The Iowa Supreme Court has announced they will release their decision for Site A Landowners v. South Central Regional Airport Agency today. In January, the court heard oral arguments about litigation involving the validity of a 28E agreement between Mahaska County and the cities of Pella and Oskaloosa over the creation of a regional airport between the two communities.

The landowners and Mahaska County believe that the SCRAA should not have eminent domain power or the ability to compel other governmental bodies to act over territory outside of their city limits–especially since the project would be in Mahaska County, and that Pella and Oskaloosa largely control the SCRAA with the majority of representatives on the board.

The two cities and SCRAA say if 28E agreements are not legally binding — especially in long term projects such as airports, it could create situations were infrastructure is partially completed, only to be halted at the will of one party in an agreement that may include several other elected bodies — and thus, spend thousands or millions in taxpayer money that would be wasted and could not be recuperated.

The Iowa Supreme Court will either uphold the rulings of district courts that were largely in favor of the SCRAA, Pella and Oskaloosa, return the proceedings to a district court with guidance, or overturn previous decisions in favor of Mahaska County and the landowners.

FROM THE IOWA SUPREME COURT:

The landowners and Mahaska County are attempting to overturn two separate summary judgment rulings upholding the agreement. They contend the district court erred by: (1) failing to find the 28E agreement violates Iowa Code chapters 330 and 330A; (2) failing to find the 28E agreement constituted an improper restriction on and delegation of the county’s legislative powers of eminent domain, road relocation, and zoning; (3) failing to recognize the 28E agreement was an improper attempt by the prior county board of supervisors to bind future boards in the exercise of legislative functions; (4) by failing to find the county could freely revoke the delegation of its powers and retake its legislative authority; (5) failing to recognize Chapter 28E only allows the joint exercise of powers which all of the parties to the agreement already possess; and (6) declining to reconsider its earlier partial summary judgment ruling and treating it as having a preclusive effect.

In the association’s appeal, it contends the district court erred by: (1) finding the association lacked standing to bring its declaratory judgment action because the alleged injury was too speculative; (2) failing to find the 28E agreement was illegal and unenforceable because it irrevocably delegated the County’s legislative and police powers; (3) failing to conclude the 28E agreement was void because its term is indefinite; and (4) failing to find the 28E agreement violates the property owners’ rights to equal protection.

The cities cross-appeal contending the district court erred in failing to grant them summary judgment on the county’s counterclaim for breach of contract.

Full oral arguments: