You make it pretty obvious that you do not have children. If you want another pool, why would you vote for another outdoor pool? Why not vote for no pool and save your fight against the indoor pool later? As I am guessing you would like to see no pool at all.
It’s time for another pool. Spellerburg is VA property. Stop attacking veterans. It’s an older neighborhood not near family’s with children. When the city shows some common sense with an appropriate location, I’ll vote for it. It should be outdoor but can be indoor if there’s practicality and budget.
Watertown is moving forward with an indoor pool, a 24 million dollar recreation center. The new center would include six gyms. The area would be used for multiple sports ranging from basketball to soccer, volleyball and wrestling. Initially they are planning for space for 2,000 minimum seating but that could change if it’s reconfigured. That could double as the project moves forward. The pool area would include a ten lane pool 25 meters both ways. This would increase the lanes from the current 8 and also provide additional spectator and participant space. There would also be a zero entrance pool to accommodate pool users who want to use it for leisure. That area would be used for fun and for those who cannot currently access the indoor pool. There would be a community room that could be used for meetings and birthday parties, a yoga room, fitness room, racketball court, and senior meeting area. There would be larger saunas and whirlpools with an upstairs walking and running track. The current track is 16 laps for a mile whereas the new track would be 7 laps per mile. There would also be a cardio workout area for adults and youth.
There are advantages and blessings to be living in 4 seasons. One of those advantages is to enjoy the great variety of activities each season has to offer. Go for it and enjoy them all as they cycle seasonally! Variety is the spice of life!
Great Bear just announced the end of their season. My family drives 4 hours to participate in the slope activities. They are, however, equally eager to move forward into summer’s fun activities.
The seasonal closing of Great Bear causes me to wonder how long it will be before a very small percentage of skiing enthusiasts will be crying because the public has not yet provided them with a year round indoor ski slope……just a thought!
The Watertown facility is an illustration of why the proposed indoor pool at Spellerberg Park is very short sighted. The plan for the indoor pool does not have enough parking, would have a negative impact on veterans’ access to the VA, and there is no room for additional development or growth of the pool. We should build an indoor pool that will serve the needs of Sioux Falls for 50 years. We need to get the plan right rather than build it right now. Vote YES for the outdoor pool.
I think its safe to say that there will probably be an additional indoor pool built, as well as additional recreation facilities.
Population of Watertown – approx. 22K (1/7th the size of SF) Why would they need more than one location for everything? You can drive from one place in H2Otown to an other place in about 10 minutes.
Winston, the city and Sanford arrived at the decision to NOT build until after the vote. Word is the Parks department wants to replace all the pools eventually with indoor facilities. Spellerberg is just the first. Sanford wanted to build a competitive pool but city wants to first. Watch Sanford build one soon after the ground breaks. It will probably be better for less money.
Man, I wish people would stop speaking for people that actually live in this neighborhood. Now, according to Dan Daily, families with children do not live in this neighborhood. Uh – I and many others would be the exception. The other lie is the parking at the VA which people have finally quit using as an argument because it never was or is going to be a problem – coming from this “mom” that actually lives in the neighborhood and drives by the VA and on 22nd and 26th daily. (Just a heads up – the other day – I was driving on 22nd St at 11:30am. There were a total of 12 cars parked on the street between Western and Kiwanis Ave. Sounds like a real parking problem!?!).
Just a request. There are citizens that reside in this neighborhood that want an indoor pool. Please stop speaking for the neighborhood. There are 10-12 50?, 60, & 70 year olds leading the Community Swim 80 vote. They have been the squeaky wheel but not any more. Our kids and families want something better and something that makes more common sense and we will fight for those reasons. Vote NO!
Lots of armchair comments from people who don’t walk the walk, including our gracious host.
