Lame. The outdoor renderings are nice too, but with Laurel Oaks, Terrace & Drake the public already has a pretty good idea what places like those look and feel like.
Since we are plowing new ground with a multi-use, indoor aquatic center, I don’t blame them for putting a little more detail into that presentation. People want to know what spending another $12 million gets them. It’s a great design that greatly enhances the park and the neighborhood. Plus the therapy pool will be a HUGE benefit to the VA and anyone else who needs aquatic therapy. BTW, per the consultants, therapy pools are the fastest growing segment of the market.
I just don’t think the old dogs of “it’s too expensive” and “it will ruin the neighborhood” will hunt any more, this thing gets passed in April by 65% to 35%, mark it down.
“No” to the Community “Spend” Group who have raised zero money for their sport. (Ice and Tennis have been working.) This group has been inactive expecting the citizens to provide all and continuing to provide yearly taxes to operate a facility at a deficit of approximately 3/4 million yearly. AND they expect the Spellerberg neighborhood to graciously offer their beloved park to be turned into a garden of cement!
& Karma, LOL..but they would have to change that name since swim teams and vets are members of the community and both get shut out of the outdoor plan.
More like Splash Park 70 +/- (don’t think we even had 70 nice days last summer)
Nearly all of the private money raised to support the new EC came after the vote, and I’m certain there will be fundraising efforts to enhance this project as well.
And once again, this place isn’t being built specifically for the swim teams. It’s multi-use, so your comparisons are bunk. I can’t take the kids out to either the Tennis or Hockey facility and roller blade or ice skate just for fun on a cold or hot day.
What are the requirements for a pool to be deemed a therapy pool, does anyone know? Would a physical therapist be needed to assist vets if they, or others need water therapy?
Pc Not 100% but I think the pool has to be accessible under the ADA specs which would include the lift and also it’s temperature is higher, more like a hot tub. I’m also thinking the VA would provide the therapist as they do now, they would just go next door to use the pool as needed instead of wherever they are going now.
Past city surveys have shown there is wide support for a public indoor pool, no doubt, but this support quickly dropped when people were told it would have to be subsidized and not be self-sustaining. Informed brings up a good point, how many people will support a facility that has to be subsidized at a $750K a year, and as a citizen, you still have to pay to walk thru it’s doors. If we are charging a fee to use the facility, like we do with the public golf courses, and there is truly a need, shouldn’t the place be built on the model of self sustainability? I know the Hockey Association is counting on that kind of model, why not the swimmers? That is why the joint venture with the school district makes more sense, there would be more usage and shared costs. But instead, let’s drop it in a small, central park, with no room for expansion (either to the facility, parking or traffic), that makes sense.
Water in therapy pools vary from 86 to 100 degrees and air temperature is 89-90 degrees; 78 degrees in competitive or recreational pools. Varying temperatures depend on each patient’s needs, health status, age, and other factors. There must be safety bars and should have two means of getting in and out of the pool. VA regulation requires an accredited physical therapist with water therapy who also is certified as a lifeguard to be present for veteran’s water therapy. Children’s care, across from the VA provides water therapy.
DL – the entire city could be said to be “subsidized” using your “logic”. In fact ALL government operations of any type could be categorized as “subsidized” using those standards.
You know – in the original US (the 18th century one) there was NO standing military establishment. The US military was “self-funded”. Now-a-days – it is ENTIRELY “subsidized”.
When I go to the polls in April 2014, I will be basing my vote on these numbers.
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)
Ruf, you continue to muddy the issue. How is it that the hockey association plans to be self-sufficient, to the point they plan to expand someday, the golf courses make the city money, but somehow this pool that people think WE NEED can’t be self-sufficient? Let’s face it, when you break it down, what is swimming, whether that is indoor or outdoor? It is recreation, period. We could fill every single pool in this city and make it illegal to have even private pools in this city and it wouldn’t affect us in the least, because like I said, it is ‘recreation’. Unlike the bike trails, which have a dual use (transportation and recreation) a public indoor pool in our community serves no purpose besides recreation. Of course the mayor will tell you swimming in the winter will cure you of diabetes.
So – subsidized – or specifically tax-payer funded transportation then. What ever happened to personal responsibility to get your self from one place to another – strictly on a “free market” basis. SOCIALIST!!! Why does personal transportation get a pass?
@ L3wis, you’re right there in muddy waters land yourself. Swimming is not just recreation, there are those who train and compete and as Jace noted there’s also a therapeutic (ie healing) component to swimming as well as a fitness/wellness one.
It amazes me that this far into this debate you still chose to characterize this project incorrectly.
@Scott cr’s presentation isn’t black & white, it only shows the cost side of the equation and specifically the hard costs associated with the project. There’s no presentation from her on the benefit(s) side..so you’re only getting one side. That’s fine if that’s all you need to make your “informed” vote, but don’t pretend that you’ve entertained the issue from both sides and come to the obvious conclusion.
