As discussed on Saturday with the Mayor, it seems the EC only has a temporary occupancy permit,
SEE DOCUMENT HERE: EC_TEMP_Permit
Since August 1, the city has been holding events without final inspections being approved (as noted in the document).
If our EC is truly ‘finished’ and we are using it, what is the hold up on a final occupancy permit? Can restaurants sell food before a final inspection? Can a home be lived in without final inspection? Not sure, but I would certainly think we would want a permanent occupancy permit before putting on sold out events.
As we have seen in the siding debacle (so far) from MJ Dalsin, that the city and Mortenson wanted to cut corners and cost, that is why the job by McGrath was so poorly done. With this temporary permit, it makes you wonder what other corners were cut to keep this facility under budget.
I have a feeling the siding is just the tip of the iceberg.
The city has jurisdiction. They can allow use with a temporary permit. The question becomes; is there liability insurance in effect with a temporary permit? Depends upon the insurance contract. There has to be an injury accident for the matter to be tested. There should be a review by the city attorney to be sure there’s uncontestable insurance and/or city liability.
Today, the operations manager for MJ Dalsin was interviewed on Rick Knobe’s program.
I encourage everyone to listen to it……
As Councilor Staggers has been saying from the beginning, this had better NOT cost the taxpayers a single additional dollar!!
I still have not heard a straight answer as to whether the siding was inspected, what the disposition of the inspection was, and if there were deficiencies noted what they were. Whenever this issue (or related issues) are discussed we get non-sequiters from city officials, a sure sign someone is trying to hide something.
Assuming the assertions of the subcontractor are true, and the original plan from the architect called for a different material and installation, and the owner (the city) decided they wanted to save money and use a cheaper material, then the city should be on the hook. Assuming that is what happened… If I have an architect draw up plans for a new house, and then I insist my builder use another material because I want to save some money, then I’m responsible for whatever happens – particularly if I’m advised against it (we don’t know if that happened but it could have).
I think I and others who said that this installation was improper and really shouldn’t have been bent to fit on site are being vindicated, even if a few councilors rolled their eyes as we suggested this.
What we really need to know as taxpayers is what really happened and when. What was the original specification? Who asked for it to be changed and why? Was it the city (the owner)? If so, did the construction manager (Mortenson) object or warn the owner (the city) that this was not a good idea? Hypothetically, if they did and the city demanded we use this material, then the city is morally responsible and needs to pay the subs for the work they asked for.
Problem is we have multiple parties involved. I am not qualified to know legally with all of these parties contractually who should be on the hook and in what cases. The city has been from what I’ve seen quite evasive. I can understand if they want to be careful because this is an ongoing civil matter. However, this also provides a convenient excuse to avoid tough questions and be straight with the citizens.
I fear we’re not going to get the whole story. I wish we would. I would have a lot of respect for anyone who came forward and said I/we asked for the plans to be changed, because we were trying to save money, and we unfortunately messed up. That would be perfectly understandable and there isn’t duplicity involved. We’ve all done that sort of thing, tried to save a few bucks, bought something that was cheaper and found out we got what we paid for. In this case, if that’s what happened it just happens to have a lot more zeros attached to it.
I’m throwing out all sorts of ‘what ifs’ because we are having to pull teeth to get the story. I just wish we could get the story, whatever it may be.
I also can’t help but worry about if this is going to be the last item. Maybe those cracks in the floor might come up later…Trying to save money and do things efficiently with taxpayer money is laudible, but you can go too far. What if corners were cut to meet a budget that might bite us later? Who knows.
My main point is if this was something where the architect or the construction manager messed up, we shouldn’t have to pay a dime. However, if the city (the owner) overruled the architect and/or construction manager, that’s their responsibility – at least morally – in my opinion. Obviously the city gets its funding from taxpayers, so we’d be on the hook. In that case, we still should pay the contractor and we should demand that those who made the decision be publicly revealed and held accountable in whatever way seems reasonable given the circumstances.
The biggest concern I have is transparency. You can’t congratulate yourself for transparency if you only choose to be transparent when it reflects well on you. You have to be just as (if not) more when it doesn’t reflect so well.
Remember, the EC was not competitive bid process. Lots of conjecture. Doesn’t this make the city a partner in the construction? Isn’t the final design the city’s given there wasn’t other proposals? City ordinances do not allow city appeals into court. State & federal law trumps city ordinance wording for others but the city states itself exempt from appeal or answer. Automatic litigation loss & what’s in place is what they get.
Expect years in court. In the end, the budget will suffer another hundred million in repairs and unwinnable litigation expenditure.