If a town wants to add a pool, or a field house, or a hockey rink, or have a gigantic, beautiful theater that goes above and beyond the standard state plan – they shouldn’t be prevented from doing so. All of those things, in the end, benefit the entire community. Heck, these are the kinds of things that make a community.
Furthermore, each community’s needs are different. Marblehead, right next door, built an entirely unique theater that’s 3/4 of a circle, with the seats rising high up in a dramatic stadium-seating setting. It’s quite remarkable, smaller than a typical theater, but significantly more dramatic. It’s where they perform serious drama, likely making them a school that’s better at the art. They didn’t need or want a standard theater, because Marblehead already has one of the nicest theaters for students in all of Massachusetts – it’s just in their Middle School (which used to be their high school).
By being a little different, Marblehead was actually being smart. Each town knows their needs better than the state, so the state should be willing to work with towns – providing plans if they want them, but also letting towns modify them if needed – so we can save costs and build better projects in the process. Many towns will just need the standard plan, some towns may want to alter them, for some towns their landscape won’t allow for a standard plan (up to 50% of projects, according to the article). Other towns may want something different or with more features than the standard plans. All should be encouraged. .
That said, I concede Treasurer Cahill’s point that towns shouldn’t be able to wrack up a huge bill with the intentions of passing off nearly half the costs to the state. Newton’s $200 million-dollar project may have been something residents were more than happy to bestow upon their kids, but Massachusetts shouldn’t have to pick up 40% of the price tag. Quite likely, the biggest savings (for the state) under Cahill’s proposal would be by neutering these school plans – but, as I’ve already pointed out, that’s not an answer that’s any better than the status quo.
So what should the state do?
It should be obvious. Currently, the state will reimburse communities 40-80% of the costs of these buildings, irregardless of the costs of the project. Why not set up a hard cap, in addition to the state’s soft cap? Why not, for example, say that the state won’t contribute any more than $30-40 million to any project at the 40% rate? Newton could have its $200 million dollar school, but only if it were willing to pay $160 million instead of $120. The state could set a higher hard cap for the urban school systems that tend to get the higher percentage of state reimbursements, so the hard-cap system would work across the state.
Furthermore, the concept of having standard state school designs is a good concept, because they will save costs. So, let’s not only create them, but encourage towns to use them. Why not, for example, give towns something like a 5% reimbursement bonus for choosing a state-sponsored design, if the town has a suitable site for one of those designs. A 5% bonus would be enough to encourage towns to use the state designs, while also not eating into the cost differential between the state and private plans. Many – likely most – cities and towns across Massachusetts will want to save costs, even just a couple million, so it’s an option that will promise to be popular.
In any event, Treasurer Cahill’s idea is interesting, fresh and appreciated. Maybe he does have some good ideas after all, in addition to his constant bickering with the Governor. However, Cahill needs to work better with the administration and Beacon Hill on state policy in the future, because it’s clear that both camps are unwilling to work with each other. Solutions come when politicians and constituents work like a pack with a common goal, not when the political elite acts like cats with sharp claws, ready to thrust and hiss at any to come near. When that happens, good ideas go no where.
Crossposted at Ryan’s Take.
I’m still composing my thoughts on this subject, but I think on the whole this is a good idea. A smart design with a fair amount of customizability should be sufficient for many things that you mention, and for all the talk of “individuality”, most any school reveals its purpose with a quick glance to the outside. Most schools after all need the same things, so why not take that into account?
<
p>I do have a couple reactions, however:
<
p>
I’d be almost 100% in favor of the plan. However, according to the article in the Globe, towns wouldn’t be allowed to build anything additional to the schools. If towns wanted a pool, or a field house, etc. it would mean it would have to be a seperate building. Seperate buildings, as I’m sure you can imagine, cost more and often tend to be differnt projects. Those different projects don’t get through overrides, especially in a bad economy.
<
p>On your second bracket, Sab, I had a comment on my blog on this post from Bill Manzi, Mayor of Methuen. It’s a good one, but part of it responds to your point.
<
p>Here’s a snip:
<
p>
<
p>That said, I wasn’t aware of Newton’s asbestos problem (the problem that seemingly never goes away – I swear, they’ve been removing asbestos since the 80s).
<
p>On this point:
<
p>
<
p>I disagree. A school that feels like a community, with happy and entertained students, performs better. Student athletes perform better. I beleive in making schools fun, so if munis are willing to cough up extra costs, then it will benefit their students. Not every school needs a field house, or a pool, or a hockey rink…. but there need to be enough of them that there’s enough facilities for practices and games.
<
p>Beyond that, though, I reject the notion that high schools should just be to teach students. A high school is often a city or town’s nicest, biggest building. There are all kinds of purposes such buildings can be used – hence, why I said they can be community builders. My friends in Brookline love to take advantage of Brookline’s adult education classes, learning new things, meeting new people and doing all of things at reasonable costs in Brookline’s schools, during the evening. Hockey rinks are where kids learn to play hockey, or can go to have a few hours of fun when the rinks aren’t in use. Same thing with pools. A nice theater means constant community events. So, those purposes aren’t necessary for students, but it does assure that communities are actual communities… and that everyone gets to benefit from their $60-80 million dollar investments.
I’m fine with student athletics, soccer, basketball, football, etc. But pools, fieldhouses, and rinks have such a limited flexibility for dollar spent. A dividable lecture hall/stage/conference center could accommodate many different uses, but aside from hockey and ice skating, for what are you going to use a rink? If it is a money-maker for the school, fine, but I think we waver toward overenthusiasm in equipping some schools. And if the community wants to benefit, they can pony up, certainly. I just think of the possibility of a tech or media lab, vocational lab, etc., that could go in the footprint taken up by a fieldhouse which provides track facilities for 4-5 months outdoor facilities are unusable.
<
p>As for the customizability, I think Cahill’s being a jerk on this one. I don’t see the harm in having 1 or 2 of 4 designs include infrastructure that may lead to a dead end, or alternatively allows one to knock down the end wall and hook up an additional facility. The cost for the in-building change would be negligible, and more communities would participate.
choose to add those things to their schools. I’m not even saying towns should build them. I’m saying that if they want to, and they’re willing to spend the money without being reimbursed by the state (which is current policy), then good for them: it certainly adds something to the community that didn’t previously exist.
<
p>As I said, though, Cahill’s proposal would actually change that; it’s sort of like a Grinch policy clause where, because not every community can afford to build certain projects, apparently none of them should be able to build them. Except, that’s ludicrous, because while we don’t need every community with a pool or a hockey rink, we do need to have those facilities in every 4 or 5 communities, so we aren’t shipping our students halfway across the state every single day of the week for practices. In addition to the costs of actually renting those facilities out, I really wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually cheaper to build at least one of those things in the long run (and suddenly benefit from other towns paying you money, at least paying for your program, as opposed to paying them).
<
p>I will say that I’m willing to bet some of the proposed buildings Cahill’s talking about already have several large and dividable lecture halls. The building he referenced was a building that would cost $69 million dollars to build with advanced science labs, etc. Now, I’ve never been into that particular building, but Swampscott High was just completed a year ago – at a similar price tag – and in that building there’s the dividable spaces, as well as large lecture hall-type rooms available for teachers to use when they need them, as well as language labs, media rooms, etc. So I honestly don’t think Cahill’s trying to skimp out on the classrooms; that’s not my complaint with his plan. My complaint, though I think it a good idea on the whole, is that he shouldn’t prevent towns from doing what they think is in their interest, if they want to add things to the design and are willing to pay for it at their own expense.
July 18 Boston Globe article paraphrases Cahill:
<
p>
<
p>Vol. 13, No. 3 “Commonwealth” magazine, which arrived in my mailbox at least a month ago:
<
p>
<
p>Either way, it’s a good idea. To address one of Ryan’s points, I expect communities can still customize the designs by adding recreation facilities. They just won’t be reimbursed by the school building authority. They’ll have to get an earmark or pay for it themselves.
