WASHBURN UNIVERSITY OF TOPEKA

BOARD OF REGENTS

MINUTES

August 27, 2003

_________________________________________________________________________________



I. Call to Order



Chairperson Roth called the meeting to order at 4:13 p.m. in the Kansas Room of the Memorial Union.



II. Roll Call



Present were: Mr. Blair, *Mr. Dick, Mr. Engel, Mr. Felker, Mrs. Parks, Mr. Roth and Mrs. Warren. * participated via telephone conference call



III. Approval of Minutes of July 23, 2003 meeting as mailed



It was moved and seconded to approve the Minutes of the July 23, 2003 meeting as mailed. Motion passed unanimously.



IV. Officer Reports



A. Chair's Report



Chairperson Roth reminded Board members of the September 17, 2003 meeting with the Kansas Board of Regents. It will be a casual social event approximately 6:00-6:30 p.m. Earlier the same day, the Legislative Educational Planning Committee will be meeting at Washburn. Chairperson Roth requested that Board members arrive at 3:30 p.m. to meet with legislators prior to the Board meeting. There may be no Committee of the Whole at that meeting, but Dr. Wasserstein will be present to provide an update on academic matters.



B. Committee Report(s)

1. Chapel Site Task Force



Mrs. Warren distributed minutes of the committee. She commended the students for their work on the survey and to identify student concerns. The committee listened to the students and made a decision 2-1 in favor of the location near KTWU.



President Farley added that after sitting in on committee discussions, the Board meeting and talks with WSGA President Dennis Bohm and Vice President Brandi Jacobs, he wanted to find alternatives to the initial proposal. He recommended a change from the original site proposed by the Board of Regents by moving the building slightly to the South and West of the original site. Dr. Farley suggested the architect would orient the building in a pleasing manner and make some architectural changes. This compromise recommendation moves the building away from the central lawn area, retains high visibility of the chapel in a main campus location, and retains landscaping opportunities. He acknowledged that a compromise does not leave all parties completely satisfied. It was moved and seconded to accept Dr. Farley's recommendation.



Mr. Engel asked for an opportunity to view the site and several Board members moved to the window. Chairperson Roth called for comments from others before turning to Board members.



Mr. Bohm thanked the Board for its reconsideration of the chapel location. He described the process of placing descriptive posters around campus and surveying students during the enrollment period. Mr. Bohm passed out a packet of survey results to Board members. In summary, Mr. Bohm reported that students do not want the building located on the South lawn. The most favored location was near KTWU, but all sites among the top three were acceptable. Among student considerations are that there are already ample places in the center of campus for students to rest, relax and regain focus (library, benches, etc.). It is very important to preserve open space on campus including the view of the entire campus from the lawn. Parking was mentioned as a significant problem with the central location since all parking near the area is restricted to parking for persons with disabilities or is a restricted lot. This poses problems for users of the building.



Matt Sinovic, WSGA Chief of Staff, read a letter from Andrew Strobl, President of the campus Catholic student organization supporting a location not in the center of campus.



Mr. Bohm stated that student views should be considered strongly as students were most affected by the decision.



Mrs. Parks asked how many students completed surveys, and Mr. Bohm replied that 410 were submitted.



Mr. Blair moved a substitute motion and Mayor Felker seconded. Motion by Mr. Blair re: Nunemaker building is as follows:



