Jump to content



Photo

Restroom Cost Set At 633,550 Dollars


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#21 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:59 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


Never said restrooms were not needed. But to spend 633,550 on a small glitzy restroom is just wasting our scarce tax dollars. And the aluminum panels don't fit in with the historic district. They could have saved the used bricks from the houses razed and bricked the outside of the restroom for a lot less. And it would have been a better fit for the historic district. JMO.
  • Bigfoot likes this

#22 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:03 AM

While I agree that $633,000 seems high --- I would withhold judgment until I actually saw the complete proposal and what those items you listed covered -- for instance, the "water fountains" -- are they inside the restroom building? or outside? -- and the electric -- does it just cover inside the restroom facility or is it electric for the entire park area?     I have a feeling that some of it may be for things other than just the restroom.     Since it is a public building it also needs to be extremely durable --- a cheap restroom could possibly be built, but it wouldn't last.    If it is indeed "glitzy" and a waste of taxpayer dollars, then I don't understand why you aren't opposed to spending a possible $6,000,000 on an indoor sports (soccer) facility that will take thousands of dollars to maintain on a yearly basis.


  • Donna likes this

#23 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:04 AM

The homes might not be of historical value but from what I've seen they look nice. Too bad all the shotguns or older homes that need facelifts can't be restored. Blending the old with the new glitz will transform our city into something inviting and exciting.

#24 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:07 AM

***** posted:  "I have always thought it was a big mistake saving them and moving them to the vacant lot on Pearl Street."
 
That does seem to be a very reasonable and intelligent statement.
 
 
Question:
Has your research shown what the total cost of those four questionable structures from all sources is to date?"
I think there have been some newspaper articles concerning the process.
 
It is possible that a much better decision could have been made.....


Yes they could have turned Galligan lose with a dozer. It would have been a better choice. The total cost is going to be high but are local tax dollars invested in the project?

Is the total amount invested more than the 633,550 scarce tax dollars spent on the ritzy glitzy restroom?

#25 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:14 AM

While I agree that $633,000 seems high --- I would withhold judgment until I actually saw the complete proposal and what those items you listed covered -- for instance, the "water fountains" -- are they inside the restroom building? or outside? -- and the electric -- does it just cover inside the restroom facility or is it electric for the entire park area?     I have a feeling that some of it may be for things other than just the restroom.     Since it is a public building it also needs to be extremely durable --- a cheap restroom could possibly be built, but it wouldn't last.    If it is indeed "glitzy" and a waste of taxpayer dollars, then I don't understand why you aren't opposed to spending a possible $6,000,000 on an indoor sports (soccer) facility that will take thousands of dollars to maintain on a yearly basis.


IM, those totals are just for the restroom. I have a breakdown of the costs of the glitzy control room too if you want it. As explained to me,the water fountains are drinking fountains located at the glitzy restroom.

#26 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,462 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:15 AM

Mike, you seem to be upset over $633,550 on the "ritzy glitzy restroom" that everyone can use, not just soccer families.  Yet it is a far cry from the $3 - $6 million dollars from the "ritzy glitzy" sports complex that you champion.  I strongly suspect that IM is correct that some of the expense under the umbrella of restrooms feeds other needs with the Big 4 park.


  • grammy and Big Bopper like this

#27 karen

karen

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 929 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:27 AM

Part of that money should have been spent on an elevator. 


  • kelley and Peanut like this

#28 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:28 AM

Never said restrooms were not needed. But to spend 633,550 on a small glitzy restroom is just wasting our scarce tax dollars. And the aluminum panels don't fit in with the historic district. They could have saved the used bricks from the houses razed and bricked the outside of the restroom for a lot less. And it would have been a better fit for the historic district. JMO.

. The park to me is refreshing and new. Just like the art around town is whimsical and fresh ( even though some pieces I may not care for) isn't in a historical fashion . But once new development is built old and new will blend. Give it time . Rome wasn't built in a day.

