xt7zcr5n9h8g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7zcr5n9h8g/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 20021010 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, 2002-10-dec10. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2002-10-dec10. 2002 2011 true xt7zcr5n9h8g section xt7zcr5n9h8g 







                                        AGENDA

                              Meeting of the Board of Trustees
                                  University of Kentucky
                                         3:00 P.M.
                                    December 10, 2002
                              18th Floor Patterson Office Tower

Minutes

Accompanying items:

President's Report and Action Items

PR 2    Personnel Actions
PR 3    Appointment of Vice President for Development
PR 4    Appointment of the Executive Director of the University of Kentucky Research Foundation
PR 5    Naming of Auditorium and Conference Room in the Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center
PR 6    Approval of Administrative Regulation AR 11-1.6-2 Phased Retirement Policy and Plan

Academic Affairs Committee Report

AACR 1 Candidates for Degrees - University System
AACR 2 Candidates for Degrees - Community College System
AACR 3 Master of Architecture

Finance Committee Report

FCR 1   Report of Leases
FCR 2   Approval of Lease
FCR 3   Acquisition of Real Property at 403 and 409 Linden Walk
FCR 4   Establishment of Belle R. Johnston Quasi-Endowment Fund
FCR 5   Renaming Chair in Gatton College of Business and Economics
FCR 6   Thomas D. Clark Professorship Gifts and Pledges
FCR 7   Dr. Helen Thacker Hill Gift
FCR 8   USEC Inc. Gift and Pledge
FCR 9   Mountain Enterprises, Inc. Pledge
FCR 10  Thomas W. and Susan B. Lester Pledge
FCR 11  Palmer Engineering Pledge
FCR 12 The Trane Company Pledge
FCR 13  H. Lester Reynolds Gift
FCR 14  Thomas C. and Evelyn W. Finnie Gift and Pledge
FCR 15  2002-03 Budget Revisions




 











      Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky,
Tuesday, December 10, 2002.

      The Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky met at 3:00 p.m. (Lexington
time) on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 in the Board Room on the 18th Floor of Patterson
Office Tower.

      A.    Meeting Opened

      Mr. Steven Reed, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m., and Dr.
Elissa Plattner gave the invocation.

      B.    Roll Call

      The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call of the roll:
Ms. Marianne Smith Edge, Professor Michael Kennedy, Ms. Pamela R. May, Dr. Robert
P. Meriwether, Mr. Billy Joe Miles, Dr. Elissa Plattner, Dr. Claire Pomeroy, Mr. Steven
S. Reed (Chairperson), Mr. C. Frank Shoop, Ms. Marian Moore Sims, Ms. Alice Stevens
Sparks, Dr. W. Grady Stumbo, Ms. Myra Leigh Tobin, Ms. JoEtta Y. Wickliffe, Mr.
Billy B. Wilcoxson, Mr. Russ Williams, Ms. Elaine A. Wilson, and Ms. Barbara S.
Young. Absent from the meeting were Mr. Paul W. Chellgren and Mr. Tim Robinson.
The University administration was represented by President Lee T. Todd, Jr., Provost
Michael Nietzel, Acting Senior Vice President Jack C. Blanton, Senior Vice President
and Chancellor of the Medical Center James W. Holsinger, Jr., Acting Vice President for
Research James Boling, and General Counsel Paul C. Van Booven.

      Members of the various news media were also in attendance. A quorum being
present, the Chairperson declared the meeting officially open for the conduct of business
at 3:13 p.m.

      C.    Consent Agenda

      Mr. Reed asked for a motion for approval of the following consent items on the
agenda.
            Approval of Minutes - October 29, 2002
            PR 2 - Personnel Actions
            AACR 1 - Candidates for Degrees - University System
            AACR 2 - Candidates for Degrees - Community College System

      Mr. Shoop moved approval. His motion, seconded by Dr. Meriwether, carried
without dissent. (See PR 2, AACR 1 and AACR 2 at the end of the Minutes.)