"It is moved that the site for the building donated to Washburn be as depicted on Exhibit (A), provided that, and as an integral part of this motion, the design of the donated building will be altered to resemble very closely the drawings done by architect Bill Sheehan, especially with respect to the redesigned roof line. Said design is represented by Exhibits (B) and (C). The architect shall recommend whether or not to include sky-lights in the final design. Costs for such alterations and the entire project shall be included in a budget for the entire project that shall be developed by University staff and architect Sheehan and presented to the Board of Regents for approval at the September 2003 meeting. The final exterior design of the building shall be approved by the Board of Regents prior to the commencement of the moving of said structure from the Menninger campus to the Washburn campus. Further, the funding for this entire project shall be paid for by donated gifts to the University earmarked for this purpose. University funds shall not be expended for this project without the prior approval of the Board of Regents. However, the previous intent of the Board of Regents to authorize the University to advance up to $100,000 of University funds to expedite this project is confirmed with the intent being to reimburse the proper University accounts as soon as possible with funds that are donated. Further that the Board of Regents as an illustration of its support for this project authorizes the University to spend up to $50,000 of University funds to enhance the landscaping in the general area of the relocated Nunemaker building, provided that the landscape plan is presented to and approved by the Board of Regents."





-2-

Mr. Blair commended students for their efforts and for conveying the results of the survey. He noted that the question before the Board was only a matter of the location of the building and that the design is an important aspect of the decision on the location. He proposed the substitute motion because he did not feel comfortable in approving a site without knowing what the final building design would be. Architect Bill Sheahan worked on designs A and B (distributed). Paramount in the design is the lowering of the roof and eliminating the "boxy" shape on top of the building. Stonework, changes at the entrance and changing the roof line would enhance the building and create a "steeple effect." Without these design elements included in a motion, Mr. Blair stated he could not support the location as proposed in the initial motion. His proposal preserves the open campus area, retains a good view of the commons area, and provides a patio area between the International House and Benton Hall for receptions, etc. He viewed this proposal (referred to as "A") as a good compromise meeting student needs, redesigning the building somewhat, considering traffic and usage issues and making the structure the least obtrusive. Mr. Blair also stated the funds for landscaping were included in the motion to enhance the building's appearance and the entire area. The Board would be asked to approve final landscaping plans.



Mr. Dick requested clarification as to the location of the site referred to in Mr. Blair's motion. Mr. Blair described the location. Mr. Dick proposed withdrawing his second of the initial motion to enable Mr. Blair's motion to be considered. Chairperson Roth did not allow Mr. Dick to withdraw his second. Mrs. Warren commented that the initial site would be appropriate with landscaping, but she would support Mr. Blair's motion.



Chairperson Roth asked whether the $50,000 was in addition to the $100,000 the Board of Regents had already approved. Dr. Farley clarified that the $100,000 is an advance of University funds which would be repaid from money raised by fund-raising efforts. The $50,000 is University money only.



Mrs. Warren asked what would occur if the building were moved and designs approved and insufficient money were raised. Mr. Blair replied that this contingency would be dealt with by the Board.



Mr. Engel asked for a clarification of design "B". He asked how much change in the budget is reflected in designs B and C. Mr. Blair replied that the bottom line is that he will not vote to bring the building to the site if it is not redesigned. Mr. Engel asked if there would be an increase in the $65,000 item for foundation and masonry. Mr. Blair replied some additional masonry would be needed to widen the front facade. Mr. Engel asked if the $52,000 for stucco and a metal roof would be increased. Architect Sheehan responded that he estimated an additional $10,000-$15,000 might be needed. Mr. Engel stated that Menninger security for the building expires September 1, 2003. He is concerned that the building be protected from damage. The original motion accepting the building does not allow for the building to be moved from the site until funds have been raised. He would like flexibility until the building is in place to expend University funds and then repay as funds are raised.







-3-



Mrs. Warren asked for a time frame for fund-raising and asked what the options are if the money is not raised by the deadline. She does not want to see the building moved and placed in a parking lot until the money is raised.



Mrs. Mazachek, President of the Washburn Endowment Association, spoke to the fund-raising issue. She stated the WEA would like to take the next five weeks to raise the money. They have identified potential donors and want to approach them with an approved site. She will report back to the Board of Regents at the September 17, 2003 meeting and by October 1, 2003 she will be able to provide good information to the Board. The building cannot be moved until November 1, 2003, so there will be time at the October Board meeting for the Board to approve.



