Mitchell, SD pays a third of what we did for their Indoor Aquatic Center

Okay, for disclosure reasons their pool is a little bit smaller (not by much) and they were wise enough to attach it to another public facility (what a concept), a rec center;

MSH said construction costs are below the project’s total budget and construction is on schedule for a mid-June opening.

Under budget!? The only time we have heard that in Sioux Falls is when the mayor decided to put tin foil on the Denty. Not only are they paying a third what we are for the building, the operating costs are estimated at $400K a year (and the citizens freaked when that estimate jumped from $225K). Our operating costs are at $1.4 million a year with a $400K deficit.

So now we have Watertown and Mitchell for examples. Why are we paying double to 3x more for our public facilities in Sioux Falls than in these other smaller South Dakota cities and getting less? Somebody is getting rich from building public facilities in Sioux Falls, and it isn’t the taxpayer.



8 comments ↓

#1 scott on 01.23.18 at 9:53 pm

those towns don’t have the business acumen that sioux falls does.

#2 "Very Stable Genius" on 01.23.18 at 10:00 pm

I would like to see a sq. footage price for each of the three facilities in the three cities, then we will go from there….

#3 l3wis on 01.23.18 at 10:05 pm

VSG, Soooo your a details man 🙂

#4 "Very Stable Genius" on 01.23.18 at 11:13 pm

l3wis, I am back. Mitchell spent $ 8 million for an indoor pool at a cost of $ 330 per sq. foot. Sioux Falls spent $ 24 million for an indoor pool at a cost of $ 393 per sq. ft. So the Midco Center cost 19% more per sq. ft. than the Mitchell indoor pool center.

Now, Watertown is more complicated, because they got an entire rec center expansion too, for a cost of $ 24 million. They increased the sq. ft. of their rec center with an indoor pool included from 59,000 to 104,000 sq. ft. at an expense of $ 533 per sq. ft. So it is fair to say that Watertown cost much more, but there may be mitigating issues here since you are dealing with more than just a pool or pools, however.

The interesting thing is that Puetz Corp did the work for both the Watertown and Mitchell projects…. But it looks like Mitchell got a better deal (?) Or, that speaks to costs associated with the complexity of a pool addition along with a rec center expansion – which in turn could make the Watertown project look more comparable to the Midco Center, perhaps….

#5 CommonSenseSD on 01.24.18 at 8:29 am

Yeah the circumstances around the lowest bid don’t sound hinky at all….

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/news/4198831-puetz-corp-gets-recommendation-8m-aquatic-center

#6 l3wis on 01.24.18 at 8:45 am

VSG – Nice research, it’s still about $5 million more than what we should have paid for our pool.

As for Watertown, I think they got a way bigger bang for the buck. Not only did they get an indoor pool but a rec center (That’s why I think this should have been built at the Sanford Sports Complex or attached to a school) they also built the WT facility next to a school, with a large parking lot and room for expansion. There is NO doubt when you compare the WT facility to our facility, we got way overcharged.

#7 The D@ily Spin on 01.24.18 at 9:22 am

The Sioux Falls Aquatics Center is on federal land. It could become worthless when the feds fence the city out.

#8 leave sioux false dunnies on 01.27.18 at 8:06 pm

winston cease changing yiourr persona sign in
wooops
dandy shiny
iaal
obg got hiccups real bad cannor type proper

Leave a Comment