After reading Argue Endorser’s managing editor’s ‘column’ about indoor pools (or should I say, muttling thru it). I have to wonder why logic is never factored into these ‘discussions.’
Opponents of the as-yet-still-hypothetical idea of building an indoor pool at Spellerberg Park to replace the leaking 45-year-old outdoor model that currently sits there said this week they’ve gathered about 7,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot.
Oh, goody.
Perhaps it can go on the same ballot as whether we should have snowgates.
This is hilarious, on many levels. For one, there is nothing ‘hypothetical’ about an indoor pool at Spellerberg. The city has been hammering this idea for over a year, and when they put out their aquatic study on Thursday, like a broken record, guess what? Indoor pool at Spellerberg.
The other part is Pat’s statement about snowgates. You would think the managing editor of the city’s only daily would know that snowgates are already on the 2014 ballot, which is probably where this issue will be. But maybe he can invite the mayor’s wife on his show to talk about it, or at least inform him about the latest ‘special interest club sport’ that needs money from the city.
This whole indoor pool debate is not complicated OR philosophical. It is pretty simple.
We don’t need a public indoor pool, because . . .
1) There are plenty of private facilities in SF already you can pay a ‘fee’ and swim at. We don’t need taxpayer’s to subsidize it.
2) If we really want to build one it needs to be in a location where there is available expansion (like RC did) OR in conjunction with the school district. I am not opposed to public entities, but they should get maximum usage.
3) Lastly, on a snarky point, ‘single’ issue people drive me bonkers. Whether it is pools, or dog parks, pickleball, a word of advice. Diversify your life. You can play tennis and swim in the summer. You can ski and ice fish in the winter. That is the advantage of living in our climate.
My prediction is that an indoor pool at Spellerberg will get voted down. A handful of swimming advocates are not going to tow the line for the electorate. This is a democracy folks, that is just how it works.
At what point does a want become a need?
Do the wants of private clubs only count when establishing needs we all must pay for?
When 15,000 signatures are gathered to express concerns are poo-pooed by the elites, leaders, media and vested interests you know there is a problem needing to be addressed. The people are tired of their ‘betters’ abusing the system for their personal gain.
Maybe Sioux Falls will have the similar luck as Spearfish has with it’s annual $500,000 deficit hole in the ground with a roof over it.
Yep, it’ll pay for itself. Nothin’ to see here folks; move along, move along.
CR, I assume you were at the library meeting a few days ago. I could tell by the small snippet kelo provided on it, several different options were laid forth by the consulting firm. My guess is EVERY one of them included this…
…a pool that is 50 meters long, 8 lanes wide, and 6.5 feet deep. Let’s not kid ourselves. This thing is being built by US, the taxpayers, for the Sioux Falls Aquatics Organization. Same with the tennis courts. Our money for special interest groups.
For our “indoor” PUBLIC pool, the special interest group we’re talking about is the Snowfox Swim Team. Right now they only have one three month period a year with a long pool. (50 meters) The other three month periods are being held in short pools. (25 meters) Problem is, swim meets are held in long pools, or olympic size. So the SnowFox’s can only host during the summer months. With taxpayer money and a new 50 meter indoor pool they can practice and host swim meets on the taxpayer dime.
Not to worry tho. If you want your kid to take full advantage of this indoor pool, just join them to the Snowfox swim team. For $120 a kid, a month, they’ll welcome you with open arms.
I suppose the Snowfox dream is to have the mayor and his wife will join the club in some form. This way they will guarantee their Spellerberg dreams of indoor pool and tennis.
Supporters are trying the Facebook route: https://www.facebook.com/WeWantAnIndoorPoolAtSpellerbergPark with ‘9 likes’ so far…
I wonder how this compares to 7350 signatures? 9 versus 7350, who wins? I guess if it is the right 9 versus the rest of us…
Also, to make this pool less of a financial drain we are being told there will be swimming / club meets. What happens to the residents who wish to swim during these times? Let’s say a group has a regularly scheduled class time to meet and the city has once again rented out to a group? What is to guarantee citizens have first right of use?
Poly43
I was at the meeting.
And, one thing I can tell you with certainty is the months leading up to the April 2014 election are going to be very interesting!!!!
Swimming Pools
Snow Gates
A Mayor and,
Four Council Seats!!
The Lincoln County state’s attorney attended the Mayor’s listen and learn meeting this morning and asked the Mayor why people in the area of 85th were not told of the deal for Wal-Mart to build another store in their neighborhood. The Mayor didn’t answer. The Lincoln County attorney then said he attended the Wal-Mart open house and asked the Wal-Mart representative why the 85th street location and was told that’s where the city told them to build. The Mayor got angry, used a four-letter word and said he wanted the Wal-Mart guys name. At least the Mayor is consistent. At every twist and turn.
