There was a time when college buildings were most often named for scholars, presidents, and teachers whose lives were devoted to advancing knowledge. Their names reminded students that universities exist first to discover, preserve, and transmit learning.
Today, many new buildings bear the names of benefactors whose generosity made their construction possible. Modern research laboratories, residence halls, performing arts centers, and athletic facilities often require gifts measured in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The name recognizes not only financial support but also a lasting commitment to the institution’s future.
Neither tradition is without merit. One honors intellectual achievement. The other honors stewardship. Together they tell the story of how universities endure: ideas require both those who create them and those who provide the means for them to flourish.
Perhaps the question is not whether a building should bear the name of a scholar or a donor, but whether its name reminds future generations why the institution was built in the first place.
As the adage goes: “The cure for high prices, is high prices”. Today–ahead of the August primary elections in the United States (when bond referenda appear on ballots — we explore fiscal runaway with particular interest in the instruments that finance construction of the real assets. We recap what we have been doing for 30-odd years placing downward pressure on life-cycle cost.
Perspective:
The largest school bond referendum on ballots in November 2025 is the $1.4 billion package for Richardson Independent School District (ISD) in Texas.
University of Michigan’s 2025 $2 billion general revenue bonds
New York University’s 2025 $2.18 billion bonds through the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
The largest school bond referendum on ballots in November 2024 was Measure US for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in California, totaling $9 billion.
In the November 2022 elections, a significant number of school bond referenda were presented to voters across the United States. For example, in Wisconsin alone, there were 57 successful capital referenda amounting to nearly $2.1 billion in authorized debt (Wisconsin Policy Forum)
In Texas, Central Texas schools had a total of $4.24 billion in bonds on the ballot, covering various propositions for school facilities, technology improvements, and athletic facilities (Fox 7 Austin)
In California and Arkansas, bond measures totaling $74 million — including school choice — were aimed at addressing school facility improvements (The74Million)
Voters in 16 North Carolina counties approved bond issues totaling $4.27 billion, with $3.08 billion dedicated to K-12 public school construction and improvements (EducationNC)
“The cure for high prices, is high prices” — They say.
Today we explore fiscal runaway in the US education “industry” with particular interest in the financing instruments for building the real assets that are the beating heart of culture in neighborhoods, cities, counties and states. We steer clear of social and political issues. The marketing of these projects — and how the loans are paid off — provides insight into the costs and benefits of this $100+ billion industry; the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States.
We cannot do much to stop the hyperbolically rising cost of administrative functionaries but we can force the incumbents we describe in our ABOUT to work a little harder to reduce un-used (or un-useable) space and reduce maintenance cost. Sometimes simple questions result in obvious answers that result in significant savings.
More recently hybrid teaching and learning space, owing the the circumstances of the pandemic, opens new possibilities for placing downward pressure on cost.
Every school building begins twice: first in the bond market, and later on the construction site. After Architect-Engineers and Building Construction Contractors (many of whom finance election advocacy enterprises) the following organizations are involved in placing a bond on the open market:
School Districts: Individual school districts issue bonds to fund construction or renovation of school facilities, purchase equipment, or cover other educational expenses. Each school district is responsible for managing its own bond issuances.
Colleges and Universities: Higher education institutions, such as universities and colleges, issue bonds to finance campus expansions, construction of new academic buildings, dormitories, research facilities, and other capital projects.
State-Level Agencies: Many states have agencies responsible for overseeing and coordinating bond issuances for schools and universities. These agencies may facilitate bond sales, help ensure compliance with state regulations, and provide financial assistance to educational institutions.
Municipal Finance Authorities: Municipal finance authorities at the state or local level often play a role in facilitating bond transactions for educational entities. They may act as intermediaries in the bond issuance process.
Investment Banks and Underwriters: Investment banks and underwriters assist educational institutions in structuring and selling their bonds to investors. They help determine bond terms, market the bonds, and manage the offering.
