Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

The Auraria lifeline

Desperately needed science building may yet be saved

Rocky Mountain News

Published March 26, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Legislative leaders and Gov. Bill Ritter announced a two-fer on Tuesday that should - if approved - ensure a more adequate stream of funding for higher education capital projects while saving a new science building on the Auraria campus in Denver.

The process that led to this deal was unnecessary, however. Its separate components - funding the science building along with changes in the way Colorado spends federal mineral lease revenues - are worthwhile in their own right and should have prevailed without linking their fate.

Now the science building's future may depend on the ability of lawmakers to rein in a source of discretionary funding that's coveted by local governments.

Under Tuesday's deal, Colorado would issue $150 million in "certificates of participation" - a form of debt - to underwrite capital spending for higher ed. The first recipient: the Auraria Science Building, which needs another $60 million in public money.

Before issuing those COPs, however, the legislature has to be able to repay them. That's where reforms in federal mineral lease revenues come in. The state collected $144 million from energy production on federal land in 2006, and revenues may soon surge past $250 million a year.

We backed the original bipartisan reform plan in February. In a nutshell, it would guarantee current funding from energy production for K-12 schools, impacted local communities and other local programs. But a substantial share of tens of millions in expected surplus revenues were targeted for higher education operations and capital needs.

Under Tuesday's deal, up to $10 million in surplus revenues annually would repay the COPs - if the mineral lease reforms become law.

The COPs would allow the completion of not only the Auraria Science Building, but also other capital projects that were shelved last week after a disappointing revenue forecast. The Auraria project was slated to get an additional $37.5 million for the 2008-09 budget cycle; that funding would allow the building to open by the fall 2009 semester.

As recently as Feb. 28, the science building was the No. 4 capital priority of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education and was ranked 18th among all state projects by the legislature. Paying for the science building and the 17 projects above it would cost $173 million. That's less than the $188 million allowed for capital spending in the Long Bill published last week.

But last week budget writers moved more than a dozen lower-priority (and yes, less-expensive) projects above the Auraria Science Building; five of those less-urgent projects were at other higher-ed institutions.

The science building deserved funding even after the lower revenue projection. The ventilation system in the current 1970s building is so antiquated that at times warning signs have been posted urging students who are pregnant or nursing to not take classes so they don't breathe the fumes.

Nor can current lab facilities accommodate students enrolled in science classes. Metropolitan State College President Stephen Jordan says that some 2,000 Auraria students have had to complete their lab classes at the Health Sciences Center or some other campus because Auraria labs were overbooked.

Students enrolled in basic science classes at Auraria deserve adequate laboratory facilities. Their aspirations must not be denied by the cities and counties that want to keep their energy windfall, not to mention the shifting priorities of state lawmakers.

Comments

  • March 26, 2008

    6:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    How about cutting spending someplace else? Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money is all we hear from the left while they are patted on the back by the socialist teacher's union.

  • March 26, 2008

    9:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KalHali writes:

    Mike,
    Socialist Teachers Union???? Mo Money????? Ok, you find someone who has a Doctorate degree and ask him to work for you for under 70 grand a year. I only have a BS and I make "Mo Money" than the average Metro Science Proff. Also, lets face the facts, Metro has the second largest undergraduate populations in CO, only behind CU Boulder, and they have had to get by with inadequate facilities for twenty years now. The average life span of a well used fumehood is 10 years and the current facilities have thirty year old fumehoods. Personally, for all that Metro has done for the community and economy with such a little amount of resources, 37million is not much to ask for.

  • March 26, 2008

    10:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KalHali writes:

    Get out my checkbook? I do, every time I pay taxes!!! And I want my tax money to go to this VERY IMPORTANT asset. That is why I vote for people who will fund education. This is a democracy, encase you weren't told, and obvious the majority of people in this state feel the same way because they voted for a Governor who promised state money to be allocated for higher education.

  • March 26, 2008

    12:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TheDenverB writes:

    it isn't just metro, earl, it's three different schools. and metro's checkbook is based on the state checkbook.

    and kal hit the nail on the head: those schools provide higher education for a majority of college-bound coloradoans. why should we not fund them, especially when it's obioius they make good use of what facilities they do have.

    I'm with kal on the tax dollars as well. this is EXACTLY what i want my money going to,as well as the portion of my tuition over the four years i was getting my MSCD degree, as well as my alumni donations.

    but regardless, this is a state institution and if we want colorado to continue to be a place where businesses come to because we have an educated workforce, then we need to fund education.

    of course, if you like having stupid people running corporations away from colorado then continue to be ignorant about higher ed funding.

    i'll paraphrase:

    education may be expensive, but ignorance costs a lot more.

  • March 26, 2008

    12:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TheDenverB writes:

    and ANYONE who thinks metro profs are overpaid has NO IDEA what they are talking about.

    In fact, they see an increase in adjunct faculty every year. READ: it's cheaper to pay non-tenured profs and not give them insurance than it is to tenure professors.

    so if you REALLY think that the faculty of that school is eating up $111 million, then you should go register and start taking some economics classes up there.