Grant Application Flaw May Prompt $500k Cut For New School Offices

By John Voket

A review of reimbursement criteria for new school district offices proposed at Fairfield Hills has raised red flags at the state Department of Education (DOE), and could result in nearly half-a-million dollars in grants being siphoned away from the project. The memo to Acting Superintendent Thomas Jokubaitis, and, in a related conference call to the district, Paige Farnham of the state school facilities unit at the DOE outlined apparent technical violations in design-build contract handling.

The issue was on the agenda at this week’s selectmen’s and school board meetings, and generated an emergency meeting Wednesday between First Selectman Joseph Borst and representatives from O&G Industries, who are handling project management duties for the mixed-use redevelopment of Bridgeport Hall on the former state hospital campus.

According to the e-mail from Ms Farnham’s office and the superintendent’s report to the school board that was filed Tuesday evening, the facilities unit is still inclined to recommend the project for partial reimbursement to the pending 2007 legislative funding priority list. While the anticipated maximum reimbursement of about $600,000 would be comparatively insignificant in the district’s $70 million budget, it represents a more significant portion of the approximately $10 million budget for the municipal office renovation.

According to Selectman Herb Rosenthal, however, the town was not even considering seeking any reimbursement for the school office portion of the project until the possibility was raised by O&G representatives who have worked on similar mixed municipal/school use projects across the region.

Mr Rosenthal explained that one aspect of the project, asbestos material remediation, was not going to be built-in to the school reimbursement application because the town had already approved bonding for that phase of the project in relation to the overall building.

He said the potential $20,000 in additional funds that might have been achieved including remediation in the school’s reimbursement application would not have justified the costs to delay occupying the space.

“In the end we decided to not include it because the $20,000 we might have gained paled in comparison to the amount the town would have lost in additional rent for temporary school office space at Kendro, and the costs of construction delays at Bridgeport Hall,” Mr Rosenthal said, referring to current municipal space leased at a local commercial office on Peck’s Lane.

But according to Mr Jokubaitis, a July 1, 2007, change in reimbursement application criteria at the state level apparently triggered the need for more definition, as well as a mandatory review of plans even though they were not necessarily directly pertinent to the school office space.

“The legislative action that changed reimbursement criteria for design-build projects may render much of the project ineligible,” Mr Jokubaitis said. But he said since the project application was filed prior to the legislation taking effect may be a negotiable point under which the town could recover a higher reimbursement.

Mr Rosenthal and fellow selectman Paul Mangiafico both told The Bee this week that they were concerned that a letter from the town to Ms Farnham while the reimbursement application was being drawn up, directly concerning the design-build aspects and the building’s mixed use, went unanswered.

Both contend the entire issue may have been averted if the town received the appropriate guidance from the school facilities unit representative early-on in the process.

“Whether or not the town did something wrong is in question,” Mr Mangiafico said. “We believe we are entitled to the $600,000 [full] reimbursement. If we notified them and got no response, it seems nobody consciously set out to put the reimbursement in violation.”

In Ms Farnham’s e-mail to the district, she cites “violation of the pre-meeting requirement for [the] design-build project; violation of the bidding before plan approval statute” as reasons for reconsidering the full proposed reimbursement.

However, all local officials who are familiar with either the project or state standards say the project will likely get a second look and possible bump up from the revised reimbursement recommendation of $172,553.

Patricia Llodra, who is the school district liaison to the Legislative Council, sees this transgression as a starting point toward qualifying reimbursable aspects of the mixed-use project.

“It’s not unusual to see confusion over technical aspects of a mixed-use project,” Ms Llodra said. “It appears there has to be a higher level of discussion about what aspects of the build are reimbursable for school use.”

Ms Llodra said Ms Farnham’s flagging of the reimbursement was justified.

“She’s appropriately challenging the paperwork,” Ms Llodra said. “But nobody should get the idea that this is the end of the discussion. I see it as the beginning.”

To that end, the first selectman called a meeting with O&G officials this week, requesting the project manager to expedite any further required discussions with the state.

“O&G has to put together more paperwork related to the design-build aspect of the project,” Mr Borst said. “There are questions about determining where and how common areas are being divided and shared between the town and the school district.”

Mr Rosenthal, who is also a former school board chairman, said that because the state school facilities unit deals with so few mixed-use projects, and even fewer design-build programs, there could be misinterpretations on numerous aspects of the project.

“Design-build is not typically used on schools. It is a commercial building type of system,” he said.