Have any of you been to the SSC or even Great Bear at peak times? Both are busy and projected to get busier. This town is growing and one of the fastest increasing demographic areas are families with kids. Great Bear doesn’t need to be indoor, but it certainly needs to be twice the size if it’s going to keep pace with demand. SSC is projecting a million visitors a year when built out, and even if you head out there now on a Saturday you will likely run into volleyball, basketball, gymnastic, soccer and/or basketball players and families or some combination thereof, soon to add tennis and hockey. You build an indoor pool out there and you will see usage drop to current day Spellerberg levels as most people won’t want to drive 10-20 minutes to get there and most people won’t want to fight the traffic and parking of all those other visitors. Plus, why lease a site out there when we own a perfectly good one in the center of town? Makes zero sense especially since we end up spending $8 million still at Spellerberg for building the same thing that’s there now plus a couple slides and a lazy river.
Bionova’s own web site acknowledges that nature pools typically cost more to build than traditional pools as you need to build the pool to swim in and the regeneration pool next to it. Plus, as there are no local people who build these, if we wanted to build one we’d have to hire MLPS or some other out of state contractors to design and build it.
I’m sure you could build a nice one for $8 million, but it would likely be smaller than the existing pool and would essentially be a man made pond with none of the amenities (that kids want) that you see at Laurel, Terrace or Drake so that again would lead to low, probably lower than now, usage levels.
@ dan If you’re a vet getting care at the VA and you currently need aquatic therapy, you have to use the Children’s Care facility across 26th street.
According to my pal Tom Muenster, the VA director has emphatically stated they won’t use a therapy pool at Spellerberg under any circumstances, even though it’s not debatable that sending vets across 26th street is less safe then sending them to the other side of their parking lot. I’m also guessing that Children’s Care charges some type of fee for using their pool, whereas the City wouldn’t. So who’s really working in the Vets best overall interests here?
Rapid City, Cedar Falls and Omaha (x3) all have built indoor aquatic faculties in the center of their respective communities.
I would guess that if these things destroyed the neighborhoods as effectively as some of these naysayers want you to believe it would be quite easy to find people willing to step up and say so. If they bankrupted their municipalities I’d also submit that info would also be readily available and accessible. Don’t fall for this smoke screen, Vote NO on Apr. 8.
Sy, Use the Minneapolis experience in building a proper outdoor natural pool. It came in way under budget. They were able to now offer free swimming at this pool because of the difference. Its the future.
I think a natural pool is a cool idea, but it in no way will replace the aquatic centers that we’ve built and are proposing to build. Let’s be real, it’s a man made lake, in the land of 10K lakes. Why would they charge for it when a comparable lake is likely within a mile of it? Will kids swim there for free? Sure. Would they rather spend a day at the Waterpark of America? Of course they would and it’s not even a close call. Anyone who disputes that doesn’t have or know kids.
And it’s not “the” future, it’s “a” potential future that is in no way market driven. Same mindset says we should all be driving “smart” cars that are not much more than a go cart with walls. Great on gas mileage but God help you when you have a head on with a ’88 Lincoln town car.
Watertown is building a recreation center not just an indoor pool. What kind of additional growth are you talking about? A second 50 meter pool – don’t think so? Spellerberg will be an indoor pool/aquatics center not a recreation center. The VA will not be impacted. If for some unknown reason someone parks in the VA lot the VA security can have them towed. If the indoor pool is put out by the Sanford Sports Complex the usage will be cut in half of what it will be if built at Spellerberg. The SSC is a great place for team sports where practice or games are scheduled. An indoor swimming pool is totally different from the facilities at the SSC. People go there by themselves or with a group of friends. You don’t have to call ahead to see if you can use the field or rent it. People can pop in anytime they want. Location matters. For the 2 or 3 swim meets a year you don’t need access to motels and restaurants across the street. There are plenty of motels, eating and shopping throughout the town. For the 2 or3 meets a year parking will be arranged by the city. To take a bus to the SSC (if they set up a route for it) will cost more money, because of the extra transfers, plus will it run as often as the buses that go by Spellerberg? Don’t worry about the age demographics of the neighborhood the pool will be used by the whole city due to the demographics. There are getting more and more people in the 40 to 70 age group that are using the pools for low impact exercise. This age group just needs a reasonable priced pool that they can do laps or walking in. Vet usage of the pool: Because of how close Spellerberg is to the VA veteran would be more apt to use it just for low impact exercise. How many times do doctors tell their patients to exercise? I think this whole thing about impacting the VA got thrown into the cause, because the Save Spellerberg group couldn’t come up with any solid reason not to build an indoor pool at Spellerberg. Some people may park in a business parking lot that is designated for employees or customers only, but I don’t think they would park in a VA parking lot out of respect for veterans.
