The South Butler County School District is asking a judge at the Court of Common Pleas to settle a dispute with Foreman Architects Engineers.

The district filed action Friday to ask for a declaratory judgment regarding Foreman's claim that the district must use the company for architectural design for a number of improvements at the school as a result of a 2008 agreement between the firm and school district.

The district contends that the 2008 contract with Foreman for architectural services has expired and that the district planned to seek bids for the services at its May meeting.

According to the lawsuit documents, Foreman officials contend that David Foley, superintendent, signed an agreement in February that updated fees associated with the 2008 agreement, in which Foreman agreed to provide architectural services for a handful of significant district improvements.

A letter from Matt Hoffman, attorney for Foreman, said the 2008 contract is still in effect and that if the district sought another architect to provide services for upgrades, the contract would be broken and the district would owe Foreman termination expenses plus the amount Foreman would have charged for the project.

“Your client should be informed that the aggregate of termination expenses and lost profit involves hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Hoffman wrote to Tom Breth, district solicitor.

Breth sent Foreman officials a letter stating that the fee agreement was not approved by the school board as required, so the document is not binding.

The school board approved that action last Wednesday.

Tom King, the attorney representing the district in the declaratory judgment suit, said Monday that Foley thought he was signing a document approving a $19,000 payment to Foreman for a 2019 study the firm completed to determine which improvement projects and upgrades are needed in the district.

“Foreman knows it can't increase fees and have the superintendent sign (without board approval),” King said.

Hoffman cited a section of the 2008 agreement that requires the district to pay termination expenses and “an amount for the architect's anticipated profit on the value of the services not performed by the architect” should the agreement be terminated by the district.

“The idea that the agreement expired is simply wrong,” Hoffman said Monday. “It does not contain any provision that limits its duration. The fact that the school district took years to move forward is inconsequential.”

He said the school board's vote to seek bids for architectural services for upgrades named in the agreement — such as work on the high school — constitutes a termination of the 2008 agreement, Hoffman said.

But the district's attorneys contend that the contract has expired and is no longer in effect.

“We're very confident in our position,” King said. “All this does is distract from the important work that needs to be done (at the school district).”