See more of the story

Tucked into the University of Minnesota's news release about President Eric Kaler's proposed pitch to the 2015 Legislature is mention of a "unique facility condition improvement strategy to begin closing the growing and unsustainable gap between repair and renovation needs and current state funding levels."

Let us try to rephrase that mouthful: Something's got to change in the way building repairs are funded at the U. The same goes for its sister system, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU). Relying on the Legislature to pay 100 percent via state bonding isn't cutting it. Too many campus buildings are being allowed to deteriorate — and when they do, educational quality suffers and costs rise over time.

Several decades ago, the Legislature opted to split with higher educational institutions the cost of new buildings — the state pays two-thirds, the institutions (students and donors) one-third, generally issuing institutional bonds to do so. But the state retained a commitment to cover the full cost of building renovations and major repairs via a bonding bill staple called Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement, or HEAPR (pronounced heap-er). "Asset preservation" is a fitting label. The assets HEAPR preserves are both buildings and brainpower.

The Legislature cannot be accused of breaking its HEAPR commitment. The money's been flowing in fits and starts (see accompanying box). But HEAPR has not been sufficient to meet escalating needs on 54 MnSCU and five University of Minnesota campuses. Those needs are growing rapidly as facilities built during the baby boomers' college years show their age. House bonding chair Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, said she has observed on campus tours that "the buildings built in the late 1800s and early 1900s are often fundamentally sound, but those built in the 1960s and 1970s are in bad shape. When you build things on the cheap, maintenance costs are higher."

Since 2000, the average annual HEAPR request by the U has been $76 million; MnSCU's requests are typically comparable. The average annual authorization to the university has been $34 million, university officials informed legislators earlier this year. But that average masks a year-to-year variability that is a problem in itself. University officials manage 850 buildings and 29 million square feet of space and seek maximum efficiency. That requires stable, predictable funding. HEAPR has not provided it.

The 2014 experience was true to the pattern. The university sought $100 million in HEAPR authorization and was granted $42.5 million. As a result, a disruptive major renovation of the Mechancial Engineering Building will require at least an extra year to complete; drafty 1960s-era Heller Hall on the Twin Cities campus will wait for new windows; the West Bank campus plaza will keep leaking on facilities underground; and the Duluth campus' Heller Hall will struggle a little longer with overcrowding in computer science classrooms and deficient climate controls that make some labs periodically unusable.

Kaler has asked the Board of Regents for a green light to seek a change in that pattern, starting with the 2015 legislative session. He wants to ask the Legislature for a $5 million per year increase in operating funds earmarked for building maintenance. In exchange, he proposes to reduce the U's HEAPR request by $5 million a year. He does not aim to end HEAPR funding for the university, he said, but to supplement it with earmarked operating funds controlled by the Board of Regents.

Kaler should get his green light and prepare to bargain with legislators, some of whom say privately that they favor bigger changes to HEAPR than his proposal anticipates. The 2015 Legislature should re-examine the agreement that makes institutions bear a third of the cost of new buildings but puts state taxpayers entirely on the hook for HEAPR. Might the converse of that arrangement make more sense — make the state responsible for new buildings, but put their upkeep largely in institutional hands? New buildings add to the public sector's infrastructure, and the need for them arises intermittently, with timing suited to the Legislature's biennial bonding cycle. But the upkeep of existing campus buildings is an ongoing, predictable expense that can be minimized through prudent management. Building at least some of those costs into operating budgets would give higher ed administrators added incentive to manage buildings wisely.

Kaler is correct to seek more institutional control over building repairs. MnSCU leaders and legislators should join the conversation he has started. Kaler has often told the Legislature, "HEAPR is cheaper" than building replacement. He's right. And it may be that allowing administrations and governing boards more control over renovations would be cheaper still.