Watertown is building a $24 million rec center which includes an indoor pool. It will be paid for in full with revenue from sales tax and will not require bonding.
The $6.4 million cash down payment currently listed in the SF CIP for an indoor pool can be shifted (by a vote of the Council) to an outdoor pool if this is the will of the people on April 8th. An outdoor pool will require no bonding.
Both the indoor and outdoor drawings in the City’s educational presentations are CONCEPT drawings only. If voters choose the outdoor option, there will be public meetings held to gather info on what citizens really want in an outdoor pool at Spellerberg.
The following is indoor pool information 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)
Dear Anonymous: Thanks for the information again. With those numbers I say build it. Bonding is ok. If the outdoor pool vote passes the city will still be looking to build an indoor pool if not two. I very much doubt the city council will be shifting any funds designated for an indoor pool over to build the outdoor pool at Spellerberg.
I have closely followed city issues for many years.
The $6.4m which is currently listed in the CIP for the indoor pool was in fact for several years programmed into the CIP for replacing the outdoor pool at Spellerberg. It was only last September, when the Council moved the $6.4m from the outdoor pool to the indoor pool.
If the people vote in favor of an outdoor pool at Spellerberg, the ballot language MANDATES that this be accomplished by December 2015. This will essentially force the Council to move the funding back into the outdoor pool column.
As a taxpayer and voter you may be OK with bonding for over $13 million for a swimming pool, I am not. I have been out in our community talking to others about this issue for the past year. Those who believe taxpayers support a $20m indoor pool with operating costs of over $700,000 A YEAR do NOT have their hands on the pulse of this community.
@ Testor, where are you getting that taxes will go up solely due to an outdoor pool?
@ cr/anon
Yes, we’ve all seen your cut & paste from the consultants report that shows their projections for revenue vs. loss ad nausea. Like most propagandists, you only tell a part of the story. The rest of that consultants report is pretty clear; yes we need an indoor pool and Spellerberg is by far the best spot for it.
Little Watertown can build an indoor pool facility but SF can’t? That is NOT the attitude that put SF on the map. If you aren’t moving forward you are falling behind.
I am watching the candidate forum currently taking place at Carnegie. Councilor Erpenbach represents the Central District.
She just made an extensive statement about the outdoor pool at Spellerberg going into great detail about water leaking out of the pool as fast as it goes in.
This is inaccurate information.
In the past this has been an issue, but several years ago the pool was re-plumbed and the issue was resolved. This is confirmed both in the City-Wide Aquatics Master Plan and by Director of Parks and Recreation, Don Kearney, at a public meeting in 2013.
This involves a very contentious ballot issue, and it is extremely irresponsible of a sitting Councilor to convey inaccurate information to voters 19 days before the election!!!
Sy, there are a couple of things to consider. If the money is borrowed, the bonds are paid off with Sales Tax Revenue. This sales tax revenue could have been used for other purposes more urgent. When the sales tax revenue is used for urgent needs but on foolish wants, the city loses.
The consultant so many rest their dreams on is what we call a Hired Gun, meaning this group is hired because they will give the political rationale they were hired to give.
Don Kearney and special groups demanded an indoor pool since the rec center died, then Drake Springs died and then Spellerberg was allowed to go to hell so a justification could be made for the indoor pool would just be placed there. In the 50 mile expert consulting business, you writes the report the client needs so the check cn be cashed.
I put no reliance in a fancy report written for those who demand a certain answer going in.
FYI – out driving/walking around neighborhoods on the south side of SF today – circulating petitions. I saw a LOT of “vote no” on the outdoor pool signs in yards. I saw ZERO “vote yes” signs. I also saw a few Kiley signs and ZERO Schwan signs. Could this be a sign?
