SAVE Spellerberg PRESS CONFERENCE, today 2:30 PM, Main DT Library

1. Taken directly from siouxfalls.org:

   Consultant to Present Aquatic Facility Master Plan Recommendation

   Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation invites the public to attend a special presentation of the recommended aquatic facility master plan. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Thursday, March 28, 2013, at Siouxland Libraries’ Main Library at 200 North Dakota Avenue in conference rooms A and B.

   Counsilman-Hunsaker and Associates, a national aquatics consulting firm, will present their recommendations for a citywide aquatic facility master plan. This plan will serve as a ten-year road map for both existing and proposed aquatic facilities in our community.

2. It’s interesting that the City would choose Holy Thursday (in a predominantly Christian community) to hold this meeting.

   Why the rush…….!!??

3. I thoroughly enjoyed the Vets showing up today. The best comment from an audience member, “Maybe we should put an indoor pool at City Hall, there is not much else going on there.” BAHAHAHAHAHA!

4. I’m sorry, but once again these people are all wet on their “have to look a vet in the eye” and “we’re destroying the park” claims.

   No plan will be put forward that will in any way impede the VA providing care for it’s patients, and like I’ve said before…with some good design there is most likely an end scenario where parking and access is actually improved for the VA while the pool is being built.

   As for the neighborhood traffic, I highly doubt you will see anything worse than the snarl every parent with a kid in school deals with on a daily basis. Ever had to drop or pick up a kid at Patrick Henry? It’s 2-3 blocks off major streets and boxed in by single lane, curvy residential streets on 3 sides and a cemetary on the other. Every day a couple hundred parents have to converge on the place at 8am and 3pm. Some make it through the loop, some park on the streets and walk, some use St. Mary’s lot. The point is that yes it’s inconvenient but people still find a way in and out it’s been this way for decades without harming the children or destroying the neighborhood as that area is still one of the fastest places where homes sell and sell for nearly full price. I’m guessing that like 26th, you’d likely see 22nd signalized to help both car and pedestrian access to Spellerberg, probably should be now but with the pool I would think that’s a given.

   Also, the AL headline says something like “Opponents want an outdoor pool”, yet they say in the article they aren’t opposed to an indoor pool, just not at Spellerberg. So we don’t have costs on the project…but the opponents also haven’t suggested anything for an alternate site that wouldn’t kill the project by driving the costs (whatever they are) up by 10-15%. Sorry, but to me that sounds like a mixed message and the more I hear it the more obvious to me that these folks don’t give a shart about the Vets or the neighborhood, they just want to kill the project to kill the project. The bulk of this crew is likely the same folks who only want to the City to spend money on making their shoveling a little easier 4-6 times a year.

5. Huether sees this as a time to hire a consultant to tell us we need more consultants. It will take a 2/3 majority or 6 out of 9 consultants to pass. Each pays a 10% cash kickback. Then, he skims from awarded non-competitive contracts. It’s complicated but we hired him for HIS money management experience issuing 30% interest credit cards.

6. I’m sticking with my idea to just add on-street parking to Western between 22nd and 26th – easily 100 new spots, helping the park and Park Ridge as well. The driving lanes are over 20 feet wide there!

   Sy – traffic problems at elementary and middle schools only occur because it’s no longer possible for students to walk to school, or their parents don’t want them to or won’t let them. What’s wrong with taking the bus? I used to walk from Edison MS to Robert Frost elementary 2 or 3 times a week when I was in middle school.

7. I think Sy’s point is there is traffic in front of the schools and somehow people make it work.

   Quite honestly – I am somewhat embarrassed that someone actually thought this was a good route to take to involve Vets and tie it to their healthcare. Wouldn’t a facility such as this actually aid and assist in the health of a vet? I guess people would only think of this if they actually care about their physical activity as a part of their overall health.

