As schools face a test, there are other answers

On Monday, the Board of Representatives will take up two appropriations designed to explore alternatives to the public-private partnership (“P3”) program proposed for our schools. As one of representatives who advocated for this exploration, I’d like to outline the goals of this effort.

At its core, the P3 program is motivated by conclusions of what we cannot do. The logic of handing over public assets to a private entity is that we cannot manage such assets; that we cannot build or maintain our schools efficiently, and that we cannot trust ourselves to save for longterm improvements to stave off disasters such as the mold crisis.

That negativity may well be earned in the present circumstances. But we must be clear about the risks of P3 programs. As my colleague Virgil de la Cruz noted, selling our schools is very risky, and if the program fails, regaining control of our schools could be catastrophically expensive.

Therefore, we must seriously explore whether it is true that we cannot manage our schools. Is there truly nothing that Stamford, the economic engine of the state and a city surrounded by nationally renowned public school districts, can do to continue owning its schools?

These appropriations seek to answer that question. The first appropriation, F30.292, studies opportunities of building with prefabrication methods to solve Stamford’s unique need to build up to five schools as quickly and effectively as possible. The second appropriation, F30.293, focuses on the best practices of our neighbors in building, maintaining, and caring for schools long-term. I’ll discuss each in turn.

F30.092

Prefabrication is a common construction method used for homes, offices, hospitals, and schools throughout the county, including many homes and buildings in Stamford. By building in sections in a factory, both construction time and related costs can be significantly reduced. Furthermore, prefabricated buildings are often superior to traditionally constructed buildings, as quality control is much more effective in a factory setting.

In terms of costs, a limited data set indicates that prefabricated schools offer exciting opportunities. Costs of projects range from $297 per square foot for a high-school addition in Lexington, Mass., to just $188 per square foot for a high school in San Diego.

This is a rapidly growing field, and with one million square feet of construction needs, Stamford could receive very competitive offers from the prefabrication industry. This appropriation will explore that possibility.

F30.093

A simple examination of recent budgets of our neighbors in Fairfield County indicates they pay less to build and maintain their schools. Even Greenwich recently built its Glenville School for $428 per square foot, as compared to over $500 per square foot for our own Strawberry Hill School. For maintenance, Fairfield appears to only pay $2.82 in personnel costs, as compared to our $3.96 per square foot in personnel costs. Our neighbors also clearly have strong best practices, such as the long-term facilities report model in Fairfield that outlines all necessary school projects over the next decade, and then coordinates those projects against a “waterfall” of town debt.

Adopting such best practices won’t be easy. We will need to change our own government, perhaps by hiring more professionals to better manage projects and employees, and perhaps by modifying our own procurement processes and related ordinances. Put simply, to get the results, we must do the work. This appropriation will examine that challenge and what we must do.

In my limited time on the board, I have often heard claims about what Stamford can’t do. That mentality created the mold crisis by enabling decades of deferred maintenance that our schools desperately needed. In my view, that same mentality won’t solve this problem.

These numbers show that we may yet be able to afford to retain ownership of our schools after all. To be clear, adopting new best practices and fixing our past mistakes will be hard. And, as many of my colleagues have already noted, there are serious concerns about ensuring that alternatives are properly funded and resourced. Further, many of the other reviews requested in the Feb. 6 letter signed by a majority of representatives, such as developing a proper long-term facility management plan to guide our planning or an investigation of our options regarding debt, have yet to be taken up. Put simply, retaining ownership of our schools and building the school system our children deserve will be nothing less than climbing a mountain.

But there is joy in climbing mountains. I’m excited to support these appropriations and our continued efforts to invest in Stamford, and to learn more about what else Stamford can do. Ben Lee represents the 15th District (Glenbrook) on the Board of Representatives and is attorney with Clifford Chance US LLP, an international law firm with offices in New York. He moved to Stamford in 2016 to raise a family with his wife, Emily. Their son, Matthew, is 2 years old. They look forward to having him attend Stamford Public Schools.