The official minutes of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees are maintained by the Secretary of the Board. Certified copies of minutes may be requested by contacting the Board of Trustees’ Office. Electronic or other copies of original minutes are not official Board of Trustees' documents.

The Buildings and Grounds Committee of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees met on Friday, February 8, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. in the Board Room of the Carolina Plaza.

Members present were: Mr. Miles Loadholt, Chairman; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. Alexander English (via phone); Dr. C. Edward Floyd; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. William C. Hubbard; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. J. DuPre Miller; Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Board Chairman; and Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Board Vice Chairman. Other Trustees present were: Mr. Robert N. McLellan and Mr. M. Wayne Staton.

Others present were: President John M. Palms; Secretary Thomas L. Stepp; Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Jerome D. Odom; Vice President and Chief Operating Officer J. Lyles Glenn; Vice President for Student and Alumni Services Dennis A. Pruitt; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer William F. Hogue; Vice President for Business and Finance Richard W. Kelly; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Chancellor of USC Spartanburg John C. Stockwell; Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, USC Spartanburg, Robert Connelly; Associate Chancellor for Business and Finance, USC Aiken, Virginia S. Steel; Director of Student Life, Division of Student and Alumni Services, Jerry T. Brewer; Director of Internal Audit Alton McCoy; Vice Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; Director of Facilities Planning and Construction and University Architect Charles G. Jeffcoat; Director for Planning Services, Facilities Planning and Construction, Donna Collins; Director for Facility Services James Demarest; Assistant to the Vice President for Business and Finance Ken Corbett; Director of University Housing Gene Luna; Director of Periodicals, University Publications, Chris Horn; and Director of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; and Mr. Charles J. Hultstrand of the Boudreaux Group in Columbia.

Chairman Loadholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those present. Mr. McKinney introduced a member of the media who was in attendance.

Chairman Loadholt stated that the agenda had been posted and the press had been notified as required by the Freedom of Information Act; the agenda and supporting materials had been circulated to Committee members; and a quorum was present to conduct business.

1. Project Status Report: Mr. Jeffcoat provided a brief update on the construction of the Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center which had significantly progressed. The framed rotunda, the preliminary Blossom Street bridge structure, and skylights were emphasized. Completion of the project had been anticipated to occur later in the year; the project continued to be on time and within budget. The center would be opened in early 2003.

   The Architectural Design Review Committee had met concerning the South Campus Housing Phase III Project and approved the design of this facility which would be a buff-colored brick building with some stucco material and limestone accents. Construction of this facility, located on Wheat Street, would begin in June, 2002, occupancy was planned for the 2004 fall semester. The facility would contain 167,000 square feet and 500 beds would be provided. The project budget had been approved at $29 million; the construction budget would be approximately $21 million.

   Construction of the Arena bowl and the supporting structures had progressed. A German-made crane, costing over $10 million, had been utilized during the construction of the facility and had become a landmark on the Columbia skyline. The crane weighed 1,800,000 pounds and the height totaled 420 feet, the tallest crane in the area. To bring the crane on site, 39 tractor-trailers had been required. The crane's computer controlled counter-weights, totaling 500,000 pounds, had kept the balance of the load consistent throughout its operations. Two television cameras and monitors located inside the cabin allowed the operator to observe occurrences at the other end.

   The ZTA housing facility in the Greek Village was nearly completed. Other residences had been in various stages of construction which included framing and roofing. All houses under construction had been expected to open in the fall of 2002. Four houses had been under construction, each with approximately 36 beds and full kitchens. Construction for eight houses had been approved and work would commence soon; occupancy had been planned for 2004. In addition to the construction of the houses which had been handled independently, landscaping and additional parking for the project had remained; work had been projected to commence this spring. Responding to a question from Mr. Whittle concerning costs, Mr. Jeffcoat replied that approximately $3.3 million had been budgeted for the development of the Greek Village infrastructure for which the University would be responsible.

   The renovations to Callcott had been underway for approximately one year; the project was 99 percent completed. The renovation costs had been approximately $44 a square foot. The project budget had been $3 million; the construction costs had been $2.2 million. The Department of Geography was expected to move into the facility during the month of May while on break to limit disruptions to their operations.

2. Report on School of Law: Mr. Jeffcoat advised that nearly the entire four acres of property located on Senate Street --the former Columbia Art Museum site-- would be required for the proposed School of Law facility. The funding status for the School of Law had been $5 million in State Capital Improvement Bonds. An additional $5 million had been allocated by the State in the 2000 Bond Bill and another $10 million had been pending. In addition, $6 million had been privately pledged.

   Mr. Hultstrand provided additional information on the Law School project and stated that the project had an initial proposed budget of $40 million. Programming work had commenced over a year ago and in-depth studies with the Law School staff and faculty had occurred. National bench-marking measures had been utilized which focused on the true needs which were based on peer institutions in several regions of the country. Mr. Hultstrand advised that the studies had determined that defensible space needs for the Law School should total in the range of 137,000 net square feet which would equal approximately 221,000 gross square feet. This would be approximately a 20 percent increase over the existing Law School's net square footage. A number of areas had expressed the need for expansion as new curriculum, new technology, and library space had risen. Based on the square footage, budget projections had shown that the building and site work costs, such as costs associated with a general contractor under bid, would be roughly $44 million. Thirty percent would be added to the figure as soft costs and other costs for furnishings, technology, and audio/visual equipment were included. In addition, site acquisition costs for the block which had been chosen as the preferred site would be added; all numbers would total approximately $60.5 million for a total project budget.

   Mr. Hultstrand noted that with budgetary concerns, a number of options had been considered for the reduction of the square footage of the facility and the cost projection. Studies had been performed and the size of a project that could be built within a $40 million project budget, which would include all of the site acquisition and soft costs, had been used as an example. Mr. Hultstrand advised that within such a format, approximately 83,000 net square feet could be built or 134,000 gross square feet. Based on programming needs, that square footage would accommodate approximately 60 percent of the true needs of the new Law School; roughly 72 percent of the existing space in the current building would be provided. Other factors affecting the budget projections and ways to approach those factors had been considered as well. The preferred direction that had been reached from the study proposed a first phase for construction of approximately 126,500 net square feet, which would equal 204,000 gross square feet. This would be approximately a $40 million construction contract for building and site construction, plus soft costs, site acquisition, and other costs which had amounted to approximately $54.7 million.

   Mr. Hultstrand discussed bench-marking studies and indicated that the facility's size would be at the lower end of the peer institutions which had been studied. The University's range would be 170 net square feet per student, with a student body of 750, compared to the average of approximately 180 to 200 net square feet per student in peer institutions. He noted that the numbers could vary widely; dozens of law schools had been analyzed. However, with the projected program, the University would be in the range of peer institutions.

   The concept design work would begin and early concepts would be studied in more detail. Providing an entry point for the University to the Law School from the Senate Street side would be of importance, providing a significant public image for the Law School and allowing access for certain public related Law School functions. The Law School would be within close proximity to the National Advocacy Center and the Horseshoe and the campus exposure should be the primary entrance.

   A number of alternatives would be reviewed during the concept study and opportunities for phasing would be explored. Budget limitations would lead toward a final solution; options of reducing costs to allow a workable and state-of-the-art Law School to be built on the preferred site would be examined. Future phases could augment the basic academic needs required for the first phase.

   Mr. Bradley inquired about the final dollar figure of $54.7 million required to finance the project and noted that the half-way mark had not yet been reached. Mr. Hultstrand responded that part of the reason for moving ahead with the concept design work had been to allow potential donors to view an illustrative set of drawings which would accurately display the finished product. As part of the funding-raising effort, this would be a vital part in moving forward. Up to this point, only ideas and rough sketches had been available to provide a sense of how the Law School would actually appear. Within approximately three months -- at the projected conclusion of the concept design stage -- renderings, models, and computer animations would be furnished to help convey the vision to individuals providing the private funds required for the project.

   Mr. Hubbard requested clarification on the potential review process of the different variations of the Law School which would be presented to the Committee for a decision. Mr. Hultstrand responded that work would be conducted to review the options; the intent would be to follow the customary process which would include the Architectural Design Review Committee. A strong recommendation would be provided to the Committee versus an open-ended set of alternatives. A planning committee within the Law School would also work on the proposals and would provide input into the concept design stage related to spacing and phasing alternatives.

   Dr. Floyd asked if the required funds for the Law School were expected to be attained noting that if the University did not foresee that happening, the money should not be spent on planning. Mr. Hultstrand responded that the Smith Group, an architectural firm in Washington which had designed numerous law schools around the nation and was part of the design team, had been through the same experience a number of times with similar budget and program issues. The firm had seen the importance of going through the next stage; the fund-raising would provide the jump-start needed to pull the discrepancy of budget and funding together. This step would be vital to ascertain how much funding could be available.

   Mr. Whittle inquired about the cost related to the concept design phase and Mr. Hultstrand responded that the cost would be approximately $150,000; costs for fund-raising tools such as renderings or animations would be additional. These drawings would not be considered working drawings, but they would delineate the shape of rooms and how those rooms would fit into the scheme, thereby providing a better understanding of how the Law School would appear.

   Mr. Whittle also inquired about the Horry-Guignard House and Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the house was on the historic register and would remain on the property. The University owned and maintained the house; the Alumni Association offices had been located there. Preservation of the Horry-Guignard House and the Taylor House, with the attached Carriage House, would be required.

   In response to a question from Mrs. Harvey concerning the use of the historic houses, Mr. Jeffcoat replied that the University would probably use the facilities on the site because of the need for space. The architects would try to include the Taylor House in the project, although no commitments had been made.

   Dr. Palms noted that a property transfer for the University's new Law School had taken place and the legislature would be informed. A rendering of the facility would be used to motivate prospects and to provide closure on gifts that would make the Law School possible. Depending on a bond bill either this year or next year, additional state funding was a possibility.

   Chairman Loadholt stated that this report was received for information.

3. USC Spartanburg:
   1. Budget Increase - Administration Building Deferred Maintenance: Mr. Jeffcoat advised that the Administration Building Deferred Maintenance project had been initially established with a budget of $200,000. The scope of the project had been to correct critical deferred maintenance at the main administration building which included replacement of heating and air-conditioning piping, repair of gutters and downspouts, and repair to the dome. Mr. Jeffcoat noted that additional funds would allow for the replacement of windows, repairs to columns on the exterior, and roof repairs. This had been one of five projects funded with $1.5 million in USCS Institutional Bonds. Extra funds had been available because the cost of the Hodge Center roof replacement had been less than expected; the remaining funds, totaling $149,000, would be transferred to the Administration Building Deferred Maintenance project.

      Mr. Lister moved approval to increase the existing Administration Building Deferred Maintenance project budget by $149,000 using Institution Bond Funds remaining in the Hodge Center roof replacement project. The new project budget for the Administration Building would be $349,000 funded with USCS Institutional Bonds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   2. New Housing Facility: Mr. Jeffcoat presented a concept that the University administration at Spartanburg had proposed to construct Phase I of new campus housing along Hodge Drive adjacent to the existing University Commons housing facility. The site had been determined by the master plan work which had been performed in 1993. The 96,720 square foot facility would consist of one "L" shaped building facing Hodge Drive with a rear courtyard and adjacent recreational areas. The proposed facility would provide 292 private student rooms in a suite configuration. The building would have four levels for student housing with a separate common living area on each floor. The ground floor would provide space for housing offices, a laundry facility, a computer learning area, and a community recreational space with an outside patio. The proposed cost for Phase I would be approximately $12.7 million using Housing Revenue Bonds.

