Osceola County, Iowa — A telephone hearing has been set in the case of the Osceola County Board of Supervisors establishment of a TIF District to provide funds to be used to help finance infrastructure in the City of Harris.
In March 2015, Harris was under an administrative order from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to update its lagoon, but the city lacked the debt capacity to take on the improvements. As a result, on March 10, 2015, the city sent a letter to the Osceola County Board of Supervisors “asking for help with possibly doing a TIF on the windmills for infrastructure within the City.” Within a couple of weeks, at a meeting of the board, the Harris mayor “asked that the supervisors consider establishing an urban renewal area including the turbines and city of Harris to help fund needed projects.”
In October 2015, the Board of Supervisors held a Public Hearing on a resolution to establish an urban renewal area, and approve the urban renewal plan and project for the area. The newly-created TIF area was set to include the city of Harris, as well as an area of land upon which a wind farm had been constructed.
The plaintiffs in the case are resident taxpayers of Osceola County and of the Harris-Lake Park School District. They filed a petition for writ of certiorari and declaratory judgment challenging the resolution and the ordinance passed by or involving Osceola County and the City of Harris. In conjunction, the resolution and ordinance established an urban renewal area and an urban renewal plan and divided the tax revenue levied on that area as tax increment financing to fund the plan. The plaintiffs challenged the Supervisors’ actions, claiming they would be harmed as taxpayers.
Osceola County and the City of Harris filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court granted it, finding the plaintiff’s lacked standing to challenge the resolution and their claims involving the ordinance were untimely. The plaintiffs’ petition was dismissed. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the district court’s ruling and maintained the merits of their motion for summary judgment should have been granted instead.
In their review of the case, while the Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the District Court ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were, in fact, untimely, since they were filed prior to the enactment of the ordinance they challenged; the Appeals Court did reverse the lower court’s ruling, saying that the plaintiffs DID, in fact, have standing to pursue the case.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to District Court for further proceedings, writing, “On remand, the plaintiffs may refile their motion for summary judgment or the claims regarding Resolution 10-15/16 may be set for trial.”
A telephonic hearing has been set in which the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ legal counsel and a judge will discuss the case. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, August 18th at 9:00 a.m. The plaintiffs have renewed their motion for summary judgment.
The complete ruling from the Iowa Court of Appeals can be seen by CLICKING HERE.
