Photo credit: Thomas BerberichUniversities and colleges across the country are confronting a growing infrastructure dilemma. Aging utility systems — electrical networks, steam tunnels, heating and cooling — require critical upgrades, yet funding sources are dwindling. Declining enrollment, reduced state appropriations and fewer grant opportunities have made it increasingly difficult for institutions to move forward with even the most urgent maintenance projects.
In this climate, many institutions have fallen into a cycle of deferred maintenance: budgets are allocated and purchase orders are issued, but work never actually begins. One university, for example, repeatedly issued six-figure purchase orders for utility repairs, only to cancel them as enrollment shortfalls cut into available funds. Across higher education, this kind of delay has become common — and risky. Although institutions can continue operating for a while under these conditions, the backlog of needs continues to mount, and the threat to campus safety and reliability grows with every postponed project.
Yet the situation isn’t hopeless. A pragmatic approach built around careful phasing, prioritization, and collaboration can help institutions make real progress, even amid financial uncertainty.
When capital budgets are constrained, the most effective starting point is a comprehensive system evaluation followed by a ranked list of repairs. This allows universities to focus on what’s most critical to daily operations while spreading work and costs across multiple years.
One midwestern university faced severe deterioration in a steam tunnel network running beneath its campus. Years of water infiltration, corroded steel supports, and cracked concrete had compromised the tunnel’s integrity. Rather than attempt a full overhaul, which was financially impossible, the engineering team began with a complete assessment of the tunnel, cataloging every support and pipe, and rating each one for criticality. Repairs were then phased across three years: the most urgent structural and pipe support work in the first phase, followed by less critical sections in the subsequent two.
By approaching the project in manageable phases, the university not only restored essential reliability but also maintained the flexibility to pause or continue work as funding allowed. Overwhelming capital challenges were thus contained within structured, achievable programs of improvement.
The calendar is never truly open at most universities. Although summer may seem the logical time for major work, most campuses now remain active year-round with orientations, graduations, summer courses, camps and even athletic events filling facilities that would be relatively easy to renovate if they were standing empty for the summer.
Institutions in this situation can still complete infrastructure projects if they start earlier. The most effective planning processes begin months in advance, allowing contractors, facilities staff and campus leadership to coordinate around every known event and anticipate the unexpected.
Early planning also gives project partners the chance to develop what-if scenarios to accommodate unplanned shifts in schedules. With enough lead time, contractors can adapt phasing or sequencing to preserve continuity of campus services. As one engineer observed, planning early doesn’t guarantee that things won’t change, but it ensures that when they do change, everyone is ready.
Many universities struggle with incomplete or outdated building documentation. Drawings, schematics, and maintenance records may be missing or inconsistent across decades of work. This lack of reliable information can result in nasty surprises, and costly delays.
A key strategy for mitigating this risk is to integrate documentation efforts into the earliest project phases. That means working collaboratively to gather all available records and, when necessary, sending staff to manually verify conditions in the field. This investment pays dividends later by reducing change orders and ensuring that each phase of work builds efficiently upon the last.
Accurate documentation also provides a foundation for future planning. When an institution develops a consistent record of its infrastructure, it gains the ability to forecast maintenance needs and costs with far greater confidence.
Flexibility is perhaps the most important attribute a project partner can bring to higher education clients today. Large, traditional engineering firms often require substantial project minimums to justify mobilization costs. But many universities need solutions that scale down — not up.
Smaller, incremental projects allow institutions to move forward even when full funding isn’t available. A $5,000 or $10,000 phase can serve as a pilot, addressing the most urgent repairs while laying the groundwork for larger improvements down the line. This approach keeps momentum alive, prevents systems from falling further into disrepair, and helps leadership demonstrate tangible progress to boards and donors.
Ultimately, the ability to scale work to available funding builds trust. When universities see that their partners are willing to work within tight financial limits, they are more likely to re-engage as new funds become available.
Even the best-engineered project could falter if the people affected by it aren’t on board. Faculty may resist moving classrooms, staff may object to schedule disruptions and students are often vocal about changes in comfort or access. Because infrastructure work touches everyone, clear communication is essential.
Universities that manage stakeholder outreach effectively begin by explaining why a project is happening — emphasizing safety, efficiency and sustainability. They also maintain open channels for feedback throughout construction, ensuring that faculty and staff feel heard.
One lighting replacement initiative, for example, aimed to cut energy use through LED upgrades, but work had to be scheduled around library hours, study spaces, and research labs. Transparent coordination between facilities teams and building users prevented frustration and kept the project on track.
When handled well, communication doesn’t just minimize disruption — it builds long-term goodwill. University communities that feel informed and supported are more open to change, even when it’s inconvenient in the short term.
Beyond technical expertise, what distinguishes successful partners in higher education infrastructure renewal is their ability to foster ongoing, trust-based relationships. Universities benefit from working with firms that maintain consistent project teams, avoid unnecessary turnover, and treat each engagement as part of a longer journey rather than a one-time transaction.
Equally valuable is a relationship style that feels collaborative rather than transactional. Many campus leaders express appreciation for teams that approach discussions conversationally, focusing on listening, problem-solving, and customizing solutions to institutional needs. This personable, partnership-driven approach helps universities feel supported rather than sold to, which can make all the difference when budgets are tight and decisions are under scrutiny.
Addressing deferred maintenance isn’t simply about repairing pipes or upgrading tunnels — it’s about preserving the continuity and resilience of higher education itself. Reliable infrastructure underpins everything universities do: supporting research, housing students, and maintaining safe, functional environments for learning.
Even in times of financial constraint, institutions can make meaningful progress. By prioritizing critical systems, embracing phased planning, and cultivating transparent, flexible relationships, universities can move forward with confidence. The result is not only healthier and more sustainable facilities, but also stronger, more adaptive institutions prepared to meet the challenges of the decades ahead.
Kristi A. Vilminot, P.E., is Director of Engineering – Power Generation & Energy with Commonwealth Associates Inc., and can be reached at Kristi.Vilminot@cai-engr.com.