      Dr. Palms advised that he and Dr. Stockwell had discussed the housing issue. An extensive assessment had taken place last year with respect to purchasing a piece of property adjacent to the Spartanburg campus; Dr. Stockwell had withdrawn the acquisition request which Dr. Palms had not supported. Discussion had been centered around new housing. Dr. Palms had authorized a housing study and the housing and financial groups reviewed the study; concerns existed regarding the cost, staffing needs, security issues, and other items. Discussions concerning this matter would continue; a recommendation would not be presented at this time.

      Dr. Stockwell stated that the cost per semester would be approximately $2,000; $4,000 a year for housing. There had been strong evidence that the students would be willing and able to pay the fee. The current fee for University Commons housing had been about $1,600 per semester. The University of Spartanburg had grown substantially; enrollment had increased by 30 percent during the past six years. Of the 1,800 students accepted for admission last fall, 50 percent had requested on-campus housing. The current capacity had been for only 200 of the 900 requests for housing. Students which could not be housed on campus had lived in motels, with which the University had made arrangements, or in neighboring apartments, without the support associated with on-campus housing. Compared to enrollment at other campuses in the state and the ratio of housing on those campuses, USCS had nearly 10 percent access to on-campus housing; most campuses had ranged up to 35 to 40 percent. Phase I of the project would allow for roughly 300 additional beds; Phase II would provide 20 to 25 percent of on-campus housing for USCS. A review of other institutions in the coalition of metropolitan universities around the country had indicated that virtually all had moved toward housing in the range of 20 to 25 percent. Dr. Stockwell informed the Committee that the development of the project could be handled through Residential Bonds or a private developer. On-campus housing would be manageable, doable, and would add to the attractiveness of the campus. In addition, the students had been deeply interested and willing to pay the price; the institution had grown as well as the demand for housing.

      Mr. Lister inquired about whether Mr. Kelly had the opportunity to review the financial profile associated with building the new dormitories. Mr. Kelly responded affirmatively; however, further consideration would be given to operational costs as well as fees associated with unit costs. Mr. Kelly stated that the matter would be brought to the Committee relatively soon. It appeared that the transaction would be financially feasible.

      Mr. Whittle noted that in the process of the analysis, the University would build 500 student dormitories for $21 million and 300 student dormitories for $12.7 million. Issues regarding the capacity of the students' being able to afford the cost had surrounded the earlier dormitories which had been built on the Columbia campus. Mr. Whittle suggested the need to review the "affordability" of the housing in the Spartanburg area versus the Columbia area to get at least what the Columbia campus had received for the dormitories to make the situation workable. The assumptions would be critical to the success of the project and would need to be accurate.

      Mr. Miller opined that he anticipated a recommendation for the project would be forthcoming and noted that some of the same issues would be discussed, including those which Dr. Palms had previously not recommended. Dr. Palms stated that Mr. Miller was correct. Superior institutions existed in Aiken and Spartanburg; these campuses would continue to attract the very best students. Dr. Palms had been charged with assessing the impact of what not having housing would have on the student body being attracted and the quality of student life. He noted that financial challenges existed; the commuting student in Spartanburg may not be able to afford $2,000 a semester. A clear understanding of the correct housing support systems as well as the staffing to accommodate the students' needs would be required. The Spartanburg housing issue could, for example, necessitate a next step of building a wellness center. Broader issues would need to be examined before a recommendation could be made. Other campuses could be interested in expanding housing also; critical issues needed to be dealt with before proceeding. The applicant pool had changed since September 11, 2001. More students had been staying within the state and had required housing.

      Discussion ensued among Committee members concerning prior on-campus housing principles. Mr. Lister opined that he would fully support the project in Spartanburg upon justification of the financial status.

      Mr. McLellan noted that the Strategic Directions and Initiatives (SDI) report had suggested a continued increase of SAT requirements which indicated that some students would go to other campuses around the state. An increase of students in the Aiken and Spartanburg institutions had been expected. In addition, Mr. McLellan inquired about whether the $2,000 tuition included the operational cost of the building. He stated that the time had come for a decision to be made concerning whether on-campus housing in Spartanburg would be supported, even if meant that Aiken would request the same.

