Maryland should not count money not yet spent on maintenance at Spring Grove as savings

I found the recent report on the potential fate of the Spring Grove Hospital Center campus (Catonsville Times, "State studies to decide fate of Spring Grove," Aug. 24) to be informative but also perplexing.

The article cited the results of a study performed by the Sparks-based SC&H Group, a public accounting firm, stating, "The state would recoup the proposed $180 million cost of building a new facility within 18 years of its completion through operational savings from the condensed footprint of the modern facility and the end of expensive, deferred maintenance costs piling up at the current, deteriorating campus."

While I have no doubt that the SC&H Group's objective was to quantify and justify the cost of building a new, smaller facility, I'm afraid I don't understand the reported rationale for their conclusion.

What baffles me is how the state could recoup, or even count as saving, the major facility maintenance costs that haven't been spent, are not being spent, and most likely will never be spent.

It appears to me that either the reporting was in error or that the cited conclusion of the study was nothing more than a self-fulfilling justification for building a new facility.

I hope that our state and local leaders will be more adept in questioning this rationale.

Robert Flint

Catonsville