xt7c862b8z3w https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7c862b8z3w/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 20050514 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, 2005-05-jun14. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2005-05-jun14. 2005 2011 true xt7c862b8z3w section xt7c862b8z3w 

Meeting of the Board of Trustees
University of Kentucky
June 14,2005
1:00 P.M. 18th Floor Patterson Office Tower
Accompanying materials: President's Report and Action Items
PR 1          President's Report to the Trustees
PR 2          Personnel Actions
PR 3          Proposed Amendment to the Governing Regulations
PR 4          Administrative Regulation Revision
PR 5          Reappointment of Board of Directors University of Kentucky Research Foundation
PR 6          Reappointment to Board of Directors of the Fund for Advancement of Education and Research in the University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Medical Center
PR 7          Agreement between University of Kentucky and Kentucky Medical Services
Foundation PR 8          Feasibility Study for Retirement Community at Coldstream
Special Committee for Governing Regulations
SCGR 1     Proposed Revisions to the Governing Regulations
Academic Affairs Committee Report
AACR 1     Change of Name and Organizational Structure of the Center for Women's Health
AACR 2     Change in Name of Degrees
AACR 3     Change in Name of an Educational Unit
AACR 4     Change in Name of a Degree
AACR 5     Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree
AACR 6    Master of Arts in Teaching World Languages

Finance Committee Report
FCR 1        Anonymous Gift to the College of Law
FCR2        Anonymous Gift to the Pediatric Exercise Physiology Laboratory
FCR 3        Christine D. Luckett Estate Gift
FCR 4        Melvin Godby and Tim Williams Pledge
FCR 5        Kent Taylor Pledge
FCR 6        Mrs. Louisiana Wood Simpson Gift-in-Kind
FCR 7        Gifts and Pledges to the John R. Mink Chair for Pediatric Dentistry and Oral Health
FCR 8       David and Andrea Jacobs Pledge FCR 9        Consol Energy, Inc. Gift-in-Kind FCR 10      Stephen Branscum Pledge FCR 11      Automsoft International Gift-in-Kind
FCR 12      Gifts and Pledges to the Patrick P. Deluca Pharmaceutical Technology Professorship FCR 13      Ashwini Anand, M.D. Gift and Pledge FCR 14      Report of Leases FCR 15      Approval of Leases FCR 16      Authorization to Acquire Properties for Construction of Parking Garage Associated
with the Patient Care Facility Project FCR 17      Capital Projects FCR 18      A Resolution of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky Authorizing the
Issuance of Approximately $11,370,000 of University of Kentucky Consolidated
Educational Buildings Revenue Bonds, Series U, to be Dated the First Day of the
Month in which the Bonds are Sold FCR 19      Disposal of Personal Property FCR 20      2006-08 Capital Request FCR 21      2005-06 Operating and Capital Budget
Student Affairs Committee Report
SACR 1      Code of Student Conduct Revision
Top 20 Business Plan presentation
2005-06 Operating and Capital Budget presentation

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, Tuesday, June 14, 2005.
The Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky met at 1:00 p.m. (Lexington time) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005, in the Board Room on the 18th Floor of Patterson Office Tower.
A.        Meeting Opened
Mr. James Hardymon, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. and asked the secretary of the Board, Ms. Elaine Wilson, to call the roll.
B.         Roll Call
The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call of the roll: Mira Ball, Stephen Branscum, Marianne Smith Edge, Ann Haney, James Hardymon (Chair), Michael Kennedy, Pamela May, Billy Joe Miles, Roy Moore, Phillip Patton, Steven Reed, Frank Shoop, Alice Sparks, Myra Leigh Tobin, JoEtta Wickliffe, Billy Wilcoxson, Russ Williams, Elaine Wilson, and Barbara Young. Absent from the meeting was Rachel Watts Webb. The university administration was represented by President Lee T. Todd, Jr., Interim Provost Scott Smith, Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Frank Butler, Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Michael Karpf, Executive Vice President for Research Wendy Baldwin, and General Counsel Barbara W. Jones.
Members of the various news media were also in attendance. A quorum being present, the Chair declared the meeting officially open for the conduct of business at 1:04 p.m.
C.         Consent Items
Mr. Hardymon said the Minutes, PR 2, and FCRs 1 through 14 were consent items on the agenda. He asked if there were any questions or comments about the consent items. Ms. Sparks moved approval. Her motion, seconded by Ms. Haney, carried without dissent. The consent items follow:
Minutes-May 10,2005 PR 2         Personnel Actions
FCR 1       Anonymous Gift to the College of Law (Consent)
FCR 2       Anonymous Gift to the Pediatric Exercise Physiology Laboratory (Consent) FCR 3       Christine D. Luckett Estate Gift (Consent) FCR 4       Melvin Godby and Tim Williams Pledge (Consent) FCR 5       Kent Taylor Pledge (Consent)
FCR 6       Mrs. Louisiana Wood Simpson Gift-in-Kind (Consent) FCR 7       Gifts and Pledges to the John R. Mink Chair for Pediatric Dentistry and Oral Health Research (Consent)

FCR 8       David and Andrea Jacobs Pledge (Consent)
FCR 9       Consol Energy, Inc. Gift-in-Kind (Consent)
FCR 10     Stephen Branscum Pledge (Consent)
FCR 11     Automsoft International Gift-in-Kind (Consent)
FCR 12     Gifts and Pledges to the Patrick P. Deluca Pharmaceutical Technology
Professorship (Consent)
FCR 13     Ashwini Anand, M.D. Gift and Pledge (Consent)
FCR 14     Report of Leases (Consent)
D.        President's Report
President Todd recognized Mary Margaret Colliver, University Public Affairs Director, who had been on medical leave due to a serious accident crossing Limestone Street after leaving work one evening. He said it was good to have her back on campus. The Board gave Ms. Colliver a round of applause.
President Todd called attention to the following items in PR 1:
A record 6,272 students were awarded bachelors, master's, doctoral, and professional degrees at Commencement on May 8 at Rupp Arena.
Various members of the administration recently spent eight days touring more than 20 Kentucky cities as part of "The Dream Tour." A new initiative, "The Commonwealth Collaboratives" that directly engages UK faculty and student researchers in helping solve some of the state's most intractable problems, was unveiled during the tour. President Todd said the tour was delightful, and he praised Vice President Terry Mobley and his staff for their good work in orchestrating the tour.
Several university representatives accompanied Governor Ernie Fletcher to World Expo 2005 in Japan in mid-May. The university was asked to host a luncheon during Kentucky week. There were 52 Japanese men in attendance at the luncheon. President Todd praised Dr. Baldwin, Professor Eric Grulke, and Professor Kozo Saito for their great work in planning the event. Professor Everett McCorvey provided entertainment, and the audience was very touched by his Stephen Foster medley.
Kentucky moved from 33rd to 30th in national rankings of federal spending by the National Science Foundation from 2001 to 2002. UK moved from 31st to 28th in public universities and is making progress in the right direction.
Two UK students, Michael T. Davidson and Karla Conn, have received prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowships with a value of $100,000.
The College of Public Health graduated its first class of doctoral students at Commencement. President Todd read an e-mail from Dean Steve Wyatt stating

that the college has received full accreditation for five years. This is an amazing result, considering it is the first time the college has been visited by an accrediting body. The college is an amalgamation of existing services that did not cost the university any money. This is a great accomplishment in such a short period of time.
UK's research awards were up by 14.7 percent at the end of April, and at the end of May, they were up 17 percent over last year. This will be another record year in research. President Todd said that he was very proud of Dr. Baldwin and her staff for their accomplishments.
President Todd encouraged the Board to read the other good items in the report. Report on Top 20 Business Plan
President Todd provided an update on the Top 20 Business Plan by making a slide presentation. He said that his report is an explanation of the process.
The university contracted with the Stillwater Group through a Request for Proposal process to develop a business plan. When HB 1 was passed, the university was given the mandate to become a major comprehensive research university ranked nationally in the top twenty public universities. The university was given the goal without the path to achieve it.   This business plan will create the path. The university's staff is working with the Council on Postsecondary Education to assure UK is in alignment with the state's public agenda.
Meetings to discuss the objectives, design, and implementation of the business plan have already taken place. This will be a campus-wide plan. Ernie Yanarella, Chair of the Senate Council, attended three meetings in one day. His meetings involved three different groups that he had associations with on campus.
The initial phase will be to determine UK's present competitive position and the gap necessary to achieve Top 20 status. Only public institutions that have at least $20 million in annual federal funding are included in the analysis. Four domains of competitiveness have been identified: undergraduate education, graduate education, faculty recognition, and sponsored research. The multi-dimensional nature of a university of this size needs to be taken into consideration. This will give the university a way to plan for each of the initiatives, by breaking down the tasks into those four categories.
Rankings are subjective. The mandate in HB 1 did not state exactly what that one sentence meant, and the staff has been working on that definition. Data are sometimes hard to get. It takes the federal government a while to determine the numbers, but the numbers presented on research by UK can be used because they are independently verified.

The impact of UK's land grant mission and outreach is one that is difficult to measure. "The Commonwealth Collaboratives" will try to put measures there. UK will be approaching outreach differently from any university in America in an effort to figure out how to measure and gauge outreach to make sure UK is making progress.
Attaining Top 20 status is a process and is not an end in itself. Some people have suggested that this mandate be put aside, especially during these last three years with tight budget times, but the university needs to be going forward. It needs to be in the process of thinking about those institutions that it wants to emulate, working on a daily basis to get to that position. The process is very important right now, and the university is making headway.
The university marketplace is highly competitive. Other universities are on the move as well. It is a zero sum game, and for UK to move up in rankings, another university must move down. There are at least 100 universities wanting to be in the top twenty. Some changes are slow, and it takes time. These are cautions that the consultants have brought forward, although some of the university's measures tracked show good progress.
President Todd summarized the development of the business plan as follows:
Analysis of UK's current competitive position.
Identification of strategies to close the gap between UK's current position
and Top 20 status.
Determination of source and amount of funds necessary for investment. Selection of measures of public engagement. Preparation of the long-range business plan.
He reiterated that the process is inclusive. The Stillwater Group has met with President Tom Layzell and his entire Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) staff to talk about the process. CPE is very pleased with the openness of UK's process. He noted that the university is keeping the state abreast of the process as well.
E.        Proposed Amendment to the Governing Regulations (PR 3)
President Todd reported that PR 3 involves a change in the Governing Regulations. The amended Governing Regulations were submitted to the Board at its previous meeting for consideration. In compliance with the university's regulations, the amendment has been on the table for 30 days and is now coming to the Board for final action. He recommended that PR 3 be approved. Mr. Patton moved approval. His motion, seconded by Mr. Branscum, carried without dissent. (See PR 3 at the end of the Minutes.)

F.         Administrative Regulation Revision (PR 4)
President Todd said that PR 4 is a revision to the Administrative Regulations. This recommendation brings lecturers more in line with the prevailing standards within the university. He asked Interim Provost Smith to comment on the revision.
Dr. Smith explained that this is a change that requires Board action because it establishes a new academic title series of senior lecturer, and the Governing Regulations specify that this be approved by the Board of Trustees. The lecturer series, a full-time lecturer, is a solution in part to the SACS issue of excessive reliance on part-time instructors. Full-time lecturers are an important part of the faculty in the academic community, and this and other measurers, including extending full benefits to lecturers, is a way of elevating the status of that particular position. This specific action is to create a senior lecturer position and make lecturers eligible for two-year terms of appointment rather than one-year terms as now exists.
Mr. Hardymon pointed out that this recommendation was reviewed at an earlier committee meeting that morning. It was not an agenda item or a vote item at the committee meeting. Many Board members attending the meeting had quite a bit of discussion on it. He called for a motion. On motion made by Ms. Sparks, seconded by Ms. Ball and carried, PR 4 was approved. (See PR 4 at the end of the Minutes.)
G.        Reappointment of Board of Directors University of Kentucky Research Foundation (PR 5)
President Todd said that PR 5 is a recommendation that the Board approve the reappointments of Trustee Pamela May for a three-year term and public member Henry Jackson for a three-year term to the Board of Directors of the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. Mr. Shoop moved approval. His motion, seconded by Ms. Haney, carried without dissent. (See PR 5 at the end of the Minutes.)
H.        Reappointment to Board of Directors of The Fund for Advancement of Education and Research in the University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Medical Center (PR 6)
President Todd said that PR 6 is the recommendation for approval of the reappointment of Carol Farmer for a two-year term to the Board of Directors of The Fund for Advancement of Education and Research in the Chandler Medical Center. Ms. Ball moved approval. Ms. Smith Edge seconded her motion, and it carried without dissent. (See PR 6 at the end of the Minutes.)
I.         Agreement between University of Kentucky and Kentucky Medical Services Foundation (PR 7)
President Todd asked Mr. Butler to comment on PR 7.

Mr. Butler reported that PR 7 is the annual review of the contract with Kentucky Medical Services Foundation, which is the group that bills and collects professional fees for physicians at the Medical Center. He noted that a summary of the revisions was in the background information and stated that there were no major changes in the agreement. These are annual adjustments to the contract.
Mr. Hardymon called for a motion of approval, and Ms. Tobin moved approval. Mr. Williams seconded her motion, and it carried without dissent. (See PR 7 at the end of the Minutes.)
J.         Feasibility Study for Retirement Community at Coldstream (PR 8)
President Todd said that PR 8 is a recommendation regarding the feasibility study for the retirement community at Coldstream. He recognized Dr. Jack Blanton, who had been helping with this effort, and asked Ms. Sparks, Trustee representative on the Task Force, to make a report.
Ms. Sparks thanked Mr. Hardymon and President Todd for allowing time for the report. She said that it is a very important issue and began her report.
In the last three or four years the concept of a retirement community attached to a university has become very popular. There are now at least 50 university-related developments around the country.
In the Southeastern Conference alone, the University of Florida has opened a facility in Gainesville this past year, and Alabama has a retirement community under construction on its campus at Tuscaloosa. Louisiana State University and Vanderbilt University are also studying the possibilities.
Why are universities developing retirement communities? There are several reasons.
     The flurry of activity in college towns offers the chance for a stimulating retirement and lifelong learning opportunities not easily found in traditional retirement settings.
    Attracting affluent alumni and friends of the university back to campus offers opportunity for cementing relations with these important groups and providing an enhanced means of fundraising.
    For land grant institutions, the development of a retirement community provides an additional way to meet the university's service obligations to the general public.

    For research institutions, the health and well-being of the residents of a "different kind" of retirement community offers an opportunity for geriatric research. Such a facility at Coldstream can enhance UK's national reputation as a research Center on Aging.
    And for all colleges and universities, senior citizens can enrich the lives and learning opportunities for students and faculty when they are integrated into university life.
Last September Dr. Blanton, who is chair of the Task Force, made a presentation to this Board at Dr. Todd's request, asking the Board to approve the mailing of a request for proposal inviting developer-operators to submit proposals for a retirement community on Coldstream Farm.
To refresh the Board's memory a little bit, there are 192 acres of Coldstream west of the bounded area for the research park undesignated for future use. We are not trying to develop any part of Coldstream that could be used for research facilities. Currently, the College of Agriculture has its dairy herd and its poultry facility on this 192 acre tract. The poultry facility will remain where it is, and the dairy herd will be relocated in collaboration with the dairy program at Eastern Kentucky University. The retirement community will likely take up 80 to 100 acres.
The concept that is envisioned for Coldstream is a Continuous Care Retirement Community. It will include patio homes and apartments for independent living and apartments for assisted living, and it will provide single rooms for skilled nursing care, including rooms for patients with various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's. The number of units and the pricing schedule for each at this time is undetermined because these numbers will be established with finality following extensive research by the developer-operator.
Further, the concept for this facility contemplates what is known as Life Care Contract. This concept is new to Kentucky, with only one retirement facility in Louisville offering such a contract. The plan for Coldstream is that residents with the standard contract could move from independent, to assisted, to nursing home care without an increase in price. The front-end purchase price of the contract will be established actuarially to provide for the increased cost as residents move along the continuum from independent living to skilled nursing care.
In addition, the operator will offer a 50 percent return or a 95 percent return of the resident's initial purchase price to the resident's estate at the time of his or her death if the resident pays a premium on the front end for such a remittance. There will be a monthly fee to cover maintenance, cleaning, lawn care, a limited number of meals, transportation, etc. The fee will, of course, be subject to inflationary increases, which everyone can understand. The resident at no time will have an equity interest in the property, just as the developer-operator will have no equity interest in the property. Title will always remain with the university.