Hilarious…and I’m sure will not make any of our news outlets.
Pimpin’ ain’t easy.
This is off the subject of the pool, but…..
KLDT reported on the Mayor’s Listening and Learning session.
And, it should be available (in its entirety!!) on Citylink (channel 16) and at siouxfalls.org.
sorry, that should read KDLT
The AL ran an interactive poll on March 29th titled:
Interactive poll: Is an indoor pool at Spellerberg a good idea?
Two of the respondents were Sean Ervin and Elizabeth Obaka…..
Both are architects for TSP, THE FIRM THAT IS BEING PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS to do the preliminary design for an indoor pool at Spellerberg!! These are the two individuals who did TSP’s presentation at the public input meetings last year!!
Really……….!!!!!
I want an indoor bike/skate park, I want an indoor ice skating rink, I want an indoor ice fishing pond, I want an indoor park that brings the outdoors indoors, I want, I want, I want the city to pay for my every want. And yes, I still want the airport to stay and Weber street even though I rarely use either. This city is a Veruca Salt. Maybe the Mayor is in the nut business.
I read that guy’s column also and I had the same thought as DL, why is logic never used? I guess logic is not convenient enough for them, doesn’t suit their purposes.
Parking around the VA has been terrible for years, it is nothing new, plus the children’s home across the street adds to the parking problems. Apparently Lalley doesn’t think there is a parking problem and too bad for the vets with appointments at the VA. He mockingly (actually stupidly) says “parents’ minivan is blocking the driveway while a WWII vet expires in the street..” Well wasn’t that heart felt? He should also remember there are Viet Nam vets and Iraq and Afghanistan vets. It is 2013.
I seriously doubt Park Ridge wants all the people parking in their lot. Did he talk to any business owners at Park Ridge?
And then for a little added BS he threw in the snark about snowgates, for those “who want their driveways cleaned out after each snowfall.” Who knew the snowgate guy shoveled your driveway?
He ends by saying ” Listen to the traffic engineers and the planners.” Oh ya, they have done such a marvelous job already.
Snowgates! (And pools)
I want an indoor concert facility. Seriously. Not a building that holds twice as many people as will ever attend, but one that only holds a few hundred people. One that local bands can use as practice space during the day, and local promoters can book at night. One that has all the necessary amenities, but not so polished and ‘hoity-toity” that no fun is allowed. One that doesn’t define rock ‘n’ roll by a particular hairstyle or decade. It’ll never happen, obviously, but if it was built it would be used more than all of these other special interests projects combined.
Amen Scott. Amen!
Write that in your Argus blog!
Don’t know why I have done it but I actually suffered through Lalley again: 100 eyes show – http://www.argusleader.com/videonetwork/2264404524001 . He spent most of his time re-fighting the Drake Springs pool decision plus telling us how bad a person Theresa Stehly is for fighting the Drake Springs Pool.
The Pat and Janet show showed the shallowness of there understanding of Sioux Falls and its issues. The PayWall Leader’s existence is to boost the city administration’s and developer’s plans, nothing more nothing less.
Typical Liberal… We NEED snow gates but we don’t NEED a indoor pool, we NEED the city to trim our trees but we don’t NEED an event center..
When you have core principles you will see that the city should not be in business of competing with business on any of these issues.
We NEED a concert hall so my kid can practice his kazoo, but we don’t NEED a indoor tennis so the mayor can practice handling his balls.
If that isn’t a debate between 2 self centered idiots I don’t know what is.
I would like to play 18 holes of Golf in February. So I shell out 50 bucks and pay a business for virtual golf……. That’s how the free market works folks.
Your like rats fighting over the scraps that the city throws to you.
Oh, LBJ, can’t you see I’m being just a bit facetious? And I’m far from a “liberal”…at least on some issues.
LJL, not LBJ. That would be something, right?
I agree with everything Helga said. I have maintained for several years that if special interest groups like the Snow Fox want a special facility let them pay for it, and if the Mayor’s wife wants an indoor tennis court, let them pay for it.
Scott…. I know what you were insinuating, my analogy is directing more to the fuzzy balls connoisseur, but analogous to all with something on the “cities wish list”. Snow slouches and winter swimmers included.
I try to be a bit more thought provoking than the paid assholes at the printed rags.
That means you LAZY LALLY…
ah ok. Carry on! 🙂
I get a kick out of those t-shirts. No wonder the Swim Fox team doesn’t want to help pay for the facility…. the damn thing is priceless!