“how many students will be using this public pool during the day?”
Depends, in summertime & holidays it will be heavily used. During the school day it will be available for adult lessons, water aerobics, therapy & kids who play hooky. I’m sure there’s other users who will emerge once the place is built, same thing happened at SSC.
Back in the day at the old WHS, we had swimming first period and had to trek across the street to the Y, even in the dead of winter. Maybe the schools will bring back swimming as an PE activity and they will bus kids over during the day, this plan and location would make that possible if not probable.
Sy, as part of the agreement and financial support between the city and the associations of both ice and tennis, those facilities will need to offer open time for public usage. Consider this; by the time all the city swim teams schedule in their various practices as well as Augie and SFU, available public swim time will be greatly reduced. Why Augie and SFU? It has been rumored that Kearney has been over to those schools seeking support in exchange for scheduled available time in the aquatic facility. Now isn’t that wonderful the SF citizens are building a facility for the colleges to use. ( It has also been rumored that generating support from the college youth was highly contributory to getting a favorable vote for the EC. And then isn’t there a cozy relationship between Premier Bank, Augie, Sanford, and Huether? Something for you to think about anyway.
Hate to tell you this ol buddy, but your poll was freeped. If you are unfamiliar with what “freep” is, google it. Very rarely does an argus poll generate much more than 4 maybe 500 responses. The tree Kill edition showed about 1900 responses with the outdoor pool leading by a 2 to 1 margin. I thought FREEP. Now I see over 6300 responses and the results reversed. FREEP for sure.
Pretty sure that Augie will continue to use their own pool in the Elmen center, at least to train. Even so, as L3wis noted the non-peak times for kids and parents will be weekdays during the school year, so I’m sure that will be the time slots available if in fact those schools want to use the place.
I know it turns some of your stomachs, but take a look at the design once again. You could easily have a couple teams, divers, a couple hundred kids and people needing therapy all in there at the same time and the won’t be tripping over each other. As one swim team parent pointed out on the AL, they travel to places like Rapid, Watertown, Pierre & Aberdeen and all those places have public, indoor facilities and moreover, residents in those towns wonder why SF doesn’t and what the big controversy is all about. Answer: politics, pure & simple.
@poly I did google freep and came up with Detroit Free Press. Didn’t page down, but either way sure the first sampling went the other way, but once the proponents got involved the poll took it’s turn. I think that shows that many people have tuned out of this issue (with the exception of the CR/Staggers/L3wis crowd) and now that it’s getting some media exposure people are becoming engaged. Look at the Kelo comments, it’s easily 20 to 1 in favor of an indoor pool.
As a vet who receives care at the VA, I do not believe the proposed aquatic center is a good idea. Parking for the proposed facility is a real issue and it would put pressure on the VA lots that are designated for disabled vets. Mayor Huether’s early plans flat out targeted VA parking to be used by aquatic center patrons. See VeteransForTheVA.org for more details.
The proposed plan for an indoor aquatic center is shortsighted- makes it harder for vets to access the VA, $19.4MM price tag, no room for growth of the VA or proposed aquatic center, loss of a neighborhood park as it is turned into a citywide facility, cost taxpayers a average annual subsidy of $728,714.00, and Spellerberg Park is landlock so there is no chance to leverage the taxpayer money for the best return on investment. Sioux Falls deserves better from its leadership!
Sy, you misunderstood me. My comment is how people on both sides of any issue fall into the “I’m right and everybody against me is 100% wrong”. NO issue is that black and white. Those that want it have their valid points, as those that don’t. I’m honestly undecided, but falling towards against it for the financial costs.
Sy, I said therapy pools are 86-100 degrees and air temps are 89-90 degrees, which means therapy pools must be in a separate room from competitive, and recreation pools that are 78 degrees. There must also be a physical therapist with lifeguard certification; otherwise, it’s just a cute little 4 1/2 foot deep pool. Neither of these was in the Counsilman Hunsaker plan or budget. Since when does city hall get into being a medical facility? The pretty pictures from TSP show a number of additions to the facility that weren’t in any of the consultant plans and they unsurprisingly lacked the layout for the entire park. Cost is going up and building size is increasing which is the price for city hall trying to buy support for their ill-conceived indoor pool plan. And yes, Augie and USF have been courted since 2012 to buy into the indoor pool. Unfortunately the “buy in†is emotional and not financial.
Google FREEP again. Right after the Detroit free press is the urban dictionary definition of FREEP. That is exactly what happened here. What’s printed in the paper for results closes at 7 pm each nite. At 7 pm the day of that poll 1900, and change, voted 2 to 1 for an outdoor pool. 24 hours later over 6500 now are 2 to 1 for indoor? Look at the history of argus polls. Nothing comes close to those kind of numbers.