The university sent out its request for proposal (RFP) in late January to a large number of retirement home developers and operators. Only two responses were received, and the Task Force believes that the low response rate is attributable to the fact that it wisely noted preference would be given to those who had experience developing retirement communities in conjunction with universities, and the fact that UK is putting no money into this endeavor. That is really important. The development and operating costs will be entirely borne by the developer-operator, which was one of President Todd's requirements.
One of the two proposals received was from The Praxeis company out of Jacksonville, Florida. Praxeis is the developer and operator of the facility built in conjunction with the University of Florida at Gainesville known as Oak Hammock. The other proposal was a joint venture between CRSA, Memphis, Tennessee, and Miller-Valentine, Dayton, Ohio. CRSA has been responsible for the development at Pennsylvania State University and the facility presently under construction at Tuscaloosa, Alabama known as Capstone Village.
President Todd named an evaluation committee to review the two proposals and select the firm to proceed with the development at Coldstream. On behalf of Dr. Blanton and the Board, Ms. Sparks thanked the members of the committee for their time and effort. Other members of the committee are:
Jack Blanton, who serves as a special assistant to the President
Professor Greg Brock, Department of Family Studies
Frank Butler, Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration
Stan Key, Director for Alumni Affairs
Dr. Sam Matheny, Chair of the Department of Family Medicine
John Park, Executive Director for Coldstream
Jean Peaval, retired professor representing the Association of Retired Faculty
Bob Wiseman, Associate Vice President for Facilities Management
Dean Allan Vestal, College of Law
The following staff members also represented the university:
Bill Harris, Director of Purchasing
Naomi Emmons, Central Purchasing Manager
Marc Mathews, Controller
T. Lynn Williamson, Legal Office
This group reviewed each of the proposals in detail. They followed up with getting recommendations from various sources. A team of four visited the facility in Gainesville. Ms. Sparks reported she had the opportunity to go to Tuscaloosa and see their facility under construction.

The Board action that the President is bringing today is one of two actions that the Board will be asked to consider, providing this project is approved.
The first objective of the developer will be to conduct a series of studies to determine the feasibility of the project. This will include demographic studies, market studies, legal reviews, sales efforts, etc. to establish the degree of certainty for success of the project. A memorandum of agreement between UK and the developer will encompass the first phase as noted in the Board action.
If, at the conclusion of these initial studies by the developer, Praxeis is persuaded of the feasibility of this development, the Board will be asked to enter into a long-term ground lease of no more than 50 years with a non-profit corporation that will be formed to oversee the development and issue tax-free bonds to provide funds necessary to construct the facility. The total cost of the facility is estimated to be in the $90 million to $100 million range with construction costs in the $75 million to $80 million range. It is expected that the project will provide for an estimated 400 residents with an annual operating budget of approximately $15 million. It is expected that no fewer than 100 persons will be employed at the site.
The independent nonprofit foundation that will be formed will in turn sublease the acreage for the site to Praxeis. The reasons for the independent foundation are several: (a) to build a wall between this board and the foundation so as to protect the university from any liability that might result from the development; (b) to serve as the legal instrumentality for the issuance of tax-free bonds, and (c) to oversee the development and operation of the facility. It is really important that someone is working with the developer so it is the university's community, too, and not just the developer's.
Membership on the Foundation Board will consists of persons not affiliated with the university but who are good, close friends of UK with an interest in the retirement community. The Foundation Board will also have persons affiliated with the university, but they will be in a minority. This arrangement gives the Foundation Board the independence it needs for legal separation from UK, yet it allows for the desired ties with the university. The Board will play a key role in decisions relating to the construction and operation of the retirement community. In effect, it will oversee the development and operation of the facility and have a key role in determining most policy matters of governance pertaining to the retirement village.
The Praxeis company is anticipating, and in fact expecting, close ties with the university. The retirement village would provide transportation to campus and back to the retirement community throughout the day to such university events as musical concerts, art exhibitions, athletic competitions, drama events, special lecturers, and scheduled classes. It is expected that the residents of the retirement community will have a great deal to contribute that will enrich lives of students and faculty on campus and vice versa. This is what makes Coldstream unique and what has attracted the Praxeis company to UK.

