City of Sioux Falls plan to expand indoor pools has been in the works for years

by

This is no surprise, before the doors of the Midco even opened there were plans to expand the indoor facilities;

South Dakota’s largest community is readying to spend tens of millions of dollars overhauling its pool system, which could include a pair of brand new indoor aquatic centers.

The plan to expand indoor facilities has been talked about for a long time. In fact, the bonds they are proposing have been on the table for years.

I am NOT against building indoor rec facilities that have multiple uses, but when we are losing $700K a year on just one indoor pool we have to ask ourselves some serious operating expense questions. If these community centers are meant to help those who can’t afford private fitness clubs why not have certain hours where they are FREE to use by anyone?

Leon Younger, President of PROs Consulting, reviewed the alignment with the Park System Master Plan, with the following main points: replace aging aquatic facilities; renovate and update aquatic facilities to extend their useful life; adult fitness and wellness programs; year round programming; maintain the level of service with population growth; address the shortage of indoor recreation space. Younger also stated the following recommendations: prioritize indoor multi-generational recreation center with aquatics at Frank Olson or Kuehn Park, ideally both; follow Master Plan for McKennan Park with replacement of wading pool; add shade and upgraded concessions at Terrace and Laurel Oak parks.

We can’t say on one hand we are here to help the less fortunate then turn around and charge an entrance fee like we do that already at many city owned facilities.

You will also find that the largest number of people who filled out the survey were from the SE district in North Harrisburg. It makes you wonder if that district is more targeted online to participate in the survey. The SE district is what shaped the last city election, and now we are letting them shape policy.

It will be interesting to see what kind of operating expenses the Parks Department comes up with.

City of Sioux Falls pushing for MORE indoor pools

by

Weren’t we told the MAC would do gang busters because there was such a need? The need has been SO great attendance goes down each year and subsidies go up ($700K a year approx.) If the MAC was at capacity and was being used that much, wouldn’t it at LEAST be breaking even?

Designs for both Frank Olson and Kuehn Park pools included both an indoor and outdoor option, and an indoor pool would also likely mean more indoor recreation like a running track, gymnasium space and multi-purpose rooms.

We don’t need another municipal indoor pool OR rec center. We should encourage Sanford to build a large facility at the Sports Complex and get out of the broken window and broken sidewalk fixing business and money losing adventure the MAC has been.

Mayor TenHaken is pushing to sell our parks to the highest bidder

by

This isn’t just a rant from a Sioux Falls government blogger, many people from the business sector, private property owners and journalists have reached out to me and agree that selling our parks off is a precedent that we will never be able to reverse;

In the early days of Mayor Paul TenHaken’s administration, the new mayor challenged each department head to set stretch goals.

As he put it, “throw the buoy way out there,” said Don Kearney, the city’s director of parks and recreation.

In the case of the Sioux Falls Parks & Recreation Department, that meant an eight-digit reach: Earn $10 million in private support for the department by 2022.

“We thought we could do $7 million, but we increased it to $10 million, and now we’ve exceeded that,” Kearney said.

“And we could double that to over $20 million by the end of the year.”

Don’t misunderstand me, I am all for private donations to help our parks system, and I am not even opposed to modest placards appearing in our parks honoring those who give, but when a private donation is given, it should be put towards the parks general fund to be spent on our greatest parks needs. One thing I have advocated for is 24/7 bike trail access and solar lighting in the darker parts of the trail.

Some other contributions to our parks are also wonderful ways to give;

Other contributions came in the form of land, such as an extension of the west-side Family Park.

Labor counts too – including from volunteers and inmates. Kearney estimates their help has saved the city more than $300,000 over the past few years.

But this is where donations get sticky;

Last year, the Sioux Falls Parks Foundation was organized as an affiliate of the Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation.

“There’s a lot of interest,” said Jennifer Kirby, who chairs the foundation’s advisory board. “It all comes down to finding the actual project that will mesh with a donor’s passion.”

Her group held an informational event for donors last month and has been meeting individually to gauge interest in specific projects.

While I get it that donors have a certain level of privacy, that privacy should go all the way to the end with NOT plastering our parks with donor signs. A private foundation meeting secretly with donors to determine how our parks are being shaped is not acceptable. The taxpayers of Sioux Falls are the main donor to our parks system, we also foot the operational expenses of the employees salaries and park maintenance. The taxpayers are the main owners of our public parks and they should be in on the discussion on how to use donor’s money, which should be given anonymously and modestly.

It was disheartening but not surprising that our mayor is pushing to sell off our parks like they are cars in a NASCAR race.

Fancy Fix

by

I told the city council awhile ago that I like the bike trail extension to Family Park but they needed to fix the mud pit at the end of trail by the restroom.

When you bring up stuff to the city council at public input, they sometimes react 🙂