It was freeped. No big deal you might say. Well….it is to the uninformed voter who scratches his or her head and bows to popular opinion…or at least what they perceive as popular opinion.
If the argus wants to continue with polls they need to fix the damn thing so a person can vote one time and one time only. As it is now it is a joke and can can be very misleading to uninformed voters.
Sy: Maybe the schools will bring back swimming as an PE activity and they will bus kids over during the day, this plan and location would make that possible if not probable.
Perhaps for one or two schools in the area, but doubtful. By time you organize kids to get them on a bus – take them to the pool, get them into suits and into the water the PE instructor is blowing the whistle telling them to get back out because they need to head back to school again.
You aren’t a fan of the idea of putting an indoor pool near or attached to a high school, but if we are honest that is the only way any such facility will be utilized by school age kids during the day. Kuehn Park is adjacent to Roosevelt so that would be an easy solution for the initial facility since you kill two birds with one stone.
However, like you indicated – this would eventually require (at least) three pools. Thus it would cost significant more and take years before all three were operational. Although one can argue three pools are exponentially more accessible since a lot more people live near three high schools than they do to a single park. Don’t worry though – it would never happen because the last thing our city wants is to be forced to partner with the school district on a project. That would mean having to share the credit.
As to this therapy pool issue, everyone with open eyes knows that was nothing more than a bribe to convince the VA (and the supporters of the VA) that this is a good idea. It wasn’t in the consultant’s plans and it clearly isn’t thought out very well since it needs to be in a separate room (so it shares a roof but nothing else).
If someone really feels the veterans should have a therapy pool, why would they suggest they need to be put in a bus and driven 500 yards away to a separate facility? I don’t know if the VA wants or needs a pool, but if they do I’m sure it would be much more logistically sound to keep it onsite at the VA itself rather than in another facility so they don’t have to deal with shuffling wheelchairs back and forth.
BTW, I don’t buy into the parking argument either – I have spent enough time in the area to know after 5PM and on the weekends the parking issue… isn’t. Parking isn’t a problem with the current outdoor pool now, so I doubt it would be with a new one, and personally I don’t anticipate a massive amount of use during the day of an indoor facility to justify the fears. If there is room to build a facility, there is room to expand the parking lot to compensate.
What does concern me is the statements about the city not actually owning the land. That suggests the VA could have ultimate veto power here, or if something happens that they don’t like, they could ask the city to vacate. Will that ever happen? Not likely, but I find it odd the city would want to invest $20MM on a facility sitting on borrowed land. If that ownership issue is true, that is questionable logic indeed.
Oh btw, veterans and the elderly don’t often vote in online polls nor do the read their paper on an iPad. They do however vote, so just keep that in mind before you proclaim victory based upon inflated poll numbers.
@ Jace, pretty certain that TSP designed to the budget number, based on their (and the City’s) recent experiences in where construction labor & material costs are. This isn’t their first rodeo (or aquatic center) so they didn’t design a therapy pool that doesn’t function as such just for window dressing. I’ll submit that the idea is to open up that area to therapy users at certain time slots, and during those time slots the air & water temps will be adjusted accordingly.
and one question, are you saying that the Vets who need aquatic therapy now are using Children’s Care’s pool? If so, is there expense involved beyond just providing a therapist & a ride?
@ poly, I get your gist and yes I don’t see it as a big deal. I didn’t know you could vote twice, and I’m guessing most average Joe’s don’t either. Either way, like I said, those who live and breathe stopping Sioux Falls from ever joining the ranks of the indoor pool club & the “hell no” to anything that costs more than a pizza crowd are engaged and they were on this poll before they even finished their first cup of coffee. They will also be in line at 8am on April 8th as well and if you take a snapshot at noon that day I bet you’ll see similar results. However, when the same crowd that stormed out on the EC shows up on lunch break or after work, the results will swing heavy in favor of the indoor pool = 65%/35% for “no”. I’d be happy to go double or nothing on that beer I owe you, or maybe we can have one in the mean time and you’ll just owe me.
Also, yes the elderly and vets typically aren’t online and do vote, and I’m sure they were right there on the EC vote too. My point is it didn’t matter, the soccer moms came out in force and said “we’re sick of dinking around, build the damn thing” and my prediction is they will again if there’s any level of campaign by CS365. I run in soccer mom circles and I haven’t seen one yet who doesn’t support this plan 100%.
LJL wrote, “Again using the vets as an excuse. Pathetic. ” Could you please elaborate on this comment?
As someone who has received healthcare at the VA for the past 13 years, I do not recall the VA or vets asking for a therapy pool. The city has never invited vets to use the outdoor pool either.
