According to this article in the Star Tribune, the Farmington School District is a deadbeat and the school board is not paying money that is due to the DLR Group, the $100 million high school’s architect.
I’m quite understanding when it comes to the unfortunate situation that school districts face when it comes to finding funding to build new buildings, outfitting students with the tools they need to succeed, and pay staff on an ever decreasing budget. Hell, everyone is feeling the pinch — I get that. What I cannot fathom is a district being months behind on nearly three quarters of a million dollars in owed monies because school board members refuse to abide by a contract.
I would probably side with the school district if they hadn’t been so fucking careless about the entire project ever since the beginning. Between fighting with the city over the location of the school and then defying voters by adding a $3 million gymnasium when residents voted down a $24 million sports addition to the already astronomical cost of the high school.
Yes, the district has a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that overages are done in a fiscally responsible manner and that the outside contractors are not screwing the district and taxpayers over. But both sides openly agree that overages have occurred because the school district requested them and while I haven’t read the contract, I can’t imagine that DLR Group would go so far as to say that it clearly states that they aren’t responsible for cost overruns if it did not.
This is truly a sad state of affairs for everyone involved, especially the students of the Farmington School District. It will be them that will have to suffer with the possibility of a high school that isn’t completed or possibly even open if the school district doesn’t resolve its problems. The taxpayers will not only have the burden of the $100 million high school on their shoulders but now any legal costs that may be associated with the current fight.
Are you a Farmington resident? Do you believe that the school district is justified or are they just trying to delay the inevitable?
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
I don’t see why school districts feel the need to build new buildings when millions of square feet in not-so-old retail, warehouse and office space sit empty. They need to think outside the box.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
sornie, yeah, I really don’t understand the need for a $100 million facility. Will the building itself really enable students to learn or will placing that money into lowering the student/teacher ratio, supplying them with better materials and/or hiring more experienced teachers do more?
I’d be willing to put my life on the statement that the facility means jack.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Rehabbing many of those empty buildings would actually cost millions more than building a new building, because of the difference in building requirements for a school and a warehouse. Schools require much stricter building codes, and materials, everything is looked at much more closely from a warehouse to a school.
I do not live in Farmington, but my parents do, and from what I understand, the city gave the school permission to build, so they bought the land they’d gotten approval for. Then, the city decided they wanted to encourage kids driving through downtown to get to school, so that the little shops in Farmington’s downtown would get more business, so they changed their minds and told the school district, no, you can’t build there, you have to build here instead, even though the school district had already gotten permission and purchased the land. Hence the ensuing fight over where to build. So that aspect, is not the school districts fault, but the uppity city council’s.
According to the article, the school district had given reasons for non-payment to the architect, and has not said they wouldn’t pay it, just that they would pay when it was settled on what they were actually responsible for. Any business corporation would do the same, but because it’s a school district, people have different standards for them, which they should, as taxpayers pay for the schools, children attending or not, but before they get all up in arms about things, they need to do their research and actually understand what goes on in a school and why things need to be done they way they need to be done. While I’m sure that DLR wouldn’t say that if it wasn’t there, why would the school district t the same time say they’re not responsible. It seems that both sides will be giving a little.
I’m not sure where paying 3 million for a gym, which every high school needs, instead of 24 million for a sports complex that no high school needs is defying voters. The money for the complex didn’t pass, and unless the school tried to pass a levy to pay for the 3 mil gym, which they can’t do, because a school can only have one levy per voting event, then they’re not defying the voters, because the voters didn’t vote on the gym and taxes are not being raised because of it. (Indeed, taxes are often not raised because of levys, it’s often a reallocation, but the voting public doesn’t know that and so they vote it down, Lakeville is an example of this, I believe) It’s 1/8th the cost. If they didn’t get the sports complex they wanted, they still need the gym. The money has to come from their existing budget, so how is that defying voters?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
And sorry about the length of that comment. And for the record, I’m not defending the school not paying their bills. Everyone has to pay their bills.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
dawnmarie, it was a great and informative comment. Thanks for taking time to put some background out there for the rest of us.
When I read “auxiliary” I took it to mean that it would be in addition to an already planned gym. Looking at the site plan and the new HS tour brochure, it would appear that my assumptions were correct. They will already have a ridiculously large gym (three full sized basketball courts with seating for 1,900). There is no need for an additional gym there.