Mr. Tim Etzel asked to address the Board and was invited to the podium. He encouraged the Board of Regents to reject the substitute motion. He agreed with all aspects except removal and lowering of the roof. He believes this will slow down the project and does not believe the design element should be part of the motion.



Chairperson Roth asked whether Mr. Etzel's only objection was the design aspect. Mr. Etzel agreed and said the Board could make changes as it saw fit.



Mrs. Parks asked if Mr. Etzel favored Mr. Blair's motion. Mr. Etzel responded that he did - up to and not including the removal and redesign of the roof. Mr. Etzel stated that we should notify Menninger of our intent to alter the building.



Mr. Blair stated that nothing in his proposal would cause a delay. The building was given to Washburn without any strings attached, so there is no requirement to inform Menninger.



Mr. Felker complimented Mr. Sheehan on various designs he has done in the past. He stated he had no problem in discussing design as the Board had extensive discussions regarding the Art Building. He inquired of Mr. Sheehan whether the proposed landscaping would cause stress and damage to trees at the site. Mr. Sheehan responded that the building was outside the drip line of the trees but one tree would need to be removed. Mr. Felker also expressed concerns about security on the site and the need to prevent vandalism to the building.



Mr. Felker asked Mr. Etzel whether anything in Mr. Blair's proposal would prevent someone from donating funds to the project. Mr. Etzel responded that the more changes and uncertainties that exist, the more difficult fund-raising will be. People have looked at initial drawings but if changes are tasteful, he foresees no significant problem.



Mr. Blair stated his motion does exactly what Mr. Etzel desires. It defines the basic look, compromises on a site nearly the same as the original and provides more certainty regarding design features. He stated that the initial drawings were never intended to reflect the final design.









-4-

Mr. Engel asked how nearly the $100,000 already approved would cover pad construction. Dr. Farley replied that constructing the pad and doing utility work could be done for less than $100,000.



Mr. Engel asked if the building could be moved to campus by Thanksgiving. Dr. Farley answered that $100,000 in private funds would be available and with the $100,000 advance from the University, the building could be placed on the site by that time.



Mr. Engel asked for clarification of the skylights, whether they could be lowered or relocated on the roof in a new design. He believes the skylights are important to the design. Mr. Roth stated this would be included in the Board's final vote on the design.



Mrs. Parks asked what the total amount for fund-raising is. Mr. Blair answered the budget is $437,000 with an approximately $10,000 increase for the proposed changes. Mr. Engel stated he believed the total would approach $500,000. He reiterated the need to provide security for the building prior to the move.



Mrs. Parks commended the students for their input and research. She reminded the Board that student input played an important role in decisions about the former married student housing units. She supported students at that time.



Chairperson Roth asked if any students wished to make further comments.



Matt Sinovic stated he believed the site proposed by Mr. Blair was tied to specific donors' wishes. He disagreed with Mr. Blair's proposal to allocate $50,000 of University funds to the project for landscaping when the site was chosen only for the purpose of being able to raise the money. He reiterated the site was still in the center of campus activities and with very high student traffic, disc jockeys, outdoor concerts, etc., it would not provide a good location for quiet meditation.



Mr. Engel responded that the site selection was not "donor-driven" for him. He believes the building must be in a protected area because of all the glass and the long-term considerations of hearing and cooling.



Mr. Felker asked if the roof would need to be removed to move the structure. Mr. Sheehan stated there was no need to remove the roof for the move. He also stated that lowering the roof would preserve indirect light and allow sunlight to enter throughout the day. Removal of the third story will also make the building more energy efficient. Mr. Engel asked if removing the third story would affect the light streaming in. Mr. Sheehan replied it would not and might make the light effect more dramatic.



Chairperson Roth called for a vote to accept Mr. Blair's substitute motion. Motion was approved.