      Mr. Adams noted that the next Buildings and Grounds Committee meeting had been scheduled for May 23, 2002. He asked Dr. Stockwell about the schedule regarding the action that needed to be taken at Spartanburg. Dr. Stockwell replied that if a decision could be reached by May or June, bringing the project on-line by the fall of 2004 would be possible. He noted that a scenario could be provided to the Committee concerning the private developer versus the bonding capacity.

      Mr. Lister requested that input on the administration's position, including Mr. Kelly's final analysis, be provided within four weeks rather than waiting for the Committee to meet again. A special meeting of the Committee could be scheduled to expedite getting the matter before the entire Board. Dr. Palms agreed with the request.

      Chairman Loadholt stated that this report was received for information.

4. USC Columbia - CPIP: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that in the past, each state agency responsible for providing and maintaining physical facilities had been required to submit an Annual Permanent Improvement Program (APIP). The APIP included all permanent improvement projects which had been expected to be implemented with funds already available or that the institution could reasonably expect to become available during the fiscal year. In addition, when requested, each state agency seeking new authorizations which would make additional funds available for permanent improvement projects by the General Assembly had been required to submit an Overall Permanent Improvement Plan (OPIP). The OPIP included requests for projects to be financed by Capital Improvement Bonds and the plans submitted covered a period of not less than five fiscal years. The state had combined the APIP and the OPIP process into one consolidated five-year planning process entitled the Comprehensive Permanent Improvement Plan (CPIP). Projects in the plan costing over $250,000 must have Board approval. The merger of the two plans would reduce the amount of paperwork for state agencies for permanent improvement planning.
   1. Bates House Renovation:
      
      1. Phase III of Renovation: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that this project had originally been approved in February 2000 as part as of 2000/2001 Annual Permanent Improvement Plan. The project entailed interior renovation of the building which included lobby renovations, interior painting, carpet replacement, furniture replacement, and repair of the mechanical system. The project had been approved with a budget of $2,050,000 funded with Housing Funds. The work would be implemented in phases. Tower B had been completed in the Summer of 2001. Tower A had been scheduled for the summer of 2002 and Tower C for the summer of 2003. In December 2001, the project budget was increased with administrative approval; the increase of $100,000 had been required to fund additional work in the equipment room for replacement of failed valves and adding additional isolation valves in the HVAC piping system. This resulted in a project budget of $2,150,000 funded with Housing Funds.

         When detailed planning of the project began, the scope of the project had been revised to include data wiring and electrical upgrades and the upgrading of the community baths on each floor. The approved budget had been sufficient to fund the first two phases of the project; additional funds would be required to fund the work in Tower C scheduled for the summer of 2003. Approval was requested to revise the budget to accommodate the increased scope of the project. The $1,400,000 increase would be funded with Housing Funds and would result in a total project budget of $3,550,000 funded with Housing Funds.

         Mr. Bradley inquired about six housing projects on the Columbia campus totaling $17,700,000, as well as the financing capacity relative to housing bonds to accommodate renovations. Mr. Jeffcoat responded that the total project budget had been $17,700,000 and some of those funds had been spent over past years. Mr. Luna remarked that 4.5 million per year had been set aside from housing revenues to address various maintenance projects; the funding capacity existed.

         Mr. Hubbard moved approval to increase the budget for the Bates House Renovation by $1,400,000 to accommodate the increased scope of the project. The increase would result in a total project budget of $3,550,000 funded with Housing Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Dr. Floyd seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

      2. Administrative Budget Increase: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that in accordance with the policy approved by the Board of Trustees, administrative approval had been obtained to increase the budget for the Bates House Renovation project by $100,000. The original project had been established with $2,050,000. The project included repair of the building's mechanical system to improve its efficiency. The increase had been required to fund additional work in the equipment room, replacing failed valves and adding additional isolation valves in the HVAC piping system. The $100,000 increase had been funded with Housing Funds and resulted in a total project budget of $2,150,000 funded with Housing Funds.

         Chairman Loadholt stated that the project had been approved in compliance with Board Policy.

