<p>From today's Chronicle of Higher Education:</p>
<p>Missouri Lawmakers Will Consider $700-Million Campus-Construction Stimulus Bill</p>
<p>Efforts to stimulate the economy could be boons for colleges seeking to put up new buildings or renovate old ones. In the wake of Rutgers Universitys announcement last week that it will spend $500-million on construction as a way of bolstering the New Jersey economy, two members of Missouris House of Representatives including the majority leader have introduced a bipartisan bill that would let the state issue $700-million in bonds for campus projects across the state.</p>
<p>According to the Associated Press, the bill would cover projects at all of Missouris two- and four-year colleges except University of Missouri at St. Louis and the Missouri University of Science and Technology, which already have access to other state construction funds.</p>
<p>Rep. Chris Kelly, a Democrat from Columbia, introduced the new measure Monday along with the majority leader, Steven Tilley, a Republican from Perryville. We need to put plumbers and carpenters and earth-mover guys to work now, Mr. Kelly said. That money will reverberate throughout the economy, and were not doing just make-work projects. Were doing really important stuff. Plus, he said, the recession has driven down construction costs, and the federal stimulus package will cover 35 percent of the cost of interest on the bonds.</p>
<p>Missouri is among states that have recently put campus projects on hold because of financial difficulties</p>
<p>I have seen several similar stories about using the lower cost and stimulus money along with some additional revenues to improve infrastructure and create jobs.</p>
<p>That could be a very good deal if they can float the bonds.</p>
<p>Our school district passed a $200 million dollar bond issue two years ago, and the project bids keep coming in under budget, sometimes significantly so. Both labor costs and materials are lower than planned -- some due to the energy price decrease, but I gather most is from simple low demand. Project managers say that they're also able to get the subs they want when they want them.</p>
<p>I think that this could end up being a win-win for the universities and the local economies.</p>
<p>The problem with all this university construction is that the fancier the colleges become, the more expensive they are to run - which translates into higher tuitions. </p>
<p>Great - we'll have beautiful campuses at no one can afford to attend.</p>
<p>A lot of schools claim to be involved in a "green" movement as to all aspects of the campus and campus life. Modern construction can be much more cost effective to run and maintain than some campuses with 100+ y.o. buildings.</p>
<p>Think solar power, better insulation generally and much superior windows and HVAC systems.</p>
<p>^ I agree with 07DAD. College campuses are enormously energy inefficient. There are lots of capital improvements they could make in short order that would pay for themselves in lower operating costs in very short payback times while stimulating demand in the larger economy, helping green architects, builders, suppliers, and retrofit businesses get a foothold, helping to demonstrate and diffuse energy-efficient technologies, and helping providers of those technologies develop economies of scale to make the technology accessible to consumers at more affordable prices. Public investment in greening college campuses strikes me as a winner all around---good for the colleges, good for students and parents who pay the bills, good for the economy at large and locally, good for consumers, and good for the planet.</p>
<p>I'm glad they are spending it on Construction, and not for operating expenditures. At least that is an improvement over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Stimulus Plan.</p>