Chairperson Roth then called for a vote on Mr. Blair's substitute motion. Motion passed on a 5-1 vote with Mrs. Parks the dissenting vote.



Chairperson Roth thanked everyone for their participation.





-5-

C. President's Report



President Farley commented on fall enrollment preliminary numbers. As of August 20, 2003, 7,106 students have enrolled; as of August 27, 2003 that number increased to 7,143. The number of credit hours increased 10-11%; full-time enrollments increased 15%; the number of first-time, full-time freshmen increased 12%; and the total number of new freshmen increased 15%. All have been accommodated in the academic program with additional sections, courses, and faculty where needed to maintain small class sizes.



Dr. Farley reported U.S. News and World Report ranked Washburn 3rd in the region and 12th in the nation among Master's level public institutions. He congratulated the faculty on this high academic recognition and stated this recognition signifies that someone else validates the high quality education Washburn University offers.



President Farley invited Board members to the August 29, 2003 convocation at 12:45 p.m. in the Georgia Neese Gray Theatre. A lunch prior to the convocation will be served in the Washburn Room of the Memorial Union.



Dr. Farley announced that Sigma Phi Epsilon received an award from the national fraternity as the outstanding chapter. The chapter has received this award four times. He said Phi Delta Theta also received the Phoenix award and several other prestigious awards from the national fraternity in recognition of the dramatic turnaround of the chapter after significant problems it encountered two years ago. They also achieved the highest fraternity grade point average.



Dr. Farley reported the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) averaged 250 students per week during the summer. The camp received some of the highest evaluations possible from the NCAA.



He said the Friends of the Mulvane organization was the recipient of the 2003 Governor's Arts Award.



Mr. Felker said he met with Dr. Farley to discuss the city budget with regard to the Helen Hocker Theatre. He also said the city was trying to find other baseball entities in addition to the Topeka Capitols to use Falley Field in order to help support the field in the summer when it functions as a community ball diamond. He will be bringing some items to the Board in this regard in the future.



D. Treasurer's Report



It was moved and seconded to approve IV.D.1. Depository Security Transactions, and 2. Liquidated Claims Approval - July, 2003. Motion passed unanimously.



V. Committee of the Whole - Capital Projects History



Chairperson Roth announced there would be no Committee of the Whole item in order to convene an Executive Session.









-6-



VI. New Business



A. Consent Agenda:



Mr. Roth asked if anyone wished to remove any item from the Consent Agenda for comment or question.



Mr. Dick requested removal of items VI.A.2.c. and VI.A.5. for question.



Mr. Engel requested removal of item VI.A.1. because he would not be voting on that item owing to a conflict of interest.



It was moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of items VI.A.1., 2.c. and 5. Motion passed unanimously.

Approved by action of the Board:



2. Expenditures over $50,000

a. Exterior Stair Replacement Kuehne and West Hall - Project #C04042

award of contract to Kendall Construction in the amount of $69,003.00 to replace the stair towers of Kuehne and West Halls;

b. Replace Roof above Library at Law School - Project #C04046

award of contract to Diamond Everely Roofing in the amount of $57,250.00 to replace the roof above the library at the School of Law;

d. Mabee Library Periodical Subscription Services

award of contract to EBSCO Subscription Services in the amount of $226,727.05 for periodical subscription services for Mabee Library for FY 2003-2004;

3. Report of Purchases between $25,001 and $50,000

award of contract to: Source One, Inc. in the amount of $27,177.00 for IBM iSeries System for University Bookstore; and, ThyssenKrupp Elevator for elevator repair of West elevator in Morgan Hall (replacement of hydraulic jack cylinder);

4. Personnel Action - Administrative Staff - Stover

appointment of Michael Stover as System Specialist-Alumni/Training at an annual salary of $41,000 effective September 1, 2003;

6. Change Order - Student Recreation & Wellness Center

ITEM #1

PR #2 - MODIFICATIONS TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS

During the shop drawing review process, the structural engineer determined revisions were necessary to several beam and column connections as well as the addition of a 5 x 5 steel tube column 4" north of column line 10M to support the lintels at the window openings in lieu of supporting the lintels with a block pilaster.