This whole “want vs. need” debate is worth more exploration. Hopefully we all understand an indoor aquatics center is very much in the want category. However, we must also admit snow gates are also a want…. because if they were a need we would already have them.
Of course there are different levels of wants. Something like an indoor ski slope is so far out on the sale of wants you couldn’t see it with the Hubble telescope. An indoor pool is still a want, but perhaps not as far out. Different people have different opinions, but I think most of us can agree these are quality of life issues and not really matters of life or death.
So we boil it down to what percentage of our population will benefit directly plus what percentage will benefit indirectly. I’m guessing the answer to both of those questions results in numbers are are abysmally tiny. Compare that to something like a library or a new bridge and you can start to see why an indoor pool will be a tough sell.
We don’t ‘need’ to swim in January – or perhaps we should simply say we don’t ‘need’ to swim on the taxpayer’s time in January. So if this is so important for these swim teams, why haven’t I heard anything from them in terms of their plans to help raise funds or finance the complex? If you told me the swim clubs raised $5M via a mixture of cash donations as well as corporate sponsorships I’d be much more likely to recognize the true desire to have a facility. However when they just stand in line with their hand out but in turn then tell us that they should get priority usage of the facility when it is done… needless to say I’m not impressed.
Sorry swim fans – if this vote is held today I’d vote no. You have plenty of time to convince me otherwise, but I advise you to use that time wisely. You just never know when someone will swoop in beneath you and steal your thunder by actually putting some skin in the game for whatever project they are hoping to have funded.
Guess I should have proofread that one a bit… sale should be scale, “are are” should be “that are”, time should be dime.
I’d gladly buy an edit button for a dollar.
“However when they just stand in line with their hand out but in turn then tell us that they should get priority usage of the facility when it is done… needless to say I’m not impressed.”
I agree, at least the Hockey and Tennis people are funding most of their projects themselves. What has the Aquatics group funded so far? T-shirts?
A taxpayer-funded indoor pool was first turned down by the voters in April 2007.
Proponents of a taxpayer-owned indoor pool have had SIX YEARS to work on raising private funds.
FYI
The Scheel’s Iceplex and the Community Indoor Tennis Center will NOT be OWNED or OPERATED by the City of Sioux Falls.
The only “skin in the game” that taxpayers have are the “ONE-TIME” donations of CIP tax dollars.
1.5 million donated to the Scheel’s Iceplex
500,00 donated to CITC (Community Indoor Tennis Center)
The only question taxpayers will have is:
Based on the investment of public dollars in these private facilities, how much ice and tennis time will be available to the general public?!!
The whole “need” debate is bunk anyways, we’ve always had parks and since the ’30s we’ve put pools in them. We never “needed” a park like we need clean water or police protection, beyond those there are very few things that even fit into a City’s “needs” category.
What we are really talking about is an enhancement to an existing City provided service. Just like…(wait for it)……………………………………………….snow gates!
However, unlike snow gates, an indoor pool with the 50m gives us something we lack: A year-round, mixed use facility. This last winter we would’ve used snow gates what? 3 or 4 times? The rest of the year they sit in the Public Works warehouse taking up space and collecting dust…they have no secondary use. Sure the worse the winter, the more they get used..kinda like (wait for it)……………………….indoor pools!
The central facility with planned improvements to the rest of the pools makes a good, long term plan…one that the sport parent brigade will likely vote for in droves. All the noise about Spellerberg being too small and the Vets dying in the streets is just that; noise. At least with the swim team rentals and the idea of a “year round” pool pass the Spellerberg plan at least brings new revenues streams to the table, albeit neither one will be enough to cover the entire nut. However, the facility as designed will attract new people to the neighborhood both as visitors and residents, so that revitalization impact is something else that the City will indeed benefit from over time.
Snow gates are simply an added expense, might be demonstrably easier and more financially “prudent” to buy the 7000 signatories each a snowblower instead, at least then they could do the driveway and sidewalks and we don’t pay for a roof over their heads the 9 months they aren’t being used.
There seems to be confusion about the initiative process.
According to the South Dakota State Constitution, Statute ON 3-1:
Legislative power–Initiative and referendum.
The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a Legislature which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. However, the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions. Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.
This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure. The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the people. This section shall apply to municipalities.
**approved November 8, 1898
The 7,000+ signatures were collected to force a PUBLIC VOTE.
Thus, allowing every registered voter in the City of Sioux Falls the opportunity to cast their vote on this important local issue.
IF the community supports an indoor pool, then it should have no problem passing the scrutiny of a public vote!!
The same is true of snowgates….
IF the community supports snowgates, then they should have no problem passing the scrutiny of a public vote!!
