Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Should the city consider building a heated outdoor pool?

l3wis October 9, 2013 38Comments

Recently the AL had a story about how outdoor pool usage was poor this past season due to cooler weather (it really was just a propaganda piece for the Indoorers). So if the indoor pool fails at the polls at Spellerberg, maybe the city should consider heating the new outdoor pool there? Just imagine, you could be swimming outdoors well into October! It is not uncommon to have heated outdoor pools. When I lived in the Seattle area there was a water park in Federal Way that was completely heated. I also have a friend in SF that has an outdoor in-ground pool that has a heater on it, he has swam in it all the way until the end of October.

Let’s face it, people prefer to swim outdoors, that is why outdoor pools have a greater attendance then indoor pools. Duh. If I was the Spellerberg ladies, I would be pushing for this in the design of a new outdoor pool at Spellerberg.

Who let the dogs out?

l3wis September 18, 2013 18Comments

Did Spencer’s dog park cost us 500K? Nope.

When the mayor helped four councilors approve the million dollar dog parks, he did a gigantic disservice to the taxpayers of Sioux Falls. Am I against dog parks in Sioux Falls? No, and I think the four councilors that voted against the expenditure were not either. They simply were asking, “Why so expensive?” But apparently the mayor thinks that is a nice pricetag. Why is that?

My guess is because someone is getting a hell of deal on contracting fees. It reminds me of when the Pavilion window project was re-bid, and another contractor came in several thousands of dollars lower (I think it was 200K lower then original bid). I think it is a bit ridiculous that we spend 500K for each of these parks for a fence, a couple parking spots and some lights (we already own the land).

Councilor Anderson suggested before the vote that the land use committee look at more economical options before approving this. Mayor Huether, Councilors Entenman, Erpenbach, Aguliar and Rolfing don’t seem to care that we are blowing a cool million of taxpayer’s money on these parks, and don’t seem to think we should explore more economical options. Shame on them. I guess the council has really gone to the dogs. Literally.

What it really comes down to is that a mayor and some councilors are afraid if we start digging around on RFPs we may reveal something troubling, some contractors in town are taking us to the cleaners.

Sunday Parks Workers?

l3wis September 15, 2013 11Comments

Councilor Staggers has brought this up several times, and I have often been baffled by it . . . we need to employee workers on Sundays to weed flowers on McKennan park’s 21st street boulevard? I shot this picture about 10:50 this morning, Sunday, of a SF Parks worker weeding the boulevard.

Why?

But the city can’t trim city owned trees during the regular work week, because ‘we don’t have the staff.’ But weeding flowers on Sunday? Plenty of staff.

New DT spray park debuts

l3wis September 5, 2013 19Comments

Image, Argusleader.com

Notice the PUBLICLY FUNDED spray park is only a few feet from a private hotel. I am assuming it is sitting in front of one of the restaurants, so the diners can view the park. There is a patio door just to the right on the image. This has been my biggest contention with this spray park, it is virtually sitting on private property, and not any old business, a very successful hotel chain. Seriously!? Why should the public pay for this? I think a better option would be a partnership. Tax payers pay for the park and maintenance (parts, mechanical replacement, etc) and have the hotel pay for the energy, operation and water purification costs. Remember, this park is not sitting by the bike trail, you literally have to walk up a ramp to get to it from the bike trail. It is actually more easily accessible from the hotel then from the bike trail.

When I was recently in Ft. Collins they had a spray park like this that was identical in scope and size. It was sitting on a public right away boardwalk in front of a publicly funded art museum in the middle of DT. Wouldn’t something like this be awesome in front of the Pavilion or at Falls Park? Why would we put a public spray park only a couple of feet from a privately owned hotel? Is this blatant corporate welfare? Why should I have to pay to entertain guests at a privately owned hotel?

I did hear a funny comment about the spray park and it’s close proximity to the hotel restaurant, this person said; “What a sight it will be enjoying your morning breakfast and looking out at the spray park watching the homeless bath.”

Well it is publicly funded, so what’s stopping them from doing it?