Looks like the city, once again, is doing what they do best, wasting money on consultants;
Public Focus Group to Determine Future of City Aquatics Program
Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation needs your help! The community is invited to attend a public focus group meeting to discuss the future of the City?s aquatics program.
The focus group will meet at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, January 24, at Kuehn Community Center, attached to Oscar Howe Elementary School, located at 2801 South Valley View Road.
The City of Sioux Falls has retained Counsilman-Hunsaker and Associates, a national aquatics consultant, to create a citywide aquatics facility master plan. This plan will serve as a ten-year road map for both existing and proposed new aquatic facilities.
Public feedback is necessary to gauge the needs and desires of the community, identify aquatic offerings currently available within the community, and help shape the future of aquatics for the city of Sioux Falls.
“In order to meet the needs of the whole community, we need the whole community to participate. Community participation is strongly encouraged,” said Kevin Post of Counsilman-Hunsaker and Associates.
For more information on the focus group meeting, contact the Park Office at 367-8222.
So let me get this straight, we hired a private consultant to help special interest groups in Sioux Falls get an indoor pool, but we have no money for a special snowgate election or even a consultant to study the cost variables of snowgates? Glad we have such great priorties.
“… we need the whole community to participate.” Kevin Post of CH&A
They did, 8,400 of them, and they got shot down by Hitler and Urpbucket.
The VOTING public has turned down an indoor public pool TWICE at the ballot box. And as I have pointed out, in the last city survey, people who support a public indoor pool, support it only if it is self-sustaining thru user fees. I doubt sentiment has changed much over the past couple of years, especially with the economy the way it is. I simply believe a majority of people don’t support a public indoor pool because we have plenty of private facilities we can use in SF for a fee. Why compete with private industry using tax dollars, it just doesn’t make fiscal sense.
Gee, do you the consultant contract might have problems if Spellerberg group gets their signatures?
As public servants, it must be the city and county’s responsibility to force the petitioning process to failure.
Three noteable pieces of research, one from Counsilman-Hunsaker the aquatic expert SF has hired are below.
Randy Mendioroz of Aquatic Design Group states “The 50-meter, Olympic-size pool, which is a passionate rallying point for competitive swimming advocates, is a notorious drain on an annual operating budget. Furthermore, the reality is that a 50-meter pool is only used for competitive purposes by an average of about 5 % of the local population.â€
Scot Hunsaker, president of a St. Louis based consultancy Counsilman-Hunsaker and Associates, the consultancy Park and Rec is hiring, says when planning aquatic centers “municipalities are best served to plan for an ever-evolving market by choosing a site that can be expanded upon.†Spellerberg Park, which is comparable to McKennan Park, has no expansion room!
Regarding usage, Mayor Bob Burns, of Caledonia, Minnesota said when his community was considering an indoor aquatic center that “Research throughout the Midwest shows there is 93 % usage in summer countered with 7 % usage in winter—which is when some of the largest operating expenses are incurred.â€
First of all, I think it is BS the snowgates are not on the ballot this Spring. The proper steps were taken to put it on the ballot. It should be on there. That was a giant screw job and extremely disheartening.
I, my husband, or our kids are not a part of a special interest group and we are are in full support of this facility. And as you pointed out the voting public turned down a REC CENTER hence here we sit with stand alone facilities as our options. Sounds a little like you reap what you sow.
I have said before a 50 meter pool placed in a spot where growth and parking AND the greatest traffic would encourage use. I want a 50 meter indoor but want it where it will not damage or drain resources.
It appears the consultants hired to cover city butts might look at it the same way?
If you took an actual look – it seems the consultants are looking at the aquatics in the city as a whole. It also seems the city is providing people the opportunity to learn and speak at an open forum. It seems it is easy to think this will only focus on an indoor facility, but I will bet they will have recommendations on aquatics as a whole in the city. My thoughts to anyone is if they should attend and learn which I am going to do instead of making massive assumptions.
Here’s your focus group report right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YDurhx8QyA
Detroit, I agree with you.
“Why compete with private industry using tax dollars.”
Except if it involves snow removal and tree trimming.
I’m sure the consultant will give the recommendation they told to give. If not, MMM will find another consultant who will.
“Research throughout the Midwest shows there is 93 % usage in summer countered with 7 % usage in winter—which is when some of the largest operating expenses are incurred.â€
Yes but we are continually told that kids NEED to be able to swim 365 days a year! Facts and figures have no room in this debate because all the space has been filled with emotion. We will not be satisfied until we can swim in December, snow ski in July, hold tennis tournaments in November, and go sledding in August… all on the taxpayer’s dime!
(yea that is called sarcasm)
I loved the comment on Kelo last night by Judy L. stating something to the effect of “now we have a bunch of stand alone facilities.” Yup – you’re right Judy – the voting public turned down an inclusive rec center that could have served the public in multiple capacities in a central location and had a private donor to foot a large part of the costs. Once again – you reap what you sow.
Right on Alice – knee-jerks are – well …….
Matt, good job of identifying the hypocrisy. Kudos to you.
“Except if it involves snow removal and tree trimming.”
Let me point out some hypocrisy;
Snow removal and tree trimming are classified as a public service, indoor swimming pools are classifed as recreation and entertainment. I don’t want my tax dollars going towards entertaining me.
scott – In the Argue Endorser story today the consultant said ‘No decisions to build an indoor pool have been made yet.’ I guess if you tell a lie enough times it becomes truth, it’s Mayor Space-Huether’s way.
The reason they hire all these consultants is because they don’t know how to think for themselves.
Mckennan & Spellerberg are roughly the same size, but that’s where it ends. McKennan is flat and has historic features that in no way should be disturbed. Spellerberg has the late 60’s era pool & bath house along with some tennis courts & playground equipment. It’s also bordered mostly by institutional & commercial properties.
Again I’ll ask all those who say “build it somewhere else”, where does the City own a comparable site? For what it would take to buy one you can get your 50M pool and put a roof over it.
Just another Huether redirect and citizen censure. His name is so close to Hitler. Time to hire a 6 figure consultant & change it to Lloyd Sanford.