Veterans for the VA Host Telephone Town Hall With 7638 Voters
Veterans for the VA held a telephone town hall on Tuesday night focusing on why voting Yes to keep an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park is the prudent way to vote on April 8th. Measure 2 on the ballot calls for the city of Sioux Falls to spend no more than $7.5 million on an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park. A YES vote for Measure 2 keeps an outdoor pool and rescues the city from spending nearly $20 million on an indoor aquatics center at Spellerberg Park which would add $13 million in new debt to the city’s finances while impeding veterans access to the VA and increasing traffic and parking problems in the Spellerberg neighborhood.
Tom Muenster, a local veteran, long time Sioux Falls resident and leader of Veterans for the VA had this to say, “We are not at all surprised by the great turnout for last night’s call. Spending nearly $20 million on an indoor aquatics center at an inappropriate site while adding $13 million in taxpayer debt is simply a misguided plan. When voters hear the facts they vote YES to keep an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park because it is the fiscally responsible choice.â€
More than 3800 households participated in the telephone town hall to learn about how voting YES on Measure 2 helps Sioux Falls upgrade to a modern outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park while avoiding the pitfalls of municipal debt associated with building the indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg Park, which is opposed by seven of the eleven candidates running for office on April 8th. “With over $400 million in debt already, Sioux Falls has a larger debt than the entire State of South Dakota. Adding another $13 million for an indoor pool is simply too much debt to put on the taxpayers creditcard,†said Muenster.
Veterans for the VA reached nearly 8,000 voters in over 3,800 households during the telephone town hall last night. When polled about their position on Measure 2, 53% of voters stated they planned to vote YES for an outdoor pool while only 41% planned to vote no. “A majority of voters are clearly concerned about the impacts of spending $20 million on an indoor pool that piles on more than $13 million in new debt,†said John Matthius, a Save Spellerberg member who also participated in the call.  “When voters hear about the added debt, along with the negative impact on the neighborhood, on the trees and green space in Spellerberg Park, and the adverse impacts to veterans’ access to health care services at the VA hospital, they understand that supporting a proposed indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg Park is the wrong choice.â€
Neighbors have been citing their concerns to an indoor pool at this site for a number of years. Suzanne Van Bockern, a member of Save Spellerberg, said, “Voting YES for the outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park is the right choice to protect the park, protect the VA and protect the neighborhood.â€Â Residents near Spellerberg Park gathered over 7,000 signatures needed to put the issue of capping spending on a pool at $7.5 million. A vote on April 8th will determine whether their fellow residents heard their pleadings to rescue Spellerberg Park.
Visit www.siouxfallsfacts.com to get the facts.
tELL THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL TO STICK IT.
“which would add $13 million in new debt to the city’s finances while impeding veterans access to the VA and increasing traffic and parking problems in the Spellerberg neighborhood.”
Way to swallow those talking points DL,
MMM said on 100 eyes that they may very well have a pile of cash to put toward the pool, so terms like “100% taxpayer financed” or “will add X amount to the City’s debt” are in no way rooted in reality just yet. Also, as we saw with the EC, corporate support came in AFTER the public approved the project at the ballot box and there’s no reason to assume that won’t happen again.
As for some of Tom’s other talking points, it’s pretty pathetic that his group is trying to scare the crap out of neighbors, vets, and uninformed voters by painting the picture of vets dying in the streets while soccer moms are clogging the streets bringing countless minivan loads of kids to the pool to frolic. There MIGHT be 3 or 4 meets a year when you have peak traffic, and like every other sport these events take place on weekends when the VA traffic is minimal.
He also keeps using the line that the City will use VA spaces, when he’s been told directly that the early plan to do that has been scrapped…ie it aint happening.
What I think is the worst is that he’s stated online that the VA director won’t use the therapy pool at Spellerberg under any circumstances and he hold that up like it’s a victory. From what I understand, right now they send Vets across 26th street to Children’s Care to use their pool, which I would submit they pay some kind of fee for. Does the VA really believe that the current option is safer and better for the vets than a free option across from their parking lot? Gotta throw the BS flag on that one.
Rapid City, Omaha x 3, and Cedar Rapids have all built City owned indoor pools in the middle of their towns and there’s ZERO evidence that it ruined the neighborhood.
Final point, Mr. Matthies stated on KELO that “we don’t want another Drake Springs”, and my question is what the hell is he talking about? I thought Drake was being held up as a great victory for Stehly, Rath and the rest of the Staggers’ mouseketeers?
Vote NO on April 8th.