   Also – as a member of this neighborhood – I would think Vets would tie the fact that there is not a congruent sidewalk that surrounds their property, and until I called enough times to complain – there were potholes the size of softballs within the sidewalk that does exist. Many of these Vets are in wheelchairs and I would think people would be more up in arms regarding the actual VA property than a proposed project that will sit on the opposite side of the building. But once again, unless you actually live in this neighborhood and drive on the streets that surround the VA 4-5 times per day and walk and run as a form of exercise – you wouldn’t know these things – but I guess everyone gets to have an opinion on it.

8. The train has already left the station…..

   Thank you to all those involved in the hard work of collecting over 7,000 signatures.

   All registered voter/taxpayers will now have an opportunity to voice their opinion……swim team parents, Spellerberg neighbors, Veterans, fiscal conservatives and liberal spenders…….

   Democracy, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

   It can be messy, but isn’t it wonderful!

9. City Parks and Rec director, Kearney, kinda got put on the spot yesterday and a member from the SAVE group asked him why they were spending money on indoor pool plans at Spellerberg before the Aquatics study came out? He didn’t really have an answer, and he kinda walked out a little steamed. He also pulled out of the parking lot of the library like he going to put out a fire.

10. I have attended monthly Park Board meetings for the past six years…..rarely have I missed a meeting.

    I can tell you unequivocally that as soon as the outcome of the Drake Springs vote was known, the Board’s focus turned to replacing the outdoor pool at Spellerberg with an indoor pool.

    Multiple times, Board members expressed concern about the “footprint” of the Park and was it large enough to support an indoor pool.

    It is absolutely MISINFORMATION on Don Kearney’s part to state otherwise!

    The Aquatic Master Plan for the City is an important move, but I believe it, along with Park and Rec’s citywide surveys, will be used as justification for the decision to place an indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg.

    Sioux Falls taxpayers DO NOT SUPPORT a multimillion dollar indoor pool……

    It has been voted down TWICE:

    December 2005 Rec Center Vote

    April 2007 Drake Springs Vote

    And, now will be voted on again in April 2014 for a THIRD time!!

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a public vote trumps any survey or master plan out there!!!

11. The Rec Center was an all encompassing facility and the Drake Springs vote was to keep it an outdoor facility – none of which are the same as the facility proposed at Spellerberg.

    You are right. Everyone will have a right to vote on this facility for their own reasons. I will be voting for it because I think it is good for our neighborhood.

12. Also, both the votes cr referenced were off year, extremely low turnout, and no one arguing the “pros” of either plan. The EC vote was pushback against those two prior votes as a huge chunk of the middle and upper income demographic decided they have had enough of waiting 20 years for this City to put on it’s big boy pants and move forward.

    I also take it by a lack of a direct response that the “Save Spellerberg” group really doesn’t know if it’s actually against an indoor pool or just against this plan in general or simply a bunch of people who are against whatever the puppetmasters say they should be against.

    What’s sad is since the orignial Rec Center plan was shot down, things like the Sanford Fieldhouse went up in it’s place. Have any of you naysayers even been out there? The place is being used constantly, on Sunday there was a semi-pro football team from SW MN out there practicing on one field with soccer on the other two and softball coaches/players on the 4th one, not to mention a dozen or so people hitting the workout equipment. Demand that was projected 10 years ago is nothing compared to real world use today, I bet if they doubled the size the place would still be used. Back then it was “if you build it you will ruin the neighborhood and it won’t get used enough to pay for it” Both of which were 100% pure donkey dookie.

    I just hope that like the EC vote, the City realizes that if it wants this plan to succeed, then it will have to spend some $$ to put the word out about the benefits of the project and get out the vote, then the 50K or so folks that don’t buy the “for the Vets & children” line will get out and put another nail in the naysayers coffin.

13. Sy, the ‘city’ should not be spending one penny advocating any positions. It is not there job to waste our money politicing their dreams. The citizen activists for the different views will need to build their case and hope the case is strong enough for the voters to approve.

