UPDATE: I have been thinking about this for a few days. I have been trying to access the informational meeting on the city website, but no luck. The video died about a minute into the meeting when it was LIVE and they have not yet posted it to the website. Once again, SIRE isn’t working and no one at Carnegie or City Hall is doing anything about it. Go figure. Anyway, I did have a South DaCola foot soldier attend the meeting. Parks & Rec Mob Boss Don Kearney did a presentation on saving the Rec Center (I partially agree with him, but we will get to that in a moment). Of course the stuck-up IcePlex crew showed up and cried about competing with the new facility. This could be true, and they do have a point, the city kicked in $1.5 million to the new facility, and why would we want to continue to subsidize the old Rec Center?

I think there is a solution that can make everyone happy. Let’s say we close the Rec center. We have only a few options. Tear the whole place down and just sell the land. We could use it as a Parks garage. Or we could just sell the place ‘As Is’ with the ice and throw in the Zamboni. I like this idea the best, first off, it wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything to sell it ‘as is’, secondly we wouldn’t have to continue to subsidize it, either as ice OR as a garage. I would also put a condition on the sale that the place that buys it (Private health club or non-profit) can either remove the ice, tear the whole place down, or what I think would be the best use make it into a recreational ice facility, much like Caurosel Skate. Use the facility for strictly ice skating and curling, etc, but not ice hockey unless it is adult leagues.

One of the reasons the Ice Association wanted a new bigger facility is because they claim there isn’t enough inside ice, keeping the old Rec Center as a private ice facility won’t hurt their business. That’s like saying Wild Water West hurts the outdoor pool business in SF Parks. There is room for two ‘different’ kinds of ice facilities in Sioux Falls, and the taxpayers can be off the hook for once.

Images below are from Don’s presentation to the city council. Click to enlarge.


IMAG2249 IMAG2250

19 Thoughts on “UPDATE: What will become of the old Ice Recreation center once the new Iceplex opens?

  1. I say the city offers to lease it to the local hockey association at cost?

  2. Teatime on June 21, 2014 at 12:33 am said:

    Recycle the building materials to be used in TIF privileged housing unitsto increase profits.

  3. Teatime on June 21, 2014 at 12:36 am said:

    Recycle the building materials to be used in TIF privileged housing units to help poor developers increase profits on these sacrificial projects

  4. 85th stuckee on June 21, 2014 at 10:14 am said:

    I’m sure the city will find another venue to compete with private markets. Maybe it’s time for a casino. One that you could use ebt card at. If mmm can ignore most laws.
    Shouldn’t be no big deal. Lol.

  5. Titleist on June 22, 2014 at 12:41 am said:

    Stuck on 85th, what is the private market for a municipal ice and recreation center in Sioux Falls?

    Are you still mad about the Walmart thing? THAT is the private market.

  6. 85th stuckee on June 23, 2014 at 9:49 pm said:

    Titleist. I’m pretty over the Walmart bs. The sad part is the money the greed and now we know just how lazy cooper and Schmitt and the rest of the city a clowns are when big developers comes to taking care of taxpayers and citizens. Its the greed factor. How many more decisions will be made to benefit developers Why did our city jump on the George soros agenda xxi maybe to fill their pockets with a stupid public who didn’t know better. When the apt complexes cover the city and few houses exist mAybe the low income people will decide to become engaged in the life of the city and say enough. Not

  7. 85th stuckee on June 23, 2014 at 9:58 pm said:

    Titleist. The new ice plex is non profit thanks to city for some funds. This is private market. Was the vote by Meredith at planning zoning to approve a walmart at 85th proper since his firm builds the things. I think cooper and Schmitt are fill of bs to put this next to rs but mmm is a bigger threat than a neighborhood don’t you think I’m done with it. I have not been and will not be in a walmart or SAMs again what a lousy neighbor I’ll be in not giving them money

  8. I’m guessing they got an appraisal and/or a report on what they might get by selling it and it didn’t come back all that great.

    Hockey is growing, so this may very well be the property’s best use.

  9. l3wis on June 24, 2014 at 11:08 am said:

    Here is my speculation on the topic, like I said, pure speculation;

    At the Parks Board meeting last Tuesday, a bunch of Iceplex people showed up (most of them multi-millionaires) and cried about how the Rec center needs to close so the city is not competing with them. In fact, Dana Dykhouse went as far to attempt to blackmail the city by saying he will halt the construction of the Iceplex until the city shuts it down.

    I suspect that Kearney is defending the Rec center because he never wants to see a reduction in his budget, he always wants to add more facilities, more employees, bigger budget more salary for him.

    What would I like to see done with it? Well, you have to remember one important thing about the facility, it has ice, those floors are not cheap, and to tear that up would be a loss. I also find the irony in the fact that the Hockey Association cried about having a new facility for so long because they can’t get enough Ice time at the Rec center. Well, McFly, if we really need more ice space why not have both facilities?

    I would like to see the city sell the facility though, since we will be subsidizing the new IcePlex, but I would like to see a non-profit take over the Rec center and keep it a rink, or even a private owner, like Great Life. Hockey and Ice Skating is very popular in SF, I think both facilities can be supported at the same time.

  10. Anthony D. Renli on June 26, 2014 at 4:00 pm said:

    Having spend a LOT of time in the current SFIRC – The city (and the County before it – they owned it up until 10 years ago or so) has done basic maintenance if any maintenance at all on the thing for most of recorded history. The Stampede has been renting office space and storage there for the last 15 years, and I think that they have put as much money into the building than the City has.
    Before any group could buy it as is and use it as a regional ice center – they would have to spend a LOT of money fixing up the place up.

  11. Joan on June 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm said:

    It would be nice to have a place that regular kids could go to skate, not just the ones that are into figure skating and hockey.

  12. Titleist on June 26, 2014 at 8:16 pm said:

    Stuck on 85th, did you really just post about Agenda 21?

    Come on back, man. Water is fine over here with (most of) the rest of us.

  13. Dan Daily on June 27, 2014 at 11:44 am said:

    I’m tired of the city’s focus on indoor sports. This is a time for improving infrastructure and focusing on expansion. We’ll have 2 ice trays but no water for them and crumbled streets so you can’t get there. The 2 zamboners will be the only way to get around town once the budget is blown before streets are plowed.

  14. Karma on June 27, 2014 at 11:54 am said:

    I have been involved with this process and here in lies the problem. Since day one, the city has stated they had zero desire to be in the “ice” business and by December of this year, this facility would close. This was the consensus from the city, to the ISA, to the Parks board, to the SFIRC board. At no point was there ever any conversation to the latter. At the eleventh hour, the city changed its tune. I don’t think it’s Don – I think someone is PO’d at someone and now everyone is scratching their heads.

    Mr. Zueger offered the city, if they are hell bent on keeping this dump open (remember the nice CO2 poisoning from last year) the opportunity to utilize their purchased scheduling software so all of the rinks are on the same rate and every rink is centrally scheduled. Do you think the city wants any part of that? Nope.

    I spoke at the Parks and Rec meeting and I am nowhere close to a multi-millionaire. I know the impact of having a cut rate facility open that will compete with a new facility. It is not good for either facility and it is not good for our community. Somehow the city has taken a facility that was done exactly as they suggested – a private/public partnership – and created a sh**storm and a divide among many. Amazing.

    And quite honestly – I constantly read people’s comments on this page regarding subsidizing buildings, entertainment, etc – yet on this – you’re even remotely ok with this? Have you actually been in the SFIRC and seen the magnitudes of work that is necessary? WTH?

    I agree – sell the facility. If someone wants to make ago of it in the ice business without the city subsidizing it, then that is their venture. If someone wants the land to do something else – that is fine also. All I know, is this currently is very bad and if anyone thinks any different just because – yes, some people with money worked extremely hard to do exactly as the city suggested to make this facility a reality – then people are not thinking beyond their own petty crap.

  15. l3wis on June 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm said:

    I would agree, we need to sell it. If someone wants to utilize it as a rink, have at it. it doesn’t make sense for taxpayers to give them $1.5 million then turnaround and subsidize a competing facility. I think you are right, there is some kind of strange pissing match going on there. I also know that Don likes to keep his budget ‘Fat’. A few years ago I compared the SF Parks budget with another city, Don was not to pleased with my post: http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2009/01/is-the-sioux-falls-department-of-parks-recreation-a-monstrosity/

  16. teatime on June 27, 2014 at 8:10 pm said:

    I wish the city would quit worrying about our leisure time activities and quit digging us further in debt and blowing the budget on entertainment venues that were supposed to be self supporting.

  17. Dan, Have you EVER had a positive thought go through that troubled mind of yours?

  18. scott on June 29, 2014 at 12:18 pm said:

    build the indoor pool there.

  19. Bruce on June 30, 2014 at 1:17 pm said:

    Scott great idea! Don’t Kearney says it’s central so everyone in town can get there!

Post Navigation