<
p>There will also be needs to customize for ledge, wetlands and other site constraints. When the state standardized regulations for septic systems a few years ago, they did not take into account that there are three distinct geological regions in the Commonwealth (or so I’m told). Regs that work for Cape Cod do not make sense in the Berkshires.
<
p>As long as the designs are somewhat modular, I expect that the architects can move things around to accommodate local conditions.
<
p>And I’ll close with one final Taj Mahal quote:
From the Globe article:
<
p>
<
p>Emphasis mine. Now, obviously, this is just an idea on the table. If that little piece of it’s tossed aside, that it would have to be a different building, then I would be much, much closer to fully supporting the proposal.
<
p>I’m with Sab, that we should create school options that are somewhat costumizable, so a town could add something that was important to them, with only minor changes to the plans (all, of course, at the town’s expense).
<
p>and having the state allow for precast basic architectural and engineering designs has been floated for decades, it's not Cahill's idea.
Ryan, you captured some of the points that have prevented this cost saving/common sense approach from progressing. The Commonwealth is a collection of unique communities with historical, geographic, socio-economic and fiscal variations. There could very easily be basic design, and green construction formats established with the ballot option of communities footing the bill for additional features. Your closing paragraph is eloquent and something we have all been yearning for…except electoral politics is an antagonist game and Cahill has been feebly positioning himself for the corner office for many years.
If the purpose of the exercise is to save state money, you don’t need standard plans. Just limit the state contribution to a set amount per student, with some allowance for enrollment growth. If the city or town wants to spend more via an override, it should be their right. A standard design will give us concrete boxes that look like minimum security prisons, complete with gym-cafetoriums. Anyhow, who appointed the state treasurer as chief architect of the Dept of Education?
<
p>A better idea is to amend state procurement laws to eliminate filed sub-bids and otherwise streamline procurement processes for state and municipal construction. The state can help the cities and towns save money without tying up school committees in red tape.
Eliminating file sub-bid requirements won’t save money but it will return us to the bad old days of General Contractors bid shopping subcontractors and looking for kickbacks to award jobs to subcontractors.
<
p>The file sub-bid law was enacted in part because GCs controlled the process and use that power to force subcontractors into bidding wars. The result was subcontractors using substandard materials or shoddy workmenship to make a profit. And the GCs kept any savings from the bid shopping as extra profit – the taxpayers never saw a dime less in what they paid for the project.
<
p>The UMass mess exposed bid shopping and kickbacks in public construction. If we don’t learn from history we are doom to repeat it (and pay the price again)
There are other ways to police contractors. Massachusetts has the highest costs in the nation for “vertical” construction (non roads) due to overly bureaucratic procurement rules. Some cities and towns have filed special bills to opt out of filed sub bids on a project by project basis, with no bad results that I have heard. When the GC does not get to pick the subs, project coordination suffers.
Mayor Bill Manzi, of Methuen, posted on my blog, correcting a point or two of mine and adding some decent thoughts on the matter, so I’m going to copy/paste it.
<
p>
Interesting look at often boring topic.
<
p>I generally like the idea of local control with accountability — Newton Mayor makes dumb decisions, he ultimately realizes he can’t be Mayor anymore; meanwhile, other localities free to make wiser decisions.
<
p>If the savings were bigger, I’d be more willing to constrain localities.
<
p>But if
<
p>a) there’s already a hard and soft cap on state contributions,
<
p>b) and the savings are relatively small (design costs = 10%, even w/ cookie cutter, not all design costs can be saved, so savings perhaps @ 5%)
<
p>then
<
p>c) I’d rather see savings achieved by redoing the public bidding laws than constraining design choices. Per DaveS above, the law (ironically of course) drives UP the costs.
If our current bidding process is driving up prices, then by all means we should change it. I don’t really see it as an either/or thing though – why not do both?
