You mean the use of snowgates actually helps local business?
Not sure what to think of the Chamber’s endorsements for the election. While the Walmart and Shape Places thumbs up doesn’t surprise me, their stances on the other two citizen ballot initiatives seems a bit silly;
The chamber also is pushing for a “no†vote on building an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park. If they get their way, the city will move forward with plans for an indoor aquatics facility there.
Their board took no position on the fourth ballot measure, whether the city should invest in snowgates to keep snow from piling up at the bottom of people’s driveways.
So they are supporting an indoor public pool that will be subsidized by taxpayers and will compete with private indoor swimming providers. Doesn’t this go against the free enterprise nature of the Chamber? Do some of the Chamber members provide indoor swimming? Very odd.
And saying nothing about the snowgates is probably a relief to either side of the issue, but you would think the Chamber would endorse a public service that benefits many businesses throughout our community, not just in cleaning out the inlet’s to their parking lots but in worker productivity and lost time (if an employee is late because they were blocked by a snow berm and had to scoop it away before driving to work.)
Once again, the Chamber proves who they stand up for, and it really isn’t their members or local small businesses. No surprises here, just lots of the same old silliness.
My guess is they are hoping for Sioux Falls to move forward with growth on these projects. I am in favor of an indoor pool along with everyone else I know. I am not sure the populous they polled who said they are in favor of more outdoor pools because my age group (middle aged father of 2 young children)seems to be all in favor for an indoor one. I would like to know which current indoor facilities you are referring to which this would be competing against because the only family friendly ones I know of are the ones in the hotels which are not budget friendly. An indoor pool through the city would help benefit all income levels.
Given the fact that the idea of plowing our streets seems to have become a lost art. Is not the issue of snow gates itself academic at best?
Not that it should be, but is not one of the ingenious attributes of the current snow removal policies of our City administration that they have made snow gates a moot issue? – And could not this policy allow the City to drag its feet in the purchase of additional snow gates if the measure passes in April?
Maybe I am being to philosophical here about snow gates, but it appears to me that the current plowing strategy in this town allows our City “…to have its cake and eat it too,” when it comes to snow gates.
Authorization is one thing, but appropriation is another….
Several years ago a couple of chamber people walked into my business asking me to join. I politely told them when the chamber stops becoming a lap dog for city hall I will join. They looked as tho this was the oddest thing they had ever heard. Would they get an earful if they walked in today……
The chamber seems so agreeable & incoherent. They should become part of Home Rule Charter and be commanded by the mayor. Combine the chamber with the council and it would be an entertaining puppet show.
I don’t think it’s snow gates per se that the Chamber is against, it’s the people who were for them initially and why. They stayed neutral because it would’ve been viewed as inconsistent to support them on one item and oppose them on the other.
In other words, sometimes the messenger can ruin the message.
Derby, besides the fitness centers and several non-profits, like churches, there are plenty of indoor swimming opportunities in SF. Even at the hotels, it is pretty common knowledge that if you are a SF resident and are not staying at a hotel with an indoor pool, you can ask the front desk person if you can go for a swim, and if it is not busy with guests they will usually let you jump in for a fiver. I just struggle with this whole notion that there is NO indoor swimming opportunities in SF. It’s poppycock.
Winston, no shit, huh.
Kevin, you are right, the Chamber represents a small portion of the community, not local business or even their members. They make it pretty obvious.
Sy, so who are you talking about? Huether, Kermit or Stehly? I’m confused. Seriously, I am.
Hey DL – how about a LIST of the names and addresses of these pools. Follow that with the PRICE of access – esp. the ones you can slip the desk clerk a fiver at.
The chamber is going to have to make a choice in their philosophy soon. Historically, they support just about any business development, that’s their mission. Partly it’s about promotion, but, it’s also playing defense. Members don’t want to say no as they’re afraid a project their business may want some day will not get endorsed.
Big box corporate America has changed that dynamic enormously. No longer can anybody deny the crushing impact they have on local businesses that are the Chamber.