The “therapy pool” issue came to light when I was visiting Mayor Huether in his office last summer discussing his plan for the aquatic center. The mayor and Parks Director Kearney seemed to be trying to deflect attention from their plan to target VA parking designated for service-connected disabled veterans that they suggested could be used for the aquatic center. If the VA needs to provide water therapy to vets, then the VA should provide it not the City of Sioux Falls.
The proposed indoor aquatic center is a flawed plan and shortsighted. It will make it harder for veterans to access the VA, there is no room for the VA or Aquatic Center to expand, it is very expensive with no chance for additional development since Spellerberg is landlocked, and it will ruin a neighborhood park in favor of a citywide use facility.
Argus and KELO polls are worthless. The respondants are obviously only their viewers/readers, and primarily just those that feel super strong about the issue. That pro-pool organization is in the middle of a PR push right now, so I would expect any of these types of polls to go their way. Just like any abortion poll probably would have similar numbers since the anti-abortion people would stuff the ballot box, even though the supposedly “real” polls say the exact opposite.
Personally, I don’t believe any poll means anything these days. Online polls obviously have the types of flaws I just explained, but cell phones and the annoyance of traditional polls makes their results just as suspect.
After a fashion, so do I. I cannot express how much my grandchildren and daughter-in laws mean to me, but the constant quest for instant gratification is a little troubling.
When Caledonia, Minnesota was considering an indoor aquatic center Mayor Bob Burns stated that “Research throughout the Midwest shows there is 93% usage in summer countered with 7% usage in the winter, which is when some of the large operating expenses are incurred.”
Randy Mendioroz of Aquatic Design Group states “The 50-meter, Olympic-size pool, which is a passionate rallying point for competitive swimming advocates, is a notorious drain on an annual operating budget. Furthermore, the reality is that a 50-meter pool is only used for competitive purposes by an average of about 5% of the local population.”
If one considers these two pieces of info only, one would conclude that we are likely building this for a very small percentage of the population who enjoy competitive swimming and it will cost taxpayers a great deal, especially in the winter when most people think it is too cold to go swimming while winter sports are equally as rewarding to enjoy!
Conclusion: Build the outdoor pool to enjoy in the summer when most people want to swim rather than play football. There are substantial indoor facilities in this town for the swim teams to use to train!
Either that or maybe fairness for all sports. Let’s build an indoor ski slope so the snow lovers can access their sport year round. AND there are currently no indoor ski slopes available in SF, so citizens prepare to provide your support and tax dollars!
The question must still be asked, when will city hall stop trying to compete with business ventures the private sector should be operating? If there is so much pent-up demand for an indoor pool, the private sector would build it.
The constant drumbeat to build an indoor pool is just a noisy interference. We have commenters from local rural communities who will likely never visit or use the indoor pool, much less pay the taxes necessary to keep it open.
We have fake conservatives who pretend to care about how the government spends money, but then wants to government to build a special swimming pool so their kids can play. The City can build a swimming pool and the parents can use the pool as a winter babysitting service (just as many use the pools in the summer).
We have contractors wanting to build the pool so they can make their next fortune.
We have building material suppliers ready to sell the bricks, mortar, tile, paint and other items to make their next quarterly statement or commission check better.
Why should a neighborhood care if the faux leader of the question not on the ballot, does not even live in the neighborhood? What skin does the fake / faux leader have in the game? We have the proponents of the non-ballot issue living in McKennan Park and other neighborhoods and north of 22nd street, each at least a mile from the park. These are the same people who have driven past this little park for years without ever stopping to sit and enjoy the openness.
How dare a bunch of longtime residents stand in the way of a bunch of outsiders? How dare these people who know the history of the park and neighborhood question a predestined report and its outcome?
It’s kind of like throwing a WalMart in McKennan Park. How about tearing up a section of the Prairie Green course to put in the indoor pool?
So dear readers, if you are so sold on having a limited use facility, catering to a special group of conservative users, pony up your checkbooks and invest in the project and own it. Quit coming to the feeding trough of the city. You have not raised one penny to show your good faith like the mayor’s wife’s group did. Her tennis association at least did something these past many years. I don’t agree with the conflict of interest the mayor showed but at least the city is not paying the whole cost upfront (still don’t know about the long range but whatever…).
So back to the original question posed: “When will a private investor(s) build the indoor pool if it is such a great investment?”
Lame. The outdoor renderings are nice too, but with Laurel Oaks, Terrace & Drake the public already has a pretty good idea what places like those look and feel like.
Since we are plowing new ground with a multi-use, indoor aquatic center, I don’t blame them for putting a little more detail into that presentation. People want to know what spending another $12 million gets them. It’s a great design that greatly enhances the park and the neighborhood. Plus the therapy pool will be a HUGE benefit to the VA and anyone else who needs aquatic therapy. BTW, per the consultants, therapy pools are the fastest growing segment of the market.
