A brief timeline of events:
A petition drive was successful to propose an outdoor pool replacement at Spellerberg park. The opposition, CS365 has had 7 years to raise money for a private/public partnership or start a petition drive of their own since the indoor pool vote failed at Nelson park. They have done NOTHING except beg the city to build them a pool to be subsidized by ALL taxpayers whether you use it or not.
An aquatics study done by an independent contractor suggested a centrally located indoor pool at Spellerberg (ironically the next pool that needed to be replaced and probably the only reason this site was picked). It also said that the Sanford Sports complex would be a good location. The same report also mentioned that an indoor pool at Nelson park would have been a mistake, due to ground water issues in the area that may have caused issues for an indoor pool building. Good thing the indoor pool was voted down there, it could have ended up costing taxpayers millions in upkeep and maintenance.
The city spent $46,000 of taxpayer money before the recent municipal election to provide drawings of an indoor pool that wasn’t even on the ballot, misleading voters.
The city did several taxpayer funded meetings about Spellerberg and indoor options before the election (which was probably a violation of State election laws).
Incorrect ballots were sent to Central District voters by the auditor’s office. The county has asked for an investigation. The SYN group has also asked for an investigation of misleading ballot language.
The ballot language had a date typo and misleading language which prompted a court hearing a day before the election. As a witness for the city, the SOS, Jason Gant admitted that the city did not have to have a complicated and wordy 17†ballot and could have used the standard 14†ballot because state law only requires you name the title of the initiative on the ballot. When further asked if he would have had a ballot with this much language on it, he said ‘No’. But the city can do what they want, since they handle their own elections. The 17†ballots caused complications with tabulation machines.
After the election many admitted they weren’t sure what a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ meant. The meetings, drawings and misleading ballot language confused voters on election day. 70% voted No to an outdoor pool at Spellerberg, but many people who voted NO have mixed feelings about an indoor pool at that location, or what they were even voting for or against.
CS365 claims that the election was a mandate to build an indoor pool at Spellerberg, BUT;
- There was not an ‘indoor pool’ on the ballot
- There was not enough funding set aside for an indoor pool in the budget before the election
- CS365 used a ‘push poll’ before the election as evidence people want an indoor pool at Spellerberg
I have no doubt people want a community indoor pool, I’m just not sure they specifically want it at Spellerberg, and with that location, there is issues;
- A quit claim deed with the VA which could be preventing the city from getting a bond for the pool.
- Using levee debt repayment to build a recreational facility (This money should be used for drainage and infrastructure) which is extremely fiscally irresponsible and not PRUDENT.
- Traffic issues, park congestion, parking.
What is the alternative? Sanford has offered to do a study, give the city the land, offer a donation towards a public indoor facility, and the best part of it all is that it would be built at a location that already has the infrastructure in place, parking and host to other athletic facilities, such as tennis, hockey, basketball, football, wrestling, etc. etc.
There are also other issues with the Spellerberg plan.
Councilors Entenman and Aguliar should not be allowed to approve this deal at their last meeting at the end of their terms. Why? If something goes awry with the Spellerberg plan if approved, what are the consequences for these two councilors?
There is a NEW claim that Spellerberg was only meant to be ‘recreational’ and not ‘competitive’ so Sanford can go ahead with their facility. If this is the case, why do so many people complain about the Drake Springs pool being too ‘recreational’ and not having enough room to swim? The indoorers want swim lanes at the Spellerberg location, not just play aquatics. This is a flat out lie.
The other false claim is that the Spellerberg neighborhood needs to be ‘revitalized’. Since when? It’s a beautiful neighborhood that won’t change one single bit if that outdoor pool gets filled in and more greenspace is produced. The indoor pool at that location will literally look like a sore thumb in this quaint and nicely aged part of town. If they are concerned about revitalization there are a lot of other Centrally located neighborhoods that would benefit.
Sanford will probably build an indoor aquatics facility no matter what is decided tonight, so why not just wait for their feasibility study, then make a decision?
As I have said before, don’t care where this is going to be built, at this point I think we all agree the community wants an indoor public pool. It is the process that concerns me. There is no reason we need to ramrod this, it will get done, let’s do it right and without a bunch of smoke and theater
That’s an awfully complicated theory there. Is the real world of human decision-making actually that complicated. Most people have a tough time keeping track of where they left their car keys -let alone plotting out anything as complex as this. Does make for good fantasy/fiction though I suppose.
