Opinion ID: 2135135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Equitable Reclassification.

Text: Plaintiffs' final assignment of error is that the board should have ordered a reclassification of benefits for equitable reasons. See Iowa Code §§ 468.65, 468.67. Many of the landowners south of the bulkhead, along the open ditch, contend they should not be subject to assessment for the 1990 project costs because they received no benefits from the construction and have even suffered damages as a result of the project. Other landowners to the north raise similar claims. Iowa Code section 468.65 provides that when a repair or improvement is necessary the board may consider whether the existing assessments are equitable as a basis for payment of the expense of maintaining the district and of making the repair, improvement or extension. If the board finds the assessments inequitable, it must order a reclassification as set forth in the Code. Id. Under this statute the board has the discretion to reconsider the existing classifications. Mandamus is generally limited to occasions where an official or entity has a duty to act. Charles Gabus Ford, Inc. v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n, 224 N.W.2d 639, 644 (Iowa 1974); Iowa Code § 661.1. Where the duty is discretionary, however, mandamus will lie only if it is shown defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the request.... Charles Gabus Ford, 224 N.W.2d at 644. Under the Code, reclassification must be considered at a public hearing whenever a project is deemed an improvement. Iowa Code § 468.126(4)(a). But if a project is a repair it is within the board's discretion to consider the existing classification scheme. Id. § 468.65. Here the drainage district was reclassified in 1983. At that time the mains and laterals were classified separately for assessment purposes. This process fixes a percentage of actual benefits of certain areas within the drainage district and apportions the costs of work among those served in an equitable manner. See Iowa Code § 468.67. In light of the evidence in the record we conclude the board's decision not to undertake reclassification of the district following the repair work was not arbitrary or capricious. We have considered all issues presented and find no error in the district court's ruling. AFFIRMED.