School Board Responds To Editorial

To the Editor:

In your editorial [“Getting A Grip On The Costs of Growth,” November 14] you stated that “the Board of Finance learned at the end of its meeting Monday night that the projected cost of a proposed high school “academy” at Fairfield Hills had risen from $17 million to $23–$25 million just since the board’s last meeting in October.” This is simply not true. On September 8, the Board of Finance had requested that the school administration provide a figure to be placed in the Capital Improvement Plan for the potential “academy.” Although the school administration indicated that any dollar value put forward would not at this time have the benefit of architectural studies, the Board of Finance requested a best estimate be put forward as a “placeholder” in the CIP with the understanding that the numbers could be refined as more information was gathered. To accomplish this task, the school administration consulted with the State Education Department. A memo was sent to the Board of Finance by the school administration on September 25, well before the Board of Finance’s October meeting, indicating that the estimated costs for the academy would be between $23 and $25 million. This figure was based upon the state guidelines for maximum reimbursement for square footage of a 500-student building. The $17 million figure alluded to in The Bee was not a figure proposed by the school administration or Board of Education. Therefore, it is inaccurate to state that “in a fortnight the cost of a $17 million academy increases 35 to 47 percent.” The only estimate put forward by the school system was $23 to $25 million.

Secondly, the accusation that no one anticipated the need for the appropriation of $400,000 for classroom space in the 2003–04 budget deliberations is also untrue. On November 12, 2002, well before the Board of Education’s adoption of a 2003-04 school budget, the board approved its recommendation for the Capital Improvement Plan and listed the $400,000 for the high school renovations for increased classroom space as its number one priority for this year. It was appropriately put in the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan rather than the school budget because it exceeded the threshold of $193,000, which is the eligible amount specified in the Town Capital Improvement Plan Regulations.

On January 22, 2003, again before the adoption of the school budget by the Board of Education, the Legislative Council approved the Capital Improvement Plan, which included the $400,000 for the high school renovations. The dollars to pay for the debt service for this project are included in the current 2003–04 town’s operating budget. Therefore, to state that this was not anticipated is likewise untrue.

The school system is an integral part of the community and must accommodate the educational needs associated with the growth of the town. Enrollment projections are predictions based upon knowledge of town growth and trends in recent town history. We receive enrollment projections from the State Education Department and also receive enrollment projections from an independent consulting firm. This year our student population increased over last year by nearly 200 students and is projected to continue to increase over each of the next eight years.

The school administration and Board of Education are diligently working to plan for the space needs necessary for the current and anticipated growth in student enrollment caused by the growth of the town’s population. The Board of Education has worked in good faith with the town to accurately present its needs. It is a disservice to the community to inaccurately portray the school portion of the Town’s Capital Improvement Plans as a series of surprises.

Thank you.

Newtown Board of Education

Elaine McClure, Chair

Vincent Saviano, Vice Chair

Earl Gordon, Secretary

Lisa Schwartz

Andrew Buzzi, Jr

4 Fairfield Circle South, Newtown                      November 19, 2003