Actually existing green schools: Manchester, Connecticut
I had a conversation recently with someone who's very deep into green infrastructure finance for schools. They gave me a ton of resources to sift through with some cutting edge projects, policies, and data. One that stood our to me is a school in Manchester, Connecticut--Buckley Elementary, originally built in 1952--that will be the state's first zero emissions school. A number of things interested me in this case.
First, the building is older and getting redone into zero emission infrastructure rather than being rebuilt from the ground up. Second, I know that Connecticut had the first green bank in 2015 and they've been quite active, so I was wondering if/how it might be involved here. Third, I'd heard rumors of corruption in Connecticut's school facilities administration at the state level that I've been wanting to look into. Finally, I happen to be from Connecticut so there's a kind of nostalgia for me. I found a treasure trove of details about what actually existing green schools projects look like.
Buckley, Blackstone, and SMARTR2
The Buckley building is getting a green makeover. CMTA, a company that specializes in these kinds of projects, describes what they've done in Manchester:
The building’s orientation is ideally situated in a north/south arrangement, creating optimal space for a roof-mounted solar photovoltaic array to offset the building’s utility demand. The 360kW roof-mounted solar array will generate enough energy annually to meet all of the building’s energy demands...[the project] will utilize a whole building blower door pressure test to validate the tightness of construction, as well as thermal scanning/imaging. Enhanced roof and wall insulation, appropriate use of glazing, demand control ventilation, geothermal heating and cooling, and photovoltaic arrays are all components for this renovated facility. This high-performance building will exceed code minimum requirements and will supply outside air directly from the dedicated outside air unit to the individual spaces to maximize effectiveness. Demand control ventilation strategies will be implemented to regulate ventilation air throughout the building, based on occupancy and carbon dioxide levels.
It looks and sounds great. There's been a lot of excitement at the local and state level around this project. From local reporting, it looks like the school is open this fall and there are a number of other schools getting revitalized.
My chief interest here is the financing behind this project: how does it work? Where does the money come from? Who's in charge of it? I found some interesting stuff. First, it's probably important to keep in mind that CMTA is part of the Legence network of sustainable builders. This is a constellation of private construction and maintenance companies that are branded as greener than not. Legence is actually a BlackStone portfolio company, meaning that CMTA and all its cousin companies are managed by and get their financing through Blackstone, which is one of the biggest private equity firms in the world. Right.
That's the expenditure side: the people who will get the money to do the work on the school. But where's the revenue coming from exactly? This is where things get a little confusing. Local reporting tells of a $93 million bond referendum called SMARTR2, which is actually the name of a committee formed initially in 2012. The acronym stands for School Modernization and Reinvestment Team Revisited. There were at least a couple iterations of this initiative. Starting from documents dating back almost ten years ago, it was in Manchester's plan to renovate a number of elementary schools. Indeed, construction crews are now going to Bower Elementary.
Manchester School District has no bond issuances of its own. The Town of Manchester regularly borrows each year for municipal projects, and SMARTR2 gets its revenue from these issuances. The Hartford Courant reported in 2018 that the town voted for an $84 million referendum for school facilities stuff in 2014. From a bond statement in 2016, I can see records of loans for school repair, specifically Buckley's electrical system and other proposals from SMARTR, going back to 2012. It reports a school construction project from 2014 for like-new building of another elementary school. But I think they changed their plans several times over the last ten years.
Looking at the numbers, I have no idea where they're getting the $84 million number, nor where the more recent reports of $93 million is coming from. I see $42 million from the 2012 and 2014 school construction proposals. Then in a 2019 statement I see that like-new renovations for Buckley Elementary and others come from a school construction project at $47 million. That'd be $89 million. There are other public works funds, and given they reserve the right to reallocate bond proceeds between the projects, I guess they decided to shift the number for the schools. So they're regularly taking out loans, repaying others that are expiring, and keeping a certain amount in reserves. I guess they can do that because they have a very high credit rating and the IRS won't come after them if they list certain amounts as "public works" and then reallocate. This is a good lesson in the byzantine details behind public finance initiatives. The town votes for a certain amount bond revenue to go to the schools, but to do this is cobbles together different loan revenues from past bonds, reallocates them, and puts the package together that way.
Another thing I don't understand: the Manchester bond statements don't mention how the school repair money has been spent contractually at all. There's no mention of CMTA, Legence, or anything having to do with green infrastructure. I'd assume that the town's bond revenues go directly to CMTA for Buckley's renovations, but if they are I can't find any evidence of this in the bond statements, which isn't surprising I guess since they don't have to submit all their receipts. I did find the connection in a series of blogs though (more on that below). The architects who made the plans contracted with CMTA to achieve the net zero outcome.
