EDITORIAL: Solve school space issue with private sector help
The school year is underway, again putting the spotlight on the Clark County School District’s crowded campuses. Because the district has no available funding for new construction, some extreme options are under consideration to ease crowding in the coming years: allowing students to alternate days between going to school and staying home for online classes; year-round campuses; and of course, the despised solution of double sessions.
These are options that seem aimed at irritating parents (read: taxpayers) to the point that they’ll be more supportive of a property tax increase or bond extension. But there are other options that could provide relief as soon as next year, and it’s refreshing to see Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky and the School Board get serious about those alternatives — measures we’ve recommended on these pages since last year.
As reported Thursday by the Review-Journal’s Trevon Milliard, the school district’s 217 elementary schools are an average of 18 percent over capacity, requiring 1,872 portable classrooms. But space for these kids exists across the valley if you know where to look. Chief Financial Officer Jim McIntosh said his staff already has identified commercial properties near 64 of the most crowded elementary schools.
Mr. McIntosh noted each commercial property would require $5 million or more to purchase, renovate or expand. But the district doesn’t have to purchase these properties. The district could instead look at leasing properties for a few years. If a bond extension is put on the ballot and passes in 2016, new permanent campuses could open by 2019 or 2020. A lease would require far less money up front and would minimize maintenance costs.
An equally good idea: partnering with private developers, who would build schools with their own capital. The school district could then buy the school, rent it or enter a lease-purchase plan. School Board member Carolyn Edwards flinched at such an arrangement, saying it would allow developers to profit while costing the district more than if the system directly funded the project. But that’s not necessarily true. The school district would control the process; if the terms of a contract are too expensive, the school district can seek other offers. Isn’t capitalism great?
Furthermore, to Ms. Edwards’ concerns, the school district uses private-sector contractors to build schools. The contractors and all their subcontractors profit from that construction, whether a developer or the school district pays the bill. So somebody profits, no matter what.
And this approach has already worked for a huge local public entity: the Metropolitan Police Department. The department negotiated with a private developer to build its new headquarters at Martin Luther King Boulevard and Alta Drive, then entered a 27-year lease agreement, including an option to buy the building three years after moving in. In 2011, Metro moved in and began paying $1.09 million per month in rent; on Tuesday, the Review-Journal’s Ben Botkin reported that Clark County finalized the purchase, for $208.3 million, which will save taxpayers nearly $250 million in future leasing costs.
The district already has such offers on the table. Good. The School Board should aggressively pursue them, as they’ll provide the fastest possible path to opening needed new schools.