UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Councilors Kiley & Erickson try to play the ‘Switcheroo’ game with Admin Building expansion

For some odd ball reason the contract was NEVER closed with the admin building, it’s been 18 MONTHS! So now we want to AMEND the contract so the same contractor who hasn’t reimbursed us for the failed geo thermal system can expand the building for the new IT space without putting it out to bid.

Councilor Starr brought up some good points, shouldn’t this be put out for bid and close the first contract? He never said he was against the Triage Center, in fact he supports it. That didn’t stop Kiley and Erickson from trying to twist that Pat was against the Triage Center. That IS NOT what he said, he just wanted the old contract closed (with a contractor who may or may not owe us money – that is still in litigation) and an RFP put out for the expansion.

Nice performance though.

Kiley even went as far to say that another contractor could NOT do the job because they wouldn’t have the building plans from the original contractor. I know Mr. Rick ‘Know it All’ Kiley has probably built a couple of houses for himself, guess what, the entity paying for the construction OWNS THE PLANS! In other words, if another contractor came in to work on the expansion, the city simply has to hand over to them the plans, because it is the property of the taxpayers, BUT, they have to close the original contract first.

UPDATE: I heard after the meeting that the architect copyrighted the plans, so the city has to ask for permission to use them. But, there would be no reason to use plans for a building that is already built. A NEW contractor would draw up NEW plans, because it is a NEW expansion.

Neitzert basically said that we got the building because the other side lost and we need to stop being sore losers. Hey Greg, this isn’t about losing, we can tell the building is already there, that’s obvious McFly, we are asking to FOLLOW the proper procedures, like clearing litigation and putting out an RFP.

City Attorney Bengford came up and basically said they are taking the easy road instead of the right road. At least he was being honest.

Erickson went on to talk about funding (even though that is NOT what the discussion is about) Neither Stehly, Starr or Brekke asked about HOW it is being funded, and NONE of them said they were opposed to it, it is about the litigation.

Kiley said that it would just delay the process six months and it will only cost us more money. Hey Rickey Lee, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT when we never put this out for bid? I fondly remembered the new window replacement on the Pavilion that had to be put out for re-bid, and another contractor came in about $300K less. 

Funny how those things work.

Of course it passes 6-2 with Starr and Stehly opposed*. And once again the majority of the council is fine with not following proper procedures. Shocker!

*Brekke voted for it because she got to see the contract in advance and said it was legal. But Janet, was it proper or ethical?



19 comments ↓

#1 Plausible Deniability on 10.01.19 at 9:25 pm

Kiley and his oft-heralded “Scientific Method”. What an idot. Beer shot out my nose when he tried that “the original architect and contractor already know where the plumbing & electrical are in the building they built, so naturally they should be the choice for more work” – argument. Oh, yeah. There’s not another contractor in town that could possibly interpret the blueprints. Noooooooo. What. An. Ass.

#2 Scott on 10.01.19 at 9:41 pm

Just shows that corruption is alive and well, especially with the RS5. How is it that these Councilors always find a way to change the rules?

#3 Scott on 10.01.19 at 10:01 pm

So, to continue with the same contract makes one wonder if someone on the city council is in some way connected to the contractor or one of their employees. This smells of preferential treatment. So much unethical behavior exhibited at tonight’s meeting. The thermal system issue needs to be resolved before letting this contractor back in to do anything.

#4 scott on 10.01.19 at 10:08 pm

who was the original contractor and architect? are norm drake and aaron hultgren involved somehow?

#5 Perplexed on 10.01.19 at 10:15 pm

It was my understanding that when a work is developed for hire the default copyright owner was the party paying for the work. It was also my understanding the default owner can be overridden by a written agreement between the parties. Did the City pay someone to develop plans and then secretly gift them the intellectual rights or is the architect attempting to acquire something that is owned by someone else or what are the facts? It would seem we need a different City Attorney if that question could not be answered clearly and correctly during the meeting both as a matter of policy and regarding the specific matter under discussion. It would also seem we need a different City Attorney if the current one does not have the courage to speak out and correct the record. Either the City gave away the rights or the City has the rights. Seems simple.

#6 D@ily Spin on 10.01.19 at 10:32 pm

Lots of scraping that will lead to incredible cost. What could have happened is a city produced plans submitted for competitive bids instead of a contractor imposed construction with irreparable flaws that would be major cost and Contractor at Risk future profit during and beyond completion. Idiots, you belong in government. You’d never make it in private enterprise.

#7 l3wis on 10.01.19 at 10:37 pm

What I was told tonight after the meeting that #1, the architect hasn’t been paid in full yet and #2 it costs ‘extra’ to have rights to those plans. I mentioned that the school district owns all the plans to their buildings (which makes sense for add ons, etc). I believe the same plans were used for both Washington and Roosevelt?

#8 The ghost of W.C. Fields on 10.01.19 at 10:41 pm

Oh yes, Oh yes, it’s the old “open contract” trick. I wouldn’t be without it. In fact, without it, I wouldn’t be…. Oh yes, Oh yes….

( – and Woodstock ponders: “I think we would all be better off in Philadelphia, wouldn’t we?”)