It’s a good thing Anon refreshes the FACTS periodically – this issue is generating more interest all the time, drawing more concerned voters to sources of info and discourse like this blog. This isn’t just YOUR haunt – not every reader sees every comment. . . . . not every blog visitor is a veteran blog visitor.
“Like most propagandists, you only tell a part of the story.“ Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! “The rest of that consultants (sic) report is pretty clear; yes we need an indoor pool and Spellerberg is by far the best spot for it.†Oh, please.
The C-H report is noteworthy as much for what it DOESN’T include as what it does include. Why did they omit from the SF report that which they included in their Dallas, TX report? :
A. Most aquatic users (90%) are recreational users who swim seasonally in the summer and they prefer to swim outside in warmer weather with a variety of water recreation features (slides, rivers, water play structures, etc.) Even residents in cold climates look forward swimming outdoors in the summer time.
B. Indoor pools are two to three times more expensive to build and operate per square foot than outdoor seasonal pools.
C. A well-designed outdoor family aquatic center will generate more revenue in 90-100 days than an indoor pool programmed for year round use.
D. Competition or Lap Pools are not the most conducive to lesson programming for learn to swim (water too cold and too deep), for recreation swimming (water too cold and too deep and no fun features), and for water aerobics (water too cold and too deep.)
(Source: Aquatics Facility Study, City of Dallas, Texas, 2012 Page 14 & 15 by Counsilman-Hunsaker)
Furthermore . . . . the past SF surveys – while showing that the public would support an indoor facility – but only if it is self-sufficient or subsidized by a donor/partner! The support drops to roughly a paltry 10% if the facility would have to be subsidized.
Lastly, the C-H study concluded that BOTH Spellerberg and the Sanford Sports Complex presented “No Known Issues†in meeting the requirements for their recommendations. So, what’s all the talk there’s no land left at Sanford OR that the City would have to spend million$ to buy it? Conversely, “No Known Issues†with Spellerberg? This quitclaim issue is the elephant in the corner of the room. The City is putting all this planning and $20m + $1m annually of taxpayer money on the line for a major project they THINK will meet the terms of the deed?!! It doesn’t behoove the VA to sound the battle cry until an indoor pool project nears groundbreaking. There is every possibility the US Government / Dept. of Veteran Affairs could say “Hold it RIGHT there, boys!†at the 11th hour and declare the indoor aquatic center to be in violation of the terms of the deed. It’s their bat and ball. VERY risky, reckless behavior on the part of our city leaders.
Good discussion here and great points on both sides. This is the one issue we will be voting on that I have no idea which way it will go.
Will it really impact my life either way? Probably not. The city won’t go broke from an indoor pool being built, the Veterans won’t suddenly be unable to find a parking spot, traffic won’t prevent someone from getting to Sanford in under 15 minutes, it won’t suddenly result in $20MM a year in additional tax revenue, and it won’t result in Sioux Falls earning the “most fit city” award from a glossy paged magazine.
It is a pool full of chlorinated city water… it won’t be a fountain of youth nor will it mirror the benefits of that pool featured in the movie Cocoon… although if the indoorers can promise me Wilford Brimley will be onsite for the opening, they might push me into their camp.
As to those signs rufus…. I hope the number of signs isn’t indicitive of how people vote. That would be incredibly sad. Plus, I’m not sure every group or candidate has bothered to even print them. In fact I wish I knew who did and who didn’t, because I hate political signs and if I was undecided on an issue or a candidate the one who DIDN’T print signs might earn my vote!
You make it pretty obvious that you do not have children. If you want another pool, why would you vote for another outdoor pool? Why not vote for no pool and save your fight against the indoor pool later? As I am guessing you would like to see no pool at all.
It’s time for another pool. Spellerburg is VA property. Stop attacking veterans. It’s an older neighborhood not near family’s with children. When the city shows some common sense with an appropriate location, I’ll vote for it. It should be outdoor but can be indoor if there’s practicality and budget.
