THE STATE School Building Authority, which provides partial payment for school construction or renovation, is not obligated to play sugar daddy to free-spending cities and towns. Furthermore, if local officials can't control their urges to build sumptuous schools, then state officials must do it for them.
State Treasurer Timothy Cahill is wisely urging cities and towns to adopt off-the-shelf architectural plans that could cut school building costs by as much as 30 percent. Such prototypes should put proper emphasis on science labs, classrooms, gymnasiums, and auditoriums - all worthy of 40 to 80 percent reimbursement from the state. But Cahill wants no part of the pools and field houses that drive up project costs. Swanky towns are always free to build them. But not with the help of state taxpayers.
For too many years, the planning, building, and funding of school projects in Massachusetts were a mess. Good projects lingered endlessly on waiting lists while ill-conceived ones went forward. The creation of the School Building Authority in 2004, along with tough audits by Inspector General Gregory Sullivan, finally restored fiscal integrity.
Now cities and towns need to make sensible choices. School renovations, for example, are often good alternatives to new construction. Regionalization is a sound solution for neighboring towns looking to build new schools. And architectural prototypes make sense in areas where ground conditions permit.
Cities and towns that adopt such cost-saving practices deserve to be elevated on the state authority's reimbursement list. Those that don't shouldn't look to the state to support their expensive habits.
