Gov. Kate Brown’s proposed budget pledges $20 million to Oregon State University-Cascades out of a campus request of $69.5 million.

There’s nothing final about the $20 million. The OSU branch campus may get more money or less. The governor’s recommendation is merely a starting point for budgetary discussions for the 2017 Legislature.

But it also should be the starting point for a new debate over the 7-acre plot of land near the campus, owned by the Bend Park & Recreation District. That land could jump-start the future of the campus and send a message to the Legislature about the community’s commitment to OSU-Cascades.

Becky Johnson, vice president of OSU-Cascades, said $20 million would enable the university to do reclamation and infrastructure work in preparation for building on the 46-acre site next to the existing campus. And that’s about it. Preparing the site, a former pumice mine, will be a very pricey task.

Without an additional infusion of capital funding for the 2017-19 budget cycle, OSU-Cascades may not see a new academic building until as late as 2023. Why so long? If the Legislature allocated additional funding for the 2019-2021 budget cycle, says Johnson, the money would not be distributed to the campus until 2021. It likely would take another two years for a facility to be planned and built, Johnson said.

There may be a way to accelerate the timeline. Deschutes County and the Bend Park & Recreation District could help. The county could find the district a better site on land the county owns for the district maintenance operations located on the 7-acre plot. And the district could give the land to OSU-Cascades. The park district’s planning documents have called the 7-acre site inadequate and its facilities antiquated.

The district got the 7 acres for free in two deals with the county. Both land transfers included a reversionary clause that specified that the property must be used for a public purpose.

If the county found other land for the district, the county could give that land to the district and the district could give its land to the campus. Instead of having to spend $20 million to get the 46-acre site ready, the district could get a 7-acre site that it could develop at much less cost with money left over to get started on a building.

This idea is not simple or easy. But it should be investigated for the sake of the future of both the campus and the park district.