Before making any budgeting decisions affecting the University of Hawaii construction program, it ought to be mandatory for lawmakers to tour facilities, in Manoa particularly, taking stock of what’s already there.

The sight of deteriorating buildings at what is supposed to be the state’s flagship campus should reinforce their resolve to prioritize repairs and maintenance over new construction. It also should drive them to strengthen the "moratorium" the UH Board of Regents has proposed now — specifically, to make a longer-term commitment.

At issue is the freeze on new building projects for the next three years while the university attacks, as it should, its mountainous backlog of repairs, now amounting to $487 million.

Critics could reasonably argue that this is not much of a moratorium. For starters, the exemptions comprise a whopping list of 13 projects that will survive the freeze.

Projects gain an exemption if they meet one of four criteria:

» They are needed to safeguard a program’s accreditation.

» They were approved before the moratorium.

» They are major projects driven by government order, regulation or law.

» They are renovations to meet current academic needs or compelled by poor maintenance and repair.

The regents and budget-drafting lawmakers surely will feel pressured to expand the exemption list by the powerful construction industry interests in this state. That fourth criterion, especially, seems to open quite a wide escape hatch for any number of potential exemptions.

Instead, what will be needed is for decision-makers to give the current exemption list a thorough going-over, to make sure those projects are absolutely necessary.

For example, if money for repairs is as scarce as officials contend, private donors should be sought to eliminate the $5 million in seed money for the Daniel K. Inouye Library. Few on Capitol Hill were more influential in bringing economic stimulus and program funds to their home states than Hawaii’s late senator, who does merit the recognition of a permanent institute.

However, in the short term it’s incumbent on the private-sector beneficiaries of Inouye’s largesse to be the first to give back. The taxpayers need a break.

Winnowing the list would be a good policy decision, but even more important would be extending the term of the moratorium into something more meaningful than three years.

The regents have outlined a 10-year plan for reducing the repair-and-maintenance backlog. By the end of the three years of the moratorium, the balance would still be a staggering $326 million.

If less-restricted construction resumes at that point, it’s unclear how it’s possible to meet further backlog-cutting goals set in the regents’ timetable. In three more years the lagging repairs would shrink by another half, the final upgrade to be crossed off the list at the end of year 10.

That seems extraordinarily optimistic, given the likelihood of unanticipated needs that have cropped up over time. It would be far better for the university to improve its chances for success by simply maintaining the moratorium for the entire duration of the repairs program.

It was encouraging to see the regents take an important step toward giving the upkeep of UH’s existing buildings the attention they’ve lacked for years. There will be pressure to weaken that priority. The officials who hold the state’s purse strings need even greater resolve, or the state will simply continue to grow the inventory of buildings it can’t keep in decent condition.