Oh Sy, there you go again. Drake Springs was designed without the consultation of the neighborhood. The neighborhood did not want the playground as the city put in. Just ask Theresa and the rest.
The city decided to go against the wishes of the neighborhood in retribution for their loss in the polling booth.
You best do more research on where and how the cities you mentioned put their indoor pools in place. These cities worked with the experts without pre-contract placement arrangements. Our fine city decided to tell the pool experts what they wanted and then were told where it would be. The pool experts were required to write a report finding a rationale to place the next pool to be replaced where Don Kearney and the board wanted it.
I real conservative and libertarian would not want the city wasting his or her tax revenue on a boon-doogle pool setup. It should be left to private enterprise to build a pool you and the 365 groups seems to demand. It is amazing money can be found to beg the voters to build a fancy playground but c365 and others could not find a way to raise money to invest in a pool.
So next time you complain about the city debt load as you pay your property taxes remember how badly you want an unnecessary pool over the need to spend the money on streets.
Testor,
In 2008 there was a total of 21k visits to Drake, and the next year after construction you saw that increase 414% to 87K. Since then usage has tabled of at 80K a year plus or minus. What did Stehly want? A concrete rectangle and a bathroom? Pretty sure that the City made the right call by building Drake as they did, the “market” has voted with their feet as they always do.
Speaking of that, I see the opponents keep harping on “landlocked” and “no room for development”, there’s plenty of room for development around Drake, yet you aren’t seeing anything come in that is directly related to the new pool. Would a roof over Drake made the difference? Doubtful, but at least the 60K visit increase would’ve been spread around the whole year and I’m guessing with a roof that number would be more like 100K or 120K visits a year. Either way, the retail businesses around Drake have noticed a nice little bump, just like the ones at Park Ridge will.
And I don’t complain about the debt load, as this City is one of the most financially strong in the country. People who do seem only interested in one side of the balance sheet and that isn’t how any sane person looks at financials.
Polls of self-selected are not considered scientifically valid.
There’s already a pool. Fix it. Expand it. If we must have an indoor pool, there’s a better location. Call it Sanford without hiring 2 six figure consultants. We’re resigned to the fact our king must keep his noncompetitive bid contractor busy and he needs another trust for himself.
Sy,
Let’s have a review of the fact regarding the proposed indoor pool for Spellerberg Park:
1. The city targeted parking at the VA to be used by patrons of the aquatic center. The plan was issued by the Sioux Falls Parks and Rec department and you can see a copy of the plan at: http://www.veteransfortheva.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Huether-Spellerberg-Plan.pdf
2. The proposed indoor pool plan does not have enough parking spaces. The proposed plan calls for 203 parking stalls and the city claims 250 stalls are needed. The extra 47 cars will need to find on-street parking, according to the city.
3. VA Director Dawin Goodspeed told me that he could not and would not send VA patients to an indoor pool at Spellerberg for water therapy. The VA has not endorsed the city’s claim that veterans could receive water therapy at the proposed indoor pool.
4. According to the city’s informational video on the proposed indoor pool, $6.4 million is currently available for the project and $13 million would be borrowed. The proposed indoor pool will cost taxpayers at least $728,000 per year in operating losses. The project will cost taxpayers over $55 million over the next 50 years. The is no mention of private funding in the information put out by the city and not one penny of private money has been raised for the project.
The facts are clear. The proposed indoor facility will make it harder for veterans to access their healthcare at the VA, parking will be constant problem and taxpayers will be saddled with a debt of over $55 million for the next 50 years. Should we talk about the return on that investment? Oh that’s right, the return on investment is nearly zero since the proposed indoor pool cannot be expanded and there is no space available for additional economic development.
Dave, I understand you and other supporters of the indoor pool have children and you really, really want an indoor pool for your kids to use now. However, it is more important that Sioux Falls invest in an indoor pool facility that will be right for the next 50 years rather than just building something right now.
The proposed indoor pool plan for Spellerberg Park is a shortsighted plan. Please vote YES to keep an Outdoor Pool at Spellerberg Park.
Would an indoor facility be closed to the public during the great big swim meets?
Tom, the VA has officially taken “no position” correct?
If they truly believed your “facts” I’ll submit they would come out 100% against and do it as publicly as they could.
and again, the only time the facility would need the other 47 spaces is on the same weekend when a meet is on. I’m sure local swim clubs would have no problem using a shuttle or carpool or whatever to help minimize the parking impact. Even worst case, are you telling me that typically the VA lots are all full on Saturday afternoons? I highly doubt that.
