Ah, can you say, conflict of interest?


Apparently, the very company that created the ‘advocational’ drawings for the city didn’t think there was anything wrong with being more ‘advocational’ and giving money to CS365. Or as Huether would say, “I didn’t break any laws, so I must be ethical.” If they would have given money to both campaigns, I would have understood, but really? If the outdoor pool passes, I suggest the city hires another pool design company.

By l3wis

16 thoughts on “Why is the architecture firm that received $46K from the city (for design services) donating to the Indoor pool peeps?”
  1. And just why is Avera and Sanford Health giving $5K and $10K, to the Indoor Pool Peeps? Any more they can’t give a patient a box of Kleenex or a motel size bottle of shampoo but they have ten grand for a swimming pool. Mind boggling and disgusting.

  2. And the Koch’s should donate to MoveOn. Does hyper-partisanship make you THAT unhinged? Your Huether Derangement Syndrome is seriously impairing your connection to reality.

  3. Sioux Falls Swim Team
    PO Box 758 Sioux Falls SD 57101

    Donation: $10,000

    Remember, VOTERS, this is part of the group who has had SEVEN YEARS since an indoor pool went down to defeat with a margin of 2 to 1


    How much have they raised: $0

    But, yet they can come up with $10,000 donations in no time for their campaign!

    Now, ask yourselves, as you step into that voting booth, of what value TO YOU AS A TAXPAYER is a $19.4 million INDOOR swimming pool with ANNUAL operating expenses of over $700,000?

  4. All information has been 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)


    Operating Costs:


    Revenue 355,823
    Expense 1,048,552
    Operating Cashflow -$692,729


    Revenue 364,598
    Expense 1,074,766
    Operating Cashflow -$710,168


    Revenue 373,483
    Expense 1,101,635
    Operating Cashflow -$728,152


    Revenue 382,477
    Expense 1,129,176
    Operating Cashflow -$746,699


    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.

    As a way of illustrating this number, our community could have SEVEN new neighborhood parks for the $3.6m!!

  5. The $10,000 contribution by the Sioux Falls Swim Team listed below the TSP contribution is also interesting. It would seem that money could be better used to actually build an indoor pool than begging the taxpayers of Sioux Falls pay for their club’s facility.

    In other cities, “Pay to Play” is phrase used to describe making donations to favored groups to receive city contracts. I urge residents of Sioux Falls to reject this approach to government on April 8th.

  6. DL – go back and look at the list of donors to the Build It Now campaign. Think any of those people gave money to the BID campaign? I personally do not believe it is unethical for a “private” enterprise to be an advocate for something that will benefit them. That is free speech.

  7. The Supreme Court says $$ = speech. The partners at TSP are guaranteed the freedom of speech by the constitution – in particular – POLITICAL SPEECH.

    What are you now, graduating from city hater to “America Hater”?

    Please – just go join the TEA Party and get it over with.

  8. Multi-Million Dollar Unanswered Question:

    IF the City Council ultimately approves a $19.4 million (estimated) indoor pool, how much of the facility will the public have access to during peak hours?

    All information has been 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.

    I attended several of the City’s educational meetings regarding the ballot issues.

    The 3,750 sq. ft. leisure pool which the consultant refers to in their recommendation is now being presented by the Director of Parks and Rec as a THERAPY POOL, which implies it would NO longer be available for general public use.

    In addition, the Director indicated the 50 meter by 25 yard competition pool with springboard diving will have the ability to be divided into THREE SECTIONS with the use of bulkheads, “to accommodate multiple kinds of programming”. (i.e. swim teams, synchronized swim teams, water polo teams, search and rescue teams, etc….)

    So, with the cost of construction at an estimated $19.4 million and ANNUAL operating costs of over $700,000, just HOW MUCH of this facility will be available for public usage at ALL hours?

  9. $$ equals speech, fact. But there will never be enough lipstick for this pig. (puns intended)

  10. This just puts a nice bowtie on on the pig. We see the city gives $46,000 to TSP so they can ‘clean-up’ the cash and spend part of it advocating for their plan.

    Nice job!

  11. When I’m King (aka mayor), I’ll build an indoor hunting/ fishing sports center. It’ll be a thousand acres inside with artificial outside environment. These architects will donate millions. City debt, oh well, just sell more credit card like junk bonds. It’s not absurd. Swimming and tennis are outdoor sports the city sponsors inside.

    How about indoor wind farms? Then you’re addressing infrastructure, providing jobs, and demand for more consultants who pay the going rate for kickbacks. Line up citizens and say BLOW.

  12. Not surprising considering that this is probably the most confusing of all the ballot issues, which has nothing to do with the City or TSP.

    As I’ve posted before, the opponents are all over the map. Some say build another Drake Springs, some say build a natural pool, some say build the same thing we have now since that worked fine for them back in 1953.

    Again, the design TSP put out is actually very nice, the rec areas and the 50M are separated so if there’s a meet going on you can still use the slides or therapy pool without a problem.

    The City is long overdue for this type of facility, putting it at SSC would add no value to that area and it would mean lower usage as most people won’t drive that far to use it regularly. Vote “NO” on Apr. 8.

  13. One other point, seeing both Avera and Sanford supporting this campaign is a pretty good indication that one or the other will step up when they City goes to sell sponsorships & naming rights for the project.

    Like they’ve done with the EC, they will likely have a primary sponsor for the facility name, and a few more for places like the 50M, the therapy pool, snack bar & the rec pools. Also, if they put some cash down for the construction, they will borrow/bond for less and that will mean a smaller monthly nut to crack as well as some of those funds will likely go for ongoing operations.

    So the final details of this plan will look much better than what the opponents have been harping on, but I personally don’t see that making a huge impact to the vote, I predict the outdoor pool goes down 57% to 43%.

  14. Just fill the Washington Bazilion. Not only indoor swimming but cliff diving from upstairs. Still won’t make money but there would be more crowd because to practical and popular for the tennis cult. It could be a better water park than anything at Wisconsin Dells.

Comments are closed.