$5.2 million too high for Laporte school

In the summer of 1996, through some connections, I landed a part-time gig writing for two weekly newspapers: The Cass Lake (Minn.) Times and the Northwoods Press of Nevis, Minn. During the summer while I was interning at The Bemidji (Minn.) Pioneer, I also wrote a number of features and covered some Laporte (Minn.) School Board meetings for these two papers. I ended up with some great stories, and received a food following among their readers.

Oct. 3, 1996

By Devlyn Brooks

The report commissioned by the Laporte School Board to study what options would be available if the board approved a school building project is in, and the board, and at least a small group of district residents, are not happy with it.

The report, completed by Barton Malow Company, a Twin Cities consultant firm, stated that remodeling and renovating the school's old building and building a new shop, art room and kitchen would cost about $5.2 million. Other options stated in the report would cost around the same amount, and one was listed at more than $6 million.

However, according to board member John Seegmiller, the consultants did not listen to what the school district wanted because the board had discussed they did not want to spend more than $2 million, and even less if possible, if they decided to move forward with a building project. Because the report did not realistically address the district's needs, Seegmiller, along with other board members, said they were not happy with it.

A group of district residents who are also unhappy with the report told the board so at the Sept. 23 board meeting.

Speaking on behalf of the Kabekona Lake Association, Floyd Anderson, referring to the dollar amounts listed in the consultant report, asked the board what they had expected to receive from the consultants. Anderson said the three members of the association were not at the meeting to criticize the board; they just were concerned about the large numbers stated by the consultants in the report and wanted to ask the board members how they felt about the report.

Seegmiller said what the board originally had thought the consultants would find and what they did find were entirely different. He said the consultants had originally talked about different kinds of government aid that might be available to help the district in a building project and none of that information was in the report.

Another problem with the report was the board had told the consultants they were not looking to spend any more than $2 million, and the report's options did not address that amount, he said.

Anderson said he felt the problem started with the Visioning Committee meeting held last spring at which the consultants obtained information about what the district would want if a building project was approved.

"I was disappointed with the fact that (the Visioning Committee) was such a canned committee," Anderson said.

"We were given an agenda and we filled in an agenda. I don't feel we did much visioning. I feel (the consultants) wanted to validate what they had already decided," Anderson said. "They wanted an implied consent from the group that they were going down the right road."

Board member Karla Hadrava agreed. She said the consultants made a lot of assumptions that were not expressed by the committee members.

Anderson also asked the board if they had ruled out consolidation with another school rather than proceeding with a building project already, but board chairman Jim Day said it was not a possibility any longer.

"First, there's not a school in the immediate area that could take us," he said. "Everybody's full. Walker's full. Nevis is full. Bemidji's full. Akeley's full. Ten years ago I think we could have consolidated. Not now."

Seegmiller agreed that he would not like to see Laporte's school consolidate because it provides a number of jobs to the town.

"I want to keep jobs in Laporte," he said, "but if consolidation is an option, it should have been explored (by the report). The reason we selected a Visioning Committee was to hear all aspects, good and bad."

Day told Anderson the board was in need of having a discussion with the consultant company as soon as possible, before anything more happens.

"We're in the same boat as we were in during the last building project with people coming in and telling us what we needed," Day said. "I think they're wasting our money right now."

IN OTHER ACTION, THE BOARD:

APPROVED tentatively the 1996-97 school district tax levy until final approval at the Truth in Taxation hearing Dec. 9 at 7 p.m.

RECEIVED a report from Behounek that two five-row, 15-foot aluminum bleachers, seating 100 people, would cost $2,380. No action was taken.

TABLED a discussion about the use of district vehicles.