April 4, 2024 (Pocatello For Accountable Government Entities, May 29, 2024)
UPDATE for Case CV03-22-02569
Staker & Parsons Companies dba Idaho Materials & Construction (IMC) v. City of Pocatello and Pocatello Development Authority (PDA). Re: Unpaid work at the FRIGITEK project within the Airport TIF
The judge granted summary judgment to the defendants (PDA & City of Pocatello) and dismissed the case without prejudice on 03/26/24.
OUR OPINION. . .
This is the 2nd recent City-involved case dismissed on technicalities. Once again, the lawsuit determination was NOT based on the merits of the arguments/allegations in the complaint. The judge disallowed “untimely” filings (the Plaintiff’s response in opposition to summary judgment) which means the filings’ contents were rejected for consideration and resulted in what is essentially a default determination. The ruling also determined that the plaintiffs failed to file a “Notice of Tort Claim” as required by the Idaho Tort Claims Act before initiating the lawsuit. NOTE: The untimeliness of filings (disputed by the plaintiffs) related ONLY to supporting documents/exhibits which had been provided to the defendants via a hyperlink prior to the deadline lapsing.
This outcome may/may not be considered a win for citizens depending on your viewpoint. The City and Pocatello Development Authority (PDA) will request & likely be awarded reimbursement for their legal expenses (est. $120K) However, this “seemingly” favorable outcome may be the short-sighted position. Why? It doesn’t take into consideration the “cost” of a damaged relationship with a valued local contractor or the negative impact to our City’s reputation in a difficult market. Twice now and a decade apart, contractors have been burned for their participation in failed PDA urban renewal projects (Hoku & Frigitek). Neither (contractor) directly contracted with the governmental entities, but no one seems to acknowledge the resulting residual damage to the City’s reputation and credibility that these two debacles caused.
***The public should be aware that the City’s filings argued the exact OPPOSITE of their public statements made following the termination of the Frigitek lease/project due to non-payment.
