Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sports Complex Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rapid City officials say open process was used after residents question sports-complex contracts
Summary
Public commenters asked whether the city was awarding a no‑bid contract for management of the new sports complex; the sports commission executive director and Mayor Solomon said an RFP process and selection committee reviewed bids and recommended the chosen partner; the committee approved the consent calendar including the items.
A Rapid City resident raised concerns at the Legal and Finance Committee on July 15 about how the city is awarding contracts connected to the proposed sports complex, saying the selection looked like a no‑bid award for management services on consent item 9.
Mark Millar, who identified himself during public comment, asked whether the work was advertised to the public and why the city appeared to be “pick[ing] and choos[ing] who gets the wonderful paying jobs in this city.” He asked, “Is that how we're doing business in the city now?”
D'Amico Rodriguez, introduced to the committee as executive director of the sports commission, replied that an RFP was issued, five organizations applied, and the selection followed in‑person interviews of finalists. “This was an RFP that went out to bid. 5 groups applied,” Rodriguez said, adding that interview panels reviewed the proposals and the chosen company was selected after those interviews.
Mayor Solomon added that the council had previously approved requests for proposals covering management, architecture and engineering, naming rights and construction manager at risk; he said committees—including councilor members—reviewed proposals and that the process produced competitive responses. The mayor also noted a land donation associated with the project that he estimated to be worth “6 to $7,000,000.”
The committee approved consent items 1 through 12 by voice vote; the chair announced the motion carried. There was no formal roll-call recorded in the transcript for item 9 and no formal challenge to the approval during the meeting.
The committee did not direct additional investigation into the procurement during the meeting; staff and the sports commission representatives remained available for follow‑up questions.
