Mahaska County Asks Court To Dismiss Case

Legal documents were filed in Mahaska County District Court by Pella and Oskaloosa to force Mahaska County to once again participate in the 28E agreement for a regional airport.

Oskaloosa, Iowa – The battle between Mahaska County and the cities of Pella and Oskaloosa had its first day in court. At this time, Daniel Gonnerman, attorney for Mahaska County, asked for the petition to be dismissed.

Parties from both sides gathered in the Mahaska County courtroom on Friday afternoon, before Judge Lucy Gamon, to make their case in this early round of legal wrangling.

The Mahaska County Board of Supervisors voted in January to remove themselves from the 28E agreement to build a new regional airport located between Pella and Oskaloosa, near the intersection of 220th Street and Highway 163.

Both cities voted no to Mahaska County’s resolution, allowing them to depart from the agreement.

The Mahaska County Supervisors selected Story County attorney Daniel Gonnerman to represent them in the legal challenges that would come from such a decision.

Fifty-thousand dollars was carved out of the budget to provide initial funding for Gonnerman, who is charging $175 per hour and $100 a day for travel.

In August of 2017 the cities of Pella and Oskaloosa filed a 94-page document with the Mahaska County District Court to make Mahaska County once again participate in the 28E agreement for a regional airport.

The first count of the court filing requests for declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the agreement. It states that the Agreement was validly executed in accordance with Iowa law, including Iowa Code Chapter 28E.

The plaintiffs (Pella and Oskaloosa) state that “Mahaska does not have the power or authority to unilaterally amend or terminate the Agreement and that any such modification requires approval of all of the parties to the Agreement.”

Count two of the document outlines a breach of contract, saying that “Pella, Oskaloosa, and Mahaska were legally capable of contracting for the joint acquisition, construction, and operation of a regional airport facility have done so pursuant to Iowa law.

“Mahaska has breached the Agreement by wrongfully and in bad faith attempting to unilaterally amend or terminate the Agreement, and/or by repudiating its obligations therein. This is particularly evidenced by Mahaska’s prior admissions that the agreement is binding and requires unanimous consent to modify or terminate it.”

“Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against the Defendant, Mahaska County, Iowa, and to require it to perform its obligations as stated in the Agreement, to award common law attorneys’ fees, and such other relief and remedies as may be just and equitable under the circumstances.”

Gonnerman filed the motion to dismiss the petition in October of 2017 on behalf of Mahaska County.

“The motion to dismiss is based on the fact that in the defendants, or it is the defendant’s position that, at this point, there’s nothing the county has done to breach the agreement that was in effect for the purpose of this motion to dismiss,” said Gonnerman.

Gonnerman said the lawsuit is based upon the decision by the board of supervisors to leave the 28E agreement, “the defendant’s position is that, even if that action is null and void, there’s been nothing that the airport authority that’s been created as a result of the 28E agreement has asked the board to do that they have not performed.”

“Basically there’s no harm that’s resulted from any action that’s occurred so far,” added Gonnerman. “It’s the county’s position that the lawsuit is premature because the airport authority has not asked the board of supervisors to perform any act or take any action in support of the 28E agreement.”

Jason Palmer of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C. is representing the cities of Pella and Oskaloosa.

“The defendant’s position is improper,” said Palmer.

Palmer said the dispute is if Mahaska County can unilaterally withdraw from the 28E agreement. The petition before the court is to determine if the county can or cannot remove themselves from the contract.

Palmer said that the defendants “are clearly wrong”.

Palmer then addressed the breach of contract, “I find it curious that the defendants have filed this motion with no case law.”

Palmer cited past case law that when a party rescinds from a contract, it is a breach of contract, and can be sued.

“Here we have Mahaska County improperly withdrawing from the 28E agreement. That is a breach of contract as stated by the Iowa Supreme Court,” added Palmer.

Palmer said that during discovery for the upcoming court case, the plaintiffs would outline how Mahaska County has breached the contract.

Gonnerman replied that the case law being presented was for criminal proceedings. Gonnerman said he didn’t present case law to the court to support his motion to dismiss because it’s “evident” to the court and parties involved.

Gonnerman said that he didn’t believe there is case law to cover this particular instance of disagreement between the county and the two cities.

Gonnerman argued that if the board of supervisors was to reverse their decision to leave the 28E agreement, the two cities case would become “moot”. “That could easily happen.”

Gonnerman said he believes there has to be more substance to the lawsuit than the board of supervisors merely saying they don’t want to be bound by this agreement any longer.

Judge Gamon adjourned the hearing, saying she would hand down her opinion shortly. Oskaloosa News has not gotten a copy of this opinion as of press time.

After the court hearing, Gonnerman spoke with Oskaloosa News reiterating his argument before the court. “I believe before the plaintiffs can file a lawsuit, they have to be harmed in some way, which means that the airport authority would have had to ask the supervisors to do something in particular before they can claim they suffered any damages as a result of that.”

Gonnerman said examples of harm could be refusing to close a road or being asked to use eminent domain power and refuse to do so. “None of those things have happened yet at this point.”

Gonnerman’s advice to the board of supervisors to lead to them departing the 28E agreement, stating the agreement was ambiguous or interpreted in two ways.

“One of which is that would allow the individual entities to withdraw from it [28E]. The other one is that it would require unanimous consent from all three parties. That specificity is missing from the 28E agreement in my opinion,” added Gonnerman. “They could have easily said, all entities must agree, and that word is missing.”

Oskaloosa News will update this story with the judge’s decision once we have an opportunity to read the document.