Entries Tagged 'Sioux Falls Parks and Rec' ↓

One of the many things the Indoorers are pushing for is a therapy pool if an indoor pool is built at Spellerberg for the Vets;

At Tues evening’s May 14th city council meeting, during the public comment section, there was an organized effort by indoor pool supporters to cheer-lead the issue of placement of an indoor aquatic complex in Spellerberg Park.  It is to be noted that none of those speakers addressed the LACK OF CLEAR TITLE regarding the land called Spellerberg Park.

One talking point made by Mr Sommervold is the inclusion of a therapy pool for veterans.  Who is promising this?  ACCORDING TO THE POWER POINT HANDED OUT AT THE CITY COUNCIL’S INFORMATIONAL MEETING, THERE IS NO THERAPY POOL INCLUDED IN THE NEW AQUATIC POOL PLAN from Counsilman-Hunsaker.    The power point says they are recommending option 5 (large indoor) defined as: Indoor 50 meter by 25 yard competition pool with springboard diving and separate 3750 sq ft indoor leisure pool with current channel and waterslide.

This apparently means the plan would have to be changed before the council could vote on acceptance/rejection, or someone is making empty promises to veterans.  Furthermore, adding a therapy pool  for veterans to option 5 will significantly increase cost above the $18M plus being suggested right now.  Incidentally, this money will need to be borrowed and added to our present city debt of $398,868,664 as of December 31, 2012.

While I think this is a great idea and a nice gesture, we have to wonder if this is just a false campaign promise;

We attended the 4pm council meeting May 14th and I picked up a copy of the power point used to present the aquatic plan to the council.  Option 5 below is copied from the power point. There is no therapy pool in the plan. From a bit of researching others have done, the water needs to kept much warmer (10 degrees or more) than for regular pools.  Also, I have been told, there are other physical differences between a therapy pool and a regular leisure pool.  Additionally there is the issue of employing therapists.  A therapy pool would significantly increase the current estimated cost of the Counsilman-Hunsaker plan!

The issue is that a therapy pool is not in the plan before the city council, but it is being dangled out there as probability or even possibly a “done deal”, and you voters/veterans will need to support the current plan to help us get this accomplished.  The second part of the issue is who is the source of this talk or proposal?

So who is floating this idea? The mayor? Or the Indoorers? Either way, doesn’t matter because it is NOT in the current Indoor pool plan. I hope once the indoor pool fails at Spellerberg, the city finally awakens from their deep sleep and either builds a pool at one of the HS’s or at the Sanford Sports Complex. It is no secret who will be using a public indoor pool, people who competitively swim, so put it where it would get the best use. Duh.

Okay, more speculation from SF #1 conspiracy theorist, Detroit Lewis.

After watching public input last night at the regular council meeting, I became a bit suspicious as to why 25 minutes was spent on a non-agenda item, an indoor pool at Spellerberg. In an almost rehearsed well choreographed presentation, each speaker came up to the podium to tell the mayor and council why we need an indoor pool at Spellerberg. At first I thought, “Shouldn’t they be addressing the public (voters) instead of the mayor and council?” The issue whether we build an ‘outdoor’ pool at Spellerberg will be on the municipal ballot in 2014. The key word here is ‘Outdoor’ I also found it a bit strange since the election was over a year away. When Citizen Stenga approached the podium and made this remark, “It’s a good thing CITIZENS will be voting on this.”

Or will they?

I’ve been researching whether the mayor and city council can legally trump the Spellerberg petitioners by either;

- Approving an indoor facility before the election, which could possibly make their petitions null and void, OR

- Putting an indoor facility on the ballot with the outdoor facility. This seems more like a reality. Why? Well the Spellerberg petitioners kind of pigeon holed themselves by setting a price tag for an outdoor pool, where the city can pretty much just say;

Do you want a $7 million dollar outdoor facility that you can only use 3 months out of the year, OR an indoor facility (Pricetag to be determined) that you can use all year?

Obviously this wouldn’t be the EXACT ballot language, but you get the gist of what I am getting at. City Hall is up to something. The city has been denied an indoor facility TWICE by the voters, and there is certain people in City Hall that are not going to let the VOTERS turn this down again. Keep your eyes peeled, something smells fishy.

Citizen Stenga & Tree Trimming

As I mentioned above, Tim gave another Oscar performance last night. Besides the pool issue, Tim talked about the city trimming boulevard trees. He said, in the past during Project TRIM, the city would charge you $150 per tree to trim your (their) boulevard trees, but during the ice storm that city was paying anywhere from $30 to $90 per tree for contractors to trim back any hangers or potential troublesome branches (according to Tim). Tim questioned the difference, he also questioned why isn’t the city just trimming these trees all the time? To which the mayor blurted out “We are not trimming the trees!” Ah, yes you are, because one of my boulevard trees was trimmed, and I did not do it. So either the city did it, a contractor they hired did it, or the tree fairies came in the middle of the night and did it. Either way Mike, your lies are going to start catching up with you, you wouldn’t want to make GOD unhappy with you? Would you?