I too would like a list of the hotelsthat I can get into for a few hours of swimming just by handing the desk clerk $5. I would also like to know how many of these pools are big enough for lap swimming. The private pools are too expensive for me ($70 a month at a minimum for a husband and wife membership required versus $70 for 3 months at the pubic indoor pool). How long will I have to drive around town or how many phone calls will I have to make before I find a hotel pool that will let me and my friend is? This is what you call poppycock. Either put together a list of hotels a long with there pool information or don’t ever bring this up again. Someone brought this up at a city council meeting and I thought is was poppycock then too. Poppycock poppycock. The Chamber has the same problem as the major and city council – they can’t please everybody. The Chamber, major and city council are doing what’s best for the city.
I guess I was not aware of any churches in town with indoor swimming facilities. Please let me know which ones because all the hotels I have called state their pool is for registered guests only. That leaves the fitness facilities and those are usually members only, so that leaves the Family Wellness Center out on W. 32nd. which has open swim Friday nights, Saturday after classes and Sunday for $9.00 and $6.00 day passes. Doesn’t seem like there is a lot of competition for the open public in town.
Most fitness centers do have the option to pay for a one day pass…but hell – as a member at a facility that has a lap pool – getting into the pool is next to impossible. I had to sit for a half hour yesterday morning (between 5:45 and 6:15 AM) to get a lane to open up – and there were people in line with me.
I get the distinct feeling that the most adamant opponents of an indoor pool are folks that simply don’t do water recreation at all.
For them, an outdoor pool is already a “compromise” between their preference – we don’t need no stinking pool of any kind – and a year-round indoor pool.
The availability of public indoor lap swimming over 70 hours weekly at EmBe downtown is apparently being overlooked. No membership required, with a per use swim pass for as low as $4.25 – comparable to the cost of swimming at a public outdoor pool. Buying a 10-use punch card drops the per use cost even further. Here’s the info from the EmBe web site:
Swimming Pass:
Child – 17 and under $4.25 tax incl.
Adult – 18 years & up $7.50 tax incl.
Family – Immediate family up to 6 $12.75 tax incl.
Swimming 10-Punch Card:
Individual $60.00 + tax
Family $120.00 + tax
The Family Wellness Center allows public swimming for a $6/$9 pass fee, too? I can’t find that on their web site, but let’s take Derby’s word for it. The Family Wellness Center – in addition to a lap lane – has a zero depth pool, slides, spray fountain & play area. I guess you could call those amenities an indoor aquatic center, no? So PLEASE, don’t portray those looking to swim in January as having no current options available to them.
A $20 million public indoor aquatic center with an annual operating deficit of $700k+ might be NICE . . . . but NOT AT SPELLERBERG. The public is apparently willing to drive out to the Sanford Pentagon area to use all those playing fields there, why not an indoor pool there too? A Sanford official has stated there is suitable land at the Pentagon site available for LEASE – the same arrangement apparently used to secure the land for the public indoor Ice & Rec Center. . . . which is located right off I-229 (!) for easy access to SF residents from all areas of town.
If you read enough of the propaganda surrounding the pro indoor pool issue, you would swear there would be an enterprising company who would build on so they could take advantage of the market. But alas, the city has to get involved in this discussion and screw up the market. Why would a smart businessperson invest in such a facility when the parks department is ready to put them out of business.
Look at the owners of Wild Water West and other water owners who try to build and expand their businesses. The city does all they can to destroy their efforts.
I have no desire to encourage the mayor and parks department build another edifice.
Why does the city of Sioux Falls always build a public facilities to compete against the very businesses they supposedly wish to succeed?
I for one wish we had a 50 meter pool we could use in Sioux Falls, but I also have no desire for the city of Sioux Falls to pay for it. Why should we encourage the city in the limited of free enterprise and the destruction of a very small park in Sioux Falls to boot.
Why should we encourage the city in the limitation of free enterprise and the destruction of a very small park in Sioux Falls to boot.
You think it’s a potential money maker (free enterprise and all) – why don’t you put your pitch together, round up some investors and get ‘er done yourselves???
It seems to me that there is a lack of understanding here as to what the role of government is. For one thing, it is there to do things that are for the public benefit that are TOO MUCH for a private enterprise to do. For example – build streets and highways, provide large scale entertainment facilities – parks, recreational spaces, etc. Private solutions to utility needs (electricity, water, communications tech, gas, and so on – meter-able per user) can in fact be done profitably by private enterprise – at a profit. But some things cannot.
