Dubuque County board votes to hire outside counsel to review Lovers Lane judgment

The Dubuque County Board of Supervisors voted Sept. 8 to hire independent outside counsel to review a recent court judgment concerning Lovers Lane after days of public comment from landowners who said the county historically maintained the road.

Supervisor (speaking from the chair) said the move was intended to give residents "their day in court" and to determine whether the judgment could be vacated; the motion to seek counsel from outside the local legal community carried after a voice vote. Multiple residents, including Trista Zazada and Jim Schmidt, told the board they had obtained zoning approvals and permits decades earlier and were surprised by a late letter saying construction could not continue following a judge's signature on summary judgment. Zazada said the county attorney "did no research," blamed his social‑media statements for mixing dates and facts, and asked the board to "claim ownership of Lovers Lane in writing."

County engineer Todd Kinney and several supervisors discussed available documentation showing long‑term maintenance and earlier county projects on the road. Former supervisor Dave Baker urged the board to exercise its role and noted past practice matters when a county has provided services for many years. The board heard competing legal descriptions during the meeting: attorney Edward Henry, who identified himself as counsel for the plaintiffs, said the cited cases were presented in the summary judgment motion, while board members questioned whether the court independently reviewed the facts.

The board did not declare Lovers Lane a county road in a binding, immediate action. Instead, supervisors approved a motion "to seek outside counsel from outside the Dubuque County community to advise the board on matters relating to the Lovers Lane dispute." The chair said the county would continue maintenance "until further order of the court" pending counsel's guidance, to avoid forcing residents to pay for maintenance while legal questions are unresolved. The board directed staff to obtain candidate referrals and asked the county engineer and auditor to coordinate communications with supervisors.

The motion and vote (motion carried) were recorded but no public timetable for hiring counsel was set; supervisors agreed to expedite the process and to hold follow‑up meetings as needed. The board indicated it would share procedural updates with the auditor and keep supervisors informed without creating an electronic quorum.