14. Shouldn’t any indoor pool be built in the city’s hot new “entertainment district”?

15. I was referring to the same way they did the EC vote and that was to raise money from donors/supporters to run a campaign, technically they didn’t spend a penny on that. And the campaign wouldn’t be just for Spellerberg, which needs work either way, it would be for the overall Aquatics plan.

16. Just like the EC, we don’t need an indoor public pool. Okay, I am not going to be a cock for once. I have been following this crap for over 10 years. Here’s the deal, SF is very, very, fortunate to have incredible private enterprise that supplies us entertainment and indoor fitness. Not sure why anybody thinks taxpayers need to pony up for this? Seriously! Who are we trying to compete with?

    I have often felt this is a ploy by the Parks and Rec department to expand themselves (expand their budget).

17. By that same token L3wis we don’t need snowgates either, now do we?

    We’ve had this discussion before, the City is in good enough shape that it doesn’t have to be in a “needs only” mode. In fact, I’ll submit if that’s how the place was run we’d be in a significant retraction that would be totally self-inflicted.

    We aren’t “fortunate” (ie only relying on luck) to attract all the private enterprise that are doing so well here. Many of those companies have the means to locate anywhere in the world, to get them to select SF over a place with a beach, a mountain range and/or a professional sports team doesn’t just happen by luck, we need to have boxes they can check off as they do their analysis and whether it’s analytical or subjective the “Quality of Life” a City offers is pretty high up the totem pole.

    Like it or not, the City is in a competition and it isn’t a race with a finish line, it’s ongoing.

18. Sy: “the more I hear it the more obvious to me that these folks don’t give a shart about the Vets or the neighborhood, they just want to kill the project to kill the project.”

    Well Sy you are bound to have people on both sides who have different reasons to push a particular belief. I’m sure not everyone who is against an indoor pool cares about parking or the Vets or increased traffic, just as I’m sure not everyone who is for it really cares about the ability to swim in December or to hold competitive swim meets.

    In my somewhat limited interaction with those who have been vocal in their support for the “Save Spellerberg” campaign it seems the biggest driving force isn’t traffic or parking or the VA, but rather the simple belief that kids, summer, and sunshine go hand in hand. I’ve heard from several people who said they aren’t necessarily against an indoor pool, but they don’t really want it in their neighborhood because they like the outdoor pool experience.

    Hey – more power to them. However I’m sure there are other who are actually concerned with the size or they are under the belief it may negatively impact the other areas of the park that they tend to use whether it be softball diamonds or tennis courts.

    I can totally see both sides here, but I’m still left wondering why we feel the need to be all things for all people. If the Sanford Fieldhouse is a model of success, then why can’t we simply wait for Sanford and/or Avera to build an aquatics center? I’m just not a huge fan of building these multi-million dollar facilities that cater to such an extremely small number of people.

    A private-public partnership would go a long way towards convincing me that those who will benefit have a sincere desire to put some skin in the game.

19. I will support Sy in the fact that as a parent that has a child that utilizes the Sanford Fieldhouse – it doesn’t matter what time of day it is – that place is used heavily by multiple activities. Now, I don’t know what it looks like during the day hence many other community groups may be using it, but 4pm and after is really quite awesome to watch. (Physically active kids warms my heart). They have a parking lot, but I don’t think it is ever even half full as many parents such as myself, drop our kids off and come back and pick them up. Our community is definitely an “if you build it, they will come,” mentality.

20. The difference w/ snowgates is they literally would benefit everyone in the community, and they are only an extention of a public service we already have, it would just make it better. The other difference is over 8,000 voters in this community have asked to vote on them, by the same token, a handful of club sport parents showed up to a council meeting, cried a little about poor johnny not having a place where his ‘team’ could swim, and all of sudden the city is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants. Ironically, the opposition collected over 7000 signatures for people who are opposed to the indoor pool. Let’s face it, this is a ‘special interest’ want, not a need. Craig is right, if this place will be used, why not get a private entity to run it and have some skin in the game? The city has an opportunity here to prove all of us negative nancies wrong. As for the Vet issue, trust me, I was at the press conference, OVER half were veterans and the co-chair of the group is a retired army vet. They do care about Veterans health, but even more importantly they are concerned about the law and how it is being applied to Spellerberg’s ownership.