I will bet you there is a 2 to 1 population of people who fish compared to those who swim or play tennis. When we will get a indoor fishing complex???? I am f%$#% serious. If were going by the standards of how many citizens will use it than why not an indoor fishing park. You can play tennis outdoors in the winter. We pay for our children to go to Swim Amercia in the winter. (Great program at the school for the deaf by the way.)
When will this shit end. When we can no longer pay our taxes because their too high.
I am utterly sick of people saying that others who oppose this crap are obstructionists and not for the future of the city. It’s a ridiculous standard. Would you also like a city owned grocery store? How about a city lumber yard? I am all for outdoor parks and activity places of children, but when you grow up it’s time to pull your own weight and pay for the things you enjoy if you want them year round.
@ LJL You have very good points – not everyone who is against an indoor pool is an obstructionist. There are a number of reasons why people may not support this exact project whether it be due to cost, concerns about the location, wanting to direct funds elsewhere, not feeling the city should bear the burden to entertain everyone 365 days a year, parking…. you name it. I’m already starting to see a lot of vocal attacks on people who are perceived as “anti” indoor pool at Spellerberg, and it only suggests to me that this will be as ugly as the Events Center location debate.
@ Sy: You’re right those snowgates won’t get used all summer, but you also need to remember they don’t require ongoing maintenance in the off months, and they are (generally speaking) a one time up front cost with minimal operational costs only in the months they are in active use.
A pool on the otherhand costs us year round, and the consultants tell us only 5% of their usage comes in the winter months AND summer usage is reduced simply because people prefer outdoor pools. So even if we get more snow or colder weather our indoor pool probably isn’t going to see significant increases in usage – I’m not sure I see a correlation there.
On a higher level, I’m a little confused on why people keep comparing an indoor pool to snowgates. They are two entirely different issues. Debate each on its own merits, and let it be. Why is it assumed everyone who is pro-snowgate is anti-Spellerberg indoor pool or vice versa? I don’t understand the logic on this one – it is like trying to debate abortion by attacking unions.
They’re compared because the Argus is comparing them. That’s the only reason I can come up with.
The two issues come down to this:
1. Snowgates are a want, boarding on a need with little financial cost, benefiting all citizens.
2. A 50 meter indoor pool no matter where it is located in Sioux Falls is a want, with little need, at a high financial cost , benefiting a select few.
What about Great Bear?
What about it Titleist? Great Bear is used as a ski/snowboarding/sledding venue all winter… but when Spring comes they don’t try to fight nature and instead they close. In the summer months it does offer some really nice hiking trails which don’t cost anything to maintain so that is just a secondary benefit.
Great Bear is a lot like our current outdoor pools – used in the season it was designed for, and admitting that some activities just aren’t necessary year round. If you put a roof over Great Bear and started pumping in AC to allow people to ski in July then you may have a comparison to an indoor pool.
Actually if we are fair – Great Bear is probably a lot more like our city owned Golf Courses. They are open for as long as the season allows, and they generate enough revenue to offset operational expenses. If anyone can show me the numbers that suggest a new indoor aquatics center can pay for itself via user fees I’m in full support tomorrow – although I still feel that any organization that wishes to use the facility for their practices or meets needs to be actively involved in financing the construction costs.
So as long as they close for a portion of the year – they are fine? I would say you almost run more of a risk with golf courses and Great Bear as their whole viability depends on the weather and when that fails – the city pays the bills. Would I ever want any of those options for staying active to go away – absolutely not.
You are never going to find a perfect fit for any of these quality of life issues, projects, etc. If that is what people are seeking – you/they will never be happy.
I don’t know how we became so centered on Spellerberg. The infrastructure there, in my opinion is not adequate for parking and traffic control…when you consider how many commercial places are located around the park. There could be another location that would work. There is land near the Kenny Anderson Community Center/Oakview Library/Anne Sullivan Elementary School for sale. Another quick study of that area could be done and some infrastructure is already there and owned publicly.
@ LJL, fishing is done year round, its always been outdoors and it’s extremely rare to find a place where you can fish indoors unless you see something like a pond at the Sportsman’s show or in a megastore like Scheels. However, an indoor aquatic center, whether it’s for rec use or competitive is quite common to find in cities our size or even smaller, especially in our climate. As L3wis noted, we’ve got indoor pools in town already and we also have both public & private “water parks” for kids to play in. I get that you’re bent, but your comparison makes zero sense.
