It’s unfortunate that public concern or mistrust relative to Rock Chalk Park continues to simmer.

The idea of a large, multipurpose recreation center and park was good. It would be an asset for the community if the millions of dollars could be found to build the facility and if such a project did not delay other badly needed city facilities.

City officials, city commissioners, a local contractor, Kansas Athletics officials and top KU officials put together a plan that sounded great, although there were questions about the location of the park and certain unusual demands tied into the project.

The park was opened several months ago, and it is receiving good marks from those using the facilities. The Kansas Relays were held at the Rock Chalk Park in April, and the KU women’s soccer team has used the park’s new soccer field.

On the surface, aside from some construction problems, everything seems to be moving along reasonably well. However, there is growing concern about fiscal matters and just how well city officials have verified how millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent.

The city paid approximately $11 million in infrastructure costs for labor and materials to build the streets, sewers, parking lots, landscaping and other expenses, all without much of a review. For example, commissioners indicated they thought many of these costs were all right and seemed fairly consistent with what the city had paid for construction on other projects such as the new Lawrence VenturePark industrial park east of Lawrence along Kansas Highway 10.

Many in Lawrence thought city officials should have demanded a better accounting of these charges because fiscal arrangements between the city, the builder, KU Endowment officials and those in the KU athletic department were murky from the beginning.

All parties assured each other, and the public, that everything was proper and in line, and the city handed over about $11 million to the builder.

But there was approximately $1.09 million in legal fees, interest expenses and other “soft costs,” for which the builder was seeking reimbursement, that commissioners, after some prompting, decided they should question.

Earlier this week, the City Commission approved, as part of its consent agenda, payment of most of the disputed claims. The next day, city officials and commissioners tried to backtrack on the manner the bill was approved, without adequate public notice, and now say the money will be withheld until after it is discussed at next week’s commission meeting.

The whole thing, from the outset, has been handled, orchestrated and pushed through in an unusual manner starting with the demand that both the KU portion of the development and the city recreation center be built without a competitive bidding process. This is counter to city ordinances.

That’s water over the dam, but it’s likely to cast a lasting shadow on the city, KU Endowment Association and Kansas Athletics.

The even more damaging issue is that no audit has been conducted to determine the accuracy and validity of the approximately $11 million in bills the city paid for the project.

Generalizing that costs at Rock Chalk seemed to be in line with other city projects is not even a “review,” and certainly is not an “audit.” It’s more like a whitewash intended to assure the public that everything is on the up and up.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but taxpayers should believe that city officials are watching every penny and that all conditions of the contract are being met.

Again, a recreation center and sports park is good for the city, but the manner in which the park was put together and the millions of dollars involved raise many questions. These questions are sufficiently important for commissioners to redouble their efforts to verify all the expenses, invoices and payments.