Columns

Response to ‘Careless HEAPRs’

The editorial’s main assertion that the HEAPR project list is poorly defined is wrong.
Published: 10/25/2009
By Kathleen O'Brien
Advertisement

In their Oct. 13, 2009 editorial, The Minnesota Daily Editorial Board raised some legitimate points about the University of Minnesota’s 2010 capital request for Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) funds. However, the editorial’s main assertion that the HEAPR project list is poorly defined is wrong. State law actually requires the University to submit a detailed list of projects as part of its capital request.

In creating the 2010 HEAPR list, University administrators use the Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) — a database that captures a comprehensive evaluation of the condition of all University facilities, on all campuses, prioritized by need. In addition to the FCA database, the University considers code compliance, fire-life-safety and disability needs, academic programming and the opportunity to leverage other funding when creating the HEAPR request. For example, a faculty member’s research award may include the use of some grant funds for capital improvements, therefore increasing a project’s ranking.

The HEAPR list may be re-prioritized several times throughout the year because of certain events — a windstorm that destroys part of a roof, a water pipe that bursts or any other unanticipated emergency repair need. This flexibility reflects the operational realities faced by the University in effectively managing more than 16 million assignable square feet in more than 800 buildings.

Since the University created the FCA, the University has been increasing the funds requested for HEAPR projects. The $100 million requested for HEAPR in 2010 is not arbitrary; there are needs well in excess of $100 million. As the editorial points out, the University received $35 million of the requested $100 million in HEAPR funds in 2008. The legislature has to balance the University’s request with all other requests. In this last biennium, from local governments to all state agencies, approximately $2 billion in projects was requested but the state’s total bonding bill was only a little over $700 million. The University also received $25 million in HEAPR funds in 2009 — that’s $60 million for the biennium. Other projects in the capital request address facility needs such as Folwell Hall, a century-old historic building essential to the University’s educational mission, that would otherwise require a substantial HEAPR investment.

In addition to providing the state with a detailed HEAPR request, the University annually reports to the legislature on the completion of HEAPR projects. The HEAPR dollars that the University receives are wisely used to protect the University’s assets and to provide a safe environment. Rather than “opaqueness and generality,” the University takes very seriously its stewardship responsibility and provides the level of detail that decision-makers need to thoughtfully consider the University’s request.

Kathleen O’Brien

University Services vice president

Please send comments to letters@mndaily.com.

2 Comments

The Minnesota Daily wants to host a forum for discussion regarding issues and stories regarding the University of Minnesota and surrounding communities. However, the online comments should not be used to threaten or defame. This is a place for people to be heard, and want to contribute to discussion. Those who persist to use expletives, inappropriate, racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post.

To comment, please login.

Weren't you at the recent Regents Meeting where some of the regents asked the same questions as the Daily about the lack of specificity for what would be done with HEAPR money? If necessary, I can post a video to refresh your memory. And the same sort of slushiness about what would be done with the money, if approved, was expressed.

Where exactly is this list of HEAPR projects? Can you give me the url of a website where the HEAPR priorities can be found?

And as one of the state legislators put it: If you want the HEAPR money so badly, perhaps you should not ask for the other items? It certainly appears that HEAPR requests are some sort of kabuki, where you ask for more than you think you will get, so that the legislature can cut the request and yet you'll still get some funding. At the Regents meeting, wasn't it stated that we actually need TWICE the amount requested? How do you expect anyone to take HEAPR requests seriously when the span of money needed is 4X? (From the half we get to the twice we need, or say we need.)

Isn't it about time to get very specific about what is on the HEAPR agenda so that the public knows and can decide on the reasonableness of such requests? And isn't it time to spell out the consequences for denial of HEAPR requests?

Is HEAPR really important? Or is the denial of HEAPR funds yet another excuse to neglect building so that they can be, how should I put it - retired, and new ones built?

And of course I am surprised you mention Follwell in this discussion. As you are very well aware this project would have been funded two years ago if not for the ineptness of the Morrill Hall crowd in dealing with the governor and the legislature.

Times are tough.

How about finally putting all the cards on the table?

Choose, buy and shop for on sale tiffany jewelry including Tiffany & Co Silver Necklace, Pendants, Bangles, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories
rolex replica
tiffany jewelry
tiffany jewellery
tiffany bracelets
tiffany rings
tiffany necklaces
tiffany necklece
tiffanys
tiffany accessories
bags online
backpacks