But again, as the City grows and matures, it needs to change to keep up with the times. Take Great Bear since it’s been grought up, sure it’s seasonal and there are years it makes money and years it doesn’t. But, like Spellerberg I spent a huge chunk of my youth out there. Back then, it had two crappy, green tow ropes that pretty much destroyed your gloves, but that’s how you got up the hill. You had one run on the left, and one on the right. There was a small warming house & rental/ticket office and that was about it. As a kid, I didn’t care..I was outside and skiing and there was KISD blaring over the crappy PA system….I was in heaven.
Today the park is nothing like that. They now have new areas opened up for downhill and cross country, a training hill with a carpet lift, more lights for night skiing, a tubing hill with it’s own special lift and 4 different runs, a snowboard park with half pipes and obstacles, a quad chair lift that’s as nice as you find at Breckenridge, plus you have a full bar, restaurant with extra space for group events. As noted, they also are set up for some summer use for hiking and even outdoor concerts.
So the point is, you don’t just build a park or any other City amenity and you’re done forever. You make improvements and enhancements as times changes. In doing so, usage increases.
@Craig. I’m sure the 5% figure from the consultants has something behind it, but as a parent who uses both Drake Springs and occasionally indoor water parks at hotels, I can tell you for certain a couple things;
A. At Drake you see all walks of life, from the poorest on up. For the times it’s open, I’d characterize it’s summer usage as heavy, to the point where you can see if it was built bigger it would still be packed. Lots of times you can’t get a chair, so you throw your towels on the grass. You jump in the pool, you’re damn near wedged in a mass of humanity, you wait in line for the diving board, the water slide and the lazy river. No one complains because it’s summer, you’re swimming and you don’t care.
B. In winter, the low usage times at Spellerberg will be when school’s in session, when school’s out the place will look a lot like Drake in the Summer, maybe not packed per se..but there will definately be a lot of rec users coming and that usage will only increase as the City keeps growing. I highly doubt that 5% number will play out here, I’d peg it closer to 20% or more.
@ Concerned….That land is 6 acres and it’s listed for $1 million or roughly $5 per sf. It’s too small to accomodate a facility like what’s proposed. Plus it would cater mostly to Northeast residents.
Spellerberg is central, so it’s as easy an commute for the greatest number of potential users, plus it’s like 25 acres & we already own it. The commercial around it is actually a plus, as the pool will help support them and vice versa.
Alice: “So as long as they close for a portion of the year – they are fine? I would say you almost run more of a risk with golf courses and Great Bear as their whole viability depends on the weather and when that fails – the city pays the bills. “
Thing is Alice we have years of history to show us that facilities like our golf courses and Great Bear (more often than not) actually generate revenue enough to support themselves and put a bit back into expansion and improvements. There isn’t a single person or consultant who has ever even tried to suggest an indoor aquatics complex will be self sufficient, which is probably why you don’t see any of the aquatics clubs lined up to build their own facility.
Of course simply being self sufficient should not be reason enough to be against a project. We all know parks are hardly self sufficient since there is zero revenue gained from them, and last I checked the Washington Pavilion was still operating in the red or at least it has done so for more years than not.
The point is, should the city divert funds to entertainment facilities that only appeal to a very small group of individuals rather than focusing on things that appeal to a greater number of citizens? One can easily argue the Events Center appeals to a larger group because even those that may not use it will benefit indirectly from tax revenue etc. One could even argue Falls Park improvements appeal to a wide group because even if you never set foot down there it has resulted in increased tourism and has made Sioux Falls more attractive to companies and residents who may be looking to relocate – which in turn sustains and grows our local economy.
So perhaps the question is, does a project like an indoor pool really make sense? Will it provide enough of a lift to the city to justify it or will it simply be yet another project that the city has to finance year after year with a handful of residents (and swim clubs) essentially getting a private facility handed to them with no effort on their part greater than the energy required to print a few tshirts?
I have to wonder if this wasn’t being proposed in your neighborhood and instead was being proposed at the corner of 41st and Sertoma or at 57th and Highway 11… would you still support it? I’m not trying to pick on you for your viewpoint and you have every right to state your opinion, but is it really about having an indoor pool, or is it about revitalizing the area and perhaps helping to increase property values?
The one thing that bothers me more than anything about this little idea isn’t the location or the price tag or the idea that we are so spoiled that we think we need to go swimming in January… it is that those who will benefit most simply feel they deserve this facility.
CR said it earlier – the first indoor pool was voted down in 2007 and the swim clubs could have been out raising funds to build a facility (or at least provide some level of financing towards a facility) for the past six years just as the hockey clubs and the tennis association have done for their respective facilities.
So what have they done other than printing some snarky t-shirts or whining to the media about those who are against the idea? The whole thing boggles my mind – it is just an example of how people expect the city to finance their personal recreation but there is no effort to partner with the city to get things done.
