xt708k74tx24 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt708k74tx24/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 2011 minutes  English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2011-12-13 text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2011-12-13 2011 2012 true xt708k74tx24 section xt708k74tx24 Minutes of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, Tuesday, December 13,
201 1.
The Board of Trustees ofthe University of Kentuckty met at 8:45 a.m. (Lexington time) on
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 in the Board Room on the 18 Floor of Patterson Office Tower.
A. Meeting Opened
Dr. Britt Brockman, chair of the Board of Trustees, called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m.
and asked Ms. Sandy Patterson, secretary ofthe Board, to call the roll.
B. Roll Call
The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call of the roll: C. B. Akins,
Sr., William C. Britton, E. Britt Brockman (chair), Sheila Brothers, Jo Hern Curris, William S.
Farish, Jr., Micah Fielden, Oliver Keith Gannon, Carol Martin "Bill” Gatton, Pamela T. May, Billy
Joe Miles, Teny Mobley, Sandy Bugie Patterson, Joe Peek, Erwin Roberts, Charles R. Sachatello,
James W. Stuckert, and Barbara Young. C. Frank Shoop and Irina Voro were absent from the
meeting. Ms. Patterson announced that a quorum was present.
The University administration was represented by President Eli Capilouto, Executive Vice
President for Finance and Administration Frank Butler, Executive Vice President for Health Affairs
Michael Karpf; and General Counsel Barbara W. Jones.
The University faculty was represented by Chair ofthe University Senate Council Hollie
Swanson, and the University staff was represented by Chair ofthe Staff Senate Mike Adams.
Members ofthe various news media were also in attendance.
C. Closed Session
Dr. Brockman said the Board of Trustees would go into closed session, and the closed session
was pertinent to the Finance Committee’s deliberations. He stated that the Board would go into
closed session for two purposes:
1. to deliberate on the future acquisition or sale of real property. An open discussion ofthe
future acquisition or sale of the real property would be likely to affect the value ofthe
property, and
2. to conduct discussions with a representative of a business entity conceming a specific
proposal. Open discussions would jeopardize the siting, retention, expansion, or
upgrading ofthe business entity.
Dr. Brockman moved that the Board go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 (1) (b)
and 61.810 (1) (g). These statutory citations are the exceptions in the open meetings law that pennit
the Board to go into closed session to deliberate on the future acquisition or sale of real property by a
public agency, but only when publicity would be likely to affect the value of a specific piece of

property to be acquired for public use or sold by a public agency, and to have discussions between a
public agency and a representative of a business entity and discussions concerning a specific
proposal, if open discussions would jeopardize the siting, retention, expansion, or upgrading of the
business. Mr. Stuckert seconded the motion, and it passed without dissent.
Dr. Brockman said that only those persons necessary to provide the infonnation to the Board
may be present. Nothing else may be discussed in the closed session but infonnation relating to the
two issues. When discussion has been completed, no vote may be taken but a consensus relating to
FCR l can be detennined. The Board went into closed session at 8:47 a.m.
D. Open Meeting and Recess
At l0:2l a.m. Dr. Brockman stated that the closed meeting ofthe Board of Trustees had
concluded. No matters other than the possible acquisition or sale of real property and discussions
with a business entity were discussed, and no final action was taken. He announced that the Board
was back in open session and would proceed with business. Ms. May moved that the Board recess
until the conclusion ofthe Finance Committee meeting. Mr. Stuckert seconded the motion, and it
E. Meeting Reconvened
At 10:50 a.m. Dr. Brockman called the meeting to order and asked Ms. Patterson to call the
roll. The following members ofthe Board of Trustees answered the call ofthe roll: C. B. Akins, Sr.,
William C. Britton, E. Britt Brockman (chair), Sheila Brothers, Jo Hem Curris, William S. Farish, Jr.,
Micah Fielden, Oliver Keith Gannon, Carol Martin "Bill” Gatton, Pamela T. May, Terry Mobley,
Sandy Bugie Patterson, Joe Peek, Erwin Roberts, Charles R. Sachatello, James W. Stuckert, and
Barbara Young. Billy Joe Miles was not present for the roll call, however, he entered the meeting
during the presentation of CR l. C. Frank Shoop and Irina Voro were absent from the meeting. Ms.
Patterson announced that a quorum was present.
F. Consent Items
Dr. Brockman called attention to the two consent items on the agenda. They included the
minutes for the regular meeting ofthe Board on October 25, 20ll and PR 2 which deals with
personnel actions. Mr. Stuckert moved approval. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sachatello and
carried without dissent. (See consent items listed below on the Board of Trustees website,
www.uky.edu/Trustees, under agenda.)
Minutes — October 25, 20ll
PR 2 Personnel Actions

G. Proposed Revision to Goveming Reggglation: University Athletics Committee (CR 1)
Dr. Brockman reminded the Board that this is the second reading of CR 1. It has been vetted
amongst various constituencies. CR 1 is a recommendation that the Board of Trustees approve the
attached revisions to Goveming Regulation (GR) II, relating to Board committees, which was
received for preliminary consideration at the October 25, 2011, Board meeting.
The proposed revision of GR II establishes a University Athletics Committee within the
committee structure of the Board of Trustees and defines the Committee’s responsibilities. The
revision also includes housekeeping and fonnatting changes.
In March 2011, the Chair ofthe Board of Trustees appointed a Special Committee of the
Board to review UK Athletics with benchmark institutions and current best practices. The
Committee met on October 20, 2011 and recommended that the Board of Trustees create a new
Athletics Committee within the committee structure ofthe Board and to include community advisory
members. The Committee further recommended that in order to remain compliant with NCAA rules
on institutional control over intercollegiate athletics, the committee membership and its chair should
be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chair ofthe Board of Trustees.
The Committee’s responsibilities will include: providing counsel to the President conceming
matters or activities ofthe Athletics Department, reviewing the Athletics Department’s annual budget
and audit reports, major expenditures and acquisitions, and construction of facilities if the cost is
expected to exceed $400,000, and, providing needed infonnation to the Board of Trustees. The
Committee will be composed of five Board of Trustees members, up to three non-voting community
members, and the Faculty Athletics Representative as an ex officio non-voting member.
The revision to GR II has been reviewed by the University Senate, Staff Senate, and Student
Govemment Association. A revised copy of GR II is attached. Proposed additions are underlined,
proposed deletions are lined through.
Dr. Brockman stated that this is coming out of committee, and no second is required. He
asked for any discussion regarding the second reading of CR 1. Ms. Brothers asked if the University
Athletics Committee would report its findings to the Board and then the Board make a final decision
or would the Committee have its own authority to make final decisions. Dr. Brockman said the
Committee will function as every other committee on the Board and would report to the Board.
There being no further discussion, Dr. Brockman called for a vote, and CR 1 passed without
dissent. (See CR 1 on the Board of Trustees website, www.uky.edu/Trustees under agenda.)
H. President’s Report (PR 1)
Before beginning PR 1, President Capilouto said he wanted to take a moment to recognize
someone at the University. Some ofthe big things done at the University are "heavy lifts,” and he
wanted to recognize Executive Vice President Frank Butler who is a terrific, champion "weight
lifter.” This is Mr. Butler’s last meeting as the executive vice president for finance.

President Capilouto said that Mr. Butler has been one ofthe classiest people that he has met
since arriving at the University. Thankfully for the University, Mr. Butler has agreed to stay on and
assist during the transition of a replacement. Mr. Butler will continue to manage part of his portfolio
until the search is complete. President Capilouto said he hoped to find the appropriate time to
celebrate everything that Mr. Butler has done for the University. He asked the Board to join him in
acknowledging Mr. Frank Butler. Mr. Butler was given a round of applause and a standing ovation.
President Capilouto then referred to PR l. He knows all ofthe Board takes particular pleasure
in reading the many accomplishments outlined in PR l. The University of Kentucky is truly
remarkable. He introduced Nikky Finney, who is UK’s first National Book Award winner for poetry
and featured in PR l. Professor Finney’s work has stirred the souls of readers at the University and
all over the world. President Capilouto encouraged the Board members to read her book entitled
H edd O]j’c1nd Split, which he had given to them. He talked about Professor Finney’s acceptance
speech that she gave at the award ceremony. Actor John Lithgow said it was the best acceptance
speech he had ever heard, and it truly was outstanding.
As a native of Montgomery, Alabama, President Capilouto said he took particular pleasure
and was deeply moved by Professor Finney’s poem Red Velvet. This poem is what makes poets
great. You feel like Nikky Finney knew you all your life, even when you were six years old in
Montgomery, Alabama. He remembers that time of tunnoil and vividly remembers the buses, or the
ones he took at least weekly in his youth. The times and tribulations and the scars and growth of a
community certainly never leave one’s mind. Professor Finney deeply stirred his thoughts as he read
her vivid account to the poem Red Velvet.
