State Office Building Renovation Update
This week I offered a resolution in the Rules Committee to rescind the House’s approval of the renovation of the State Office Building. Democrats know that Minnesotans do not support a $730 million palace for politicians when they are struggling to pay for gas, groceries, and energy bills. Unfortunately, the Majority refused to debate the motion, immediately ruling it out of order claiming that it had not been pre-filed. There is no prefiling requirement in the Rules Committee, as the Chair later admitted – they simply didn’t want to discuss or vote on spending three-quarters of a billion on renovating an office building.
You can watch this exchange, starting at 26:34, here.
The Majority may not have wanted to take this motion up this week, but I have already pre-filed it for our next meeting and hope the Chair will allow the discussion to go forward.
As you all know, despite a $17.5 billion surplus, the Democrat Majority raised taxes on hardworking Minnesotans by $10 billion last session to grow state government by 38% over two years – yet even that wasn’t enough. Now families and seniors are expected to pay $730 million to renovate and expand a building. That money would be much better spent on reducing the burdens families are facing (more on that below).
It’s time we pause this exorbitant renovation of the State Office Building until we can find a solution that is more cost effective. There has been no public discussion of viable alternatives or any attempt to ensure we are being good stewards of Minnesota’s tax dollars.
We are already hearing from school districts, teachers, hospitals, the U of M, and the Dept of Corrections that the historic spending increases they got last session were not enough. How can the Majority justify spending $730 million on ONE office building that is only fully utilized 5 months out of the year?
Minnesotans want state government to function, but they do not want it to be lavish. We need to pause the current construction until we do what should have been done in the first place:
- Conduct an audit of available state office buildings and current utilization (most state workers are still working from home and many state office buildings are virtually empty)
- Conduct a cost/benefit analysis of available options and have a public debate/vote on the decision.
|