<
p>One more point: while 5% is nothing to sneeze at, it’s certainly not nearly as appealing as 30%. Is there any particular reason why you think it’ll only be 5%, as opposed to more?
<
p>So let’s say, using a pre-fab design, you can save 50% on that fee. But maybe I’m wrong — maybe you can save 70% using a pre-made design.
<
p>So total savings would be in the 5% to 7% range.
<
p>2. Fair point, not either / or.
<
p>3. Overall, I suppose if there is a hard and soft cap that does a decent job of state exposure on the $ side, I’m willing to leave local communities to make the decision of whether to use an off-the-shelf design.
<
p>My K-12 governance philosophy is the state (and a district) should try to remain limited in what it imposes on localities. Hold schools accountable for getting kids to become good readers and writers, and solid at math.
<
p>As for additional requirements — whether school day length, facility design, whether to make a term paper a graduation requirement, what sports to offer, whether to require community service, which curriculum to use — I’d say let individual schools choose.
I’m glad you made this point. Standardizing design is like trying to wave a magic wand at the problem. Construction is complicated…and increasingly expensive. Eliminating designers is a great way to open the construction process to abuse by GCs. If 90%-95% of a building’s costs are related to construction, the emphasis ought to be in the delivery of the building (typically a balance of time and money), not the design.
<
p>My idea: have a separate entity (quantity surveyor) describe the scope of work to be done. Construction bids are based on these amounts, eliminating many change order requests.
Well of course, if we could get rid of architects, and make sure that trained professionals don’t actually get to talk to local officials and ask intrusive, time-wasting questions (what are your needs? what facilities would be helpful to your community) we can save money. Architects waste money by drawing pictures of what the new building will look like and they waste time by asking public officials (or even the public!) for input. Oh, the humanity. Save us.
<
p>Of course, architects do really do anything, as well all know.
<
p>The plan does have some advantages. The designers of the model schools will anticipate all local needs, and if they don’t anticipate it you probably don’t want it anyhow. The big architectural firms can donate to the treasurer’s campaign in order to get picked to do the work, and the “customizing” too. By centralizing all design authority, we can keep ill informed people (the Dept of Education, School Committees, principals, to name just a few) as far away from the process as possible. Where do I sign up?
Given that education is run by the state, and students are tested by the state on curriculums designed by the state, I think that ship sailed a while ago.
<
p>2. Have the cookie cutter designs available for the town to use, where those savings would allow the town to build more school for their buck, and
<
p>3. Let the towns do what they want. If they want to use a cookie cutter design, so be it. If they want to fork over more loot and build a building which matches local architecture, is exceedingly green, has a pool or an indoor track or super hi-tech science labs or music space, so be it. Ultimately, as long as the state has (i) limited the amount they’ll pay per student for the school, and (ii) provided opportunities for the towns to save money by using a cookie cutter design, what the hell does the state care if the town votes for a debt exclusion to get their Taj Mahal?
The correct word is “regardless” 🙂 Other than that, great post!
although my thoughts were concerning “all” public buildings and not just schools. I mean, think about all the money spent on local Police/Fire/public safety/DPW… building designs when they could “easily” just adopt a few standard designs to their town’s “look and feel” wants (white clapboard vs. brick…).
<
p>The I wondered, whom besides architects could possibly be against this idea (not knowing about bloggers on this page at the time). Sure enough I heard tons of bullshit babble about the ground and swamps blah blah blah.
<
p>Designing a public building in your town that is any different then the same public building in the next town is a giant waste of money which could be used so much better, but let’s not let logic get in the way of “curb appeal” and individuality.
<
p>Maybe if we could find a another country which does this, maybe in Europe, I could start a drive for us to do what “the rest of the developed world” does and then bloggers on this page would support it as well.
“Irregardless” is a word, irregardless of whether you like it or not.
<
p>
<
p>I’m sick and tired of people “correcting” others, such as myself, who use the word irregardless. It’s one of the quirks of the English language that irregardless and regardless mean the same thing, just like flammable and inflammable. In addition to its quirkiness, it’s also one of my favorites words, period.
whoa, Ryan, lighten up. I was just being a bit jokey. I also said your post was great and recommended it.
didn’t mean to come off harshly. It’s just the 2nd or 3rd time someone’s made that same ‘jokey’ to me in the past few days. It gets old.
Since when did an apology merit a 3?
<
p>I wish I could rate ratings, because that rating deserves a zero. It’s an inappropriate use of the system. Feel free to brush up on the Rules of the Road.
He’s been doing that to me a lot. He’s a ratings abuser who dishes out 3’s with no explanation. This one will probably earn me a 3 as well.
that dictionary.com is a collection of various sources. Feel free to scroll down on that very same link.
but it takes away from your posts. I’m not trying to attack you here so please don’t get defensive. Funding for schools is not a topic that I am an expert on and I’ve found your original post and the replies to it very interesting and educational. But I cringe every time I read the word “irregardless” and you seem to use it a lot. Even if you are making cogent and intelligent points, it takes away from them in my mind when you use nonstandard and, at the very least, grammatically questionable words.
Apparently I’m not alone on this.
First let me say I have served on a school building committee and Green Building committee for over 10 years now. Woburn has been extremely fortunate to build 3 new Elementary schools rehabbed 2 middle schools and built a green High School which is still exceeding the standards proposed and it was built based on the reimbursement amount set by the state what was added were several out side grants that the city applied for and received. The building replaced a 363,000 sq foot 100 year old building with a 363,000 sq ft state of the art building. The total cost with architect fees was $56 million and has been open just 2 years.
<
p>This was to preface these comments:
<
p>Cahill’s plan does not go far enough with the green building or even energy efficient standards that we have achieved in Woburn. I would expect that as we are faced with soaring energy costs that this would be a high priority. ( it does not cost more it saves more)
<
p>Next a cookie cutter approach does not always work you can start with a basic design and tailor it to fit, but it needs to be flexible. What he should look at is a refinement of the requirements for the education function of the building. Yet there still needs to be room for the community to achieve other functions with in a building that will be one of it’s largest investments even with state reimbursements.
<
p>Yet Community space and enrichments should be left to the choice and expense of the community. To suggest that they need to be a separate building is to add a huge expense to those individual projects and thus assure us that they will never be built.
<
p>As much as I fully support cost saving measures and Cahill is correct we do need to get costs under control and fast, I look at his plan as something like the apartment communities built in Russia in the 60’s poured concrete prefabed which seemed to even by their standards suffer neglect because of the lack of true value to the community.
Look in our own country to Housing authority complexes built like cookie cutters with no thought of the cultural and social aspect of getting a community to embrace the facilities as their own thus promoting a community value to the structures.
<
p>There is also an issue that the Treasurer fails to address and I think we have a great example in the Newton North case and that is Maintenance of these buildings we do a horrendous job of maintaining and preserving these buildings and we do an even worse job of assuring they are built correctly and that all systems are working as they should. This is potentially an entire new post but let me say that the reason IMHO is that a school committee and a school department has a priority list of their job functions and first and foremost is Education some where down on that list is building maintenance as it should be in what they are charged to do. We need to remove this burden or prevent this function from being raided financially just to full fill other functions, the sooner we do this the sooner we will get the full measure of our investment in my opinion. It is a shame what occurred to Newton North and the city should bare greater burden of the cost for the replacement as a result to move the standard of proper maintenance and holding contractors to Fully fulfilling construction contracts. Never should we go back later and find out that the reason there is no air in one end of the building is because the fan or blower was wired or not wired correctly. Never should we see a new roof leaking. Contractors should be held to the same liability we hold them to in private industry.
<
p>I hope this contributes in a meaning full way and we look to make this plan and any that follow better.
<
p>Best to All
As Usual just my Opinion