What parts are fictional?
After attending several of the pre-election informational meetings, I would say the City has a dilemma on their hands.
The City’s consultant for the City Wide Aquatics Master Plan recommended this scenario for an indoor pool:
Page 28, 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.
At the informational meetings, Don Kearney and Team informed potential voters that the 3,750 sq. ft. indoor leisure pool would INSTEAD be a therapy pool.
That takes this pool out of the mix for the general public’s recreational use.
The only remaining option is the 50 meter Olympic size pool which will reduce both the amount of space and time this pool will be available for special interest groups.
For someone who doesn’t care you certainly highlight & build your own theories the opponents arguments while constantly ignoring the supporters because you don’t like the messenger.
and what parts? How about CS365 having 7 years to raise money when they only formed last year?
How about they haven’t begged the City to do squat, they’ve supported the aquatics plan that the Parks department endorsed after they got C-H’s recommendation?
How about SSC being a good location, but C-H concluded Spellerberg is much better due to location and the fact that we need to do something there already. Most normal people would conclude killing two birds with one stone is good fiscal policy.
How about that quit claim deed? The one that says if you change the use of the site you will be in deep doo doo. Putting a roof over a pool and adding some lanes and slides is in no way changing the use. We aren’t proposing a coal fired power plant, it’s a friggin’ indoor and nicer version of what’s already there.
How about the rec center vote? Groundwater issues were never mentioned, it was a playground for the rich that would destroy the majesty that is the Drake Springs neighborhood. A little engineering and those issues go away, except that would’ve added some $$ to the project probably in place of the gold plated toilets that were specified.
How about misleading voters? Like the ones who thought they were voting for another Drake Springs by voting “yes”, yet the leader of the opposition was and is still hell bent on “not having another Drake Springs”. How about claiming this indoor pool will harm veterans care when in reality it would save the VA $86K a year and provide a safer place for aquatic therapy than their current setup?
How about that pool at the SSC? Which originally would’ve been on leased land vs. already owned land. Like all the other facilties out there, they are designed to train athletes and provide a competitive venue for them. Once you get into the meat of the summer, you will have several sports who will have first dibs on those facilities, so why would the City build one when what they need is to replace a neighborhood pool and at the same time add some amenities that we don’t already offer? Most normal places this wouldn’t even be a blip on the news, here it’s a front page controversy because we have a few NIMBYs who don’t like what the last election brought us.
Yes, L3wis you do care…or at least you care enough about the naysayer crowd to cater to their line of crap.
The Spellerberg pool is getting done, tonight. And in a few years when it’s up and running and being used to the point where Sanford is serious about building another one we can all look back and wonder what the goddamn fuss was all about.
Rufus, I think this is where Occam’s razor rules the day.
“subsidized by ALL taxpayers whether you use it or not”…
How is that any different from golf courses, Great Bear or city streets?
It doesn’t matter if you PERSONALLY use it or not. Never had a fire but I still pay for the protection for my fellow citizens.
Everything addressed is true and actually there is more. Complicated? Not really. People in position to make the policy and the rules, have to keep those policies and rules moving or someone will find out who the real players are.
I find it funny people listen to Bruce about Spellerberg beauty without laughing and asking him if he is really concerned about beauty why does he live in a dump and destroy his own neighborhoods beauty.
It is funny when the self appointed Mr Integrity has violations on the property he lives on and wants to protect beauty in a neighborhood he doesn’t even live in.
Love it, yes, Bruce’s house does stick out in your neighborhood, because it is the nicest house in a ten-block radius, and his bored, drunk, worthless, pathetic waste of space neighbors have nothing better to do then cover up fire hydrants with snow, piss on Bruce’s fence, get drunk and call code enforcement non-stop about a trailer that has been sitting in HIS driveway for 10 minutes. Let’s talk about your integrity. Do you even know what the word means?
Titleast – Pretty sure the golf courses and even Great Bear make the city money, I look at them as ‘recreation investments’. Indoor pool? Just another sucking hole in the ground.
Also just watched the video of the meeting after they voted on the resolution for the Spellerberg location, as soon as the vote was over, the CS365 people ran out as fast as they could. They were like, “We got we wanted, we are out of here.”