20% Sy? If we are just going to toss out numbers I’ll peg usage at no more than 4.8%. 🙂
Thing is – kids are in school all winter, which means the only time this thing will see peak usage is after school is out for the day. Many kids are involved in more traditional sports and after-school activities, which reduces usage even more. Then you have parents who want to actually have dinner with the kids – and by the time they are done doing homework and shoving some Stouffer’s Lasagna down their throats, it is 7:30pm. Is there really time for a quick dip in a pool that will probably close at 8:00pm? Will it even be open that late?
So now we are talking a very limited number of people who can use it during the weeknights. Maybe the weekends will pack it in – but if usage levels are only moderately high two days a week it gets much harder to convince us it is necessary.
Of course during the day you will have some older people using it for water aerobics and that sort of thing, and you’re bound to have the retired lap swimmer sect (all two dozen of them or so) since getting a yearly pass to a city indoor pool as a Senior Citizen will be much cheaper than joining a gym that has a pool.
So who will really use this facility in great numbers? My guess is the organized swim clubs and teams. They will practice three times a week after school, and they will have the occasional meet either on a weeknight, but occasionally on a Saturday as well. So now since these teams are using the facility, it means your casual swimming gets pushed out and can’t swim laps. So the seven or so official groups from Snow Fox take over how many nights a week and how much time on the weekends? What is left for the taxpayers who actually pay for the facility?
This is why I continue to feel this facility is a hand-out to a VERY select group of individuals who have essentially done nothing in an effort to raise funds to help pay for it.
@ Craig, like I said, I’m a parent who uses Drake, and if the City adds the indoor pool I would be one of those people buying year-round passes that I would think would work at any City owned pool, so I could use Drake when I want and Spellerberg when it’s raining or snowing or when we simply want another option. I’m thinking there’s plenty more parents in town that would follow suit, so there’s one new revenue stream.
Second, the Swim teams would rent the facililty for meets & practices, and like the Sanford fieldhouse they would likely negotiate a multi-year deal(s) to do so. Also, like I pointed out in the other thread, you will have users who aren’t identified yet, like the SW Minn semi pro football team using the Fieldhouse for practice. I doubt they were factored into the initial plan, but once the facility was up, somone came to them and got the deal done. There’s lots of groups that would likely want to rent the facility, whether that’s on a one time deal or on a term, you think about groups like Active Generations, day care providers, college groups or teams, private schools, churches, etc. Do we even have a diving team? Probably not since we have like one high dive in the whole town (@ Drake), maybe you put in a high dive and you’ll see a team or two form? Maybe Swim USA wants a second location to offer classes? We still need to at least fix and remodel Spellerberg, so why not expand and enhance it’s offerings?
I still don’t get the opponents claim that they support an indoor pool, just not a Spellerberg. That’s a lot like people saying they support a Wal Mart, just not where all the people have been moving to recently…..the fact that people are moving there is why Wal-Mart is interested in the first place.
Think about it Craig, a person going through the gate is a “use” and on any given day in the summer I’d wager you have at least 150 “users” at Drake and obviously that number increases during weekends and stretches of hot weather. So for the 5 months they are open Drake likely sees somewhere around 15-20K “uses”, and there’s 2 other similar “aquatic centers” and 3 more “traditional” pools the City operates. Add it all up and I’m guessing your pool “market” is well over 100K uses a year or 20K a month. 5% = 5K “uses” are going to come the other 7 months of the year while the weather turns? No way..you’d get at least 10K uses just over Christmas break alone.
Also, City Parks are open to 10pm…don’t know if the pool would follow that, but FYI.
John – maybe Spearfish is short a couple 100K people to have “success”?
@Craig – would I support an indoor facility on the outskirts of town? Honestly – not as heavily as I do at the Spellerberg location. One of the things that appeals to me with this location is actually….its location – centrally located, close to many different walks of life, on a bus route, etc. Would I support this facility in other parts of central SF? – I sure would – but this facility is next for an overhaul and I like the plan.
The outskirts of town are not having any problem with expanding – but you have to take care of your central components with development.
As for people not using this facility because of nightime activities or family dinners – that is rubbish. My kids are not taking swimming lessons this Spring like they have every other Spring. Why? Because all classes were full with a waiting list. Just because many of you may not use this facility or are just not physically active – there are MANY that are and will be willing to pay their fair share for services.
My final comment would be for each of you to go drive around Spellerberg and the VA area around 4:30 some afternoon. You will find very few cars parked in the parking lots, very few cars parked on the street, and very little traffic. You see – the VA does the crux of their business well before 4pm hence the only traffic you find for the most part – is residential traffic.
….This is why I continue to feel this facility is a hand-out to a VERY select group of individuals who have essentially done nothing in an effort to raise funds to help pay for it.
Craig…your entire post #45 is the exact reason this will be voted down. Just a whole lot of taxpayers tired of supporting private special interest groups, be it swim teams, hockey, tennis….you name it.
@ Poly You and I both know that “swim moms” isn’t a “very select”..ie small, special interest group.
And I’m guessing Spellerberg will be part of the overall Aquatics plan that will be voted on. The same batch of folk who came out in droves because they thought the Stehly/Staggers contingent was trying to deny them a chance to see Pink at the EC will come right back out to vote for this plan.
I’m not heavily invested in either for or against, but (like most buildings in this town) the predicted usage is a bit of a pipe dream. Summer pools are generally used almost every day by the same kids. They almost live there, or at least did back when I was a kid. For many parents, it’s almost like a babysitter. What else is there to do when it’s 90 out but head to the pool? I remember being so disappointed any day there was a cloud in the sky.
Winter swimming, though, is different. Even if you have access, you’re not thinking about swimming every day. I just don’t see kids rushing home from school every afternoon so that mom or dad can take them to this chlorine-smelling building. As an occasional family treat, sure. Just like Sy taking his family to a hotel. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, Alice, so spare me with your excited plans to spend your evenings there. And I honestly don’t mean that to sound so harsh.)
So like it or not, this will primarily be a toy for a special interest group. At least the tennis wives are raising some of their own money. The swim club crowd is just lying around waiting for their costly demands to be built. Are they worth the cost?
Sy says……
@ Poly You and I both know that “swim moms†isn’t a “very selectâ€..ie small, special interest group.
There are currently 250 kids involved in the two swim teams (Snowfox and Seals).
(**Numbers were quoted by Paula Gordon at the Aquatics Master Plan presentation.)
This is a facility that is going to cost THE TAXPAYERS 18.5 million CAPITAL dollars with unknown OPERATING expenses.
*Bonding will be required.
The presentation is now available on siouxfalls.org under Parks and Rec.
cr – there are currently about 300 kids involved in HS basketball in SF – and yet – we have at least 9 (nine) full sized basketball courts built at the High Schools by taxpayer dollars.
And those nine full sized basketball courts are also used on a daily basis for physical education classes……
Thanks for the link, looks like my guess were a bit off.
cr sounds like she appreciates things like b-ball courts that have more than one use. So why is she only focused on the swim team aspect of this plan? Lots of other people will use Spellerberg, including my “swim Mom” demographic, which is actually any parent, grandparent or guardian who would take a kid for a swim from time to time.
After viewing the presentation, I’m even more convinced this plan with option A has merit, 20K uses now and going to 80K or more under the proposed design. The annual subsidy isn’t going to break the bank, and like I’ve said earlier..there may be other users (ie revenue options) that will emerge once the place is greenlighted. Rates are still low, and this project would set SF for another 15 years before we need to address the issue again.
@ Craig..I still don’t get the 5% number…if they are saying 80K uses year round, that means only 4K will use it over the winter months? Seems way too low.
Put the whole plan on the ballot and let’s vote!
Please give credit where credit is do. The ice facility completely stepped up and raised a huge amount of their money well before the city stepped up. I have no problem with the city supplying some of the funding when people are willing to have a little skin in the game.
thanks for the link, looks like my guess were a bit off.
What link?
I meant the heads up on the Aquatic plan being on siouxfalls.org but here ya go:
http://www.siouxfalls.org/central-services/multimedia-support/citylink/programs/regular-programs/city-news/cn-aquatics-masterplan-032913.aspx
Sy, you make zero cents (that’s no typo)…this will cost our tax payers too much. The indoor ice fishing thing was a farce as is your argument for an indoor pool. An entitlement for a some does not mean an expense to all. Unlike snowgates which are an entitlement to all. Goddam liberals can’t separate fact from fiction
So now Sy is a liberal? Interesting.
Actually not to pick on him, but I think Sy is far from a liberal. I just think he feels this type of facility would be a benefit to him and his family. Perhaps he even has a kid interested in joining a swim team.
@rufus – the 300 kids involved in high school basketball seems a bit low, but we need to keep in mind that those gyms are not only used for basketball. They are used for volleyball, they are used for all of the PE classes for all of the students, they are used for dance classes and choir shows and band performances and gymnastics and student assemblies and numerous other activities.
Gyms are really multi-use structures with very low operational costs. Hard to compare that to an indoor pool that will have but a faction of the usage, but will cost much more to maintain and operate.
