Councilor Erpenbach recently had this reply to a citizen’s email asking about the polling evidence that people want the indoor pool at Spellerberg;
Thanks, —–. I appreciate your input but I seriously disagree with your analysis. Â Â Â Â Â Â
Three separate polls (including the April 8 election) indicate people in Sioux Falls overwhelmingly support an indoor aquatics facility at the Spellerberg location. Those votes include amazing numbers from all of the precincts that touch Spellerberg Park. Your neighbors want this. Â Â Â Â Â Â
And I disagree that no other locations were studied. Many sites were studied extensively. Frankly, if we need to expand our indoor aquatics program, future leaders won’t be adding to Spellerberg, they will be building another site. Â Â Â Â Â Â
The people have spoken. Let’s please move on.
More indoor pools?! We can’t even afford the one, and she is planning on building more?! The indoor pool will only be used to capacity during swim meets and on the weekends.
On the other hand – how many hours per year are the outdoor pools “used to capacity”? BEST POSSIBLE number = 480 hours (if they are full every day they are open and are open all possible days). There are 8,760 hours in a year., Utilization of outdoor pools (VERY optimistically) 5% of the time.
How condescending can you get? Your neighbors want this?!They and other SF citizens voted no to an outdoor pool at Spellerberg and that’s all! People want an indoor pool but they also want input on where it should be. Where are the other sites that were studied. Is that too much to ask? The polls preferring Spellerberg location that are referred to are hardly scientific when a large group simply vote over and over and over to sway any poll that is taken. To rush this vote before new councilors are seated is just shady politics.
I have talked to many people who are frustrated that they are not being heard by the mayor and council. In a conversation I had with the mayor, I felt dismissed because I was bringing up points with which he which he didn’t agree. And if you attempt to give an opposing view, he has NO time for you! This is not city government as I used to know it.
The people have spoken. Let’s please move on.
~erp
The people have spoken michelle? The people of the central district michelle? No michelle. These are the less than 1%ers who have spoken. You are just there pawn.
http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/erp-finance.pdf
I can’t help but begin to feel a bit dizzy from this interpretation of a NO vote as an endorsement for this indoor bottomless pit ! My NO vote had nothing to do with the question of an indoor pool.
If Spellerburg is not enough space, shouldn’t another location be considered.
Highly unusual for her to think practically. However, as usual, disagreeing with her is not an option.
By voting “No” to the outdoor pool it was understood by the vast majority the City would move forward with the indoor pool as designed, that’s why the opponents were all bent out of shape about the City spending money on the renderings, then using them to show voters what the two options would look like.
People I’ve talked to who voted are pist that we may have to do this all over again. This petition, if successful will add at least $5 million to the indoor pool cost and we will also still need to address Spellerberg, who’s options now stand at fill it in or renovate it since we can’t build a new outdoor pool there. Talk about bass-ackward thinking.
The voters of Sioux Falls on April 8, said NO to building an OUTDOOR pool at Spellerberg Park, PERIOD. The ballot measure did not ask or provide for an opinion about an alternative or INDOOR pool at that or any other location.
It is deceptive to now say that the voters approved an indoor pool with aquatics center at Spellerberg Park! All you have to do is read the letters to the Argus or listen to people and there are many problems expressed with building a much larger pool surrounded by the VA, which is openly saying they are already short of parking, and by two lane streets, which already filled with parked cars on any given day. It lacks sufficient parking, but also room for the potential for significant economic development (surrounding restaurants, hotels, etc.) that could accompany an indoor facility that hosted swim meets, and bring in many people for special swimming activities. Such development would increase revenue to the city to help fund this huge investment.
As Kelly notes above, the people have NOT spoken on the indoor pool or its location! That is simply not true. Just reread the ballot measure we voted on. Ask the city clerk’s office. Let’s have a vote on this if we believe in democracy and giving voters a say on such a huge project.
The ‘No’ outdoor pool at Spellerberg vote won. Spellerberg currently has an outdoor pool that is in need of repair. The Spellerberg pool will last for 1 more summer swim season maybe 2 more seasons. This whole issue with Spellerberg started with turning Spellerberg into an indoor pool. We do not need to vote on this issue again. We don’t need any more crappy worded petitions. You say the ballot question had nothing to do with an indoor pool at Spellerberg so what do we do now? Our city leaders have been listening to the good people of Sioux Falls. Let our city leaders vote.
