Table of Contents

Introduction

1.  Expansion of the M. D. Anderson Library

2.  Natural Science Wet Labs

3.  Parking

4.  Information Technology Facilities

5.  Technology Building
 

In order to stimulate the discussion of university priorities, the faculty senate budget and facilities committee each year submits a report to the academic senate and the senate executive committee.  The report is not offered as a detailed plan, or intended to serve as an exhaustive list of faculty or senate concerns, but rather, the report attempts to scrutinize a few issues of concern to committee members and the senate.  The committee welcomes comments and solicits suggestions for future agenda items and areas of discussion.

Finally, special thanks to the members of the committee and the university faculty and administrators who have contributed to this report.
 

John Antel
Committee Chairperson

1.  M. D. Anderson Library

     Current Problems and Priorities

There are three pressing needs:  books, staff, and space.  By any measure, the Library’s construction and operating needs have been seriously under-funded throughout the past decade in comparison to peer institutions. The University’s low expenditures necessarily translate into an inability to maintain collections and services at a level that is even close to peer institutions. The library has coped admirably by being very efficient, by focusing its resources on electronic information, and by reliance on interlibrary loan. However, the cumulative effects of the lack of space and ongoing low expenditures have reached a crisis stage.

The Library’s deficits in books and staff were documented in last year’s Budget and Facilities report. To summarize this earlier data, in order to be comparable to even our least-well-funded peers, the UH libraries would need to add 15 staff members¹  at a cost of $525,000/year, subscribe to an additional 8,360 journals at an average cost of $150/year, and purchase an additional 12,700 books/year at an average cost of $50, for a total budget increase of $2,414,000.

The most immediate problem is that the M. D. Anderson Library is completely out of growth space.  Moreover, other campus groups, such as the Honors College, Arte Publico Press, Information Technology, and the Office of Development contend for space in the M.D. Anderson Library.  The Library is also difficult to adapt to current needs for computing, collections, services, and study groups.

The UH administration has approved the addition of a new wing to the M.D. Anderson Library and has allocated $25 million in University funding to the project. The University is presently conducting a fund raising campaign to achieve the goals set forth in the Master Planning Study for the M.D. Anderson Library, which proposed a $41.5 million addition with an additional $2.9 million for expansion and renovation of the Honors College.

At the $25 million funding level, renovation of the present building would be kept to a minimum and a request would be made to the Administration to delete moveable equipment and furnishings from the project budget so that more of the project dollars could go to construction. The project objectives would be to provide sufficient space to expand the number of student seats for group and individual study and for use of library workstations, to provide a better articulation of the four wings to facilitate access, and to make the service functions easier to find and more economical to staff. At the $25 million funding level, the project would include a remote storage facility with a capacity of 1.5 million volumes, at a cost of approximately $2.5 million. Approximately 600,000 volumes would initially be moved from the present building to remote storage.  In subsequent years, approximately 50,000 volumes per year would be moved to the remote storage facility.

The major difference between the $25 million project and the $41.5 million project is the volume capacity of the M. D. Anderson Library. At the larger dollar figure, the M. D. Anderson Library would meet all of the objectives listed above and would house 2.8 million volumes. At $25 million, the capacity of the M. D. Anderson Library would be 1 million volumes.

Although either project would house collections and services for many years to come, remote storage is far from a good option for UH. This university has a very small library collection for the size of the faculty and student body, and the materials overall are much more current and much more intensively used than materials typically placed in remote storage by other universities. However, at $25 million, remote storage would be the only option. It is possible to move library materials to remote storage but it is not possible to move student study spaces and workstations to remote locations.

The University has a pressing need for this project. The electronic publishing revolution has increased library space needs rather than reducing them—at present, and into the foreseeable future, students and faculty members need computer terminals as well as printed materials. UH students also need study space: flexible, attractive, designed for individuals who need quiet spaces, plus space for fluid groups and for work groups who need sophisticated computer access to conduct their projects.  The M. D. Anderson Library presently provides study space for only 3 percent of the students, in contrast to the national standard of 15 percent.
 

---

  ¹  Actually, to achieve comparability with our closest peer, Texas Tech, we would need to add 60 staff members.
 

     Current Problems and Priorities

Wet lab facilities at the University of Houston are in serious need of upgrading and repair.  Inadequate biology and chemistry lab facilities are an impediment to instruction and research.  Safety is also an important consideration.

The Chemistry Department labs are housed in the Fleming building.  Chemistry receives about $6-7 million per year in external research funding.  (Second only to Physics.) Chemistry also teaches about 7000 lower division student credit hours each semester.

The Biology Department wet labs are housed in the Old Science Building and floors 2, 3, and 4 of Science and Research 2.  In the last five years Biology has increased grant funding from about $2.5 million to about $5 million.

In response to the wet lab problem, the Administration allocated some funds to upgrade facilities (about $500,000).  Chemistry teaching facilities in the basement of the Fleming Building have been partially remodeled.  Tabletops have been replaced and safety equipment, such as eye wash stations and fume hoods, repaired.

There are however still serious problems with Fleming.  Leaks are a continuous aesthetic problem and also threaten chemical storage facilities.  Deteriorating ceilings expose students and researchers to asbestos.  The freight elevator is inoperable, thus requiring hazardous chemicals to be transported through high traffic hallways.

The Administration has also supported remodeling of Biology facilities.  Biology instructional labs in the Old Science Building have been about ¾ improved.  Most of the labs have been painted and ceilings repaired.  Most of these funds, however, have gone to building repair rather than to the upgrading of scientific equipment.

The Administration has also recently contributed to the partial remodeling of Biology Department research space on floors 2, 3 and 4 of Science and Research 2.  The Biology Department has also received $200,000 to buy much needed sterilizing equipment.  Heating and air has been much improved.

Biology spaces in Science and Research 2 still need further basic repairs to floors and ceilings however.  Cold storage is also a problem that requires attention.

       Chemistry

According the department chairman, Monte Pettitt, the chemistry department requires a new building that will include research space and teaching labs.  According to Pettitt, the Fleming Building should be replaced.  Asbestos abatement would greatly increase the cost of the required extensive remodeling.  The remodeling of Fleming for Chemistry instruction and research would still leave the Chemistry Department with below standard facilities.  The cost of upgrading Fleming is about $10 million.  This upgrade would still leave Chemistry with a forty year old building lacking the infrastructure to do modern science.

Although a new Chemistry building has been under discussion for some time, there are no definite construction plans at the time of this report.    There is apparently some sentiment in the Administration to construct a new Chemistry research building in the parking lot in front of Science and Research 1.

The cost of the new Chemistry building is estimated at about $30 million.  This new facility would include 25% more research space and 50% more teaching space.  Of particular note is the very strong wish by the Chemistry Department to have an integrated research and instruction building.  The message is clear from Professor Pettitt: do not separate research and instruction!

Remodeling of the Old Science Building needs to be completed.  The Old Science Building requires about $250,000 to complete the basic remodeling of the last quarter of the instructional labs.  Another $500,000 is required to get all the labs in the Old Science Building into good shape.

Biology research space in Science and Research 2 also requires some extensive remodeling.  The Biology Department requires about $100,000 to repair floors, ceilings, and walls.  Cold storage should also be immediately upgraded.  A lot of  the cold storage in Science and Research 2 is not functional.  The cost of cold storage upgrades is about $200,000.

     Current Problems and Priorities

The university administration is currently examining various parking options.  There are currently no plans to build any multilevel parking structures.  There are plans to increase parking fees over the next few years.

An optimal parking plan will have to balance various factors including capacity, pricing, convenience, security, and land use.  Although no detailed administration plan is imminent, there are a few important tradeoffs that any parking plan will have to address.

Parking space shortages may be eliminated either by building new spaces or raising parking fees.  Building new spaces will impose construction costs on the university while fee increases will shift costs to users.

The administration’s currently preferred method of increasing parking capacity is construction of remote parking lots along with the provision of shuttle bus services to campus.  Remote parking lots are much cheaper (in terms of construction costs) and more secure than parking garages.  Remote parking is more costly in terms of land use however.  Given the current availability of land, it would seem reasonable to put off building large parking garages at this time.

Could parking construction crowd out other more valuable projects?  The potential for crowding out academic programs is limited by state law.  Parking cannot be financed out of the revenues that largely finance academic programs such as state funds (the general fund budget component) or tuition revenues (the designated fund budget component).  Parking, by law, must be financed from the budget auxiliary fund.  Auxiliary fund revenues are derived from auxiliary fees.  Athletics and the bookstore are other auxiliary fund budget items.

     Problems and Priority Areas

Information technology continues to be a rapidly growing area of the economy.  The university has an obligation to provide IT training to students.  The administration commitment to information technology has significantly increased in the last year.  Here are the priority areas.

IT is in the process of hiring about 50 new IT personnel, about half of the new personnel will be allocated to the colleges as consultants.  The college consultant allocations will start in NSM and Engineering, and then, on a lessor scale, move to Social Science, Technology, Law, and Hotel and Restaurant Management.  Hiring of consultants began in the Fall of 1999 and will continue through the year.  Personnel is a top IT priority.

The network is considered the backbone of campus computing.  The current network is obsolete and overstressed.  The network upgrade has been given priority over a new building.  The goal is too increase overall network capacity, enhance security, and make available new high bandwidth communications for those who require network intensive computing.  The network upgrade will cost about $9 million over the next three years.  The network upgrade is a top IT priority.

PeopleSoft software is intended to enhance campus accounting and human resource systems.  The implementation began in 1999, and will continue over the next five years.  The PeopleSoft project includes new accounting software, but also involves hardware acquisition and the training of University personnel.  This project will cost about $42 million over the next five years.

 It personnel is currently scattered around the campus at various locations including the central site on Elgin Street, the Social Work Building, the basement of Heyne (soon to be evicted), and the basement of the M. D. Anderson Library.  IT has also been evicted from the ARA building.  Space will continue to be a problem for IT.

 A new building is not a top IT priority at this time.  Space constraints already adversely effect computer education on this campus.  Computer Science is particularly compromised by the lack of computer labs.  A new building with significant student computing facilities would cost about $5 million.
 

     Background and Description of Needed Facility

Technology Building I was the third building constructed on the University of Houston during the 1930's era of construction.  Little has been done to it since its construction.    Last year, the University designated some funds to begin the renovation of the building to create some multi-use classrooms.   The building has been used by the College of Technology but with current plans to share the labs and large classrooms with other colleges.

Renovations started last year.  The College of Technology has invested their own resources for new carpet, ceiling tiles, and updated furniture. About 70% of the building is currently being used, with the residual 30% awaiting renovation.  Further funds are needed for air-conditioning repair and repair of the floor where underground water leakage has caused shifting.

Air conditioning and floor leveling for one wing will cost about  $200,000.