I just don’t think the old dogs of “it’s too expensive” and “it will ruin the neighborhood” will hunt any more, this thing gets passed in April by 65% to 35%, mark it down.
Vote “No” to Community Swim 70.
“No” to the Community “Spend” Group who have raised zero money for their sport. (Ice and Tennis have been working.) This group has been inactive expecting the citizens to provide all and continuing to provide yearly taxes to operate a facility at a deficit of approximately 3/4 million yearly. AND they expect the Spellerberg neighborhood to graciously offer their beloved park to be turned into a garden of cement!
Looks like the AL pool poll is backing me up:
http://www.argusleader.com/poll/2014-01-22/7734829/results?1390498343473
& Karma, LOL..but they would have to change that name since swim teams and vets are members of the community and both get shut out of the outdoor plan.
More like Splash Park 70 +/- (don’t think we even had 70 nice days last summer)
@ MissImformed
Nearly all of the private money raised to support the new EC came after the vote, and I’m certain there will be fundraising efforts to enhance this project as well.
And once again, this place isn’t being built specifically for the swim teams. It’s multi-use, so your comparisons are bunk. I can’t take the kids out to either the Tennis or Hockey facility and roller blade or ice skate just for fun on a cold or hot day.
What are the requirements for a pool to be deemed a therapy pool, does anyone know? Would a physical therapist be needed to assist vets if they, or others need water therapy?
Pc Not 100% but I think the pool has to be accessible under the ADA specs which would include the lift and also it’s temperature is higher, more like a hot tub. I’m also thinking the VA would provide the therapist as they do now, they would just go next door to use the pool as needed instead of wherever they are going now.
Past city surveys have shown there is wide support for a public indoor pool, no doubt, but this support quickly dropped when people were told it would have to be subsidized and not be self-sustaining. Informed brings up a good point, how many people will support a facility that has to be subsidized at a $750K a year, and as a citizen, you still have to pay to walk thru it’s doors. If we are charging a fee to use the facility, like we do with the public golf courses, and there is truly a need, shouldn’t the place be built on the model of self sustainability? I know the Hockey Association is counting on that kind of model, why not the swimmers? That is why the joint venture with the school district makes more sense, there would be more usage and shared costs. But instead, let’s drop it in a small, central park, with no room for expansion (either to the facility, parking or traffic), that makes sense.
L3wis, so who decides which school gets to win the “pool” lottery?
Or do we simply build one at each high school, who’s sites are all currently more crowded than Spellerberg.
Yeah, that makes sense…not.
So Sy, how many students will be using this public pool during the day? Oh that’s right, they will be in school.
Water in therapy pools vary from 86 to 100 degrees and air temperature is 89-90 degrees; 78 degrees in competitive or recreational pools. Varying temperatures depend on each patient’s needs, health status, age, and other factors. There must be safety bars and should have two means of getting in and out of the pool. VA regulation requires an accredited physical therapist with water therapy who also is certified as a lifeguard to be present for veteran’s water therapy. Children’s care, across from the VA provides water therapy.
DL – the entire city could be said to be “subsidized” using your “logic”. In fact ALL government operations of any type could be categorized as “subsidized” using those standards.
You know – in the original US (the 18th century one) there was NO standing military establishment. The US military was “self-funded”. Now-a-days – it is ENTIRELY “subsidized”.
When I go to the polls in April 2014, I will be basing my vote on these numbers.
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.
As a way of illustrating this number, our community could have SEVEN new neighborhood parks for the $3.6m!!
I love when people use black and white answers to grey area topics.
Ruf, you continue to muddy the issue. How is it that the hockey association plans to be self-sufficient, to the point they plan to expand someday, the golf courses make the city money, but somehow this pool that people think WE NEED can’t be self-sufficient? Let’s face it, when you break it down, what is swimming, whether that is indoor or outdoor? It is recreation, period. We could fill every single pool in this city and make it illegal to have even private pools in this city and it wouldn’t affect us in the least, because like I said, it is ‘recreation’. Unlike the bike trails, which have a dual use (transportation and recreation) a public indoor pool in our community serves no purpose besides recreation. Of course the mayor will tell you swimming in the winter will cure you of diabetes.
Me too – speculation and innuendo and personal impressions are p!$$ poor bases for decision making.
So – subsidized – or specifically tax-payer funded transportation then. What ever happened to personal responsibility to get your self from one place to another – strictly on a “free market” basis. SOCIALIST!!! Why does personal transportation get a pass?
@ L3wis, you’re right there in muddy waters land yourself. Swimming is not just recreation, there are those who train and compete and as Jace noted there’s also a therapeutic (ie healing) component to swimming as well as a fitness/wellness one.
It amazes me that this far into this debate you still chose to characterize this project incorrectly.
