BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS INTRODUCTION The SUNY Farmingdale campus comprises 380 acres and 69 buildings, three of which are LIEOC off-campus extensions leased by the campus in Hempstead (1977), East Brentwood (1962), and Riverhead. The newest campus building is the Broad Hollow Bioscience Park, completed in 2000 but currently inactive and currently undergoing a stage two office and laboratory addition and refurbishing. Together, the equipment in the 69 campus buildings is valued at $10,838,000, and the buildings themselves, with a gross area of 1,518,994 square feet, have a total replacement value (without land) of $246,960,000. Farmingdale, without land, is a quarter of a billion dollar state asset. And the value it generates in present tax revenue and graduates contributions to future state revenue has not been estimated. The campus of Farmingdale is indeed economically worth our attention and concern. In the description below, information about the buildings are drawn from the Building Characteristics Inventory Space Management List (SUNY Office for Capital Facilities, Oct, 10, 2001). This SUNY System Administration report uses abbreviations and numbers to explain details of all buildings owned or leased by SUNY Farmingdale including location, function, occupation and construction dates, details of building size and type, and costs of construction, replacement, and equipment. Other cited reports include the Capital Project Summary Report and an informal local list of campus buildings and general plans. DESCRIPTION OLDEST BUILDINGS The oldest building on campus is the Herdsman Residence, built in 1912. The table below describes the first six buildings on the SUNY Farmingdale campus which remain standing: - 16 -

FARMINGDALE S SIX OLDEST BUILDINGS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DATE CONSTRUCTION COST REPLACEMENT COST HERDSMAN 1912 $ 5,000 $ 126,000 WARD 1914 $12,000 $2,413,000 CUTLER 1914 $ 9,000 $1,906,000 HICKS 1914 $ 9,000 $1,985,000 COTTAGE 1914 $ 9,000 $413,000 CONKLIN 1914 $13,000 $2,734,000 Only Ward Hall and Conklin Hall among these oldest buildings are being used. Although members of the staff acknowledge the value of rehabilitating Cutler and Hicks because of their history, utility, and charm, no proposals for such projects exist in the Capital Project Summary (January 1, 2002). Such work, however, could be cost effective because of the 2002 replacement cost (excluding land) of each building. The local plan (not the Capital Project Summary) calls for the demolition of the Herdsman Residence, which has a comparatively small present asset value. LARGEST BUILDINGS The following list describes the seven largest buildings on campus: LARGEST BUILDINGS: SUNY FARMINGDALE BUILDING OCCUPATION GROSS AREA REPLACEMENT COST LUPTON HALL 1953 162,575 $27,968,000 GLEESON HALL 1983 115,869 $22,967,000 NOLD HALL 1972 97,236 $14,550,000 NATHAN HALE HALL 1967 89,225 $12,037,000 WHITMAN HALL 1964 81,871 $13,215,000 GREENLEY LIBRARY 1972 73,233 $12,503,000 ROOSEVELT HALL 1965 72,661 $7,759,000 Plans and Construction Among the eighteen ongoing campus building projects being funded by the capital improvements budget, seven are taking place in these buildings: I. A planned $10,000,000 two-phase rehabilitation and expansion of Roosevelt Hall is presently on hold. 2 Central air conditioning will be installed by December 2004 at Nathan Hale Hall (estimated cost: $571,000). 3 Two separate projects in Lupton Hall include the rehabilitation of corridors, chemistry labs, and Construction Technology classrooms (Rooms 260, 261, 263, 266, and 269) by December, 2004 (estimated total cost: $7,240,000). - 17 -

4 The installation of forensics labs in Gleeson Hall was to be completed by February 2002 (actual cost: $427,531). 5 Smart Classrooms were installed throughout the campus by October 2001 (actual cost: $500,000). 6 Bathrooms will be rehabilitated in Thompson Hall (a medium-sized building) and Hale Hall by July 15, 2003(estimated cost: $1,223,000). MEDIUM-SIZED BUILDINGS The Farmingdale campus has seventeen medium-sized buildings, those with gross areas between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet. The BroadHollow BioScience Park is the largest at 50,000 square feet, making it the eighth largest building on campus: Administration/Laffin Hall (1967) Aero/Flightline (1996) Sinclair Dining Hall (1970) Dewey Hall (1970) Greenhouse (1980) Hempstead EOC (1977) Horton Hall (1953) Hughes Hall (1970) Knapp Hall (1936) Lehman Hall (1970) Nassau Hall (inactive, 1958) Service Building (1968) Smith Dorm (1970) Suffolk Dorm (inactive, 1958) Thompson Hall (1935) Steam Tunnel (1950) Allard Field House BroadHollow Bioscience Park (inactive, 2000) (47 square feet shy of 20,000 square feet, 1962). Plans and Construction According to local plans dated February 2002, three of these fifteen buildings will be demolished soon, along with the smaller Herdsman Residence: the Allard Field House, Nassau Dorm, and Suffolk Dorm. Future demolition is planned for four others: Dewey Hall, Hughes Hall, Lehman Hall, and Smith Dorm, along with the smaller Police Building. According to the Capital Project Summary, however, only Suffolk Hall has been identified for undated demolition at an estimated cost of $529,000. The Capital Project Summary includes four plans for rehabilitation of medium-sized buildings: - 18 -

