Collections: 
0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

Image 10 of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2011-05-03

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

item | thumbnails | details | text | pdf
Download this image
-10- of $30 million to construct new donnitory housing space as well as expected inflation in food prices. He referred the Board to details on pages l to 3 ofthe handout. He moved for adoption of FCR 5 and was seconded by Mr. Gatton. FCR 5 passed without dissent. (See FCR 5 at the end of the Minutes.) T. Revision of University of Kentucky Debt Policy (FCR 6) Mr. Stuckert explained that FCR 6 changes the university’s debt policy by changing the criteria for approval of intemal loans of university funds and by allowing intemal loans and cash advances to be made, subject to guidelines, to university entities for up to 90 days. He moved the approval of FCR 6. He was seconded by Mr. Gannon. Ms. May asked for assurance that these intemal loans would be reported to the board and was told that they would. Dr. Brockman asked the board to vote. The vote was unanimous for the adoption of FCR 6. (See FCR 6 at the end of the Minutes.) U. 20l0-20ll Budget Revisions (FCR 7) Ms. Stuckert said that the revisions outlined in FCR 7 will increase the University of Kentucky’s total budget by $49,811,000 — from $2,500,327,000 to $2,550, 138,000. Predominantly, this increase is $50,000,000 to fund the Patient Care Facility in accordance with the plan that the Board of Trustees approved at its March board meeting. Mr. Stuckert moved approval of FCR 7, and Mr. Shoop seconded his motion. There was no opposition to its adoption. (See FCR 7 at the end of the Minutes.) V. Replace Video Boards at Commonwealth Stadium (FCR 8) Mr. Stuckert reviewed FCR 8, which has been through several iterations and involves replacing video boards at Commonwealth Stadium using private funds including a withdrawal of up to $4.6 million from the Athletic Fund’s quasi-endowment. The scope of the proj ect is $6.25 million and will be funded entirely by private funds. He recommended approval and was seconded by Mr. Mobley. Dr. Peek felt that more information should have been provided to the board in order for them to make this decision. His objection was that there may be a pattem of giving board members too little infonnation, which he felt did not allow them to perfonn their fiduciary duties properly. Mr. Stuckert felt that the issue had been fully vetted in committee, that Athletics should be assumed to be competent in asking for such expenditures, and that to ask more would be micro managing. Dr. McCorvey stated that he, too, had wanted more information and had met with Mr. Mitch Bamhart, Athletic Director, and was informed that the video board would pay for itself over its useful life from both increased revenue and from sponsorships. Mr. Gatton agreed that more infonnation should be provided to the board for such decisions. Mr. Shoop asked about the fact that using the suggested finance plan of FCR 8, the university would lose $l50,000 of interest, which he pointed out was a significant amount of money. He suggested that it is not a good habit to pick to pieces all proposals and cause delays