BY NORAH SHEPPARD-HUTCHINS
Daily Post Staff Writer
The city of San Carlos is spending nearly $3 million to build a restroom at Harrington Park, almost double the cost of the infamous $1.7 million restroom proposed in San Francisco a few years ago.
San Carlos’ Harrington Park has been undergoing renovations since April and the total park project will cost the city between $6 million and $7 million, according to city reports.
About $1.67 million is being used to construct the restroom itself, and $1.25 million is going toward a decorative wooden canopy for the park located at the 700 block of Laurel Street, according to a bid proposal by Azul Works Inc. that the council approved Feb. 9. That’s a total of $2.92 million.
Additionally, a drinking fountain is being dismantled for $8,000 to be replaced with a $28,000 fountain. The park’s blue man statue is being removed and reinstalled for $6,600.
In 2022, a public restroom at Noe Valley Park in San Francisco was estimated to cost $1.7 million. After public backlash, the city backed away from the plan. Then two out-of-state vendors offered to build a bathroom at no cost, and the city ended up only spending $300,000 for permit fees and employee time, according to ABC7.
In San Carlos, voters in November will be asked to increase the sales tax by a half-cent. Measure G would generate $6 million annually to fund projects, including downtown revitalization.
Construction is expected to continue into next spring.
The city’s initial estimate for the Harrington Park project was between $4 million and $5 million; however, Azul Works was the only bidder.
Why are you blindly parroting a new to the scene candidate’s characterization of this project? There are always more to issues than what someone uses to grab headlines. Do your own independent research as to where the costs come from. Perhaps there is a story.
Usually what grabs the attention is not the whole thing.
No one is thrilled about the cost of this project, but I have to wonder.. is this headline and article an anti-measure G political ad? Sure seems like it..
It is mirroring a Commission Candidate’s position onthe park rebuild and possibly on G. We’ll wait for confirmation in their endorsements.
Terry Gans and Ktcald aren’t quibbling about whether the facts are right. They’re upset it’s being reported by the paper. Better to keep these embarrassing facts under wraps rather than letting the community know, right guys?
Whenever a government entity is asking for more money, it certainly seems reasonable to consider how wisely they have been using the money they have.
I was a journalist for 40 years and this is weak journalism
Really, Tim. You don’t explain why it is weak journalism. The facts are right, aren’t they. But the story embarrasses the city’s leaders. So where were you a journalist for 40 years?
Moving forward with sole-bidder capital projects over internal estimates raises valid questions about spending priorities. Because Measure G is a general tax (50%+1 threshold to pass) rather than a dedicated special tax, none of its projected $6M additional annual revenue is legally locked into street repair or public safety. It provides more revenue that can be allocated to discretionary capital projects like this $6M Harrington Park ‘refresh’.
The detail that “Azul Works was the only bidder” raises a question about how the city assessed value before approving the contract. Did the council compare the restroom and canopy costs with similar completed projects, or consider revising the scope and inviting new bids?
The sole bid does make the jump from the park’s estimate concerning. Voters should get a breakdown of what changed before deciding on Measure G.
[Part removed — Terms of Use violations. No links, no advertising.]
Separating the canopy cost from the restroom makes sense. Voters could also use a breakdown of ongoing upkeep before deciding on Measure G. As a small side note on record keeping, I help build ReceiptBoard, which offers this payment receipt template for documenting payments.
[Part removed — Terms of Use violations. No links, no advertising.]