State stuns Auraria, pulls $37.5 million for new science building
Hole remains as science building now in jeopardy
By John Rebchook, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published March 21, 2008 at 8:10 p.m.
Updated March 21, 2008 at 9:23 p.m.
Maria Garcia Berry / Special to the Rocky
Construction on the $120 million Auraria Campus Science Building began in December. The state has yanked funding.
The state abruptly pulled $37.5 million in financing earmarked for a science building under construction on the Auraria campus.
The fallout could mean the $120 million facility will not be built, and the campus will be scarred by a giant hole in the ground.
Construction began in December on the five-story, 181,000- square-foot Auraria Campus Science Building, along Speer Boulevard, adjacent to Arapahoe Street.
The project's construction costs were estimated to be $111 million, with an additional $9 million for furniture and equipment.
It was being described as the first major building constructed on the campus in more than 20 years. It would have been shared by the University of Colorado at Denver, Community College of Denver and Metro State College.
The state's Joint Budget Committee pulled the financing Thursday because of new, lower-budget estimates for state construction projects.
"I'm well aware of the situation," said Bruce Benson, president of the University of Colorado, on Friday afternoon. "It is really critical that we get the financing reinstated and that this building is completed. Right now, it is just a hole in the ground."
Benson said the current science building is so unsafe that pregnant women are advised not to take classes there because of fumes from science experiments.
"This is like looking at the Justice Center, and saying, "Let's stop construction and just leave a giant hole in the ground,' " said Stephen Jordan, president of Metro State College.
"This building is absolutely key to our ability to support where our economy is going to get the science-based manpower that we need," Jordan said, adding that it will limit the number of students the school can accept.
Tami Door, president and CEO of the Downtown Denver Partnership, said the downtown business community is a strong opponent of pulling the funding.
"It is a business issue as much as it is a higher-education issue," Door said. "It was a major investment and now the financing promised is 100 percent gone."
The money is unlikely to be reinstated, said state Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, who chairs the Appropriations and Joint Budget Committees.
"What we have clearly seen (is) we are not immune to the forces in the national economy," Buescher said. "And in all likelihood, things are going to get worse before they get better. At the end of day, everyone wants money from the state. Can we spend money that we don't have? Absolutely not."
rebchookj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5207
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
March 21, 2008
8:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
roadstar writes:
Maybe Coach Shanahan would be willing to not build his megamansion and donate the money to this education project instead, or maybe he'd buy Invesco Field back from the public so the funds could be used for education.
March 21, 2008
11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Imagine that, Democrats cutting funding for the children. I guess they really need a campaign issue like, Like Republicans want this funding so we saw it as trap. Therefore vote for democrats so we can restore this funding for the children. If this makes no sense to you, welcome to total control by democrats!!!!!!!!!
March 21, 2008
11:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Domino writes:
Imagine that justright, the Democrats showing fiscal restraint. Is that not the Republicans' motto?
By the way, college students are not children.
March 22, 2008
1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
ManginoTorreta writes:
Wonderful. The state will spend tons of money getting ready for Riots-A-Go-Go this summer, (also known as the Democratic National Convention) yet pull the funding for a building that will be critical to the academic health of the Auraria campus. Remember that next time somebody in the state house blames TABOR for why colleges in Colorado don't have enough money.
Wasn't Ref C supposed to address things like this?
March 22, 2008
4:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
Actually it was Referendum D that was supposed to address things like this:
Referendum D - Critical needs bonding measure
If approved by voters and Referendum C passes, authorizes the state to bond up to $2.07 billion,
depending on market conditions, with bond proceeds in the following amounts to be directed to
the following purposes:
$1.2 billion to repair and replace highways and bridges and accelerate CDOT’s strategic
projects.
$147 million for K-12 school construction, repair, maintenance, etc.
$50 million to for construction, repair, maintenance, etc. of state university, college and community college facilities.
$175 million to be credited to fire and police members’ retirement fund to pay off the state’s share of unfunded liabilities.