Bond Counsel: Bond counsel, typically law firms, provide legal advice to educational institutions on bond issuances. They help ensure that the bond issuance complies with all legal requirements and regulations.
Rating Agencies: Rating agencies, such as Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings, assess the creditworthiness of the bonds and assign credit ratings. These ratings influence the interest rates at which the bonds can be issued.
Investors: Various institutional and individual investors, including mutual funds, pension funds, and individual bond buyers, purchase school and university bonds as part of their investment portfolios.
Financial Advisors: Financial advisory firms provide guidance to educational institutions on bond issuances, helping them make informed financial decisions related to borrowing and debt management.
Regulatory Authorities: Federal and state regulatory authorities, such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state-specific agencies, oversee and regulate the issuance of bonds to ensure compliance with securities laws and financial regulations.
These organizations collectively contribute to the process of issuing, selling, and managing school and university bonds in the United States, allowing educational institutions to raise the necessary funds for their capital projects and operations. The specific entities involved may vary depending on the size and location of the educational institution and the nature of the bond issuance.
We track action in the catalog of this consortia standards developer because we continually seek ways to avoid spending a dollar to save a dime; characteristic of an industry that is a culture more than it is a business.
While not an ANSI accredited the FASB/GASB standards setting enterprise’s due process requirements (balance, open-ness, appeal, etc.)* are “ANSI-like” and widely referenced in education enterprise management best practice. Recent action in its best practice bibliography is listed below
At present the non-profit titles are stable with the 2020 revision. That does not mean there is not work than can be done. Faculty and students may be interested in the FASG program linked below:
Also, the “Accounting for Environmental Credit Programs”, last updated in January, may interest colleges and universities with energy and sustainability curricula. You may track progress at the link below:
We encourage our colleagues to communicate directly with the FASB on any issue (Click here). Other titles in the FASB/GASB best practice bibliography are a standing item on our Finance colloquia; open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Giovanni Paolo Panini, An architectural capriccio with figures among Roman ruins
The post-pandemic #WiseCampus transformation requires significant capital to meet the sustainability goals of its leadership. Campuses are cities-within-cities and are, to a fair degree, financed in a similar fashion. Tax-free bonds are an effective instrument for school districts, colleges and universities — and the host community in which they are nested — for raising capital for infrastructure projects while also providing investors with, say $10,000 to $100,000, to allocate toward a tax-free dividend income stream that produces a return in the range of 2 to 8 percent annually.
An aging population may be receptive to investment opportunities that protect their retirement savings from taxation.
Once a month, we walk through the prospectuses of one or two bond offerings of school districts, colleges and universities and examine offering specifics regarding infrastructure construction, operations and maintenance. We pay particular attention to details regarding “continuing operations”. Somehow the education industry has to pay for its green agenda. See our CALENDAR for the next Finance colloquium; open to everyone.
The interactive map provided by Electronic Municipal Market Access identifies state-by-state listings of tax-free bonds that contribute to the construction and operation of education facilities; some of which involved university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises.
CLICK ON IMAGE FOR INTERACTIVE MAP
If you need help cutting through this list please feel free to click in any day at 11 AM Eastern time. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our hope page. We collaborate with subject matter experts at Municipal Analytics and UBS.
*We see the pandemic as a driver for a step-reduction in cost in all dimensions of education communities. We coined the term with a hashtag about two years ago.
*College and university infrastructure projects are classified with public school districts under the rubric “municipal bonds” at the moment. CLICK HERE for more information.
Why the 10-Year Treasury Note Matters to School Bonds
The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury note is the principal benchmark for long-term borrowing throughout the American economy, including the municipal bond market that finances schools, colleges, and universities. When Treasury yields rise, investors generally expect higher returns from tax-exempt school bonds as well. To attract buyers, educational institutions must offer higher interest rates, increasing the cost of financing new classrooms, laboratories, residence halls, athletic facilities, and utility infrastructure.