President Capilouto acknowledged Dean Mark Kombluh and the Interim Chair of the
Department of English Marion Rust, where Professor Finney holds her appointment. He thanked them
for attending the Board meeting and asked Dean Kombluh to introduce Professor Finney.
Dean Kombluh said it was an incredible honor to introduce Professor Finney because she
truly represents the best ofthe University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky has a three-fold
mission: to advance knowledge, to teach a new generation, and to affect the larger society. The
University advances knowledge in innumerable ways but none more insightful than Nikky Finney’s
poetry. It is poetry of beauty and with infinite meaning.
The National Book Award given to her was UK’s first National Book Award ever. It
recognizes the power of her words, and for the University, it honors the fact that UK has had her
working with students for 20 years. This power echoes through her inspired teaching. At a reception
for Professor Finney, several of her students got up and talked. Listening to her students talk about
her in the classroom and in her office is a transcendent experience. Professor Finney really changes
people’s lives.
Equally important, Professor Finney’s achievement is about the university’s Land Grant
Mission. Her poetry, as much as the research in agriculture and engineering, is designed to reach out
to the community to inspire insight and to truly improve lives. Nikky Finney is a treasure, and the
University is honored to have her on the faculty. Dean Kombluh expressed great pleasure in

introducing the University of Kentucky’s first National Book Award winner, Professor Nikky Finney.
The Board gave Professor Finney a round of applause.
Professor Finney thanked President Capilouto for the invitation to attend the meeting and said
it was a great honor. She also thanked Dean Kombluh for his kind words, and Dr. Marion Rust for the
support ofthe English Department.
Professor Finney gave the following remarks to the Board:
When I was l7 years old and an undergraduate at a small Alabama, historically black college, I
dreamed of being a poet. I would go to the library every day because the library was the
heartbeat ofthe campus. And on the shelf; I would find any book that had to do with poetry, with
literature, and with art, and I would read it until I could memorize some of the things there.
Itell you this story because one ofthe joumals on those shelves was a book called Cc1llc1l00
Journczl, which was based at the University of Kentucky in the l970s. I have this saying that the
world is round. It is not because some explorer told us but because I live my life in a way that I
believe things come back to me if I put them out into the world. And sure enough, after ten or l5
years, after that moment, I became an instructor at the University of Kentucky, it happened.
Cc1llc1l00 Journczl has gone to John Hopkins, but I will never forget the impact that it had on me as
a l7 year old trying to figure out how to become a poet and sort of living that life in a sort of an
autodidactic way, finding my way piece by piece and person to person. That joumal made a huge
impact on me as a freshman and as a novelist poet. Ithank you for supporting C c1llc1l00 Journczl
30 years ago and for putting art, culture, and poetry on the map in Kentucky at that time. I don’t
ever want to see you lose that touch with art and literature and all the things that make us who we
are as human beings.
I also want to say that I never intended to win the National Book Award. I just wanted to write a
poem in the most beautiful, powerful way that I possibly could. The National Book Award is an
added benefit. One ofthe beautiful things that is happening now, and I said this at the College of
Arts and Sciences reception, is that even though I walk through the door, it seems 10,000 people
or more walk with me. I get warm bread on my doorstep and flowers. It has just been an
abundance of goodwill after having won the award and that has to do with poetry and with art and
how poetry and art speaks to the human heart. No matter who wins the award, we all win. And
so, Ithank you this moming. I hope you enjoy this fourth collection of words. There will be
more coming up the pike, I hope, and Ithank you for your attention.
President Capilouto, it is nice to meet you and may your tenure here be long and wondrous.
Professor Finney received another round of applause.
I. Appointment of Dean of the Gatton College of Business and Economics (PR 3)
President Capilouto said it was a distinct pleasure to recommend the appointment ofthe dean
ofthe Gatton College of Business and Economics. Dr. David Blackwell will begin his appointment

as dean this spring. He asked Dr. Blackwell to stand and be recognized and then gave some
background infonnation about Dr. Blackwell.
Dr. Blackwell is currently the Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Republic
BanldJames W. Aston Professor of Finance at Texas A&M University’s Mays Business School. He
holds his bachelor‘s and doctoral degree in finance from the University of Tennessee.
