The final word on an indoor pool at Spellerberg: The city cheats at the game

by

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;

  1. There was not an ‘indoor pool’ on the ballot
  2. There was not enough funding set aside for an indoor pool in the budget before the election
  3. 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;

  1. A quit claim deed with the VA which could be preventing the city from getting a bond for the pool.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

Posted in: Elections, SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

UPDATED: Did Huether plagiarize his Heritage Alliance speech? (H/T – Old Style)

by

UPDATED: I was told from someone in attendance that he was reading from a book, but it was unclear what book and he didn’t cite the author.

Things are getting stranger by the day.

Here is the thing Huether was reading from:
It wasn’t even a real bible quote.  This missionary chick author just wrote it after thinking on a few bible verses.

January 9

I am with you and for you. When you decide on a course of action that is in line with My will, nothing in heaven or on earth can stop you. You may encounter many obstacles as you move toward your goal, but don’t be discouraged—never give up! With My help, you can overcome any obstacle. Do not expect an easy path as you journey hand in hand with Me, but do remember that I, your very-present Helper, am omnipotent.

Much, much stress results from your wanting to make things happen before their times have come. One of the main ways I assert My sovereignty is in the timing of events. If you want to stay close to Me and do things My way, ask Me to show you the path forward moment by moment. Instead of dashing headlong toward your goal, let Me set the pace. Slow down, and enjoy the journey in My Presence.

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?
—Romans 8:31

God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, Even though the earth be removed, And though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;Though its waters roar and be troubled, Though the mountains shake with its swelling.
—Psalm 46:1–3 nkjv

Posted in: Mike Huether

Mayor Huether’s Diamond Lake home

by

I wanted to post about the mayor’s lake home because it is a question I get quite often. There seems to be some confusion on how he attained the property, and as far as I can tell, has the only lake front property (there is a farm on the other side of the lake adjacent to it).

Okay, I can’t see that the mayor attained the property in any sort of nefarious way, this from the SD GFP;

Ownership of Lake and Adjacent Lakeshore Properties
Diamond Lake is listed as meandered public water in the State of South Dakota Listing of Meandered Lakes. Game, Fish, and Parks (GFP) owns the majority of the lake basin as a Game Production Area and manages the fishery. The remainder of the shoreline is privately owned.
As you can see from the Google map images (2012) a special road had to be built to the home. I know many people who fish on that lake, and have witnessed the mayor having ‘get togethers’ at it.
While I commend anybody who is successful to build lake homes, it befuddles me that he would want to have the only home on the lake and when does he find time to stay at it? (it is located in Minnehaha county in rural Colton).
So just for the record, as far as I can tell, it’s his place, free and clear. Just trying to dispel any rumors.
lakehome
lakehome2
Posted in: Mike Huether, Minnehaha County

Drainage, trees, cops and an inept city legal department

by

Once again, as if the city’s legal department didn’t learn a lesson when the SD Supreme Court and Open Meetings Commission handed them their asses in three major cases and an open meetings violation, they continue to make crap up as they go along;

City loses access to Tuthill Park Hills drainage project

Oct 5, 2013 • J.L. Atyeo • Argusleader

Residents along a backyard creek in southeast Sioux Falls have halted a drainage project for now by showing the city does not have access to their land.

The city had planned to address an erosion issue in the Otonka channel, where increased flows have cut steep banks and threaten to topple trees. A group of residents in the Otonka Trail area didn’t like that the plans involved removing trees that create a natural oasis in their urban neighborhood.

They had lawyer Mark Meierhenry review the original 1964 plat for the Tuthill Park Hills Addition, and he found the city has no easement rights to develop the drainage channel.

Given that the city has used the channel for drainage for the past 49 years, assistant city attorney Paul Bengford said the city could have developed prescriptive easement. Others argue the channel never was meant to be used for drainage.

To clear things up, the city could ask residents to sign a new easement, but gathering support probably would be a challenge.

“We can’t really do the project without getting everyone on board,” said Andy Berg, the city’s principal drainage engineer.

Jarrod Edelen, who lives along the creek, said he’d rather maintain the channel himself. He’s been talking with neighbors about what they could do to preserve the area.

He doesn’t deny, though, that there is a drainage problem. He and the city disagree on its source.

Some residents say flows increased when land along 49th Street was developed, causing water to be sent downhill toward Otonka.

The city’s Public Works Department is researching the issue. Director Mark Cotter said they plan to update residents next week and hold a follow-up meeting.

“We certainly want to work with the neighborhood,” he said.

The easement issue came up during a meeting the city hosted Sept. 26. Before public works officials could present project plans, Cindy Ahrendt-Sivesind, a resident who has been vocal in her opposition to the project, handed out copies of Meierhenry’s opinion that says the city has no drainage easement.

“They’ve got a problem,” she said.

Some complained it was unnecessary to have two police officers present at the meeting. Cotter said it’s common to have an officer at a public meeting, and there were two at the Otonka Trail meeting because one was a training officer.

Here we go down the same path where when the city wants something they get their ‘crack’ legal team on it. Say what you will about Meierhenry, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar, a former AG knows a little bit more about city and state law then Mr. Code Enforcement city attorney Bengford, who consistently twists city ordinances so much they look like the nipple of a sow who just had 20 piglets.

As for the coppers at the meeting. WOW. Talk about intimidation. So now we need a police presence when people talk about ‘drainage’? Next time I advise the group to all be brandishing pistols on their hips when they attend a public meeting. Pretty ridiculous? Right? Just as ridiculous as having a couple of pigs attend a meeting about ditches.

Wonder if police officers attend meetings with developers when they are asking for bulkheads and TIF’s from the city? Or if they are just handed a thick envelope and go merrily on their way to a hospital lunch counter or fast food parking lot.

Posted in: Sioux Falls

New DT spray park debuts

by

Image, Argusleader.com

Notice the PUBLICLY FUNDED spray park is only a few feet from a private hotel. I am assuming it is sitting in front of one of the restaurants, so the diners can view the park. There is a patio door just to the right on the image. This has been my biggest contention with this spray park, it is virtually sitting on private property, and not any old business, a very successful hotel chain. Seriously!? Why should the public pay for this? I think a better option would be a partnership. Tax payers pay for the park and maintenance (parts, mechanical replacement, etc) and have the hotel pay for the energy, operation and water purification costs. Remember, this park is not sitting by the bike trail, you literally have to walk up a ramp to get to it from the bike trail. It is actually more easily accessible from the hotel then from the bike trail.

When I was recently in Ft. Collins they had a spray park like this that was identical in scope and size. It was sitting on a public right away boardwalk in front of a publicly funded art museum in the middle of DT. Wouldn’t something like this be awesome in front of the Pavilion or at Falls Park? Why would we put a public spray park only a couple of feet from a privately owned hotel? Is this blatant corporate welfare? Why should I have to pay to entertain guests at a privately owned hotel?

I did hear a funny comment about the spray park and it’s close proximity to the hotel restaurant, this person said; “What a sight it will be enjoying your morning breakfast and looking out at the spray park watching the homeless bath.”

Well it is publicly funded, so what’s stopping them from doing it?

Posted in: Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec