Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sioux Falls council debates $68 million aquatics bond and withdraws resolution for more review
Summary
Councilor Kurt Sale introduced a nonbinding resolution asking bond counsel to draft a recreation and aquatics bond totaling about $68 million; the proposal and its allocations drew detailed questions about interest costs, fund reimbursements and budget guardrails and the council voted to withdraw the resolution for further work.
Councilor Kurt Sale asked the Sioux Falls City Council on Nov. 6 to instruct bond counsel to prepare paperwork for a proposed recreation and aquatics bond that he said should be capped around $68 million, with roughly $47 million for the Frank Olson project, $18 million for Keene Park and $3 million for a remodel.
"My figure I'd like to see hit is $68,000,000," Sale said as he opened the discussion. He described the resolution as nonbinding but intended to start public discussion and get technical details from bond counsel.
Finance director Sean Pritchard told the council the administration planned an informational briefing on Nov. 12 to present technical language and financial assumptions, and that the city had been distributing updated bond drafts to council leadership. Pritchard estimated interest and carrying costs during the preconstruction period could be "$1,000,000 to $2,000,000," depending on timing and market rates.
Council members pressed several substantive issues. Councilor Bassey said the staff was relying in part on a 2019 community survey and urged updated data before committing to large, long‑term borrowing. Councilor McCorris asked whether the draft should include explicit budget guardrails for each project and whether a $9 million reimbursement to the general fund (for prior Westside Recreation Facility cash spending) should be included in bond proceeds.
Mark Hatter of the Office of Public Works outlined project sequencing and priorities, saying the city plans to bid Arrowhead and Veterans Parkway projects first and that, in his view, Minnesota Avenue could not proceed without an additional $9 million moved back into the sales‑and‑use tax capital fund.
Council debate also touched on borrowing policy. Councilor Sale said he opposed using bond proceeds for street repair, calling that approach "not good public policy," while other councilors said limited borrowing for major facilities is standard municipal practice. Councilors discussed how much flexibility to build into the ordinance (for alternates and contingency) and whether certain dollar caps could be amended at later readings.
City attorney and bond counsel guidance became a practical constraint: the city attorney advised some changes could be made at second reading but bond counsel warned that some elements, including the total bond amount, may not be amendable without additional legal and procedural steps.
After extended questions of staff and a public‑works presentation of tradeoffs, Councilor McCorris moved to withdraw the resolution so council members and staff could continue negotiations and craft clearer language; Councilor Bassey seconded. The motion to withdraw passed 7–0.
Outcome: the council withdrew the nonbinding resolution to allow further work; the administration plans a technical briefing on Nov. 12 and council members said they expect more discussion and possible amendments before any ordinance or ballot action.
What happens next: staff and bond counsel will bring technical details at an informational session Nov. 12; the council signaled needs for clearer budget constraints, updated community data and explicit explanations of how any reimbursed amounts (including the $9 million) would affect reserves and project sequencing.
