State Treasurer Tim Cahill, in charge of the Massachusetts School Building Authority, has called for standardized design to be used for new school construction. The Cahill call for such use is in line with a long-standing request by Inspector General Gregory Sullivan for such a program. From today’s Boston Globe:
State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, trying to head off what he calls “Taj Mahal” high schools, said yesterday that he wants cities and towns to begin using off-the-shelf building designs that could cut school-project costs by 30 percent.
The goal, Cahill said, is to shave tens of millions of dollars from the cost of building new schools, which have reached as high as $197.5 million for the new Newton North High School, a lightning rod of discontent over the escalating price tags for such projects.
Cahill would like to create this program and add financial teeth to it by refusing to fund projects that fail to utilize the standard design.
Cahill said that towns that have suitable sites and refuse to use the cheaper designs might not receive state funding or would be told they can renovate their school but not build a new one.
Cahill estimates savings of up to thirty percent on some projects were this program to be implemented.
Of course standard design has some naysyers.
“In Massachusetts, there are no prototypical sites or prototypical communities,” said George Metzger, a principal with HMFH Architects in Cambridge, arguing that most designs would have to be substantially modified to fit a site. “I’m skeptical it would save any money, and we could lose the character of our community-based school systems.”
Yes George wants us to be able to keep our local character, and in doing so continue to pay huge fees to architects. I am quite sure that those fees are secondary in his mind to the “local character” issue but I have a feeling taxpayers prefer the less expensive method proposed by Treasurer Cahill.
IG Sullivan strongly supports the concept.
“I consider it to be one of the most significant financial reforms in Massachusetts over the last 25 years,” Sullivan said. “It could save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade.”
The Massachusetts School Building Authority has made key reforms of the entire local school building program, and cut away some of the frankly ridiculous local practices that had driven costs up to the stratosphere. (But we did have a lot of local character).
The idea of standardized design makes so much sense that is hard to believe that someone is actually considering it. The Treasurer deserves credit for creating a system that saves money, and in doing so allows more local projects to be built. What some find hard to understand is that there are financial limits. As Methuen is one of three approved High School projects in Massachusetts I can tell you from experience that the Building Authority has instituted badly needed reforms that will mean that more school projects will be built in Massachusetts. Kudos to the Treasurer for this concept and for the management of the M.S.B.A. Read the Globe story here.
Bill Manzi.com 
As I understand it the successful application for the Methuen project is not a “new” building, but a “renovation” of the existing open concept building to enclose the classrooms and an addition. Is this correct?
If so, I would think that this new notion by the treasurer would not affect the Methuen project. Is that correct?
I recall that the first graduating class was in 1976. For the past 32 years students have graduated and the majority have achieved great success.
An approximately 40 year life span for a school is not a great achievement. Let’s hope at the very least that this expenditure of funds will last a far more significant period of time.
One final question. Will Methuen be able to finance this project and maintain operating budgets without asking for a Proposition 2 1/2 overide?
LikeLike
I agree that the plan, on a whole, is where we need to be moving toward. However, it’s not perfect. First, if only 50% of construction sites can use these models, then that’s a problem. Second, I don’t think we should create disincentives for towns to open public pools or hockey rinks, because ultimately those are great for community building.. and attaching them to schools is often the only way both the schools and those projects can be built (because it takes an umbrella approach to pass many overrides).
I do get what Cahill’s really trying to do (aside run for Governor) – making it so towns like Newton aren’t costing this state tens of millions more than it should through the reinbursement process. Why not create a hard cap, or a more strict hard cap, on the total reinbursement the state will give? On top of that, have the state-sponsored plans and offer incentives for towns to use them, like an extra boost in the reimbursement, as opposed to an either/or approach. On top of that, let the cities and towns – at their own cost – make adjustments to those plans, if necessary. Don’t just ban them.
It’s the carrot and stick approach, and it’s with a foresight to using these buildings – that cost tens of millions of dollars – to the best of their potential.
I wrote a ton more about this on my blog today.
LikeLike
Bob,
Starting from the top, the answers are:
1) Correct. We are approved for a major renovation and addition. However the renovation will deal with substantially more than the open concept.
2)Correct. If our project remains a renovation then the standardized design would not apply to our project.
2a) I agree with your observation on the issue of the life span of the current building. Once the decision was reached to build an open concept High School I think our fate was sealed on that issue.
3) I believe we can stay within the Prop 2.5 limit on this, but we need to come to a full agreement on project scope before anything definitive can be said. At that time we will come forward with a financing package that will be vetted through City Council and the public.
LikeLike
Ryan,
Even before Treasurer Cahill had endorsed the concept of standardized design the MSBA has been promulgating rules and regs that prohibit state financial participation in what have been called educational frills. Their current rules and regs would not allow state financial participation in swimming pools or ice rinks. Additionally they have promulgated size and cost standards for design that do not allow for deviation (with MSBA financial participation). Their point to the locals has been that you may design and build what you want, but we will only pay for a percentage of “approved design and construction”. So your idea of not putting in a ban on extra construction but rather a hard cap has already been implemented.
The Newton North project has a hard cap of $44.5 million of MSBA financial participation. They were allowed to design and build what they wanted, and the taxpayers of Newton will be left to pick up an expense of about $160 million. Good luck to them.
As far as the idea of standardized design one of the major expenses involved in school building is design. If we have an agreed upon design that can be used in fifty percent of the projects we as a state will save hundreds of millions of dollars. Since the MSBA is limited by law to 20 percent of sales tax revenue every dollar saved means that more projects can be done. In year one (2007) of the lifting of the moratorium on school building assistance the MSBA was inundated with school building requests, many of which have to be deferred because of the financial constraints on the MSBA.
Finally I like your idea on incentives. The MSBA already utilizes a system of financial incentives that allow a community to get additional MSBA financing for the utilization of certain building practices, such as “green building”. The MSBA awards financing points to localities for the inclusion of such preferred practices which drive up the total percentage of project cost to be borne by the MSBA.
As a local official I applaud the Treasurer not just for this proposal but for his stewardship of the MSBA, which was designed literally from scratch. He has taken a lot of pushback from the locals over some of his ideas, but has held pretty firm. He certainly will reap some political benefit as he looks to higher office.
LikeLike