Proposed bill would shut Scott County out of economic development money for 3 years
The four most populous counties in Iowa – including Scot County – would not be able to access state economic development programs and their funds for three years under a bill advanced Wednesday and Iowa House subcommittee, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
House Study Bill 310 would impose a three-year moratorium, from July 1-2025 – June 30, 2028, on all programs administered by the Iowa Economic Development Authority and funding available through these programs for four Iowa counties with the highest population:
Johnson County, with a population of 157,00
Linn County, with a population of nearly 229,000
Polk County, population of more than 505,000
and Scott County, with population of 174,000.
The population data is from the U. S. Census date from 2023.
Read the bill in its entirety here.
The measure is necessary because Iowa Legislature efforts to revitalize rural Iowa have not worked, said Rep. Derek Wulf, R-Hudson.
At the subcommittee meeting, advocates for business groups and local governments were largely against the measure, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch. Dustin Miller, with the Iowa Chamber Alliance, said he understood the intent of the bill was to aid rural communities but the measure would harm areas of the state that are 'drivers' in the state's economy that will benefit surrounding counties.
The four counties have a gross domestic product of $85 billion, representing 42% of the state's total real CDP of $200 billion. Those counties make up a large proportion of the state's collected taxes – 36% of the general fund revenue raised of personal income tax in 2022 and 43% of the sales tax.
The bill next goes to the House Ways and Means Committee for consideration.
Read the Iowa Capital Dispatch story here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
An Inside Look At Disney's Affordable Housing Development In Florida
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. If someone asked you to play a word association game using the term "Walt Disney World," your first response might be "Magic Kingdom" or maybe Mickey Mouse. It's a safe bet that "affordable housing" would be way down your list, but the economics of Florida's housing market have forced a paradigm shift. Florida living has become so expensive that Walt Disney World is building an affordable housing community for its employees in Florida. Florida used to be synonymous with affordable housing, but several factors have changed the Sunshine State's housing market. First, a post-COVID influx of new arrivals from Los Angeles and New York with deep pockets caused property prices to spike statewide. If that weren't enough, a home insurance rate crisis and high interest rates have made buying a home in Florida harder than ever before. Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Invest Where It Hurts — And Help Millions Heal: The affordability issue is felt most acutely by workers at the middle to lower end of the wage spectrum. That's historically the economic demographic that staffs Walt Disney World and the company's other Florida attractions. Business Insider reports that despite paying its employees $15 per hour, they still have trouble keeping pace with rising rents and property values. Disney responded by teaming up with a real estate development company, the Michaels Organization, to build a new affordable community on 80 acres of land near the city of Horizon West. According to Business Insider, the community will include 1,400 housing units, and 1,000 of them will be designated as affordable units. Walt Disney World already owns the land, which is about 20 minutes west of the theme park. 'We selected this land because it is part of a thriving community, close to employers, shopping, services, public schools, and areas of rest and recreation. We feel there is no better-positioned community in Central Florida to provide residents the opportunity to start a new chapter of their story,' Disney said in a statement. Trending: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a ? It sounds like a great deal for Walt Disney World employees, but the plan is not without its detractors. The Horizon West area has experienced rapid population growth and development in the past several years. Area residents are becoming more vocal in expressing their belief that their community can't handle any more development. Orange County District One Commissioner Nicole Wilson has heard those complaints, and Business Insider says she voted against the project last year. Business Insider cites U.S. Census data showing Horizon West's population has grown from 14,000 people in 2010 to 58,000 in 2020. The post-pandemic era brought about another boom, and now 75,000 people live in Horizon West. Area real estate agent Nicole Mickle told Business Insider that the Horizon West real estate market was so hot during the post-pandemic boom that she was selling homes via is constant in real estate, and those changes can be incredibly jarring to local residents when markets get overheated. Naturally, that causes residents to fret that their community is losing the small-town feel that originally attracted them to the area. 'What some want to do is keep the integrity of the community,' Mickle told Business Insider. It looks like they will have to adjust to the new reality. Wilson's "no" vote wasn't enough to stop the project from going forward. Construction is set to begin, and 1,400 new housing units are coming to Horizon West. This may also be a look at the future of real estate development. Attracting employees for regular jobs is becoming increasingly difficult due to the lack of affordable housing. Larger companies may take note of Horizon West and follow suit in other areas. . With over $1 million in dividends paid out last quarter and a growing selection of properties across various markets, Arrived offers an attractive alternative for investors seeking to build a diversified real estate portfolio. In October 2024, Arrived sold The Centennial, achieving a total return of 34.7% (11.2% average annual returns) for investors. Arrived aims to continue delivering similar value across our portfolio through careful market selection, attentive property management, and thoughtful timing in sales. Looking for fractional real estate investment opportunities? The features the latest offerings. Image: Shutterstock This article An Inside Look At Disney's Affordable Housing Development In Florida originally appeared on