Before joining Texas A&M, Dr. Blackwell served as Director of Forensic and Litigation
Services at KPMG and Manager of Financial Advisory Services at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Before
that he had a consulting career and faculty appointments at Emory University and the University of
Georgia. He was the overwhelming choice ofthe search committee and has been wannly received by
the faculty in the Gatton School. Dr. Blackwell was welcomed with a round of applause.
Dr. Brockman asked for a motion for acceptance of PR 3. Mr. Gatton so moved. Mr. Mobley
seconded the motion, and it passed without dissent.
Mr. Gatton said that everyone is thrilled to have Dr. Blackwell at the University. He noted
that Dr. Blackwell tumed down a rather large university before UK made the offer, and he has been
offered the deanship at another major university which he tumed down. (See PR 3 on the Board of
Trustees website, www.uky.edu/ Trustees, under agenda.)
J. President Eli Capilouto’s Remarks — "The Kentucky Promise”
President Capilouto gave the Board an update on the progress with the strategic review that he
undertook upon his arrival. He often speaks about "The Kentucky Promise,” and for him, it is no
better manifest than in the words of Professor Finney. The University does everything from save and
extend lives to stir souls, and he gets to witness this every day. This progress must continue.
He told the Board that he has completed conversations with faculty and staff in all the
university’s colleges and libraries. He has met with the leadership of the University Senate and Staff
Senate many times and deeply enjoyed talking with prospective students and their families about
their dreams of an education at the University of Kentucky. He has talked with state and local policy
makers, and it has been a particular delight for him.
Over the past few months, he has been meeting with the alumni. He has met with them in
New York, Atlanta, Louisville, and Washington, DC. Washington, DC was just like previous visits
where he had graduates. Many of them were young who now work in great positions, who are
entrepreneurs, and who are in the public sector as well. They all say the same thing to him. They
work alongside people who received their educations from the most prestigious universities, and they
feel their education at UK far surpasses their colleagues. They are so proud to be graduates ofthe
University of Kentucky. He has talked to many donors and business leaders about the university’s
future, and he is glad to say that it has resonated.
President Capilouto reminded the Board members ofthe University Review Committee
headed by Dr. Hollie Swanson that fonned the basis of much ofthe Board of Trustees discussion at

the retreat. He said that he had the privilege of echoing it in his Investiture speech entitled "The
Kentucky Promise.”
He conducted focus groups as he visited many communities endorsing what the Board
concluded at the retreat. He shared what will be the university’s guide and principles to further chart
the course.
First, everyone needs to keep mindful and be mindful ofthe priorities and mission of the
University. He wants to work to further enhance and improve the university’s transparency.
He heard often that it was just not enough to be a diverse university. The University of
Kentucky has to be inclusive, and it is important to continue gathering infonnation from key
constituents. A principle that has served him well in his administrative career is find good people, set
up a good process, and trust it.
Here are some meg or steps that will be taken over the next several months. Many have heard
discussions and concems expressed about the administration at universities across the country and at
UK. The first office that he will take under examination is the Office ofthe President. Listed below
are questions that will be answered as decisions are made for the best organization to serve this
• Are roles and functions clear?
• Are we the right size?
• Do we need to be streamlined?
Those are the kinds of questions to be answered. He wants it to be a leaming organization
where he receives feedback and acts on it constructively. He wants to develop that kind of culture
across all ofthe administration at UK.
Based on what was concluded at the Board retreat, steps have already been taken to enhance
the undergraduate educational experience. There will be more recruiters in the field. Top
scholarships will be increased. The Honors Program will be expanded. And, the marvelous living
and leaming environment that many have read about in an article in the Chronicle of Higher
Education will be improved. This is just one example that featured the university’s first generation
scholars program.
President Capilouto said there needs to be a transfonnation of many of the facilities on the
core campus. It has got to be attractive to students. It has got to support the creativity that is in many
ofthe undergraduate programs. It has got to be a fantastic work enviromnent for the faculty so they
collaborate and develop partnerships and relationships to extend their work and better educate the
students, and always, to remember the university’s commitment to fellow citizens in Kentucky. As
part ofthe facilities transfonnation, a public/private partnership to revitalize residence halls has been
explored. He asked Vice President Angie Martin to come forward and give an update on the
public/private partnership.
