Council shoots down BID project bid

By: 
Gray Hughes

By a 0-3 vote, the Hill City Common Council shot down a low bid of  $1.117 million to renovate the Hill City Senior Center and add public restrooms to the building.

The project was one of two projects proposed by the Hill City Business Improvement District Board (BID Board); however, at its meeting last month the BID Board balked at that price and wanted to focus on parking spots and alleyway maintenance behind the senior center (the first BID project) as well as a separate restroom project.

“This project has garnered a lot of discussion,” said Brett McMacken, city administrator for Hill City.

The low bid of $1.117 million came from Rangel Construction and would start after the Sturgis Rally this August and would be completed by February 2022.

The council was presented with the project at its second meeting last month; however, the body decided to table the matter until this meeting. McMacken said the city had 30 days to accept or reject the bid, meaning the matter could not be tabled at Monday’s meeting.

The discussion by the council lasted nearly 45 minutesand focused on what to do with the project.

Bob Lowrey of the Hill City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) spoke at the meeting.

“First, I want to wish the council good luck,” he said. “I would also like to say that, on behalf of the EDC, bathrooms and more gathering spaces are needed. I ask that, whatever you vote, there is still a desire to address the need for bathrooms.”

Connie Wolters, a member of the Hill City Planning and Zoning Commission, said the BID projects started with the need for bathrooms and to revamp the alleyway behind the senior center, which under the proposed renovation would turn into a community center.

She said she is not opposed to the senior center but did not want to see BID money used in this way. She also had concerns that the renovations to the senior center would not comply with the comprehensive plan. Further, she said the council should look at lowering the cost of the project by revamping some of the design to not include custom-made items.

Eric Lind of Krull’s spoke in favor of the senior center itself; however, he said he did not want to see BID money spent on this project and, instead, the council should focus on the need for restrooms and creating parking spots.

Janet Wetovick-Bily, director of the Hill City Area Chamber of Commerce, restated the need for bathrooms.

No one who spoke was opposed to the senior center itself; however, no one who spoke said they were in favor of accepting the bid, and many said the money to renovate the senior center — a city-owned building — should not be coming out of BID funds. The BID fund is funded by a $2 per night hotel room tax.

Alderman Carl Doaty said it is obvious the bathrooms are a need.

“Everyone thinks they are a priority,” he said. “The big thing we keep coming back to is the financial return.”

Doaty said he was critical of the BID Board’s thinking before that a parking spot could generate revenue without a parking meter; however, he said he spoke to Lind who told him how a parking spot could do just that.

He said, right now, he sees three options: revamp the project and split it into two different projects, revamp the plans for the existing project to lower cost or to accept the bid as-is.

Doaty said alderman Dale Householder, who is chairman of the senior center board, had been looking at alternative sources of funding. Because of his involvement with the senior center, Householder participated in the conversation on an informational basis only and did not cast a vote.

The issue with the funds, though, Householder pointed out, is that if the city approves the project the senior center would not be able to receive the funds because they are for an unmatched need.

Alderman Jason Gillaspie said he has appreciated the comments everyone has given thus far.

He restated that the original intention of the BID Board was to revamp the alleyway, create more parking spots and add more public restrooms.

The senior center is a city-owned building that is in need of renovating; however, he was not sure if the BID money was the proper way to do that.

He was in favor of Householder exploring additional funding from outside sources.

Alderman Gary Auch said the majority of the people to whom he has talked balk at the price tag.

“We should explore other ways to come up with the money,” he said.

Householder said he is working with three large funders in South Dakota. He said he has applied for two of the grants thus far and will apply for the third this week. He said there are no guarantees, but the institutions appeared interested.

Since motions need to be in the affirmative, it was then moved by Gillaspie and seconded by Auch to approve the bid. The vote failed 0-3, meaning the bid was rejected. Householder did not vote.

The conversation, though, did not die after the vote.

The price tag for future projects need to be smaller, Doaty said, and the council should allow for time for Householder to get confirmation from backers, which, Householder said, would happen in April most likely.

“The BID Board said they would contribute $500,000 to look at restrooms and parking...I don’t know if this needs to go back there and if they are going to stay around $500,000,” Gillaspie said.

Gillaspie said this thought might be unpopular, but he said the council went out to bid too soon for the project.

“Why don’t we talk about this in May?” Doaty said.

The council agreed they will take a look at this again at its first meeting in May and after Householder hears back from backers.

User login