Attorney fees, Schutze report: $90,129.01 billed to school district
In response to my request pursuant to the California Public Records Act, the attorneys for the Woodland Joint Unified School District have provided costs related to environmental concerns at the district offices.
At issue are the air quality results included in a March 17 Demand Letter from Philip J. Henderson of Miller, Brown, Dannis Attorneys of San Francisco to Dan Logue, who represents his mother Kate Logue - owner of the Cottonwood Plaza where the district offices are located.
The letter from Henderson demanded that Cottonwood Investors "take immediate and decisive action to ensure the health and safety of District employees." On March 21, the legal firm of Scharff, Brady & Vinding representing Cottonwood Investors responded to the allegation of material breach of the lease agreement. The response from Scharff, et. al., refuted the allegations and characterized the environmental survey conducted by Schutze & Associates of Oakland as flawed.
The March 17 Demand Letter arrived just two months after district officials agreed with their landlord's report that the Cottonwood offices were environmentally safe. Since that letter, district superintendent Jacki Cottingim ordered many employees to relocate to another site. It is not known if the Yolo County Health Department or CalOSHA have declared the district offices as unsafe.
Today, in compliance with the public records request, Donald Velez of Miller, Brown, Dannis sent a list of all costs associated with the environmental issue. The costs are not itemized by company (Miller, Brown, Dannis or Schutze & Associates or other firms), but the total billed since June 30, 2007, amounts to $90,129.01. The total paid by the district thus far is $32,166.72. Trustees need to approve amounts in excess of $15,000. One payment of $19,216.89 was made on a March 11, 2008, purchase order.
16 comments:
HOLY SHIT!!!
919am, I love the response as that is what I was thinkin'! $90k goes along way in supplies for teachers/kids...
Jacki C. is spending MORE money (not hers) to cover her own tush with this smokescreen of an environmental issue. It is playing out poorly for her.
How are we doing on those recall signatures anyway?
I am so surprized to see this fiasco continue to unfold. It seems like one of those after school specials played out on the small screen. You know the ones that leave you shaking your head afterwards saying to yourself, "aw, thats not very real".
Where do you get "district officials agreed with their landlord's report that the Cottonwood offices were environmentally safe"? Who said that? Obviously, if the district is spending money and moving employees out of a building, they DO NOT think it is safe.
Why would the district stay at a site that is contaminated and risks the safety of their employees, visitors, parents, etc?
The prudent thing to do would be to get out of that location as soon as possible. You can't blame the school district for wasting money on a real issue.
By the way, Dan Logue represented many times that HE was the owner of the property. Now we are finding out his mother owns it(?).....very interesting.
"Why would the district stay at a site that is contaminated and risks the safety of their employees, visitors, parents, etc?
"
Because it is not contaminated. Otherwise they would have opened themselves to tons of lawsuits. They are now just putting on a dog and pony show to muster up support for their move.
12:34
You asked: "Where do you get "district officials agreed with their landlord's report that the Cottonwood offices were environmentally safe?"
Answer: At the board room, during the January 24 board meeting.
You asked: Who said that?
Answer: The board and the superintendent.
You said: "Obviously, if the district is spending money and moving employees out of a building, they DO NOT think it is safe.
Comment: Is it obvious it is not safe? Why hasn't the county or the state stepped in to condemn the property?
You asked: "Why would the district stay at a site that is contaminated and risks the safety of their employees, visitors, parents, etc?"
Comment: There is no reason why they would stay at a site that is unsafe. Show us any report that shows the building is unsafe.
You said: "The prudent thing to do would be to get out of that location as soon as possible. You can't blame the school district for wasting money on a real issue."
Comment: Why would that be prudent? Moving people out unnecessarily is imprudent. I wouldn't blame the district for spending money on a REAL issue. To me, this is a fake issue until I see a conclusive declaration from the county or the state that the building is unsafe.
You said: "By the way, Dan Logue represented many times that HE was the owner of the property. Now we are finding out his mother owns it(?).....very interesting.
Comment: Yes... very strange that a son would represent his mother and is part of Cottonwood Investors. That's really odd... you should look into that one while you contact the county about how unsafe the building is.
By the way, the district bought an overpriced, oversized building.
dino, you don't know what you are talking about. It is well documented that the site is DIRTY. Check out the link below:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=57990003
Me thinks you don't know what you are talking about
You clearly have not looked at the full report that you reference.
PAST USE(S) THAT CAUSED CONTAMINATION
NONE SPECIFIED
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
NONE SPECIFIED
Not to mention that it was already cleaned up.
If your claim is correct then show us a real factual report that backs up your claim.
5:59
Was that reference in honor of April Fool's Day? What a joke.
Do you have an oil spill in your driveway or garage? Do you have paint stored in the shed? Do you have cleaning chemicals under the kitchen sink? You do? RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! I hear there's fallout shelter at Cottonwood and Main (funded by WJUSD) where you can flee.
Thank you 6:35 (Gollum : ) for laying it down. You are right... the Voluntary Cleanup Agreement Completion date on the referenced report was 7/16/1996.
The district has spent $90,000 on lawyers plus money to relocate staff into another office. The money is an important issue but what about the staff that worked in the building they were assured years ago that everything was fine. Did the board approve the move? Was there some type of meeting that approved the cost of the move? I don't expect the local paper to cover the school district but is there anyone paying attention. Isn't the school board suppose to be aware of what is going on.
Wow.
The beginning of the end?
Has anyone contacted Frank Glover about this?
The School Board is only aware of what the District tells them.
Some of them ask questions, some don't ask any at all
Isn't that how it got to this point? Not enough independent thinkers, not enough accountability?
Like I said, the Board only knows what the District tells them. even after they ask questions, doesn't mean they get the full answers.
We need seven new board members not just four. Some are absent too many times.
Yea? Where were you during the election? Where were you during the debate on disproportional representation by the rural areas? Where were you big mouth?
Post a Comment