If Lawrence voters approve a $59 million bond issue for school construction, district officials expect to pay an out-of-town consulting firm as much as $3.9 million.

That’s outrageous, say critics of the bond issue.

“It’s a scam,” said David Holroyd, 58. “Why do we need outside consultants coming in here, telling us what we need to do?”

Holroyd, a retired forklift operator who’s lived in Lawrence since 1965, has read the district’s contract with the Overland Park-based DLR Group. He says there’s nothing in it to stop the company from making money by increasing the district’s costs.

“The contract is based on a percentage of the construction costs,” he said. “So the more the buildings cost, the more they get paid.”

DLR, he said, won’t do anything the district couldn’t do on its own.

“That’s what is so incredible about this — Lawrence is supposed to be this progressive, intellectual town, and yet we’re so stupid we have to hire somebody to do our thinking for us.”

Bring in the experts

School Supt. Randy Weseman disagreed with Holroyd’s assessment.

The school district, he said, has neither the staff nor the expertise to oversee all the remodeling, expansion and new construction in the bond issue.

Hiring an expert, he said, makes sense.

Though it’s true DLR could be paid as much as $3.9 million, it’s also unlikely.

The company’s contract with the district says that if the bond issue passes, DLR will be paid between 6 percent and 9 percent of the $43 million set aside for actual construction — somewhere between $2.6 million and $3.9 million. The final amount is subject to negotiation.

“The $3.9 million figure — that’s at the top end,” Weseman said. “We’ll be shooting for the bottom end; the ball should land somewhere in between.”

¢See more information on the school bond issue

And the 6-percent to 9-percent figure, Weseman said, is the “industry standard” and “not out of line at all” for construction and project management.

Tom P. Montgomery, vice president in charge of education facilities at Gossen Livingston Associates Inc., a Wichita architectural firm, confirmed Weseman’s assessment.

“Six to 9 percent — that’s within the range it should be, yes,” said Montgomery, whose firm is not involved in the Lawrence bond issue.

The breakdown

The $59 million includes $43 million for actual construction. DLR’s payments will come out of the remaining $16 million.

The $16 million also will cover the projects’ architecture and engineering costs, legal fees, furniture, hardware and all other ancillary costs.

Within the $16 million, $6.9 million will be put into a “contingency fund” to cover unforeseen expenses.

About the DLR payment, Weseman added:

• DLR will not be paid all at once; instead, the company will be paid as work is performed.
• If the bond issue fails, DLR will not be paid for its efforts. As yet, the company has not been paid for its work in putting together the master plan that’s being financed by the bond issue.
• Among Lawrence-size school districts, hiring a firm like DLR to coordinate the planning and oversee construction is commonplace.

“This is no different than what was done after the bond issues that passed in 1992, 1994 and 1998,” Weseman said. “No, that’s not right — the only thing that’s different is that we’re telling voters about the ‘soft costs’ before the vote. The other times, it was added in afterward. Either way, the cost is going to be there.”

Not convinced

The bond issue’s critics aren’t buying Weseman’s explanation.

“I still say the best thing to do is to kill the bond issue, get DLR out of the picture, save the $3 million and do the work ourselves,” Holroyd said. “Let the architects oversee their own projects.”

Arly Allen, retired president of Allen Press, said he objected to DLR campaigning for the package they helped assemble.

“They’ve crossed the line,” Allen said. “They’ve gone from being advisers to being persuaders.”

He said DLR’s drive to increase profits has had a “corrupting influence” on the school board.

“What they’re doing is not illegal, but it’s immoral,” Allen said.

Again, Weseman disagreed. “The school board is driving this,” he said. “All DLR is doing is consulting, providing information.”

If the bond issue passes, DLR will be in charge of overseeing the four Lawrence-based architectural firms — Gould Evans Associates, Treanor Architects, GLPM Architects, and Sabatini and Associates — handling the design work.

“We’ll be making sure the architects’ drawings match what’s been budgeted, what’s been planned for and what’s best for students,” said John Fuller, principal at DLR.

Good reviews

The company would “coordinate systems,” he said. “By that I mean rather than the architects calling for, let’s say, nine different types of door hardware, we’ll be there to say, ‘No, let’s all use the same kind of hardware, let’s get the best bang for the buck.'”

DLR also would oversee actual construction, start to finish.

Fuller, who lives in Overland Park, was elected to the Blue Valley (USD 229) school board in 1999. He serves as the board’s vice president.

A nationally known company, DLR has offices in 17 cities, including Overland Park, Kansas City, Mo., Chicago, and Des Moines.

DLR’s Kansas customers give the company good reviews.

“Our experience with DLR has been very positive,” said Eudora school superintendent Marty Kobza. “They came up with a very flexible design for our high school; it’s one we think is very flexible and one that’s going to adjust to our educational needs as they evolve.”

Similar to the Lawrence effort, DLR helped the Eudora school board pass a $16 million bond issue in 2001 for a new high school.

The firm helped the Osawatomie school district pass an $8 million bond in 1996 for a new elementary school. The company also designed the building and oversaw its construction.

“They did an excellent job for us,” said Osawatomie superintendent Robert Cook. “I have nothing but positive things to say about them.”

DLR also oversaw construction of the Kansas Speedway in Wyandotte County.