I just got word they filed a new petition this afternoon it basically asks the city gets at least 10% private funding for an indoor pool, be built on at least 25 acres, the city has clear title and deed of the land, is built on a four lane roadway and there is ample parking.



Sioux Falls, SD, May 6, 2014 – Public Pool Partners, a citizen’s group, has taken steps to propose a new initiated measure. Public Pool Partners filed an Initiative Petition Registration with the City of Sioux Falls City Clerk’s office on Monday May 5, 2014. The language of the petition is as follows:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED qualified voters of the municipality of Sioux Falls, the state of South Dakota, petition that the following ordinance be submitted to the voters of that municipality for their approval or rejection pursuant to law.




The indoor pool will be true financial partnership between private and public interests with 10% of the construction costs being raised and paid for by private organizations.The indoor pool site must be located on roadways with no less than 4 lanes of traffic. If built in a Sioux Falls city park, that park must be at least 25 acres in size, to provide sufficient room for future expansion and adequate parking for national / regional swim meets. There shall be no less than 350 onsite parking spaces for indoor pools greater than 25 meters. If a city-owned site is determined for an indoor pool, that site must have clear title and city shall obtain legal opinion the site does not have any contingencies in the deed or title which may compromise future ownership of the property.

Public Pool Partners is a group of citizens representing many voters who have come forward since the April 8, 2014 Municipal Election expressing concern and confusion over Initiated Measure 2 and the election result. “The days leading to the April 8 election stirred considerable debate about the lack of a private/public financial partnership for an indoor pool, as has benefited the new indoor tennis and ice skating facilities,” says spokesperson John Matthius. “A significant number of voters also report that, while they support the idea of a municipal indoor pool for Sioux Falls, they had no intention of their vote being synonymous with a large indoor aquatic center being constructed at Spellerberg Park.”

Public Pool Partners asserts that the Sioux Falls City Council appears poised to yield to pressure to rush an indoor pool finance and location decision to a vote by May 13, 2014. Public Pool Partners believes a long term taxpayer commitment of this magnitude deserves more prudent consideration of responsible financing and suitable alternate location options.

24 Thoughts on “UPDATED: PUBLIC POOL PARTNERS file NEW pool petition

  1. Joan on May 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm said:

    Sounds like that would be a good idea. Hopefully it will win.

  2. scott on May 5, 2014 at 9:41 pm said:

    if this gets enough signatures, does that mean it postpones a new spellerberg pool, or can the city finagle a 2nd indoor pool out of the deal at another location out of the deal?

  3. 85th stuckee on May 5, 2014 at 9:49 pm said:

    I like this. Build it at 85th and Minn,69th and cliff, 32 and Marion 26th and hwy 11. Or better yet down by the Pentagon. Sanford builds a better complex than the the crap we’re getting from the city at least you could get to it.

  4. rufusx on May 6, 2014 at 12:01 am said:

    These petitions are getting to remind me of the turds that used to float down the Big Sioux.

  5. OldSlewFoot on May 6, 2014 at 8:51 am said:

    I can’t wait for the petition to run a 4 lane highway through Minnehaha CC.

    I heard the London Bookie Line on the NEW pool petition is a 70-30 defeat.

  6. Dan Daily on May 6, 2014 at 9:58 am said:

    Is there a 25 acre tract anywhere inside city limits?

    This petition should kill Huether’s pool folly.

    When this idea comes around again, give us a properly conducted election. Approval to build or not to build at a designated location. Not yes if you want to spend 9 mil at Spellerburg or no if you want to spend 11 mil on an indoor pool.

  7. carhart605 on May 6, 2014 at 1:02 pm said:

    Guess the pool folks don’t have to worry since you’re not a Sioux Falls resident and couldn’t sign the petition. I’m sure some in Lennox view your fight with the city and county as a bit of a turd too, but you’re exercising your rights just like these folks are.

  8. The petitions being filed are simply an indication of the city not listening to the voices of its citizens before planning big ticket projects.

  9. Titleist on May 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm said:

    Sour Grapes.

    Costing the taxpayers more money on elections.

    Build it now!


  10. OldSlewFoot on May 6, 2014 at 7:49 pm said:

    I got it figured out and am starting to write my petition tomorrow. People think there is not 25 acres available at that location But this is not true. I Google Earth’d the dimensions.

    My petition will close Western Ave from 22nd to 26th and made it a pedestrian greenway and parking. It will force the city to buy/absorb the Park Ridge Mall into the city property. It will allow the shop owners to contract rent space from the city. Heck, then you have well over 25 acres and plenty of parking.

    Plus you have great eating facilities close, other places to shop while waiting for your kid’s team to swim. Think of the economic boom to the once maligned Park Ridge area.

    People drive too fast through that area anyway. Shutting off Western is a great idea. A safety issue that needs to be addressed.

    But my petition will probably be for naught just as is the other petition. The city will vote on and approve this location for an indoor pool before the other petition is filed.

  11. Taxpayer-Voter on May 6, 2014 at 8:50 pm said:

    Where can we sign this petition?

  12. LJL on May 6, 2014 at 9:17 pm said:

    If we have to build one (I’m no fan of the idea) shouldn’t the damn thing be downtown. How about that prime long useless chunk that will be available from the railroad sucker deal.

  13. Titleist on May 6, 2014 at 10:50 pm said:

    John Matthius and the special interests behind Save Spellerberg do not speak for all the voters . In fact, they speak for a minority of the voters that lost the last election. Pretty presumptuous to assume that the majority of voters didn’t understand the ballot.

    Progress. Build it now.

  14. Taxpayer-Voter on May 7, 2014 at 6:06 am said:

    Titleist on 05.06.14 at 5:29 pm

    Sour Grapes.

    Reminder to the Public: The result of the vote in April 2014 was a decision NOT to build an OUTDOOR pool at Spellerberg. The ballot language said NOTHING about an INDOOR pool.

  15. rufusx on May 7, 2014 at 8:44 am said:

    Carhart, FYI – my opposition was to ONE bad idea – and I had half the city council and ALL of the city staff on my side of the issue – AND their signatures. Do you see the difference between that and petitioning EVERYTHING that comes up?

  16. Dan Daily on May 7, 2014 at 10:43 am said:

    The petition process is the only way to slow Huether’s liquidation of city assets. He has the power to overrule but he’ll leave office a traitor and better not show his face here or about the state.

  17. Bruce on May 8, 2014 at 9:16 am said:

    “Everything” ruf? Bull.

    The people are trying to get through the Mayor’s smokescreen to get to the truth. We have an administration controlled by a single minded bully. We will not step back from his goals to spend all of the city debt limit for sports and recreation.

    The infrastructure necessary to keep the toys operational plus the basic city services required for growth, have to be paid for. In 2018, when this guy does not have to care about us any longer, the bills are going to start coming due with his millions no longer here.

    So ruf, we citizens of Sioux Falls who have limited ability to say and do something to slow down the gravy train, need to be involved. Many of us have learned to not trust anything this administration’s leader says or does. He has proven he is not trustworthy. We will continue to point out his policy failings. If it takes another petition, than so be it.

  18. Harry on May 8, 2014 at 1:15 pm said:

    The Save Spellerberg group had a poorly worded petition for the last election and the one they have now isn’t any better. If they had gotten some professional help in creating the first petition we wouldn’t have to be dealing with a second poorly worded petition.
    The mayor and city council are listening to the people of Sioux Falls. 70% of the voters want an indoor pool at Spellerberg. The ‘Yes’ vote (for an outdoor pool) got only 30% of the votes and the ‘No’ vote (for something else – the city leaders choice – no pool or an indoor pool) got 70% of the votes. To the Save Spellerberg and Veteransfor theVA groups – you lost – deal with it.

  19. Anonymous on May 8, 2014 at 2:29 pm said:

    Harry on 05.08.14 at 1:15 pm

    70% of the voters want an indoor pool at Spellerberg.

    Harry, correct me, if I am wrong, but I do not remember reading anything on the ballot about an indoor pool.

    A “No” vote was ONLY a vote not to replace the current outdoor pool with a new outdoor pool at Spellerberg.

  20. Not a bad Idea LJL, but if this were to succeed the only site I can find that’s available would add at least $5 million to the project costs, downtown doesn’t have a site either even with the rail property coming online.

    Also, isn’t now against the law or at least the mandate to build a new outdoor pool? So what option is left, fill it in or renovate it?

    This will lose by 70%-30% as well, and these guys need a new hobby.

  21. Titleist on May 8, 2014 at 6:07 pm said:


    70% of the Taxpaying-Voters didn’t agree with you in the last election.

    Build it now!



  22. rufusx on May 8, 2014 at 9:07 pm said:

    FWIW – polling on this newest petition is running 80-20 AGAINST it. petition fatigue. People are getting tired of the whining NIMBY’s. Also LJL, FYI- a few years ago there WAS a proposal to build an indoor facility downtown. The whiners defeated it at the polls.

  23. Harry on May 9, 2014 at 7:05 am said:

    A NO vote had to mean something other than just plain old no outdoor pool. It was a Crappy ballot question. What did you think a NO vote was going to mean?

  24. Testor15 on May 9, 2014 at 2:20 pm said:

    Once again, ballot questions have to be written in certain ways. It may have been marketed in a bad what to the voters but it had to follow state law guidelines.

    BTW, where is your polling to show 80-20? Did it come out of the same orifice Michele’s polls were pulled from? The downtown proposal was a very different story to compare this issue with. Nice to see out of towners getting the stories all screwed up.

Post Navigation