When confronting a problem, closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist is not the best way to deal with it. And yet, in a sense, that's what Utah lawmakers and Gov. Mike Leavitt are seriously considering when it comes to state buildings.
House Republicans are contemplating a three-year moratorium on construction of new state buildings, reasoning that money would be better spent for the growing backlog of damaged and inadequate state buildings. No one remembers when Utah has imposed a similar moratorium.
But the governor already has suggested no new general obligation bond for fiscal 2001, the budget year lawmakers now are considering, which seems at odds with the direction House Republicans are going. Republicans are following the lead of the State Building Board, which is recommending the three-year moratorium. However, it also is recommending a $600 million to $800 million general obligation bond with annual release commensurate with the state's ability to service debt.
Delaying today's problems until tomorrow only makes them worse tomorrow. The problems are considerable as more than $400 million of work needs to be done on dozens of state structures.
The Building Board said the state needs $73 million to $92 million each year to renovate or replace existing buildings; a $21 million to $35 million increase in higher education needs each year due to an expected 60,000 new full-time student load over the next 20 years; and a $21 million to $34 million per year for new state agency buildings, which assumes a 25 percent decrease in space due to advances in technology and a 44 percent increase in the number of state employees over the next 20 years.
A five-year report given to lawmakers by the Building Board details some of the state's critical needs. For example, at Utah State University in Logan, the heating and cooling system "has reached a state of emergency." If the system fails, the cost of interruption "would be catastrophic."
Democrats are right in advocating the state bond for those critical needs and not delay them further. They contend the state should deal with state buildings the same way homeowners deal with homes; that state buildings, just like homes, present legitimate reason for borrowing.
Lawmakers have a difficult task providing proper funding for a multitude of needs. Education, rightfully so, is a high priority. Buildings that house educators and students and are tools to enhance the learning environment, should be top priorities, also.