Contract Add: $1,071.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #2

PR #3 - REVISIONS TO LOCKER ROOMS

During a review of the Locker Rooms, a potential cost savings was identified which also simplified the construction. This modification to the design included the elimination of one water closet, one partition and one toilet paper dispenser from the Men's Toilet 117A and realignment with those of the Women's Toilet 114A. These modifications also deleted a 4" waste in the women's restroom, relocated the floor drain in the men's restroom. Fixture counts with this deletion remain within acceptable requirements of the City building codes.

Contract Deduct: ($935.00)

Schedule Implications: No Impact









-7-



ITEM #3

PR #4-SUBSTITUTION REQUEST FOR USE OF LIGHT WEIGHT MASONRY UNITS

At the general contractor's request, a substitution of light weight concrete block masonry for the "normal weight" block was considered. The request was made with the intent of making the high walls of the structure easier to construct by the handling of a lighter weight material. An added benefit to the project is the light weight CMU has a higher fire resistance rating than the normal weight block, and the contractor was willing to credit the project with 2 weeks of time. Although the light weight CMU is slightly more expensive than the normal block, no additional cost was requested by the contractor.

Contract Add: No Impact

Schedule Implications: 14 Day Reduction

ITEM #4

PR #5 - ADDITIONS TO STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS

During the shop drawing review process, the structural engineer determined two steel beams would need to be added to the south end of the gymnasium to span over the running track in lieu of spanning the opening with masonry bond beams. Additional steel and appropriate connection details have added to the construction cost. The architect felt an additional day was warranted since steel fabrication, delivery and installation is along the critical path for building construction.

Contract Add: $2,961.00

Schedule Implications: Add 1 Day

ITEM #5

PR #7 - REVISIONS TO FIRE ALARM CONTROL & AMPLIFIER PANEL

Revisions to the location of the fire alarm control and amplifier panel were made at the request of the Owner. There are no cost or time implications associated with this change.

Contract Add: No Impact

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #6

PR #8 - MODIFICATION TO STONE LINTEL & POUR STOP DETAILS

During the shop drawing review process, the structural engineer determined an additional steel plate and pour stop was needed to support the stone at the exterior soffit (ref: AE333, detail 5). Since original structural drawings showed no steel plate & pour stop as referenced in the architectural detail, the cost to order, fabricate and assemble is shown below. The architect felt an additional 2 days was warranted since steel fabrication, delivery and installation is along the critical path for building construction.

Contract Add: $2,670.00

Schedule Implications: Add 2 Days

ITEM #7

PR #9 - MODIFICATIONS TO ELECTRICAL TO ACCOMMODATE BATTERY LOWERING

During the shop drawing review process, the electrical engineer determined electrical changes were necessary to coordinate the battery elevator lowering controls with the shunt trip.

Contract Add: $242.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #8

PR #10 - ADDITION OF BEAM

During the shop drawing review process, the structural engineer determined two steel pipe columns near the rock climbing wall need to be laterally supported in the east-west direction. The addition of a beam (HSS 6x4x1/4) spanning from RB29 to RB 30 was determined to be the best solution.

Contract Add: $774.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

7. Change Order - Transitional Housing Project

ITEM #1

RFI #13-ADDITIONAL CAST STONE CAP AT TOP OF MASONRY WALLS:

Upon review of the construction drawings, it became apparent the cast stone cap transition between the split-face masonry units on the lower exterior wall and the siding above did not continue around the corner in the building recesses. It was determined by the architect and the University architect that aesthetically it would be better if the stone coping was continuous. In order to achieve this, an additional 101.33 lineal feet of cast stone will need to be provided and installed.

Contract Add: $969.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #2

PR #2 - REVISIONS TO HVAC DUCTWORK:

Closer review of the drawings indicated ductwork penetrating joists that would compromise the structural integrity of the joist. Revisions by the mechanical engineer routed the ductwork differently so it does not penetrate the structural system.

Contract Add: $505.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact





-8-

ITEM #3

ROOFING UPGRADE

For economy's sake, a 20 year warranted roof with 15 lb. felt was specified on all buildings of the complex at the time of bidding. As a result of a favorable bidding climate and a good base bid, a price was submitted for an upgraded roof that would provide a 30 year warranty with an underlayment of 30 lb. felt. The additional cost of approximately $13,000 breaks down to $2,600 per building total and approx. $260/building/year for the 10 additional years of the lifespan of the roofs. In a life-cycle cost analysis, this cost is relatively minor considering the costs it would require to repair or replace the roof when it will likely begin to fail at 20 years.

The cost submitted by Ferrell Construction is without markup for overhead and profit, emphasizing the importance the contractor places on the significance of this change.

Contract Add: $12,913.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #4

"WET BASEMENT" SYMDROME

Upon excavating for the basement of the Commons building, water appeared in the crevice from the layers of sandstone that occur in this area. Recommendation from the geotechnical engineer to remedy the situation is to do the following:

1. Install 12" free-draining granular material below the basement slab on grade in lieu of the 4" specified.

2. Install below slab perforated drainage tubing around perimeter and at 1/3 intervals across the expanse of the basement length. This tubing will discharge water into the sump pit at the northeast corner of the basement.

3. Provide 24" wide section of free-draining granular backfill above the drain line and adjacent to the wall around outside perimeter of basement wall. (This was already provided for in the base bid).

Contract Add: $1,832.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #5

TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPGRADE

Installation of the telecommunications cabling and connection to the underground fiber network on the campus is being handled as a separate contract by the University and will be executed by a separate contractor. Various outside plant functions and connections could be made during the installation of other electrical connections included in the general construction contract and were thought best to be conducted by the electrical subcontractor. Upon review of the work, an amount was requested for additional services for the installation of an underground pull box and cover. Total cost including GC overhead and profit:

Contract Add: $2,205.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

8. Change Order - Transitional Housing Project

ITEM #1

PR #5 - RE-ROUTING OF WATERLINE TO EAST SIDE OF JEWELL AVE.:

Upon review of the construction drawings by the City of Topeka, the Water Department determined the presented layout of the waterline on the site to its connection on 21st street was unacceptable. Their opposition was its location under the berm on the west side of Jewell Ave. and its inaccessibility for maintenance. An alternate design was presented and accepted placing the waterline on the east side of Jewell Ave. Changes involve boring under the street and an increase in pipe length of 94 linear feet.

Contract Add: $2,194.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #2

PR #11-ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT AT STAIR TOWERS:

Upon assemblage of shop drawings for building stair structures, the steel fabricator requested additional information regarding connections to vertical supports and to connecting walkways. In review, the structural engineer determined additional structural steel and connections were necessary to adequately complete stair installation. Revised design drawings were submitted and additional steel channels and connections were priced and submitted for approval.

Contract Add: $5,803.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact

ITEM #3

PR #4 - REVISIONS TO STRUCTURAL SHEER WALLS ON BUILDINGS:

City of Topeka building inspection review determined all exterior walls on buildings were required to be 1-hour rated thereby increasing the required wall composition from 1/2" plywood to 5/8" plywood and 5/8" gypsum sheathing. This increase in building material thickness in addition to escalation in costs of wood construction materials since bidding has resulted in this increase in construction costs.

Contract Add: $19,366.00

Schedule Implications: No Impact









-9-

ITEM #4

DELETION OF ROUND-ABOUT FROM CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

Upon further review of traffic implications that would be the result of the addition of a round-about at the intersection of Durow Drive and Jewell Avenue, it was determined the round-about would be eliminated in lieu of the 3-way stop. Concern primarily focused on the question of whether the round-about could adequately stop traffic for handicapped crossing at Falley Field and ultimately south of KTWU. The drop off at the entry to the complex will continue to be included in the construction scope.