Watertown is moving forward with an indoor pool, a 24 million dollar recreation center. The new center would include six gyms. The area would be used for multiple sports ranging from basketball to soccer, volleyball and wrestling. Initially they are planning for space for 2,000 minimum seating but that could change if it’s reconfigured. That could double as the project moves forward. The pool area would include a ten lane pool 25 meters both ways. This would increase the lanes from the current 8 and also provide additional spectator and participant space. There would also be a zero entrance pool to accommodate pool users who want to use it for leisure. That area would be used for fun and for those who cannot currently access the indoor pool. There would be a community room that could be used for meetings and birthday parties, a yoga room, fitness room, racketball court, and senior meeting area. There would be larger saunas and whirlpools with an upstairs walking and running track. The current track is 16 laps for a mile whereas the new track would be 7 laps per mile. There would also be a cardio workout area for adults and youth.
Vote no on the outdoor pool.
There are advantages and blessings to be living in 4 seasons. One of those advantages is to enjoy the great variety of activities each season has to offer. Go for it and enjoy them all as they cycle seasonally! Variety is the spice of life!
Great Bear just announced the end of their season. My family drives 4 hours to participate in the slope activities. They are, however, equally eager to move forward into summer’s fun activities.
The seasonal closing of Great Bear causes me to wonder how long it will be before a very small percentage of skiing enthusiasts will be crying because the public has not yet provided them with a year round indoor ski slope……just a thought!
Please vote YES for the outdoor pool at Spellerberg and visit http://www.spellerberg.org to learn about the option of a natural outdoor pool like the one opening at Webber Park in Minneapolis. http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/162538746.html
http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1286
These type of pools use no chemicals, are less expensive to build and operate, and esthetically compliment the landscape.
Press conference is being scheduled. Also see letter to editor on 3-18-14.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20140318/VOICES09/303180011?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom
Hey Titleist,
The Watertown facility is an illustration of why the proposed indoor pool at Spellerberg Park is very short sighted. The plan for the indoor pool does not have enough parking, would have a negative impact on veterans’ access to the VA, and there is no room for additional development or growth of the pool. We should build an indoor pool that will serve the needs of Sioux Falls for 50 years. We need to get the plan right rather than build it right now. Vote YES for the outdoor pool.
Why can’t Sanford just build us a big indoor pool out by the Pentagon?
Mr. Daily – where do you get your demographic information? Obviously it’s not from the Census.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/sd/sioux-falls/
Demographics for the area West and South of Spellerberg neighborhood:
Age
under 5: 5.4%
6 – 17: 12.6%
18 – 29: 15.2%
30-44: 14.6%
45 – 64: 28.4%
65 + : 23.8%
Demographics for the area East of Spellerberg neighborhood:
Age
under 5: 6%
6 – 17: 10.9%
18 – 29: 38%
30-44: 15.4%
45 – 64: 18.1%
65 + : 11.9%
I think its safe to say that there will probably be an additional indoor pool built, as well as additional recreation facilities.
Population of Watertown – approx. 22K (1/7th the size of SF) Why would they need more than one location for everything? You can drive from one place in H2Otown to an other place in about 10 minutes.
Winston, the city and Sanford arrived at the decision to NOT build until after the vote. Word is the Parks department wants to replace all the pools eventually with indoor facilities. Spellerberg is just the first. Sanford wanted to build a competitive pool but city wants to first. Watch Sanford build one soon after the ground breaks. It will probably be better for less money.
Man, I wish people would stop speaking for people that actually live in this neighborhood. Now, according to Dan Daily, families with children do not live in this neighborhood. Uh – I and many others would be the exception. The other lie is the parking at the VA which people have finally quit using as an argument because it never was or is going to be a problem – coming from this “mom” that actually lives in the neighborhood and drives by the VA and on 22nd and 26th daily. (Just a heads up – the other day – I was driving on 22nd St at 11:30am. There were a total of 12 cars parked on the street between Western and Kiwanis Ave. Sounds like a real parking problem!?!).
Just a request. There are citizens that reside in this neighborhood that want an indoor pool. Please stop speaking for the neighborhood. There are 10-12 50?, 60, & 70 year olds leading the Community Swim 80 vote. They have been the squeaky wheel but not any more. Our kids and families want something better and something that makes more common sense and we will fight for those reasons. Vote NO!
Lots of armchair comments from people who don’t walk the walk, including our gracious host.
