Funny how Mitchell, SD figured out how to fund an indoor pool with private funds


Hey, Mr. Business Acumen, Mayor Huether, see something in the above numbers that make sense?

Funny how the Mitchell aquatics club was able to donate a million, while Snowfox in Sioux Falls raised enough money to pay a consultant and print some t-shirts.

I wasn’t against an indoor pool, but we should have partnered with the Sanford Sports complex to build it out there.


#1 The D@ily spin on 12.06.15 at 8:43 pm

Mitchell and Hartford are progressive and constitutional. I don’t agree with the Mitchell city manager concept but citizens did not foolishly resign their liberty and voice in government like in Sioux Falls. When the debt turns the lights out in Sioux Falls, these are cities we can migrate to.

#2 Titleist on 12.06.15 at 8:55 pm

You were against the indoor public pool. You can admit it. It passed with a landslide.
And Mitchell becomes another city that recognizes the value of an INDOOR PUBLIC POOL.

#3 l3wis on 12.07.15 at 8:38 am

“It passed with a landslide.”

Just like the mayor, you continue to peddle the lie about the indoor pool. It was never on the ballot (Unlike Mitchell) and it is being paid for with borrowed money and not cash.

#4 Bruce on 12.07.15 at 9:32 am

The master of propaganda at city hall never wants anyone to remember the half-truths spread to pretend what the vote was for.

The indoor pool criers could never have won if the city had not interfered in the election. Those of us who fought for citizen rights in 2014 will not forget the media program run by city to confuse voters. Titleist proves the point.

#5 l3wis on 12.07.15 at 10:51 am

I just find out that the Mitchell Aquatics Club has only ‘pledged’ the $1 million, they don’t actually have the money. Reminds me of the hoodwink job Jr. Football did on the city council a few years ago.

#6 rufusx on 12.07.15 at 2:27 pm

Yeah – sure – put it “out there” in the private complex – as far away from most of the residents of the city as possible. Especially keep it away from anywhere that the less wealthy of the city can possibly have public transit access. You’re such a “man of the people” DL.

#7 l3wis on 12.07.15 at 2:49 pm

Ruf – As was pointed out several times during the election campaign, what is the difference if you are driving from the far North, South, East or West to the Sports Complex or towards the middle of town, travel is still required, whether you are rich or poor. The other convenience of having the pool at Sanford is that is WHERE ALL THE OTHER SPORTS COMPLEXES ARE! it would have gotten way more use out there. But the little Snowfoxers wanted their own private pool and didn’t want those hockey, basketball and football players muddying the precious waters.

#8 Titleist on 12.07.15 at 6:41 pm

Bruce, give it up man. It’s over. You don’t even hear DL talking about the MOU anymore.

#9 scott on 12.07.15 at 9:18 pm

will the pool actually be open to the “less wealthy” more than an hour a day, and at a time when those poor kids who were shown shivering in the election ad can actually use it?

#10 rufusx on 12.08.15 at 9:50 am

Oh, what’s the difference if your traveling to Paris, France – or Scotland, SD. Travel is still required. It’s the same for everyone. Now THAT’s egalitarianism!!

#11 rufusx on 12.08.15 at 9:59 am

BTW – in order to “drive” ANYWHERE, you need to be 16, have access to a car, have insurance, and gas money. Now, if the free bus pass for kids were in effect all year, and IF there were a bus route that went out there……….

#12 The D@ily spin on 12.08.15 at 7:00 pm

Because the indoor pool is reserved for a private swim club, it’ll fail. Maintenance will be more than revenue. It will be donated to the VA for use by vets, hospital staff, and their depends. The city destroyed and gave back to the Feds an outdoor pool, tennis courts, and the best hill for sleding in the city

#13 Blasphemo on 12.09.15 at 11:48 am

It’s worth re-stating that few voters or Save Spellerbergers were categorically against an indoor pool. Many felt Spellerberg Park was simply the wrong location given the negative impact on the park and the surrounding residential area. And remember, Sanford made a big splash announcement that they were initiating a study for an indoor pool at the Sports Complex… the Friday before the final City Council indoor pool vote. Sure, we never heard another thing about it as City Hall met w/Sanford execs over that weekend to plead with them to crush that proposal. But, given the option between Sanford footing most or all of the bill for an indoor aquatic center vs. SF taxpayers choking on the ballooning construction costs and deficit spending in perpetuity for the annual operating expenses, in the big picture Sioux Falls would’ve been much better served by a Sanford Sports Complex indoor pool. Rufusx: regarding a bus route to the Sanford Sports Complex: the indoor pool is a project taking, what, 18 months to complete? In spite of a bus route not PRESENTLY existing to that alternative location, is it not conceivable that the City would have had plenty of time to initiate a bus route to that location by the time an indoor pool constructed there were finished? Imagine how much money the City would have saved on the pool cost – freeing up plenty of revenue for a new bus route. And, ridership to that location could actually be accurately measured. Then we’d see just how crucial bus access truly would be for this facility. Even w/o a bus route immediately to the Sanford Sports Complex, disadvantaged inner city kids that really want to swim in winter have the downtown EmBe indoor pool available at least 8 hours weekly for Family Swim. It’s always been a distortion that there were/are no accessible indoor swimming options available other than to detonate Spellerberg Park for a multi-story masonry monstrosity. It might be a done deal, but 20/20 hindsight may well prove the Spellerberg location to be a big, big boondoggle nevertheless.

Leave a Comment