March 22, 2008
6:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
robert10001 writes:
BRAVO LEGiSLATORS! I feel like I'm living in a democracy again. Now it is time for an investigation into the process of how this building was approved in the first place and who stands to profit from its construction. This building was a scam in the first place. Nearby Downtown residents were NEVER adequately notified of its construction, nor of the opportunity for community hearings or input. It was shoved down the throats of students, residents, taxpayers alike. The building itself is highly criticized as a monstrosity by all involved accept the short sighted state legislature which initially approved it. Perhaps it could be moved, scaled down dramatically,( 5 stories, almost 2 blocks long!), or incorporated into a remodel og other structures on campus. It's time for fairness and logical here. no more political games and questionable use of funds please.
March 22, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
DeimosJB writes:
Regardless of whether the building was a good idea or not, it's not prudent and not ethical to pull funding for a state-sponsored project that has already been agreed upon, invested heavily in, and started.
This is a good example of why it's a bad idea to give government money in the first place.
March 22, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cabermon writes:
I suggest a temporary use for the site:
Plan A:
1) Put a tall chain link fence around the hole.
2) Install port-a-potties and temporary stairways in the hole.
3) During "Riots-a-Go-Go" (LOL) put all protesters in the hole and let'em protest for the duration!
4) Let 'em out after the DNC blows town.
Plan B: If the anarchists successfully "Recreate '68":
1) Put the rioters in the hole.
2) Fill it in.
Go Red State Colorado!
March 22, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
RegVoctor writes:
What will crippling the Auraria campus do to the Denver and Colorado economy in general? If I were a more tech savvy firm, why would I want to locate or expand in the greater Denver or Colorado area if I knew there would be fewer graduates ready to participate in basic college level science? What is to become of the large hole in the ground in a key location in Denver? Does this make any long-term economic sense?
And what is to become of the colleges, CU-Denver, Metro, and CC-Denver that needed this facility? Is it true that, the "current science building is so unsafe that pregnant women are advised not to take classes there because of fumes from science experiments?" What about non-pregnant students? Do you want your kids using the existing facility if this is what the president of the University says about the safety of that building? Do you want to go into the existing facility?
Finally, are we beginning to see the fall-out of the Regents having voted in partisan, Republican fund raiser, Bachelor Degree only Bruce Benson as President of the University? Isn't Colorado already 49th in the nation in its state support of its Universities? As neighboring economies picked up (see New Mexico with its billion dollar surplus), wasn't a key component support of new economies through education? It becomes clearer and clearer where this state is going.
March 22, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
It is just like libs to blame the new guy Benson. After all he has beem there a month. Never mind Libs took the money away. I am positive everyone of the elected Liberals ran on education. It is obvious they don't care about educating the children, especial for science, but care about money for unions. It really makes Ritter look stupid because he wants to align the children of K-12 to go to higher education. I guess he was talking about higher education in other states.
Nice recap on amendment C&D. One problem, C was about taking the money and D was about spending the money. They got the money and now the libs are spending it. Their priorities don't include science and math for the new economy. Main reason is they need as many dumb and stupid voters as possible. Remember we got that end homeless thing in Denver going down. Maybe that is where the funding is going.
March 22, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Stunning. I think all people are just stunned that the democrat budget commission and governor ritter would pull committed project money for a healthcare facility deep in the heart of some very poor area of town.
Blows me away!
March 22, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
gwats writes:
Start charging these freeloaders who use the College IDs for all the free rides they take on RTD. That would raise $37 Million in a hurry! Oops! That would be a responsible thing to do! My Bad!
March 22, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
BillORights writes:
This is happening in every state, whether the gov is republican or democrat. There is less money available in every state, except in oil states like Wyoming.
Responsible, imaginative capitol generating ideas welcome, but the politics is neither left or right but fiscal.
productive cash reaping ideas, please.
or get used to a hole instead.
ideas and production.
March 22, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jimmyrobot writes:
My my my, robert10001. You are indeed the spokesman for the over-privileged. Given the tenor of your remarks, I'd be willing to bet that you're a resident of one of the residential towers near the Auraria campus. Yes - towers. We're talking 13 stories or more. And you have the audacity to denounce a (gasp!) 5-story building as being, in your own words, a "monstrosity." You live downtown, Robert, and you're complaining about a building that will be built to 5 stories? Your precious view of the mountains must be pretty valuable to you - obviously more valuable than the desperate need for space for the 35,000 students at our downtown campus or the health-safety issues in the existing science building (the repair of which also depends on the state funding).