@ NPO, hard to tell what’s a farce vs. factual in these debates. The opponents have decided the Vets will be dying in the streets waiting to park and also have put forth the oxymoronic talking points about usage & parking. They don’t think it will get used enough to generate any $$, but at the same time they claim the lot will be constantly full to the point where folks will have to park in grandma’s tulip bed in order to get there.
Fact is that neither the aquatic plan nor snowgates are an “entitlement” in any way, both are simply an enhancement to already provided & subsidized City services. If you hate one, you need to be consistent and hate them both. Truth is one will help draw families and revitalize neighborhoods, the other will save anyone with a driveway 10 minutes 3-4 times a year.
Once again, if you are buying this “it will affect Vet healthcare,” I invite you to drive around this neighborhood anytime after 4:30pm. For cripes sakes, drive around anytime after 4pm. There is very little parking or traffic problems. In fact – I would say it is actually quite pleasant.
I saw soccer teams practicing last night at the park starting at about 5pm. They parked in the parking lot and parked on the street. Are they “affecting” Vet healthcare as well? My husband and I also utilize the Credit Union right there on the VA campus. In and out in a jif every time. Are we affecting Vet healthcare for utilizing their campus for our banking needs? This argument is an embarrassment and so out in right field it is ridiculous.
And by the way, NPO, you need to clean it up. I am not a liberal. In fact, I am a pretty staunch Republican and I support this facility for all the right reasons – for my family, for the nieghborhood, and for the community. Now – if you disagree with Huether’s motivation behind it – fine – but your use of words is ridiculous. Go for a walk or something. You sound like you need it.
I just read thru these comments. Are you guys in a NASCAR race, becuz I felt like I was ‘circling’ a lot.
If the parking lot will not be full, that must mean the pool won’t be either. How much is this going to cost us again? It’s probably gonna take more than one lifeguard and ticket taker. An indoor ice fishing rink will be a benefit to a couple of people in town too but I’m not advocating for that. Once you have that credit card, it’s easy to spend the money. Until the bill comes in. Better yet, those that advocate for this indoor pool, combine your funds and start it yourself. The profit would be all yours!! Glorious idea, I won’t even want an idea fee.
I don’t need to take a walk or a swim in middle of winter. I need us to use our money wisely. Staunch Republicans and Democrats will not so it’s up to the conservatives (heavy on the “conserve” part). The city is not here to provide for our every whim and fancy and pickleball need.
DL, I hope you are not comparing me to NASCAR folk. That’d be an embarrassment and a shame.
The annual subsidy isn’t going to break the bank, …..
That preliminary estimate of subsidy is based upon some very questionable figuring. Anyway, that generous figuring still has the subsidy at $2000.00 a day, 365 days a year. If this city actually were flush with money I’d say go for it. But, we are not. Just a couple of days ago we learned SAM is going to cut out some of it’s paratransit routes for lack of money. Basically, if a handicapped senior lives outside the 229 beltway, transportation must be found another way. So….we can subsidize a pool for 2k a day, while we literally throw our city’s handicapped under the bus. DISGUSTING
Poly, I saw that too. It is about priorities. The ruling class wants to be served first, and let the rest of us scrape for crumbs while they benefit from our tax dollars.
That is an understatement l3wis. Things are starting to break wide open. Within the next couple of months look for regular bus ride rates to increase by 50%. 20 out 25 bus riders come from household incomes under 30k a year. 4 of 25 have household incomes from 30k to 60k. That means 1 in 25 will be able to afford this rate increase.
The sequestrian will further drive many SF residents into even deeper poverty. Headstart is taking a huge hit, as is SF Housing.
Prices at the grocery store rise daily and keep seniors on fixed incomes wondering where there next meal is coming from…
….and we have 5 of 8 city councilor s who can’t see ANY of this coming. Prolly do, just could not possibly care less. My gratitude goes out to Jamison, Anderson, and Staggers. Real men who see real problems in front of us. The rest of you?
Drunken sailors who can’t spend it fast enough.
BTW. The “plan” calls for a 50 meter pool for the swim club that is fully 4 times as large as the aquatic center with it. Another outside FAC for over 8 million is planned to go along with this black hole at Spellerberg. Throw in a spray park on the east side. Total daily subsidy assuming all the city’s fudged numbers come through?
$2700.00 a day!!!
But Poly, a staunch republican is behind this. Let’s pass it to see how it will all work out. Here’s their convo: “It’ll be good for the neighborhood I think… crap…that’s almost a $1 million a year to run this thing does that including building cost? Shoot, it can’t cost that much, I’ve never run my own business but if it does cost that much, let’s raise the property tax even higher, I don’t mind another $100 added on to my bill. It’s for the kids, right?”
What’s going to suffer in this city for an indoor pool?