A decision on a proposed city/county police officer training/gun range may come down to a Muscatine County Zoning Board meeting in early October despite discussions at Monday morning’s meeting of the Muscatine Board of Supervisors at the County Administration building in Muscatine.
After a group of about 16 voiced their concerns to a Muscatine City Council that tabled their decision on Thursday, an estimated 60 showed up Friday morning for the county zoning board meeting to be held at the county administration office, which has a capacity of about 20, the meeting was postponed until a larger venue could be considered, according to Muscatine County Zoning Board Administrator Eric Furnas.
A total of eight opposing neighbors addressed the board of supervisors in the public comment section of their meeting Monday, questioning their 4-0 decision to move forward with pursing purchasing 20 acres of prime farm ground at over $21,000 per acre in an area about five miles south of Moscow off County Road F-70.
Citizens questioned the “nearly more than double the average price” of county agriculture property, questioned supervisors of not doing their “due diligence” in studying the plan more before making their decision a week earlier and asked if any of them might want a gun range in their “back yard.” Only three of the five supervisors were at the meeting including chairman Scott Sauer, District one Representative Danny Chick and District five representative Jeff Sorensen. Kirt Kirchner and Nathan Mather were not at the meeting.
After hearing most of the arguments against the shooting/training facility location, supervisor Sauer opened up to ask the objectors to investigate options on their on, possibly talking to Sheriff Quinn Riess if there might be a possibility to work out an agreement with one of the only other gun range facilities in the county, the Isaac Walton League, located north of Muscatine, if there might be possibilities of expanding their facility to accommodate police training. There were also suggestions that surfaced of utilizing an industrial area near Muscatine and there was talk of once using a former vacated Muscatine warehouse for training.
There was also questions of estimates of the kind of “additional cost” the facility would need to get it safe and up to speed in building birms, fencing and facilities, plus keeping it environmentally friendly and free from lead poisoning and wild animal friendly.
Supervisors also explained the facility won’t simply be used for shooting practice (estimated to take place 30-40 times a year including a few night sessions) as taizer and combat training would also
be part of procedures on the campus. Supervisors also seemed confused about numbers including costs and Chick and Sorensen both admitted not having seen the full proposal before making their vote.
Charlie Lewis, who owns 29 acres directly east of the proposed site at 112 Van Horne Street, says he has the most to lose, hoping one day to build his “dream retirement home” in a wooded area next to the land.
“Never in my dreams would I have anticipated a gun range next to me,” Lewis said.
Aaron Steffens of 2528 150th Street said he lives about a half mile south of the proposed site with his family and feels they may be in danger, asking supervisors to resend their vote. “None of you would want this in your backyard,” he said, noting it would be a “disaster for the county” should a life is taken because of a stray bullet from the range.
He called his homestead “very peaceful” before he questioned the vote of each supervisor.
Tim Maxwell lives at 1444 N. Isett Avenue and said there’s farm ground on all sides of his place, including some Century family farms, and questioned how the county decided on this particular property for the gun range and how it would be paid for.
Chick explained funds would come out of the jail fund to pay for the facility, not taxpayers’ wallets, but Maxwell questioned if taxpayer money might have to be used to prepare the facility, causing a possible bonding referendum of which the public would have to vote upon. Maxwell concluded about 30 local residents would be affected directly by the new range.
Laura Kramer of 1670 N. Mulberry Ave. questioned the high soil quality of the property as prime farm ground and asked supervisors to protect prime farm ground in the county from being used other than agriculture. She had tears come to her eyes as she talked about the hard work farmers have put into the land to learn the right to be Century farmers in the area.
Kim Schneider, 1678 N. Isett Ave., questioned where this whole gun range proposal started, Sorensen answering that the board had started looking into sites in 2019 by hiring a firm to locate possibilities. He said about 13 sites rose, but only two of those land owners wanted had interest in selling their property. “It seems to me, you haven’t been very transparent at all,” Schneider said, concerned her land values would take a dive should the gun range exist.
Chick explained that officers sometimes use out of state facilities – like recently in Colorado – to train, costing taxpayers more for travel expenses.
Opponents chimed up in questioned why there isn’t a facility in Iowa that would be closer, noting maybe this is a problem all over the state or the possibility of creating regional gun ranges for officers. Chick explained there were benefits to having a site close to home.
John Kramer also asked the board to reverse their decision and questioned why supervisors didn’t go visit the property before making their vote. Living about 2.5 miles from the site, he called it a “quality of life” issue and questioned conservation problems.
Chad Holladay of 171 N. Isett Ave. also spoke at the meeting, saying he supports the work of police “100 percent” but just doesn’t want the facility within earshot.
Dee Ann Reed of 2460 155th St. questioned why a hardtop road next to the location was considered over a less-used gravel road.
Sorensen said there would be studies concerning the site, including the impact on endangered Illinois mud turtles.