This summer the New London Board of Education confronted the need to repair the roof at Harbor School. An older school, it appeared headed for retirement. Now it’s much needed because enrollment in the public schools has grown due to out-of-district students attracted by magnet programs.

The estimated price tag was $135,000 and the roof repairs were anticipated to dovetail with window repairs using a $220,000 state grant, made available to the city because it is an alliance school district — meaning a struggling urban system working to get better, said board President Mirna Martinez. The state was not going to authorize the repairs with a leaky roof.

The Board of Education had ample funds at the end of the fiscal year, June 30, but state law requires all school board surpluses to be returned to the general fund. Negotiations with the City Council to access the surplus for the roof repairs failed to lead to a timely resolution. The fallback plan, Martinez said, is temporary roof repairs and finding another use for the alliance school grant.

The school board is now seeking a permanent fiscal adjustment that would provide it a resource to meet maintenance needs using a funding mechanism allowed by state law and utilized by other towns.

Working with the Board of Education, the City Council should pass the enabling legislation, with prudent safeguards to assure the money is well spent.

While state law requires school systems to return to the general fund unspent money at the end of the fiscal year, a provision allows towns to make an exception for any surplus up to 1 percent of the education budget. Over time, that money can accumulate in a special account, essentially creating a rainy day fund for the local public schools.

It has become a common practice in many towns, typically with the Board of Education given discretion to use the account “for any operating expenses, capital projects or for any expenses of maintaining public schools.”

Legislation under discussion with the City Council, however, would limit the use of such a surplus account by the New London school board to “building maintenance costs and prior approved school capital projects.” That makes sense.

Without such a restriction, the school board would be tempted to divert the money elsewhere, while maintenance needs remain unmet. That may not be an issue in a wealthier community, but in New London the budgets are always tight.

As for safeguards, the enabling resolution creating an “Unexpended Education Funds Account” could require that before any funds from the account are committed to a project that the director of finance affirm that the project falls within “building maintenance” or “prior approved school capital projects.”

If there is dispute between the finance director and the school board as to whether a project is eligible, the matter could be brought to the City Council for resolution.

Given the fiscal struggles it faces each year, and faced with rebuilding the city’s own surplus fund, the council may be tempted to continue directing all education surpluses to the general fund. But the result could well be deferred maintenance of city schools, which in the end raises costs.

Additionally, knowing a surplus will be available to meet maintenance needs provides a virtuous incentive to produce a surplus, rather than spending down the money so that it is not “lost” to the general fund.

We urge the school board and council to work together toward a sensible policy. 

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.