According to this article appearing in Sun Thisweek, Dakota County Commissioners asked County staff to go back to the drawing board when they presented plans to add nine rustic (read: no plumping) treehouse-style cabins to the newest regional park at a cost of $810,000.
From the article:
Commissioners balked at the estimated $810,000 cost to build nine rustic “treehouse” cabins at the park. A restroom building and short road with parking was estimated to cost another $450,000.
“Are you crazy?” Commissioner Kathleen Gaylord asked parks officials presenting plans at the board’s Nov. 13 Physical Development Committee meeting. “Little cabins in the woods without any plumbing cost $90,000 each? … I could build a house for this kind of money.”
Staff noted treehouses built in Minnesota State Parks cost 1/3 of this but those would not meet the vision set by the County for the new park as well as those that cost $90,000. While it’s fairly clear $90,000 for a single rustic cabin without plumbing is definitely excessive, it doesn’t seem like it would take all that long to recoup the upfront cost.
I would be willing to bet that if these cabins were decent and the park itself was worth visiting, these cabins would be filled at least every weekend for the entire year much like those at other parks around the state. If they were occupied for 100 nights a year (basically two days every weekend) and the County charged $50/night (which is what Minnesota State Parks get for electrified cabins), then these could theoretically be paid off in around 18 years. While this is asking for a perfect storm (people wanting to actually visit the park and use these cabins), it is feasible–although still insane.
But even if the cabins themselves are feasible or insane, depending on your outlook, one Commissioner’s commentary about the roadway leading to the park takes the cake. Joe Harris wants the currently planned 1.5 mile gravel road ($680,000) paved (+$340,000) because he believes that if someone’s car gets dirty on the way in they’ll never recommend to anyone else that they visit the park. With overzealous estimates believing the park will see 1/2 million visitors in 2030, do you believe this something we need to worry about right now?
—
What do you think about this one? With the County already putting forth $4.7 million in tax dollars to build a new regional park, do you think it’s right that the County Staff is looking to spend $1.26 million on 9 cabins, a parking lot, and a bathroom? What do you think about Dakota County Commissioner John Harris’ statement that the 1.5 mile gravel road must be paved right now, at an even greater cost to the taxpayers, because he feels dirty cars = dirty gossip about the park?
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
November 15th, 2012 at 8:56 am
I can’t really improve on that question. But in the interest of feeling better about myself by venting, here goes my attempt:
Are you fucking batshit crazy? We’re spiraling further and further down a global economic shithole and you people are talking about $90,000 treehouses? Whose money are you spending here? And here’s a memo to John Harris: The people that can’t stand to have their precious Lexus or BMW’s clear coat tragically deflowered by the dust from a gravel road a) can stay the fuck out of parks and, b) are the same people who are running their stupid cars through Mermaid at $20-per twice a week anyway. WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THESE PEOPLE AND THEIR CARS. Go back to the Galleria or sipping your lattes in Wayzata you arrogant materialistic pricks. We don’t care if you won’t recommend this “park” (which sounds more like some alternate reality world place) to your other pompous same-black-BMW-driving neighbors from Edina. We don’t want you and your corporate boardroom bullshit talk about how you’re so rugged because you “took the kids camping” this weekend when you really pulled your $100,000 Mercedes into the paved lot of a climate controlled $90,000 tree house in the suburbs (complete with food delivery from Enjoy! ordered on your Blackberry while up in the tree).
Bill, I know you love little cabins in the woods and such, but even attempting to do the math to point out that they MAY (based on best-case scenario projections for use) recoup this “investment” in 18 YEARS is a slight loss of marbles. 18 YEARS in the best-case. First, what “custom designed treehouse” is going to last 18 years without needing new windows, roof and other high-cost maintenance? Besides, even if we DO build these stupid things at all (and I argue anyone wanting to visit can pack a fucking tent) let’s “recoup” the perfectly good $30,000-per-house version in a mere SIX years.
Someone needs to keep breathing a dose of reality into these Commissions and local government groups. All signs are leading to another looming economic disaster and these fools are STILL talking about skyways and sports domes and ornamental lighting and $90,000 treehouses.
STOP WASTING OUR MONEY YOU STUPID GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS….AND ESPECIALLY STOP MAKING HALF-MILLION-DOLLAR DECISIONS BASED ON PEOPLE THEORETICALLY PISSING AND MOANING ABOUT THEIR CARS GETTING DIRTY.
November 15th, 2012 at 9:15 am
You can go ahead and turn off the comments right now because MSPD said it perfectly!
November 15th, 2012 at 10:03 am
That is crazy! We definitely need bathrooms – with large soaking tubs. We can just divert a little money from courts or social services, or raise taxes to cover the extra costs.
As for the dirt road, it would be cheaper to give free car wash certificates to all those that got dust on their cars.
Where can I reserve my deluxe cabin in the woods?
November 15th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Without having attended the meeting it is a little difficult to throw stones, but I believe the basics are.
#1 – Staff failed in their most basic way possible in that the didn’t recognize, that the costs of the project were excessive, nor did they properly prepare with clear and compelling information to justify the costs.
#2 – The commissioners seem to both be out of touch, and on the ball at the same time. i.e. issues with dirt on cars is simply silly. My guess is if someone is willing to stay in such a cabin, the dust on their car will be quaint. Then equating staff to crazy people isn’t exactly proper over site of staff. I would have liked to see actual directed questioning of staff asking them real questions about this proposal that staff should have answers for.
Ever since the idiot voters of Dakota County authorized self taxation of over 20 Million dollars to set aside green space, I refused to be surprised at what the county does regarding such spaces. Voters set a standard, that the county staff live up to. I generally feel county folks are doing a very good job as stewards for the Dakota County public. While staff may have slipped up here, at least the Commissioners became the safety valve here.
November 16th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Good for the board for not just spending the money, as often seems to be the case. Pretty silly on the paved road logic though. Unless it is less expensive to maintain a paved road over the course of time?
MSPD had a great and valid post. The other thing missed in your 18 year example is that there is both upkeep and cleaning involved. I would guess that $50 bucks has to be spent on electric bills, replacing air conditioners every so many years, paying the maid to come clean up after the yuppies, etc.
So, sounds like a silly project to me. Probably a nice to have, and would be great to see them go forward, but lets start building things like its the military in the 30′s and 40′s again. Every govt building does not need to be a gleaming temple. Seen the govt stuff in Hastings? Or the new firestation in Eagan? Crazy. Utilitarian and functional should be the rule of the day.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] Dakota County, do us all a favor and go back to keeping taxes low by throwing $90,000 tree houses out of consideration only so the Staff can come back with plans at $60,000 and tell you they’re low and stop [...]
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:02 am
[...] in November, Lazy Lightning covered the $90,000 treehouse cabin plan which County Commissioners turned down as too expensive. They sent the County staff members back to [...]