Jump to content



Photo

Restroom Cost Set At 633,550 Dollars


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#41 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:10 PM

My guess membership fees, just like a country club or YMCA . Even though the Aquatic center is open to the public it's not free. And some families sadly can't afford that much less a glitzy state of the art indoor facility.

#42 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:39 PM

Is there a membership fee at the old fieldhouse? A per day fee like at the pool? The fieldhouse is ran by our parks department.

#43 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 03:41 PM

NSBHM,

You might want to try Target, Sears, maybe Dillard's.
Hopefully you will be able to buy a life. Lol
  • DadOf3 and grammy like this

#44 18shortcreek

18shortcreek

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 03:58 PM

I h ave always been against re-locating the "historic"houses to Pearl Street.    The  land would have been much better used for a small mixed used hall or convention center for small activities that are too small for Louisville.   Also this would have helped by being connected to the north side of Court Avenue where, i would hope to see other development.  The city sat around years ago during urban renewal and let them abolish any number of house that should not have been torn down.  That seemed to start it and since then one by one "really historic"houses" have been demolished.  Sad, sad.......but old houses can't speak and if they did I'm certain no one in city hall would listen.

 

It seems there is a complete lack of fore-sight when it comes to anything pertaining to a long-ranged plan for the downtown or for the city as a whole.   Let's hope they do a better job on Tenth Street.\..

 

Also, I would like to learn the cost of re-locating and remodeling the houses on Pearl.  I would imagine the whole cost would have gone quite a way in using it as it should have been used in the first place.   I do think they have done a remarkable job on the houses and they look quite nice, but not there!


  • Sunflower70 and Donna like this

#45 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 05:20 PM

Is there a membership fee at the old fieldhouse? A per day fee like at the pool? The fieldhouse is ran by our parks department.

. I don't know how the fieldhouse is now but years ago my sons didn't like going there. But you can bet a new indoor facility won't be free. And if I remember correctly they did charge a couple dollars to shoot a game of basketball
  • GrumpyGranny and Donna like this

#46 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 05:34 PM

Is there a membership fee at the old fieldhouse? A per day fee like at the pool? The fieldhouse is ran by our parks department.

 

Yes, it is small, but there is a fee...http://www.jeffparks...ised&Itemid=215   

 

Even a small fee can prohibit some children from taking advantage of the fieldhouse.


  • IntegrityMatters, kelley, Kruger87 and 2 others like this

#47 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:37 PM

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.

Mike, remember when we were discussing the house in the middle of it and I pointed out how sweet it must be for the developer pushing the canal to own the one house that just COULDN'T be moved? I believe it was you who specifically stated that the Big4 and the canal were two completely separate topics and neither had anything to do with the other. Now, in this thread you say that the Texas developer, with regards to the CANAL was to pay for the construction costs for Big4.

So were they connected or not?

Eta: went back and read the old thread. It was JAML not you that kept insisting they were separate and didn't affect each other.

Except that old house that just happens to be owned by someone who wanted to connect the two. But whatever. ;)

Edited by Tina, 25 April 2015 - 08:18 PM.

  • kelley and Kruger87 like this

#48 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 30 April 2015 - 09:10 PM

In addition to the 633,550 spent on our ritzy glitzy restroom, redevelopment had to have ritzy glitzy access control for the ritzy glitzy restroom. The 14 December 2014 minutes from redevelopment reflect an agreement with Security Pros to provide access control (special door knobs/handles) for the ritzy glitzy restroom and ritzy glitzy fountain control room. These ritzy glitzy access controls cost 10,600 tax dollars. That's an average of over 3,500 per door! Only the best for our ritzy glitzy restroom!

#49 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 30 April 2015 - 09:33 PM

Pesty called it!

Was

it

Pesty 

said

that

s u b l I m I n a l l y  the term

glitzy,

in reference to pol spending,

as an educational phrase

would catch on in usage

as a concern of the

readers.

Nice!

 

:ninja:

Word Ninja or what!