   2. Thornwell Roof Replacement: Mr. Jeffcoat advised that Housing had commissioned a roofing consultant, Stafford Engineering from Charlotte, North Carolina, to conduct an extensive study to determine the condition of roofs on campus; immediate replacement of the roof of the Thornwell building had been recommended. Mr. Jeffcoat noted that Thornwell had been constructed in 1913 and wings had been added to the structure in 1937; the gross square footage was roughly 140,000. The roof systems had been in poor condition; the existing slate was severely deteriorated and leakage had occurred. Valleys, ridge, stepflashing, and counterflashing of galvanized metal had exhibited significant deterioration. Replacement of the gutters had also been recommended. Deterioration of the wood cornice due to water infiltration at the downspouts would require repair as well. It had been proposed that the existing slate roof be replaced with standing-seam copper, subject to historical review.

      Mr. Hubbard inquired about the cost of replacing the roof with slate and Mr. Jeffcoat replied that the cost would be substantially more because of the difficulty in obtaining slate. If the review determined that the roof should be replaced with slate, a synthetic material appearing identical to slate from ground level but providing longer life, could be used instead of genuine slate. Mr. Whittle remarked that the cost of slate would be three times more; synthetic material had been almost 20 percent more than asphalt singles. Mr. Jeffcoat noted that Preston College and Hamilton College recently had copper roofs installed; a new dormitory had a metal standing-seam roof.

      Mr. Hubbard inquired about the life expectancy of the different materials used for roofs. Mr. Jeffcoat advised that no difference existed in the life of genuine slate, which had a tendency to become brittle, versus synthetic slate; the difference had been in the cost. It had been speculated that copper roofs had an estimated life of 50 years or longer. The slate roof on Thornwell had lasted approximately 89 years.

      Mr. Hubbard noted that additional consideration should be given to the roofing matter; economic issues had been a concern. Further analysis was warranted because of the historical structures involved; comparative figures should be provided. Mr. Jeffcoat advised that the roofing consultant preparing the specifications would be asked to review the options and provide more detailed information. The life-cycle cost would be an important item to review.

      Mr. Whittle inquired about the number of squares which would be required for the Thornwell roof replacement. Mr. Jeffcoat advised that approximately 3,500 squares would be required. Mr. Whittle noted that the cost of genuine slate had been roughly $300 per square; synthetic slate would cost approximately $150 per square. A genuine slate roof replacement for the project would cost roughly $1,050,000; a synthetic slate roof replacement would cost half of that price, with a life expectancy of 40 years.

      In response to a question from Mr. Hubbard concerning historic preservation issues, Mr. Jeffcoat replied that the buildings should be maintained as near the original condition as possible.

      Discussion ensued among Committee members concerning roofing material options, particularly genuine slate, as well as the thickness alternatives, the life expectancy of each option, and the costs. In addition, trade availability issues had been addressed.

      Mr. Jeffcoat noted that the roofing consultant would be asked to review the three roofing options as well as the life expectancy and the cost of each. Comparisons could be made, working with Housing, to determine which option would be most efficient. The information would be reported to the Committee.

      At this time, Mr. Jeffcoat requested approval for the project with a budget of $700,000. A recommendation for the best roofing option would be forthcoming. If the choice in roofing material necessitated an increase to the budget, the increase would be presented to the Committee. Having the project approved would allow for the continuation of the design work and would prevent a delay for approval with the Budget and Control Board.

      Mr. Hubbard moved approval to establish a project for the Thornwell roof replacement with a budget of $700,000 funded with Housing Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting, with the understanding that a recommendation would be presented to the Committee concerning the appropriate roofing option when determined. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   3. Housing Roof Repairs: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that Housing recently commissioned a study to evaluate the roof conditions of existing housing facilities. The study identified in excess of $500,000 in roof repairs and $2.3 million in roof replacements over a five-year period. The project would consist of general roof repairs for housing residence halls. The current roof systems in several buildings had been in a state of deterioration and would require significant repair to ensure that the existing roofs retained a weather tight barrier. The project would be implemented over a period of several years, three years minimum.