Have any of you been to the SSC or even Great Bear at peak times? Both are busy and projected to get busier. This town is growing and one of the fastest increasing demographic areas are families with kids. Great Bear doesn’t need to be indoor, but it certainly needs to be twice the size if it’s going to keep pace with demand. SSC is projecting a million visitors a year when built out, and even if you head out there now on a Saturday you will likely run into volleyball, basketball, gymnastic, soccer and/or basketball players and families or some combination thereof, soon to add tennis and hockey. You build an indoor pool out there and you will see usage drop to current day Spellerberg levels as most people won’t want to drive 10-20 minutes to get there and most people won’t want to fight the traffic and parking of all those other visitors. Plus, why lease a site out there when we own a perfectly good one in the center of town? Makes zero sense especially since we end up spending $8 million still at Spellerberg for building the same thing that’s there now plus a couple slides and a lazy river.
@ nature
Bionova’s own web site acknowledges that nature pools typically cost more to build than traditional pools as you need to build the pool to swim in and the regeneration pool next to it. Plus, as there are no local people who build these, if we wanted to build one we’d have to hire MLPS or some other out of state contractors to design and build it.
I’m sure you could build a nice one for $8 million, but it would likely be smaller than the existing pool and would essentially be a man made pond with none of the amenities (that kids want) that you see at Laurel, Terrace or Drake so that again would lead to low, probably lower than now, usage levels.
@ dan If you’re a vet getting care at the VA and you currently need aquatic therapy, you have to use the Children’s Care facility across 26th street.
According to my pal Tom Muenster, the VA director has emphatically stated they won’t use a therapy pool at Spellerberg under any circumstances, even though it’s not debatable that sending vets across 26th street is less safe then sending them to the other side of their parking lot. I’m also guessing that Children’s Care charges some type of fee for using their pool, whereas the City wouldn’t. So who’s really working in the Vets best overall interests here?
Rapid City, Cedar Falls and Omaha (x3) all have built indoor aquatic faculties in the center of their respective communities.
I would guess that if these things destroyed the neighborhoods as effectively as some of these naysayers want you to believe it would be quite easy to find people willing to step up and say so. If they bankrupted their municipalities I’d also submit that info would also be readily available and accessible. Don’t fall for this smoke screen, Vote NO on Apr. 8.
Sy, Use the Minneapolis experience in building a proper outdoor natural pool. It came in way under budget. They were able to now offer free swimming at this pool because of the difference. Its the future.
I think a natural pool is a cool idea, but it in no way will replace the aquatic centers that we’ve built and are proposing to build. Let’s be real, it’s a man made lake, in the land of 10K lakes. Why would they charge for it when a comparable lake is likely within a mile of it? Will kids swim there for free? Sure. Would they rather spend a day at the Waterpark of America? Of course they would and it’s not even a close call. Anyone who disputes that doesn’t have or know kids.
And it’s not “the” future, it’s “a” potential future that is in no way market driven. Same mindset says we should all be driving “smart” cars that are not much more than a go cart with walls. Great on gas mileage but God help you when you have a head on with a ’88 Lincoln town car.
Watertown is building a recreation center not just an indoor pool. What kind of additional growth are you talking about? A second 50 meter pool – don’t think so? Spellerberg will be an indoor pool/aquatics center not a recreation center. The VA will not be impacted. If for some unknown reason someone parks in the VA lot the VA security can have them towed. If the indoor pool is put out by the Sanford Sports Complex the usage will be cut in half of what it will be if built at Spellerberg. The SSC is a great place for team sports where practice or games are scheduled. An indoor swimming pool is totally different from the facilities at the SSC. People go there by themselves or with a group of friends. You don’t have to call ahead to see if you can use the field or rent it. People can pop in anytime they want. Location matters. For the 2 or 3 swim meets a year you don’t need access to motels and restaurants across the street. There are plenty of motels, eating and shopping throughout the town. For the 2 or3 meets a year parking will be arranged by the city. To take a bus to the SSC (if they set up a route for it) will cost more money, because of the extra transfers, plus will it run as often as the buses that go by Spellerberg? Don’t worry about the age demographics of the neighborhood the pool will be used by the whole city due to the demographics. There are getting more and more people in the 40 to 70 age group that are using the pools for low impact exercise. This age group just needs a reasonable priced pool that they can do laps or walking in. Vet usage of the pool: Because of how close Spellerberg is to the VA veteran would be more apt to use it just for low impact exercise. How many times do doctors tell their patients to exercise? I think this whole thing about impacting the VA got thrown into the cause, because the Save Spellerberg group couldn’t come up with any solid reason not to build an indoor pool at Spellerberg. Some people may park in a business parking lot that is designated for employees or customers only, but I don’t think they would park in a VA parking lot out of respect for veterans.