 




2 -



      D.    President's Report to the Board of Trustees (PR 1)

      President Todd called attention to the following items in PR 1:

      1.    The University recently launched a Regional Technology Center in
             Morgan County. This is a project that Mr. Gene Williams has been very
             involved with, and the University will be operating that facility out of its
             Information Technology consulting area. This is an area where the
             University can put an emphasis and show Kentuckians how technology
             can create economic opportunities.
      2.    A leave policy for adoption and childbirth has been approved at the
             University and has been very well received on campus.
      3.    UK College of Law professor John Rogers has been confirmed as a Judge
             on the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
      4.    UK fossil fuel researchers have won a $5.7 million grant from the U.S.
             Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy to look at how to create
             clean fuels which is clearly a problem in Kentucky. This is the second
             time that UK has received a grant of this size from the Department of
             Energy. The University has gained the confidence of the Department of
             Energy, and that is how the University builds its reputation and achieves
             "Top 20" status.
      5.    The UK Gatton College of Business and Economics Department of
             Marketing ranks seventh in the nation among its peers based on faculty
             publication in top academic journals, the Journal of Marketing Education
             reports.
      6.    UK inducted 273 new donors into its Fellows Society this year.
      7.    UK launches an innovative online employment application system. This
             new system will make it easier for people to find employment at UK and
             also help track their resumes through the system.
      8.    The Capital Campaign for UK has raised $550 million of its $600 million
             goal. This is 92 percent of the goal.
      9.    Lexington Community College (LCC) Dental Laboratory Technology
             program graduates had a 100 percent pass rate on the National Board for
             Certification Recognized Graduate exam. The LCC Nursing Program
             graduates achieved a 98 percent pass rate on their board exams.
       10.   The Markey Cancer Center celebrated the opening of the Whitney-
             Hendrickson Facility. This is the fifth building at the Markey Cancer
             Complex. It is funded in part by a $2.5 million dollar gift from Marylou
             Whitney and John Hendrickson.
       11.   Kim Edwards in the English Department won the 2002 Whiting Writer's
             Award. It is one of only ten awarded annually by the Whiting Foundation
             in New York. The award is for emerging writers of exceptional talent and
             promise.

      President Todd noted that there are other outstanding awards listed in PR 1 and
asked the Board to review them.




 




3 -



       E.     Campus Master Plan Presentation

       President Todd said that a large amount of time had been set aside for the master
plan presentation. The most important contribution of this plan to campus is to try to
arrange the campus logically and try to take advantage of the uses. The short-term
decisions need to fit into the long-range plan. He reported that the University is using a
firm that has been willing to come to campus on several occasions to talk with faculty,
and they have also been involved in some of the discussions with the town-gown
situation. He introduced Adam Gross and asked him to come forward and make the
presentation.

       Mr. Adam Gross, principal with the firm of Ayers Saint Gross of Baltimore,
Maryland, began his presentation by making the observation that while students, faculty,
staff, and others come and go, the physical campus is a constant. He introduced his firm
as an architectural and planning firm that works exclusively with colleges and
universities all over the country. He said it had been a great experience to get to know
the University of Kentucky campus. He noted some unique aspects to the campus. One
is the very fine older and more traditional part of the campus, a wonderful core for the
undergraduate campus. Mr. Gross noted that this area of the campus has a very strong
physical relationship to the City of Lexington. Another aspect is the Medical Center and
its burgeoning growth resulting from the need for research space related to its functions.
Finally, there is the agricultural school which has had a significant impact over the years
on the development of the campus. The fact that these three elements are all on one
campus is really pretty unique. There are very few schools in the country that have that
amount of diversity, activity, and focus on one campus.

       Mr. Gross said that his presentation would be the culmination of a two-year
process of developing a long-term vision for the physical development of the campus.
He began by explaining why the University would want to develop a campus plan and
said there were three points he wanted the Board to consider. One is to think about this
plan as an incremental plan consisting of a broad vision and a very long-term view. This
plan will guide decisions that the University will make in the present and the future. One
very important reason to do a plan is to allow for incremental growth so the University
can develop in a planned way, in an elegant way, and in a way that will make the campus
more efficient and more functional. Another point is to plan for growth in such a way
that it improves the quality of the campus. This objective is very much tied to the Top
Twenty Task Force. It also ties into a lot of other visions and missions that the President,
the senior staff, the faculty and the administrators have shared with the planners to use
the growth of the campus to attract and retain the best faculty, staff and students. The
third point is to use the campus plan to raise the aspirations of the University and
parenthetically tie this into the capital campaign and other development plans as a means
to raise money. Hopefully, the vision of this plan can leverage and help with capital
planning and improve the ability of the University to raise funds to meet its mission.




