Last December, Prince George’s County in Maryland became the first K-12 school district in the nation to partner with the private sector to bundle and finance a six-school delivery program. The public-private consortium included Fengate Capital Management, Gilbane’s development and building companies, designer and architect Stantec, and maintenance services provider Honeywell. JLL was Prince George’s Public School’s financial advisor.
The new schools will be ready for the 2023-24 school year, and add 8,000 new seats across five middle schools and one K-8 school. The school district is expected to save $174 million in deferred maintenance and construction costs.
Financing the construction and renovation of public schools continues to be a major challenge that, in many states, hinges on voters approving bond issues or taxes. For most of America’s 13,000-plus school districts, the private sector is an untapped source for funding.
“At the moment, there is no common definition of a P3 in the U.S., there is no centralized governing body overseeing P3s, and there is an extremely limited breadth of experience in [the] K-12 sector,” states Braisford & Dunlavey, an education planning, development, and management consultant based in Washington, D.C., which has released a free, 40-page guide to K-12 public-private partnerships (P3s).
The guide notes that the National Council of Public-Private Partnerships identifies 18 different legal and financial P3 structures, and each agreement is sui generis to the partnership, or deal. “In K-12, we expect the range of employed structures to be much smaller. Still, each partnership will be unique.”
SEVERAL MOTIVATIONS CITED
The guide cautions that P3s are complex deal structures, and there is no simple pro/con checklist for school districts considering entering into them.
Possible motivations might include accelerating the schedule for delivery of one or more school projects. (That was the primarily factor driving Prince George’s County’s P3.) Reallocating risk and lowering construction costs are two other reasons why P3s might make sense. But school districts must also realize there’s a cost to shifting risk to the private sector in terms of capital lending, legal and development fees, and other compensation.
“P3s aren’t employed for fun,” cautions the guide. “They’re neither simple nor free, and can face a resistant community. If they’re employed, it means there’s a problem that needs solving and it’s best solved with a P3.”
And because K-12 districts typically lack revenue-generating components, the full range of P3s isn’t available to them. “We expect most large-scale projects in K-12 will resemble availability payment agreements/concessionaire agreements, in which the development team designs, builds, finances, operates, and maintains a building that it ‘makes available’ to the district in exchange for availability payments (paid annually, throughout the life of the agreement),” the guide states.
For a P3 to be a viable funding solution, enabling legislation must be in place, the guide states. And for large-scale projects to “pencil out,” the guide recommends that operations and maintenance be key components to most deals.
IS YOUR DISTRICT A GOOD P3 CANDIDATE?
Braisford & Dunlavey states that certain districts fit the profile for considering P3s:
•A large school district facing financially crippling deferred maintenance. “Good news for these projects: Bigger districts tend to have bigger budgets. That can attract developers and other private partners for a large-scale P3. While a smaller project isn’t doomed, it’s less likely.”
•A large school district facing growing enrollment.
•A school district (small or large) with land it can give up, and whose needs it cannot meet on its own. The guide suggests that this type of revenue model is an “easier” P3, but the district still needs to convince the public that this is the best use of the land.
•A school district with a visionary leader who steps up and says, “Enough is enough.” The guide says that projects need champions to navigate approvals, manage stakeholder engagement, and think strategically.
The attributes of any good engagement, according to Braisford & Dunlavey, start with a clear definition of expected outcomes. These pacts also require sufficient time to hash out the deal’s structure and legal details. Stakeholders need to be “true partners” invested in each other’s success, and always honest.
The school district should define the quality of the project’s design and construction, but also be flexible enough to allow its private-sector partners to achieve those parameters.
Related Stories
| May 22, 2014
Big Data meets data centers – What the coming DCIM boom means to owners and Building Teams
The demand for sophisticated facility monitoring solutions has spurred a new market segment—data center infrastructure management (DCIM)—that is likely to impact the way data center projects are planned, designed, built, and operated.
| May 20, 2014
Kinetic Architecture: New book explores innovations in active façades
The book, co-authored by Arup's Russell Fortmeyer, illustrates the various ways architects, consultants, and engineers approach energy and comfort by manipulating air, water, and light through the layers of passive and active building envelope systems.
| May 19, 2014
What can architects learn from nature’s 3.8 billion years of experience?
In a new report, HOK and Biomimicry 3.8 partnered to study how lessons from the temperate broadleaf forest biome, which houses many of the world’s largest population centers, can inform the design of the built environment.
| May 15, 2014
'Virtually indestructible': Utah architect applies thin-shell dome concept for safer schools
At $94 a square foot and "virtually indestructible," some school districts in Utah are opting to build concrete dome schools in lieu of traditional structures.
| May 13, 2014
19 industry groups team to promote resilient planning and building materials
The industry associations, with more than 700,000 members generating almost $1 trillion in GDP, have issued a joint statement on resilience, pushing design and building solutions for disaster mitigation.
| May 11, 2014
Final call for entries: 2014 Giants 300 survey
BD+C's 2014 Giants 300 survey forms are due Wednesday, May 21. Survey results will be published in our July 2014 issue. The annual Giants 300 Report ranks the top AEC firms in commercial construction, by revenue.
| Apr 29, 2014
USGBC launches real-time green building data dashboard
The online data visualization resource highlights green building data for each state and Washington, D.C.
Sponsored | | Apr 23, 2014
Ridgewood High satisfies privacy, daylight and code requirements with fire rated glass
For a recent renovation of a stairwell and exit corridors at Ridgewood High School in Norridge, Ill., the design team specified SuperLite II-XL 60 in GPX Framing for its optical clarity, storefront-like appearance, and high STC ratings.
| Apr 16, 2014
Upgrading windows: repair, refurbish, or retrofit [AIA course]
Building Teams must focus on a number of key decisions in order to arrive at the optimal solution: repair the windows in place, remove and refurbish them, or opt for full replacement.
| Apr 9, 2014
Steel decks: 11 tips for their proper use | BD+C
Building Teams have been using steel decks with proven success for 75 years. Building Design+Construction consulted with technical experts from the Steel Deck Institute and the deck manufacturing industry for their advice on how best to use steel decking.
