Attorneys Argue Mahaska County Counterclaim In Airport Lawsuit
Attorneys for the Cities of Oskaloosa and Pella were in court with legal representation for Mahaska County on Friday.
Oskaloosa, Iowa – Attorneys for the Cities of Oskaloosa and Pella, as well as Mahaska County, were all in court Friday morning to argue a second motion for summary judgment filed by the Cities, relating to a counterclaim initiated against Mahaska County in fall 2017. On December 21, 2017, nearly four months after the Cities began legal action against Mahaska County in an attempt to force them to restart cooperation in the airport project, attorneys for Mahaska County filed a counterclaim, stating that the Cities had breached the 28E agreement themselves by requiring the County to close 220th Street for the airport project.
“The 28E Agreement requires Defendant to relocate roads only. The agreement does not require Defendant to close or abandon roads,” then-attorney Daniel Gonnerman wrote.
After nearly a year of proceedings, which saw the Cities prevailing on their initial petition, after Judge Shawn Showers granted a motion for summary judgment, the attorneys reconvened in court on Friday to argue a second motion for summary judgment by the Cities. This time the motion is that the December 2017 counterclaim should be dismissed, as well as to if a specific performance standard should be issued.
Jason Palmer, lead attorney for the Cities, argued that the Court simply needs to again notify the County that they are required to participate in the project.
There’s an implied agreement in all contracts. “So we’re not asking for anything that the law doesn’t already authorize, and the agreement states that they must do which previously they told their representative not to do,” Palmer said.
Gary Dickey, the attorney for Mahaska County, argued, however, that it was the Cities who first breached the 28E agreement by not developing a plan to relocate 220th Street.
“Our defense is they breached first, since they breached first there is no obligation to continue to perform,” Dickey said.
Dickey added that this perceived lack of a plan is what led to Mahaska County passing a resolution in 2017 to withdraw from the regional airport 28E agreement, to begin with.
“There is no plan to relocate, and as a result, Mahaska County passes a resolution to withdraw. IN that resolution, identifies that the South Central Regional Airport Agency has failed to uphold their obligation to have a relocation plan for 220th street.” Dickey said.
He added that it is the opinion of himself and his client that there is still no plan to relocate the road.
“As we stand here today, there is no plan from the Cities or from the South Central Regional Airport Agency to relocate 220th Street,” Dickey said.
In response to dickey’s argument, Palmer said that the 28E agreement does not expressly prohibit road closures from happening for the construction of the airport.
“There is nothing in the 28E agreement that prohibits closures, so therefore it’s fair to do so,” Palmer said.
He further added that the use of the term “relocate” in the agreement, something he said Dickey and the County have cited in many court filings, equates to closing a road.
“If you’re going to relocate a road, that existing road must be closed. Why relocate a road if the existing road would not be closed?” Palmer said.
He added that Supervisor Mark Groenendyk, an opponent of the regional airport project, agreed with this view in a recent deposition.
“He agrees that if a road has to be relocated, it would have to be closed,” Palmer said.
Palmer further added that the 220th Street relocation issue is a moot point, as the Cities have been working with the County as recent as October 2018 on the issue. Palmer said during arguments in court on Friday that in summer 2013, then-County Engineer Jerry Nusbaum informed the Cities via a letter that the County was agreeable to disconnecting 220th street for the airport. This letter led to later meetings in 2016, 2017, and 2018 relating to possible ways to relocate the road.
“This is an ongoing project. Mahaska County has agreed to close it and relocate it, as long as it meets preliminary circumstances,” Palmer said in asking the court to grant the Cities’ motion for summary judgment.
Judge Crystal Cronk told the attorneys after the hearing that she will take the motion, briefs, and oral arguments under advisement and issue a ruling in the coming days. If Cronk grants the motion, litigation is nowhere near done. The Cities have further filed pleadings indicating that they have incurred a number of unforeseen financial setbacks, due to the delay of the project. Attorneys for the Cities are asking that they be able to seek financial damages from the County to make up for those costs incurred. A trial date is currently set for February, where the County could be awarded damages. However, that date is likely to be continued, if the motion for summary judgment argued in court is not granted.
Additionally, if the motion for summary judgment is granted, the County is likely to appeal the matter. After Judge Showers granted summary judgment on all of the issues except for financial liability and the County’s counterclaim, the board initially filed an appeal. However, the appeal was thrown out and kicked back down to district court after The Iowa Supreme Court stated that an appeal could not be filed in the case until all the relevant issues were addressed.