 




4-



       Mr. Gross explained that the planning team tried to develop an overall process
that was highly inclusive. It was very much based on soliciting the best ideas that they
could from the university community. He reported that they had a wide variety of
meetings with a diverse group of people on campus and in the community, including
many of the surrounding neighborhood groups. The process began about a year and a
half ago with an observation phase. They tried to learn as much as possible about the
campus, both qualitatively and quantitatively. That then led to the development of a
series of principles. Those principles were the basis of a concept plan which he described
as a kind of a sketch before a painting. The principles consisted of some broad-brush
ideas about how the campus might reform itself. They then had a series of very intensive
workshops where they divided the campus into a series of precincts; the south part of
campus, the agricultural school, the Medical Center, the athletic facilities, the north part
of campus and the College Town were all precinct studies. He said that they met on
campus once each month for two to three days, went on long walks with people who live,
work, and play in those precincts, and tested many different ideas. They looked at
building locations, street closures, street relocations, parking adjustments and creation of
open space. After completing all the precinct plans, they put the campus back together
again and developed the final plan.

       Through a series of slides, Mr. Gross presented the findings of the observations
phase focusing on the history, growth and land use. He said that when they began, they
really wanted to understand not only the mission-related issues of growth but the pure
physical impact of growth within the City of Lexington. They went back about fifty
years because they are looking out about fifty years in the future. He explained that they
took the amount of growth between 1950 and 2000 and graphically showed that same
level of growth being repeated. This exercise demonstrated that the University could
manage significant growth within its current planning or acquisition boundary. Mr.
Gross remarked that it was reassuring to know that within the acquisition boundary, there
is a significant area for improvement and growth.

       Mr. Gross said that they were very fortunate to be able to tie their planning
process to the Top 20 Task Force Report. They worked very closely with the Provost's
Office, the President and senior staff to understand the Top 20 Task Force Report. Mr.
Gross observed that there are a lot of global issues in that report and many of them relate
to facilities, the need for research and teaching space, and for additional student life
space. Because the University is looking at Top 20 peers, they looked at peer institutions,
including the University of Georgia and the University of North Carolina (UNC) at
Chapel Hill and did some quick comparisons. He said the important thing to look at is
the gross square footage per student. UK's square footage per student is quite a bit lower
than UNC at Chapel Hill and also lower than the University of Georgia. Both of those
campuses are growing rapidly and trying to improve their ratios. Georgia is trying to
build enough on-campus housing to provide beds for every freshman and every
sophomore. UNC at Chapel Hill has a motto "a bed for every head." Both schools are
aggressively building new undergraduate housing, and they are incorporating other
functions like classrooms and teaching spaces in those residence halls. He said that they
spent a lot of time with Provost Nietzel determining what the growth of the University




 







might be and looking at trends in high school populations in the State of Kentucky and
other areas outside of the state that UK is recruiting from. He noted that they also
included Lexington Community College in their planning. He explained that by 2010
there would be a need to go from the current square footage of about 9.7 million square
feet to meet the population demands up to about 14 million square feet or a net increase
of about 4.4 million square feet. In 2020 it would go up to 17 million for another jump of
about 3.1 million square feet.

       Mr. Gross explained that you fit this amount of growth on campus by looking at
the land use and the acreage that the University has within its planning boundaries.
Currently, the University has more than 800 acres within the planning (acquisition)
boundary and owns about 707 acres of that land. Of the land the University now owns,
asphalt takes up about 107 acres (16%) for surface parking. He displayed charts showing
the benefit of having a series of four-level parking structures and said it would only take
about 4% of the land if surface lots were consolidated into parking structures.

       Mr. Gross then reviewed a series of campus planning principles.

       Create academic communities.
              Create multi-centered, multi-use campus districts.
       Create a sustainable pattern of growth.
              Act as stewards of the land.
       Create connections to the City of Lexington.
              Integrate planning efforts with the City of Lexington.