City will buy the State Theatre a film projector

(to help underpriviledged kids watch movies for FREE).

The city approved the $63,000 expenditure as long as the State gives away FREE tickets to ‘deprived’ kids in exchange.

(Image: KELO-TV)

City ordinance was changed last night to allow the Overlook Café to apply for a malt beverage license and sell alcohol during regular business hours.

I am all for the café providing alcohol during special and catered events. The café has done this in the past, but I am have trouble grasping why they need to sell during regular hours?

Good question.

First off, I don’t think this is going to add much to the Overlook Café’s bottom line. Many other family restaurants/cafes downtown provide beer and wine, and most would tell you that it really doesn’t help/or harm the business, so why the big push at Overlook?

WILD SPECULATION

Remember what the first proposal for the Overlook Café was? It was proposed to make it a fine dining, privately ran full service restaurant. I cannot recall why that idea was ever turned down, but I do know that it is something that CAN be done in the future simply by changing the contract or lease agreement.

You will have to give Milstead credit, she understands that working with local government, you have to take baby steps all the way. Her husband has worked in public service most of his life, he for one knows things don’t get done overnight. Milstead understands her first step was getting approval of this ordinance change and eventually her license. I ‘speculate’ once she proves she can provide alcohol safely during regular business hours she will propose changing the café into a full-service restaurant, and she may even want to take it a step further by changing the way the café profit shares with the city and convert it to a lease agreement.

This of course is speculation on my part, but I am still scratching my head why she fought so hard to sell beer with ice cream cones, hot dogs and cookies. .

Don’t get me wrong, I think a full-service restaurant in that location is a wonderful idea, and have often wondered why it was turned down to begin with. Food for thought.

I find it interesting the consultant said it was a bad location. So why did the city try to build an indoor pool there twice? Why? Because they WANTED to!

An anonymous person contributed to this post.

Something stood out in Tuesday’s City Council Informational meeting.

It was during the Overlook Cafe presentation.

Mike Milstead’s wife, Rhonda, appeared at both meetings.  She did a small event at the Overlook last year for Winter Wonderland, and now is the only vendor that submitted a proposal for the five-year contract.  Somehow she has convinced them to allow alcohol in the park.

There are over 70 parks in the system and 12 of them prohibit alcohol, Falls Park being one of them.  I am surprised that none of the councilors questioned this.

So, at the same time they are discussing safety at the Falls, the Mayor is going to approve a long-term contract to allow alcohol?  This seems somewhat incongruent!

The management agreement is up on the website (agenda item #16).  (PDF of Document: agreement) The only place that I even see this mentioned is under liquor liability insurance, and then again in Exhibit A under Manager Responsibilities.  #7.  Manager agrees that the use of beer and wine is intended for private rentals/caterings and to complement park patrons dining experience.  Alcohol may not be the focus of advertising or offered as a “special” such as “bucket night” or 2-for-1 promotion.

This seems like a major shift in policy regarding this city property.

I also question why the county sheriff’s wife is the only person to submit an RFP, which includes selling alcohol?

After reading Argue Endorser’s managing editor’s ‘column’ about indoor pools (or should I say, muttling thru it). I have to wonder why logic is never factored into these ‘discussions.’

Opponents of the as-yet-still-hypothetical idea of building an indoor pool at Spellerberg Park to replace the leaking 45-year-old outdoor model that currently sits there said this week they’ve gathered about 7,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Oh, goody.

Perhaps it can go on the same ballot as whether we should have snowgates.

This is hilarious, on many levels. For one, there is nothing ‘hypothetical’ about an indoor pool at Spellerberg. The city has been hammering this idea for over a year, and when they put out their aquatic study on Thursday, like a broken record, guess what? Indoor pool at Spellerberg.

The other part is Pat’s statement about snowgates. You would think the managing editor of the city’s only daily would know that snowgates are already on the 2014 ballot, which is probably where this issue will be. But maybe he can invite the mayor’s wife on his show to talk about it, or at least inform him about the latest ‘special interest club sport’ that needs money from the city.

This whole indoor pool debate is not complicated OR philosophical. It is pretty simple.

We don’t need a public indoor pool, because . . .

1) There are plenty of private facilities in SF already you can pay a ‘fee’ and swim at. We don’t need taxpayer’s to subsidize it.

2) If we really want to build one it needs to be in a location where there is available expansion (like RC did) OR in conjunction with the school district. I am not opposed to public entities, but they should get maximum usage.

3) Lastly, on a snarky point, ‘single’ issue people drive me bonkers. Whether it is pools, or dog parks, pickleball, a word of advice. Diversify your life. You can play tennis and swim in the summer. You can ski and ice fish in the winter. That is the advantage of living in our climate.

