17
House Bill 5911 is cleanup legislation that enacts agreements and other operations that are
currently ongoing.
“I remain grateful to the Board and to Dr. Keith Sanders, who is a founding member of
the ICN Policy Committee. He has been at every single meeting and has shown a tremendous
interest and been a stalwart supporter of the Illinois Century Network’s growth and development.
Keith, I’d like to say thank you here at your last Board meeting. I’d be happy to answer any
questions.” There were none.
12. Public University Noninstructional Project Approval
Chairman Rock said that consideration of Item 12 was deferred at the last meeting to
afford Members the opportunity to acquire further information. He said that Sharon Ward would
present the item.
Ms. Ward said: “Item 12 is a noninstructional capital item wherein the University of
Illinois requests that the Board approve a $77.6 million project to expand and renovate the
Intramural Physical Education Building and the Campus Recreation Center East at the Urbana-
Champaign campus. The scope of the project provides for the addition of 190,000 square feet of
space to the existing facilities and the renovation of the current space to meet the recreational and
exercise needs of the users. In November 2001, at total of 5,459 votes were cast on a student
referendum held on the proposed improvements, and 4,020, or 74 percent, of the votes were cast
in favor of the project and the general fee increase to pay for it. The fee increase will not exceed
$77 per semester and will be implemented over three years beginning in fall 2004. The
University plans to issue revenue bonds to finance the project, with the debt being retired with
revenues generated from the fee increase. State general funds will not be used for the
construction and renovation or for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facilities. As
requested at the last meeting, representatives from the University of Illinois are present today to
answer any questions.”
Mr. Lesnik said, “At the last meeting, I indicated that I had some concern about the
financial viability of what was being presented, and have since had the opportunity to get some
additional information about this project. First of all, much is made of the fact that several
thousand students said they were in favor of this. I have seen a fair amount of informational
materials that were sent to students urging them to favor this project, and by no means was this
referendum done according to strict researchers’ statistical guidelines. At best, 4,000 students
represent a relatively modest fraction of all of the students – 40,000 or so undergraduates – who
will be required to pay a substantially increased activity fee in order to at least partially finance
this project.
“I have looked into the financing of it and, unfortunately, the information that I was
provided last week was somewhat inadequate and not the kind of fulsome information that we
would expect to receive if this were in the private sector. So, I have substantial misgivings about
the financial planning that has taken place. For example, the debt service will not be covered for
the first 12 years by the increase in activity fees, it is only after a 12-year period that the
amortization schedule catches up with the increase in activity fees. During the first 12 years,
there will be a shortfall, and I am not clear even today how that shortfall will be addressed. I
have been informed just this morning that the activity fees should cover the increased operating
cost of this expanded facility, but we haven’t really seen any hard data that would verify that in
any way. There seems to be some question even about the number of students versus the number
of faculty members that would be regularly using this facility. So, just as I questioned at the last