       He summarized the principles by stating that all of these principals were used to
guide the development of the physical plan. In addition, the Top 20 Task Force Report
translates into significant facility growth and impacts planning. The principles evident in
the quality of the older campus north of Washington Avenue should be used to guide this
growth, and there should be a long-term vision that can be achieved incrementally and to
respond in good economic times as well as bad economic times. He said that the long-
term vision is all about defining the responsible capacity of the land. He then reviewed
drawings illustrating the ten, twenty and fifty-year visions. He said that the four major
goals of this long-term plan that are embodied in every one of the earlier steps are to
create multi-use zones. They are trying to physically integrate housing, academic life,
student life, research, and teaching space while attempting to increase the amount of on-
campus student housing. They want to create a much more pedestrian oriented campus
and integrate the planning efforts with the city.

       Mr. Gross talked about the South Campus and said that it feels disconnected from
the north campus. They want to make better connections for pedestrians and bicyclists as
well as to generally improve the vehicular circulation and transit. Ayers Saint Gross
wants to integrate future growth in this precinct with what is there now.

       He said that their plan for the South Campus would incorporate a series of athletic
venues for intercollegiate and recreational sports and talked about a new track and field




 




6 -



venue as well as the expansion of existing recreational fields. He said that they did not
want to put large academic functions on the South Campus but did recommend more
graduate and married student housing.

       Mr. Gross said that their plan allows Lexington Community College (LCC) to
expand, if and when necessary. He provided plans for the expansion of LCC, showing
improvements to the adjacent roadways, new landscaped walkways to better connect to
the graduate housing and undergraduate housing.

       Mr. Gross said that they are trying to create more of a sense of a living and
learning environment in the part of the South Campus where the College of Agriculture is
located so that it is more multi-use. The plan will centralize agriculture functions and
connect the areas of activity to the north part of campus by making better connections
across Cooper Drive. The plan also incorporates projected growth of research and
teaching spaces. There is a lot of capacity in this area of campus for future buildings for
agricultural research, new greenhouses, a new parking structure and new housing so the
agricultural students can live close to their college.

       He said that their plan is to provide a median and landscape improvements on
Cooper Drive. These changes would make Cooper Drive a more pedestrian friendly
street. Crossing Cooper Drive would be easier if the street were made narrower allowing
a better connection of the two areas of the Agriculture Campus separated by the road.
They would add street trees and a planted median and try to slow the traffic down,
making Cooper Drive less like a high-speed highway. He noted that all of the perspective
renderings show tree lined streets and walkways to create allee that connect with other
walkways and areas that feel rather distant right now. He said that they can shrink the
perceptual distance by making these types of pedestrian connections.

       Mr. Gross talked about the Medical Center. He said that they want to try and
make it a safer, more friendly, and an easier place to get in and out of. This needs to be
accomplished while also accommodating significant growth both for the Hospital as well
as for research within all the divisions and colleges that are in this part of campus. He
then reviewed the Medical Center plan and pointed out that this is a very dramatic
amount of new square footage. It is looking at a series of 200,000 square foot research
buildings, tied together with a series of pedestrian bridges, and organized around a series
of new green spaces integrated with parking structures, and a service yard that would be
servicing the buildings. He explained that their plan would create a new quadrangle to be
created in front of the Hospital by rerouting Rose Street to connect with Virginia Avenue.
The new quadrangle or courtyard would be exclusively for emergency vehicles and
pedestrian drop off and would no longer be a public through street. This part of Rose
Street would become a pedestrian place so that the Hospital would have its own
significant green space.

       He reviewed the plan for the new facilities for the College of Dentistry, the
College of Medicine, and the College of Pharmacy. The idea is to have connections that
will be more attractive and tie into a very rational, incremental plan for all the various




 




7



units within the colleges as well as within the Hospital. He said that their plan also
recommends safety improvements to Limestone to slow the traffic down and create better
crossings for pedestrians all along the length of Limestone. They are also trying to
integrate housing everywhere, and their plan would step the scale of the new buildings
built south of Transcript Avenue down to a residential scale that would be more
appropriate to the neighborhoods while also providing opportunities for new housing.
Their general thought is to have a series of new quadrangles and green spaces so it would
be easy to walk across while going to a class and coming back home at lunch.

