The main campus of the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR) occupies approximately 200 acres in north Reno and houses 65 buildings that serve the university's academic, administrative, and service needs. Including rental and support facilities and student housing, the campus totals 3,090,485 gross square feet, with 2,016,096 assignable square feet of usable space. The university's research and instructional equipment is valued in excess of $67.1 million; library holdings and film library inventory are valued in excess of $115.0 million. Detailed listings of equipment are available in the Inventory Office of the Purchasing Department. Detailed listings of library holdings and film library inventory are available in the Dean's Office in Getchell Library.

Off-campus properties owned by the university include the 4-H Camp located at Lake Tahoe, School of Medicine facilities in Las Vegas, and the Stead Campus, located seven miles north of the main campus. Originally an Air Force base, but now wholly owned by the university, the Stead site was donated by the federal government on condition that it serve as a home for the Sierra Nevada Job Corps for a period of 20 years, through 1987. The Sierra Nevada Job Corps continues to be the primary occupant of this site. The Stead Campus also houses some research facilities of the Desert Research Institute(DRI), the Fire Protection Training Academy, and a Naval Reserve Unit, in addition to providing storage facilities for the main campus. DRI will be vacating its space by 1998. This impending vacancy has some severe monetary ramifications for UNR. A task force has been appointed to study options and suggest future plans for the Stead site.

The Nevada Cooperative Extension provides 17 office locations for faculty and staff across the state to maintain direct contact with Nevada's citizens and address critical, high priority community concerns. The Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station manages numerous field research facilities: including the Plant Research and Extension Center, located two blocks east of the main campus (approximately 47 acres); the Animal Research and Extension Center located, on the east side of the Truckee Meadows (approximately 1,000 acres); the Gund Ranch, in central Nevada (approximately 11,000 acres); the Newlands Field Laboratory, in Fallon (approximately 120 acres); the Southeastern Nevada Research and Extension Center, in Logandale (approximately 20 acres); and the Southwestern Nevada Research and Extension Center , in Pahrump (approximately 15 acres). Also, the College of Agriculture operates the 288 acre S-S Ranch near Wadsworth, as a teaching and student intern facility.

A detailed schedule of buildings which contains the construction date, gross square feet, assignable square feet, current book value, estimated replacement value, and estimated value of equipment within each building is attached to this report (See Appendix III- A). A report of space occupied by each academic department or unit is available in the Facilities Services office. A complete property inventory of equipment valued at over $2,000 for all departments (primary research equipment and computers) is maintained by the Purchasing Department. A copy of this part of the overall property inventory, listing equipment items and their purchase prices by department, is available in the Purchasing Department.

The Campus Master Plan for the University of Nevada-Reno was developed in June, 1990, by Design Concepts West, Architects and Planning Consultants. A copy of the fold-out summary of this master plan is attached to this report (Appendix III-B). Copies of both volumes of the complete master plan are available in the Facilities Services office and in the Physical Plant main office.

Master Plan Synopsis. The purpose of the master plan is to provide guidelines and procedures for the orderly and systematic physical development of the campus, including associated research and community service facilities, to the year 2010. The master plan provides an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the campus, with general and specific suggestions designed to provide strategies for necessary changes. Included in the analysis were projected locations of land acquisitions necessary for orderly growth, identification of future campus boundaries, sites for future academic, residential and commercial development, suggestions for improved utility networks, plans for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking systems, as well as landscaping guidelines designed to integrate newer areas of the campus with older areas. During the six years since the master plan was published, a number of suggested areas of development have been implemented, more or less according to guidelines outlined in the plan (See Tables III-1, III-2, and III-3).

Capital Construction. The Facilities Planning and Management Board (FPMB) was created by the Vice President for Finance and Administration in 1983, to serve as a liaison between the Physical Plant and the faculty, staff, and students of the University. The duties of the board include reallocation of space and campuswide coordination of capital construction requests. These requests are collected biennially from all campus departments, then evaluated, and ranked by the board in light of the overall stated objectives of the master plan. The board meets with individual deans and administrators as needed, on an ongoing basis, to formulate a consensus about capital project requests. Although, the board is designed to provide valuable input from the users of campus facilities during the planning and design of new construction and renovation, the board has little real influence. A telling example is the design and implementation of "smart classrooms," which occurred without adequate input from faculty who teach in the new classrooms (See also Standard VII).