#50 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 30 April 2015 - 10:02 PM

Well savile, can you tell me the location of another 633,550 scarce tax dollar ritzy glitzy public crapper? Anything so small and costing so much should earn Jeffersonville a State award in the small ritzy glitzy restroom category. Agree?

Hope someone points this out to Jim Smith. Maybe he can use it as an example of wasteful TIF ...scarce... tax dollars spent.

#51 CaptainPicard

CaptainPicard

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 776 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 10:38 AM

While I agree the price seems very high to us, the average person.  I can tell you that it's the norm in the government/school type industry.  Average people can build a pretty nice house for $150,000 but we're not dealing with the average person, we're dealing with the government.  I know of a similar type restroom, slightly smaller,  that was built 5-6 years ago for $250,000 so the $633,0000 probably wouldn't be too far out of line with that.  These type projects use the most expensive, heavy-duty toilets/fixtures, etc. made to withstand the abuse they will receive.  Another thing, the price also reflects what it costs to dig, run and hook-up electric, sewer and water to the building.  I don't like it either but that doesn't mean this project is any worse than another one just because it's associated with the Moore administration.


  • IntegrityMatters, TLIES, Donna and 1 other like this

#52 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 01:37 PM

While I agree the price seems very high to us, the average person.  I can tell you that it's the norm in the government/school type industry.  Average people can build a pretty nice house for $150,000 but we're not dealing with the average person, we're dealing with the government.  I know of a similar type restroom, slightly smaller,  that was built 5-6 years ago for $250,000 so the $633,0000 probably wouldn't be too far out of line with that.  These type projects use the most expensive, heavy-duty toilets/fixtures, etc. made to withstand the abuse they will receive.  Another thing, the price also reflects what it costs to dig, run and hook-up electric, sewer and water to the building.  I don't like it either but that doesn't mean this project is any worse than another one just because it's associated with the Moore administration.


Yes I understand public restrooms must be built heavy duty. If you review the breakdown I provided you will find the charges for plumbing that include the heavy duty commode and sinks plus connecting to the sewer were around 87,000 dollars. The stalls and other restroom equipment were a total of 3,000 dollars. I have no problems with these charges. On the other hand, 120,000 dollars for the concrete block walls sounds high as heck as well as 15,000 for painting. Then we have 160,000 for the ugly aluminum panels on the outside of the building, another big expense that we didn't need. Brick would have served the same purpose, looked better, and fit in with the historic district a lot better.

We learn from our mistakes. Perhaps these mistakes can be avoided in the future and a lot of tax dollars not be spent. I suggest the council pass an ordinance requiring all city funded structures to go through a value engineering study before construction. This study should look for the most economical way to provide the same level of service. This should reduce a lot of wasteful spending in the future.

#53 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 01:44 PM

Maybe the administration should have just put a couple of slop buckets inside an old wooden shack.

Make prisoners empty them into the river each night.

 

 

 

 


  • IntegrityMatters and grammy like this

#54 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 02:01 PM

Maybe the administration should have just put a couple of slop buckets inside an old wooden shack.
Make prisoners empty them into the river each night.


Not EPA approved.

#55 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 02:33 PM

Yes I understand public restrooms must be built heavy duty. If you review the breakdown I provided you will find the charges for plumbing that include the heavy duty commode and sinks plus connecting to the sewer were around 87,000 dollars. The stalls and other restroom equipment were a total of 3,000 dollars. I have no problems with these charges. On the other hand, 120,000 dollars for the concrete block walls sounds high as heck as well as 15,000 for painting. Then we have 160,000 for the ugly aluminum panels on the outside of the building, another big expense that we didn't need. Brick would have served the same purpose, looked better, and fit in with the historic district a lot better.

We learn from our mistakes. Perhaps these mistakes can be avoided in the future and a lot of tax dollars not be spent. I suggest the council pass an ordinance requiring all city funded structures to go through a value engineering study before construction. This study should look for the most economical way to provide the same level of service. This should reduce a lot of wasteful spending in the future.