You mentioned once that lots of families travel to the VA from all over to receive care, do you not think that this facility would provide a nice, safe and fun distraction for those families right on site while they are in town getting care for their Vet?
and yes let’s talk ROI, I’ve asked before, what’s our return been on Drake or Laurel? Both are heavily used, yet can anyone point to a single project that went in because of them? No, you can’t because as I’ve said, we aren’t building a stadium here.
I get that you don’t want extra traffic in your neighborhood, but you seem to be going to the extreme worst case scenarios and also using apples and oranges comparisons at the same time. You say find the “right” site, but you or none of the vote yes crowd have any to offer up other then SSC, which isn’t owned by the City and would add years and millions of $$ to the cost, and in return you’d see less usage as there’s virtually no neighborhood there to support it. So adding costs, delays, drive time and serve a smaller crowd is being fiscally responsible? Where’s my other BS flag?
Final point, the Spellerberg neighborhood is one that doesn’t currently have a community center and the schools in the neighborhood don’t have the room to add one. This facility could serve another role as the neighborhood’s community center, which has been proven to be a valuable feature since the City began combining them with schools in the 90s.
Don’t fall for these bunk talking points, Vote NO on April 8th.
I am not sure how this will cause parking problems at the VA. They offer valet parking right now. You pull up, they take your car and park it for you-no charge. The people using the pool will not be able to park in their lot. I am also concerned why Darwin would not consider using the therapy pool if there was one available down the block for veteran patients. Funding is still open for options such as naming rights and donations. I can understand the argument on the cost, but please stop using parking as an excuse.
According to Sy, the Spellerberg neighborhood is one that doesn’t currently have a community center…..
This is inaccurate information. This part of town has a wonderful community center, called Oyate, located at Garfield Elementary.
Thank you, Derby, for joining some of us on this bogus bullsh** on parking. If the VA is so short on parking, how can they afford the space to lease to employees at Children’s Care?
Dave,
I understand the folks who really, really want an indoor pool are willing to do almost anything and overlook the facts of a flawed plan to get an indoor aquatic center. It may surprise some to learn that many folks supporting the outdoor pool at Spellerberg also believe Sioux Falls should have an indoor facility but it should not be located at Spellerberg Park and an indoor pool should be used as a tool for economic development.
According to the reports Counsilman-Hunsaker has produced for other cities, indoor aquatic centers should be located where there is additional land for expansion of the facility and additional commercial development. Other cities in South Dakota have followed this model and built indoor pools in large parks, adjacent to schools and as part of other large retail developments. The additional development surrounding these facilities is all the proof you need of how we could leverage our tax dollars to make an indoor pool a better investment. Building an indoor pool at Spellerberg Park would be short sighted and guarantee there is no return on investment.
Parking near the VA is in short supply. The VA operates as a hospital 24/7/365. The area also has the Park Ridge Mall, Bethany Home, Children’s Care Hospital and area homes surrounding the park. By the city’s own estimates, the proposed indoor pool would be short 47 parking stalls. As a veteran who has received care at the VA for the past thirteen years, I can say with experience the neighborhood is congested. It does not make sense to build a large city-wide indoor pool next to the VA.
Vote YES to keep an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park.
Best regards,
Tom
Tom,
Point #1: That was in the very beginning of the planning process. More research and analysis determined the VA parking lots were not needed. Let this one go.
Point #2: The 203 parking spots are more than enough. The 250 stalls needed are during the 2 or 3 swim meets that might happen during a year. The Parks an d Rec department will work with the event planner to find the additional parking and tell participates where they can and CANNOT park.
Point #3: Who cares if the Vets will be sent there? The veteran using the VA can go to the indoor public pool on their own to swim in any pool they want. Veterans can invite their whole family. Just like everyone else.
Point #4: It’s a quality of life issue. How much does the city spend on bike trails, pools, parks, lakes, tennis courts, etc? Sioux Falls is very well off financially and can afford it.
No expansion will be needed. It’s going to be an indoor pool and aquatics center. It will never be expanded into something like a recreation center.
Veterans will not be affected. You are making that up and using the Veteran card to try and get the public to side with you. You are using the veterans, because you really don’t have any good reasons not to have an indoor pool at Spellerberg.
This pool is not just for kids. When the indoor pool opens at 6:00 AM there will be plenty of adults standing outside waiting to get their laps in before going to work.
This indoor pool plan has been in the works for many years. There is nothing shortsighted about the indoor pool at Spellerberg.
What is it with people buying a house across the street or near a park and now complaining about people parking in front of their house? The same goes for buying a house near a street like 22nd St, 26th street or Western Avenue.
And the sad thing is it will not be a modern outdoor “pool.” It will be another water amusement park for kids to sit on a lazy river and stand in line all day. Guaranteed – our family will never go there – just like we don’t go to Drake Springs.
And I will say this again – the future of this neighborhood – ie families – want this to be an indoor pool. The people that want an outdoor pool won’t be in this neighborhood in 10+ years to even see it. Sorry – that is the sad truth.
Tom,
Go talk to the VA about expanding their parking lots and/or building a few more parking lots.
Go talk to the CCHS about maybe building a new and bigger building where they have room to grow. They need a bigger building and parking lot. I know, because I use to volunteer there.
And for the love of Mary – PARKING IS NOT A PROBLEM. We pull into the credit union there every week with zero problems. We drive to and from to our house multiple times a day – parking and congestion are not a problem. This place goes bizerk when the sledding hill is full. Nobody complains about parking. The green space will be full this Spring with soccer practice. Nobody complains about parking.
Good grief – just because you utilize the VA – does not make you an expert on the every day use of parking in this neighborhood.
The outdoor group has completely disgusted me with this parking issue. They have “used” the VA as an excuse and it is embarrassing at best. If you want an outdoor pool (which technically it won’t be regardless), fight for it with integrity and merit – not with lies.
Teatime,
The 50 meter pool would be closed during the swim meets, but there is no reason the other pools would be closed. I don’t know how long into the evening swim meets run, but normal hours for the indoor aquatics center would be 6am to 10pm.
@ tea, If they build it as currently designed by TSP the 50M would be on one side through its own set of doors in it’s own space and the rec facilities would be on the other, so it very well could be open during competition.
and Alice is right, if this project causes more young families to want to be in this neighborhood it will positively impact properties at the same time vs. adding no additional value to a place like SSC.
Alice says,
And the sad thing is it will not be a modern outdoor “pool.†It will be another water amusement park for kids to sit on a lazy river and stand in line all day.
Alice, the drawings for both the indoor and outdoor pools which are part of the city’s presentations at public meetings and on the city’s website are CONCEPT drawings only.
There have been NO public input meetings to gather information on what citizens want in an outdoor pool since 2007! SEVEN YEARS ago.
Don Kearney, Director of Parks and Rec has confirmed that if the outdoor pool effort at Spellerberg is successful, the City will be holding public meetings to find out what SF residents want in an outdoor pool.
The City has several aquatic parks. What I am hearing is that many would like a new traditional pool similar to Frank Olson or to what is currently at Spellerberg.
Alice says,
This place goes bizerk when the sledding hill is full.
FYI, the 203 parking spaces will be shared by both the INDOOR pool and the sledding hill.
And, the sledding hill was used for how many months this winter?
Seriously, who in the heck wants a traditional rectangular pool that you can just jump into. We are in the 21st century folks. You need multiple areas with multiple functions to compete with other pools that exist already. We need zero depth pools with slides splash areas and lap swimming. The days of plain old jane are gone. It is time we catch up with surrounding states.
Thanks for all the great comments. A couple of points of clarification. First, I do not think the sky will fall on April 9th whichever way the vote goes. Second, some say veterans would benefit from an indoor pool and other think it will make it harder for vets to access their only healthcare option. I sincerely wish veterans healthcare was not a part of this debate. I have been quietly going to the VA for 13 years and I wish this issue was nowhere near the VA. But this became an issue for veterans when the city targeted VA parking for the proposed indoor pool.
It is a fact the proposed indoor pool does not have adequate onsite parking. The city’s “educational” video indicates they are 47 parking stalls short. Those people will need to find parking somewhere. Spellerberg is a congested area so we would be guaranteed to face parking problems if the indoor pool plan proceeds. Maybe it will all work out just like the indoor pool folks say it will or it could be a big mess. Why take the chance when other sites for an indoor pool are available?
The proposed indoor pool would cost $19.4 million, add $13 million in new debt to our city(which currently has more debt than the State of SD), be built in a landlocked park with zero land available for expansion or additional development, add to a parking and congestion problem in the area, and the plan targeted the parking of disabled veterans for the aquatic center patrons to use. The proposed indoor pool is a shortsighted plan.
These comments are posted under my name and I am happy to defend them anytime. Please feel free to contact me at 275-6252 or at the next informational meeting on Monday evening being held Kenny Anderson Community Center. Dave Syverson stepped up to the plate and was willing to debate the issue in person. I respect Dave’s well reasoned arguments. However, Sioux Falls should not settle for a second rate indoor pool just because it could be built right now. We need to build an indoor aquatic center that will serve the needs of our city for the next 50 years.