The Facilities Services office and the Physical Plant provide staff support to the board to develop detailed information for capital projects. The board forwards a ranked capital request list to the president for further review and action. The list is then melded into University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) and State Public Works Board capital requests. This statewide capital request list may include only a few proposed capital projects from UNR. It is presented to the Nevada State Legislature for funding on a biennial basis.

Updating and Revising the Master Plan. Comprehensive reviews and evaluations of the campus master plan were not conducted on a regular basis in the first few years after the plan was published. However, the FPMB and the Facilities Services office have been given the responsibility for evaluating the appropriateness of the plan on an ongoing basis. At the current time, master plan revision and update procedures include annual development review meetings with deans and administrators by Facilities Services staff and board members. These meetings are held to plan for capital development based on projected enrollment and research activity. Facilities Services staff also coordinates with the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis to determine the appropriateness of planning assumptions made in the master plan. It is recommended that a planning consultant be hired in 1997-1998 to work with campus administrators, the FPMB, and the newly formed Neighborhood Relations Committee, in a comprehensive revision of the master plan.

It is further suggested that the resulting updated campus master plan document be published as a web document on the UNR web site. Individual maps and sections of the document can then be reviewed, revised, updated and re-published annually or biennially. It is the intention of the Facilities Services office to establish a biennial budget line that will include funding to cover the cost of putting the document up on the web, hiring consultants as needed to assist in the preparation of the revised documents, and sponsoring annual public reviews of the master plan by the university community. Over a period of time, the campus master planning processes should become an integral part of the academic master planning and the overall culture of this institution (See Standard I).

The opportunity to develop a campus on the Redfield property south of Reno is an example of a unique gift which the academic and the facilities master plans neither predicted nor addressed. Its acquisition entails planning for a building to be constructed by 2000, something not envisioned in the campus master plan or in the capital construction priority list for UNR. A University planning group, the UNR Redfield Campus Faculty Advisory Committee, envisions the Redfield property as serving as a hub for distance education, which will complement existing programs and provide lifelong learning opportunities in an easily accessible and welcoming environment. Faculty opinion of the new campus is divided with 27% in favor of a satellite campus, 39% against and 34% uninformed or undecided. With mixed messages coming from the faculty survey, versus the Redfield Campus Faculty Advisory Committee’s vision, this acquisition suggests a need to discuss the weaknesses of our prioritization and policy setting processes. At a minimum, the Faculty Senate, the FPMB, and campus administration, should discuss the impact of the Redfield Campus on existing University initiatives, and should develop a plan by which prioritization policies are put in place and followed for future master planning.

Significant advancements have been made during the last ten years in the capital development of the campus. Major new facilities have been completed or acquired for continuing education, residential life, support services, medicine, intercollegiate athletics, mining, engineering and journalism. Major remodeling has been completed for student services, engineering, residential life, education, biology, agriculture, fine arts, chemistry, many classrooms, and computer networking. Several old, outdated, or temporary facilities have been razed, including Buildings and Grounds groundskeeping shops, old motor pool facilities, the old information kiosk and a "temporary" World War II-era building that housed the Military Science department.

Campus improvements are currently in the planning or construction process for intercollegiate athletics, education, fine arts, agriculture, student services, various classrooms and residential life. In the next five years, planning will be underway for major capital improvements in engineering, agriculture, libraries, residential life, fine arts, parking, medicine, chemistry, human and community sciences, mining, nursing, police, recreation, student services, education, administration, humanities, various classrooms, and continuing education.

Detailed schedules are provided below.

New Facilities Under Consideration

Renovation and/or Refurbishments Under Consideration

A property inventory of equipment, laboratory or otherwise, by departmental areas is available in the Purchasing Department. Noteworthy and deficient aspects of laboratories and instructional equipment are discussed elsewhere in this report. Specialized facilities and equipment are described in Standard X - Scholarship and Research. An inventory listing these items, including values, is available in the Physical Plant Department.

3.2.1 Physical Plant in Relation to Institutional Purposes

1. The current missions and goals of the university which relate to the physical plant are:

Maintain and utilize the physical plant at a level which enhances the programs and activities of the university. Utilization studies are done on a regular basis by the Facilities Services office. Results of their studies are, in theory, factored into the planning efforts and decision making by the Facilities Planning and Management Board. More work is needed on the process by which this is accomplished. Maintenance of the physical plant is a major challenge to Buildings and Grounds staff, especially in older buildings. Responses from a faculty survey indicate that maintenance of buildings varies widely, from adequate to very inadequate.

