Colorado has received millions in stimulus funding for projects in the 8th, 24th, 45th and 64th congressional districts, according to a federal website tracking the money.

But the state has only seven districts.

It turns out that the misclassifications were the result of mistakes, faulty interpretations and even guesses born of frustration with the stimulus-reporting software, said recipients of the money who were responsible for reporting to the federal government where it was spent.

By late Wednesday, all of the payments to nonexistent congressional districts had been removed from the website, lumped together and labeled as “unassigned.”

It’s the latest controversy over federal stimulus funds, which have been plagued by questions over accuracy. Most recently, The Denver Post reported that the 8,094 full-time jobs the government reports were saved or created in Colorado by stimulus funds is inflated by at least 1,000.

Under the system, any entity receiving money must fill out a form on how the money was spent. It includes filling in the congressional district number for the company’s home base and the congressional district where the work took place. The federal government posted those results without checking their accuracy.

Each state’s congressional districts are numbered , 1st through its last. Congressional seats are assigned according to state population.

Double-listing errors

In some cases, stimulus recipients mistakenly double-listed the congressional district for their home offices instead of adding the district where the work occurred. That may explain the 8th district listing for five contracts given Northwest Research Associates by the National Science Foundation for work out of its Boulder office, said Donna Romeo, contracts administrator for the company.

Romeo said she suspected the company put down Washington’s 8th Congressional District where it is headquartered. Washington state has nine districts. “I don’t know what to tell you,” Romeo said.

That could also explain the 25th and 26th districts listed under Colorado that are actually California districts where a pair of Golden State companies that did Colorado work are headquartered.

The Loveland Housing Authority also listed 8 for its district instead of 4. “It was probably just a clerical error,” said executive director Sam Betters.

Then there are districts 59 and 64 listed by the town of Ignacio and the Holly Housing Authority for their money. Those are actually the numbers of the towns’ state House districts.

$13 million in mistakes

Myung Oak Kim, spokeswoman for Gov. Bill Ritter, said the state recovery team analyzed the errant numbers and found 23 mistakes involving about $13 million, or 1 percent of the money that came to Colorado.

What about the 45th Congressional District listed by Wood Product Signs? The signmaker near Gunnison got $23,000 in stimulus money to make signs for the federal government.

“I just guessed the number,” admitted owner Deb Hefftner, who said she got no answer when she tried to track it down but was unable to finish the online form until she filled out the box.

So she rationalized that her company did business all over the country and that there must be a 45 out there somewhere.

She plugged in the number.

“It let me keep going.”

Burt Hubbard: 303-954-5107 or bhubbard@denverpost.com