Although there may be a case to be made that state universities have been less than exemplary stewards of their physical plants, state legislators probably should look at their own glass house before casting any stones.

The $727 million that the Kansas Board of Regents estimates it will take to catch up on delayed maintenance at the state’s six university campuses certainly isn’t an insignificant amount. But neither is the $172.5 million the state now expects to spend on repairing and upgrading a single building: the Capitol in Topeka.

On Thursday, state officials agreed to ask Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for additional bonding authority to complete the project. The additional authority is needed because the cost of the Capitol renovation now has risen almost $40 million above the original estimates. And that doesn’t cover the final phase of the project, which will include a visitor center and work on the rotunda. There is no estimate for that phase, but it is sure to cost many millions more.

Of course, the project at the Capitol building went far beyond simple maintenance. Although the Topeka project addressed needed improvements to electrical, heating, plumbing and cooling systems, it also included such expensive conveniences as a $15 million underground parking garage on the north side of the Capitol.

The cost of renovations at the Capitol have been affected by the same inflation that has driven up the cost of addressing maintenance needs at the university. The latest increase in the price tag for the project was blamed on increases in the cost of building materials and labor.

Nonetheless, legislators and the governor are standing by their decision and approving the additional funds needed to complete it.

It is hoped they will show some of the same good judgment in addressing university needs.

After receiving a plea from university students across the state, Sebelius said Thursday she would come up with a proposal to deal with the maintenance backlog. Newly elected House Speaker Melvin Neufeld also said he hoped to address the maintenance needs although it is unclear how much money either plan would make available and how it would be distributed.

It might not be unreasonable to pair a maintenance plan with a requirement that universities set aside a certain amount of their annual budgets for ongoing upkeep to prevent such a backlog of projects from building up again. It is not reasonable, however, to delay action on the backlog further. The state must protect its investment in university buildings, and, as illustrated by the Capitol project, the price of correcting the situation will only go up with time.

So, as legislators consider funding proposals next session for university maintenance, they might look around themselves and consider how much has been spent to upgrade and preserve their own place of business. The same kind of investment now is needed on university campuses across the state.