Ms. Martin said she was pleased to give the Board an update on the status ofthe housing
development plan. At the October Board retreat, housing was identified as a top priority because the

average age of housing on campus is 44 years. The deferred maintenance ofthe housing facilities
totals over $200 million dollars. UK has a $2.7 billion budget, but we have to put that in perspective
ofthe housing enterprise. The $200 million deferred maintenance compares to housing’s annual
budget of less than $30 million, which is a large issue. The reason why this is so important is that we
know that students who live on campus are more successful at UK and across the country. UK’s on
campus freshmen had a retention rate of 83 percent this past fall, but off campus students only had a
retention rate of 76 percent. UK’s on campus students had a GPA of 2.9, and off campus students
had a GPA of 2.5. There is definitely a track record of success.
President Capilouto has set a long tenn goal to basically replace and renovate all under-
graduate and graduate housing, as well as expand the number of beds to serve the students. As part
of this overall plan, we have an immediate short-tenn goal of opening a new residence hall of at least
600 undergraduate beds in the fall of 2013. This is a very aggressive timeline and means we have to
start construction on April 1, 2012.
We are looking at basically two different options on how we develop and meet this challenge:
go the traditional route for housing as in the past, which is funded by agency or university debt and
managed intemally. We are also looking at an altemative approach which is a public/private
partnership. What we are trying to do in evaluating this method is to find the best option that first
and foremost maintains affordability for the students. We also want to preserve the university’s
financial capacity, which means debt capacity. We have a lot of capital construction needs on
campus, and the way we can preserve debt capacity, if we went into the public/private partnership, is
by having a partnership with a developer that can provide a significant amount of equity. Hopefully,
they can bring money to the table that is not debt but equity. And finally, we want to meet this
aggressive timeline with as minimal disruption of the campus as possible.
A little infonnation on affordability is that our average annual increase in housing rates over
the last nine years has been 6 percent every year. If you think about the condition ofthe facilities that
we have and the rate increases that we have been dealing with, you can see that we cannot really
continue on this path in the future. Our rates are very comparable to the local markets, and we are
already getting into the issue of affordability with our students. Our traditional hall’s rate for this
year’s fall and spring semesters is $4,510, and our premium residence hall rate is $6,030.
To evaluate which method we want to use, we issued a Request for Proposal in October. We
asked developers to submit proposals to replace and expand, as well as manage our housing
enterprise. We broke this into two phases. We know Phase I. We want a facility open August 2013.
Phase II is the larger concept of doing everything else. What we were looking for was a developer
that basically has the financial wherewithal and the experience to do such a project.
President Capilouto created a committee to evaluate the proposals, and there are eight
members on the committee. At this time, I want to thank this committee. They worked incredibly
hard over a small period of time, even devoting the Sunday of Thanksgiving break. We have three of
the members in the audience: Sergio Melgar, Robert Mock, and James Hardymon. I want to offer a
special thanks to Mr. Hardymon, who through his dedication and love ofthe institution agreed to give
so much of his time to this proj ect.

The charge to this group was to select a developer to pursue a possible P3. We have not made
the decision. When I saw the article in the Wall Street Journal, I kind of gasped a little at the first
sentence. We have not said "yes, this is a done deal and we are moving forward.” That is not it at
all. We asked this committee to evaluate the proposals and pick one developer to start negotiations
because these types of deals are so intricate that it is not feasible to actually go through negotiations
with more than one developer at the same time. So, we have asked the committee to pick a developer
to negotiate with and then we will evaluate which option we want to go.
How did the committee evaluate these proposals? As I said before, it was based on the
wherewithal to finance such a large project. Of course, we are also looking for a developer that has
prior history with building and constructing large scale projects, and we wanted experience with
managing student housing.
The committee went through an extensive evaluation process. We had an educational session,
and we toured our own facilities. We had a presentation on the status of housing. We even had
assistance by extemal advisors. We had Anderson Strickler, who is a well-known education real
estate consultant. And, we also called upon BKD, our extemal auditors, to help us evaluate the
proposals and the impact on our financial statements, because that was one of our key goals through
this examination. The committee had a comprehensive examination and discussion of each proposal.
We did reference checks and had presentations and interviews. We short-listed the proposals and
brought in three companies. We also perfonned site visits to some ofthe developments.
