Greg goes into great detail explaining the settlement;

The recent events center settlement revealed that we received $485,004 in cash and forgiveness of bills owed to the contractors. The other $514,996 of the settlement was in the form of a write-down of the ‘contractor contingency’ which is a block of money that the owner (the City) allows the contractor (Mortenson) to access during construction to cover eventualities out of the control of the contractor (i.e. a subcontractor walks off the job, raw material prices spike, etc). At the end of the project, there was $1,524,402 left in the Contractor Contingency fund. Note this is OUR money (it never went to the contractor – it was in our bank account). At the end of the project, industry documents state, and in fact our contract states, that we retain that unused contingency. Now the city asserts it is not ‘our money’ because the contractor could access it. They assert that per the contract, if we were to find a ‘latent’ (hidden and not seen but NOT based on contractor negligence or fraud) defect within the 10 year statute of repose (time limit in South Dakota to find a defect that was hidden and go after the contractor) that they would have the right to access the contractor contingency fund to fix it.

Greg finishes up by saying this;

To be clear I have found no evidence of corruption or malfeasance, at best it was only an error in judgement/bad decision. It may not have even been that.

I disagree, I have felt there should be a Federal investigation into the entire EC building process. I also don’t agree it was an error in judgement. I think the mayor knew what was going on and purposely ignored it out of selfishness to get the project done on time and under budget, which will cost us more in the long run if extensive repairs need to be made.

Why do I think it wasn’t just a bad decision? Because most people in leadership who have integrity and ethics ADMIT to those bad decisions and apologize instead of continuing to lie. And the lies continue to pile up.

Greg did do a fantastic job of explaining the issue, and by NO means he is sugar coating the events.

As for the study that is supposed to happen, I get the feeling more and more that the city is going to have a tough time finding someone willing to point the finger at an internationally acclaimed contractor for bad work. And even if they do, there isn’t much we can go after Mortenson for. As Greg pointed out, it was clearly the adminstration’s fault for allowing the work to be done to begin with. The company that does the study will essentially be asking us to pay them for a conclusion that will put taxpayers on the hook for the repairs. Would you want that job?

I think a group of volunteer local contractors should be putting an advisory report together instead. I know, pie in the sky.

9 Thoughts on “Sioux Falls City Councilor Neitzert on the EC siding settlement

  1. The D@ily Spin on October 27, 2017 at 9:09 am said:

    The siding is inferior. What amazes me is how this matter has become so complicated. After all the media, politics, and a Supreme Court case; there’s no resolution. I would respect someone standing up to take the blame. It could be the person who made the materials substitution. Ultimately, it’s the mayor. His pressure to stay within budget resulted in questionable construction. Is it just the siding? What other substitutions were cheaper than Kmart?

  2. Rufusx on October 27, 2017 at 9:44 am said:

    Federal Investigation? Seriously? What section of the US Code (Federal Law) do you feel was violated?

  3. Theresa stehly on October 27, 2017 at 2:22 pm said:

    Some are figuring out who is to blame. Some are asking about the integrity of the process. And then there is the question about the condition and quality of the siding. I have asked to be on the committee that will review the proposals for an in-depth investigation. I believe that we need to hear input from the siding experts in our community as well. At the end of the day,it will be unfortunate if we have to tell taxpayers that they need to accept that this is the way the siding will always look. I believe that most homeowners would not accept this on their homes. Our $118 Million investment deserves better as well.(Two years ago, the City paid $5000 for the Judd Allen report. It gave an initial evaluation of the condition of the siding. I have made multiple requests to see the report. The City refuses.)

  4. Councilor Neitzart has a long history of thoroughly researching issues, that I feel confident about.

    How he can conclude highly educated, experienced professionals, including Director Mark Cotter, architect Jeff Hazard etc…..made sound decisions on behalf of Sioux Falls taxpayers is incredulous!

    Neitzart was elected to be part of our local system of checks and balances.

    On this issue, Neitzart is clearly NOT representing Sioux Falls taxpayers.

  5. Agreed. My Man Micromanager made the decision on his own to go ahead with the crappy siding. He doesn’t feel it was a ‘bad’ decision because he has yet to apologize for it. Not sure why Neitzert is covering the Mayor’s butt on this one.

  6. i don’t think he is covering the mayor’s butt at all. i won’t speak for him but i think he’s saying our leadership got exactly what they paid for,
    and he’s saying we’re stuck with it because of that.
    as with the settlement, what the leadership got was not a good deal for the taxpayers. pfiefle and huether are obviously incompetent boobs. this entire fiasco lands at the feet of a mayor who wanted the kudos for getting done on time and under budget.

  7. He not covering for anyone but simply stating what he has found by looking at the available evidence. I think you should read the entire post. He said because the city staff didn’t object when it was put up and sign off the construction as being completed it would be hard to win a court case now. See all his comments at http://www.facebook.com/gregforcouncil

  8. Let me clarify, I agree almost 100% with what Greg has said, and applaud the great detail he went into. The part I disagree with is that the mayor made a ‘bad decision’. It was a very calculated decision, and I don’t think the mayor should be let off the hook for it.

  9. The D@ily Spin on October 28, 2017 at 10:14 am said:

    The devious tactics deployed by Huether are deplorable. Perhaps Neitzert realizes the inferior construction must be accepted. The State Supreme Court decision seemed nothing more than proof there’s a problem. Everybody escapes on this one.

    Fortunately, we can soon replace Huether. I feel sorry for the next mayor. He or she will be busy fixing the mess. There will be no new policy. The citizens of Sioux Falls might be better off unincorporated. City government seems more harmful than helpful. Now I understand why annexation is fought.

Post Navigation