Romney Toons (H/T- Helga)
l3wis 
July 2012
Naming rights and Reindeer Games
As I reported about a month ago, there were changes in the naming rights game. But I did leave out a few details, we will get to those in a moment . . .
I asked a city councilor last week when he thought the naming rights would be announced, and he suspected right before the ground breaking in August, I guess, to keep that element of intrigue and surprise with the public. Heck he doesn’t even know, but let’s just say him and the mayor are not real ‘close’.
I am just not sure how ‘surprised’ the public will be when they hear the ‘S’ word for the the 1,000th time. Christ, what some people will do to buy their way into heaven or at least into the pocket books of the sick and dying.
Now, back to the naming rights.
As I reported on June 16, there was a little switcheroo on the naming rights contract. The city decided to terminate their contract with Superlative and hire Legends to help with the naming rights. Which seems odd since the company(s) that want to put their name(s) on the building may have already been chosen.
What I did not tell you is on June 15 I had a very ‘colorful’ talk with Myles Gallagher, owner of Superlative. We had an intriguing 45 minute phone conversation about Sioux Falls, the Events Center, and his ‘disagreements’ with Darrin Smith and Mike Huether. While I would love to share most of the conversation with my South DaCola readers, I cannot.
I can say this, it seems two companies are possibly vying for a naming rights deal in a quasi-partnership.
But does the city have other competitors? Even if they were still going to go with the ‘S’ word in partnership with the ‘F’ word. Wouldn’t it help to drive up the bid?
Is this why Superlative was dropped over Legends? Did Superlative give advice that would be beneficial to the taxpayers? I guess we will have to see if ‘S’ & ‘F’ come in first place and if their offer is golden, that will be tell tale heart.
I’m pretty sure this will not come up at the groundbreaking ceremony, but I’m sure there will be several punch bowls of kool-aid being served.
Let’s just overcharge you on property taxes so we don’t create more work for ourselves
“You mean we will have to talk about the budget next year to? This job sucks!” (Image: KELO-TV screenshot);
And $4 million sets the limit of how much the county can collect, but that does not mean the Commission will need that much. Commissioner Cindy Heiberger thought it was better to aim high.
“This is a beginning. If we opt-out for $1 million this year, are we going to be back in the same room next year doing the exact same thing?” Heiberger said. “I just feel like if we opt-out for a lower amount, we’re going to turn around and be back here in a few years saying we’re just squeaking by.”
Cindy, I have news for you, you are an elected official – it is your job 1) to look out for the best interest of the taxpayers and 2) to work for us. You act like revisiting the budget next year would just be ‘too pesky’ for you. Please tell us why you wanted to be a public servant?
We experienced the same crap with the city and water rates, let’s just overcharge, then if we realize it is too much, we can simmer it down a bit.
Huh!?
Oh, and then there is this nice little tidbit;
During the 1.5 hour discussion, they opened up the meeting for public comment from taxpayers. However no one voiced any concerns about paying higher property taxes.
Gee, McFly, I wonder why? Because most of those taxpayers are working during the time of your meeting.
Is Spellerberg Park big enough for an indoor pool?
I had a foot soldier send me this today;
The City has held two public meetings regarding the future of Spellerberg Park.
The Spellerberg MasterPlan includes:
Existing features that would be RETAINED:Â Open Field, Playground, Shelter, Trees, Sledding Hill.
Existing features that would be RELOCATED:Â Tennis Courts, Basketball Court, and Volleyball Area.
The question for the City from Day One has been……is the physical footprint of Spellerberg Park large enough to support the addition of an indoor aquatic center?
At the first public meeting (May 9th), the facilitators explained that the tentative plans drawn up by TSP include a lap/swimming pool, a separate leisure pool and a splash pad. They went on to explain that there would be parking directly to the south of the aquatic center, AND that they were working with the VA on securing an agreement for additional “shared†parking. (See Masterplan Flyer)
At the second meeting (July 12th), the flyer that was handed out still indicated that a site advantage was secondary parking nearby (VA). When questioned about this, Director Kearney said secondary parking would not be included in the Masterplan. I have it from a reliable source that the reason there will be no shared parking is because the VA has refused to sign the proposed agreement.
The fact that there was a need from the beginning of the planning process for “shared†parking is a “RED FLAGâ€!
If the physical “footprint†of the park is large enough to support an indoor aquatic center, why would you need a “shared†parking agreement with the VA?
At both public meetings, Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney, has emphazied no plans have been drawn up, that the City is only seeking public input at this point. When in fact, indoor pool proponents and representatives of the swim teams have met with the architect, TSP, to view tentative plans for an eight lane 50 meter olympic-size pool, a separate leisure pool, and a splash pad. There will be a total of 203 parking spaces provided south of the facility.
As a point of reference, Drakes Springs Aquatic Center includes a four lane 25 meter pool, a current channel, and a spray park. It is less than half the size of what is being proposed at Spellerberg. There are 137 parking spaces adjacent to the pool with an additional 55 “shared†spaces across Fairfax Avenue next to the SkatePark, for a total of 192 spaces.
Does the City really believe that 203 parking spaces is going to support an indoor aquatic center at least twice the size of Drake Springs?
In addition, REMEMBER, this is a facility that will be open year round. The MasterPlan does not even begin to address the parking needs for the sledding hill, tennis courts, basketball court, volleyball pits, playground, picnic shelter and ball field.
Residents in the surrounding neighborhoods (esp. to the North and East), business owners at Park Ridge, and the VA need to be paying close attention to this issue. This is where park users will be looking to park when the 203 spaces in the the Park are already in use!!
I believe the City will either have to take more “green space†from the park for parking needs, or abandon plans for an indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg.
The “physical footprint†of Spellerberg Park is not large enough to accommodate what is in the proposed MasterPlan and also provide adequate parking.