This comment by Sy is exactly what I am talking about:
Sanford may be pulling back on pool plan
Sy on 05.13.14 at 10:56 am
@ poly. Look at the design again, the 50M is off in it’s own space down a hallway from the rec & therapy pools. Several teams at a time could be in there practicing or competing and it will have no impact on the other pools.
anonymous on 05.13.14 at 4:56 pm
After attending several of the pre-election informational meetings, I would say the City has a dilemma on their hands.
The City’s consultant for the City Wide Aquatics Master Plan recommended this scenario for an indoor pool:
Page 28, 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.
At the informational meetings, Don Kearney and Team informed potential voters that the 3,750 sq. ft. indoor leisure pool would INSTEAD be a therapy pool.
That takes this pool out of the mix for the general public’s recreational use.
The only remaining option is the 50 meter Olympic size pool which will reduce both the amount of space and time this pool will be available for special interest groups.
THERE IS NO SEPARATE REC POOL AS SY HAS INDICATED, THE ONE LEISURE POOL IN THE CONSULTANT’S PLAN HAS NOW BEEN DESIGNATED AS A THERAPY POOL.
CR/anon;
This is the design they presented and the one I believe they will build:
http://www.siouxfalls.org/parks/park-planning/Projects/citywide-aquatics-mp/Indoor/Gallery/Floorplan.aspx
As you can see, there’s a lap pool built into the zero depth play pool area and it’s separate from both the 50M and the therapy pool.
Also, the swim teams will get times allotted for the 50M and other times it will be open for the public. So calm down, they have the bases covered.
Why does a private organization (swim club) get allotted time in a public facility? Will they pay for this, and how much?
Taxpayers will be investing $19.4 million (according to the Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney this is an ESTIMATED amount) to construct the indoor aquatic center.
In addition, the operating costs will run over $700,000 a year.
The Mayor and the Director of Parks and Rec sold this project to the City Council as a center for COMMUNITY RECREATION.
In order to help secure the votes of veterans, seniors and the disabled the City changed the consultant’s 3,750 sq. ft. leisure pool into a therapy pool.
According to the City Wide Aquatics Master Plan, PAGE 28, OPTION 5 (which was what was used for the pre-election informational meetings) this leaves a current channel, water slides, and a zero-depth pool with only THREE lap lanes.
Because the 3,750 leisure pool (now a therapy pool) has been eliminated for community recreational purposes, it will be extremely important that the 50 meter Olympic-size pool BE AVAILABLE AT ATTRACTIVE HOURS EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK FOR COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL USAGE.
Private organizations should pay a mighty large fee to use a public pool for their allotted time. Exactly how well does the highly paid expert that decided Spellerberg Park would be the best location for an indoor pool, know Sioux Falls? I bet not real well and I bet he isn’t aware of the lack of parking and the traffic congestion in that area. I think it would funny if all of a sudden the people in that neighborhood created an uprising. What does our “wonderful” city council plan on doing condemning some houses in the neighborhood to make into parking lots?
We all need fire protection we need good streets and safe water and sewer infrastructure. What I don’t under stand is where is the reasoning to get so much debt for entertainment. Many have gone to the YMCA,hotels the wellness center for swimming Now sounds as though swim fees will most likely be much higher for indoor use at cities that have both I’m sure no reduced rates for indoor use so low income families eliminated
Sounds like sucking tax dollars and getting a big maintenance headache for the 1% I’m sure the city debt will be doubled in 3years or less at the rate it is now I got such a kick out of the finance dept saying its money we already have , you forget we have to pay it back on bonds while the welfare rolls expand. Who is going to pay that bill? Oh yeah. More debt. Yeah
Precious post should have said that the rest of us gets the debt and the maint bills for the 1%
Looks like city manipulation of opinion polls and elections isn’t working for Spellerburg. The expensive biased consultant doesn’t work either. Argus opinion section is full of dissent. Build something somewhere else just not here.
Because as you know, the letters to the editor section the Argus Leader is packed with insightful commentary from local residents. How are they finding room to print them around the regular rotation of “trust in Jesus” and “gays are going to hell” letters?
I know, let’s next rely on the polls in the Argus’ sidebar to guide decision making! Surely that’s also a representative sample. Democracy!
We know Mr. Post from Counciman-Hunsacker was told to ONLY pick Spellerberg, I can’t believe people still don’t get this!
I have attended Park Board meetings on a regular basis for the past 8 years.
Don Kearney and the Park Board began discussing Spellerberg as the location for an indoor pool immediately following the Drake Springs vote in 2007.
The Park Board chose the Spellerberg location 7 years ago.