Entries Tagged 'Drake Springs Outdoor Pool' ↓

I’d much rather be swimming right now in a tax subsidized indoor pool

The SF Parks and Rec and city council won’t seem to be happy until they get a public indoor pool;

The city’s park and recreation department is preparing to replace Spellerberg Pool in the next few years. But officials want to gauge the community’s desire to build an indoor pool there rather than replace it with another outdoor pool, department Director Don Kearney said. If there’s enough support among people who live in the area, then Spellerberg could be the location for the city’s first public indoor pool.

Like I have said before, I am not against an indoor public pool, but I still think we are going about it the wrong way, it should be a part of a public school OR a part of another facility like a rec center so it gets maximum usage. A stand alone indoor pool will not provide those benefits.

I also think this push by a select group of people (certain city councilors and parks and rec board members) to build an indoor pool seems a bit suspicious. I have yet to run into anyone who says our city is missing out by not having a public indoor pool. Why? Because we already have several private ones you can use for a fee. I guess if the Spellerberg hood wants it, let them have it. Not sure how the lower-income children are going to get to it during the winter, but I’m sure this is something the city council has figured out already 🙂

I recently asked a city councilor for the following information which they got from the Parks and Rec department.

I questioned if the full $4.7 million was spent on Drake Springs per the ballot language. Seems so. I was told by this councilor that the shades will not be installed until next year (they are purchased and in storage though). And the original plan was to have 6 lanes instead of 4 in the main pool. It had to be scaled back because of funding (which equates to me, and I am speculating, the contractor scaled it back to ensure a profit).

The only other thing I question in the spreadsheet is the expenditures for the old site. As far as I am concerned that should be sucked up into the Parks and Rec Budget, not sure how it got shifted over into building a new pool.

Imagine that, fees went up 100% from last year at the new Drake Springs pool;

Also noted in the audit is the overcharge for daily passes to the Drake Springs Aquatic Center. Parks and Rec charged $2 for the child daily admission fee instead of $1 as it was at the old Drake Springs Pool. City ordinance allows $2 to be charged only at Laurel Oaks Aquatic Center and Terrace Aquatic Center.

This error added up to approximately $15,550 of extra revenue, according to the audit.

Hermanson said it wasn’t really an overcharge since Drake Springs now is an aquatic center, and the public was notified that the price was $2.

“It’s just one of those housekeeping duties that we need to change,” she said.

Because there is a difference between Swimming Pools and Aquatic centers. One of them is place where you can swim and cool off in the hot summer heat, and the other one is a place where you can swim and cool off in the hot summer heat.

Housekeeping my ass.

First off, rumor has it that you transferred $1 million to another park and shortchanged the new Drake Springs pool, then you build the swimming pool too small, then you raise rates 100% in a low income neighborhood. Enough sour grapes already. The voters said they did not want an indoor pool at Nelson Park. Get over it already!

There has been a lot of poppycock being spread around about the new outdoor pool at Drake Springs. Many have been complaining that the pool is too small for swimming, I agree. But as someone who has been following this very closely I can tell you this, the city planned the pool, Stehly did not. The only thing her ballot initiative did was setup the funding for the outdoor pool (The city COULD spend UP TO $4.7 million). This letter to the editor goes into some details about it;

Please know that many of us did all that was possible when this facility was planned to plead the case for a design that would allow exercise so vital to the health of the community as it fights the ills that accompany sedentary life.

I remember attending one of the community meetings where designers were present sketching out preliminary designs. I also remember the pool design being a lot larger. (I should have taken pictures).

So what happened? There are two theories floating around out there;

1) Sour grapes on behalf of the indoor pool advocates convinced the parks board to scale back the project. I am not sure if the sour grapes existed, but it is no doubt the project was scaled back.

2) Since the petition said that the city could spend UP TO $4.7 million, it did not specify that they could spend less then that. Which is what people think happened. In fact a city councilor mentioned that he thinks some of the pool budget was thrown at Harmadon Park and that is why the pool had to be scaled back. These are rumors of course, because getting this information out of the budget office is next to impossible. It is estimated that about only $3.2 million was spent on Drake Springs.

The point is this, stop blaming Stehly for the bad design.

The Drake Springs pool is a huge success while saving the city millions in building and subsidy costs;

Since the facility opened May 29, more than 23,000 people have visited. That’s despite it being closed six full days and one half-day because of inclement weather.

You mean the kids showed up? You are kidding me. I thought they would be upset about not having an indoor pool, according to our very insightful city leaders.

But it doesn’t stop Vernon Brown from eating sour grapes;

“With an indoor pool, there would have been opportunities for children to be swimming on those cold, rainy days,” said Vernon Brown, a City Council member who supported an indoor pool.

You are right Vernon. And kids have over 8 indoor private pools to pick from at various fitness centers. Get over it already.

Hey indoor pool supporters, get over it already;

Meanwhile, the two women who collected signatures and brought the issue to voters watched the ceremony from the audience. Cheryl Rath and Theresa Stehly were not acknowledged, nor were they permitted to participate.

Walking Shadow hd

Rath called it an “emotional” and “wonderful” day. But she said supporters of the indoor pool still resent the fact that voters rejected their plan.

“I guess my hope was that there would be more grace,” Rath said. “I guess I was hoping they would let go after the public vote.“

Once again, citizen advocates are treated with disdain by the Munson administration. No surprise. I really believe if the indoor pool plan presented would have been different then the other over 8 indoor pools we have in Sioux Falls at private fitness centers already, the voters would have approved it. I also think that if the city would have budgeted for the pool out of the CIP instead of borrowing for it, it would have been met with no opposition. But the city doesn’t listen to the public, heck, even when the SnowFox swim team had scores of supporters show up to a council meeting to give their vision for the indoor pool, they were rejected. A freaking swim team!

Another head shaker goes down in the books for Sioux Falls.

Theresa Stehly and Cheryl Rath who headed up the petition drive for the outdoor pool will be there, BUT, will not be holding the scissors. Rumor has it, the Chamber of Commerce pooh-pooh that idea, they said that would make it ‘too political’. Because, the COC is never ‘political’. Give me a break.

I’ll probably show up to see the circus first hand. Bring your sunscreen!