 

If you have to go bad enough, you wouldn't care if they cost a million. :pinch:  :pinch:  :pinch: :pinch:  


  • grammy likes this

#56 Sunflower70

Sunflower70

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 120 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 08:00 PM

Jeffersonville Main Street owns the four houses that were moved. They are zoned commercial. Applications for leasing them will be available "in a few months" according to Jay Ellis. Jeffersonville Main Street will be occupying one of the houses as their office.

 

Re: the Big 4 restrooms--

They are not open 24/7 so good luck if you want to have a midnight stroll on the bridge and have need of facilities.

They are closed during the winter months much to the consternation of bridge walkers who have to try to find a business open where they can use the facility.

The restroom locks are controlled by computer with programmed hours which are "really hard to change" according to Redevelopment who oversees the park.



#57 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 01 May 2015 - 08:53 PM

For safety reasons I understand why the restrooms wouldn't be open 24/7. I don't believe any public parks are. In the winter the restrooms would have to be heated or else the pipes would freeze so that's why they are closed.

Edited by grammy, 01 May 2015 - 08:55 PM.


#58 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 02 May 2015 - 03:43 AM

For safety reasons I understand why the restrooms wouldn't be open 24/7. I don't believe any public parks are. In the winter the restrooms would have to be heated or else the pipes would freeze so that's why they are closed.


So we paid 28,000 to just cool the restrooms? The 633,550 cost didn't include heating the restrooms?
  • Sunflower70 likes this

#59 grammy

grammy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts

Posted 02 May 2015 - 07:16 AM

I don't know if it's got heating or not . But I don't know of any public parks that have heat in the winter. If that was the case a lot of our homeless would be staying in there . The glitz is there, take yourself and family and enjoy it . It's absolutely wonderful . After a fun day at the park and watching the children play you will have a different perspective of where some of our scarce tax dollars should go. The children who are enjoying it today are Jeff's future.
  • kelley and Donna like this

#60 Sunflower70

Sunflower70

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 120 posts

Posted 02 May 2015 - 08:10 AM

The reason given to me by the Redevelopment office is that as the weather cools there are fewer people coming and going from the restrooms. When fewer people are coming and going vandalism increases. I was also told that if I saw it was going to be a nice day to call them and they would try to override the computer system that locks it, but that it was "really hard to do".  (Like they can't tell when the weather was going to be good and don't have SOMEONE on the payroll that can unlock the place. Come on.)

 

Whatever the reason the city comes up with to close the bathrooms there are folks coming into our community over that bridge or coming to the park who do not have access to basic human needs. Not much of a welcome, eh? As a tax payer I expect to be able to use the facilities 365 days a year.  Additionally it puts a burden to those business who are open and in close proximity. I have witnessed 25+ people coming into a small shop in a 3 hour period to use the restroom because the $$$ one was closed. They weren't in the shop to spend any money. Most were from out of town and won't be coming back any time soon. The shop has to bear the associated costs and endure a situation where customers who were there to actually shop could hardly move around the shop for the folks waiting to use the bathroom. Yes, the shop owner could have told them there was no restroom available, but instead chose to be considerate of another person's needs.

 

Last summer before the $$$ bathroom was open the trailer unit was parked on Chestnut Street. A city employee came down as early as 8:00 or 9:00 to lock them up. There were still dozens and dozens of folks out walking.

 

I grew up in a town with a similiarly beautiful park with public restrooms open 24/7, 365. Yes, there was some vandalism, but that is part of the cost. There are ways to patrol that minimize the vandalism. All it takes is a committment to make the park as accessable and friendly as possible for the greatest number of people. Isn't that what Big 4 is supposed to do?

 

It makes no sense. We have this beautiful park on which millions was spent, yet our city officials won't come up with a solution.

 

The whole situation is lazy thinking by our city government. It is not rocket science. At the very least the city could provide two portacans during the months the $$$ one is closed.


Edited by Sunflower70, 02 May 2015 - 08:14 AM.

  • kelley and Not Super But Honest Mike like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users