- Posted by David on July 25, 2008
By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER
Courant Staff Writer
July 25, 2008
Portland's combination middle-high school was built big — so big that the district is considering renting out space in the building.
Based in part on the town's projections that the school's population would balloon to 1,070 by 2008, state taxpayers contributed $18.9 million to the $39 million building project.
But those projections were off, and the school has never enrolled more than 600 students. Because of that, the state Department of Education, which doles out construction money, asked for $4.6 million of the funding back last year.
Portland taxpayers avoided paying that bill, however. The state legislature passed a bill earlier this year allowing the town to keep the money.
Portland's case is an extreme example, but it isn't unique. When school districts overbuild, taxpayers get stuck with the tab.
Faulty enrollment projections led the state to overpay three districts for construction projects audited over the last two years. The state Department of Education initially sought money back. But in each case, state officials let the districts off the hook, leaving state taxpayers to pick up the tab of more than $6 million.
In other cases, school districts have sought state money for construction projects using enrollment projection methods that violate state law, according to a state auditor's report released last month. By potentially overestimating student enrollment, the auditor warned, districts could build schools that are larger than necessary — at a greater cost to build and operate — to state and local taxpayers than might otherwise be required.
Oops
The flawed projections happened for various reasons. Some districts projected enrollment for the entire school system rather than just the school, as state law requires. Others used 10-year projections, even though state law calls for state funding to be calculated using projections extending only eight years.Not every instance of inappropriate projections led to enrollment disparities big enough for the state to seek money back, but it did in West Hartford, New Haven and Portland.
West Hartford used a 10-year projection to estimate student enrollment for an expansion and renovation project at Conard High School, according to a state Department of Education audit. The figure overestimated enrollment by 80 students, leading the audit to recommend that West Hartford repay some of the money.
New Haven, meanwhile, didn't use any standard enrollment projection method when applying for funding for The Sound School, a $28 million aquaculture magnet school built entirely with state money.
Officials there decided how big they wanted the school to be, then determined how many students the space would accommodate, the Department of Education audit said. A 1994 proposal called for a 30,800-square-foot school for 185 students. By the time the school was built, the proposal had ballooned to a 68,600-square-foot school for 360 students.
But the school never enrolled more than 319 students in the projection's eight-year time frame, and a state Department of Education audit suggested that New Haven be docked $1.7 million.
In Portland's case, officials applying for state funding in 2001 initially estimated that student enrollment would peak at 780 within eight years, then changed the figure to 1,070 three months later.
State and Portland officials offer different explanations for how the figure was reached and who was responsible for it. School board Chairman Chris Hetrick said the state Department of Education recommended the change, which reflected estimates using housing starts. State Department of Education spokesman Tom Murphy said that's not the case.
Regardless, the school was built for nearly twice as many students as now use it. Some of the space has been used for special education, and officials have considered opening space in the school for outside educational groups to use for a fee.
Hetrick said the state should have stopped the project before construction if the figures were off, rather than letting it go forward and checking the numbers only after the school was built. But Murphy said it was the district's responsibility to use accurate figures.
The department audited the project after it was completed and recommended that Portland repay the state and taxpayers $4.6 million.
Off the Hook
That didn't happen.
In fact, the Portland, Conard and Sound school projects had one thing in common: When the districts were faced with repaying money the state said they overspent, state officials bailed them out.
In New Haven's case, state Education Commissioner Mark K. McQuillan let the city keep the money, citing the unique agriculture and aquaculture programs of the school, a regional magnet that can enroll students from outside New Haven.
West Hartford and Portland were saved by state lawmakers, who tacked amendments onto legislation that essentially forgave the money.
During the 2007 legislative session, West Hartford's potential debt to the state was washed away by a bill that allowed the Conard project to be funded based on a 10-year projection, in spite of a state law requiring eight-year-projections.
In this year's legislative session, meanwhile, as lawmakers grappled with a fiscal situation so tight that it had trouble finding $2.1 million to open a planned charter school in Hartford, Portland taxpayers got some relief. An amendment added to a bill absolved the town of repaying the $4.6 million the Department of Education said Portland was overpaid.
State Rep. James O'Rourke, who represents Portland and helped secure the money, said having to repay more than $4 million would have been devastating to the local budget and tax rate.
"It's a huge amount of money to the town," he said.
O'Rourke called the situation rare but justified. He noted that both the superintendent of schools and first selectwoman have taken office since the building project and were not responsible for the inaccurate enrollment figures. He also said the state Department of Education should monitor enrollment projections before approving funding for a construction project, rather than waiting for an audit once the school has been built, as the department's policy had been.
"You don't want school boards and superintendents to think they can just go out and do whatever they want," he said. "But I did believe that this was done in good faith, from what I could tell."
State Rep. Andrew M. Fleischmann, co-chairman of the education committee, said lawmakers determined that it made sense to help Portland because the school had already been built and the cost of repaying the money would have been a major problem for the town.
"It's a small town that was in a unique situation," he said. "It was pretty clear that they did not have the dollars to pay back."
Fleischmann, of West Hartford, said the Conard project represented a similar situation, where repaying money to the state would have posed a serious hardship to the town.
Fleischmann said towns and cities must be careful about making accurate enrollment projections and following proper procedures. But in cases when problems arise, he said, lawmakers can determine if exceptions are warranted.
"This notion of the legislature making exceptions, it's been going on as long as there's been a legislature," he said.
More Widespread
Even if relatively few school projects required infusions of cash, problematic enrollment projections may be more widespread, according to a state auditor's report.
The auditor found that at least half the school districts examined used inappropriate enrollment projection methods. Of 20 projects in 10 districts, five districts — Bridgeport, Colchester, Manchester, New Haven and Stafford — submitted enrollment numbers that reflected the entire school system, rather than specific schools, which the auditor said did not comply with the law.
Two others, Stamford and Bristol, failed to submit enough documentation to the auditor to determine how they reached their enrollment figures, according to the auditor's report.
Only three of the districts — Hartford, Groton and Middletown — appeared to be using enrollment projection figures that followed the law, state auditor Robert G. Jaekle said.
Such conflicts may be avoided in the future. In May, the state Department of Education stepped up its oversight on construction projects. School districts are now required to show documentation of eight-year enrollment projections when they submit grant applications, with proof that the projection was "the result of a bona fide projection process and subject to public review," David R. Wedge, the department's chief of school facilities, wrote in a memo to school officials.
The state audit urged the department to establish a clear set of guidelines for school districts and to review data districts submit before approving applications, rather than at the end of the projects.
"We find that's a little late in the game," Jaekle said. "The buildings have already been built."
Contact Arielle Levin Becker at
alevinbecker@courant.com.
Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant