Jump to content



Photo

Restroom Cost Set At 633,550 Dollars


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:02 PM

The cost of going to the restroom is high in Jeffersonville! The new restroom at Big Four park cost 633,550 Dollars to construct. The men's side has 2 urinals, two stalls, and 3 sinks,not sure of the women's side but I'm guessing 4 or 6 stalls and the same number of sinks. This seems more than just a tad on the high side to me.

The restroom is concrete masonry construction (concrete block) covered with some very expensive aluminum panels. Listed below are some of the costs.

120,000 for concrete masonry walls
160,000 for aluminum panels
33,250 for aluminum soffit and trim
15,000 for painting
83,700 for plumbing and water fountains
28,000 for HVAC
74,250 for electric
1,500 for toilet compartments
1,500 for toilet accessories

Could this have been built for less? I'm sure. But when they are spending our tax dollars the sky is the limit!

Maybe we should have someone taking pictures of the people using the restroom and saying something like .....I visited Jeffersonvilles 633,550 dollar restroom.....and selling them to the visitors.

This restroom was part of the design provided by the Estopinal Group for the park. They had a no bid contract for design services and were paid 363,000 for the design. That price does not include change order fees.

The enclosed area under the bridge ramp that is covered in the same expensive aluminum panels is the control room for the water feature. It cost 396,950 to construct. Total cost for the restroom and the control room was 1,030,500 tax dollars.

Can we afford more moore progress?

By the way, under the canal proposal, the construction costs of this park were being paid for by the developer from Texas.

Edited by Not Super But Honest Mike, 24 April 2015 - 10:05 PM.


#2 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 06:27 AM

and they are ugly!!!


  • Not Super But Honest Mike likes this

#3 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 06:30 AM


By the way, under the canal proposal, the construction costs of this park were being paid for by the developer from Texas.

Please post the written proposal.



#4 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:21 AM

Wait a minute - I didnt think the canal was connected to the Big4? when we were discussing Clinton Deckard's house in the middle of it all, I was told it had nothing to do with the canal.

#5 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:32 AM

Who now has control over the Clinton Deckard grey brick house at the Big 4 Station  project area

and the five houses that were moved?

 

How much TOTAL tax  money has been put into the

four questionable houses moved to Pearl Street on the commercial lot there?

What is their status?

Was that a wise decision?

When will we see a full public accounting from the entity

that got the funding to move and "restore" the

four questionable houses? 

I understand that an inquiry/investigation is to be made soon.

It seems that this was not done by a Texas company.

It seems that The Estopinal Group was not involved

in any way with the grey brick house or the five questionable junk houses

that were moved.


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 07:37 AM.


#6 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:39 AM

[quote name="Tina" post="155475" timestamp="1429964474"]Wait a minute - I didnt think the canal was connected to the Big4? when we were discussing Clinton Deckard's house in the middle of it all, I was told it had nothing to do with the canal.[/quote

The canal ran under the ramp. Tina, where were you when the canal was being discussed under Galligan? Just seems funny that you are so opposed to something that you don't fully understand.

The ramp location was chosen first, the Canal route was second, and the park was designed around all of it.

And I don't remember a 633,550 restroom being part of it. That is some expensive thrones.

#7 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:48 AM

Who now has control over the Clinton Deckard grey brick house at the Big 4 Station  project area
and the five houses that were moved?
 
How much TOTAL tax  money has been put into the
four questionable houses moved to Pearl Street on the commercial lot there?
What is their status?
Was that a wise decision?
When will we see a full public accounting from the entity
that got the funding to move and "restore" the
four questionable houses? 
I understand that an inquiry/investigation is to be made soon.
It seems that this was not done by a Texas company.
It seems that The Estopinal Group was not involved
in any way with the grey brick house or the five questionable junk houses
that were moved.


Savile, you are correct, the investor from Texas had nothing to do with moving the old houses. That was decided by moore and redevelopment. Greg Sekula was pushing to save those old houses. The old house so claimed by some to be the oldest structure in Jeffersonville.

But savile, you don't have any comments about the spending of 633,550 SCARCE tax dollars on a restroom???

#8 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:48 AM

Canal = :deadhorse:

Redevelopment threads = :GirlTemperTantrum_zps8d438803:

 

NSBHM on the redevelopment board = :bye: :no:

 

 


  • grammy and Big Bopper like this

#9 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:53 AM

Canal = :deadhorse:
Redevelopment threads = :GirlTemperTantrum_zps8d438803:
 
NSBHM on the redevelopment board = :bye: :no:


So just ignore the message and attack the messenger??

I could have predicted that from you.

#10 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:58 AM

So just ignore the message and attack the messenger??

I could have predicted that from you.

Most of what you post is simply not true....

Unless it comes from a reliable source, why bother commenting?


  • grammy likes this

#11 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 08:10 AM

Most of what you post is simply not true....
Unless it comes from a reliable source, why bother commenting?


So what is not true about the 633,550 tax dollar restroom?

Oh wait, that doesn't include the cost of the property.....

#12 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 08:18 AM

The part that was not true, was your reference to a developer, free bathrooms, and the canal.

There never was a written proposal, by a developer for the canal district was there?

Only promises by Tom, and most of his promises turned out not to be true.

If there was..... Post it!

 

The taking of private property by the city to hand it over to a developer is something that most citizens do not agree with.



#13 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 08:33 AM

The part that was not true, was your reference to a developer, free bathrooms, and the canal.
There never was a written proposal, by a developer for the canal district was there?
Only promises by Tom, and most of his promises turned out not to be true.
If there was..... Post it!
 
The taking of private property by the city to hand it over to a developer is something that most citizens do not agree with.


So most citizens won't agree with handing over the property at 10th and Spring to a private developer?

#14 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:05 AM

Savile, what are your thoughts on this glitzy restroom? Paid for with our tax dollars? Our scarce tax dollars?

Compare this to the 3 million spent to renovate our city hall....3 floors, big restrooms on each floor, personal shower added last year for the mayor, a glitzy shower....

#15 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:26 AM

.

 

 

 

 
 


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 10:04 AM.


#16 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:37 AM

John Perkins initiated a blanket "Historic District" in downtown Jeff.  Most of those houses had NO historic value, but because of the blanket "Historic District" had to be saved according to Greg Sekula.  I believe that both TG & MM had sought to have non-historic buildings removed from the list to prevent the financial fiasco of buying, moving and rehabbing shotgun houses that have no historic value whatsoever! 



#17 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:47 AM

.


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 10:05 AM.


#18 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:49 AM

The Big Four Park is one of the nicest places built in downtown Jeff for many years. Public restrooms are needed end of story. Can't we acknowledge Jeff is improving and give RD some credit . We have a long way to go and not everyone will be satisfied . Architure is just like art some see the beauty and others don't . The bitterness with RD flashes like a neon light that I'm not sure if it's comical or just sad . JMO
  • GrumpyGranny and Big Bopper like this

#19 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:50 AM

Savile, going from memory, redevelopment offered any structure for free but the taker had to pay for moving. This may have got Secula interested in the homes. Seems there was some funds left over from moving homes taken by the bridge project and Sekula asked and secured the leftover funds to save the homes you question.

I have always thought it was a big mistake saving them and moving them to the vacant lot on Pearl Street. That lot was privately owned and not owned by the city. Seems like redevelopment did vote to pay for over head utility lines to be buried.

Not sure why the sudden interest in these homes, care to explain? Or are you just attempting to divert attention from the ritzy glitzy restrooms?

#20 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:58 AM

.


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 10:06 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users