.

Expensive Concession Stand Continues to Irk Board Members

Even after a representative from the construction company explained why the stand cost $68,000, some board members feel the district did not get enough for its money.

The senior vice president of the construction company that built Greenfield High School, assured the Greenfield School Board it got its money’s worth during the project, even when the company erected an expensive concession stand.

Dan Davis of CG Schmidt also told board members Monday a $68,000 price tag on a 12-foot-by-16-foot concession stand near the high school baseball field was a result of looking beyond short-term objectives.

“We looked at the concession stand as phase one of a larger project,” Davis said.

Davis said the original plan called for storage space and possibly locker rooms at the location, and that adding toilets is something that’s always been in the works. He added that the concession stand as it is now is more of a remote kitchen.

“Unfortunately, it’s got to meet all those codes to be a kitchen,” Davis said. “We went to the city and they said we’re not going to give you a building permit unless you meet all the codes. …. And the end plan was to have toilets there, so you had to have water, you had to have power and you have to have sanitary sewer.

“It all adds up. We didn’t have a lot of choice necessarily, about what we put in this building.”

Board member Rick Moze disagreed. He said he’s been hearing complaints about the concession stand for a year and a half and said the taxpayers feel “they got ripped off.”

“You can build a 1,700-square-foot house with four bedrooms, two and a half bath and two-car attached garage for $133,690,” Moze said. “That’s with a basement, heating system, insulation. You could live it in all year. And we paid $68,000 for a 12-by-16 shed.”

Board member Russ Spahn questioned referencing the concession stand as a remote kitchen since there is no room for an oven, stove or refrigerator. He said the building feels undersized for the amount of investment made.

“It cost us a lot of money and it’s not really designed to be improved upon in the future,” Spahn said. “It’s just a little building; it’s not truly a kitchen.”

Davis said the district could add toilets to the facility and still keep the entire cost of the project under $100,000. He said other districts are spending much more on similar facilities.

“It’s the first phase of a facility that will add to the value of your campus,” Davis said. “I understand, when you compare it to a house, it may look like a relatively small building. But when you get down to the detail, (the cost is) not unreasonable at all.”

KHD December 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Hahahaa, what did we expect him to say? Got are moneys worth, yeah right. Adding toilets will only be $32,000 ? wow, hurry before the price goes up. Do a full audit and lets see if we got our moneys worth. I cant tell you how many in the trades have seen this shed and there comments were something I cant print here. The taxpayers need an Audit to make sure the money was spent wisely, or good luck ever asking for a dime from us again.
Judy Johnson December 20, 2012 at 04:04 PM
I think that any time a new school is built with additional buildings added later there should be an automatic AUDIT done after the completion. The tax payers have a right to know how their thousands of dollars are being spent. It should be written into the contract before the project is even started. This would help to prevent shortcuts, cheap, poor quality products and hidden surprise costs. It may also prevent some pockets being linned due to fraud. I'm surprised to find out that automatic audits aren't already in practice. If people knew they were going to be held accountable they wouldn't be so quick to cheat us.
robert heule December 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Find a way to FORCE Davis to testify under oath.If that is not possible, refer the matter to the DA's office This has gone on way to long and the taxpayers want answers. Unfortunately, the sports community won't complain as long as it gets what it wants."Remote kitchen" sounds like a legislative term used in Washington and Madison to deceive the public when hiding an unpopular idea.
KHD December 20, 2012 at 05:36 PM
Robert, I found out through the sports community and they are very angry. The trades people I spoke about were all parents and Grandparents of athletes they came to watch. Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. They all expressed concern about what else taxpayers overpaid for. The DA, an audit or something needs to be done. You dont think Conrad is going to do it ?
JustMe December 20, 2012 at 07:36 PM
That shack cost $68k?
Lee December 20, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Since Dan Davis of CG Schmidt looks at this as phase I of the "rip off", I sure hope he is not awarded the contract for phase II of the continued "rip off". Shameful. We got took! And I bet Mr. Davis and his company laughed all the way to the bank with this one.
KHD December 21, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Agree Lee, which brings us to the Question, WHO was in charge of making sure our tax dollars were spent wisely???
Lee December 21, 2012 at 12:33 AM
KHD, you are so correct. WHO in Greenfield was in charge of this. Someone had to authorize this. (Or at least I hope someone had to authorize this......)
robert heule December 21, 2012 at 02:18 AM
The annually audit is public record
robert heule December 21, 2012 at 02:44 AM
Will someone be compelled to work in a "remote kitchen" when returning from work release? The term cracks me up.
John Seymour December 21, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Conrad Farner...he's the KING
Chris Kelnhofer December 21, 2012 at 05:44 PM
A concession stand is definitely not worth that much. They screwed up on this one.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »