School board tables baseball concessions/bathroom building plans due to price

Despite a trimmed down design that reduced the costs of new bathrooms and a concessions stand at the Newton baseball field by about $100,000, school board members were still hesitant over the hefty price tag and ultimately decided to table the architectural design development plans for the project.

School board member Ray Whipple was particularly vocal about his displeasure with the “ridiculous” building costs, which were estimated at around $733,750. All people really want, he said, is a place to “go do their business,” and he wagered many do not care what the outside of the building looks like.

“I still think our price tag is way too high,” Whipple said. “I just think that there is no reason you need to spend this kind of money on those kinds of materials when we can put a cheaper thing in there. I’ve been to every ball park in our conference, and there is maybe only one that is close to that.”

Two separate meetings were held before architects unveiled the updated designs at the April 28 school board meeting. These input meetings were attended by staff groups and stakeholders. They gave architects insight into the space and its needs, and provided the basis of design for room details, equipment and layouts.

Rachelle Hines of FRK Architects + Engineers said the price tag had come down. In March, it was initially estimated the construction costs and the soft costs would total around $839,800. The architectural firm shaved off more than $100,000 thanks in part to the group conversations that occurred earlier.

According to the architectural designs, the building is about 937 square feet. Input directed architects to effectively mirror similar facilities at the nearby softball complex. The group felt a smaller footprint design would be best. Restrooms take up more than half the space, concessions occupy the remainder.

“What is driving the cost on this is the bathrooms. Plumbing fixtures, bathroom fixtures are more expensive than a plain building,” Hines said. “…You can look at other options. We can look at a totally wood frame construction. We have a wood frame roof on this. Again, it’s built almost identical to your softball (building).”

It was proposed the building be located on the north side of the field near the entrance and the home dugout by first base. Architects designed the building in a way to give spectators a clear line of sight to the bathroom entrances, which would let parents keep better eyes on their children.

Similar masonry and colors to the softball complex concessions stand and restrooms were proposed for the new building. Architects also added a metal canopy over the concessions area. Floor plans show both the men’s and women’s restrooms would be equipped with handicap accessible stalls.

School board member Kristi Meyer asked if it would be possible to build a smaller volume of toilets at first and use portable toilets to get by a season. Hines said it would be a hard sell since there is a low volume anyway. Michael Garcia of FRK also noted the material was also chosen because of its durability with foul balls.

Hines reiterated the biggest driver in costs is plumbing. The economy of scale is significantly reduced for buildings this size. She was frank: it is expensive.

Donna Cook told fellow board members that the district needs to construct the building right the first time so it will last. She doesn’t like the high costs, but she understands why it is so expensive. Hines noted there could be cost-savings if the restrooms and concessions building was included in a larger project.

Even so, there are factors to consider. Prices of materials could change. Inflation could affect nearly every aspect of the project. While it would improve economy of scale and could save money on materials, it doesn’t change the fact that plumbing will be a challenge no matter what.

Whipple sees the project as a want rather than a need.

“At the high school, we got a lot of need,” he said. “All we do is we keep putting that on the back burner … I just get really frustrated that we just can’t address our ADA stuff the way we should at the high school, but we can spend almost $800,000 to build a restroom and concession stand that isn’t necessarily a need.”

Travis Padget tried calming Whipple down and redirecting his anger. To Padget, it seemed like Whipple’s comments were unfairly targeting Hines and FRK, when they should be directed to the school board. Whipple relented and added he is directing his frustration at the board and not the architectural firm.

Perhaps another source of frustration came from the stakeholder group meetings in which Whipple said he attended one but not both. He said it was expressed to look at alternatives and reduce the size at the first meeting. But inexplicably, Whipple said he wasn’t invited of the second meeting. Staff said he was.

Still, Whipple’s frustrations were palpable and maybe even shared by his fellow board members, albeit to a lesser extent. Robyn Friedman, chair of the Newton school board, did stress the concessions and restrooms are a want and not exactly a need, especially since restrooms exist across the street.

“We did intentionally kick this can down the road,” Friedman said. “It could be a possibility to put this also on pause again if there are enough questions and concerns about it … This is, from the beginning, been a want, which is why we put it on the phase two (of the baseball field project).”

Cook hated the idea of a visitor team coming to the baseball field and having no bathroom to use or having to resort to the softball complex restrooms. She also noted not moving forward with the designs would further delay the project. And it would. In fact, it might even delay construction until the 2026-2027 school year.

School board members ultimately voted 6-1 to table the development plans of the restroom and concessions building with only Cook voting no.