@Scott cr’s presentation isn’t black & white, it only shows the cost side of the equation and specifically the hard costs associated with the project. There’s no presentation from her on the benefit(s) side..so you’re only getting one side. That’s fine if that’s all you need to make your “informed” vote, but don’t pretend that you’ve entertained the issue from both sides and come to the obvious conclusion.
L3wis:
“how many students will be using this public pool during the day?”
Depends, in summertime & holidays it will be heavily used. During the school day it will be available for adult lessons, water aerobics, therapy & kids who play hooky. I’m sure there’s other users who will emerge once the place is built, same thing happened at SSC.
Back in the day at the old WHS, we had swimming first period and had to trek across the street to the Y, even in the dead of winter. Maybe the schools will bring back swimming as an PE activity and they will bus kids over during the day, this plan and location would make that possible if not probable.
Sy, as part of the agreement and financial support between the city and the associations of both ice and tennis, those facilities will need to offer open time for public usage. Consider this; by the time all the city swim teams schedule in their various practices as well as Augie and SFU, available public swim time will be greatly reduced. Why Augie and SFU? It has been rumored that Kearney has been over to those schools seeking support in exchange for scheduled available time in the aquatic facility. Now isn’t that wonderful the SF citizens are building a facility for the colleges to use. ( It has also been rumored that generating support from the college youth was highly contributory to getting a favorable vote for the EC. And then isn’t there a cozy relationship between Premier Bank, Augie, Sanford, and Huether? Something for you to think about anyway.
Looks like the AL pool poll is backing me up:
Hate to tell you this ol buddy, but your poll was freeped. If you are unfamiliar with what “freep” is, google it. Very rarely does an argus poll generate much more than 4 maybe 500 responses. The tree Kill edition showed about 1900 responses with the outdoor pool leading by a 2 to 1 margin. I thought FREEP. Now I see over 6300 responses and the results reversed. FREEP for sure.
@ IV
Pretty sure that Augie will continue to use their own pool in the Elmen center, at least to train. Even so, as L3wis noted the non-peak times for kids and parents will be weekdays during the school year, so I’m sure that will be the time slots available if in fact those schools want to use the place.
I know it turns some of your stomachs, but take a look at the design once again. You could easily have a couple teams, divers, a couple hundred kids and people needing therapy all in there at the same time and the won’t be tripping over each other. As one swim team parent pointed out on the AL, they travel to places like Rapid, Watertown, Pierre & Aberdeen and all those places have public, indoor facilities and moreover, residents in those towns wonder why SF doesn’t and what the big controversy is all about. Answer: politics, pure & simple.
@poly I did google freep and came up with Detroit Free Press. Didn’t page down, but either way sure the first sampling went the other way, but once the proponents got involved the poll took it’s turn. I think that shows that many people have tuned out of this issue (with the exception of the CR/Staggers/L3wis crowd) and now that it’s getting some media exposure people are becoming engaged. Look at the Kelo comments, it’s easily 20 to 1 in favor of an indoor pool.
As a vet who receives care at the VA, I do not believe the proposed aquatic center is a good idea. Parking for the proposed facility is a real issue and it would put pressure on the VA lots that are designated for disabled vets. Mayor Huether’s early plans flat out targeted VA parking to be used by aquatic center patrons. See VeteransForTheVA.org for more details.
The proposed plan for an indoor aquatic center is shortsighted- makes it harder for vets to access the VA, $19.4MM price tag, no room for growth of the VA or proposed aquatic center, loss of a neighborhood park as it is turned into a citywide facility, cost taxpayers a average annual subsidy of $728,714.00, and Spellerberg Park is landlock so there is no chance to leverage the taxpayer money for the best return on investment. Sioux Falls deserves better from its leadership!
Sy, you misunderstood me. My comment is how people on both sides of any issue fall into the “I’m right and everybody against me is 100% wrong”. NO issue is that black and white. Those that want it have their valid points, as those that don’t. I’m honestly undecided, but falling towards against it for the financial costs.
Fair enough, Scott. My apologies.
¿Qué hay de esos derechos de nombre? Taco Bell parque acuático familiar suena bien.
Sy, I said therapy pools are 86-100 degrees and air temps are 89-90 degrees, which means therapy pools must be in a separate room from competitive, and recreation pools that are 78 degrees. There must also be a physical therapist with lifeguard certification; otherwise, it’s just a cute little 4 1/2 foot deep pool. Neither of these was in the Counsilman Hunsaker plan or budget. Since when does city hall get into being a medical facility? The pretty pictures from TSP show a number of additions to the facility that weren’t in any of the consultant plans and they unsurprisingly lacked the layout for the entire park. Cost is going up and building size is increasing which is the price for city hall trying to buy support for their ill-conceived indoor pool plan. And yes, Augie and USF have been courted since 2012 to buy into the indoor pool. Unfortunately the “buy in†is emotional and not financial.
Again using the vets as an excuse. Pathetic.