- 10-
There will be an economic return to the university through the foundation. Terms will be worked out to provide a lease fee for the acreage the project eventually takes up. Also, there will be a return to the university based on the number of living units and the occupancy rate. These sums will be determined and presented to the UK Board when the Task Force returns with the second and final phase of the contract and ground lease once it is quite certain the project will go forward.
As for the timetable, there is very likely a four-year time line between today and move-in. In August 2009 the Task force would expect the first residents to move into the Coldstream Continuous Care Retirement Community. The average age of the resident population is estimated to be 78, and it is expected that the minimum age for eligibility to be between 62 and 65.
Ms. Sparks said, in her opinion, this is one of the most exciting issues presented to the Board in her six-year tenure. She said that she appreciated President Todd's interest in bringing this to the Board, and she certainly hoped the Board would approve it. She said that she or Dr. Blanton would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Wilcoxson said that he was the one that made the initial motion to approve the project, and he still approves of the project. He said his main concern is the placement of the facility on the Coldstream property. The location recommended appears to be on an expensive piece of property at Coldstream. He asked if anyone had looked into whether the recommended property is the most expensive property there that could possibly generate income for the university in the future.
Dr. Blanton displayed a map of the Coldstream property. He agreed with Mr. Wilcoxson that it is probably the most valuable piece of property there; however, it is very likely the project will go there. He reported that a housing development had started, and the value of that land today is estimated to be in the $50,000 range per acre. The problem is that the LFUCG Planning Commission said the only thing that they would consider at this time for this property is residential. There is, of course, a longtime horizon, and no one knows what will happen in the future.
Dr. Blanton said, in his opinion, the nursing home facility would be comparable to residential property. When you take all of the facts into consideration, this is a pretty good decision for that property. Obviously, if the university could get commercial zoning out there, it would have a higher value. The Planning Commission said that as they look at the comprehensive land use plan for the community, it is just not in the cards at this time. That is not looking into the future.
Dr. Blanton explained that the recommendation before the Board today is to have the Praxeis company study this acreage and show exactly where everything will be, such as how many units will be built of each type, the charges for those units, and any other pertinent kind of facts. That would then be a part of the lease agreement that would go from the Board to the independent foundation. He explained that there will be one more opportunity for the Board to consider this project; however, the Board must act in good

faith. By this he means that if Praxeis comes back and says this is feasible, then to pull the rug out from under them would not be a good thing to do.
Mr. Wilcoxson said that he did not want to pull the rug out from under them, but he did want the Board to make the right decision on placing the facility and the value because the Board is using a pro forma on what this entity is going to generate for the university. There are no guarantees whatsoever, and the Board should make sure that what property is left will have some valuable use in the future.
Dr. Blanton agreed that it is pro forma and there are no guarantees. He said he could not agree more about the property having some valuable use in the future. He reiterated that there would be one more full review of this project when it comes back to the Board. He said he did not know how long that would take. If the Board comes to some different conclusions, then feel free to do so, but the Board is acting in good faith with the Praxeis company.
Mr. Miles said he had a lot of respect for Ted Bates, a former Board member, and Mr. Bates has opposed this retirement facility since the beginning of the research park. He asked how the Board decided that this property could never be used as a research park.
Dr. Blanton said that he did not think the Board had decided that it would not be a research park. When the Board established the boundaries of the research park, it saw that as its potential growth to the foreseeable future, but again, nobody can predict the future. Some day it might be needed for a research park, but in the meantime, it would not be making any return to the university in terms of its economy.
Mr. Patton asked for clarification regarding Dr. Blanton being told that it is doubtful the university could use it to build research buildings.
Dr. Blanton said that unless the political fortunes and public fortunes of the community change, that is exactly right.
Mr. Wilcoxson pointed out that few people would have thought that every council member would have voted to close Rose Street. He is just saying that there is a possibility.
Ms. Ball stated that she understood that the Board is just approving a feasibility study, and the Praxeis company will pay for the study.
Dr. Blanton concurred with Ms. Ball's understanding.
Mr. Harydmon called for a vote on PR 8, and Mr. Williams moved approval. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, and it carried without dissent. (See PR 8 at the end of the Minutes.)

- 12-
K,        Proposed Revisions to the Governing Regulations (SCGR 1)
Ms. Ball, Chair of the Special Committee for the Governing Regulations, said that the proposed revisions to the Governing Regulations were discussed at the last Board meeting, and