Doubts arise about crucial East Campus funding

Forty million dollars critical to jump-starting the construction of the university's massive East Campus development are in limbo three weeks after the district's primary developer decided to pull out of the project.

Before the university can begin construction on the 38-acre, $900 million development, it must find a way to relocate buildings currently on the site. But developer Foulger-Pratt/Argo is no longer committed to paying its $15 million share of the relocation costs, and city and state lawmakers holding the keys to the remaining $25 million say they need more details before they fork over the money.

State Sen. Jim Rosapepe (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's) said the university will face a tough sell lobbying for additional East Campus funding since FP-Argo pulled out, raising questions about the future of a project officials still tout as essential to transforming College Park's dingy image.

While university officials have said they will buy FP-Argo's East Campus site plan and build it piece-by-piece with multiple developers, Rosapepe said members of the General Assembly will need to see concrete information before they commit money to the project with the state facing a $2 billion deficit.

"Given the immense fiscal pressures on the state right now, I think there's going to be a lot of pressure to cut the bulk of state spending where there isn't a pressing need," he said.

The university is requesting $25 million from the state for relocation costs, and the legislature approved the first $5 million last year. The money would come over five years in the form of a specifically earmarked bond.

But a provision in the state budget mandates the university OK its spending plan with the City of College Park. Administrators have yet to approach the city about where it will direct the first $5 million dollars, and Vice President for Administrative Affairs Ann Wylie — the top official focusing on the project — said she didn't know how the university will pay for the relocation costs FP-Argo planned to cover.

Still, as officials plan to break ground on East Campus' graduate housing this January, university lobbyist Ross Stern said the university will be requesting the second $5 million installment in this legislative session.

"We're going to move forward with East Campus, and we can't move forward without relocating the buildings" Stern said.

Even though the state approved the first bond last May, Stern said the university hadn't yet approached the city because it was waiting for the new city council to be seated. A new mayor and three new councilmembers will be sworn in next week.

When the council takes up the issue, it will confront a project very different from the one the state thought it was funding last year.

Without a primary developer, Wylie said East Campus' progress will move slower than originally planned. And though Wylie said its new development arrangement will not affect the project's scope, she said could not answer questions on the university's plans to finance the project.

"I do not have definitive answers to these questions yet with the exception that the total cost at full build out of the 38 acres of East Campus remains unchanged," Wylie wrote in an e-mail.

With funding and planning questions in the balance, District 1 Councilman Patrick Wojahn said he'd want to hear more from the university before approving relocation funds. 

"We needed more information before Foulger-Pratt/Argo pulled out, and we need more information now," he said. "We'll certainly want to have a bigger picture with what's going to happen to East Campus before we sign off on the $5 million or anything else."
District 2 Councilman Bob Catlin agreed.

"The university has got to explain how they'll handle it — the ball's sort of in their court," Catlin said.

And while the state cannot take back the $5 million it authorized last legislative session, Rosapepe questioned whether the state will continue funding the bond this spring.

"The money was approved on the assumption that this major redevelopment project would proceed along the lines laid out by the university and the developer," he said. "I think it may be difficult to convince people to spend money on a project that isn't going ahead at this time."

slivnick at umdbk dot com