SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO.com) -- KELO.com News has also reached out to Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether about the settlement agreement for the faulty siding on the Sanford Premier Center.
KELO.com News has asked the Mayor how much actual money the City of Sioux Falls received in the settlement agreement.
As soon as KELO.com News receives an answer, we'll let you know.
----
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO.com) -- As directed by the Mayor's Office, KELO.com News has sent the following questions to Sioux Falls Assistant City Attorney Karen Leonard regarding the settlement agreement about siding problems at the Premier Center.
We will provide Leonard's answers as soon as we receive them. The questions were drafted by KELO.com News Director Todd Epp, an attorney licensed in South Dakota and Kansas who spent 14 years in private practice.
----
1. Pp 2-3 notes the existence of a May 7, 2015 agreement of the parties that apparently was not completely agreed to, with the final agreement dated Sept. 15, 2015. Who objected to the May 7th agreement and why? Why did it take another four months to forge the settlement agreement?
2. Why was an Ohio firm, Thompson Hine LLP, used as the escrow agent? Did they represent any of the parties in the dispute? I take it this is their lawyers' trust account, correct?
3. Section 1.8 of the escrow agreement says Thompson Hine would not be paid anything for being the escrow agent? They're handling a million dollars and not taking a fee? That seems odd.
4. Section 2.8 has Ohio law as choice of law to in the event a lawsuit arises from the escrow. Why not South Dakota law, as the City and number of other parties were based in S.D.? Further, there's no choice of venue provision in either the settlement agreement or the escrow agreement? Why not? And no S.D. choice of law in the settlement agreement? Why not S.D.?
5. As noted in #4, wouldn't having the escrow in S.D. make enforcement easier if there was a problem with disbursement?
6. Section 7.1 of the settlement agreement says no further work with Mortensen unless specifically authorized by the City. Has any further work been authorized to Mortensen? Why didn't this provision also apply to the other defendants?
7. Has the $1 million been paid to the City? Have I read the agreement correctly that all the funds go to the City?
8, Section 3.1.2 appears to concern work Dalsin did on the Convention Center? Why was this included in this agreement about the siding issue with the Premier Center? Or was it related to the siding?
9. Section 4.1 indicates that the CMCF is reduced by $514,996. Did this money go to the City?
10. There is no language in the agreement that required disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction would not constitute a breech of the agreement. This is pretty common language in settlement agreements. Why was it not included? Do the other parties consider this release of the agreement a breech, even if judicially required?