City of Dubuque v. City Development Board

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1453
Filed January 9, 2025

CITY OF DUBUQUE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County,

Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.

A city appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review, which affirmed a

voluntary annexation. AFFIRMED.

Maria E. Brownell and Logan S. Brundage of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des

Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Eric Dirth, Assistant Attorney General,

for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

The City of Dubuque (Dubuque) appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial

review, which affirmed a voluntary annexation. Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On December 30, 2021, property owners submitted a 100% voluntary

annexation request to the City of Sageville, Iowa (Sageville). In their applications,

the residents cited several reasons for the proposed annexation: their desire to join

the Sageville community; the lack of available county services, including

high-speed internet; and the irregularity of boundaries in the area, which resulted

in properties that fell within multiple jurisdictions. Because of a 2016 agreement,

which prevented Dubuque from annexing Sageville land, the properties could only

be merged under one jurisdiction by annexation into Sageville.

In April 2022, Sageville brought the annexation request to the City

Development Board of the State of Iowa (the Board). Because Sageville, the

residents of the annexed territory, and the county all agreed to the proposed

annexation, the Board treated this request as a 100% voluntary annexation.

Several board meetings were held in summer and fall 2022, in which the

annexation applications were discussed. One of the central concerns was

Sageville’s ability to provide adequate municipal services. As of the June meeting,

Dubuque was not providing any services to the proposed annexed territory and the

county was only providing rural services, if any. But Dubuque argued the

annexation should be denied because the Board was bound by two prior decisions

in 2003 and 2005 respectively, in which it denied two separate applications for

annexation because Sageville was unable to provide municipal services. But
3

Sageville argued that it had many substantial improvements since its change of

leadership in 2019, including street building and maintenance, fire department

services contracted through a nearby town, part-time staffing, the building of a new

“satellite Fire Department facility” and city hall, codification of city ordinances, and

development of a comprehensive plan. While Sageville levies no property taxes,

its mayor explained to the Board that these improvements were funded by sales

and road taxes, a cable television franchise, liquor licensing and permitting, and

cropland leases. The Board also heard arguments about the internet access issue,

in which it found that Mediacom provided high-speed service to Sageville residents

only.

The Board ultimately approved the annexation, finding a presumption of

validity applied despite Sageville providing “only a rural level of services.” See

Iowa Code § 368.6 (2023) (expressly providing “a presumption of validity for

voluntary annexation approval”). Dubuque petitioned for judicial review on four of

the five applications, which were later consolidated into one case. 1 The district

court affirmed the Board’s decision. Dubuque appeals.

II. Review.

Our review is limited to whether the Board’s decision was “without

substantial supporting evidence.” See Iowa Code § 368.22(2). “There is

1 The fifth application, which was not appealed, was exempt from the Board
approval process because the parcels were “not within an urbanized area of
[another] city.” See Iowa Code §§ 368.1(16) (defining an “[u]rbanized area” as
“any area of land within two miles of the boundaries of a city”), 368.7(3) (describing
the process for voluntary annexation requests “within an urbanized area”).
Because they did not require Board approval, they were not part of the subsequent
proceedings, and we do not consider them on appeal.
4

substantial evidence if a reasonable person would find the evidence adequate to

reach such a decision.” Pruss v. Cedar Rapids/Hiawatha Annexation Special Loc.

Comm., 687 N.W.2d 275, 284 (Iowa 2004) (cleaned up). In making this

determination, “we ask only whether the district court correctly applied the law.”

Dickinson Cnty. v. City Dev. Comm., 521 N.W.2d 466, 468 (Iowa 1994).

III. Discussion.

On appeal, Dubuque alleges the district court erred by: (1) presuming the

annexation is valid; (2) failing to apply applicable administrative rules; and

(3) considering improper evidence. We consider each argument in turn.

A. Background on Voluntary Annexations.

“There are two types of voluntary annexations—100% annexations and

80/20 annexations.” City of Asbury v. Iowa City Dev. Bd., 723 N.W.2d 188, 194

(Iowa 2006). This action concerns a 100% voluntary annexation, in which “all of

the property owners in the territory request the adjoining city to annex their land.”