Please, Robert, for the sake of all that is good and real with this world - get off your high horse and realize that you don't own a view and the education of our future workforce is maybe a tad more important than your singular demands.
March 22, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
mtnboy75 writes:
OK...I guess I am left wondering a few things...
1.) I have no problem with a government not spending money they don't have, I wish I heard politicains say that more. I guess my first question is whether this is an introduction to further spending cuts elsewhere.
2.) With almost $80 million left over in the original budget for this building, it sounds a little bit absurd to leave a hole in the ground for all eternity. What sort of time frame do we have before any sort of plan is released on what is now going to be done with the site?
March 22, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
POHA writes:
Um, Hi.
I'm a student who takes classes in the Science building.
First of all, I'm not sure why this is automatically judged to be a partisan failure of either party. The media has surely covered the recession into a bloody pulp, and even if there WASN'T a recession happening, we'd all still be treating it like there was and therefore fueling the recessive flames. Since the media is telling us there's one, we're all responding like there's one. If you think the republican vs. democratic parties are THAT different, you may want to actually look at the WHOLE picture rather than just peeking at some of the bureaucratic BS that is pinned down as the "Cause" of all of this tizzy.
Second, I can tell you that Auraria campus DOES in fact need funding for new science facilities. We currently don't have the funding to run laboratory classes as they ought to be run because we don't have the money for new equipment: i.e. bunson burners, glassware, chemicals, pipets, etc.
Third, I can also tell you that the new building certainly isn't 2 blocks long. I laughed at that comment. Walk around the campus in that area once, and you'll notice that it is modestly sized, placed directly ON campus property, and immediately north of the existing science building. Was the most reasonable answer to our academic shortfalls a new building? Maybe not. Maybe we could have chosen to remodel the existing facility... but when the funding was available, that was what the plan was-- and the old building would become the math building (yes, there are that many of us who actually want to learn this stuff in order to further ourselves), therefore freeing up significant space in the north building, which is currently the UCD building.
Obviously the funds were unexpectedly pulled-- and now we've got to do something about it. I wonder what we would have done if it was the new stadium or the Pepsi Center that had funds pulled unexpectedly... Oh, right, they had private donors.
What it comes down to is that we as a culture have our priorities in places besides education. Isn't it much more pleasant to be blissfully ignorant than to actually give a damn about what the future of our people will know?
March 22, 2008
9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Typical politicians, they pull funding on a program for which they have already promised the fund.
So approximately 1/4 of the funds have been pulled the political hacks. Can't construction continue at either a reduced rate or at the same rate until a weather tight shell has been finished? Then as funds become available the remainder of the building can be finished.
March 22, 2008
9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
snowbelly writes:
The death of the "Ritter Science Building" shows the hypocrisy of his distorted message. This is not the responsibility of dems or reps but is squarely on the shoulders of an inept and self-inflated administrator. Ritter is , at best , an exposed phony.
March 23, 2008
1:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
mfas writes:
Rather than suspecting someone benefited from the original plan why don't you suspect whoever benefits from the sudden change? That would make more sense.
March 23, 2008
2:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ghengis_Bhong writes:
Gwats!!
Those RTD passes students get are paid for by the students when they pay all their fees to register for classes. While they have a pass good for the semester or academic term, they are certainly not free.
March 23, 2008
3:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
The problem with C - which was only explained to the voters AFTER it passed was that there was a already a constitutional amendment in place dealing with how much budgetary items could grow (I believe the ceiling was 6%) and that the rest had to go to infrastructure (the money for D was earmarked for infrastructure - most specifically roads, which was voted down). Please note that BOTH parties supported the additional funding, and Owens, a member of the GOP who knew about the cap, planned to use the extra money for roads.
As far as "money for the kids", amendment 23 already passed which mandated an annual increase of 5% per year for K-12 without any funding, regardless of either the number of kids in the state or the state's economic situation. The amendment forced and continues to force reallocating money needed for other things to K-12. And TABOR says that once money is taken from a budgeted item, it cannot be replaced without voter approval - hence the constant increases in tuition at the colleges/universities across the state.
So - where does the money come from to build the science building? Too bad they can't determine that this building is infrastructure too - of course, that would mean taking money from something else. Funny how the same folks who thought TABOR was such a grand idea are now complaining about the ratchet down affect.
