I find it interesting the consultant said it was a bad location. So why did the city try to build an indoor pool there twice? Why? Because they WANTED to!
By l3wis
18 thoughts on “Aquatics Consultant suggests Nelson Park would have been a bad place to put an indoor pool”
Comments are closed.
It’s interesting. Why did the consultant bring this up. The Drake Springs group was right all along and we had another 50 mile expert come to town to confirm it. The park was not right for an indoor pool. I wonder what the next expensive 50 mile expert will say in the next survey. Why do the smart people down in city hall keep thinking they are the only ones who can ‘think’ and ‘remember’.
It’s interesting. Why did the consultant bring this up.
I’d say the consultant was making his pitch for the spot the city wants it,(Spellerberg) by eliminating other possible locations. Remember, this will come to a vote not just about an indoor pool at Spellerberg. It will be voted on as a package deal. 18 million for the indoor 50 meter pool for the swim clubs, 8 million for an outdoor aquatic center on the SW part of town, and 1 million for a spray park on the east side of town. That way they can get the maximum amount of valley girl moms to vote for it because they won’t want to drive their kids to Omaha to go to a aquatic or spray park center.
If they don’t build it, Justin Bieber will never swim in Sioux Falls.
Do other similar size cities in our area have public indoor pools? If so, what can we learn from their experience?
The consultant let the city know he found the unstable ground situation at Drake Springs. Drake springs is an old oxbow of the Sioux River meaning a soft sandy / mud bed not able to support a heavy building. Interesting…
Poly: “I’d say the consultant was making his pitch for the spot the city wants it,(Spellerberg) by eliminating other possible locations.”
I’m not so sure – the same consultant lists four locations with no known issues and Spellerberg is just one of them. They set the stage for other ideas if the voters reject Spellerberg – so hard to say what might happen.
Granted from the consultants point of view they are focused upon the facility itself. Logistics of the location, traffic, impact to surrounding property owners and businesses etc. don’t factor in to their decisions.
I do find it interesting that Kuehn is listed as no known issues… and wouldn’t you know it is a few hundred yards from a city owned High School. Are the gears grinding yet? Sure seems like we should consider that option by connecting it to the school and being able to get more use out of it in the off-season via PE and potential high school swim / dive teams.
Then later we put one at Washington and reap the same benefits. Even later we look at Lincoln – now we have three indoor pools all of which could support swim meets – all equally distributed throughout the city, all of which will get far more use than one indoor uber-complex.
Craig, stop making sense, or they will kick you out of SF.
“Do other similar size cities in our area have public indoor pools? If so, what can we learn from their experience?”
RC built their pool in an area where they have plenty of parking and room for expansion. That’s called thinking ahead. In SF it kinda reminds me of my spicy food eating habit. Love it going in, not so much going out.
Craig – just want to point out a very basic fact of governmental organization to you here. It will be greatly helpful to you in future to understand this.
The city and the school system are two entirely separate entities. The “city” does NOT “own” any school properties – or have ANYTHING to do with their operations.
I know the city doesn’t own the schools rufus, but they have partnered in various enterprises in the past – why should this be any different? A new indoor pool could potentially benefit both… and since both the schools and the city essentially exist to benefit the taxpayer, you might think they could partner for a such a project.
Just a thought.
Ruf – You are incorrect. The city and school district have partnered in elections several times, which required cost sharing contracts. As Craig pointed out 1) it is possible and 2) Legal.
Just because there’s unstable soils in no way means you can’t build a large building there for fux sake. Nearly all of downtown has the same problems and those buildings aren’t sinking or falling over. What it means is there’s added expense for sitework, so all things being equal you may have a 1% or 3% additional expense to build there vs. another site.
The consultants analysis makes it pretty clear Spellerberg is by far the best site for a vareity of sound reasons;
A. it’s central
B. it’s got acres of space
C. we own it
D. it has good access from all directions
E. there’s already a pool there
F. it will enhance the neighborhood
G. it’s a good location to add amenities like the 50M and/or the aqautic playground
H. Spellerberg is the oldest pool and is first in line for some type of major repair or replace.
As for other Cities, I’m sure opponents and proponents can come up with examples that fit their respective points, but for once why can’t we do something in this town that sets us apart from other peer cities and do so without having to slap Sanford’s name on the side of it? We’ve had parks with pools forever and we’ve subsidized them forever too. Sure, this new plan means a greater subsidy, but it also means we take a step into new territory of year round use and also being able to offer the teams a place to train and compete. This City is growg fast enough and has a good enough economic heartbeat that it can handle the expense of doing this project and then some.
If I were running this program, I’d strike a deal with the VA that any Vet or his family member can use the pool in off-peak hours for free and I’d throw in swim lessons for their kids or grandkids…it’s the least we as a City can do to thank them for their sacrifice.
Sy, I agree that an indoor pool probably could have been built at Nelson park, but I just find it interesting that the soil concerns were never brought up until now. It just shows how the city has kept information away from the citizens when they WANT something. The Event Center comes to mind.
@ Craig My problem with the “pool at every High School” pitch is for starters you’re eventually talking 3 to 4x the expense, so if we are at $18 million today to build at Roosevelt you’re going to be at $22 mil in 5 years when you do WHS and $26 mil when you get around to Lincoln give or take. By that time, we’ll have built a high school up in the NW, so do we add another $25 million onto that project? Will the “we support an indoor pool, just not a Spellerberg” crowd stand up for this new $100+ million option? Will all you naysayers in here be able to convince people like Kermit Staggers that this is the most fiscally prudent approach? Will the School Board be convinced that all those precious square feet of land around the high schools should hold an indoor pool as opposed to classrooms or gyms?
Sy, even if it’s built where you want it won’t ensure that there won’t be a Sanford sign placed on the front…especially if they change the direction of their neighborhood takeover and end up just a few blocks away.
Sy: “Craig My problem with the “pool at every High School†pitch is for starters you’re eventually talking 3 to 4x the expense”
Not necessarily. The assumption is those facilities would be smaller and more focused upon lap pools rather than multiple pools, waterpark features, or indoor lazy rivers. Parking lot expenses are vastly reduced as they would be able to utilize existing lots at the schools.
There are pros and cons, but there is no way it would cost three or four times as much as a single facility… and most importantly the utilization would be exponentially higher due to school district involvement and usage.
Does Fargo have an indoor public pool? Does Rochester?
List of publicly accessible indoor pools around the world.
http://www.swimmersguide.com/
BTW – Madison, SD has one. They also have an outdoor pool and a lake or two.