Public-Private Pitfalls: How HCPSS's Push for PPPs and the Zum Bus Debacle Signal Fiscal Risks Ahead

In Howard County, there's a significant debate around the use of public-private partnerships (P3s) for new school construction. While proponents argue for their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, several concerns need to be addressed to understand their full impact.

Firstly, the benefit advanced by the proponents that P3s bring schools online fast might be unfounded. It's essential to scrutinize whether the projected timelines for school construction are realistic and if the quality of the construction will meet the necessary standards for public infrastructure. Let’s remember that once the money was approved, High School 13 took less than four years to build and open.

The funding for these projects is also a critical concern. It's unclear which pot of money they will draw from and how this will affect the county's finances. The relationship between these P3 projects and the county’s bond ratings is another area that needs clarity. There’s a need to understand how entering into these partnerships might affect the county's ability to borrow money and at what cost.

The financial stability of the private partners in these P3 agreements is another significant concern. If a private entity involved in a P3 goes bankrupt, the burden could fall on the public sector, potentially leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for incomplete projects. Privatizing profits while socializing losses is not the way to go.

Flexibility and accountability in P3 projects are also crucial. There must be mechanisms in place to ensure that the public sector can hold private entities accountable for their performance and compliance with the agreed terms. Additionally, the public sector needs to retain some level of flexibility to adapt to changing needs and circumstances over the life of the project.

Privatizing public infrastructure, such as schools, can lead to concerns about the prioritization of profit over the public good. It's essential to consider how these arrangements affect access to and the quality of public services.

The county and certain school board members have touted the experience of Prince George’s County as a model. Proponents have falsely claimed the P3s have led to the construction of six new schools. This is misleading. In Prince George’s County, P3’s helped rebuild four schools and build two new schools. Similarly, Maryland’s Purple Line light rail project, which faced significant setbacks and legal challenges in its P3 arrangement, highlights the potential pitfalls of these partnerships.

The Howard County courthouse project, managed through a P3, has been criticized as a boondoggle, with concerns about cost overruns and lack of transparency. This example raises questions about the efficiency and economic benefits of P3s for public projects.

In conclusion, while P3s can offer some advantages, such as potentially faster project delivery and leveraging private sector expertise, they come with significant risks and concerns that need to be thoroughly evaluated.

The experiences of other jurisdictions and projects indicate that P3s may not always deliver on their promises and can sometimes lead to more complications and costs than traditional public funding methods.

As Howard County considers these partnerships for new school construction, it must carefully weigh the benefits against the potential downsides to ensure that public interests are protected and served.