The MEEP blogs
Jim Farrell is the communications director for Manchester Public Schools and used to be a journalist at the Hartford Courant. Amazingly, Farrell kept a blog on the schools' website documenting the details of the Buckley net-zero project as it happened, along with other facilities projects in the district. The blogs are a a great record of things as they happened. "The Manchester Energy Efficiency Project (MEEP) is complicated, sure, but we promise to provide context and clarity and we’re sure you’ll learn a lot as you follow along." It's a great example of a district communicating clearly. (Philly, take note.)
In terms of clarifying details from above, Farrell reiterates the $93 million dollar number circa 2019, which has to be a combination of the 2012 and 2014 money along with reallocations from public works. He tells us that $81 million is going to Buckley and two other elementary schools (Bowers and Keeney).
But he adds interesting details. He says that town officials have had to bump up costs by 5% to reach net zero targets, which comes out to $3.8 million more than the town would've paid for these renovations. Ultimately, " The district and town are committed to this goal Local taxpayers are expected to be responsible for $47 million of the total cost after state reimbursement and other factors." Part of that reimbursement comes from the state's energy utility "Eversource’s Energy Conscious Blueprint program," which "offers incentives to offset costs for energy modeling and installing more efficient equipment." Ultimately, Farrell says that the Connecticut Office of School Construction Grant and Review will reimburse the town for two-thirds of the cost of the project. More on them later.
The Green Bank isn't really a part of the picture. Except, there is reference to solar panels: "in yet another sustainability initiative, the town is working with partners including Connecticut Green Bank to install photovoltaic panels atop nine buildings (including seven schools) at no cost to the community, but bringing an estimated $3 million in energy savings over 20 years." So they'll recoup those extra expenses on the net-zero over that period. Still no mention of CMTA!
Farrell has some interesting data. He breaks down the monthly electricity bills from the local high school and breaks it down. You rarely get data like this: "the pool area running a tab of $784.49 from last April 30-May 28, while the football field area went through $2,231.82 and the rest of the building a whopping $28,667.66 (for 186,314 kilowatt hours)." He also talks about energy usage intensity (EUI) and writes that the average for school buildings across the country is 48.5. Buckley's EUI was 70 before the renovations. Hospitals tends to be around 400 EUI. Self-storage facilities are 20.
He also has heart-warming portraits of the people involved in the Buckley project. Gene DeJoannis is one of them. A retired engineers and part of the green movement, he's been a central force behind advocating for net zero emissions in the school buildings. He states the case very clearly for schools:
“Schools last a long time, so the extra care we take now will pay dividends for many years,” he said, noting that children will be learning about climate change in buildings that are not contributing to the problem, but instead are a daily example of how we can avoid making it worse. “Perhaps their school building will inspire them to reduce the damage we have done to our planet,” he said, “and help restore it to a safe balance between our carbon emissions and what our air, earth and oceans can safely absorb.”
That sums up it very well. There's also an incredible picture of DeJoannis.
Coda: Kosta costs
The last time I was home visiting my parents in Connecticut, they told me there'd been a scandal at the state level in school facilities. I looked into it and yes, there's been an ongoing set of revelations about misconduct at the Office of School Construction. The problems revolve around Kosta Diamantis, a former state representative who served as the head of that office from 2015 until he was put on administrative leave in 2020. The corruption he'd overseen continues to come out in reports, like this one about his approach to contracts and construction companies:
For years, Kosta Diamantis, the former director of Connecticut’s school grants program, advocated for a policy that would allow certain construction companies to claim more of the profits from school building projects — while potentially sidestepping the state’s normal bidding process. Diamantis used his influence to advance contracts and, ultimately, legislation that would enable construction management firms to “self-perform” some of the work on schools using their own building crews, according to documents obtained by the Connecticut Mirror.
Another contract shenanigan he oversaw was to delegitimize a public survey of school construction projects and needs, convincing the governor's office to do a $106,000 contract with a private North Carolina tech company called Dude Solutions (lol). Not only was the former public survey paused, the dudes at Dude Solutions never completed the work. So now the state doesn't have up to date information about construction needs. It's humbling to keep in mind that while great projects like the Buckley School give us hope, the presence of Diamantis's corruption and the funneling of so much money to Blackstone provides a fuller picture of how school facilities finance works in the midst of climate adaptation and mitigation.