Scott,
As a supporter of the outdoor pool you probably don’t like the results, but the Nielsons have a poll out which shows the ourdoor option losing. It is the only scientific poll on this issure and other races on the city ballot I have seen. It would be a public service to everyone and to those (including M
Scott,
As a supporter of the outdoor pool you probably don’t like the results, but the Nielsons have a poll out which shows the outdoor option losing. It is the only scientific poll on this issue and other races on the city ballot I have seen. It would be a public service to everyone, especially those who oppose the outdoor pool (which includes me) to let everyone know that they must educate the public if they are going to stop the city from destroying the park-like atmosphere of Spellerberg.
Harry,
Thanks for your comments. I acknowledge that city has stated using the VA’s parking is not currently part of their parking solution for the proposed indoor pool. It is also a fact that the city targeted VA parking lots knowing there were not enough parking stalls available at the proposed facility. When I have asked Parks and Rec Director Don Kearney about how parking will be handled when demand will exceed the available parking, he stated there are on-street options and they will come up with parking plans through the established event planning process. In other words, we will figure it out later. In my opinion, we need a better plan before investing $20 million for an important city facility.
Residents of Sioux Falls are passionate about our parks and also we are very patriotic. I disagree with residents who believe an indoor pool is the right choice for Spellerberg Park but I do not doubt anyone’s compassion for veterans. I do not believe being pro-indoor pool is in anyway being anti-veteran. If fact, it is just the opposite. Many supporters of the indoor pool have gone to great lengths to demonstrate their support of veterans. Some veterans believe the indoor pool would be a good thing for the VA and others, like my group, believe it would have a negative impact and make it harder for vets to access the VA. I am sorry you feel raising veterans concerns is inappropriate in some way. Please understand the city has raised the veterans issue with their past parking plans and by promoting the indoor pool as a water therapy location for vets.
Thanks again for your comments,
Tom
Sy said, “MMM said on 100 eyes that they may very well have a pile of cash to put toward the pool, so terms like “100% taxpayer financed†or “will add X amount to the City’s debt†are in no way rooted in reality just yet. Also, as we saw with the EC, corporate support came in AFTER the public approved the project at the ballot box and there’s no reason to assume that won’t happen again.”
That pile of cash MMM referred to is the same pile of cash Rex Rolfing referred to in his interview with Rick Knobe earlier this week.
Our CURRENT Mayor and City Council are considering spending the ten million dollar reimbursement from the Feds for the LEVEE on an indoor SWIMMING POOL!!!
Consider that information when you cast your vote on April 8th for Mayor and At-Large Council Seat ‘A”.
Capital Cost of an Indoor Pool:
$19.4 million (estimated)
Financing:
$6.4 million cash down payment
$13 million bonded
ANNUAL Operating Cost:
$728,000
Capital Cost of An Outdoor Pool:
$7.5 million (max)
Financing:
The Council can vote to move the $6.4 million cash down payment which currently is in the CIP for the indoor pool to the outdoor pool column, leaving a shortage of $1.1 million to have an Outdoor pool paid for in full.
BTW, that $6.4 million was designated in the CIP for several years for replacement of an OUTDOOR pool at Spellerberg. It was only last September that it was moved in the CIP to the INDOOR pool column at the urging of Councilor Michelle Erpenbach.
Annual Operating Cost:
$150,000 (per Don Kearney/Morningside Mtg 3/23/14)
Harry: “The 50 meter pool would be closed during the swim meets, but there is no reason the other pools would be closed.”
So. . . . these John Q. Public recreational users during a swim meet will park – where? The parking lot will already be full.
Judy Judy: “. . . but the Nielsons have a poll out which shows the ourdoor option losing. It is the only scientific poll on this issure and other races on the city ballot I have seen.”
Your naivete is regrettably typical of armchair political experts.
Polls like that are not done as a public service. Somebody paid for it. As with most things, the client wants to get what they pay for. The pollster wants a happy client, and many more of them. So, the poll is conducted with carefully crafted leading questions designed to elicit the response the client hopes to get to substantiate their agenda. That’s the reality of information spin designed to manipulate the way impressionable people like you think.
Congratulations: big $$ snatched your opinion and vote without your even realizing it.
Why not just fill in the pool and dot the park with trees and disc golf tees. This way none of us would have to pretend to be an expert on a pool in the old run down part of town.