My prediction is that an indoor pool at Spellerberg will get voted down. A handful of swimming advocates are not going to tow the line for the electorate. This is a democracy folks, that is just how it works.

Watch the ’100 Eyes’ show today in which they have the mayor’s wife on (that is not disclosed in the show) Scroll down to the videos in the middle of the page.

It doesn’t sit well with me that the city is donating $500,000 to a facility that the Mayor’s wife is helping to promote. This is a blatant conflict of interest having our mayor pull a half-million out of the CIP to promote a club sport that he just happens to be a part of with his wife.

As Cindy Huether says, “The stars just aligned.” Ah, yeah, right.

And apparently there is such a HUGE need for the facility, because their FB page has 147 LIKES.

The SAVE Spellerberg petitioners will announce their intentions after turning in petitions today. As I understand it, they plan to put it to a VOTE in the 2014 Spring Election. I also found out last night at DaCola Fest that the Snowgate test results, the Aquatics study and the City Survey results will be coming out soon. I guess the mayor’s office is reviewing them all right now.

Looks like the city, once again, is doing what they do best, wasting money on consultants;

Public Focus Group to Determine Future of City Aquatics Program

Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation needs your help! The community is invited to attend a public focus group meeting to discuss the future of the City?s aquatics program.

The focus group will meet at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, January 24, at Kuehn Community Center, attached to Oscar Howe Elementary School, located at 2801 South Valley View Road.

The City of Sioux Falls has retained Counsilman-Hunsaker and Associates, a national aquatics consultant, to create a citywide aquatics facility master plan. This plan will serve as a ten-year road map for both existing and proposed new aquatic facilities.

Public feedback is necessary to gauge the needs and desires of the community, identify aquatic offerings currently available within the community, and help shape the future of aquatics for the city of Sioux Falls.

“In order to meet the needs of the whole community, we need the whole community to participate. Community participation is strongly encouraged,” said Kevin Post of Counsilman-Hunsaker and Associates.

For more information on the focus group meeting, contact the Park Office at 367-8222.

So let me get this straight, we hired a private consultant to help special interest groups in Sioux Falls get an indoor pool, but we have no money for a special snowgate election or even a consultant to study the cost variables of snowgates? Glad we have such great priorties.

Yup, you heard me right, taxdollars going to pickleball.

Some ask where will the city come up with extra money for snowgates? Well why don’t we tap the pickleball budget? That’s right, the city built a pickleball court at Menlo park, invested in equipment that you can borrow, and are even building an indoor pickleball court at the Kenny Anderson community center (so you can play pickleball in the winter). Just watch this episode of City Scene (about at the 50% mark) that explains pickleball.

And how did this come about? Someone walked into the Parks and Rec office and asked for it, and like magic, the city built it for them. No petition drives, no messy elections, not even City Council approval.

Oh, but it gets better. We both know that the money budgeted for snow removal comes from the operation fund (1st Penny) and Parks and Rec comes from the capital fund (2nd Penny). You would think former mayor of Sioux Falls, Rick Knobe would understand this;

Petitions are being circulated in Sioux Falls to mandate the use of snowgates. I am not going to sign a petition, and if a vote is held, I will vote “no.”

City staff is prudently researching the cost efficiency of snowgate use. The research is not yet complete. I may ”think”  they are a good idea, because I don’t like cleaning out my driveway after the plows have come thru. However, the higher cost, extra time, and maintenance of the additional equipment may not be worth it.

Our federal government is broke because they continue to make  promises we can no longer  afford to keep. As local taxpayers, it doesn’t make sense to mandate a service(raise taxes), just because we  are tired of shoveling snow.

We elect a  mayor and eight council members to make policy and daily administrative decisions on our behalf. If the mayor wants snowgates, he can put them in the budget. If the council wants snowgates, they can add them to the budget.

Should we have public votes on the type of technology the city uses? Equipment on fire trucks, or in police cars? How often the grass in the park is mowed?

It doesn’t make sense for us,  ”sidewalk(driveway) superintendents,” to direct or micromanage snow plowing operations.

Hey, Rick, that’s not how the operation’s penny works. The ‘first’ penny CANNOT be raised. The city has to work with what they take in, period. That means budgeting responsibly for PUBLIC SERVICES. Obviously we will still have money for pickleball in the 2nd penny, even if snow gates get implemented by the voters. The people are not voting on ‘budgets’ they are simply asking for a public service. You are right, it is the Mayor and City Council’s job to create the budget, and if voters approve snowgates, the city will have to find the money in the first penny for them. TAXES WILL NOT BE RAISED (at least on the 1st penny), because they don’t have the power to RAISE THEM.

But essentially it is about priorities, not higher taxes or pickleball. Snowgates are a public service and public safety issue not a ‘frill’ like pickleball or monkey hot tubs. Our taxdollars need to be spent on PUBLIC SERVICE not PICKLE SERVICE.