Some “pool” clarifications:
Watertown is building a $24 million rec center which includes an indoor pool. It will be paid for in full with revenue from sales tax and will not require bonding.
The $6.4 million cash down payment currently listed in the SF CIP for an indoor pool can be shifted (by a vote of the Council) to an outdoor pool if this is the will of the people on April 8th. An outdoor pool will require no bonding.
Both the indoor and outdoor drawings in the City’s educational presentations are CONCEPT drawings only. If voters choose the outdoor option, there will be public meetings held to gather info on what citizens really want in an outdoor pool at Spellerberg.
The following is indoor pool information 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.
Dear Anonymous: Thanks for the information again. With those numbers I say build it. Bonding is ok. If the outdoor pool vote passes the city will still be looking to build an indoor pool if not two. I very much doubt the city council will be shifting any funds designated for an indoor pool over to build the outdoor pool at Spellerberg.
“Thanks for the information again. With those numbers I say build it. Bonding is ok.
Thanks for the I don’t care how much my taxes go up as long as I can say Sioux Falls has a pool I won’t use.
Harry,
I have closely followed city issues for many years.
The $6.4m which is currently listed in the CIP for the indoor pool was in fact for several years programmed into the CIP for replacing the outdoor pool at Spellerberg. It was only last September, when the Council moved the $6.4m from the outdoor pool to the indoor pool.
If the people vote in favor of an outdoor pool at Spellerberg, the ballot language MANDATES that this be accomplished by December 2015. This will essentially force the Council to move the funding back into the outdoor pool column.
As a taxpayer and voter you may be OK with bonding for over $13 million for a swimming pool, I am not. I have been out in our community talking to others about this issue for the past year. Those who believe taxpayers support a $20m indoor pool with operating costs of over $700,000 A YEAR do NOT have their hands on the pulse of this community.
@ Testor, where are you getting that taxes will go up solely due to an outdoor pool?
@ cr/anon
Yes, we’ve all seen your cut & paste from the consultants report that shows their projections for revenue vs. loss ad nausea. Like most propagandists, you only tell a part of the story. The rest of that consultants report is pretty clear; yes we need an indoor pool and Spellerberg is by far the best spot for it.
Little Watertown can build an indoor pool facility but SF can’t? That is NOT the attitude that put SF on the map. If you aren’t moving forward you are falling behind.
Build the indoor PUBLIC pool. Build it now.
Progress!
Spellerberg Park is in the Central District.
I am watching the candidate forum currently taking place at Carnegie. Councilor Erpenbach represents the Central District.
She just made an extensive statement about the outdoor pool at Spellerberg going into great detail about water leaking out of the pool as fast as it goes in.
This is inaccurate information.
In the past this has been an issue, but several years ago the pool was re-plumbed and the issue was resolved. This is confirmed both in the City-Wide Aquatics Master Plan and by Director of Parks and Recreation, Don Kearney, at a public meeting in 2013.
This involves a very contentious ballot issue, and it is extremely irresponsible of a sitting Councilor to convey inaccurate information to voters 19 days before the election!!!
Sy, there are a couple of things to consider. If the money is borrowed, the bonds are paid off with Sales Tax Revenue. This sales tax revenue could have been used for other purposes more urgent. When the sales tax revenue is used for urgent needs but on foolish wants, the city loses.
The consultant so many rest their dreams on is what we call a Hired Gun, meaning this group is hired because they will give the political rationale they were hired to give.
