×

Effort to sever from city continues

One owner vocal

Rierson

Editor’s note: This is the second of two installments on the efforts of four local property owners to sever their property from the city. The first installment appeared Jan. 16.

Credit local resident Monte Eaton for not giving up in his quest to sever his property from the city.

Since first appearing before the city council Dec. 27 of last year, Eaton also made remarks at the Jan. 9 city council meeting and in the days following has sent numerous emails to city officials and the Times-Republican promoting his case.

Recipients include City Administrator Jessica Kinser, City Attorney Roger Schoell, Mayor Jim Lowrance and seven councilors.

His mission is clear: He wants the city council to reconsider their 3-2 vote of Dec. 27, denying their request to sever.

Greer

Voting to deny severance were Mike Gowdy, Joel Greer and Bethany Wirin.

Bob Schubert and Al Hoop voted to approve.

Creating additional drama to the one vote margin was the absence of at-large councilors Leon Lamer and Bill Martin.

Their applications are unique

There is no record of any Marshalltown property owner requesting severance.

Additionally, he wants councilors to reverse a 3-3 Jan. 9 vote which prevented the matter from being put on tonight’s city council agenda.

He picked up one vote from Lamer, but was still one vote shy, because a tie vote meant the measure failed.

Councilor Martin was absent from the Dec. 9 meeting.

“(This)” is clearly stonewalling, and an attempt to delay any motion for reconsideration to extend past the 30-day time period,” wrote Eaton in a Jan. 17 email. “I am extremely confused, disappointed and dismayed the city and some councilors are so opposed to even further reviewing the information which is now available.”

In emails, Eaton has not ruled out taking legal action and running for city council.

The issue

Monte and Leisha Eaton, James and Susan Gruening, Gregory and Linda Jacobs made non-refundable severance applications of $250 each to the city last year.

Their houses and lots on College View Lane border the extreme southern edge of Marshalltown Community College but are in city limits.

The area was annexed by the city in 1969.

That unanimous action (with one councilor absent) has been repeatedly contested by the Eatons.

They allege the council did it as a favor to a former owner who they claim was in conflict with county officials over construction of an out-building. The Eatons also alleged the owner was in jeopardy of having to tear down the building for violating a county ordinance requiring a building permit. Additionally, they claim the city viewed the annexation as a convenient way to add more tax revenue to the city.

Taxes but no services

The 1969 annexation aside, central to the foursome’s argument is their claim payment of city taxes 48 years, in some cases, but not receiving city services.

Specifically, no city street or fire hydrant access.

No sewer, no snow removal and no Marshalltown Water Works service.

And no plans by the city to provide any of the aforementioned in the immediate or distant future.

Spohnheimer told the council at the Dec. 27 meeting the city properties generate $6,050 in city taxes.

While the nearest fire hydrant by Eaton’s estimation one-half mile away, Marshalltown Fire Chief David Rierson told the T-R the MFD can service the properties by laying fire hose that distance, and calling on neighboring rural fire departments to provide tanker trucks.

Pro and con debate

Greer explained his vote to deny in an email to the T-R.

“I favor increasing the city limits footprint over shrinking it, and increasing not decreasing the tax base,” he said. “When owners purchased these lots after they had been annexed, they were on notice the properties were incorporated as part of the city. My decision had little to do with the prospect former owners may have benefited by some tax relief or by avoiding demolition of an out-building that had not received a county building permit.”

Eaton disagreed with Greer via an email to the T-R.

“When looking at increasing the foot print one must also consider the area the city will be required to provide services to,” he said. “Increased foot print area causes an increase in costs, installation and maintenance of the infrastructure, including but not limited to, labor, materials, extended fire and police protection, road surface area, etc. This expansion also leads to Urban Sprawl which is a huge drain on city finances.

Wirin said she approached the issue with an open mind before the Dec. 27 meeting, but during debate became convinced it was not in the city’s best interest to approve.

“There are many other property owners in city limits who do not receive some or all city services,” she said in an interview with the T-R. “For example, a number of properties on the south side of Lincolnway do not have city sewer. What if they requested severance? And I have received many calls from residents supporting my vote to deny severance.”

Hoop, who voted yes on the severance, said he has had time to think the matter through.

“I voted yes because we did not have any precedent to vote no,” he said. “But my support has waned. I am concerned about other property owners wanting to sever.”

Last word?

In a recent email, Eaton alleged:

— “All eight residents on College View Lane are considered to be in the county, except the Gruening property.

— The lane is not a city street or county road. It is a private drive, owned by the Gruenings.

— The two residents sharing the same address – 2460C, 2460B Reed Ave., who use the drive at 2460A Reed Ave to access their properties, located directly off the south side of the drive, are in the county, and located closer to Reed Ave.

— 2460B is actually dual county and city, The majority of the property is in the county, all except a 25″ wide x 330″ deep (chunk) of the east edge of the rear yard, which is considered city.

— 102 College View and 2460A are served by the rural water district, and not MWW. The MWW refused to put water to both locations prior to construction due to cost, and allowed them to connected to rural water district.

— No city departments opposed the severance — fire, police, street, water and sewer. Only the three councilors. What legal basis did they have for their vote?”

——

Contact Mike Donahey at 641-753-6611 or mdonahey@timesrepublican.com.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.38/week.

Subscribe Today