A $9.6 million building on the north side of campus currently lies vacant due to federal funding cuts, and Iowa State officials are trying to determine the facility’s future.

The building, which was federally funded by Congress, originally was intended to be the National Swine Research Center. However, Republican attacks on pork barrel spending in Washington led to the project’s funding being cut.

Carol Bradley, director of governmental relations for ISU, said ISU President Martin Jischke has called for a recommendation on what to do with the building, which will come from College of Agriculture Dean David Topel.

“Topel is trying to accommodate both our interests and those of the originally planned tenants,” Bradley said.

She said keeping the swine researchers happy will be one of Jischke’s top priorities when he considers the recommendation.

“We know that a million dollars was appropriated to them for their original research,” she said. “It’s clear they won’t need all the building.”

Topel said a recommendation probably would be presented within the next two weeks. He also said he currently is considering two different plans of action on how to best use the building.

One option would involve almost exclusively ISU scientists, he said.

“The first one is to have the Department of Agriculture and Biosytems Engineering move into the facility,” Topel said.

He said these departments would be conducting research similar to that originally planned for the building.

“They would be doing odor research, waste management and water quality testing,” Topel said. “This is consistent with what the USDA would be researching.”

Under this option, the small USDA staff that already has funding would be housed in Kildee Hall.

“The second option is for the USDA to take the building as originally planned,” Topel said. “Right now we’re discussing how that would be arranged. They would probably be responsible for the management of the building, and the research would be conducted by their scientists and six to eight ISU scientists.”

This second plan would require the USDA to get more funding, so Topel said choosing one option or the other depends on whether the USDA can come up with the extra money.

“We would anticipate that maybe in the next two weeks we would have some firm guidance from the USDA on how they were going to be going,” he said.

Topel said this guidance most likely will decide which plan he sends to Jischke.

No matter what recommendation is made, Bradley said it is not impossible that the research center might still get its funding.

“There’s always a possibility. Things change every two years, so you can never say never,” she said. “I’m quite confident there won’t be additional funds this year, but you never know in politics.”