Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Spellerberg Outdoor Pool Advocates plan petition drive

There will be a press conference on Tuesday, October 2, at the main DT library at 4 pm to announce the petition drive pertaining to the Spellerberg proposal. The petition is for replacement of the OUTDOOR facility. It got stamped at the city clerk’s office yesterday. They have until March 27 to get the required signatures.

Mayor Mike Huether made some interesting statements about the Spellerberg Pool yesterday at a Masonic luncheon.

He made it known for the first time that Western Avenue will need to be widened. I wonder what Park Ridge merchants think about their parking lot possibly getting smaller?

He was also asked about placing the indoor pool at the Sanford Sports Complex. His response was that HE wants a “stand-alone facility”. I guess that is his decision and his alone.

Just for clarification, neither Stehly or I are involved with the Spellerberg petition drive, we already have our hands full with the snow gates drive. But I have given some advice to them and have helped them with gathering some information, and have promised to post updates about their drive. Like I have said in the past I am not against a public indoor pool, and the petition drive organizers are not either. It is just a matter of poor location and lack of funding information. We still do not know the cost and if any private dollars will be involved.

Stehly to appear on Rick Knobe’s Radio show today @ 5 PM, KSOO 1140

Theresa contacted Don Kearney, the Parks & Rec Director. She asked him for the following (printout below) so she had an idea where P & R is on operating costs to compare to using snow gates.

(The numbers are $Dollar amounts that reflect ANNUAL costs. Bike Trail Development means ‘NEW TRAILS’. The Greenway fountain refers to the water feature in front of the Hilton Hotel that taxpayers will be purchasing and operating at their expense for a privately owned and developed hotel – $430,000 – That’s quite a sprinkler system!)

What is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)?

“MOU, IOU or a raincheck, what’s the difference?

Recently at the last SF City Council informational meeting, (FF 2:40) Councilor Kermit Staggers and Parks director Don K. brought up MOUs. Well what are they?

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a signed non-obligating and legally non-binding document that describes the intentions of the alliance members to work together to address a shared development challenge. In some cases, companies (and particularly their legal departments) may use the term MOU to refer to a legally binding document. In this situation it is imperative that all parties understand and agree that the document is non-legally binding; if helpful, you may change the term “MOU” to a term used by the organization to refer to a non-legally binding document (e.g., “letter of intent” or “partnership agreement”).

Do I Need To Have A MOU For My Public-Private Partnership?

MOUs are not required for public-private partnerships, but they are strongly recommended. They are frequently used when USAID and a resource partner are providing parallel funding to a common implementing partner. They are not typically used when a resource partner is receiving USAID funds through a Collaboration Agreement, because the Collaboration Agreement itself addresses the kind of information set forth in an MOU. They are also typically not used when the alliance consists only of a gift from a resource partner to USAID, where the resource partner is providing no other in-kind contributions and does not expect to be involved in the alliance activities. Consult with your Regional Legal Advisor or the General Counsel’s office to determine whether a MOU is appropriate for your proposed alliance.

What Are The Benefits Of Using A MOU?

There are many benefits to formalizing your partnership through a MOU. The MOU

  • Ensures that all parties are in agreement on the partner roles and activities, thereby decreasing misunderstandings and future conflicts.
  • Outlines how decisions about the partnership will be made during implementation.
  • For many alliances, represents the only document that formalizes the relationship between USAID and a private sector partner (that is not also an implementer).
  • Can help keep the partnership on track and focused on the original objectives/activities.
  • Provides an easy framework to allow additional partners to join and expand the partnership.

The key words here are ‘non-obligating and legally non-binding document‘ and it seems the city is moving forward with MOUs when it comes to financially supporting special interests and club sports. This is unfortunate. Why? Because when these ‘groups‘ don’t come up with the money they promised to raise there is NOTHING legally binding them to come up with it. What does that mean? That means taxpayers are on the hook for the shortfalls. Councilor Staggers suggests that we get away from MOUs and require the clubs to ‘show us the money’ before we cut them a check, he says it is about ‘Accountability’. Of course Donny K. doesn’t have a problem with them, well, because it’s not his money that is on the hook when these ‘groups’ fail to hold up their end of the deal. I think the whole conversation ended perfectly with Staggers telling Donny K. “Then they better get it together.”

SF Taxpayers give 2x as much yet Scheels get the naming rights to the new iceplex?

Once again, Sioux Falls taxpayers are paying the piper and gettin’ no credit;

A highly anticipated Sioux Falls community ice facility will be named the Scheels IcePlex, after a substantial donation from the sports store on Thursday.

Scheels donated $750,000 toward the new multi-rink ice facility set to be built at the Sanford Sports Complex.

The announcement comes on the heels of an action by the Sioux Falls City Council to give $1.5 million of their budget to the facility next year.

While I think it is fantastic that the ISA has been raising private funds, I think, since taxpayers are giving twice as much as Scheels, our name should be on the building. There are plenty of advertising opportunities inside the facility for retailers like Scheels.

 

What is really going on with the pool at Spellerberg (ANON guest post)

Argus Leader:  Indoor Pool Issue Is Top Budget Topic

City Councilor Kermit Staggers plans to propose an amendment to next year’s city budget that would ensure an indoor pool is not built at Spellerberg Park.

It was obvious at the work session, Kermit is not going to get this amendment approved.  I doubt he will even receive a second, so it can be discussed by the entire Council.

But Parks and Rec Director, Don Kearney, said the Council is not being asked to approve construction of an indoor aquatic center. Rather, officials are hoping to take the next step by using funds to create preliminary design and schematic drawings to share with the public.

This is misleading.  Why would Parks and Rec be asking for $160,000 for design of an INDOOR pool, if they did not intend to ask for approval of construction in 2014?

Councilor Greg Jamison is working on an amendment to use the remaining aquatic facilities development funds to create a long-term master plan for indoor and outdoor pools. If approved, the plan would go through the land use committee.

This is a good idea and should have been done long ago.  This is the amendment, I believe will be approved by the Council.

Councilors also questioned whether the preliminary design study could work for an alternate site. Kearney said it would determine how an indoor pool would fit on the Spellerberg site and also provide information about operating costs and other amenities.

Sean Ervin, principal with TSP Architecture, said about two-thirds or three-fourths of the preliminary design could be applicable to another site; the rest would be Spellerberg-specific.

Why would the City be willing to spend $40,000-53,000 of the $160,000 specifically to see how an indoor pool would fit on the Spellerberg site if they were NOT still seriously considering that location?

“There have been a lot of questions, perception that we’re building an indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg, and that couldn’t be farther from the truth,” Councilor Dean Karksy said.

This statement clearly demonstrates Councilor Karsky’s lack of understanding of the indoor pool issue.  AND, how he continually panders to both sides on most city issues.  He obviously did not hear Don say at the work session that two public input meetings have been held, and participants gave a 70% approval rating of the Spellerberg site for an indoor pool!

Kearney said preliminary design work for an indoor aquatic center is key to moving forward because people need to see what the facility would look like and how it would fit on the site.

Another one of Don’s misleading statements.  The newly formed, SF Aquatics Association, and representatives from the swim teams met with TSP, the architect, several months ago to view preliminary plans for the indoor pool at Spellerberg.

Don’s entire demeanor at the Council’s work session demonstrated to me, “a desperate attempt to sidetrack any organized effort to stop the indoor pool at Spellerberg.”

They DO NOT want a repeat of the Drake Springs petition drive and public vote.