Comments on: Town Toilets Closed for the Season? Well, Not All!

By: Mike Kuzma, Jr

Mike Kuzma, Jr — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:18:44 +0000

Bill, to me the predicative statement is “In keeping with Government Regulations.” This to me is proof positive that there is a cost to compliance and anyone, or any political party that says otherwise, is simply lying to the public’s face. I’ll go you one further though regarding materials cost: Was the concrete supplier located right there in town? I would presume then there was at least a diminution in the cost of that since there was minimal delivery cost applicable. It’s always easy to overspend when it is not YOUR pocket into which you reach to pay. And Government has NO pockets.

By: Bill Smith

Bill Smith — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:44:07 +0000

I had the same thoughts on cost per square foot. The foundation of the bath house is roughly 30 feet by 40 feet giving a footprint of roughly 1200 square feet. Assuming that the town already owned the property, the $310,000 went entirely to materials and labor. If that is the case, simple math would then dictate that the bath house was built at a cost of approximately $258 per square foot. This seems ridiculously out of line with what any comparably sized private structure would cost to build. Thoughts?

By: Mike Kuzma, Jr

Mike Kuzma, Jr — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:38:03 +0000

I was using hyperbole to make a point, Ma’am. But let’s take this line from your reply: “In keeping with government regulations, 8 competitive bids were received.” From Case-Schiller, we see that the per-square-foot price in RICHMOND — a far more expensive area than the ESVA — is approximately $109 per square foot. Is that a 3,300 square-foot building? How about just using our heads? As Ms. Finney stated, for that much CC could have purchased a HOUSE in town and opened that up as the bathroom. All year long.

By: Mary Finney

Mary Finney — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:17:17 +0000

Wow. I am pretty sure I could build a very nice house with at least 2 full baths, kitchen and bedrooms for $340,000…. and have it functional year round.

By: Elizabeth Davis

Elizabeth Davis — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:39:48 +0000

The great thing about living on the shore is that if you have a question or if something doesn’t seem right, it has been my experience that you can simply ask someone involved and get correct information. The new bathhouse did cost approximately $340,000. In keeping with government regulations, 8 competitive bids were received, only one from a local builder. The local builder was the most competitive hence was awarded the job. The local contractor was paid approximately $315,000 to cover building materials, labor, etc. – basically the cost to build. The remaining approximately $26,000 was paid to a design firm who drew plans for the building. Not sure where the $310,000 in government administrative costs came from but from my research that is incorrect. As another point of clarification there are still 2 bathrooms open at the harbor in the harbor master’s office. The “new” bathrooms were closed to realize cost savings.

By: Mike Kuzma, Jr

Mike Kuzma, Jr — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:32:11 +0000

$40,000 for the building, $310,000.00 in Government Administrative costs. Sorry folks, but on 11/6/2012 we voted to give this type of Government Expenditure/lack of real life accountability a place in every aspect of our lives. Go read Dorie Southern's story on her Government service, and the corruption that flourished, and continues to flourish in THIS President's adminstration. It is EVERYWHERE. And the Country voted for more of it.

By: Virginia Gomer

Virginia Gomer — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:23:45 +0000

Anyone else scratching their head about the $350,000 cost to build the harbor bathrooms? Are you serious? Why so much? Do you have more information about that? Am I missing some aspect that would drive the cost up?