HELP! The chat room has been shut off, and I am drowning in questions.
I waited a few days before posting about this. (100 Eyes show 1/30/14) I was pretty hot at the time, I have cooled a bit since Wednesday. A nice brisk walk in the February weather probably helped.
For full disclosure, I like Pat Lalley, like myself, Pat has an opinion and likes to share it. Good for him. In fact I met Pat when he worked at the lowly (but always entertaining) TEMPEST magazine. Heck, I have known him longer then my dog.
But sometimes, like myself, he can be tragically hypocritical. Snowgates come to mind (he hires a contractor to clean out his driveway).
While his employer launches lawsuit after lawsuit for open government, he certainly doesn’t like to practice what he preaches.
On Thursday, for instance, he had the pool ‘Indoorers’ on his show, 100 Eyes. The program is simple, you tune in, and you can leave questions for the guests. In fact, Pat started the chat by saying ‘Fire Away’. I will admit, I recruited many people who support an outdoor pool at Spellerberg to ask questions. Good questions. We fired away like machine guns.
Not one single question was asked (or at least in OUR context), heck they were not even posted in the chat room. We were CENSORED. That’s fine, the Argus is a private news organization, they can do what they want. The obvious bias towards the ‘Indoorers’ was clear.
So what’s my beef? Don’t talk about transparency and sunshine in government, and shut the lights off.
To say I am disappointed is putting it mildly.
Here’s a list of questions I helped compile that were never posted in the chat:
• The SF Hockey Association and Indoor Tennis Association was able to raise money privately to go towards a public/private partnership with the city. It has been over 6 years since the Drake Springs vote. Why hasn’t Community Swim raised any money to go towards a similar partnership?
• Unlike Rapid City’s Indoor public pool, if an indoor public pool is built at Spellerberg, it will not be able to be expandable in the future. Isn’t this an issue, or more of a bigger plan by SF Parks and Rec to build more indoor pools?
• How much will the public be able to use the 50-meter pool if the special interest swim teams have it tied up?
• If an indoor public pool is truly NEEDED, why will it have to subsidized up to $700,000 a year? Will the swim teams be willing to close that gap through putting club memberships towards that subsidy?
• What are your feelings on the city using taxdollars to ‘educate’ the public on a citizen driven ballot initiative, like the indoor pool, which clearly leans towards an indoor facility? The city attorney claims it is not against state law, but it certainly comes close.
• Why hasn’t the indoor pool supporters done their own petition drive to have citizens approve an indoor pool? If the outdoor pool vote fails at Spellerberg, the council still has to approve the Indoor pool budget and bonds to build it. So a NO vote doesn’t make the indoor pool a done deal but a ballot initiative would have.
• I support an indoor pool but through a public/private partnership with the school district. Your feelings?
I have also heard that Sanford really wanted a public pool at the Sports Complex, and they are not happy about the Spellerberg plan. Don’t know how much of that is true, but it makes sense, especially since EVERYTHING else is there and there would be room for expansion. Hopefully Sanford will come out against an indoor pool at Spellerberg. But I’m not holding my breath, unless of course I am choking on a Papa John’s pizza slice.
I found it interesting that Margaret Sumption, Co-Chair of the INDOOR Pool Effort, proudly announced to Patrick Lalley they expect to raise up to $125,000 for their campaign!
In the many years that have ensued since the Rec Center was voted down in 2005, and an indoor pool at Drake Springs was voted down in 2007, the indoor pool proponents have done nothing to raise private dollars for their cause!!
This is what they are asking taxpayers for:
All information has been taken directly from the consultant’s report (see siouxfalls.org).
Page 28: This is the scenario the consultant has recommended:
Option 5: Large Indoor 50 meter by 25 yard competition pool with springboard diving and a separate 3,750 sq. ft. indoor leisure pool with current channel, and waterslide.
**Note that the leisure pool mentioned above is now being labeled a “THERAPY POOL” in order to entice both veterans, seniors and the disabled to vote in favor of an indoor pool.** (my note, not the consultant’s)
Page 38: Capital Cost of a Large Indoor Pool
Project Cost $18,519,000 (this has increased to 19.4m per Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney-Council Work Session, July 17, 2013)
Attendance
80,104
Operating Costs:
2013
Revenue 355,823
Expense 1,048,552
Operating Cashflow -$692,729
2014
Revenue 364,598
Expense 1,074,766
Operating Cashflow -$710,168
2015
Revenue 373,483
Expense 1,101,635
Operating Cashflow -$728,152
2016
Revenue 382,477
Expense 1,129,176
Operating Cashflow -$746,699
2017
Revenue 391,582
Expense 1,157,405
Operating Cashflow -$765,824
The capital cost of the indoor pool ($19.4m) will require bonding.
I ran across a very interesting piece of information last night. http://www.dallasparks.org/Downloads/CityAquaticsMasterPlan.pdf
There is similar info on the Aquatic Facilities Study 2012 Alexandria, Va. Both studies are by Counsilman-Hunsaker, the group used for the SF study.
pg7 “A survey by the National Sporting Goods Association states the recreational group makes up over 90% of all aquatic users. Trends show that most recreational swimming happens during the summer months and therefore supports the need for outdoor aquatics. Even communities located in areas of cold winters and short summers still desire outdoor swimming facilities for summer use.
