Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Is SF City Hall trying to pull an aquatics fast one?

l3wis May 15, 2013 7Comments

Okay, more speculation from SF #1 conspiracy theorist, Detroit Lewis.

After watching public input last night at the regular council meeting, I became a bit suspicious as to why 25 minutes was spent on a non-agenda item, an indoor pool at Spellerberg. In an almost rehearsed well choreographed presentation, each speaker came up to the podium to tell the mayor and council why we need an indoor pool at Spellerberg. At first I thought, “Shouldn’t they be addressing the public (voters) instead of the mayor and council?” The issue whether we build an ‘outdoor’ pool at Spellerberg will be on the municipal ballot in 2014. The key word here is ‘Outdoor’ I also found it a bit strange since the election was over a year away. When Citizen Stenga approached the podium and made this remark, “It’s a good thing CITIZENS will be voting on this.”

Or will they?

I’ve been researching whether the mayor and city council can legally trump the Spellerberg petitioners by either;

– Approving an indoor facility before the election, which could possibly make their petitions null and void, OR

– Putting an indoor facility on the ballot with the outdoor facility. This seems more like a reality. Why? Well the Spellerberg petitioners kind of pigeon holed themselves by setting a price tag for an outdoor pool, where the city can pretty much just say;

Do you want a $7 million dollar outdoor facility that you can only use 3 months out of the year, OR an indoor facility (Pricetag to be determined) that you can use all year?

Obviously this wouldn’t be the EXACT ballot language, but you get the gist of what I am getting at. City Hall is up to something. The city has been denied an indoor facility TWICE by the voters, and there is certain people in City Hall that are not going to let the VOTERS turn this down again. Keep your eyes peeled, something smells fishy.

Citizen Stenga & Tree Trimming

As I mentioned above, Tim gave another Oscar performance last night. Besides the pool issue, Tim talked about the city trimming boulevard trees. He said, in the past during Project TRIM, the city would charge you $150 per tree to trim your (their) boulevard trees, but during the ice storm that city was paying anywhere from $30 to $90 per tree for contractors to trim back any hangers or potential troublesome branches (according to Tim). Tim questioned the difference, he also questioned why isn’t the city just trimming these trees all the time? To which the mayor blurted out “We are not trimming the trees!” Ah, yes you are, because one of my boulevard trees was trimmed, and I did not do it. So either the city did it, a contractor they hired did it, or the tree fairies came in the middle of the night and did it. Either way Mike, your lies are going to start catching up with you, you wouldn’t want to make GOD unhappy with you? Would you?

City will buy the State Theatre a film projector

(to help underpriviledged kids watch movies for FREE).

The city approved the $63,000 expenditure as long as the State gives away FREE tickets to ‘deprived’ kids in exchange.

What is the ‘Real’ business plan of the Overlook Café?

l3wis May 15, 2013 10Comments

(Image: KELO-TV)

City ordinance was changed last night to allow the Overlook Café to apply for a malt beverage license and sell alcohol during regular business hours.

I am all for the café providing alcohol during special and catered events. The café has done this in the past, but I am have trouble grasping why they need to sell during regular hours?

Good question.

First off, I don’t think this is going to add much to the Overlook Café’s bottom line. Many other family restaurants/cafes downtown provide beer and wine, and most would tell you that it really doesn’t help/or harm the business, so why the big push at Overlook?

WILD SPECULATION

Remember what the first proposal for the Overlook Café was? It was proposed to make it a fine dining, privately ran full service restaurant. I cannot recall why that idea was ever turned down, but I do know that it is something that CAN be done in the future simply by changing the contract or lease agreement.

You will have to give Milstead credit, she understands that working with local government, you have to take baby steps all the way. Her husband has worked in public service most of his life, he for one knows things don’t get done overnight. Milstead understands her first step was getting approval of this ordinance change and eventually her license. I ‘speculate’ once she proves she can provide alcohol safely during regular business hours she will propose changing the café into a full-service restaurant, and she may even want to take it a step further by changing the way the café profit shares with the city and convert it to a lease agreement.

This of course is speculation on my part, but I am still scratching my head why she fought so hard to sell beer with ice cream cones, hot dogs and cookies. .

Don’t get me wrong, I think a full-service restaurant in that location is a wonderful idea, and have often wondered why it was turned down to begin with. Food for thought.