Don Kearney and special groups demanded an indoor pool since the rec center died, then Drake Springs died and then Spellerberg was allowed to go to hell so a justification could be made for the indoor pool would just be placed there. In the 50 mile expert consulting business, you writes the report the client needs so the check cn be cashed.
I put no reliance in a fancy report written for those who demand a certain answer going in.
FYI – out driving/walking around neighborhoods on the south side of SF today – circulating petitions. I saw a LOT of “vote no” on the outdoor pool signs in yards. I saw ZERO “vote yes” signs. I also saw a few Kiley signs and ZERO Schwan signs. Could this be a sign?
Sy.
Sy.
Sy.
It’s a good thing Anon refreshes the FACTS periodically – this issue is generating more interest all the time, drawing more concerned voters to sources of info and discourse like this blog. This isn’t just YOUR haunt – not every reader sees every comment. . . . . not every blog visitor is a veteran blog visitor.
“Like most propagandists, you only tell a part of the story.“ Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! “The rest of that consultants (sic) report is pretty clear; yes we need an indoor pool and Spellerberg is by far the best spot for it.†Oh, please.
The C-H report is noteworthy as much for what it DOESN’T include as what it does include. Why did they omit from the SF report that which they included in their Dallas, TX report? :
A. Most aquatic users (90%) are recreational users who swim seasonally in the summer and they prefer to swim outside in warmer weather with a variety of water recreation features (slides, rivers, water play structures, etc.) Even residents in cold climates look forward swimming outdoors in the summer time.
B. Indoor pools are two to three times more expensive to build and operate per square foot than outdoor seasonal pools.
C. A well-designed outdoor family aquatic center will generate more revenue in 90-100 days than an indoor pool programmed for year round use.
D. Competition or Lap Pools are not the most conducive to lesson programming for learn to swim (water too cold and too deep), for recreation swimming (water too cold and too deep and no fun features), and for water aerobics (water too cold and too deep.)
(Source: Aquatics Facility Study, City of Dallas, Texas, 2012 Page 14 & 15 by Counsilman-Hunsaker)
Furthermore . . . . the past SF surveys – while showing that the public would support an indoor facility – but only if it is self-sufficient or subsidized by a donor/partner! The support drops to roughly a paltry 10% if the facility would have to be subsidized.
Lastly, the C-H study concluded that BOTH Spellerberg and the Sanford Sports Complex presented “No Known Issues†in meeting the requirements for their recommendations. So, what’s all the talk there’s no land left at Sanford OR that the City would have to spend million$ to buy it? Conversely, “No Known Issues†with Spellerberg? This quitclaim issue is the elephant in the corner of the room. The City is putting all this planning and $20m + $1m annually of taxpayer money on the line for a major project they THINK will meet the terms of the deed?!! It doesn’t behoove the VA to sound the battle cry until an indoor pool project nears groundbreaking. There is every possibility the US Government / Dept. of Veteran Affairs could say “Hold it RIGHT there, boys!†at the 11th hour and declare the indoor aquatic center to be in violation of the terms of the deed. It’s their bat and ball. VERY risky, reckless behavior on the part of our city leaders.
Good discussion here and great points on both sides. This is the one issue we will be voting on that I have no idea which way it will go.
Will it really impact my life either way? Probably not. The city won’t go broke from an indoor pool being built, the Veterans won’t suddenly be unable to find a parking spot, traffic won’t prevent someone from getting to Sanford in under 15 minutes, it won’t suddenly result in $20MM a year in additional tax revenue, and it won’t result in Sioux Falls earning the “most fit city” award from a glossy paged magazine.
It is a pool full of chlorinated city water… it won’t be a fountain of youth nor will it mirror the benefits of that pool featured in the movie Cocoon… although if the indoorers can promise me Wilford Brimley will be onsite for the opening, they might push me into their camp.
As to those signs rufus…. I hope the number of signs isn’t indicitive of how people vote. That would be incredibly sad. Plus, I’m not sure every group or candidate has bothered to even print them. In fact I wish I knew who did and who didn’t, because I hate political signs and if I was undecided on an issue or a candidate the one who DIDN’T print signs might earn my vote!