Gov. Martin O?Malley proposed to hike spending on school construction from $323 million in 2007 to $400 million in 2008. He suggests reductions to $250 million annually in following years.
That?s a lot of money. Many obsolete and dangerous schools clamor for replacement or additions. The need to update or rebuild in most districts is not at issue. The issue is how they are replaced.
Recommended Stories
School districts in Maryland routinely build and operate schools. They don?t have to. And it doesn?t make sense. School administrators do not earn degrees in real estate development and construction management. Other states and other countries routinely partner with private developers to cut the time it takes to build schools and save money. It?s time Maryland started the practice, too.
With construction costs skyrocketing over 20 percent last year and almost as much the year prior according to the state, taxpayers can ill afford to wait the five-plus years ? public-sector speed ? it usually takes to turn plans into an operating building.
A 2005 Maryland Public Policy Institute Study details how numerous school districts in the United States and in the United Kingdom have saved money through partnerships. One example is how in 1998 the Houston Independent School District partnered with Gilbane Properties of Providence, R.I., to build under a lease/purchase agreement two high schools for 6,000 students. Gilbane completed the project a year earlier than under a traditional method at $20 million below the school district?s first estimate.
Contrast that with how Patterson Mill Middle and High School scheduled to open next fall in Harford County is coming in about $20 million over its original budget using the usual processes.
With the 2004 School Facilities Construction Act school districts in Maryland legally have theoption to partner with private developers but have so far chosen not to. The Board of Education in Frederick County endorsed the idea as policy, however. More counties should.
David Lever, Maryland?s Executive Director of Public School Construction, says partnerships should first be tried with school administrative buildings because they can more easily be leased as office space if the project fails.
But we don?t see why only the public sector is capable of careful planning. If anything, developers have the profit motive driving them to ensure a project does not fail.
Besides the financial benefits, partnerships have resulted in more innovative uses of education spaces that allow community groups to rent or share unused or underutilized classroom or library space ? often because of foresight in the planning process.
Counties must not wait to take advantage of the opportunities partnerships provide. And if regulations stand in the way to making partnerships work, counties must speak up so that the General Assembly can fine tune the law.
Why make school construction more onerous and expensive than it has to be?
