Entries Tagged 'Sioux Falls' ↓

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.

Seems a little ODD that someone who has been doing the job for almost 6 years just suddenly leaves without a peep from Pavilion management. She has also been removed from there management page with NO replacement listed.

According to Allison’s professional page;

Director of Development

Washington Pavilion of Arts and Science

Nonprofit; 51-200 employees; Museums and Institutions industry

September 2007– May 2013 (5 years 9 months)

Responsible for creating and implementing the annual Development Plan.  Work with a wonderful team of 5 full-time employees who coordinate grant writing, membership recruitment/retention, donations, special projects and volunteers.  They are simply the joy of my professional life.  Contribute over $1,000,000 toward the operating budget of the Washington Pavilion.  Commited to providing quality experiences for all the patrons of the Pavilion.  Proudly a member of thePavilion’s Director Management Team.

Usually when a high-profile management person leaves the Pavilion there is at least some kind of an announcement. Allison’s job was very important, she was in charge of bringing in grant money, donations and other subsidies to the Pavilion. This is not position that just goes away quietly in the night.

Maybe I am misinformed and missed a media piece about it or a press release. If so, please forward it to me, I would like to clarify her departure. The Pavilion had a rough year in 2012, wondering if there is a piece of the puzzle we are missing here?

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.

(FF: 19:00)

Snowgates!

Director Cooper says we have to ‘Start Over’.

Not sure if you watched the SF City Council meeting last night, but you missed a doozy. (FF to 52:00)

Mike Cooper pretty much throws the Shape SF petitioners under the bus. He drags his community development manager up to the podium to cry about how senior low-income housing is being delayed due to going back to the old zoning laws. While the CD Manager admits during his testimony they have been working on funding this project for several years, (Remember, Shape SF just passed the city council last month) When Director Cooper is asked by Councilor Anderson if this project was in the works before Shape SF passed, Cooper says , ‘NO!’ To which Anderson just shakes his head. Then Cooper says, “Ah, we were in a transition period.” Now I am not saying Cooper is lying, but . . . . It seems the planning office ‘just assumed’ Shape SF would pass, so they started using the new ordinance before it was voted on by the council. And I thought I was good at predicting the city council, looks like Cooper has me beat.

It seems the city has started their ‘Hater’ campaign against the petitioners to.

Film Projector, A ‘City Council’ expense?

If you look at ITEM #44, 1^st Reading, you will see that the council is appropriating the $1.8 million dollar surplus. Cleverly hidden under a ‘City Council’ expense is $63,000 for a film projector, for THE STATE THEATRE. While I am extremely supportive of the State Theatre and the asset it will be DT, I am a little weary about buying them a projector since the Theatre has established itself already as a non-public entity (not owned by the city). The city has already given a gracious gift to help make repairs to the building. I think the State will do just fine without any more handouts from the city. I do know that councilors Staggers and Anderson plan to amend this expense in the 2^nd reading.

No Hotel, No small meeting rooms but lots of excuses

Gotta love the CVB. On the run up to building the EC they were cheerleaders about how we need a larger entertainment facility to bring in bigger conventions. Now that the building is being constructed they are back to more excuses, NO second-site HOTEL, Convention center needs more small meeting rooms, blah, blah, blah. Here’s the deal folks, we don’t need a bigger convention center and we certainly don’t need a 12,000 seat EC. But hey, when the subsidies start piling up we will at least have plenty of excuses.

I guess the press release fell on the floor or something, but on Thursday the SF city clerk verified that the Shape SF peeps had enough signatures to put the zoning ordinance on the ballot. I know about it, (some) of the city councilors know about it, but apparently the news media has been stone cold silent about it. Maybe they had an important bike ride to tend to first before telling us, or a human interest story (hatchet job) they had to shelve. Who knows? So I guess Detroit is going to tell you about it first.

Yawn.

(I guess after the mystical formulas were applied to the petitions they had around 5,300 valid signatures)

In a historic move, the city is planning to change city ordinance so a vendor can be allowed to serve alcohol at a city park (Item #45).

While I am not opposed to serving alcohol at Falls Park (heck, you can walk over to the Silver Moon if you really need a drink) I think they should use the license for catered events only, like weddings. I really don’t see the need for a family cafe serving beer. I also find it unusual the city and the council would jump thru so many hoops to make this possible. I guess it is ‘who you know’ not ‘what you know’ in this town

So let me get this straight . . .

We don’t want to take money from FEMA because they are the big bad Feds (who we actually pay taxes to, so we are essentially taking money from OURSELVES to fix a problem WE have).

Then we find out we don’t need to take the money because the city is in ‘fine financial shape’ so we pay for this branch cleanup out of the city coffers (also our money).

Factor in that the city has saved millions this winter due to the lack of snow and snow removal (somewhere around $7 million).

So why hasn’t the city been budgeting for tree trimming all along? We apparently have the money to do the ENTIRE city at one fast blast, why not section it off over a 5 year cycle?

Funny how the city conveniently ‘doesn’t have the money’ in a normal budget cycle, but when a natural disaster occurs we have all kinds of cashola, enough to give the FEDS a middle finger and to cleanup the whole kit and kaboodle.

My suggestion is to implement a program every year to trim the trees in the boulevard, because, you know, like, we have the money. Oh, yeah, and F’CK the Feds who wants their (our) money anyhoo?