      Mr. Gross talked about the plan for the central portion of campus and reviewed
the area around Funkhouser Drive. Again, there are a lot of common themes: improving
the pedestrian environment and improving traffic while trying to introduce residential
opportunities as well as growth for academic needs. The proposal calls for the expansion
of the Pharmacy Building, an expansion for Biological Sciences, and a series of new
additions for the Natural Sciences around the Chemistry/Physics Building. He mentioned
landscaping improvements down Funkhouser Drive leading to Memorial Hall and
suggested removing some parking spaces and creating a beautiful place for pedestrians
and bicyclists. He noted that access for service vehicles and special needs parking would
remain. He mentioned that Provost Nietzel and many others were working on an idea to
convert the Funkhouser Building into a student services building, which their plan very
much supports.

      He also mentioned Rose Street and suggested plantings in the median and having
marked pedestrian crosswalks. He said Rose Street could be improved aesthetically and
still retain its function as a route for ambulances, fire trucks and other necessary vehicles.

      Mr. Gross then reviewed the north campus area near the William T. Young
Library and said that they are suggesting the incremental removal/relocation of the Greek
housing and replacing those buildings with academic space. Most of the other functions
depicted by the plan in this area are graduate/undergraduate student housing. Mr. Gross
noted that there exists ample opportunity for undergraduate housing to be developed in
and around the existing housing in this area.

      The next area Mr. Gross discussed was the Kirwan-Blanding Complex. He said
that serves the University pretty well given that much of the space is in two high-rise
buildings. Their plan is to reorganize the outdoor space and make it feel more like the
collegiate quadrangle. They would plant deciduous trees as opposed to the evergreens,
plant more grass, maybe add some more cafes and student life functions, a computer lab,
seminar rooms at the base of the buildings and make it feel more like a living, learning
community with ties back into the core campus.

      Mr. Gross reviewed the plan for the area around Scott Street where the Newtown
Pike Extension will be routed and where there are a series of old tobacco warehouse
buildings. This area is currently home to two very important academic programs: the
Gatton College of Business and Economics and the College of Law. Those colleges
occupy buildings that cannot support the current and planned needs. Planning studies




 




8 -



done for each college recommend that the building these colleges occupy should be
assigned to other functions and that these colleges be relocated. The College of Law
would move to a site on Scott Street and the Gatton College of Business and Economics
would relocate to Martin Luther King Boulevard.

       He said that the South Limestone Street, Scott Street and South Upper Street
intersection configuration is rather dangerous and confusing for motorists and
pedestrians. Their plan would have Upper Street removed from this intersection and
connected to Limestone Street to the north. This would result in a better condition at
Limestone Street and Scott Street. The new intersection would be simpler and easier to
navigate on foot. It would also make a better vehicular entrance into campus once the
Newtown Pike Extension is completed. The proposed plan also includes realignment of
Administration Drive and a new plaza on Limestone Street reinforcing the pedestrian
entrance to campus.

       Mr. Gross said that area just north and south of Euclid Avenue is a wonderful
opportunity to introduce a mixture of student life functions, education functions and
teaching and research functions. Their plan shows a lot of growth in this area, starting
with a site for a "digital village," combining programs in engineering, math and computer
science, at Rose Street and Maxwell Street. He mentioned the possibility of the
University purchasing the small retail area at Rose Street and Euclid Avenue and that
area becoming housing and/or academic space. He also talked about the possible
expansion of Memorial Coliseum to allow for additional basketball training facilities. He
said that the existing parking lot between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Lexington
Avenue and north of the Student Center had been identified as the site for the Gatton
College of Business and Economics. He noted that there would be parking under the
proposed buildings and retail space at ground level along Euclid Avenue.

       Their plan shows a significant addition to the Student Center that would make the
Center much more friendly to students. The bookstore and some of the dining functions
would be treated more like retail functions that would open out onto Euclid Avenue. The
two existing buildings that make up the present Student Center would be connected by an
atrium that would create a gathering space for students.

       He said that their plan also shows growth and expansion to the Singletary Center
for the Arts as well as expansions for the Opera Program, the Art Museum and the School
of Music. Housing is proposed to be located around the large open space south of Euclid
Avenue leaving enough space for the band to practice there.

