Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Resident urges Harrisburg to require licensed, bonded contractors after disputed remodel

February 15, 2025 | Harrisburg City, Lincoln County, South Dakota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Resident urges Harrisburg to require licensed, bonded contractors after disputed remodel
Lena Hamill, a resident of Chamberlain, told the Harrisburg City Council during public comment that her daughter and daughter-in-law hired a contractor for work at 621 Prairie Side Trail who demanded $20,000 up front and left what Hamill described as defective drywall and texture work.

Hamill said she was representing her daughter, Madison, and Madison’s wife, Reagan, the homeowners. She urged Harrisburg to require contractors who do business in the city to be licensed and bonded "for double of the amount of the building permit or the contracted amount" to cover additional expenses if work must be redone.

Hamill described the timeline as follows: the homeowners signed a contract and paid $20,000 up front to a contractor who listed three subcontractors on the estimate; when drywall and framing appeared inconsistent, a second drywall specialist flagged problems that the original contractor agreed to fix; Hamill said the repairs left mismatched texture, cracks and other defects. She said the contractor told the family he was licensed and bonded, but that his bond and license were in Sioux Falls rather than Harrisburg and that a $20,000 bond in Sioux Falls would not cover what she said is a roughly $38,000 project in Harrisburg. Hamill said a drywall portion she described as a $6,000 job is now expected to cost about $9,500 to correct.

Hamill named the contractor as Mike Chitwood, doing business as M and A Handyman Remodeling, and said she had contacted Legislator Larry Zickmund (District 14) and the Sioux Empire Builders Association in Sioux Falls about the case. She added that she and the homeowners had filed a consumer complaint with the attorney general’s office, which she said was reviewing the matter. Hamill also said the contractor’s LLC had been diminished last summer and that some business paperwork listed a business address she believes places the operation across from a daycare site.

The comments were recorded during the meeting’s public comment period; the council did not take an immediate public vote or directive on the licensing request during that portion of the agenda. The meeting then moved to routine business: a council member moved to approve the consent agenda "as presented," the motion was seconded and the council approved the consent agenda (vote tally not specified in the transcript). Later the council voted to enter executive session under SDCL 1-25-2 for contract negotiations at 6:07 p.m., and the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. (vote tallies for those actions were not recorded in the transcript provided.)

Hamill framed her request as a consumer-protection measure so other Harrisburg homeowners would not face similar difficulties with contractors she described as operating without adequate local licensing or bonding. No ordinance, policy proposal or staff report on contractor licensing was offered during the public comment period and no board direction or formal referral was recorded in the transcript segment provided.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting