Not only are taxpayers subsidizing the landscaping and spray park along the river for a privately developed hotel the developers got a TIF to boot. And who approved this project before it went on to the city council? The parks board of course in which the wife and co-owner of the development company building the hotel belongs as a board member.
But hey, there is no conflicts of interest here, move along, nothing to see.
I will go on the record and say that I am not opposed to an indoor public pool, a few years ago I would have said no way, but with the construction of the Sanford Sports Complex and with the SF School District paying out millions in salaries to ‘administrators’. I have no doubt the city is ready for such a facility, and the school district can afford to pony up (even though several private ones already exist that you can pay a fee to use, just like a public pool).
There are two things that I would like to see explored first before building an indoor public pool at Spellerberg;
1) A possible partnership with the Sanford Sports Complex and building the facility there attached to one of the other entities (Like the Pentagon or the Hockey facility).
2) A partnership with the School District to build an indoor pool at either one or all of the high schools.
Recently, all knowing, and all wise, city councilor Erpenbach said in an Argus Leader interview we couldn’t build at the high schools because of ‘liability issues’. You mean like the liability public schools have to risk with other sports like football, wrestling, basketball, volleyball and even cheerleading, because, you know, they are all less dangerous then swimming. Nice try Michelle, but I am not buying your excuse.
The facility could easily be split up during school hours so that city staff would monitor one side and the school district would monitor the other side. This isn’t rocket science and I’m sure former law partner with Davenport-Evans, Sue Simons, Vice-Super, could draw up a plan.
What concerns me even more is the vendetta the Argus Leader, or at least it’s publisher has with the Drake Springs outdoor pool advocates. Calling their petition drive and election a ‘fiasco’. So much for democracy and the fourth estate protecting that democracy.
All I have ever asked from elected officials is to be honest and to use common sense. The stand alone public pool at Spellerberg makes no sense, and our elected officials, and even our local newspaper are not being honest about the cost. Looks like another ‘fiasco’ will have to occur to put this on the right course.
It is being held at Morningside Community Center. I have been told the meeting is going to get ‘interesting’. I think some citizens from the Spellerberg neighborhood will be attending . . .
UPDATE: I guess the Parks board approved going forward with the indoor pool at Spellerberg today at the meeting. I guess about 6 proponents showed up to the meeting and about 14 opponents showed up.
Image: Chamber News
I have known about Pat Lloyd’s appointment for a long time, which was just recently renewed by mayor Huether;
Pat Lloyd – Term Expires – May 2017 *
It has been a concern of mine for quite a while, but after the recent River Greenway improvements in front of a proposed hotel being developed by Pat’s husband, Craig Lloyd, that concern has been turned up a notch.
To be honest with you, I have fielded many complaints about this from former city volunteer board members, citizens and even council members that think this is a clear conflict of interest.
Yah think?
There is something I have known about Sioux Falls for a very long time, it’s who you know, not what you know. Not to sound like Tim Stenga, but there is a select group of people controlling things in Sioux Falls. Do you think it was an accident that the Events Center is going to be named after Denny Sanford? Do you think that any other business in Sioux Falls or even regionally or nationally had a chance?
What shocks me about Pat’s appointment is the blatant in your face conflict of interest. Why would she vote against anything that would benefit her husband’s development business?
Notice who is not sitting on the parks board . . . Joe Six-Pack. There is a reason for that. Joe would never vote for a spray park in front of a hotel.
UPDATE: According to Lloyd Companies website, she is listed as co-owner with Craig, so this even worries me more.
I had a foot soldier send me this today;
The City has held two public meetings regarding the future of Spellerberg Park.
The Spellerberg MasterPlan includes:
Existing features that would be RETAINED:Â Open Field, Playground, Shelter, Trees, Sledding Hill.
Existing features that would be RELOCATED:Â Tennis Courts, Basketball Court, and Volleyball Area.
The question for the City from Day One has been……is the physical footprint of Spellerberg Park large enough to support the addition of an indoor aquatic center?
At the first public meeting (May 9th), the facilitators explained that the tentative plans drawn up by TSP include a lap/swimming pool, a separate leisure pool and a splash pad. They went on to explain that there would be parking directly to the south of the aquatic center, AND that they were working with the VA on securing an agreement for additional “shared†parking. (See Masterplan Flyer)
At the second meeting (July 12th), the flyer that was handed out still indicated that a site advantage was secondary parking nearby (VA). When questioned about this, Director Kearney said secondary parking would not be included in the Masterplan. I have it from a reliable source that the reason there will be no shared parking is because the VA has refused to sign the proposed agreement.
The fact that there was a need from the beginning of the planning process for “shared†parking is a “RED FLAGâ€!
If the physical “footprint†of the park is large enough to support an indoor aquatic center, why would you need a “shared†parking agreement with the VA?
At both public meetings, Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney, has emphazied no plans have been drawn up, that the City is only seeking public input at this point. When in fact, indoor pool proponents and representatives of the swim teams have met with the architect, TSP, to view tentative plans for an eight lane 50 meter olympic-size pool, a separate leisure pool, and a splash pad. There will be a total of 203 parking spaces provided south of the facility.
As a point of reference, Drakes Springs Aquatic Center includes a four lane 25 meter pool, a current channel, and a spray park. It is less than half the size of what is being proposed at Spellerberg. There are 137 parking spaces adjacent to the pool with an additional 55 “shared†spaces across Fairfax Avenue next to the SkatePark, for a total of 192 spaces.
Does the City really believe that 203 parking spaces is going to support an indoor aquatic center at least twice the size of Drake Springs?
In addition, REMEMBER, this is a facility that will be open year round. The MasterPlan does not even begin to address the parking needs for the sledding hill, tennis courts, basketball court, volleyball pits, playground, picnic shelter and ball field.
Residents in the surrounding neighborhoods (esp. to the North and East), business owners at Park Ridge, and the VA need to be paying close attention to this issue. This is where park users will be looking to park when the 203 spaces in the the Park are already in use!!
I believe the City will either have to take more “green space†from the park for parking needs, or abandon plans for an indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg.
The “physical footprint†of Spellerberg Park is not large enough to accommodate what is in the proposed MasterPlan and also provide adequate parking.
l3wis