Proposed cost of using Sioux Falls' new pools, indoor rec centers irks Council
Membership fees necessary to offset operational costs at Frank Olson, westside wellness facilities, according to City Hall
The cost of running a trio of new indoor and outdoor pools and recreation centers Sioux Falls City Hall has in the works will be shy of a million dollars a year.
But that low annual subsidy will come at a cost for users of the facilities.
Keeping yearly operations bills down for a new indoor recreation center and aquatics facility, an outdoor water park, and a full-scale wellness center is a selling point for Mayor Paul TenHaken’s administration as it prepares to ask councilors to approve a $77-million bond to pay for the ambition.
But that also means people will pay hundreds of dollars a year to use the proposed attractions.
NEWS: Former lawmaker edges community organizer in Sioux Falls City Council runoff election
“What do you want to see for cost recovery?” Sioux Falls Parks Director Don Kearney asked councilors Tuesday after unveiling proposed membership rates. “Right now, there’s a charge in the pro forma.”
The Parks and Recreation Department is proposing offsetting more than 80 percent of operational costs at both the indoor recreation and aquatics center planned at Frank Olson Park and a westside wellness center the mayor’s office wants to purchase from Sanford Health. Membership fees a significant portion of those revenues, the proposed levels are $40 for an individual per month, $50 per month for a couple, and $60 for a family membership package to each facility.
Sioux Falls Finance Director Shawn Pritchett said Tuesday that the proposed fees are a starting point, and it will be up to the City Council to work with the administration to determine admission costs and what level of annual subsidy is prudent.
Initial indications are councilors aren’t thrilled with the starting point.
“When I hear $40, $50, $60 a month, that’s too high,” said Councilor David Barranco, who next week will vote on the proposed bond package the TenHaken administration intends to use to finance the multi-facility ambition. “We’re going to need to find a better solution. … That number is too high for the families in our community, as far as I’m concerned.”
Beyond membership fees, the sponsorships and fundraising campaigns are also anticipated to generate revenues for each facility, said Leon Younger, a consultant hired to assist the city in financial planning.
“These are based on assumptions … from similar types of facilities we’ve been involved with and what’s occurring today,” he said. “We’re looking at it from a series of different funding sources.”
Should the council approve the bond authorization in May, construction is not likely to begin on any of the facilities until 2025.
NEWS: South Dakota Mines president sets retirement date
Let's say the fee was $60 a month--essentially $2 a day, for that I get unlimited use, most likely excluding specific programs and limited by facility rental at times for tournaments and other events (rentals that offset the cost to me as an individual). I'd say that's a bargain--it does appear like a lot (yearly rate would probably be less I'm guessing?), but if you consider it costs a million dollars to maintain and staff the facility (likely hundreds of employees part time and dozens full time?) and to account for capital needs from equipment to maintenance issues. Maybe some special rates for city employees or other groups that support the facility annually with sponsorships? Assume the facility offers swimming lessons and maybe CPR certification and other education that improves the overall health of users and the community. And of course employees pay taxes and contribute to the economic well-being of the community. There will always be private options for folks who maybe want to do something specific like cross fit or the like--I'm guessing the monthly and annual costs would be higher for those options? At any rate, if you have a valid pro forma budget, you will know what you need to charge. If folks think it's too much, you wouldn't have to join, but having wellness facilities like this are important for the community. I don't know if the price being paid is reasonable or whether the facilities have been thoroughly inspected--but assuming all has been done, I'd say for the economic benefit, the recruitment potential, the overall improvement of the health and safety of the community, it might be a good investment. The key is, it is an investment.
The proposed fees are based on all things going as planned which we know always happens in life especially with government matters. (Just a touch of sarcasm here.)
How about we form a non-profit to build the facilities privately with donations? Sprinkle in some volunteer labor for operations and maintenance? Rally citizen/consumer support rather than incur more debt as a nation/state/city. How about we take care of each other in those ways without burdening every taxpayer?