21. L3wis, you can make the exact same argument about the indoor pool. We’ve always had parks, over time we’ve added features and made them better, which lead to more people using them.

    And my point about usage is that building a single, central indoor facility for both rec & competitions will not in any way destroy the neighborhood nor impede the Vets geting their Healthcare at the VA if the place is being used like the Fieldhouse is. It also won’t canabalize summer swimming at the other pools both private and public. All of that is weak, recycled sauce that sadly reminds me of the EC debate. All of a sudden we have people who don’t know didly squat about design, demographics, City planning, traffic patterns, construction etc. telling us how something won’t work in spite of what experts in all those fields said to the contrary.

    Did an expert or two tell us snowgates work like a charm? Well, I’m a salesman so I say they don’t; furthermore they cause cancer…never mind I’ve never seen one in action and I’m not a doctor, take me seriously damnit!

22. Speaking of unneeded facilities, I took a call yesterday from one of the tennis bozos begging for money. Well, not begging me for money but when I informed them the person who needed to hear the pitch wasn’t around I still got the whole speech.

23. Sy: “in spite of what experts in all those fields said to the contrary”

    Aren’t these the same experts (consultants) who also said usage of the pool in winter months constitutes only around 5% of the total usage year round? Therefore suggesting the vast majority of the usage if in the summer months when kids are out of school, the sun is shining, and people expect to be able to go to a swimming pool and take a dip?

    I wish I could give a citation and credit to whoever it was that originally posted that here, because I seem to recall they were quoting the very same consultants that were being paid to provide Sioux Falls the aquatics plan.

    I did find this gem on the website for the consultant (Counsilman-Hunsaker) though:

    “Indoor and outdoor facilities also have different usage patterns. In the summer, people naturally prefer outdoor aquatic facilities. Even indoor family aquatic centers with retractable roof and wall panels won’t generate the same summer attendance levels as a similar outdoor facility. And though it seems reasonable that an indoor facility will recoup any difference in summer attendance by being open year-round, the reality is that most summer recreational pool users don’t frequent these facilities as much during the winter months — school is in session and other after-school activities occupy their time.”

    So are we going to be pushing people to go to other pools in the summer with the primary benefits going to the swim teams who haven’t really suggested they are willing to partner with the city to pay for the facility?

    I suppose maybe we shouldn’t expect competitive swimmers to pay for it considering our consultant also had this to say:

    “The recreational swimmer also will pay higher user fees than other aquatic users : two to three times what the competitive/fitness lap swimmer is will[ing] to pay.”

    I just struggle to get beyond this – and perhaps I’m short sighted, but it seems to me the benefits of an indoor pool are focused upon the formalized swim teams… not towards the typical resident. This means these facilities have a target audience that is minuscule in comparison to other types of facilities that appeal to many more people.

    We know that no facility will ever appeal to everyone – there are those that hate the Washington Pavilion because they never use it, and there are those who think our parks budget is too high because they would rather sit in front of a television watching Judge Judy, but at least in most cases we can acknowledge that other city investments such as parks, the Arena, the EC, the tennis courts, the golf courses, the traditional pools, and the bike trails appeal to a much, much wider sect of the populace than a facility like an indoor pool and/or they draw in a significant amount of revenue either directly or indirectly that no indoor pool will ever be able to compete with.

    That is what I am left wondering about – is an indoor pool much different than an indoor pickleball court or an indoor tennis court? These aren’t sports that garner a lot of spectators, so the revenue advantages of selling tickets simply don’t exist… which means the cost burden lies upon the city and the benefits are centered around a very tiny (but perhaps vocal) subsect of the populace.

    Say what you will about snowgates, but at least those do in fact benefit everyone who lives, works, or drives in the city. Can’t really say the same about something like an indoor pool.