Contract Deduct: $29,600.00

(Original contract price for Round-About was $30,384; Contractor had already purchased the required area inlet; also deducted were bonds already purchased.)

Schedule Implications: No Impact



VI. A. 1. Kappa Sigma Gamma Nu Alumni Association

It was moved and seconded to approve the University continuing to serve as guarantor on the WEA loan to the Kappa Sigma Gamma Nu Alumni Association. Motion passed unanimously with Mr. Engel not voting.



VI. A. 2. c. Network Switches and Computer Systems Upgrades

Mr. Dick inquired whether this item related to maintaining the historic telephone technology or related to new technology. Dr. Farley responded the item related to upgrade and growth in the current telephone system, but the University was studying options to include voice over/IP technology for future systems. Mr. Dick encouraged the University to do so. It was moved and seconded to approve the award of contract to Calence, Inc. in the amount of $54,920.95 for purchase of network switches for telephone system upgrades and software for computer system upgrades. Motion passed unanimously.



VI. A. 5. Faculty Personnel

Mr. Dick commented that with the increase in enrollment, the Board must keep in mind the strategic goal to fill the campus but not to create a situation of needing to request additional funding from the state or county, nor to increase class sizes beyond appropriate levels.



Mr. Felker remarked that faculty members had mentioned that some additional positions were needed to help handle the load.



It was moved and seconded to approve, effective August 1, 2003: hiring Kathryn Hupp as a full-time, 12-month, non-tenure track renewable contract as Physical Therapist Assistant Coordinator/Lecturer in the Allied Health Department at an annual salary of $42,000; hiring Alan Bearman as a full-time, 9-month, non-tenure track, renewable contract as Lecturer in the History Department at an annual salary of $30,000; hiring Kimberly Hoffman as a half-time, 9-month, non-tenure track, renewable contract as Lecturer/Coordinator in the Education Department at an annual salary of $15,000; and, revising Mary Dorsey Wanless' existing contract from .38 FTE to .75 FTE for the 2003-04 academic year as Lecturer in the Art Department at an annual salary of $32,328. Motion passed unanimously.



Mr. Engel asked whether Bill Sheehan were under contract and to whom he reports. President Farley said Mr. Sheehan was engaged by the University and would report back to the Board of Regents.







-10-





VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION



It was moved and seconded to recess to Executive Session for the purpose of discussion of legal matters for a period not to exceed ninety minutes and with no action to be taken at the conclusion of the Executive Session. Motion passed unanimously.



The Board commenced in Executive Session at 5:40 p.m.







/s/

Submitted by: Carol L. Vogel

Assistant Secretary, Board of Regents







































































-11-



WASHBURN UNIVERSITY OF TOPEKA

BOARD OF REGENTS

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES

August 27, 2003

_________________________________________________________________________________



At 7:10 p.m., the Board of Regents reconvened in open session in the Kansas Room. The chair announced the Regents had been in executive session for the discussion of consulting with its lawyers and that no action was taken.



At 7:15 p.m., the Board recessed to the Crane Room for dinner. There being no objection, the Chair indicated the Committee of the Whole meeting would occur during and after dinner.



President Farley made a detailed presentation about the Debt Retirement and Construction Fund, Debt and Debt Service Commitments and supporting revenue sources, and recent major capital projects. He reviewed four documents sent to the Board as handouts for the Committee of the Whole discussion: Debt Retirement and Construction Fund (Table I), Capital Projects - Sources and uses of Annual Funds (Table II), Major Capital Projects -- Sources of Funding (Table III) and recap WEA Capital Projects Fundraising (Table IV).