Research by Counsilman-Hunsaker users also shows that recreation users provide that 75% of the net revenue that can be generated from aquatics.
Competition provides 3% of the net revenues.
Therapy provides 2% of the net revenues.
Lesson/Programs provide 20% of the net revenues.
Conclusion: If the 90% recreational user group, who generate 75% of the net revenues and prefer summer outdoor pool usage, why are we even considering dropping $19.45 million on a facility for such a small group of users? Our city debt is over $400 million. Make a good fiscal choice. Those swimming groups have survived and will continue to survive at the various pools available in the town.
Perhaps MMM promised pat lolly an indoor bike track around the perimeter of the swim club’s pool.
Anything’s possible….
The Mayor met with local veterans and promised them a covered walkway between the VA and the proposed indoor pool! I don’t recall that being included in the $19.4 million!
So in other words this covered walkway between the VA and the “indoor” pool would have to cross a street. What are they going to do, put a stop light up or have a traffic guard there to stop traffic when the veterans are crossing the street? Good heavens the streets around that area are so crowded that when cars are parked on both sides of the street there isn’t hardly room for two cars to go through at the same time. When I rode paratransit full time we used to go to that part of town fairly often and it was horribly congested. The VA parking lot also got more congested the last few years. The bus used to be able to drop riders off in front of the building, but the last few years that I rode the bus they had to go around to the side or back, whatever they called that area to drop people off and pick them up. IF an indoor pool is needed build it some place that is less congested. Let the Snowfox and other indoor pool promoters raise a whole heap of money for it.
Another cold day in Sioux Falls. The Spellerberg INDOOR PUBLIC pool is going to be packed in the coming years. No more being stuck with another outdoor pool that is only open a very limited time.
Public schools! Public pools!
“Perhaps MMM promised pat lolly an indoor bike track around the perimeter of the swim club’s pool.”
LMAO!
I wondered why no questions were coming in on “100 Eyes”…..from either side. I believe Mr. Lalley needs to explain this one. The show is promoted as a way for citizens to weigh in about their thoughts on the topic of the show.
I did take the time to read “nature lover’s” link to the research done by Counsilman Hunsacker. It is fiscally important to take a look at what their own research states about indoor pool usage. I believe we need an indoor aquatic facility but we must take a look at usage needs and the cost of the indoor proposal( 19.7 million) while the current city debt is already at 400 million. Proper placement with adequate parking, room for expansion with no loss of green space is paramount. I am in support of an indoor facility but it must be put in a place that makes sense:
-not surrounded by 3 large facilities with their own
parking issues
-not surrounded on all 3 sides by 2 lane streets
-Western Ave. already is a major traffic problem
-no interstate access for swim meets,
– Mr. Kearney (SF park and rec)has suggested shuttle
busses from other parks to Spellerberg as an option for swim meets. I can’t believe competitive swimmers will want to wait for a shuttle to get to and from their meets.
-Please, let’s build this right and not on land that has federal contingencies tied to it!
Yeah, their empty promise of a shuttle ride to the pool or to the new EC cracks me up, these are the same yahoos who wanted to cut paratransit but they want to run ‘shuttles’ all over town for entertainment and recreation. BS.
Progressive cents on 02.02.14 at 9:08 am
I wondered why no questions were coming in on “100 Eyesâ€â€¦..from either side. I believe Mr. Lalley needs to explain this one. The show is promoted as a way for citizens to weigh in about their thoughts on the topic of the show.
Progressive cents, as Managing Editor of the AL’s Editorial Board, Mr. Lalley does owe the public an explanation about why this particular segment of ‘100 Eyes’ was NOT interactive, esp. given that it is about a controversial ballot issue.
Titleist: “Public schools! Public pools!”
Thankfully we already have both!
Unless of course you are suggesting we build the pools attached to the schools. If so, DL shares your belief – perhaps you should go out and try to sell your idea.
Come to think of it, it seems the only reason you continue to cut and paste this same line is because the two words happen to rhyme. This suggests we could also use any of the following:
“Public roads! Public toads!” (A free toad to every citizen in Sioux Falls)
“Public lights! Public fights!” (The city should fund MMA-style matches in the Arena as free stress-relief for all citizens!)
“Public schools! Public tools!” (We already have several of these in city hall… so maybe this is already being done)
@ Progressive, there are no sites alternate sites available unless the City wants to spend an arm and a leg on something comparable.
Also, the consultant’s report says hands down the Spellerberg site is the best for ease of access and shortest average distance to drive for the most potential users. The facility doesn’t need to be expanded per se if it’s designed & built right the first time, as it looks like they’ve done. If we outgrow that place soon, we will likely need to look at similar facilities in other parks, but that’s a big “if”.
Spending $7-8 million to get essentially the exact same thing we have now makes no sense at all and the majority of voters get that point. This facility will be heavily used year round and will boost the entire neighborhood all while preserving the Park and not impacting the VA.