24. Craig, what I meant was people are trying to torpedo the Spellerberg plan on bogus claims, which to me is different than trying to torpedo it on whether or not it’s a good “investment” for the City.

    What I see in your snips is a consultant who’s giving both sides (ie identifying potential real pitfalls) vs. the generic platitudes the current oppostion is puking out.

    I also grew up in that neighborhood and my mom still lives nearby. I rode my bike to Spellerberg in the summer to swim and I walked there in the winter to sled down the old steel ramp that used to be there. It was always packed regardless of the weather. I don’t think it’s fathomable to assume that just because you put a roof over it that it will be nearly empty in the summer. Right now if you want to slide down a tube into a pool or float on a lazy river in January you have to plunk down $129 a night at one of the 4 hotels that have indoor waterparks (10 years ago there were zero) and if you go to one in January I’d wager close to half of the people you see in there are locals.

    The project as designed won’t take anything away from either the existing pool or those hotels, it will be an enhancement that will satisfy both the neighborhood kids and anyone else who travels there to use it, whether they are from Brookings or across town. Like I’ve said before, we don’t live by Drake Springs..but we take our kids there all the time in the summer because it’s fun for them and when we’re there we see lots of cars in the lot (ie kids who didn’t walk or bike like I used to)

    You’re correct, no facility will appeal to everyone, but if you’re a taxpayer you want any facility to appeal to the most people possible so it has the least possible chance of turning into a white elephant.

25. Sy: “Craig, what I meant was people are trying to torpedo the Spellerberg plan on bogus claims, which to me is different than trying to torpedo it on whether or not it’s a good “investment” for the City.”

    You may be right Sy. Although I think much of it is perception. We may not feel VA parking would ever be a legitimate issue, but to a Vet who has to visit the VA three times a week for rehab… it probably is concerning – and it isn’t like the city has been very helpful in addressing citizen concerns.

    To your point though – sure there are bound to be bogus claims, but to be fair they will probably come from both sides. I’ve seen people trying to suggest having an indoor pool will bring a huge amount of revenue into Sioux Falls as well… and if we are honest, the amount of revenue brought in from a few swim meets likely won’t even pay the operational and financing costs on the facility. It’s all a matter of what you wish to consider “bogus” I suppose.

    “I don’t think it’s fathomable to assume that just because you put a roof over it that it will be nearly empty in the summer.”

    I agree with you – it won’t be nearly empty, but I think the point of the consultant is that it won’t be as popular as an outdoor facility and even the usage in the winter months isn’t enough to offset that.

    I’m the first to admit that swimming outdoors is exponentially better than an indoor facility. Not only is the smell of chlorine very strong in the traditional indoor facility, but the noise levels are uncomfortable, and the lack of sunshine reduces water temperatures and makes it less enjoyable. That’s probably why people tend to drift towards the outdoor pools in the summer months.

    “Right now if you want to slide down a tube into a pool or float on a lazy river in January you have to plunk down $129 a night at one of the 4 hotels that have indoor waterparks”

    I’m going to have to disagree with you there. First of all there are a lot of other options such as the pools at the Y and the other fitness centers – and you can get family swim passes to some of these facilities that would be much more economical than springing for a Motel room.

    Second, I used to know a front desk clerk who worked for one of the hotels in town that has a pool, and he told me that during non-peak times (so basically weekdays before 5pm) they would let people swim if they gave them a few bucks. In fact, I had friends who used to do this quite often at the downtown Holiday Inn although I can’t say whether they knew someone or if they paid for the privilege.

    Do some people rent hotels just so the kiddos can go swimming? Sure – but I really don’t think that is as common as some claim it is, and even if it were I’m not sure it is a compelling argument to finance a multi-million dollar project.

    Good discussion though – I’m sure this will continue to be interesting as we learn more details about the facility and as we start hearing arguments from the “pros” and “cons”. Might need to make some popcorn.

26. Scott H. – how do you get all these calls?

27. No clue. It’s a curse.

28. BTW, I think it was Stu Whitney’s wife who made the call.

Comments are closed.