A couple of weeks ago, Farmington’s school district fired DLR Architecture group over disagreements on who should pay for overages on their 100 Dollar Million Shrine to Tiger Sports (TM). DLR originally sued the district for nearly 3/4 of a million for failure to pay and now it’s time for the Farmington School District to get even.
According to this article in the Star Tribune, this article from Thisweek, and this one via the Farmington Independent, Farmington’s school district has countered with a lawsuit of their own. This wasn’t surprising at all being that District 192 needs to save face over a lot, especially their superintendent controversy which has received plenty of coverage on this site here and here.
What is surprising, however, is that the district just can’t seem to get one hand talking to the other especially when they’re spouting off to the media about their issues with DLR. The Star Tribune article says that the district felt DLR, “failed to produce reliable timetables that workmen could follow, and the project was ‘consistently over budget’ under the firm’s supervision.” But just a few paragraphs later Rosalyn Pautzke, the district’s administrative services director, is quoted as saying that, “construction of the high school is on schedule and on budget.”
I’d really like someone to explain how, in a little over a month, the Farmington High School went from the dire straights they were in, requiring legal wrangling, the hiring of a new architectural firm, and millions more in taxpayer dollars to pay for a lawsuit to being back on time and on budget as of today.
Sounds like those residents who live under the District 192 umbrella better pull out the same pair of waders you did when you heard the Meeks controversy and get ready for more horseshit slung from the Farmington school district.
Are you paying taxes to District 192? What do you think about this latest lawsuit over The Tiger Sports Shrine? Is it worth it to sue, hire a new architect, and possibly pay for both or would it have just been better to pay the overages, which are both common and expected especially in buildings that cost 100 million dollars, or is the Farmington School District handling this the right way? Comment on, I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Well…. this isn’t surprising at all. We have two kids that are school age, and have forked out money for the most basic things because there isn’t money in the budget…. but this sports shrine is going up. Our oldest was asked to participate in this welcome new students group and we had to pay $30.00 for a single t-shirt, and another $80 in required supplies… of course the kids were volunteering to participate in the schools “welcome new students” program… and lucky us got to pay for it. This is not a district that spends money wisely – more like a group of drunken sailors. I am the daughter of a football coach, played sports in HS and in college. I believe that athletics gives our children a lot of valuable skills and challenges. HOWEVER there is a difference between a need and a want. Sure who doesn’t “want” a sports complex? But the reality is that money is being diverted from real educational needs, and a sports complex isn’t something that is NEEDED. Rather than spending money on things all of our children need, and would benefit from we’re putting hundreds of millions of dollars into something that is frivolous and unnecessary.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am
I was disgusted and then I read ckmunson’s comment and now I’m sad.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Um, yeah – I agree – generally that school districts tend to spend money in a questionable manner. But, there are a couple of things that need to be factored in, when it comes to schools and money.
Money comes to schools from those wizards at the Capital in two different funds. The Capital Fund and the General Fund. Now, the General Fund pays for salaries, very basically, and the Capital Fund pays for items that will, at some time, be worn out, or are expendable. Read here, desks, paint, school supplies, etc. – EXCEPT for buildings, and the like. For all buildings and repairs to them, there needs to be a Bond Referendum to finance it. So – when you are bitching about the building that is being built, you are bitching about something that was voted on by the district citizenry. So – you DID have your say in whether or not that building should or should not have been built.
Cost over-ride happen, as Bill said. But there should have been some foresight in the contract that would have addressed this common happenstance. Take the board and its’ architect to task for that.
A deeper, almost hidden, and very insidious problem in educational funding is the non-funded mandate. No Child Left Behind is a glaring example of the Feds setting requirements, and then not funding them, or not fully funding them. Yeah – that’s right! They decide that the schools MUST do X, Y and Z, and then the dollars to implement those policies are not there. So – where does the money come from to pay for those “special” projects? Yup – from the General Fund, that should be paying for “regular”, “mainstream” education.
OK – I’m off target a bit, so I’ll close by saying again. If it’s a building project, you DID have your say in it. It had to be built with Bond referendum money. It’s the only way education can fund a building project.
Cheers – Irving
January 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Another thing about NCLB (Which is a swear word in my house) is that not only is it unfunded, but if benchmarks aren’t met, and those benchmarks go up every year, regardless, funding is TAKEN AWAY.
But Irving’s right, you did get your say.
And the board should really all be saying the same thing.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
***
But there should have been some foresight in the contract that would have addressed this common happenstance. Take the board and its’ architect to task for that.
***
Expecting foresight from the District 192 board is pointless. I.e. the lack of any consideration payed to control systems at intersections on Flagstaff ave now that they are putting a high school there. They may have wanted to figure that out before they finished building the road since apparently their options after the fact are either extremely expensive, or stupid.
Here is a report… note the costs of putting a signal in due to moving a road… a road they could have moved earlier and saved on costs.
http://www.ci.farmington.mn.us/Councilagenda/Minutes2008/CouncilWorkshopMinutes-Transp_12-10-08.pdf