Hibbing business owner urges council to reopen bid on former electronics building; motion to pause negotiations fails 4–3

Kaylin (Kayn) Steel, owner of Steel Fitness, asked the Hibbing City Council on June 3 to reconsider the award of the former Hibbing Electronics property at 3215 14th Avenue East, saying the request-for-proposal described the site as city-owned when, he says, it remains under a third-party lease or purchase arrangement that had not been disclosed to bidders.

Steel told the council he toured the property last year after an initial conversation with Mayor Haiduk and submitted a proposal and interview on May 12. He said the city emphasized long-term value and revitalization over the highest bid, and that his plan — including an expanded front-building fitness facility and a longer-term vision for a fieldhouse — would bring year-round recreation, tournaments and local economic activity. "I strongly believe my proposal better aligns with the long-term vision that was originally communicated to me," Steel said.

Councilors pressed Steel on financial details. Mayor Haiduk and several council members asked whether Steel had a business plan, construction estimates and a revenue forecast; Steel said he submitted financial materials to Betsy (city staff) and was working with Greg at Security State Bank on financing but acknowledged that the fieldhouse portion of his vision was not yet fully costed. "I should have pushed much harder to get something in writing," he told the council, and offered to provide updated projections if the council would reconsider the bid.

The public exchange prompted a formal motion from Councilor Justin Foso to pause or rescind further action on the 3215 14th Avenue East property until the city’s incoming economic developer could review options. Supporters said the pause would allow an incoming hire to help guide the long-term direction; opponents said the council had already authorized the city administrator to negotiate and that negotiations could be lawfully rejected later if needed.

After extended debate about process and whether a minimum price or the city’s outstanding obligations had been disclosed in the RFP, the council took a roll-call vote. The motion failed 4–3 (Hoffman Sakman: No; Justin Foso: Yes; Schweberger: No; Bis: Yes; Hildenbrand: No; Whitney: No; Mayor Haiduk: Yes). Following the defeat of the motion, councilors approved a separate motion to enter a closed session to discuss the parcel under Minnesota Statute 13D.05 subd. 3(c).

The record of the exchange shows the substantive disagreement centered on disclosure of ownership/financial constraints in the RFP and whether pause or re-bid would best protect taxpayer dollars. Steel urged clarity for bidders and asked the council to reopen the process; council members who opposed the pause cited existing committee review and the city’s negotiation authority. The council did not vote to re-open bidding or change the award during the public meeting.