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Governor signs Medicaid work requirements, Opioid Settlement Fund bills into law
Gov. Kim Reynolds, seen here in a file photo from May 2023, signed two dozen bills Friday. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds signed more than 20 bills into law Friday, including funding for the state's Opioid Settlement Fund and state-level Medicaid work requirements. The governor has a little more than a week, until June 14, to sign the remaining bills passed during the 2025 legislative session into law. This week, the governor has held events signing multiple measures into law — including the reduction in Iowa's unemployment insurance tax system. On Friday, she signed into law House File 969, a bill expanding the disability and death benefits for first responders like firefighters, emergency medical services responders and law enforcement officer to cover all forms of cancer. This was not the only measure Reynolds signed into law Friday. She released a list of 24 new laws, which include some state spending provisions and other high-profile policies sent to her desk earlier this year. Here are some of the bills signed into law: As discussions — and conflicts — continue over the federal work requirement proposal for Medicaid coverage included in the GOP budget reconciliation bill, Reynolds signed Senate File 615, into law, a measure setting similar work requirements for the Iowa Medicaid program. The requirements for at least 80 hours of work each month would apply to people receiving health coverage through the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan. IHAWP is the state's expanded Medicaid program for low-income people between ages 19 to 64. There are exemptions to these work and reporting requirements for people with disabilities, serious illnesses or injuries, as well as those with children under age 6. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The law directs the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to seek a waiver to implement these requirements from the federal government. Iowa HHS has already submitted a waiver with a slightly different work requirement plan for IHAWP — one that sets a 100-hour per month work requirement, or for a person to be earn the equivalent in wages to working 100 hours a month at $7.25 per hour, or be enrolled in education or job skills programs to retain coverage. Reynolds said in a statement on the bill signing, 'it is priority of mine to ensure our government programs reflect a culture of work.' 'If you are an able-bodied adult who can work, you should work,' the governor said. 'We need to return Medicaid back to its intended purpose—to provide coverage to the people who truly need it.' Democrats and others critics have said the legislation will cut off health care coverage for eligible Iowans due to additional red tape, leading to a financial hit for rural hospitals and other health care centers. The measure also contains a component that could have lasting impacts for Iowa's expanded Medicaid program: If the federal government allows Iowa to implement work requirements, then later revokes approval, HHS would be directed to end IHAWP. The move to discontinue the program would require federal approval, and if the decision is not approved, Iowa HHS would be asked to pursue implementing an 'alternative plan' under federal Medicaid administration guidelines. After several years of stalled action, Reynolds approved the Legislature's agreement on how to spend money from opioid lawsuit settlements. House File 1038 distributes $29 million from the fund, money obtained in settlements for lawsuits by states against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies for their roles in the opioid epidemic. For several years, lawmakers in the Senate and House have failed to reach an agreement on how to spend the funds, which are obligated to go to opioid addiction treatment and prevention. But in the final hours of the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers agreed to a system that provides funding for specific organizations and programs that focus on addition treatment, recovery and prevention in fiscal year 2026. In future years, money in the settlement fund will go to Iowa HHS and the Attorney General's office — entities that will then decide how to allocate the money to organizations in the state. HHS will receive 75% of the funding each year and the AG's office will receive 25%. While some lawmakers said they were frustrated with the money going to these state entities instead of being distributed directly by the Legislature, the bill passed with broad bipartisan support as get the funding into Iowa communities. The governor thanked the Legislature for sending the bill to her desk in 2025. 'The opioid crisis continues to impact Iowa families,' Reynolds said in a statement. 'I'm thankful the legislature reached an opioid settlement fund agreement this session to immediately distribute $29 million to providers and appropriate ongoing available funds to support early intervention, prevention, treatment, and recovery.' The governor also signed House File 706, the bill setting higher penalties for violations of open meetings laws and requiring public officials t9 receive training on open meetings and records laws. The bill was brought forward this year after a similar measure was vetoed in 2024 after a last-minute amendment was added that public records advocates had said would lead to unintended consequences. But Rep. Gary Mohr, R-Bettendorf, said adding heightened penalties and more training was still an important measure to pass as a means of addressing violations of these laws in Davenport related to the collapse of a six-story apartment building and alleged violations of open meeting laws in 2023. The bill was also amended in 2025 by the Iowa Senate to include language add two types of records to the state's list of confidential records — security camera footage from the Iowa Capitol and information from state employee identification card access systems. Senate