Provide an institutional environment supportive of the internal quality of campus life. Resolution of concerns about landscaping, lighting, ADA requirements, and safety issues is critical to fulfilling this goal. In the last self study the need for landscaping that better fit our climate, and more work on the north part of campus were highlighted. Since 1989 major landscaping projects have been completed at Fleischmann Agriculture, along Virginia Street, at the north campus entries, and around the School of Medicine. Landscaping being added to campus now fits the low water use category. The overall look of the entire campus has been greatly improved.

The physical plant has been addressing ADA requirements since the last self study by installing automatic doors and elevators, retrofitting existing elevators, and by putting in curb cuts and ramps throughout campus. Completing the campus and building requirements pertaining to specific ADA guidelines and regulations is a continuing process. More disabled students will be on campus in the future so there will be a greater need for accessibility. Areas needing more attention are: installation and maintenance of accessible sidewalks, doors, thresholds, and bathrooms; accessibility to all areas of campus; and proper adaptations of testing rooms and computer space.

Campus safety is a major concern raised by students (See Standard IX). Student government has worked with the Public Safety Department to identify areas needing additional lighting. Personal security and asset security are receiving attention from the campus police department. Personal security is the first priority. The recent addition of bicycle patrols and increased evening duty for officers has improved campus security for persons and university assets. Building security is more problematic. Campus police have been working with deans and other administrators on several possible solutions. In the future, the police will institute a field training program that will provide additional asset protection for the campus, and in late 1997 the initial installation of a campuswide perimeter security system will begin in seven buildings.

Utilize resources efficiently through prioritized allocations and reallocations. This is a goal of the Physical Plant and the FPMB. Much more needs to be done to integrate prioritization into the way we make decisions about space assignment, reassignment, utilization, and capital construction requests. There is great concern by many faculty that items get on the capital request list for political reasons that do not coincide with our stated priorities, and others disappear off the list (for example, a much-needed Chemistry addition) for lack of private monies to assure them a place. Academic priorities need to prevail more clearly in making physical plant decisions (See Standard I).

Ensure that the university's library, computing center and telecommunications systems will be able to provide the resources attendant to the needs of the instructional and research programs. The Physical Plant staff, in conjunction with the Information Resources and Technology(IRT) staff, are responsible for providing and maintaining the campus infrastructure for computing and telecommunications. This is an area of great cost and rapidly changing technology. There are many challenges and opportunities here for instruction and research. The appointment of the Assistant Vice President for Information Resources and Technology indicates a strong commitment by the administration to support the IRT and its assigned responsibilities, but faculty perceive computer facilities as one of the weakest areas a UNR (See alsoStandard IV).

B. Academic Master Plan. In addition to the University's Missions and Goals Statement, an academic master plan, "Approaching the 21st Century" was completed in February 1996. The document outlines our institution's most important priorities and goals for the next five years. Examples of major emphases in this plan, as they relate to the Physical Plant, are: 1) Strengthening the student experience - by increasing research and scholarship opportunities via laboratories and smart classrooms; by providing student-centered scheduling and planning; and by meeting the special needs of the disabled; 2) Building partnerships - by providing institutional flexibility, and non-traditional delivery of instruction such as distance education classrooms; 3) Providing access to information through technology - by improving the campus cable network; and by providing access to computers and the Internet for all faculty and students; 4) Providing infrastructure to support quality - by supporting research through the improvement of facilities and equipment and their maintenance.

The Academic Master Plan does recognize the importance of creating and maintaining a physical plant that will support the missions and goals of the university. The biggest challenge has been, and continues to be, finding ways to achieve our stated missions and goals when we pit them against the physical reality of limited resources and the lack of a firm process for priority setting at the highest administrative levels.

C. The Facilities Services Office was created in 1987 with two purposes in mind. The first was to develop and maintain assignment and utilization data regarding the occupancy and use of the physical plant by all university departments. The second was to serve as staff resource to the FPMB. The Facilities Services Director now provides the board with data and expertise which should allow them to make recommendations to campus administrators regarding institutional policies relative to the use of campus facilities, space reallocations, renovation requests, and the development and prioritization of biennial capital construction requests. It was expected that this would allow, on an ongoing basis, for the match between the stated missions and goals of the university and the physical reality of the campus. In reality the board’s role has been less central. Completing the campus master plan before its academic plan has meant that priorities have not necessarily matched those of the academic plan. Little coordination has occurred. The current campus master plan was completed in 1990, and has not been updated since. It is recommended that this beundertaken in 1997-98. It is also recommended that a process be put in place that will allow for the physical development of the campus in concert with the university’s missions and goals.

An evaluation of the construction and remodeling that has occurred since 1988 (along with construction proposed or currently underway) suggests that the physical plant is adequately supporting some of the present missions and many of the goals. Details of that construction and remodeling are described in the introduction and in Tables III-1, III-2, and III-3.

The present use of classrooms is assessed and regularly reported to the state legislature. In terms of available space for teaching, classrooms range from totally inadequate to outstanding. Classrooms in older buildings which have not been remodeled are an embarrassment. The new "smart" classrooms (Level 4) have been well received and are in high demand every semester. Renovation of classrooms is often undertaken, however, without consulting the faculty who use them. The result is sometimes that money is expended on inappropriate technology (See Standard VII).

D. Impact of Western Traditions and the Core Curriculum on Instructional Facilities. In the last self study, concerns were raised about the impact the implementation of the Core Curriculum and Western Traditions (WT) would have on instructional space. Currently WT requires a lecture room and three discussion classrooms dedicated specifically to the needs of the program. Considering that 1700-2000 students take WT courses each semester, that use of classrooms (on an hourly schedule) is probably quite efficient. However, if a spurt of growth occurs in the university's enrollment, WT will require a commitment of additional rooms (first classroom, then lecture room) because it is required of all students and the university must meet the demand. This concern will bear watching and planning in the future by the WT staff in conjunction with the FPMB.

Another area of current concern involves the teaching of physical and life sciences as core courses. Teaching laboratory space is generally adequate throughout the university as judged by present utilization rates. However, teaching laboratories are used essentially to meet departmental needs. The laboratory experience typically focuses on preparing students to advance in the disciplines of the department offering the course. Students taking natural science core courses will typically not be advancing in scientific disciplines but merely fulfilling their core requirements. This may have an impact on the size of the laboratories and the equipment included in them. The numbers of students taking such laboratory courses could also significantly change the mix of laboratory sections to be taught. In any case, instituting more core courses in natural sciences is likely to change laboratory needs in ways that will need to be studied and ameliorated.

E. Use by Outside Groups. The university receives requests for the use of its physical facilities from a wide range of non-campus organizations. It has been the policy of the university to accommodate these requests whenever possible. Rules and fees governing such use have been established, and the Office of Scheduling Services arranges and manages this activity. Groups are as varied as their activities. Fees vary depending on the type of group, the facilities used, and the time and nature of the event. Activities more appropriately handled by the local hotel industry are avoided. This is a successful and growing activity, and conflicting use is avoided by having a centralized scheduling office on campus that acts as a clearinghouse. Thus outside groups do not compete with campus events and activities.

The physical plant serves the students and staff of the university very well in some instances, and, in others, worse than it did at the time of the last self study. Some major inconvenience to graduate students and faculty has occurred by having the heating system turned off during winter weekend and holiday periods. On the positive side some remodeling and new additions to the physical plant over the last eight years have provided an atmosphere that is more conducive to learning, research, and public service than in the past. Planned improvements over the next five years could add to an increased level of quality in the physical plant. Regardless of the overall good quality of the physical plant, certain aspects of the campus continue to need enhancement or entire new buildings. The faculty is projecting more stringent and higher level demands on, and expectations for older facilities, especially in the area of technology. New facilities equipped with access to the latest information technology and with flexibility in space allocation will be needed to support the changing ways of teaching, research, and public service.

A. Parking and Traffic Flow. The total number of parking spaces on the campus is adequate at present, and parking is severely limited on the southern part of the campus where most instruction now occurs. The majority of available parking is located on the northern portion of the campus. An 1,000 space parking structure has been planned, and, pending funding, construction is expected to begin in 1998. Such a structure will allow the closing of some interior paved parking lots within the southern portion of the campus, as recommended in the Campus Master Plan. This will help to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic in this portion of the campus. To facilitate easy use of the north campus parking lots, a campus shuttle service was introduced in FY1990-91. It was an immediate success. Initially it was only a daytime service, however, within two years evening shuttle service was added, and the hours continue to be extended as its popularity grows.

B. Residence Halls. Since the last self-study, all residence halls have been renovated, with new carpet, paint, and furnishings. A comprehensive renewal and replacement schedule has been developed and is followed closely. A new residence hall, Canada Hall, was completed in 1993. In addition, a 200-unit student apartment complex is being considered, which would house married, graduate, and medical students. Demographic studies reveal that increasing percentages of Nevada's population will be located in southern portions of the state, from which we recruit quite a few students, and this will create additional demand for on-campus housing at the university. Methods of alternative funding are currently being explored in order to expedite the implementation of this project. All maintenance and housekeeping functions for the residence halls are administered by the Department of Residential Life, Housing and Food Service through a private vendor. A further discussion of residence halls can be found in Standard IX.

A. Maintenance - In response to a statewide recession in 1992 and 1993, significant state funds allocated for physical plant maintenance were returned to the state in the form of a budget reduction. Not surprisingly, the 1993 interim evaluation report found that older facilities were increasingly in disrepair. Deferred maintenance is now projected at $7.5 million. The outlook for state-funded maintenance is optimistic for the 1997-99 biennium. However, the approximately $9 million expected for the biennium reflects only 1.5 per cent (.75 per cent per year) of the building replacement cost. Typically, 3 per cent is the target for maintenance funding per year as recommended by the Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA).

Physical plant management is responsible for determining the maintenance needs for building and grounds, so that they are able to recommend priorities, and implement changes that will address problems and upgrade existing facilities. Current projects include: retrofitting the Business Building, Fleischmann Agriculture, and the Nelson Building for up-to-date heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

Approximately one-fourth of the buildings on the campus, representing about one-sixth of the gross square feet, were built prior to 1950. Older buildings tend to require more intensive maintenance than do newer buildings. As these buildings continue to age, maintenance requirements increase at an increasing rate. Over the years, funding for many routine types of maintenance, such as roof replacement, brick repointing, and exterior building repairs have, to a large extent, been removed from normal physical plant operating budgets. This has forced the university to request maintenance funds through the capital request process in the form of campus improvements; these requests tend to get funded only partially, if at all, depending on the availability of funds after other budget requirements have been satisfied. Maintenance backlogs continue to be an ongoing and ever increasing problem for the university.

B. Housekeeping - Each custodian is responsible for 31,925 square feet of campus building space. A manual, revised in 1996, is followed by all custodial and maintenance staff with regularly scheduled supervisor evaluations of performance (These documents are on file inthe accreditation office). Training continues to be a priority for maintenance staff., but custodians vary greatly in the quality of their work. Most employees in affected areas have completed mandatory asbestos awareness training, and hazardous communications training is in progress. Although not yet funded at 100 percent, maintenance funding formulas increased substantially in this biennium based on an achieved enrollment threshold.

C. Grounds - Since the 1988 self-study, much has been done to increase the landscaping in the central and northern parts of campus. To meet a perceived need for more green belt areas, landscaping has been improved around Midby-Byron, Manzanita Hall, and the Medical School entrance. Drought-resistant plants and low maintenance areas have been emphasized. In addition, many improvements have been made in the Business Building quad, including raised flower beds and bricked patio gathering areas.

In 1985, the campus was designated a state arboretum. With that designation, the UNR Arboretum Board was created to work cooperatively with the Physical Plant to plan locations for campus trees, shrubs, and flowers. As plans for new buildings are approved, the board provides recommendations on the landscaping surrounding the structure. Landscaping for new buildings is now required by law. The Arboretum Board at UNR is a combination of professionals in horticulture, plant science, and biology, interested amateur gardeners, and members of the community. It serves an advisory role regarding problems presented by physical plant, such as the removal of diseased elm trees, and it offers proposals for special projects in particular areas on the university grounds. There is a liaison between the Arboretum Board and FPMB to assure communication regarding decisions that have an impact on the appearance of the campus.

Though the grounds shop has twenty-four staff, it is insufficient for the size and complexity of our campus. This becomes apparent in the winter, when snow removal is necessary, but can not be accomplished throughout campus in a relatively short time. Priorities are set and staff are pulled from other duties to help.

Obtaining maximum utilization of the physical plant is a continuing challenge for any university like UNR that is dynamic, evolving, and experiencing changes in its student growth patterns. Much has been done in the last few years, however, to assure that the plant is being well used. The Facilities Services office monitors the use of all facilities in the physical plant, and assists the university administration in evaluating the effectiveness of that utilization.

A. Departmental Review of Assigned Space. Biennial reviews of the use of space assigned to each department are conducted by the Facilities Services office. A printout of assigned space is sent to each department chair for verification of usage and office assignments. The verified data are then compared to recognized space standards developed over the years for the U. S. Department of Education by professional planning organizations such as the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) and the Society of College and University Planning (SCUP). A process of comparative analysis is then used to evaluate how effectively the space assigned to a given department is being used, based upon reported departmental staffing and activity levels.

In theory, departmental utilization studies are used as a basic information resource by campus administrators and the FPMB to determine the appropriateness of capital requests. This information is also available to determine space requirement levels before making decisions regarding the reallocation of vacant space on the campus, and to arbitrate requests for additional space assignments. In practice, it is not often consulted by the FPMB. Detailed departmental printouts of space assignments, usage, and needs analyses are available in the Facilities Services office.

B. Utilization of Instructional Facilities. Use of classroom and class laboratories is monitored each semester by the Facilities Services office. Class schedule and enrollment data are downloaded from a mainframe computer, sent electronically to the Facilities Services office (and the IRT Audiovisual department), and overall utilization of each classroom and class laboratory is determined. These data are provided to the state legislature on a biennial basis, and are used by campus administrators to determine which rooms, if any, should be decommissioned as instructional facilities. These utilization reports are available in the Facilities Services office.

Classroom utilization is at less than maximum efficiency for a number of reasons. The age of some classrooms tends to be an inhibiting factor. Of the 120 classrooms in use during the fall 1995 semester, 77 (62% ) were 20 or more years old, and 43 (35%) were 3 or more years old. The use of the older group of classrooms tended to be significantly lower than the classrooms in newer buildings.

The mix of classrooms of different sizes is also an obstacle to optimal use. Only 75 (60%) of the 120 classrooms used in the fall of 1995 had 50 or fewer student stations, while at the same time, 1,482 (91%) of 1,625 courses offered had an enrollment of 49 or less, with 752 (61%) having an enrollment of 24 or less. Consequently, many courses with small enrollments are held in relatively large classrooms.

Increasing percentages of graduate and upper-level course offerings have tended to make this problem more acute. In the fall 1995 semester, 223 (13.7%) of 1,625 courses offered were graduate level courses, while in the fall 1987 semester 156 (12.4%) of 1,254 courses offered were graduate level courses. This trend is expected to increase as graduate programs continue to grow on campus.

The consequent mismatch of class size and room size results in classes with small enrollments being scheduled into rooms with capacities in the medium to large range. This dramatically drops the overall utilization rate of many classrooms. In addition, course scheduling is primarily focused on faculty demands, so that courses are not always matched to rooms based on enrollment history. This issue needs further study and recommendations to improve classroom utilization.

C. Office Space. One of the most acute and continuing problems on campus is the limited availability of adequate office space. Office space for current staffing at all levels is minimal. Classroom space in some buildings must be appropriated for offices and laboratories. Capital construction projects planned in the near future, along with annual departmental audits of office space, may temporarily alleviate this problem. To be assured that future office space fits their needs, it is recommended that all faculty who are to occupy new or remodeled offices are consulted during the design phase of every project. Also, it is recommended that consideration be given to establishing a flexible set of guidelines for the provision of office space for graduate students and emeritus faculty.

A. Organization. The organizational chart, Figure III-1, delineates the line of authority from the director to the plant engineer, mechanical engineer, and project manager, and to three (3) facility supervisors, and to the grounds and custodial supervisors under whom the staff members are assigned work and supervised. This is a change from the last self-study, as the long time director of the physical plant retired in 1995. The plant and mechanical engineers and the project manager currently have most of the responsibility for assigning work load, handling personnel issues, and supervising foreman and facility supervisors.

While some areas report they could do specific tasks more frequently or more thoroughly with additional employees, there was general agreement that the organization works well as is. Employees, as well as end users, are being encouraged to contribute their own ideas to increase efficiency in the Physical Plant operation. The administration of the Physical Plant is now working on increasing communications skills among all its employees, emphasizing better communications to those receiving services. Since faculty made a point of mentioning lack of communication from Buildings and Grounds staff as a problem, this new emphasis by the Physical Plant administration is a step in the right direction.

Another major change since the 1988 self-study is the introduction of an Automated Work Order System. This Act1000 software is being used now by more than 900 universities, and is designed to help run an entire campus for all physical plant functions. The system has been up for just under 18 months, with much of the debugging being done at the Stead Campus. Half of the modules have been put into operation so far.

It is expected that this new Automated Work Order System can help alleviate the faculty’s concerns about past maintenance and repair problems and create a much needed solution for the future. Faculty requests for classroom repairs and maintenance are entered in the system and responded to within three working days. Emergency calls are answered more promptly; after hours emergency phone lines are in service for reporting both basic classroom problems to the Buildings and Grounds, and teaching equipment problems to the Instructional Resources Technology administration. Classrooms equipped with computers and audiovisuals are furnished with a list of phone numbers to call for the repair and maintenance of items in that classroom, and what number to call in the case of an emergency or for help after 5 p.m. In order to utilize this system, it is recommended that a campus-only phone accessible within a reasonable distance from every classroom.

B. Procedures. The hiring practices followed by the Physical Plant are standard UNR/State of Nevada recruiting practices. While some of the procedures vary depending on the area of specialization, the system seems objective in that more than one person is involved in the

screening process. This reduces the possibility of bias, favoritism, and subjective decision making.

Supervision of employees is handled by the facility supervisors (custodial, grounds, and crafts) , through their supervisors and foremen. Supervision strategies require verbal description of problems, written confirmation of the problem/solution, and additional documentation as needed. Difficult personnel problems requiring another level of administrative input are handled by the plant engineer. The procedures in place for disciplinary cases are prescribed by the State Personnel Office.

Support of new facilities became more efficient with the creation of a formula budgeting process approved by the Nevada legislature, which assures coverage through a mechanism to increase personnel and supervision of custodial care, grounds, crafts, services (air-conditioning and heating), and landscaping requirements. Buildings constructed as the result of a gift to the university require permission to build from the Public Works Board and approval of support costs to maintain the building from the Interim Finance Committee. However, there is sometimes as much as a two-year lag between the time a new facility comes on line, and when the formula funding mechanisms provide additional funds to hire personnel and pay for maintenance activities it requires.

A computerized control system within the heat plant has contributed to an increased ability to monitor utility costs as well as to project needs of the campus on a monthly, seasonal, or annual basis. The major benefit of the system is the ability to monitor heat and air-conditioning outputs from a remote location on a building-by-building basis and to control temperatures of buildings based on daily use, i.e., during scheduled weekend activity when the campus is not in full operation. This system has resulted in considerable savings in utilities budgets over the years. Unfortunately, when savings have been realized, budgets have been automatically reduced by the amount of the savings. In the past, these actions tended to take away any incentives there may have been to operate the plant more efficiently. Recent legislation should mitigate this problem.

C. Competence. In maintenance, the employees are very capable, have good job knowledge, apply themselves, take initiative, like the work they are doing, and take pride in completing their work. In operations, the employees are journeymen workers in crafts areas ranging from carpentry, electrical, mechanical, painting, and plumbing to vehicle repair. All crafts workers must have a journeyman’s card to be hired. Thereafter, additional training in specialized areas is provided, either in Reno, or out of town as needed.

D. Stability. The turnover rate for both maintenance and operation is low. Generally, changes are due to retirements, death, or promotions within UNR or the state system.

A. Research Laboratories. The growth of total sponsored project funding from $27.3 million in 1990 to $65.9 million in 1996 has had a significant impact on campus facilities. This growth has affected some departments and colleges more than others; however, there is probably no department within the university that has not been affected by the transformation which the university is undergoing as it moves toward emphasizing research even more than it has in the past. Areas experiencing great stress on their facilities now are engineering, medicine, biology, mining, and chemistry. A coordinated effort is required to protect future space and equipment needs on a department by department basis. Research administrators must analyze and document space and equipment needs carefully at the time when research proposals are written, so that the totality of needs will be understood by the FPMB and any other campus offices involved in planning for new facilities.

B. Instructional Equipment and Information Technology. Instructional equipment, in large part, encompasses computer facilities, teaching laboratories, and instructional media equipment. Three of the four major emphases of the university's Academic Master Plan depend on adequate information technology: 1) building partnerships - is dependent on the adequacy of both distance education equipment and distance education sites located on-campus and throughout the state; 2) providing access to information through technology - requires the provision of adequate computer networks, and library technology for access to electronic information, and 3) providing infrastructure to support quality - requires provision of teaching laboratories, "smart" classrooms, multimedia teaching and training facilities, personal and laboratory computers for faculty and students, equipment and facilities for the preparation of multimedia teaching materials, and other specialized facilities for teaching and learning.

Significant progress has been made over the last few years in each of the above areas. However, the increasing demand for information technology services from students and faculty has made it difficult to keep up with the needed physical plant infrastructure to support these demands (See also Standard IV). Future success will depend in large part on new initiatives in the next biennium which continue and expand upon the successes of recent years. Several key physical plant issues apply to all aspects of information technologies:

1. Priority for Academic Applications: Current work orders for maintenance and renovation of campus facilities place no stated priority on strategic academic needs - i.e. placing an emphasis on enhancement of information technologies infrastructure. The assignment of a dedicated academic projects manager for physical plant activities, and a written statement about prioritization of maintenance activities relating to the Academic Master Plan are needed.

2. Need for Dedicated Space: The tremendous increase in emphasis on information technology and instructional technology issues has created entire new service functions - networking, World Wide Web development, and distance education. These additional functions and the staff to do them have created significant demand for additional space. The interrelatedness of all information technology functions suggests a need to combine physically as many previously separate units as possible.

3. Need for External Relations: The university’s land grant mission, its emphasis on distance education and outreach activities, and our need for expansion of the campus increasingly require the use of facilities and equipment located away from the main campus. The Nelson Building in downtown Reno, and shared facilities in rural Nevada are two examples. They require access to information technology and instructional resources. We must develop the capability to monitor needs in off-campus locations and coordinate physical plant services with staff in those locations.

1. Need for Campus Standards: Detailed physical plant standards have been developed and approved in the areas of campus networking and instructional classrooms. These need to be adhered to, and other standards need to be developed for computer labs, teaching labs, library areas, and study areas.

5. Need for Ongoing Maintenance and Replacement: Equipment used in computing, networking, and instructional technology generally has a useful life of three to five years. Proper maintenance is essential if teaching and learning is to go on uninterrupted. Seeking a permanent source of funding for maintenance and equipment replacement is essential.

6. Need for technicians for smart classrooms: Equipment and software maintenance require additional support personnel specialized in multimedia technology. Seeking a permanent source of funding for this function is also essential.

• With the assistance of a professional planning consultant, the 1990 campus master plan must be updated, and the detail of the needed maintenance and renovation schedule of existing buildings enhanced. The updating should be driven by the contents of the academic master plan and meetings with various campus and neighborhood constituencies. This should be undertaken during 1997-98 and published on the UNR web site. Thereafter, it should be updated every other year.

• Integrate the master plan with the academic planning process, so that university wide priorities can be adequately accommodated.

• Improve the process by which the capital construction request is built and approved, by recognizing and honoring priorities identified in the academic and campus master plans' missions and goals.

• Improve the ways that evaluation data (utilization studies, surveys) are used in the planning and advising process, so that identified priorities in the master plans are acknowledged and met.

• Implement a facilities audit process which will produce data for determining priorities and critical needs for maintenance expenditures.

• Develop a maintenance renewal planning process that incorporates the data from a facilities audit and funds renewal projects separately from the capital improvements process.

• Any planning for a renovation or remodeling project needs consultation between a Physical Plant liaison staff and the faculty, department chair(s), or dean(s) who work or teach in the building under consideration

• Redefine the mission and strengthen the function of the Facilities Planning and Management Board so that input from the University community is actively sought and advice from the board is heeded when appropriate.

• Continue to operate a regular/emergency maintenance reporting system via campus phone lines both by the Physical Plant and the Instructional Resources Technology administrations; provide nearby access to a campus phone line for every classroom.

• Renew and adapt the interiors of classrooms in older buildings to be more useful and flexible for today's programs. Where possible, renovate the building exteriors as well.

• Encourage an ongoing dialogue between the custodial supervisor and building occupants so that additional housekeeping and maintenance needs can be factored into staffing levels, and specific problems can be resolved.

• Increase campus security by installing building perimeter security in all campus buildings. Incorporate security cameras at primary access points.

• Set a goal of 3 per cent per year of replacement value for renewal and maintenance projects. At the least, build in a means of catching up on deferred maintenance and repairs.

• Continue to seek full funding of the Operations and Maintenance formula for housekeeping and maintenance personnel, and ensure that new facilities are incorporated into the formula prior to occupancy.

• Continue to encourage the UNR Foundation to seek private donations to help fund special plants or planting areas around campus.

• Strengthen the liaison role between the Arboretum Board and the Facilities Planning and Management Board.

• Develop the capability to monitor needs in off-campus locations and coordinate physical plant services with staff in those locations.