I am pleased to tell you that the committee has recommended to President Capilouto that we
pursue a possible P3 with Education Realty Trust. Education Realty Trust is a REIT or real estate
investment trust. For those of you on the Investment Committee, this is very familiar. It is a publicly
traded company. It has more than 50 years of experience in student housing, including four on-
campus facilities with the University of Louisville. And, what is really amazing to us is they
proposed a significant equity investment. It might be helpful if I take a few seconds to explain the
history of these public/private partnerships. This is not new.
Prior to 2008, the common practice was to fonn separate 50l (c) 3 corporations and issue l00
percent debt. It was a way to off balance sheet the debt. After the economic downtum, Moody’s and
S & P, as well as the accounting profession itself; said we have got to start recognizing this debt, both
in tenns of bond ratings as well as possibly recording the debt on the balance sheet. So, the evolution
of P3 arrangements has really changed over time. EDR, the company’s stock symbol, proposed a l00
percent equity investment for Phase I and Phase II. It is likely unprecedented. Nonnally, today you
can see up to about 35 percent equity investment, but EDR really sees this as a potential game
changer for the industry, where we are not just going to do one or two donns, but we are really
looking at how we can replace all of housing and do it in the most affordable way for students.
EDR has experience with not only the University of Louisville but also the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Penn State System, and the University of Colorado. They have
developed over 83,000 beds in the country. They also are very familiar with sustainability efforts.
They have done many projects with gold and silver LEED certification, and they have proposed to
look at the possibility of geothennal heating and cooling on our campus as well.

Now, I want to stress that we are not asking for Board action today. This is just an
infonnation session. But, I wanted to go through our next steps. First, we are going to negotiate with
EDR and develop a very general Memorandum of Understanding on how we proceed. It is going to
deal more with Phase I for the single facility. We expect to build this facility on Haggin Field,
behind Haggin Hall on University Drive near the library.
To detennine if the P3 is an optimal solution for us, we will evaluate the potential agreement
which will address the rental rates, not only now but in the future for our students. Our goal is to
replace the existing housing and have annual increases that are less than what we are currently doing.
So, our students will be paying in the future less than what they would nonnally but live in new
If the P3 does prove optimal, then the action will be asking the Board of Trustees to approve a
ground lease where we would lease the land to EDR, and they would construct a facility. It would be
a very long ground lease. In this business, it runs from 40 to 60 years. So, it is going to depend on
the negotiations ofthe contract on how long our ground lease will be. In most of these situations, the
facilities revert to the university at the end of the ground lease.
If we get this far, we will then also enter into an Affiliation Agreement with EDR, and this
gets into all the details you can only imagine that would come with allowing or asking a developer to
manage our housing. We are talking about the operation and maintenance requirements of this
facility. We are talking about the rental rates and who is going to collect the rental rates, insurance,
and UK’s employees. In response to our proposal, EDR has agreed to make a commitment to our
existing employees. So, we would have three different options for our staff; if we move this way.
We could find our custodians and maintenance folks other positions on campus. We do have a lot of
tumover in that area. So, if they are currently employed, we can handle it. We could work with EDR
on transferring the employees to them if the employees choose to do so, or we can keep them on as
our own employees, and then reimburse or have EDR reimburse us. EDR is willing to work with us
for any of those options as we move forward. Of course, nothing is too good to be true. And so, we
will have to work through the details and see what is possible.
Now, we want this to be as a transparent and inclusive process as possible. So, we have
already initiated some of the discussions, and we will continue to have discussions with the
Govemor, the legislative leadership, bond rating agencies, local communities, as well as faculty,
staff; and students. So, this is where we are at this point. We can give you updates as we go through
this process. We will need to decide in January which way we want to go if a donn is to open in fall
2013. A funny story with that is that President Capilouto said he wanted a new donn and asked,
"When can you have it open?” Bob Wiseman said, "It is no problem. We can have it open in August
20l4.” President Capilouto responded, "Well, you got the month right.” This is a very aggressive
timeline, but we will have a new donn in 20l3 whether it is in a traditional manner or whether it is a
public/private partnership.
Ms. Martin concluded her remarks by stressing that if UK goes with the public/private
partnership, it would only be for Phase I. After Phase I is completed, they could then step back re-
evaluate it, and decide how to approach Phase II. They could decide: do we want to do it all, do we
want to do it with this developer, or do we want to do it in a traditional manner?

President Capilouto thanked Ms. Martin, all members of the committee, and many other staff
on campus who put in countless hours working on the Student Housing Development Plan. He said
the Board and admini