#9 Scott on 10.01.19 at 10:56 pm

How long before this Council wants to rake the taxpayers with another bond issue to add the 4th floor? The spending never stops with them.

#10 Warren Phear on 10.02.19 at 8:01 am

But Janet, was it proper or ethical?

I am a fan of Janet. But, first it was the culture officer vote. Now this. Two important votes. Back to back. Troubling.

#11 Plausible Deniability on 10.02.19 at 10:56 am

PTH has to be a 1-term mayor. Time to get adults with more life experience and/or more municipal government expertise back in control. PTH and his Pharaoh of Incremental Tech Toy Mission Creep Jason Reisdorfer need to be shown the door. We have toppled trees, cratered roads, smelly packing plant, homeless vagrants and TIF-titillated unchecked developers to deal with. DTSF notwithstanding, the major arteries which bring visitors into Sioux Falls via interstate & the airport are ugly, haphazard unkempt commerce corridors. All the latest official flags, logos, marketing/branding surveys and new $2m tech HQ playpen which PTH is rolling out will not change the reality of Sioux Falls greeting visitors with a weedy, gravelly, trashy worst-of-Walmart clientele image.

#12 Drafter on 10.02.19 at 11:02 am

During the bidding process plans are often developed and the designs are copyrighted to protect their intellectual rights. Once the building is built, the plans become the property of the owner so they know how the building was built. Having a set of plans to work from are important to the long term viability of the building ownership. If the city gave up the ownership of a set of plans, the city legal beagles need to be neutered and retired to the farm.

#13 There's still a big piece of metal from the storm on Lincoln Avenue, that's on the city's side of the "Red Line." on 10.02.19 at 1:34 pm

Perhaps, Janet has been attending ‘Neitzert Night Classes.’

#14 Scott Johnson on 10.02.19 at 1:58 pm

I watched the meeting last night and agree with Pat and Teressa but she shouldn’t have dragged GOD into the equation, trying to make some counselors feel guilty about secret meetings. She said God heard what waswas said. So what. Totally RIDICULOUS

#15 J Dietrich on 10.02.19 at 3:27 pm

The roughed-in 3rd floor of the Adm. building is useable at a minimum level with no build-out. Didn’t the Public Transit Task Force use it for their war room meetings? Not glorious digs as is, to be sure…but not absolutely unusable. There is no way that $2m needs to be spent on it to let the IT Department move in and vacate their existing space for the triage center. Let IT make due on the 3rd floor with sheetrocked exterior walls, inexpensive flooring, bundled cable runs and the furniture they have now. The third floor doesn’t have to be open to the public for tours to show how grand it is right away. Reisdorfer has only been on the job a year. He already has top compensation, free camp Harvard with full pay, and increased department revenue from the Midco Franchise Fee Increase. Enough is enough for that department.

#16 l3wis on 10.02.19 at 4:58 pm

SJ, yeah, Theresa kind of explained the ‘God’ reference to me afterwards, which I kinda of figured what she was getting at. Basically what was said in EXEC SESSION wasn’t the same that was said in the Public Council Meeting. It is against the law for Theresa or ANY councilor to tell me what is said in that session (even though I disagree and think it is NOT) and she never told me the specifics of the conversation, but she did tell me that what the public heard was about the opposite of what councilors were saying in that session.

#17 moses6 on 10.02.19 at 7:01 pm

You don’t think people actually believe Kiley. and Erickson they only represent one kind of people.

#18 D@ily Spin on 10.02.19 at 10:43 pm

Nothing to say except we’re misrepresented on the city council. What freak show did these people get fired from? Maybe the next carnival will bring better leaders.

#19 Perplexed on 10.05.19 at 8:19 pm

In the commercial world I have seen “bespoke” buildings where the owner owns all the rights and I have seen “off the rack” buildings where the building is just one of many. The fees for each are different to reflect the different level of work involved. The fee for the “off the rack” plans is essentially to ensure local code compliance since most cities have slightly different building rules as a result of different groups greasing the gears. In the “bespoke” situation the owner generally owns all rights. In the “off the rack” situation there is generally some contract language that “licenses” the right to use the plans in relation to the completed building. The owner of the “off the rack” plans is frequently restricted from offering a similar building in a given market or geographic area or for type of industry. Generally the owner of an “off the rack” building can’t share or sell the plans or use them to build another building but as a practical matter that is usually not an issue. I have never seen a commercial agreement pay for a “bespoke” building and get an “off the rack” building. I have never seen a commercial agreement without the owner having the rights to employ the plans for the building as built or to modify the building going forward. I have been told that most of the time the City’s legal experts use “off the rack” contracts provided by the architect and contractor which is a long way from what happens in the commercial world. I was also unaware that exclusive no-bid alteration and modification rights for the architect and contractor was offered as part of the original RFP. I wonder if other groups would have bid differently knowing they had a no-bid perpetual profit stream coming or if the perpetual no-bid terms were a “special deal” for “special friends” of the administration. Perhaps our Mayor should educate the public as to what the City really bought both in terms of the building and the contract expertise that was paid to work on the deal.

Leave a Comment