1 The Laffin Student Services Building is being totally rehabilitated at a cost of $5,270,000, nearly $2,000,000 over the original estimate. 2 Spill remediation at the Greenhouse is nearly complete at a cost of $502,800. 3 A planned rehabilitation of the entry of Knapp Hall with no date is estimated to cost $858,000 and will include ADA entrances and complete rehabilitation of the patio and the handicap ramp. 4 A planned exterior rehabilitation of Thompson Hall with no date is estimated to cost $713,000. In addition to these improvements, which are funded through the SUNY capital improvements budget, the campus plan includes new dormitories, which will be funded through the State Dormitory Authority. At the present time, $20,000,000 has been bonded for this project, and the design stage has begun. SMALLER BUILDINGS The 44 remaining campus buildings are smaller and range from Conklin Hall (with an area of 17,935 square feet and a replacement cost of $2,734,000), the Cow Barn (1972,16,347 square feet and a replacement cost of $3,993,000), and Hooper Hall (1920, 15,934 square feet and a replacement cost of $2,660,000), down to two of four transportation sheds, built in 1963 and1991, with areas of 56 square feet and 48 square feet and replacement costs of $6,000 and $5,000. The most valuable of the 44 smaller buildings, as one might expect, is the Heating Plant, 14,806 square feet and a replacement cost of $13,480,000. OTHER CAMPUS-WIDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The remaining eight ongoing improvements in the Capital Project Summary include a Master Plan Update ($250,000), and several upgrades to the campus infrastructure: a reconfiguration of stacks and breaching (estimated cost: $600,000), a rehabilitation of Boiler #3 completed in 2001 ($1,275,000), and high voltage distribution which is 93% complete ($4,781,000). More visibly, the rehabilitation of the Veterinary Science Building is planned to house a new campus police office at a estimated cost of $1,094,000; and Phase 2 of the BioScience Park will add an office addition of 10,000 square feet and lab renovations of 30,000 square feet to the building at a cost of $7,600,000. The original contractor defaulted in December 2001 and the new contractor has a scheduled completion date of Spring 2002. The BioScience facility is not funded through the Farmingdale capital budget, however, but rather through separate funding specific to this biotechnology project which has been approved by the New York State legislature. Lump Sum Funding Projects - 19 -

Since 1996, other smaller construction projects on campus have been funded from a lump sum amount included annually in the capital budget. In 2000-2001, such funding totaled $352,872 and paid for what are often unobservable projects, since many are repairs or upgrades of the infrastructure. Samples of the nineteen varied projects paid for in 2000-2001 include elevator upgrades ($40,000), catwalks on the west side of Nold Hall ($37,500), the installation of steam lines to the Greenhouse ($30,000), clearing and pruning for campus safety ($19,800), repair of the oil storage alarm system ($15,000), an upgrade of the heat in the MiniMall ($12,000), and repairs to the wrestling room in Nold Hall ($4,000). In 2001-2002, the rehabilitation of the Fireside Lounge ($45,000) is being funded from this account, as is campus-wide sitework improvement ($110,000). Alternately Funded Projects System Administration made available alternate state-wide funding to improve SUNY campuses beginning in 1998 through a plan in which the state matches funds when an individual campus successfully raises capital from external sources. If a local campus raises 15% of the cost of a capital improvement in this way, then the state provides the remaining 85%. The $485,000 synthetic floor resurfacing in Nold Hall was funded with such matching funds in 2000-2001, although an additional $10,000 from the 2001-2 lump sum distribution was spent to complete the project in 2001-2002. Currently, SUNY Farmingdale is funding a $1,300,000 landscaping and road project using this plan, based on external funding from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which is installing a sculpture garden near Hale Hall. State revenues will fund landscaping and a new entrance roadway into the center of the campus. - 20 -

