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.

 

24 comments ↓

#1 xdsteel on 09.14.12 at 8:31 am

Then quite complaining on the internet and do something about it.

#2 xdsteel on 09.14.12 at 8:32 am

*quit*

#3 Detroit Lewis on 09.14.12 at 8:41 am

Trust me, I have addressed the council several times about these ‘giveaways’. There argument is always the same, ‘Economic Impact.’ Yet all these projects haven’t affected my wallet one single bit.

#4 Muqhtar on 09.14.12 at 9:51 am

Why can’t they just name it Sanford like everything else here?

#5 Detroit Lewis on 09.14.12 at 9:53 am

How about Schanfeelds?

#6 Detroit Lewis on 09.14.12 at 9:59 am

This is what SF is becoming;

http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/education/naming-rights/naming-rights-sold-this-time-at-high-school-field

Love this quote;

“Why isn’t it called Taxpayers’ Stadium?” he said. “Where else
are you going to get a brick-and-mortar stadium worth $1.8 million named after
you for $100,000? Basically what you have is taxpayers subsidizing Rust-Oleum’s
advertising.”

#7 Pathloss on 09.14.12 at 11:10 am

The city budget is 330 million/year. There’s 150k population. That’s $150k each citizen per year. Name it after 7 citizens. Name everything else after 7 other citizens. Show me the money. There’s got to be something left after mayor & developer skimming.

#8 Pathloss on 09.14.12 at 11:17 am

I’m surprised the mayor didn’t hire 3 separate 100k consultants to name it Sanford. He’d have more thousand dollar bills to light his fireplaces at his estate outside city limits.

#9 Anthony D. Renli on 09.14.12 at 11:52 am

Or Pathloss – for those of us who can do math –
$330000000 / 150000 people = $2200

#10 xdsteel on 09.14.12 at 12:40 pm

What would you name it if you had that authority? I am being real here I am just curious.

#11 Muqhtar on 09.14.12 at 3:12 pm

The People’s Democratic Iceplex. That’s how they do things in North Korea, right?

#12 cr on 09.14.12 at 3:38 pm

As taxpayers, we are prudent to let ISA name the facility, Scheels Iceplex.

********************************************

The $1.5 million dollars taxpayers are contributing to the complex is a ONE-TIME DONATION!!

Future phases of the Iceplex (BTW, the Association has already presented plans for these future phases to the Park Board) need to be completed with PRIVATE funds and no further taxpayer involvement!

********************************************

If ISA (Ice Sports Association) is not able to open the facility debt-free as they have publicly stated, OR, if they run into financial problems later maintaining and operating the Iceplex, then let them look for a “bail-out” from their sponsor, Scheels, NOT THE TAXPAYERS!!!!

IN ADDITION, when the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) proceeds into a formal contract between the City and ISA, taxpayers need to moniter that this is a definitive agreement.

This was NOT the case in 2009 when Munson and his Administration fashioned the agreement between the Taxpayers and the South Dakota Junior Football Association.

At that time the City bonded for $5.7 million dollars for the Jr. Football Complex:

$4.2 million dollars donated by the taxpayers

$1.5 million dollars COMMITTED by South Dakota Jr. Football Association

Last month, THREE YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, the Association took possession of 9 of 12 fields at the new complex without having fulfilled the $1.5 million dollar commitment.

WHY DID THIS HAPPEN? Because the previous Administration FAILED to draw up a legally “sound” agreement!!!

********************************************

The following is taken directly from the MOU between the Taxpayers and the ISA:

2. Purchase and Ownership of Equipment. The City will use its best efforts to include in its 2013 Capital Improvement Plan, the CAPITAL acquisition of $1.5 million of equipment for the ice facilities. A preliminary list of the equipment that may be purchased by the City is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit B. The equipment will be owned by the City and become capital assets on the City’s balance sheets.

EXHIBIT B EQUIPMENT

1. Compressor and 3 Rink Pad Systems

**Alternate Items Based on Bid Results:

2. Dasher Board Systems for 3 Rinks

3. 2 Electric Zambonis and 2 Electric Edgers

*******************************************

I believe this equipment should be “donated” to ISA, and that the City should NOT retain ownership. This would open THE TAXPAYERS up to future expenses for repair and replacement.

In return for the ONE-TIME donation, taxpayers will receive Open Public Skating as spelled out in the MOU:

5. Open Public Skating. ISA will reserve ice for open public skating at no cost to the City. The number of hours of open public skating per week will be determined by mutual agreement of ISA and the City and set forth in a definitive agreement. It is ISA’s intent that open public skating hours will EXCEED the number of hours currently available at the Sioux Falls Ice and Recreation Center.

ULTIMATELY, it is the Council’s responsibility, as the stewards of our tax dollars to insure that an “air-tight” contract is drawn up between the City and the ISA!!

#13 Muqhtar on 09.14.12 at 3:59 pm

I somehow doubt Scheels will actually get roped into being on the hook for any cost overruns or other “extras”.

