December 2017

UPDATE II: Legacy certainly has a Legacy

l3wis December 30, 2017 4Comments

Guest post by Bruce Danielson;

UPDATE II: Seems a Legacy development got denied a state loan, and nobody is talking;

But, earlier this month, it did.

The credit committee for the South Dakota Board of Economic Development recommended a loan be made to a company.

Eight days later, the full board refused it.

This post lays out several points I would like you to consider following the Wednesday December 27, 2017 press conference. This press conference was the first time the citizens of Sioux Falls actually were able to ask question of two city employees deeply involved in the parking ramp project. It now appears more employees should be brought forward to answer  questions. Here is the press conference link for you to watch:

I recently filed my 5^th Board of Ethics complaint, I may be filing a few more shortly.

The Sioux Falls parking ramp proposal is a very curious proposal and so is the connection to Les Kinstad, Norm Drake, Larry Canfield as business partners. To calm the fears of a great many Sioux Falls citizens, there is a belief a grand jury investigation is needed into the building collapse. There seems to be a pattern of getting things done without permits and going until caught. This Board of Historic Preservation meeting is another time this group pushed the legal and ethical limits to just get something done. I guess this is what we do just to get things done or make it look like it. Now we have a dead worker and a missing downtown building. Once the parking ramp is under way, what’s to stop the guarantors from changing the work orders they gave their contractor when putting their building up with of our parking ramp?

BTW, during the construction of the hotel, will the ramp be open for public use? There is a growing concern around the country about issues related to parking ramp or building construction when connecting them together. Here are some results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLiHsIk1RNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdtqVe1Rpc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BONh6oMN13k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ldg-M8jUc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aQMuhGleNA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2P1zCqbmKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPe7c3Gpl7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y5nYkrti3A

Are these videos enough to question anything about our current concerns?

Think about this situation (PDF DOC: bohp_minutes_041311):

Norm Drake and Les Kinstad went to a Board of Historic Preservation after Ron Bell issued a Stop Work on the Security Building in 2011. They were just pushing ahead without approvals required. Work until they are stopped.

 Security National Bank Renovation

Les Kinstad, Scott Abdallah, and Norm Drake presented detailed information about renovation work at the Security National Bank building located at 101 S. Main Avenue. Interior building permits were granted prior to the start of construction but no exterior

building permits have been pulled even though work has begun on exterior window replacement. Because of this, Building Services placed a Stop-work Order on the project until the Board reviews the project and Building Services can review structural plans.

The Security Bank project representatives presented the Board members with some visuals of the building as originally built, to show what the exterior windows used to look like. The owner intends on replacing the window areas with something very similar. Keith Thompson made a motion to approve the work as presented and then to have the Board review the project again as it relates to the façade easement agreement, when the project is complete. Dixie Hieb seconded the motion. Motion passed with five members voting in favor of the motion and Anita Kealey abstaining.

So what is the full connection between all of these boards, people and events? I record these meetings so they can be studied and used for further proceedings. Sioux Falls city government has stopped the Council, boards and commissions from taking detailed minutes to limit the exposure, this appears to be why the administration fought so hard to prevent public recordings. There are several members of the public and press who are watching your actions, the administration processes and the curious connections with several outside entities.

As a side note, Norm Drake discussed his displeasure having to follow rules when building downtown Sioux Falls during this 2016-11-29 – Downtown Design Standards presentation I recorded.

On December 2, 2016 at 10:33 a.m. less than 60 hours after Mr. Drake was complaining about standards we lost a man and a historic building with a SiouxFalls owned façade easement. This happened one day after a curious property transfer happened and now we have their confession of insolvency. The Federal EPA has the ability to fine previous property owners for criminal wrong doing. Sioux Falls appears to say, let’s just get it done and damn the consequences. Remember, we lost a man and a historic building with a SiouxFalls owned façade easement.

What’s wrong with this? There is a reason for ethics. There is proper process. Where are the ethics and open process we must have to not let these things happen again. Why does the city continue to do the same thing over and over again thinking they will never be caught?

RELATED STORIES

Legacy gets sued by Irish Franchise;

Dublin-based Epcon, a condominium builder with 127 franchisees in 29 states, sued a Sioux Falls, S.D., franchisee whose projects never gained ground despite plans to build in one of the fastest-growing cities in the Plains states. Epcon said the owners, Norman Drake, Lynn Hinckley, Lester Kinstad, Bryant Soberg and Darrel Viereck failed to make scheduled franchise payments. It is asking a federal court to award it $200,000 in back payments and interest.

There was also a very familiar proposed parking ramp project in Rapid City, in 2009 (DOC: 0727_July27SpC)

UPDATE: This is what was used to stop Harsma Construction from further contracts with the city this past year. Pay attention to point 8 below and see how Legacy can be doing further business with the city?

GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

Section 2. Bidding Requirements and Conditions

 2.10 DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS:

The following reasons will be considered sufficient for disqualifying a bidder and rejecting the proposal or proposals:

A.    Submittal of more than one proposal for the same work from an individual, partnership, limited liability company, firm, corporation, or joint venture by the bidder or its affiliates.

B.    Evidence of collusion among bidders. Participants in collusion will not receive recognition as bidders for future work with the City until they are reinstated as a responsible qualified bidder.

C.   The bidder has been determined to be a non-responsible bidder by the City. A bidder may be determined to be a non-responsible bidder for any one or more of the following reasons:

1.    The bidder has inadequate experience, lack of organization resources, or technical resources to complete the project;

2.    The bidder or its affiliates have other incomplete projects which the City believes may hinder or prevent prompt completion of the project;

3.    The bidder or its affiliates are in default of contracts for previous or other current projects;

4.    The bidder or its affiliates have not satisfactorily performed, for the City or other owners, previous projects or other current projects including, but not limited to, the items listed below in this paragraph. Determinations of unsatisfactory performance on work for other owners will be based on written documentation unless the other owner is associated with the project to be awarded.

a.    Noncompliance with project requirements or the directives of the owner or its agents;

b.    Repeated or substantial failure to complete projects on time;

c.    Substantial corrective work required prior to final acceptance or during the warranty period;

d.    Instances of work or materials that failed to meet the specifications of the contracts but were accepted by the City with a price adjustment;

e.    Failure to provide adequate safety measures or appropriate traffic control measures that endangered the safety of the workforce or the public;

f.     Submitted false documents or misrepresented the quality or quantity of materials used or work performed in the bid or on other projects.

5.    Subcontractor or supplier claims against the payment and performance bond and/or the project proceeds on bidder’s or its affiliates’ other current or previous projects that may impede the ability of the bidder to complete the project to be awarded.

6.    Any other facts or circumstances showing a reasonable likelihood of the bidder’s inability to properly complete the project in accordance with the contract requirements.

7.    The bidder, its affiliates or their respective officers, directors, members, partners, shareholders, or resident general managers in arrears to the City in excess of 90 days, including any situation where the bidder was a party to a joint venture and the joint venture failed to reimburse the City for monies owed.

8.    The bidder, its affiliates, or their respective officers, directors, members, partners, shareholders, or resident general managers has violated Environmental Laws of any state or the United States (as defined above in General Conditions) which violation has resulted in a fine of $10,000 or more or has had any permit or contract revoked based on the Environmental Laws of any state or the United States.