File 175, also signed into law Friday, is a measure modeled after 'Meet Baby Olivia' laws passed in other states. Though Iowa's law does not reference the 'Meet Baby Olivia' video developed by the anti-abortion group Live Action by name, it requires students in 5th through 12th grade human growth and development classes be shown ultrasound video and computer-generated rendering or animations depicting 'the humanity of the unborn child by showing prenatal human development, starting at fertilization.' The bill was amended by the House to include a provision banning materials in school classrooms on fetal development that come from an entity that performs or 'promotes' abortion, or that contracts, affiliates, or makes referrals to organizations that perform or promote abortions. Democratic lawmakers said this ban would mean material coming from reputable organizations and health care providers, like the Mayo Clinic or the University of Iowa Health System, could be excluded, as the ban would not exclude organizations that perform abortions in cases necessary to save the life of the mother. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Federal panel rules in favor of state in Arkansas congressional redistricting lawsuit
(Getty Images) A three-judge federal court panel on Friday dismissed with prejudice a case challenging Arkansas' congressional district map. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by a group of voters and the Christian Ministerial Alliance. It claimed boundaries for Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District were racially gerrymandered and diluted the votes of Black Arkansans. Congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn after the U.S. Census each decade in a process known as redistricting. The goal is to create districts that contain roughly the same population. The Ministerial Alliance's lawsuit was one of four filed to challenge Arkansas' 2021 redistricting process and the only one that hadn't been dismissed. On Friday, U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. and U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. granted the state's motion for summary judgment, saying there was not enough evidence to support the plaintiffs' racial discrimination claims. 'Multiple Arkansas citizens challenge how the General Assembly redrew the state's congressional district lines,' Friday's order states. 'Although their allegations were plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss [Docs. 35, 42], the evidence does not back up their claims of racial discrimination. For that reason, we grant summary judgment to Secretary of State John Thurston.' Thurston, who was secretary of state when the lawsuit was filed in 2023, was elected state treasurer in 2024 during a special election. The governor appointed Cole Jester to succeed Thurston. Previously, the entirety of Pulaski County was included in Arkansas' Second Congressional District, which is represented by Republican U.S. Rep. French Hill. During the 2021 redistricting process, Pulaski County was split between three congressional districts. Plaintiffs alleged the General Assembly considered racial data when redrawing district lines and unconstitutionally 'cracked' the Black voting bloc in southeast Pulaski County. The state's attorneys submitted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the state last October. According to Friday's order, the original complaint alleged two constitutional claims — one for racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment and one for vote dilution under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The federal panel said race needed to be 'the predominant factor' motivating the General Assembly's decision and that awareness or acceptance of a 'racially disparate impact is not enough.' Three-judge panel hears arguments but doesn't rule in Arkansas redistricting lawsuit Creating 'an alternative map' is one way to prove redrawn boundaries were racially motivated, the panel said. However, that only works if the alternative map still accomplishes the Legislature's partisan goals. 'If it does not, then it just highlights how the pursuit of a nonracial aim — like retention, partisanship, or geography — could have led to an unintended racial disparity,' the panel wrote. 'All three of the plaintiffs' alternatives fall short in exactly this way.' Citing a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of a decision by a three-judge panel that found South Carolina had discriminated against Black voters in a 2023 redistricting lawsuit, Stras and his counterparts noted the high court emphasized that the courts must 'start with the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.' 'Absent direct evidence of racial discrimination and with only weak circumstantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case, the presumption of legislative good faith tips the balance,' Stras wrote. That coupled with the fact that no alternative map achieves the General Assembly's goals with 'significantly greater racial balance,' meant the judges could not reasonably find that the plaintiffs had proved enough for their claim of racial gerrymandering to survive summary judgment, according to the ruling. The primary obstacle of the presumption of good faith holds true for the plaintiffs' vote-dilution claim, according to Friday's order. While the vote-dilution claim requires race to be a 'motivating factor' instead of the predominant one, the panel argued 'the plaintiffs do not have enough evidence to get there.' 'Most of what the plaintiffs offer are the materials we have already discussed: maps, statistics, and legislative history, none of which are enough to infer a racial motivation,' the panel wrote. The federal judges acknowledged as evidence a report from a university doctoral candidate that describes Arkansas' 'long history' with racism and resistance to Black voters, but wrote that much of that predates the passage of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. 'Even if he identifies a few scattered examples since then, none are 'reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision,' giving us little insight into what the General Assembly may have been thinking four years ago,' the panel wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