Resources for the Debt Retirement and Construction Fund (DR&C) come from a variety of sources such as bond proceeds for specific projects, Ad valorem tax, gifts, transfers from other funds, and some sales tax. He also pointed out that Debt service commitment for Series 1999, 2001, and 2003 Bonds from the LLC ($500,000), Union Food Service ($200,000), sales tax ($890,000) earmarked for capital and transition housing ($540,000) improvements is periodically transferred into the Debt Retirement and Construction Fund. Approximately $580,000 of DR&C tax revenue is also pledged to the Series 1999 (LLC). (See Table II)



All debt service payments for the 1999, 2001, and 2003 Bonds are paid from the DR&C. In past history, the DR&C had debt service commitments totaling over $850,000, most recently for the Series 1992 to 1995 Bonds. Thus, the current commitment from the DR&C of $580,000 for the LLC is a smaller commitment from the DR&C than has been past history. (See Table II)



The DR&C resources committed to Maintenance Projects and Equipment purchases continue to grow as DR&C tax revenue increases (see Table I). There has been no reduction in commitment to these two expenditures.



Dr. Farley reviewed the schedule titled Major Capital Projects (Table III). This schedule reflects all recent capital projects (completed, underway and contemplated). The sources of funding for each project is depicted. Table IV details the recap of WEA fund raising by project.



Also presented on Table III is a list of potential future projects. It was the general consensus of the Board that the President should refine this list, prioritize the projects and present a long range plan, along with possible financing alternatives to the Board. It was recognized that some projects might be contemporaneous. Further, new projects not contemplated now might emerge over time. Also, special interests on/off campus might propose and begin discussion about projects before the project is considered by the administration or discussed with the Board.





-12-

In the course of explaining the capital projects, Dr. Farley noted that the resources earmarked for a project are actually transferred into the Building Construction Fund. All subsequent expenditures such as architect fees, contractor payments, equipment purchases, etc. are recorded in this fund. The expenditures occur over a number of fiscal years so the Building Construction Fund is not included in the annual "public budget" authorization process. (Of course, all the revenue authorized and committed for the project by the Board are included in the DR&C public budget process.)



President Farley also discussed the status of University Reserve funds. The University is in a very strong financial position. The University has over time and through judicious management accumulated resources which serves a number of purposes. We budget very conservatively. For example, we budget estimated tuition revenue based on the last completed year's credit hour enrollment. Sales tax revenues are budgeted based on a five-year rolling average. These two major revenues will typically be over realized and added to reserves. Expenditure controls typically results in under expenditure, again adding to reserves.



The general University Reserve can be used for several purposes including: providing general working capital cash flow, protection against revenue under realization or over expenditure, one-time expenditures, or seed money for new initiatives (to receive annualized funding in a subsequent budget).



The appropriate level for the general fund reserve is somewhat subjective. There is no set number which must be maintained. Sometimes institutions contemplate reserve levels as a broad range of percentage of annual operating budgets. For example in Oklahoma, the 22 institutions similar to Washburn have reserves averaging 7% of operating budgets. The larger the institution often the smaller the reserve. For example, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma report reserves of 1% of operating budgets.



Because of Washburn's unique funding structure, a broad rule of thumb of 10-20% of general fund operations might be appropriate. (Including the Smoothing Fund) For fiscal year 2003-2004, the budget expenditures of $60M and a 15% reserve would suggest a reserve of $9-10 million. This will and should vary from year to year. As various projects develop, proposals will be presented to the Board for the use of University Reserves.



The Board adjourned at 8:58 p.m.







_______________________

Kenneth P. Hackler

Secretary, Board of Regents





















-13-




[ WU Home ] [ Directory ] [ A-Z Index ] [ Sitemap ] [ Contact WU ] [ Statements & Disclosures ] [ Accessibility ] [ Search ]
© 2014 Washburn University, 1700 SW College Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66621 (785) 670-1010
Contact webmaster@washburn.edu with questions or comments.