Edited by grammy, 25 April 2015 - 10:33 AM.

  • Donna likes this

#29 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:32 AM

You are right, rather than get involved with the discussion
of the glitzy soccer fields and the glitzy restrooms discussion
at the Impressive Big 4 Waling Bridge area,
I moved the preservation decisions discussion to the
Tina's "Why not this House" discussion


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 10:44 AM.

  • woo likes this

#30 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:52 AM

Mike, you seem to be upset over $633,550 on the "ritzy glitzy restroom" that everyone can use, not just soccer families.  Yet it is a far cry from the $3 - $6 million dollars from the "ritzy glitzy" sports complex that you champion.  I strongly suspect that IM is correct that some of the expense under the umbrella of restrooms feeds other needs with the Big 4 park.


Donna, you have been asking for examples of the wild spending by redevelopment so I presented one example. If you compare the cost per square foot for the restroom to the cost per square foot for a sports complex there will be a huge difference. And the sports complex will have restrooms and showers. What I don't understand is why some are surprised about a sports complex when it has been talked about for several years.

And again, this cost is for the restroom only.

#31 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:52 AM

Mike, you seem to be upset over $633,550 on the "ritzy glitzy restroom" that everyone can use, not just soccer families. Yet it is a far cry from the $3 - $6 million dollars from the "ritzy glitzy" sports complex that you champion. I strongly suspect that IM is correct that some of the expense under the umbrella of restrooms feeds other needs with the Big 4 park.

. Maybe because one is a RD project and one is a Parks project is why the objection of one over the other.
  • Big Bopper likes this

#32 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:14 AM

. Maybe because one is a RD project and one is a Parks project is why the objection of one over the other.


So parks dept can't have projects ? Both Rd and parks get their funding from tax dollars

#33 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:28 AM

[quote name="Not Super But Honest Mike" post="155531" timestamp="1429978446"]

So parks dept can't have projects ? Both Rd and parks get their funding from tax dollars[/ a Park is a Park regardless of who developed it. I personally like public parks and open green space. But the comparison is it's obvious some would be upset over anything RD does.

Edited by grammy, 25 April 2015 - 11:30 AM.


#34 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:31 AM

Donna, IM, here is a breakdown of costs associated with the water feature control room. This is the glitzy room under the ramp.

40,000 for masonry walls (concrete block)

40,000 for aluminum panels

5,000 for painting

9,300 for plumbing

12,000 for HVAC

90,750 for electric

#35 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,724 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:31 AM

 And the sports complex will have restrooms and showers.

Open to the general public?

(Doubt it)


  • grammy likes this

#36 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 12:18 PM

Open to the general public?
(Doubt it)


From what I've been told and from what has been discussed before, yes it will be open to the public. I remember there being a second floor and it was to be set up for anyone wanting to exercise and walk laps. This would provide a secure place, temp controlled and dry, for citizens to exercise.

#37 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 12:34 PM

Without fees to use the facility ? Totally free?

#38 JHS1982

JHS1982

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 12:58 PM

Ah yes.......the old "BRIT SCHICK HOUSE." I DARE you to say that as fast as you can 10 times. No.......I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!!! (Gasp!!) I'll wait............ 😜😝😛😳

Happy Saturday Chatter friends!!

Rod Daily
  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#39 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,724 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:00 PM

From what I've been told and from what has been discussed before, yes it will be open to the public. I remember there being a second floor and it was to be set up for anyone wanting to exercise and walk laps. This would provide a secure place, temp controlled and dry, for citizens to exercise.

Are the current fields open to the public without fees?

Considering that the sports palace has not even been constructed, it's hard to say what the rules of use will be.



#40 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:07 PM

Without fees to use the facility ? Totally free?


As I understand it, the exercise part on the second floor was to be free to Jeff residents. The downstairs
Would be used by leagues of different sports. I did here that it could be rented for private functions when it was not being used.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users