Cities: 28E may delegate authority; statutes allow durable 28E agreements and delegation; chapter 28E cannot be overridden by constitutional rule | Court: Article XI impermissibly binds later-elected boards with respect to core governmental functions (zoning, roads, eminent domain, permits); violates Iowa Constitution |
| Whether Article XI unlawfully restricts the County's ability to revoke a delegation (asymmetry of entry vs. exit) | County: delegation must be revocable by same procedures that created it; Article XI makes revocation harder than delegation | Cities: 28E permits long‑term delegations and performance by joint entities; revocation limits are contractually allowed | Court: Delegation is unlawful where revocation is not achievable by the same type of procedure; Article XI’s asymmetry invalidates that portion of the agreement |
| Remedy / Severability of the invalid provision | County and Landowners: Article XI should be severed, allowing County to withdraw consistent with constitutional limits | Cities: full enforcement / specific performance of the 28E Agreement as written | Court: Article XI is severable under the agreement’s severability clause; Article XI is invalid and severed; County may withdraw by valid board vote; remaining 28E provisions survive subject to constitutional constraints |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanna v. Rathje, 171 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1969) (one legislative body may not bind its successors)
- Neuzil v. City of Iowa City, 451 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 1990) (municipalities may not bind successor legislatures in legislative matters)
- Warren Cnty. Bd. of Health v. Warren Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 654 N.W.2d 910 (Iowa 2002) (delegation must be revocable by same type of procedures that created it)
- Barnes v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 341 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1983) (chapter 28E entities exercise joint powers vested in members; 28E does not itself create independent powers)
- Marco Dev. Corp. v. City of Cedar Falls, 473 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 1991) (distinction between governmental and proprietary functions; limits on binding successors)
- Oakes Constr. Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1981) (zoning and road decisions are legislative/governmental functions)
- Equity Control Assocs., Ltd. v. Root, 638 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 2001) (severability depends on parties’ intent and contract language)