Conversely, when 10-year Treasury yields decline, borrowing costs often ease, enabling school districts and universities to finance capital improvements at lower interest expense and reducing the long-term burden on taxpayers or tuition revenue. Although the final interest rate on any bond issue also reflects the issuer’s credit quality, market demand, insurance, and overall economic conditions, daily movements in the 10-year Treasury yield remain one of the most closely watched indicators of the direction and relative cost of educational facility financing.
As a rule of thumb, every 0.25 percentage point (25 basis point) increase in the borrowing rate adds about $25,000 per year in interest for every $10 million of outstanding principal.
Albert Kahn detail at the Alexander G. Ruthven Building at the University of Michigan
When universities speak of “campus growth,” what kind of growth do they mean? More students? (At the moment, international students comprise about 5 percent of total enrollment) More research? (61 percent of graduate students were international) More healthcare? (Healthcare enterprises are moving off campus to where the patients are). The traditional campus concentrated infrastructure — the modern academic health system distributes it. (At what point does a university cease to be a campus and become a regional enterprise?) More computing? (Electric or absorption chillers). Or are they simply replacing infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life?
Data centers in colleges and universities are crucial for supporting the extensive technological infrastructure required for modern education and research. These centers house critical servers and storage systems that manage vast amounts of data, ensuring reliable access to academic resources, administrative applications, and communication networks. They enable the secure storage and processing of sensitive information, including student records, faculty research, and institutional data.
Moreover, data centers facilitate advanced research by providing the computational power needed for data-intensive studies in fields like bioinformatics, climate science, and artificial intelligence. They support virtual learning environments and online course management systems, essential for the increasingly prevalent hybrid and online education models. Efficient data centers also contribute to campus sustainability goals by optimizing energy use through modern, eco-friendly technologies.
Additionally, robust data center infrastructure enhances the university’s ability to attract top-tier faculty and students by demonstrating a commitment to cutting-edge technology and resources. They also play a vital role in disaster recovery and business continuity, ensuring that educational and administrative functions can resume quickly after disruptions. Overall, data centers are integral to the academic mission, operational efficiency, and strategic growth of colleges and universities.
Standards distinguish meaningful patterns from imagined ones.
We have followed development of the technical standards that govern the success of these “installations” since 1993; sometimes nudging technical committees — NFPA, IEEE, ASHRAE, BICSI and UL. The topic is vast and runs fast so today we will review, and perhaps respond to, the public consultations that are posted on a near-daily basis. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Introduction. [Abstract]. The rapid growth of data centers, with their enormous energy and water demands, necessitates targeted policy interventions to mitigate environmental impacts and protect local communities. To address these issues, states with existing data center tax breaks should adopt sustainable growth policies for data centers, mandating energy audits, strict performance standards, and renewable energy integration, while also requiring transparency in energy usage reporting. “Renewable energy additionality” clauses should ensure data centers contribute to new renewable capacity rather than relying on existing resources. If these measures prove insufficient, states should consider repealing tax breaks to slow unsustainable data center growth. States without tax breaks should avoid such incentives altogether while simultaneously implementing mandatory reporting requirements to hold data centers accountable for their environmental impact. Broader measures should include protecting local tax revenues for schools, regulating utility rate hikes to prevent cost-shifting to consumers, and aligning data center energy demands with state climate goals to avoid prolonging reliance on fossil fuels.
Abstract: Power grid operation and maintenance decision-making reform is an important part of power system reform. With the construction of massive historical quasi real-time data management platform, the reform of power system is also advancing. However, in the face of massive data explosion, the business level and business logic become disorganized and redundant. Based on the actual situation of Shenzhen Power Supply Bureau, the sg-erp data center is composed of structured data center, massive data center, unstructured data center and power grid GIS data center. With the unprecedented growth of business application data, the data center can improve business logic and promote power system reform. The experimental results show that big data technology has a broad application prospect in the reform of power industry.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