March 23, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
KalHali writes:
That is it, it is official! We need a recall of these so called elected officials. If there going pull money from such a valuable asset so they can line their own pockets, we need to get them out of office. First, lets start by cutting off the head of this bureaucratic beast and recall Ritter. I'll admit it, I voted for that blue donkey and that is something I will have to live with, but for those who feel the same as I do we can send a meassage to these politians by kicking him out of office. According to the state constitution all we need is, equal in number, enough signatures equaling twenty five percent of the total votes that were used to elect Ritter. So what is that, 100 signatures. Anyway, below is Article 21 of our state constitution on recalling an elected official.
Section 1. State officers may be recalled. Every elective public officer of the state of Colorado may be recalled from office at any time by the registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of such incumbent through the procedure and in the manner herein provided for, which procedure shall be known as the recall, and shall be in addition to and without excluding any other method of removal provided by law.
The procedure hereunder to effect the recall of an elective public officer shall be as follows:
A petition signed by registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled, equal in number to twentyfive percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding election for all candidates for the position which the incumbent sought to be recalled occupies, demanding an election of the successor to the officer named in said petition, shall be filed in the office in which petitions for nominations to office held by the incumbent sought to be recalled are required to be filed; provided, if more than one person is required by law to be elected to fill the office of which the person sought to be recalled is an incumbent, then the said petition shall be signed by registered electors entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be recalled equal in number to twentyfive percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding general election for all candidates for the office, to which the incumbent sought to be recalled was elected as one of the officers thereof, said entire vote being divided by the number of all officers elected to such office, at the last preceding general election; and such petition shall contain a general statement, in not more than two hundred words, of the ground or grounds on which such recall is sought, which statement is intended for the information of the registered electors, and the registered electors shall be the sole and exclusive judges of the legality, reasonableness and sufficiency of such ground or grounds assigned for such recall, and said ground or grounds shall not be open to review.
March 23, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
KalHali writes:
Section 2. Form of recall petition. Any recall petition may be circulated and signed in sections, provided each section shall contain a full and accurate copy of the title and text of the petition; and such recall petition shall be filed in the office in which petitions for nominations to office held by the incumbent sought to be recalled are required to be filed.
The signatures to such recall petition need not all be on one sheet of paper, but each signer must add to his signature the date of his signing said petition, and his place of residence, giving his street number, if any, should he reside in a town or city. The person circulating such sheet must make and subscribe an oath on said sheet that the signatures thereon are genuine, and a false oath, willfully so made and subscribed by such person, shall be perjury and be punished as such. All petitions shall be deemed and held to be sufficient if they appear to be signed by the requisite number of signers, and such signers shall be deemed and held to be registered electors, unless a protest in writing under oath shall be filed in the office in which such petition has been filed, by some registered elector, within fifteen days after such petition is filed, setting forth specifically the grounds of such protest, whereupon the officer with whom such petition is filed shall forthwith mail a copy of such protest to the person or persons named in such petition as representing the signers thereof, together with a notice fixing a time for hearing such protest not less than five nor more than ten days after such notice is mailed. All hearings shall be before the officer with whom such protest is filed, and all testimony shall be under oath. Such hearings shall be summary and not subject to delay, and must be concluded within thirty days after such petition is filed, and the result thereof shall be forthwith certified to the person or persons representing the signers of such petition. In case the petition is not sufficient it may be withdrawn by the person or a majority of the persons representing the signers of such petition, and may, within fifteen days thereafter, be amended and refiled as an original petition. The finding as to the sufficiency of any petition may be reviewed by any state court of general jurisdiction in the county in which such petition is filed, upon application of the person or a majority of the persons representing the signers of such petition, but such review shall be had and determined forthwith. The sufficiency, or the determination of the sufficiency, of the petition referred to in this section shall not be held, or construed, to refer to the ground or grounds assigned in such petition for the recall of the incumbent sought to be recalled from office thereby.
March 23, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
KalHali writes:
When such petition is sufficient, the officer with whom such recall petition was filed, shall forthwith submit said petition, together with a certificate of its sufficiency to the governor, who shall thereupon order and fix the date for holding the election not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days from the date of submission of said petition; provided, if a general election is to be held within ninety days after the date of submission of said petition, the recall election shall be held as part of said general election.
March 23, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
MissSio writes:
Personally, I agree with roadstar in the first post. Why can't shanahan give some back to the community that has worshipped at his smelly feet for so many years? Or any of the other insanely high-payed football or baseball players.
Students stress and worry how to raise their 30k tuitions, while these sports stars drive cars with another zero in the price tag, live in houses with a few more zeros, then have the gall to be complaining about how they aren't paid enough. TO PLAY A GAME.
Our society has it's priorities COMPLETELY skewed, POHA is right. The rich people (corporations) spend lavish amounts of money to build a sports arena with their name on it, which then houses players making just as much money, w much less new textbooks and up-to-date materials.
But then your average american would rather buy season passes to the broncos or team of choice than to donate that money (or that time!) to educating kids, mentoring, or generally helping someone other than themselves. We reflect this mentality in everything, all the way to the top levels of government. Entertainment is more important than anything else. Be it the entertainment of the broncos getting a touchdown, or the nightly war recap on ABC news, we seem to value it the most...
March 23, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
MissSio writes:
for some reason this interface ate part of my third paragraph.
Our society has it's priorities COMPLETELY skewed, POHA is right. The rich people (corporations) spend lavish amounts of money to build a sports arena with their name on it, which then houses players making just as much money, who we then pay through the nose to see. While some schools don't even have air conditioning, much less new textbooks and up-to-date materials.
March 23, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
The problem is there is no money. The JBC has done this for years and years. Agencies submit budgets and hold their breath until the long bill is signed by the governor.
They had a finite amount of money to distribute. Instead of spending it on one or two projects, they decided to spread the money around. My guess is they want Mr. Benson to go to work and earn his salary and live up to the reasoning behind his being elected " I'm here to raise funds." It will be easier to raise funds for this project than say one in Grand Jct or Alamosa.
Recall ? Thats a joke. Where was that suggestion during the last 15 years when the former administration and his minions wouldn't fully fund higher ed ?
I agree about priorities being screwed up. But when people say athletes are overpaid I ask why Oprah makes $80 million a year. It is all about entertainment and making money, not helping your brethern out.
March 23, 2008
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
dlstark writes:
Denver can build Invesco Field, Pepsi Center and Coors Field in the past 20 years but not a new science center.
March 23, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
KalHali writes:
The Joint Budget Committee members, the district they represent, and their telephone numbers at the Joint Budget Committee offices are as follows:
Representative Bernie Buescher, Chairman
District 55-Mesa
303-866-2583
Representative Jack Pommer
District 11-Boulder
303-866-2780
Representative Al White
District 57-Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt Counties
303-866-2949
Senator Moe Keller, Vice-Chairman
District 20-Jefferson County
303-866-2585
Senator John Morse
District 11-El Paso County
303-866-2581
Senator Steve Johnson
District 15-Larimer County
303-866-2586
March 23, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
This years State of Colorado budget is 17.1 BILLION Dollars!!! There is plenty of money. The increase from last year to this year was over 5%. We graduate thousands of students ever year with liberal arts degrees who deliver pizza beacause they don't know what they want to be when/if they grow up. Yet we have to import engineers from ever country on the plant to fill high paying jobs because they actual teach Science and Math in their countries.
People, the problem isn't enough money, the problem is what our elected goverment officals chose to spend the citizens money on. I thought Gov Ritter valued education and was actually going to put the peoples money where is mouth said it should go. I remember his campaign adds standing in front of giant wind mills and speaking of the new energy revolution. He even commissioned a new goverment group to study "what kind curricula" we need for this new revolution. Please tell he does't have to pay a bunch of goverment employees to realize Math and Sciece are needed?
Furthermore those of you who don't like the fact these are our children in college then your beef is with the liberals elected to the state house and senate for that is exactly the term they use when they want your money AND your vote every two years!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 23, 2008
9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
grmolts writes:
wait till they run the oil and gas industry out of the state which brings in 23 billion a year and employees 70,000.
They need to be stopped now.
March 24, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Flint87 writes:
Maybe the campus needs a new swimming pool. Or a new duck pond. Could this be the start of the Denver subway system? Kind of an ugly campus any way. The hole adds character.
Thanks for balancing the budget. It is much appreciated by those of us with jobs.