#14 Craig on 09.14.12 at 4:00 pm

Pathloss you have proven you suck at math, but don’t you think $150k per citizen would raise a red flag in your mind? That doesn’t pass the smell test for a sane person so I’m not sure how you managed to type it without thinking something must be amiss.

Also, I know it can be entertaining to break down the budget per citizen, but it is helpful to remember that businesses pay a lot of taxes to our fair city just as non-citizens chip in every time they head to Walmart, the Empire Mall, Menards, or head out to dinner at Olive Garden.

Your actual out of pocket taxes to the city on an annual basis are fairly low in comparison to most of our nation. I’m not suggesting the city couldn’t stand to trim some fat, but they are still doing a much better job than most.

I love your passion, but sometimes I feel you let your personal hatred of city administration cloud your common sense.

#15 Joan on 09.14.12 at 8:20 pm

I hope to heavens the mayor is kicked out next time around, and that is injured elbow keeps him disabled enough to not run for anything else—-he might run into another pole. I still maintain the parents of the kids that want these things should pay for them. I would think the city could bring in other recreation, than sports.

#16 l3wis on 09.14.12 at 11:30 pm

CR is right, and like I have said, I commend the ISA for their efforts. I look at this, kinda like tithing your church. The government isn’t going to sustain your parish, you have to, if you still want to worship their. If you want your kids to play hockey and swim or play tiddly-winks for all I care, pay for it out of your own pocket, give money to the ISA and the tennis association. Heck, help Mayor Subprime build a better arm, I don’t care. The part that cracks me up is the same people who bitch about ‘Obamacare’ and ‘foodstamps’ and ‘Social Security’ turn around and want a bailout from the city for their special interest sports.

Hypocrisy. If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be laughable.

#17 Greg Neitzert on 09.15.12 at 12:09 am

The part that cracked me up (and frankly raised my blood pressure) was how the Mayor and council fawned all over the packed house at the council meeting citing it as proof that ‘people really care about their city’. Excuse me, at the risk of sounding self serving and arrogant, but some of us watch or attend these meetings weekly just because we care, not because we have our hands out. I was commenting to a certain person sitting next to me (he’s pretty often at public input after talkin’ to a lot of people – hint hint) that the crowd we saw probably had never been to a council meeting (since the last two), and this was probably going to be their last. The only reason they bothered to show up was to get free money – and some brought their kids along to use as stage props while they begged.

I totally agree on the fact I have no ill will whatsoever towards any of the groups, I just don’t like the public-private partnership thing in general. Sounds nice in theory, but keeps ending up with the private group getting most of the benefit and profit, and we the taxpayers only get the risk and role of perpetual bailout fund. I’m also under no illusion that this will in any way provide access to tennis or hockey for anyone who didn’t already have the means to afford it anyway.

#18 l3wis on 09.15.12 at 10:53 am

“I’m also under no illusion that this will in any way provide access to tennis or hockey for anyone who didn’t already have the means to afford it anyway.”

Exactly. I have often argued to people if we are paying for something thru taxes, we should be able to use these places for free, just like the bike trail and parks. I’m not saying all the time, but there should be certain times you can go and not pay a fee. When the Pavilion has it’s free science center day once a month (not sure if they do it anymore) it is packed. Gee, I wonder why? I just get tired of paying for this stuff, then having to pay a fee to use them. It would be like the fire department sending you a bill for putting out a fire at your house.

#19 l3wis on 09.15.12 at 10:57 am

Greg – would also agree about the council meetings. The only time most of the people care about what is going on is when they want something. It is part of a selfish society. And our local government has given in. I think when Hanson left office city debt was at $90 million (2002) 10 years later we are sitting at $444 million. How does this happen? Selfishness and wants.

#20 rufusx on 09.16.12 at 10:52 am

The per person city budget numbers are indeed interesting. Being from a much smaller city – with much worse infrastructure – I can report that our “per person” city’s budget is about double (per person) that of Sioux Falls’. As in business – size -> economies of scale -> efficiency advantage.

#21 Muqhtar on 09.16.12 at 12:56 pm

Here’s what I don’t get and if anyone can explain this to me I’d love to know more. Sioux Falls Arena has an ice rink, right? When I first moved here and was looking for an ice rink to skate at I was told that it was never open to the public. Then I discovered they had open skating… but on a very limited basis (like 2-3 hrs/day 3 days of the week, weak!). Is the arena used THAT MUCH that they can’t accommodate more open skating? This winter nothing froze outside and I didn’t get to go skating once! And the times the Arena had open skating I always had to work or some other obligation.

#22 cr on 09.16.12 at 1:01 pm

No Need To Worry Muqhtar….

Thanks to our Mayor……

We will soon have a “refrigerated” ice skating rink downtown.

Oh, and BTW, the ANNUAL operating expenses will exceed $50,000……

Sounds like a PRIORITY to me………..!!!!!!!!!!

#23 anominous on 09.16.12 at 6:51 pm

Sanford should get with a truly world class sports medicine/doping program with all of these local athletes. That would really put Siuox Falls on the map.

#24 Detroit Lewis on 09.16.12 at 10:30 pm

and make sure they buy them drugs with a high-interest subprime FP credit card!

Leave a Comment