Good work with the numbers CR. These pools may as well be filled with borrowed cash ready to be flushed away.
@ Sy.
Google FREEP again. Right after the Detroit free press is the urban dictionary definition of FREEP. That is exactly what happened here. What’s printed in the paper for results closes at 7 pm each nite. At 7 pm the day of that poll 1900, and change, voted 2 to 1 for an outdoor pool. 24 hours later over 6500 now are 2 to 1 for indoor? Look at the history of argus polls. Nothing comes close to those kind of numbers.
It was freeped. No big deal you might say. Well….it is to the uninformed voter who scratches his or her head and bows to popular opinion…or at least what they perceive as popular opinion.
If the argus wants to continue with polls they need to fix the damn thing so a person can vote one time and one time only. As it is now it is a joke and can can be very misleading to uninformed voters.
Sy: Maybe the schools will bring back swimming as an PE activity and they will bus kids over during the day, this plan and location would make that possible if not probable.
Perhaps for one or two schools in the area, but doubtful. By time you organize kids to get them on a bus – take them to the pool, get them into suits and into the water the PE instructor is blowing the whistle telling them to get back out because they need to head back to school again.
You aren’t a fan of the idea of putting an indoor pool near or attached to a high school, but if we are honest that is the only way any such facility will be utilized by school age kids during the day. Kuehn Park is adjacent to Roosevelt so that would be an easy solution for the initial facility since you kill two birds with one stone.
However, like you indicated – this would eventually require (at least) three pools. Thus it would cost significant more and take years before all three were operational. Although one can argue three pools are exponentially more accessible since a lot more people live near three high schools than they do to a single park. Don’t worry though – it would never happen because the last thing our city wants is to be forced to partner with the school district on a project. That would mean having to share the credit.
As to this therapy pool issue, everyone with open eyes knows that was nothing more than a bribe to convince the VA (and the supporters of the VA) that this is a good idea. It wasn’t in the consultant’s plans and it clearly isn’t thought out very well since it needs to be in a separate room (so it shares a roof but nothing else).
If someone really feels the veterans should have a therapy pool, why would they suggest they need to be put in a bus and driven 500 yards away to a separate facility? I don’t know if the VA wants or needs a pool, but if they do I’m sure it would be much more logistically sound to keep it onsite at the VA itself rather than in another facility so they don’t have to deal with shuffling wheelchairs back and forth.
BTW, I don’t buy into the parking argument either – I have spent enough time in the area to know after 5PM and on the weekends the parking issue… isn’t. Parking isn’t a problem with the current outdoor pool now, so I doubt it would be with a new one, and personally I don’t anticipate a massive amount of use during the day of an indoor facility to justify the fears. If there is room to build a facility, there is room to expand the parking lot to compensate.
What does concern me is the statements about the city not actually owning the land. That suggests the VA could have ultimate veto power here, or if something happens that they don’t like, they could ask the city to vacate. Will that ever happen? Not likely, but I find it odd the city would want to invest $20MM on a facility sitting on borrowed land. If that ownership issue is true, that is questionable logic indeed.
Oh btw, veterans and the elderly don’t often vote in online polls nor do the read their paper on an iPad. They do however vote, so just keep that in mind before you proclaim victory based upon inflated poll numbers.
@ Jace, pretty certain that TSP designed to the budget number, based on their (and the City’s) recent experiences in where construction labor & material costs are. This isn’t their first rodeo (or aquatic center) so they didn’t design a therapy pool that doesn’t function as such just for window dressing. I’ll submit that the idea is to open up that area to therapy users at certain time slots, and during those time slots the air & water temps will be adjusted accordingly.
and one question, are you saying that the Vets who need aquatic therapy now are using Children’s Care’s pool? If so, is there expense involved beyond just providing a therapist & a ride?
@ poly, I get your gist and yes I don’t see it as a big deal. I didn’t know you could vote twice, and I’m guessing most average Joe’s don’t either. Either way, like I said, those who live and breathe stopping Sioux Falls from ever joining the ranks of the indoor pool club & the “hell no” to anything that costs more than a pizza crowd are engaged and they were on this poll before they even finished their first cup of coffee. They will also be in line at 8am on April 8th as well and if you take a snapshot at noon that day I bet you’ll see similar results. However, when the same crowd that stormed out on the EC shows up on lunch break or after work, the results will swing heavy in favor of the indoor pool = 65%/35% for “no”. I’d be happy to go double or nothing on that beer I owe you, or maybe we can have one in the mean time and you’ll just owe me.
@ Craig good points, particularly on parking.
Also, yes the elderly and vets typically aren’t online and do vote, and I’m sure they were right there on the EC vote too. My point is it didn’t matter, the soccer moms came out in force and said “we’re sick of dinking around, build the damn thing” and my prediction is they will again if there’s any level of campaign by CS365. I run in soccer mom circles and I haven’t seen one yet who doesn’t support this plan 100%.
LJL wrote, “Again using the vets as an excuse. Pathetic. ” Could you please elaborate on this comment?
As someone who has received healthcare at the VA for the past 13 years, I do not recall the VA or vets asking for a therapy pool. The city has never invited vets to use the outdoor pool either.
The “therapy pool” issue came to light when I was visiting Mayor Huether in his office last summer discussing his plan for the aquatic center. The mayor and Parks Director Kearney seemed to be trying to deflect attention from their plan to target VA parking designated for service-connected disabled veterans that they suggested could be used for the aquatic center. If the VA needs to provide water therapy to vets, then the VA should provide it not the City of Sioux Falls.
The proposed indoor aquatic center is a flawed plan and shortsighted. It will make it harder for veterans to access the VA, there is no room for the VA or Aquatic Center to expand, it is very expensive with no chance for additional development since Spellerberg is landlocked, and it will ruin a neighborhood park in favor of a citywide use facility.
We should expect more from our leadership.
Argus and KELO polls are worthless. The respondants are obviously only their viewers/readers, and primarily just those that feel super strong about the issue. That pro-pool organization is in the middle of a PR push right now, so I would expect any of these types of polls to go their way. Just like any abortion poll probably would have similar numbers since the anti-abortion people would stuff the ballot box, even though the supposedly “real” polls say the exact opposite.
Personally, I don’t believe any poll means anything these days. Online polls obviously have the types of flaws I just explained, but cell phones and the annoyance of traditional polls makes their results just as suspect.
I run in soccer mom circles
After a fashion, so do I. I cannot express how much my grandchildren and daughter-in laws mean to me, but the constant quest for instant gratification is a little troubling.
Here is a bit more info for consideration.
When Caledonia, Minnesota was considering an indoor aquatic center Mayor Bob Burns stated that “Research throughout the Midwest shows there is 93% usage in summer countered with 7% usage in the winter, which is when some of the large operating expenses are incurred.”
Randy Mendioroz of Aquatic Design Group states “The 50-meter, Olympic-size pool, which is a passionate rallying point for competitive swimming advocates, is a notorious drain on an annual operating budget. Furthermore, the reality is that a 50-meter pool is only used for competitive purposes by an average of about 5% of the local population.”
If one considers these two pieces of info only, one would conclude that we are likely building this for a very small percentage of the population who enjoy competitive swimming and it will cost taxpayers a great deal, especially in the winter when most people think it is too cold to go swimming while winter sports are equally as rewarding to enjoy!
Conclusion: Build the outdoor pool to enjoy in the summer when most people want to swim rather than play football. There are substantial indoor facilities in this town for the swim teams to use to train!
Either that or maybe fairness for all sports. Let’s build an indoor ski slope so the snow lovers can access their sport year round. AND there are currently no indoor ski slopes available in SF, so citizens prepare to provide your support and tax dollars!
The question must still be asked, when will city hall stop trying to compete with business ventures the private sector should be operating? If there is so much pent-up demand for an indoor pool, the private sector would build it.
The constant drumbeat to build an indoor pool is just a noisy interference. We have commenters from local rural communities who will likely never visit or use the indoor pool, much less pay the taxes necessary to keep it open.
We have fake conservatives who pretend to care about how the government spends money, but then wants to government to build a special swimming pool so their kids can play. The City can build a swimming pool and the parents can use the pool as a winter babysitting service (just as many use the pools in the summer).
We have contractors wanting to build the pool so they can make their next fortune.
We have building material suppliers ready to sell the bricks, mortar, tile, paint and other items to make their next quarterly statement or commission check better.
Why should a neighborhood care if the faux leader of the question not on the ballot, does not even live in the neighborhood? What skin does the fake / faux leader have in the game? We have the proponents of the non-ballot issue living in McKennan Park and other neighborhoods and north of 22nd street, each at least a mile from the park. These are the same people who have driven past this little park for years without ever stopping to sit and enjoy the openness.
How dare a bunch of longtime residents stand in the way of a bunch of outsiders? How dare these people who know the history of the park and neighborhood question a predestined report and its outcome?
It’s kind of like throwing a WalMart in McKennan Park. How about tearing up a section of the Prairie Green course to put in the indoor pool?
So dear readers, if you are so sold on having a limited use facility, catering to a special group of conservative users, pony up your checkbooks and invest in the project and own it. Quit coming to the feeding trough of the city. You have not raised one penny to show your good faith like the mayor’s wife’s group did. Her tennis association at least did something these past many years. I don’t agree with the conflict of interest the mayor showed but at least the city is not paying the whole cost upfront (still don’t know about the long range but whatever…).
So back to the original question posed: “When will a private investor(s) build the indoor pool if it is such a great investment?”