       Mr. Gross said that his firm has been working with the College Town Plan for the
University and the City of Lexington which involves revitalizing the area from Maxwell
Street to High Street and Rose Street to Limestone Street. This plan calls for simple
modifications like improving the pedestrian cross-walks, placing the utilities
underground, adding more off street parking, improving the street lighting, and furniture,
and planning for bike ways. All the streets in the area would be converted to two-way
traffic and improved to create a more pedestrian oriented environment. The instant




 




9 -



opportunities for the College Town itself are pretty significant. He said that planning the
campus and the College Town area was a concurrent process, working closely with the
local government and the community. All the major stakeholders were involved during
the planning process. One of the major ideas of the College Town Study was to try to
create more attractive connections from downtown to the campus. New retail and
housing opportunities are a big part of the plan. He mentioned plans for market housing
that would provide opportunities for graduate students, undergraduates, faculty and staff
in this area. He mentioned that Limestone Street and Jersey Street would be the
commercial corridor and the Martin Luther King Boulevard would be a residential
corridor. No buildings would be demolished under the College Town Plan.

      Referring to the overall campus plan Mr. Gross noted that parking and housing
are linked together in a way that impacts academic performance, and they are working on
a study that suggests that the higher the percentage of on-campus housing and the lower
the percentage of on-campus parking, the higher the academic ranking. If more people
live on or near campus, then more people would walk, bike or ride a bus to campus.
There is a cause and effect related to the opportunities people have to leave their car at
home. Mr. Gross introduced George Alexiou of Martin Alexiou and Bryson,
Transportation Engineers and said that he would talk about the transportation and parking
aspects of the plan.

      Mr. Alexiou said that they had many discussions from day one about parking and
transportation issues. The transportation strategy that he would summarize was
developed as an integral part of the plan. They are not separate. The transportation
component of the plan was developed jointly and part of the discussions during the
meetings that Mr. Gross referenced. If he had to summarize the transportation strategy in
one phrase or just pick just one objective, it would be to create a more pedestrian friendly
campus. This is the over-riding theme. Walking around the campus, crossing certain
streets or walking between different locations is very often unsafe, unpleasant, and can
disrupt the pleasure of being on an academic campus.

      Mr. Alexiou explained that there are basically two things to do to create a
pedestrian friendly campus: reduce the number of vehicles that are parked on campus and
reduce the number of vehicles that are moving on the streets that run through the campus.
This is accomplished by supporting alternative means of travel to and around campus and
working in conjunction with regional transit. The bottom line, however, is
accommodating growth in a sustainable way. We have to look at the big picture, the
long-term vision for the campus and the long-term issues as a region and as a nation.
Transportation cannot be dealt with in isolation. The campus is not an island. It is part of
a larger community, and there are responsibilities to be shared.

      He said the goals are to provide a balanced, multi-modal transit system, enhance
transit development and use, and reduce demand for single occupancy vehicles. These
are alternatives that provide a much more environmentally friendly way to get around.
He said that the specific objectives are to get more people into ride sharing and into




 




10 -



transit on buses. In order for these alternatives to work, you need to improve the systems
and also encourage people to use bicycles or walk.

       Many of the improvements that Mr. Gross showed around the campus are
designed to meet multiple objectives, but one very specific intent is to make the campus a
much more pleasant, attractive, and safe place to walk and ride around. As the largest
employer in the county, the University can make or break achieving the region's goals.
The University has a responsibility, if not an obligation, to lead the way in terms of
sustainable growth and improving this region as well as the campus.

       Mr. Alexiou said that the plan very deliberately replaces a lot of the surface
parking with either landscaping or new buildings. In the next eighteen years almost
5,000 surface spaces will be eliminated, primarily in the center part of the campus as it
becomes more pedestrian oriented. He explained that a need and a demand come with
growth. If the University continues to provide parking at the same ratio, the same rate as
now, 7,700 spaces would be required, and the University would be losing some of its
current spaces. The bottom line is that the University would need 12,500 spaces over the
next eighteen years to keep up with growth if it continues to do it the old way. This
would be a pretty major increase in parking and, of course, that brings traffic, storm water
run-off, etc. to campus. The cost to build 12,500 spaces is around $180,000,000. That is
about $10,000,000 a year that must be set aside just to keep providing the parking that is
needed. Understanding that most of the new pa