A campus committee strategizing on how to fund the computer network operation has returned to the provost with a five-year plan that promises to be simple and flexible. "We received a very clear message from the campus," said Jerry Hallee, special assistant to the provost and a member of the oversight committee. "Whatever funding strategy we employ, the campus community members want to control their costs." The committee recommendations will be discussed throughout the campus for the next two months. Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Robert Grey will make a decision on the recommendation, taking into account the community input, by Feb. 15. According to Carole Barone, associate vice chancellor for information technology, the UC Davis funding plan is typical of how universities are trying to deal with these ongoing costs. "What makes our campus different is that we have probably given the issue more thought and discussion than most others," she said, pointing out that the Network 21 committee has spent an entire year working on a funding strategy that would meet the financial requirements of network operations while not imposing an unrealistic burden on the units. The Network 21 Budget and Policy Oversight Committee recommendations, posted on the Web and to be published fully in the Jan. 10 Dateline, are summarized as follows: Operation and maintenance The cost of operating and maintaining UC Davis' computer network should be shared between the central administration and campus units. General-fund monies will be used to support an estimated $2.4 million annual expense of operating and maintaining the network "backbone." In addition, units will be assessed a monthly charge per network-access module (or wall jack), at an estimated $1.2 million total. (This contrasts with the previous idea of a "data communication fee" based on the 10,000 faculty and staff members on campus.) While the monthly per module cost is estimated at $9.80, a subsidy of something between $3.80 and $5.80 is recommended over the next two years. The committee believes campus units will be unable to absorb their full share of costs when the new charges begin July 1, 1997, and will need time to adjust to the new fee. The committee specifically retained in its report the principle of having individual units support some of the cost of the system, Hallee said. "This is not a free good," he said. "Almost everybody during our consultation period understood the need to have a local charge as a way to control the campus appetite. By the same token, we don't want to pass on charges that the departments are completely unable to cope with." Connection fees A one-time $40 charge should be assessed to activate a connection and a charge of $200-$600 to install a new 10-Base-T connection. Buildout on campus The buildout of the network beyond the scope of the $23 million Network 21 project now under way should follow priorities for growth set out in the campus's long-range development plan. The extensions would be paid for through central-campus funds, but units would pay for services beyond the basics. A consultant is being hired to give an estimate of how much it will cost to extend the high-tech fiber optic cable to outlying campus buildings. Previously those costs were "guestimated" at between $15 million and $20 million. A report on the cost estimate is expected sometime in the spring. A permanent committee The provost should establish a permanent Network Operations Oversight Committee. "We are acknowledging that this area of information technology is a fast-moving target," Hallee said. "The oversight committee will, among other things, review the rate-setting mechanisms and strategies on a continuing basis. We feel this area will need that kind of attention." To keep the funding strategy flexible, Barone said the oversight committee "emphatically urges" that it be reviewed continuously. "That is why the committee recommended the Network Operations Oversight Committee--because we must continue to study our experience with networking and adjust to changes on campus and in the external environment," Barone said. "That is the nature of planning for and financing information technologies." Faculty leaders involved with Network 21 expressed satisfaction for how the rates have been structured but remain vigilant about the overall costs. "It's a pretty good report," said Alan Jackman, professor of chemical engineering and materials science and a member of the oversight committee. "We took care of fairly serious problems that the first report had, while still leaving discretion to Bob Grey. I am most pleased we have been able to recommend a transitional funding method that will not impose tremendous burdens on departments." Concerns with budget Bryan Miller, professor of chemistry and chair of the Academic Senate's Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review, said his major concern is with the network's operation and maintenance budget. "CAPBR has been involved with this topic for over three years and has seen the estimates for operation and maintenance more than double; the latest figures represent a 75 percent increase from the March report," he said. The oversight committee explained in its report that the cost of operating and maintaining the network has been re-evaluated for several reasons. * Internet access, because of being privatized, will cost the campus $300,000 more. * A more realistic budget was included to allow for adequate maintenance and electronics replacement. * The modem pool will be kept in service, even with the new off-campus internet service. * And, operation and maintenance costs that have been subsidized through telephone fees should be transferred to the data area. "I.T. has incorporated a more realistic reserve for replacement of network equipment," says Richard Meisinger, associate vice chancellor for planning and budget, and a member of the oversight committee. "And the price tag has gone up for other reasons. We have no student-fee revenue in the new plan. Another reason is that the cost of the Internet connection has gone up markedly and will continue to escalate precipitously." The plan to ask UC Davis students to assess themselves an information technology fee is in limbo because the Office of the President is considering a similar, smaller fee systemwide. The oversight committee didn't believe students would support two such fees. Miller and Jackman prefer that UC Davis proceed on its own with the student fee. It's an idea that received support from the two Associated Students of UC Davis representatives on the oversight committee--as long as the fee translated into tangible benefits for students, Jackman said.