Yes, there are a large number of students in attendance at various K12 institutions today. Unfortunately, beginning in 2009 – 2010, the enrollment decline starts and will continue for many years. I just don’t see the need to build this sort of facility which, from the looks of it, is more of a shrine to Tiger Sports than anything else.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Just a comment about the cost of education.. I’d like to point out that St. Joes school in Rosemount, teaching in a nasty 75 year old building, average teacher salary probably not surpassing 30k, consistently scores the same or better than the rest of district 196.
Do our schools REALLY need more money or do they just need to learn to be more efficient?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Private schools are not required to hire licensed teachers, hence they do not need to pay teachers as much. Though the teachers they hire may be licensed, because they’re private, they don’t have to be, and they still don’t have to pay more. Would you work for 40 years at a job where your salary wouldn’t surpass 30K a year? I took a 20-25000 dollar paycut to go into teaching, because it’s what I want to do, but my pay isn’t going to stay that low, unless I don’t continue my education.
On the St. Joe’s website, one of their goals is “St. Joseph School in partnership with the parish, will seek ways to improve the physical spaces now used to carry out its programs.” So they may be in a ” nasty 75 year old building” now, but it appears that they aren’t too happy with it. They don’t have to ask for public monies, because a: they can’t, really, and b: they charge tuition. If they were a public school, you can bet they’d be asking for money to improve their spaces.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Dawnmarie, I am not debating what teachers should or shouldn’t be paid or that a new school should or shouldn’t be built. So you’re comments are completely irrelevant. My point is that you CAN in fact provide a satisfactory education without spending billions. So contrary to Bill’s position that he’d normally side with the school, I normally wouldn’t by default.
In spite of lower paid teachers and a crappy enviornment, it is possible to educate. The new parish paid-for school will just be a bonus for the students. Just think.. no more asbestos, no more heavy metals, air conditioning, playground, ball field, handicap compliant, etc
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
My point is not irrelevant, because public schools are required to hire licensed teachers, and they all have union involvement, which makes it impossible to hire lower paid teachers and keep them low paid. Ergo, public schools need more money from the public to operate than private schools do. You cannot compare a public school to a private school and make a conclusion. That would be like concluding that because apples are a fruit and grow on trees, raspberries, also a fruit, must therefore grow on trees. The two are not transitive.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I think once you get passed the tone of bf’s comment, you’ll see that he’s trying to say that a quality education can come without the need for a $100 million sports complex with a few classrooms.
Yes, public education is exactly that — a necessary burden on the public but I think there may have been some liberties taken with this facility that really don’t seem to make much fiscal sense.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Regardless of what you think the requirements are, St. Joes DOES in fact hire licensed teachers who ARE members of the union. Believe it or not, the school has to also meet whatever state and federal academic guidelines that the public schools do in order to maintain accreditation. You can’t compare the two in all aspects. But you CAN in fact compare the two in regards to education output versus cost and the private school will win everytime (in the case of St. Joes). And the usage of your beloved theasarus isn’t going to change that.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:57 am
As a Farmington resident, I wonder how the residents would vote now if the votes had to be done all over again in the current economic climate…
I can appreciate some of the green aspects of the school, but I would have to agree with the previous comments regarding the “Shrine to Tiger Sports”, instead of spending that $3 mil on the auxiliary gym, why not put that cash towards something more academic/arts oriented?
It almost seems this is a case of the council looking at Lakeville and having a case of “the grass is always greener…”.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Another article on this topic from the Star Tribune here. My favorite is that the Farmington School District is pissed about $1.5 million in overages… Well, I’d guess that they are about $55 million over what a school should have cost so what’s another $1.5 million?
December 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Another article about the troubles between the DLR Group and the Farmington School District can be viewed over at the Pioneer Press here.
Basically what it says is that the Farmington School District is going to waste more taxpayer dollars by litigating against DLR and hiring a new firm to make the expensive changes it wants.
If I were another architectural firm I’d tell District 192 to get fucked but that’s just me.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
dawnmarie, you’re not helping, in fact you’re hurting your own arguement. Everyone knows that the actions of the City and district can not be condoned, yet unless the residents do something about it – ie get a legal injunction and seek removal of officials, nothing will change. Talking down to people and acting like an educational wonk is simply going to further push people away from supporting the city and districts.