The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Craig Hrinkevich is a managing director in public and project finance at D.A. Davidson & Co., specializing in infrastructure finance and municipal capital markets. He spent two decades serving Maine issuers, including the Maine Municipal Bond Bank, the State of Maine, and the Maine Health and Higher Educational Facilities Authority, and served as senior bond underwriter on the $220 million Maine Municipal Bond Bank’s Liquor Control Operation Revenue Bond program in 2013.
Maine now has what it has not had in decades: a comprehensive, statewide assessment of its school infrastructure crisis.
On Feb. 10, the Governor’s Commission on School Construction delivered its final report, estimating roughly $11 billion in needs over 20 years and acknowledging that the current system “is not equipped” to handle it.
The level of candor matters. But it also makes what comes next unavoidable. Maine has moved past identifying the problem. It now faces the harder question: How will the state finance and deliver a solution at scale?
The commission’s work is thoughtful and grounded. It highlights aging facilities, nearly 600 schools across 272 districts, and project timelines that often stretch six to nine years from concept to completion.
Its recommendations — address deferred maintenance earlier, use prototype designs, improve planning and data, and streamline approvals — are sensible.
But the report reflects the limits of its mandate. It was asked to study and recommend, not to commit capital or build an execution model. So it presents funding options — bonding, new revenue, and structural reforms — without assembling them into a defined financing program.
That is not a flaw. It is a gap policymakers must now fill.
Early legislative reaction makes clear the conversation has moved beyond diagnosis. Lawmakers are already focused on cost, governance, and whether new structures will accelerate or complicate delivery.
There is no comprehensive implementation bill yet, only hearings, working groups, and early stage discussions. That is typical. But it introduces risk. I believe the greatest danger is not inaction. It is partial action without scale.
Maine is not the first state to face this challenge. Others responded by creating dedicated revenue streams, committing to multi-year capital programs, and building centralized financing systems. They did not rely on project-by-project funding. They built programs that deliver projects every year.
Maine still operates without that kind of delivery model. Today, districts apply, projects are ranked, a few move forward, and many wait-sometimes for years.
That is not simply a funding issue. It is a system that cannot deliver at scale.
Solving this problem is no longer technical. It is a question of leadership.
I believe the governor must define this as a multi-year priority and propose a clear capital program. The Legislature must make trade-offs — on debt capacity, revenue, and balance between state and local funding. The state treasurer should lead the capital strategy, structuring a multi-year issuance program and ensuring disciplined market execution. The Department of Education must own the project pipeline, aligning priorities with readiness.
And critically, I suggest Maine needs to institutionalize this effort through a School Infrastructure Financing Authority — aligned with the treasurer and Department of Education — to ensure continuity, accountability, and sustained execution.
The commission answered what needs to be done. Now Maine must decide: who pays; who is accountable; and how projects get delivered-year after year.
Because without clear leadership and a financing system to match the scale of the problem, even the best report becomes just that: a report.