This is taken directly from the ballot:
Initiated Measure 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, TO REPLACE THE SPELLERBERG SWIMMING POOL WITH AN OUTDOOR POOL:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA:
A new outdoor swimming pool complex shall be constructed for not more than $7,500,000 at Spellerberg Park no later than December 15, 2015 as a replacement for the current swimming pool. The size of the new swimming pool complex, including parking, shall not exceed the size of the current swimming pool complex, including parking, by more than 20 percent.
City Attorney’s Explanation:
If the voters approve this initiated measure, then the City would be directed to replace the existing outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park in the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, with another outdoor pool complex that could not be more than twenty percent larger in area than the current outdoor swimming complex. The total funds for the design, development, and construction of the outdoor swimming complex could not exceed $7,500,000 ($7.5 million).
SHALL THE ORDINANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR POOL COMPLEX BE ADOPTED?
Yes A vote “Yes” is for the construction of an outdoor pool complex at Spellerberg Park.
No A vote “No” is against the construction of an outdoor pool complex at Spellerberg Park.
When I voted on this issue, I was casting a vote regarding an outdoor pool ONLY.
WHERE in this ballot language does it say anything about an INDOOR POOL?
I definitely don’t think an indoor pool should be built at Spellerberg Park. It is a lovely park, and no matter what the drawing of an indoor facility would look like it would still be a monstrosity in that small of area. I don’t understand why the council wants to build it there, because the mayor has been yapping about building more parks in town because we don’t have enough parks. But then on the other hand he wants to take away Spellerberg Park. They could also build pools a lot cheaper if they would build basic SWIMMING pools instead of ones with playground equipment connected to them. There is also a problem with parking in the area of Spellerberg.
That is exactly right! Nowhere in the ballot does it say anything about an indoor complex at Spellerberg. Let’s face it, the attorney’s explanation about the result of a no vote was pulled out of thin air, with Don Kearney and the Park and Rec’s department help!
Anon: can you please repost the cut and paste you took from the City report on how you were going to vote that you posted 400 times leading up to the election on this site?
I haven’t seen it since the outdoor pool folks lost the election 70-30.
As I said again and again – it only takes 5% of the registered voters to get anything on the ballot. These petitioner-professionals (or is it simply fetishists) have figured out it’s not that tough to screw with everyone else. They are the 5% – damn it!! They probably view LOSING 70-30 as a “victory”.
Our current Mayor and Council are proponents of public-private partnerships as demonstrated by their official votes to involve taxpayers in the new Scheel’s Iceplex and the Community Indoor Tennis Center.
Now, Sanford Health wishes to commission a feasibility study on what it hopes will be a public-private partnership with Sioux Falls for a city-owned indoor pool at the Sanford Sports Complex.
At this Tuesday’s Council meetings (4:00 and 7:00) they need to do the responsible thing on behalf of the 160,000 Sioux Falls residents they represent and move to defer agenda item #7:
2nd Reading: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD, PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS. (Parks and Recreation – $11,180,776.00).
And, this is the reason why:
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)
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
ruf, try to collect 6,100 signatures and see how easy it is.
All of you who seem to think the voters weren’t backing an indoor pool at Spellerberg are delusional.
People who voted “No” knew that the City was planning on one of two options and they preferred the indoor one. Fixing the pool makes very little sense because it will be 80% of the cost of a new outdoor pool, which is now against the mandate.
If this gets on the ballot again it will again pass 70-30%, just like the Events Center.
All of you who seem to think the voters weren’t backing an indoor pool at Spellerberg are delusional.
People who voted “No†knew that the City was planning on one of two options and they preferred the indoor one.
Ouch. That delusional part hurts. We must meet people from much different backgrounds. I see a lot of seniors on fixed incomes who’s main goal is to somehow make it from month to month. When they voted, they voted on exactly what the ballot language was. Nowhere did they see the word indoor.
They knew or should’ve at least understood that the City had presented their preferred option based on the Consultant’s report and the only reason we voted at all was a group formed to block that by voting in an outdoor pool. No sane person should’ve surmised that by voting “no” the whole matter would simply go away.
Poly, a lot of those I’m engaged with are pissed off that they might have to vote again, but then again the opponents have now dropped their petition drive because as I pointed out before, their petition not only eliminated Spellerberg, but pretty much every site out there including those at SSC. Talk about the gang that can’t shoot strait.
BTW poly, it currently costs the VA $86 grand a year to rent the pool across 26th street at Children’s Care. As a supporter of veterans how can you be cool with that when a free option with no street to cross to get to is within reach for the VA?
nothing about that pool will be free. tax dollars to build. tax dollars to subsidize the operation. annual fees for those who choose to use it.