Id. Both annexation types “require approval by the annexing city via a resolution

by the city council.” Id. Further approval by the Board is also required when the

annexing territory is within an “urbanized area” or one where the territory is “within

two miles of the boundaries of a city.” See Iowa Code §§ 368.1(16) (defining an

“[u]rbanized area”), 368.7(3) (requiring Board approval). “[A]pplications for

voluntary annexation are explicitly afforded a presumption of validity.” Pruss, 687

N.W.2d at 281; accord Iowa Code § 368.6 (expressly providing “a presumption of

validity for voluntary annexation approval”).
5

B. Presumption of Validity of Voluntary Annexation.

Dubuque concedes that such a presumption applies here, as the

annexation request meets the criteria for voluntariness. But Dubuque relies on

section 368.7(4) to argue that this presumption was rebutted because Sageville is

unable to provide services to the annexed territory. See Iowa Code § 368.7(4)

(setting guidelines for approving competing annexation applications); City of

Waukee v. City Dev. Bd., 590 N.W.2d 712, 721 (Iowa 1999) (finding this

presumption “is not irrebuttable”). We disagree. Section 368.7(4) is utilized for

competing annexation requests, and this is not a circumstance in which two cities

are vying for the same territory. See, e.g., Pruss, 687 N.W.2d at 278; see also

Iowa Code § 368.7(4) (applying municipal-services requirement when “one or

more applications for a voluntary annexation and one or more petitions for an

involuntary annexation” are submitted “within thirty days” of each other (emphasis

added)). Because we have only one 100% voluntary annexation request,

section 368.7(4) is not applicable.

But even if section 368.7(4) applied, Dubuque failed to rebut the

presumption of validity. Although Dubuque argues that the court’s finding that

Sageville could provide the services is “arbitrary and unreasonable,” it provides no

basis for this conclusion apart from the denial of two applications, which are

inapplicable here.2 Dubuque claims that the Board’s decision “will result in a lower

2 Dubuque offers no authority for its argument that the Board was bound by its

previous decisions in 2003 and 2005. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (now
rule 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3)) (requiring the parties to develop arguments and include
supporting authority or risk “waiver of that issue”). Even if we did not consider this
issue waived, for the reasons stated below, we find these prior decisions
inapposite.
6

level of municipal services,” but the evidence does not support its claim. The Board

weighed what the residents would lose (certain ordinances and a more-developed

comprehensive plan) against the residents’ wishes and the potential benefits. The

record is replete with Sageville’s improvements in recent years, including the

creation of new services and the improvement of existing services. While Dubuque

may disagree with the court’s conclusion, it cannot show that the Board’s decision

was “without substantial supporting evidence.” See Iowa Code § 368.22(2). We

therefore must presume that the voluntary annexation is valid.

C. Applicability of Administrative Code.

Dubuque next argues that the Board was barred from approving the

annexation by Iowa Administrative Code rule 263-7.7(2), which directs the Board

to deny applications barred by Iowa Code section 368.17. Under

section 368.17(4), the Board may not approve annexation unless the annexing city

“will be able to provide to the territory substantial municipal services and benefits

not previously enjoyed by such territory.” But section 368.17 does not apply to

voluntary annexations. See City of Des Moines v. City Dev. Bd. of St. of Iowa, 473

N.W.2d 197, 200–01 (Iowa 1991) (finding “the provisions of [section 368.17] . . .

thwart the legislative scheme of distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary

annexations” and declining to apply them). Even if it did, we have already

determined that substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that Sageville is

capable of providing municipal services, and therefore, Dubuque’s argument is

without merit.
7

D. Consideration of Private Internet Service.

Finally, Dubuque contends that the “district court erroneously considered”

the availability of private internet services in its annexation decision. Specifically,

the district court’s ruling noted that Mediacom only provided high-speed internet to

Sageville residents.3 Dubuque argues that because Mediacom could legally offer

high-speed internet, the court should not have been able to consider this as

evidence. But whether Mediacom was legally able to provide an internet service

is irrelevant, and we do not find the court erred by considering it. The Board treated

the internet availability as evidence of the voluntariness of the request, with

multiple applicants citing the internet service as one of many reasons for the

annexation. The Board was not only allowed to consider such information, but it

was required to give deference to the residents’ wishes when making its decision.

See Iowa Code § 368.6 (“It is the intent of the general assembly to provide an

annexation approval procedure which gives due consideration to the wishes of the

residents of territory to be annexed . . . .”). Accordingly, we must affirm.

IV. Disposition.

Because the district court did not err in its ruling on judicial review, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3 But the court also expressly stated that “the Board’s ultimate decision . . . was

based on more than just the ability to receive high speed internet.”