@ Joan, I believe Jace or somebody on another thread mentioned that the Vets use Children’s Care’s therapy pool now so they are already crossing a street. If they do Spellerberg’s indoor option as designed the Vets will only have to go across a parking lot.
Sy, the Spellerberg site was picked for the same reason Nelson Park was, it is the next pool to be demolished. That’s the ONLY reason.
@ L3wis which is another reason why it makes sense, if you located it at Frank Olson or at Kuehn you’d be making one half of the users drive a lot further to which attendance would be impacted.
I also love how everyone is so gung ho about putting it out at Sanford. While I agree it would fit out there, they also are projecting nearly 1 million visits a year out there already and this pools traffic that will go up by another 80-100K. There’s only two, two lane roads in and out of there and virtually no one lives in the surrounding area unlike Spellerberg.
Re: the central location for ease-of-access justification for an indoor pool at Spellerberg:
1) Few children today are actually allowed to walk or bike any appreciable distance from their own residential street during fair weather (out of concern for their personal safety) let alone during the winter. Face it: most indoor pool users young and old will arrive by car. In the grand scheme of things, no destination in the Best Little City In America is SO remote as to be a drive that is truly unacceptable or cost-prohibitive. A 5-15 mile drive is routine in countless metro areas not much larger than SF. An alternate indoor pool location with interstate access such as the Sanford Pentagon area is within easy reach of any competent driver. Plus, vehicles destined for an outlying indoor pool with interstate access will potentially achieve greater fuel economy during the interstate portion of their drive (depending on the length of interstate highway drive segment), than they would in primarily stop & go city traffic to reach a central location.
2) Traffic experts confirm most vehicle collisions occur at intersections. A centrally located, unique public facility destination such as an indoor pool is going to generate exponentially more vehicle intersection crossings city wide by every vehicle destined for – or departing from – such a location, than would an outlying site with easy interstate highway access. From a traffic safety consideration not only for this older, central VA-area neighborhood – but for all of Sioux Falls as well – an outlying site for the first public indoor pool in SF would seem to be the safer choice. A new or reassigned bus route to that area could serve multiple venues.
“Plus, vehicles destined for an outlying indoor pool with interstate access will potentially achieve greater fuel economy during the interstate portion of their drive”
Sullivan? Are you some kind of hippy environmentalist? Next you are going to suggest we put in hydro cooling/heating, solar panels and wind turbines to help with operating costs. The shame.
@ Sullivan sure people can and do make their way to the SSC, including yours truly. In fact, their real estate firm who markets the property is projecting 900K visitors there annually before too long. There’s only two access points in and both are 2 lane, non signalized intersections. So far, I’ve managed to survive a twice weekly commute out there somehow.
SSC’s works great for what it’s intended for, however there’s no neighborhood to speak of to support a neighborhood pool. As I’ve said, Spellerberg offers the shortest average drive for the largest number of citizens and it’s on an existing bus route. So that will mean higher usage than SSC since people would rather not fight traffic from other sporting users of the SSC, particularly on weekends. If you’re genuinely concerned about traffic and usage it doesn’t make sense to put it at SSC either.
BTW, you should check out a typical hot summer day at Drake or Laurel, the bike racks are usually full. Kids can and do walk or bike if you locate these places where kids (or grandparents) actually live.
@ L3wis actually those (minus the wind turbine) are great ideas. You could do passive solar on the south facing wall & panels on the roof, along with geothermal and heat & cool the place much cheaper over traditional HVAC and blow a huge hole in the “we can’t afford the operating costs” argument. But, kinda like the Pavillion windows, you’ll find a way to bash that as excessive spending directed towards a privileged group.
I wouldn’t bash it, because if it is (or should I say when it is) built at the SSC, it will be a private/public partnership with Sanford. Of course, engineers will have to figure out how to put the solar panels around the castle spires.
So you’d rather see it in a TIF district? I thought you hated all things TIF and Lloyd? You seem confused.
BTW, if you look at the site plan there isn’t a spot for it out there, the frontage land is zoned for retail.
Sy, C’mon, dream a little dream. If you think you can cram a pregnant sow in a Pringles can (Spellerberg) anything is possible at SSC, heck, everytime there is a game out there, somehow, magically, Kelby’s ego fits into the Pentagon.
L3wis, as someone who claims to appreciate good design take another look at TSPs indoor plan. The building is not a huge concrete box, but rather a sectioned, low-slung building with lots of glass, large overhangs & it’s integrated into the side of the hill. They basically the same footprint as the current outdoor area & tennis courts.
Again, I frequent the SSC. Even now when there’s practice at the Fieldhouse and a game at the Pentagon you have a little snarl waiting for cars and pedestrians to make their way in. Soon you will have Hockey & Tennis going on out there and there’s still only two ways in & out and no signals.
Also, per LLoyd’s listing, you can see that the only land left unspoken for is zoned office or retail. Assuming you could rezone, even the back lots would run a cool million $$ to acquire for the same setup as designed at Spellerberg, which we already own and still have to renovate.
http://lloydcompanies.com/listingdocuments/Sanford_final.pdf