      Mr. Jeffcoat requested approval to establish a project with a budget of $900,000 funded with Housing Funds to address the roof repairs and begin the design work on the roof replacement projects.

      Discussion ensued among Committee members concerning the specific facilities in need of roof repairs and replacement. Mr. Jeffcoat noted that the Roost had been one facility and Mr. Luna stated that the roof of 820 Henderson Street had been another building.

      Dr. Floyd inquired about how the survey of roofs had been conducted to determine the needed repairs or replacements. Mr. Jeffcoat explained that the roofs on campus were examined periodically by a group such as Stafford Engineering, who would walk each of the roofs noting the condition, as well as outlining and prioritizing any needed repairs.

      Mr. Hubbard moved that the housing roofing repairs matter be carried over pending further information on the specific facilities in need roof repairs and replacement. Dr. Floyd seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   4. Renovations to Patterson Hall: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the project had been established to address the interior renovations to Patterson Hall. The building had been constructed in 1967. The structure was approximately 155,000 gross square feet and housed 630 students. The work would include plumbing repairs, interior painting of student rooms, corridors, and bathroom repairs. The work had been scheduled to be completed in two phases scheduled for the summer of 2003 and 2004. Mr. Jeffcoat requested approval for the project with a budget of $1 million to be funded with Housing Funds.

      Mrs. Harvey moved approval to establish a budget for renovations to Patterson Hall with a budget of $1 million to be funded with Housing Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Dr. Floyd seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   5. Housing Code Compliance: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the initial project had been established in 1993 and was ongoing. The project budget had periodically been increased as the project scope progressed. The goal of the project had been to make the building safer for the students. Fire systems in 22 buildings would be upgraded and fire sprinkler systems would be installed in several of the buildings as required by the Code allowing work to continue in Patterson Hall, the Roost, and Columbia Hall. The upcoming phase of the project would be addressed in 2004 and 2005. Mr. Jeffcoat requested approval to increase the project budget by $2 million to be funded with Housing Funds. This would result in a total project budget of $9.8 million funded with $9.4 million in Housing Funds, $300,000 in Renovation Reserve Funds, and $100,000 in Auxiliary Funds.

      Chairman Loadholt inquired about being out of compliance. Mr. Jeffcoat responded negatively; compliance had been exceeded in some cases. The "grandfathering" of buildings had been allowed, but compatibility with code requirements had been favored.

      Mr. Lister moved approval to increase the budget by $2 million for Housing Facilities to be funded with Housing Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Dr. Floyd seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   6. Beaufort New River Campus Project: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the project was originally established in October, 2000, for the construction of a facility on the New River Campus for USC Beaufort. The initial budget had been established at $9.37 million and was funded with $4 million in Capital Improvement Bonds, $3.37 million in County Funds, and $2 million in Private Funds. Mr. Jeffcoat requested approval to increase the project budget to $12,877,500, and to change the funding sources to $4 million in Capital Improvement Bonds and $8,877,500 in County Bond Funds, contingent upon the approval and availability of the County Bond Funds.

      Mr. McLellan inquired about county bonding and the holder of the title to the property. Mr. Jeffcoat responded that the county would not hold the title to the property because the project contained state funding as well.

      Mrs. Harvey moved approval to increase the project budget to $12,877,500, and to change the funding sources to $4 million in Capital Improvement Bonds and $8,877,500 in County Bond Funds, contingent upon the approval and availability of the County Bond Funds, as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Lister seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   7. West Campus Property Acquisition - Greek Village:
      1. Administrative Budget Increase: Mr. Jeffcoat noted that as work progressed on the Greek Village, coordination of work associated with the construction of the Wellness Center had been required. To prevent future disturbance of the site, the contractor performing the site improvements for the Greek Village had been authorized to perform additional work, installing conduit for power for the Wellness Center. To expedite the completion of the site work in the area immediately adjacent to the Greek Village, the contractor had also been authorized to complete a portion of the work planned for the second phase of site improvements. This included providing power to the ball field and future signs, and the installation of the parking lot near Blossom Street.