Completed Projects Thirteen capital budget projects are listed in the Project Summary (January 1, 2002) as having been completed since 1998: BUILDING COST NOTES LUPTON CHEMISTRY REHAB $2,999,343 MOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED IN AN- OTHER AREA IN LUPTON (DUE TO ASBESTOS) GREENLEY HALL HVAC REHAB $885,000 REPLACED AIR CONDITIONING AND REHAB/REPLACE BOILERS 1 & 2 $1,051,364 LOCATED IN CENTRAL HEATING CONSTRUCT SALT/STORAGE FACILITY $171,200 A NEW CODE COMPLIANT FACILITY CONSTRUCTED AT FARM COMPLEX ENERGY CONSERVATION $1,100,000 INCLUDES LIGHTING OCCUPANCY SENSORS AND HIGH EFFICIENCY MOTORS ASBESTOS ABATEMENT $122,165 COMPLETED AT VARIOUS GLEESON ROOF REPLACEMENT/MASONRY REPAIR $267,000 NEW ROOF AND REPAIR OF CRACKING MASONRY IN WALLS REHAB CAMPUS ROADS $1,696,000 NEW EAST AND WEST PERIMETER ROADS AND CURBS, CURB CUTS REHAB WHITMAN PHYSICS LAB $208,457 WHITMAN HALL, ROOMS 248, 253, REHABILITATED CAMPUS-WIDE SURVEY $76,076 SURVEY UPDATE BIO SCIENCE PARK* (funded through $12,600,000 50,000 SQUARE FOOT NEW FACILITY separate, non-campus legislation) NOLD GYM FLOOR REPLACEMENT $485,000 [MATCHING FUNDS], REPLACEMENT OF SYNTHETIC GYM FLOOR GREENHOUSE BOILER REPLACEMENT $78,000 EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT TOTAL $21,739,605 Some of these major projects are unnoticeable, and many staff members and students, who, for example, may not study physics or visit Nold Hall, do not enjoy even their unseen benefits. Yet none of the problems which these projects solve could have been ignored. Many address health and safety concerns, while others arrest future damage or respond to threats of non-operational systems. It is apparent that state funding has been limited, even for this necessary maintenance, not to speak of attractive improvements to the campus. Health and Safety Regulations The health and safety on the campus grounds and in the buildings are evaluated each spring by the State Office of Fire Prevention and Control. While much of the campus is considered safe, an existing problem in the dormitory buildings (planned for demolition) is their lack of sprinklers. Other buildings throughout the campus are not ADA - 21 -

compliant. The renovation of Laffin Hall, however, includes ADA compliant door openers, which one faculty member suggests be installed throughout the campus. STAFFING FOR BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS The following table compares the salary ranges, gender, and total number of service and maintenance staff members and skilled crafts staff members in Fall 1995, Fall 2001, and Fall 1989: Service, Maintenance, and Skilled Craft Workers: 1995 and 2001 By Salary Range and Gender 1995 2001 SERV/MAINTENANCE 1995 1995 SERV/MAINTENANCE 2001 2001 MEN WOMEN ALL MEN WOMEN ALL Below 12,000 0 0 Below 20,000 2 0 12,000-15,999 0 0 20,000-29,999 38 20 16,000-19,999 6 0 30,000-39,999 15 1 20,000-24,999 32 16 40,000-49,999 7 0 25,000-29,999 13 2 50,000 and above 1 0 30,000 and above 9 0 TOTAL 63 21 84 TOTAL 60 18 78 SKILLED CRAFTS 1995 1995 SKILLED CRAFTS 2001 2001 MEN WOMEN ALL MEN WOMEN ALL Below 16,000 0 0 Below 20,000 0 0 16,000-19,999 1 0 20,000-29,999 4 1 20,000-24,999 4 0 30,000-39,999 15 0 25,000-29,999 6 0 40,000-49,999 6 0 30,000-34,999 13 0 50,000 and above 2 0 35,000 and above 4 0 TOTAL 27 1 28 TOTAL 28 0 28 Data presented below for the 1989-1990 academic year do not include salary ranges: 1989 MEN WOMEN TOTAL SERV/MAINTENANCE 121 32 153 SKILLED CRAFTS 46 2 48 In 2000-2001 the campus had only 54.9% of the maintenance staff it had IN 1989 doing virtually the same amount of work. In 2000-2001, skilled craft workers had been cut to 60.4% of the 1989 staff. - 22 -

It might be argued that such a significant decline in skilled craft and maintenance staff reflects the decrease in the total student headcount during this period: Year Student headcount 1989-1990 10,880 2001-2002 5449 But such an explanation is flawed because the campus size has remained constant, and the number of active buildings among the 68 on campus has decreased by only two (Cutler and Hicks). Slightly more than half of the 1989-1990 staff maintains nearly the same size facility in 2001-2002. With such a diminished staff, maintenance tasks must be completed in priority order, so that health and safety problems are solved first. We may assume, then, that the presence of unkempt, unattractive, or unclean areas on campus are the sacrifice we make to maintain health and safety standards, given reduced state funding for staff. - 23 -

OPINIONS ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Because the appearance of the campus is its most easily evaluated quality to students, staff, and visitors, it is frequently discussed and frequently criticized. Campus buildings and grounds affect student and staff pride in the campus, contribute strikingly to potential students first impressions of the College, and influence individuals and groups who can offer Farmingdale various kinds of support. The comments presented below summarize and illustrate internal opinion: STAFF OPINION Although many students and staff on campus regularly speak with disappointment of the condition of Farmingdale s buildings and grounds, few staff members include comments about the condition of the campus in their survey comments (SWOT forms). Perhaps they assumed their SWOT forms should contain comments on strengths and weaknesses only in the area of their professional responsibility. Staff SWOT Survey Form Comments + Laffin Hall now has push button door openers for individuals with mobility impairments (those who use wheel chairs, braces, walkers, or crutches) Faculty member - Lupton Hall is a very poor facility/learning environment Faculty member - The Machine Tool Laboratory in Lupton Hall, Rooms 180 and 181, contains equipment from the Second World War. Faculty member - Bathrooms smell, which our current cleaning agents seem helpless to control. Maybe we could change disinfectants. This is, sadly, not a joke. -- Faculty member - At least eleven other frequently used buildings on campus are inaccessible to individuals with mobility impairments. Faculty member - The physics labs and the nursing labs are poorly cleaned and maintained. Two faculty members - 24 -

COLLEGE COUNCIL OPINION On the other hand, members of the College Council identify many problems concerning the grounds and buildings on campus that must be solved. They offer several observations: + Farmingdale enjoys an excellent location among high tech parks. + The campus has many beautiful mature plantings. - Refurbishing, remodeling, and furniture are essential in dormitories. - The grounds need cleaning, replanting, and maintenance. - Teaching and activity areas need repair, remodeling, maintenance, equipment, and furniture. - During the 1990s, funding for maintenance was reallocated and lost. STUDENT OPINION Students are even more vocal. In the survey of students conducted by the Retention Task Force in Fall 2001, students responded to nine questions about campus support services and were provided space for individual comments about the campus. In 27% of these handwritten responses, (78 of a total of 296 optional handwritten comments received on the 538 printed survey forms), students criticize the campus grounds and buildings. This is perhaps the most consistently faulted aspect of the campus. Students offer variations on the themes of cleanliness, safety, attractiveness, and convenience. Sample suggestions are paraphrased below: - 25 -

SAMPLE STUDENT COMMENTS ON CAMPUS GROUNDS AND BUILDINGS CLEANLINESS ATTRACTIVENESS Bathrooms are dirty. More benches would be pleasant. Soap is missing. Maintenance is needed for lawns. Thompson is filled with dust. Leaves need raking. Tickets are needed for littering. Flowers need to be planted. Maintenance is needed in Lupton. The library needs renovation. Improvement is needed in the cleaning staff. Brighter colors are needed for cheerfulness. Dorms are dirty everywhere. Garbage pails are needed. CONVENIENCE Thompson has broken lockers. Bulletin boards are not updated. Dorm closet doors are needed. SAFETY Dorm kitchens are needed. Laundry facilities are needed. Self-locking doors are needed on dorm rooms. Water fountains need replacement. ID controlled locks are needed on dorm rooms. Heat control is needed in Thompson. Broken desks are unsafe. Parking needs improvement. Classrooms and ceilings need repair. A commuter student lounge is needed. A commuter student recreation area is needed. Clocks are needed everywhere on campus. (Report of the Retention Task Force, Fall 2001) - 26 -

CONCLUSION Everyone at Farmingdale wants an up-to-date, safe, beautiful campus. The potential exists Farmingdale has a convenient location, spacious grounds, and often valuable buildings. But potential alone, unfortunately, is insufficient. Funding to upgrade and maintain the campus buildings and grounds so far has been meager and inadequate and often is obtained only after passage through a labyrinthine bureaucracy. Currently a new five-year capital improvement master plan is being finalized for the period beginning in 2002. Funded through System Administration, an architectural firm is completing an analysis to identify and approve projects throughout the state. Such projects are divided into two categories: necessary maintenance and appropriations for improvements. So far, Farmingdale is requesting $40,000,000 for necessary maintenance alone, which experts consider a conservative estimate. This five-year plan does not include dormitory construction, which is funded separately. The value of Farmingdale, a public four-year college in a region populated by over 25% of New York State residents, cannot be overestimated. But the infrastructure, grounds, and buildings on the campus need full and continuous financial support to realize the potential of the College. The state, private individuals, and interested non-profit groups and businesses must be persuaded to participate. - 27 -