In other words ruf, you consider another fancy water playhouse to be a critical need for the city of Sioux Falls to pay for? Somehow this you make this case for better school systems to teach what are basic needs for daily life in America.
If we’re going to build a pool why not be one a person could use year round instead of 3 months a year. Why does this not make sense to people?
Derby, here’s why it does NOT make sense:
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.
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.
According to the consultant’s numbers, the operating costs for the indoor pool for the first five years alone, will be $3,643,572.
Derby – this “conservative” crowd isn’t interested oin making logical sense. They are interested in making emotional sense.
That means (for them) finding any way they can – to bash government (and don’t believe for a minute it matters WHO is in that government) on any issue that comes up. It’s a manifestation of the little man’s disease.
Derby:
In equal measure, scores of us can’t understand why it doesn’t register with everyone that Spellerberg is simply the wrong location for an indoor pool – not so much than an indoor pool is inherently a bad idea. The substantiation used by municipal powers-that-be & public indoor pool boosters has been shown to have enough errors, omissions and slanted analysis to seriously call into question the validity of ALL their assertions.
There are several HUGE relevant considerations of a new Spellerberg indoor vs. outdoor pool:
1) A new replacement outdoor pool at Spellerberg will be less than ½ the construction cost of a proposed indoor aquatic center there.
2) The annual operating deficit of a new outdoor pool is projected to be about 1/3 the annual deficit of operating an indoor aquatic center.
3) There is no evidence a large indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg will comply with the provisions of the Deed the City of Sioux Falls has for the land at Spellerberg Park.
4) Research provided to other Counsilman-Hunsaker municipal aquatic study clients excluded from the Sioux Falls study states: “A survey by the National Sporting Goods Association states the recreational group (of swimmers) makes up over 90% of all aquatic users and includes a variety of age groups from tots to seniors. 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 also shows the large group of recreation users (90% of all aquatic users) provide 75% of the net revenue that can be generated from aquatics. The competition group of swimmers provides 3% of the net revenues. The therapy group of swimmers provides 2% of the net revenues. Lesson/Programs group provides 20% of the net revenues.
These considerations don’t even touch on a myriad of negative impacts the construction of a 139,000 square foot indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg will have on green space and traffic. The proposed 2-story indoor aquatic center building alone is projected to be nearly as large as the existing outdoor pool complex – including the parking lot! Plus, the lack of any information about suitable alternate locations (on city-owned land or land available for lease) for an indoor aquatic center seriously calls into question the undisclosed agenda behind this proposal.
For an informed, responsible voter, critical thinking is acutely important for evaluating the merit of a large, expensive, permanent, public building project which will forever change a beautiful, long-standing central city public park. It is a much bigger question than simply the creation of another location in which to splash around in January.
Sullivan – math – let’s use it.
If the cost of construction for an outdoor pool is 1/2 then the amortized – per usable day cost of construction for an outdoor pool is double (200 dollars for 90 days = $2.22/day, whereas 400 dollars for 360 usable days =$1.11/day)
If operating costs for an outdoor pool are 1/3 the operating costs of an indoor pool, the amortized – or per useable day operating costs for an indoor pool are only 75% the per day costs of the outdoor pool. ($100 for 90 days – $1.11/day, $300 – for 360 days = $.83/day).
I.E., the indoor pool is a better deal for the money. Come on man, you do this kind of calculating every time you go shopping -= don’t you? It’s not that damned difficult. Take off your evil-eye glasses.
BTW – the study of the aquatics facility needs done by the consultants to the parks department (cited by someone else above – over and over and over) addressed the other “concerns” you don’t believe have been examined – other available public-owned land, traffic, parking, etc., etc. Talk about “uninformed”.
If you saw the Inside Keloland segment last week, you could see the Anti-indoor pool group really doesn’t know what they are against. The one guy kept insisting that they didn’t want “another Drake Springs” and bristled when asked about the outdoor pool drawings. WTF? What’s wrong with Drake Springs?
Either way, this is a good plan for this neighborhood. It won’t destroy the park, it will enhance it. Why lease land at SSC when we have a nice, central site that’s ripe to be re-developed?
BTW, SSC was a clusterf#@* this weekend, it doesn’t need any more traffic out there.
Rufusx – the mathematical rationalization you provided is congruent with a thorough indoctrination in that vapid marketing mantra “The More You Spend, The More You Save”.