         Administrative approval had been obtained and the $240,000 increase was funded with a transfer of Institutional Capital Project Funds from the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center project. The increase resulted in a total budget of $10,090,000 funded with $4,924,000 in Housing Funds and $3,666,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds, and $1,500,000 in Institutional Funds (Carolina Plaza Rent Account).

      2. Amendments to Budgets - Phase I and Phase II: Mr. Jeffcoat noted that when the project was originally approved, it had included the acquisition of property and Phase I of the site development. The budget for the Wellness Center project included $1,550,000 for Phase II of the site development of the acquired property because of the co-location of the two projects.

      To expedite the completion of the site work in the area immediately adjacent to the Greek Village and to prevent future disturbance of the site, a portion of the work originally planned and budgeted for Phase II had been included in the scope of work to be performed by the contractor performing the site improvements for the Greek Village.

      Mr. Jeffcoat requested approval to transfer $550,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds from the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center project to the West Campus Property Acquisition project to fund the revision in the phasing of the site development.

      The transfer would increase the project budget for the West Campus Property Acquisition project to $10.4 million funded with $4,924,000 in Housing Funds, $3,976,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds, and $1,500,000 in Institutional Funds (Carolina Plaza Rent Account).

      The transfer would decrease the project budget for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center project to $48,824,000 funded with $3 million in Capital Improvement Bond Funds, $31,174,000 in Institution Bonds, $6,038,515 in Institutional Capital Project Funds, $4,611,485 in Bell Camp proceeds, and $4 million in grant funds.

      Discussion ensued among Committee members regarding the scope of the $3 million and what would be included. Mr. Jeffcoat responded that building demolition, utility work, storm drainage work, overhead power lines, landscaping, and parking area paving would be included. Mr. Jeffcoat noted that an itemized budget, as originally approved, then could be furnished as requested by Mr. Whittle.

      Mr. Lister moved approval to transfer $550,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds from the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center project to the West Campus Property Acquisition project, to fund a revision in the phasing of the site development as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   8. Other Matters: Chairman Loadholt stated that there were contractual matters with respect to Gift Naming Opportunities which were appropriate for Executive Session. Mr. Bradley moved to enter Executive Session and Dr. Floyd seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

      Everyone present was invited to remain in the room during Executive Session.

Executive Session

Contractual Matters: Gift Naming Opportunities: Mr. Stepp stated that the Gift Naming Opportunities Committee had met on February 6, 2002 and had voted to recommend the following two naming opportunities:

1. "Victor Laurie Spectroscopy Instrument Room": The Department of Chemistry had requested this naming in conjunction with an appropriate donation as provided by Article VII, Section 2., Paragraph 3(a) of the Board Bylaws.

   There was no objection; therefore, the proposed name would be presented to the full Board in Executive Session.

2. "The Robert and Anna Lou Marvin Park": Based on a long standing agreement with the Salkehatchie campus, the Committee recommended that this naming be approved as provided by Article VII, Section 2., Paragraph 3(a) of the Board Bylaws.

   There was no objection; therefore, the proposed name would be presented to the full Board in Executive Session.

   In addition, the administration recommended the establishment of the naming opportunity below as provided by Article VII, Section 2., Paragraph 3(b) of the Board Bylaws.

   "R. L. Crawford Nursing Center"

   Mr. Stepp noted that the Crawfords had been deceased for more than a year. The naming had not required that it be a condition of a gift; however, in addition to numerous contributions to USC Lancaster, their will left a bequest of $300,000. The R. L. Crawford Nursing Center would be located within Hubbard Hall.

   There was no objection; therefore, the proposed name would be presented to the full Board in Executive Session.

Chairman Loadholt declared the meeting returned to Open Session.

Return to Open Session

Chairman Loadholt advised Committee members that a tour of the arena construction site would be available immediately following the Board of Trustees' meeting.

There were no other matters to come before the Committee, and Chairman Loadholt declared the meeting adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary