Lake Mitchell ballot question draws short, brisk discussion at community forum

May 14—MITCHELL — A public forum on the Lake Mitchell dredging ballot question took center stage on Tuesday night, with an advocate and an opponent of a $16.8 million bonding question disagreeing on the city's best path forward on its ailing 96-year old lake.

Friends of Firesteel member Mark Puetz advocated for approving the ballot question while former Mitchell City Council member Scott Houwman spoke on the side of opposing the ballot question that is before voters on June 4, which calls for the city to issue $16.8 million in revenue bonds to fund a $25 million overall project that includes dredging the lake.

On a night with three separate forums for the upcoming June 4 mayoral and City Council panels, the lake discussion was easily the shortest at just more than 20 minutes. Throughout the night, candidates acknowledged that no other issue in the city has been more discussed or dissected, and the representatives on both sides of the ballot question were in agreement that the lake desperately needs work.

"I want Lake Mitchell to be cleaned up," Houwman said. "But is this the right plan, is this the right purpose? Why do we need to spend this amount of money for something that's not a lock to be successful? ... We can't afford to make the mistake of mishandling this. I am hesitant at the current plan."

"This is the only program that removes the soft sediment from the lake," Puetz said. "It's not easy. It is a complex project. We have to vote yes to save Lake Mitchell."

The current project at hand will cost the city $25 million. Over 30 years at 3.75% interest, the total cost is $36.4 million. The city has also proposed an annual maintenance budget of $500,000 per year for the lake in the future.

The city has more than $8 million set aside for the project and will finance the rest through a State Revolving Loan fund over 30 years with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

According to a city timeline, if approved, the lake water levels would be lowered later in 2024 and dredging would take place throughout 2025, expecting the lake to be dry for up to two years. Sediment would be placed at Firesteel Park near the lake in 2025 and 2026, with the lake being refilled and the new lake being managed in 2027 and beyond.

There are some lake projects in the works. The Mitchell City Council has already approved $3.5 million to go toward a new lake drawdown structure next to the Lake Mitchell spillway dam to control water levels for the wetland along Firesteel Creek and a potential future dredging project. The city also has a 35-acre wetland project that is set to begin this year, as well.

In response to a question about the lake's 10-year future if the dredging plan doesn't go forward, Houwman said it's important to find a way to pay for cleaning up Lake Mitchell "without saddling our community" in costs.

Puetz was a little more blunt, pointing out that a dirty lake will only get worse.

"In 10 years, I believe the lake will be unusable," he said, adding that his family probably uses the lake 10% as much as it would if it were cleaner. "Eventually, the lake will be dead."

In the mayoral debate, Mayor Bob Everson, who has been one of the top advocates for the current plan to dredge and treat the lake, noted he's proud of coming up with a lake plan that doesn't raise taxes on residents. Responding to the idea that the dredging is no guarantee, Puetz said the 1.5 million cubic yards of phosphate being taken out through soft sediment is a measurable piece that can show improvement in the lake's quality.

"That's as good of a guarantee we can get," he said.

Other ideas were asked about during the forum, including a special assessment on lakeside land owners to pay for the lake improvements. Puetz said it's hard to decide where the line should be drawn on who pays and who doesn't when the lake is a community-wide asset. Houwman said he thinks landowners should have skin in the game and that watercraft should require a special sticker for lake use to use the lake. He noted that the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks enforces the laws on the like but has no interest in improving the lake's quality.

"I have an issue with GFP and people that don't put a single dime into the lake. We just happen to be the owners of the toilet but we're not the ones who are crapping in it all of the time," said Houwman, joking that the city of Mitchell could just "let the garbage run down to Yankton."

"We need to pay for this without saddling our future generations," Houwman added.

Puetz said that the lake was built in 1928 and the inaction has hurt the lake and city for long enough.

"We need to think about Lake Mitchell as a building," Puetz said. "It's been around for 100 years and it's time for a good old remodel to bring this back to life. It gave actual life to generations of our community through its water. ... The lake is the living heart of our community. It's diseased. We can become a destination again and we can do this without raising taxes."