×

City fights back on severance issue

County reaction swift

T-R FILE PHOTO Pictured is Jim and Susan Gruening’s property at 102 College View Lane, Marshalltown. The Gruenings are one of three property owners on or near the lane requesting their properties be severed from city. The trio claim they do not receive city services but do pay taxes which benefit the city. The city initially denied the requests Dec. 27, 2016.

A disagreement between three local property owners and the city of Marshalltown escalated into counter measures filed earlier this week against the property owners by a Cedar Rapids attorney representing the city.

The motions were filed with the State of Iowa City Development Board, the entity which will eventually rule on an application by the three to sever their properties from the city.

The owners claim they are paying city taxes but not receiving city services, an allegation the city denies.

In December of 2016, Monte and Leisha Eaton, James and Susan Gruening, and Gregory and Linda Jacobs who live on, or whose properties adjoin College View Lane — and all with city limits — applied to the city council to sever their properties.

The application were denied 3-2 vote, with two councilors absent.

The trio have continued their efforts, now in its eighth month.

Patrick O’Connell of Lynch Dallas PC, an attorney representing the city of Marshalltown, filed a Motion to Remove Local Representative Appointed by Marshall County, and a Resistance to Petitioners’ Motion for Disqualification of Local Representative with Hearing Requested.

What the motions mean

Earlier this year the City Development Board asked the Marshall County Board of Supervisors and city to each appoint one representative that will help the CDB rule on the severance requests. The supervisors selected Robert Duke of 2604 Smith Ave. The Motion to Remove Local Representative Appointed by Marshall County said Duke did not live in the territory or area proposed to be severed, and therefore was ineligible to serve.

“It is evident from Mr. Duke’s address … he is not a resident of the territory (i.e. “land area to be severed”).

The city initially selected local attorney Sharon Greer. She was appointed by a 6-0 vote at the June 12 council meeting, with her husband and law partner, Second Ward Councilor Joel Greer, abstaining.

However, since that meeting, concern was expressed that her appointment “could have potential conflict of interest,” according to wording in a new resolution of June 22 which rescinded Sharon Greer’s appointment while selecting former Marshalltown city administrator Dick Hierstein.

However, local attorney Michael Marquess, who was hired by the Eatons, Gruening and Jacobs, asked Hierstein to remove himself from the CDB committee.

Marquess alleged Hierstein had a conflict of interest, since he was a former city employee.

Additionally Monte Eaton signed an affidavit claiming his late father and city councilor Darrell Eaton and Hierstein were “fiercely opposed on a number of issues.”

Marquess said if Hierstein does not remove himself, then he has requested the State of Iowa City Development Board require his withdrawal.

O’Connell, in his motion on behalf of the city, claimed in a separate motion Marquess’ motion did not sufficiently prove “Hierstein has personal biases both in favor of the city and against Petitioner Monte Eaton.”

“The subjective ‘beliefs’ expressed in Mr. Eaton’s affidavit as to why the city may have appointed Hierstein and whether Hierstein is capable of remaining objective in this a matter are purely speculative.”

The motion also requested the CDB hold a hearing on the Hierstein appointment.

Marshalltown Mayor Jim Lowrance told Eaton at the June 22 special council meeting he had recommended Sharon Greer and Hierstein. And he said he would appoint Sharon Greer again if given the opportunity.

“I understand the reason why we had to reconsider,” Lowrance said. “Hierstein is very qualified, I do not see a conflict of interest.”

A telephone call to O’Connell requesting comment was not returned by press time.

County reaction

“That is really disappointing,” said County Supervisor Steve Salasek. “We chose Duke because he is a very objective person, he has no feeling one way or another of this thing.”

Salasek added he did not have any particular feeling on the issue either. “We did what we were asked, to come up with someone who would be on this committee and let it go from there.”

“We got the same letter the city got,” said fellow Supervisor and Board President Bill Patten. “It said one of the qualifications was the person needed to live in that area.”

Patten said the board first approached a nearby resident of the area applying for severance to see if that person would serve as representative.

“He said no way,” Patten said. “We interpreted the letter then, at that point, to mean the area a little larger than one block.”

Patten said Duke, who was selected as the county‚ representative, lives about two miles from College View Lane.

“That person (Duke) has been on numerous committee jobs over the years for the county … he is as unbiased as they come,” Patten said. “That is what we did and why we did it.”

Duke’s reaction

“I don’t live in that immediate area, but I have been in the county for 30-some-odd years,” Duke said. “I am about as independent as you could be. I have never been close., or known anybody that petitioned to come back to the county if they were on the border. We will see how it comes out.”

Hearing date

An Aug. 9 hearing date had been scheduled by the CDB to hear arguments from both parties on the initial severance issue. However, because of the two motions filed by the city, it was unclear at press time if the CDB will proceed.

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