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 Thursday, April 13, 2000, at 1:15 p.m. in Room 201 of the Performing Arts Center on the USC Beaufort Campus.

Members present were: Mr. Miles Loadholt, Chairman; Mr. Herbert C. Adams; Dr. C. Edward Floyd; Mr. J. DuPre Miller; Mr. William C. Hubbard, Board Chairman; and Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Board Vice Chairman, via telephone. Members absent were: Mr. James Bradley; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; and Ms. Darla D. Moore.

Other Trustees present were: Mr. Arthur S. Bahnmuller; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. M. Wayne Staton; and Mr. Othniel H. Wienges, Jr.

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 Business and Finance John L. Finan; Vice President for Student and Alumni Services Dennis A. Pruitt; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice President for Development Charles D. Phlegar; General Counsel Walter H. (Terry) Parham; Vice Provost and Executive Dean of Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; USC Columbia Director of Facilities Management and University Architect Charles G. Jeffcoat; USC Columbia Assistant Director for Planning Services Donna Collins; USC Aiken Chancellor Robert E. Alexander; USC Beaufort Dean Jane T. Upshaw; USC Sumter Dean C. Leslie Carpenter; USC Spartanburg Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Robert Connelly; Architect with the Boudreaux Group Scott Garvin; USC Columbia Director of Student Life Jerry T. Brewer; Director of Public Affairs Russell McKinney, Jr.; representative from Media Relations Jason Snyder; Associate Director of Periodicals, University Publications, Chris Horn; representative from Distance Education and Instructional Support Brian Jenkins; former USC Columbia Student Government Association President Malik Husser; guest of Mr. Bahnmuller, Roger Hambree; and members of the media.

Chairman Loadholt called the meeting to order. He welcomed all members of the Board of Trustees, who had been especially invited to participate in this meeting. Mr. Snyder introduced the members of the media who were present.

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 the Buildings and Grounds Committee and to the entire Board of Trustees; a quorum of the Buildings and Grounds Committee was present to conduct business; and all members of the Board of Trustees were invited to participate.

Chairman Loadholt stated that there were contractual matters appropriate for discussion in Executive Session which involved donor contracts. He called for an appropriate motion. Mr. Adams moved that the Committee enter Executive Session, and Dr. Floyd seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried. The following persons were invited to remain: Dr. Palms, Mr. Stepp, Dr. Odom, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Finan, Ms. Jameson, Dr. Pruitt, Dr. Alexander, Mr. Jeffcoat, Dr. Plyler, Mr. Parham, Mr. Phlegar, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Mayfield, and Mrs. Hyatt.

Contractual Matters :

Strom Thurmond Wellness/Fitness Center : Dr. Palms said that construction bids had been received in February for the Wellness Center, but they exceeded the established budget. There were a multitude of reasons which involved the current climate of the construction industry, the type of materials selected and their availability, as well as a lack of bidders. The University reviewed many areas to determine how the project could be value engineered without losing its principal functions. Compromises had been suggested, and the possibility of raising additional funds had also been explored. Several individuals were present to provide information and to respond to questions.

Dr. Pruitt expressed his appreciation to Chairman Loadholt, Chairman Hubbard, Dr. Palms, and Secretary Stepp for scheduling this day's meeting. With approval by the Committee and the Board of Trustees, the construction process could proceed. The administration would request approval to move as quickly as possible to begin the many subsequent state approvals required before the project could be rebid for construction to begin in the fall.

When the original bids were received, they exceeded the project budget by more than $10 million. After a careful study of the situation, the administration was requesting that the scope and budget of the existing project be amended to increase the budget by $6.3 million and to decrease the scope of several facets that could be added at a later time.

Dr. Pruitt addressed the reasons why the bids were higher than expected. It was an extremely well designed, stellar building that was not a typical construction project. It had unique features and would use unique materials. The University had attempted to accelerate the construction schedule for completion in 24 months which caused a cost premium to be attached. Conditions in specific labor markets were unknown when the original budget was established. And, there was an absence of local bidders which also affected the bid process.

The reaction by the administration to the bids was then discussed. There was an incredible effort by many people, many of whom were present, to determine a way to address the $10 million difference. First, value engineering resulted in the removal of $4.3 million from the budget in a way that maintained the integrity, programmatic functions, and aesthetic qualities of the building. No exterior differences existed.

There was a recommendation to use $2.5 million of the $10 million in Institutional Bonds which would become available in 2004. The remaining portion of the above mentioned $6.3 million would be funded with $3.8 million from accrued student fees which were currently being collected, but there was one caveat. The original annual schedule of semester fees was set to increase from $10 in the first year, to $25, then $40, and then $104 in the year the facility opened. The $104 amount included a fee for the operation of the building. The proposal was to delay the increase to the $104 fee one year so that the $40 fee would be charged for two consecutive years. That would mean students would not pay $104 until they could use the facility; and one additional year of collecting $40, combined with accrued interest for an additional year, would produce the $3.8 million needed to apply to the construction. When the facility opened, the students would pay approximately $17 per month to use the facility which favorably compared to the current market rate in Columbia of $41 per month.

Dr. Pruitt expressed his confidence that the second bid process would be much more successful than the previous one.

After clarification of the proposal to reduce the fee charged to students during the fourth year, Dr. Pruitt introduced Mr. Garvin who provided a brief description of the $4.3 million value engineering.

Mr. Garvin explained the process used to reduce the scope of the project to accommodate high bids while maintaining the architectural integrity, recognizing the programming requirements, and including certain materials that had been chosen for durability, maintenance, and aesthetics. One focus had been on aspects of the facility that could be deferred: parts of the project which could be constructed later using contingency funds. Another focus was to protect the University against additional high bids. Components were selected as large alternates that would be included in the documents, but if high bids were received, they could be leveraged.

The $4.3 million of value engineering was outlined by Mr. Garvin. Approximately $340,000 in administrative items were targeted such as excessive tap fees charged by the City, power service from SCE&G, and duplicate insurance. The simplification of materials was another large savings; the same materials would be used, but the project was positioned better with respect to the exact types of steel, plaster, tile, etc. The materials that would work best were determined based on current labor and current economy. Alternatives were chosen for materials not located in the main functional areas that would still retain quality and durability. There was also program simplification with respect to some items: skylights would still be located in the same areas as originally planned, but they would be smaller. There would still be service access around the facility, but less complicated access had been designated.

The overriding theme was to develop ideas to simplify the facility, make it more efficient, easier to build, and positioned better in the marketplace.

With respect to deferred items, Mr. Garvin said that would involve creating the shell for spaces such as an auxiliary gym, a multi-purpose room, a food and retail area, and an office area. They could be added during construction with contingencies or with separate funding. Some program reallocation addressed items that were included in the project but would be removed and established as separate projects such as streetscape improvements and a parking lot. They would be funded and completed as separate projects.

In response to Mr. Hubbard's questions, Mr. Garvin confirmed that both swimming pools would remain in the project and the shell for the auxiliary gym would be constructed. Mr. Wienges asked for further explanation regarding positioning in the marketplace and materials. By way of example, Mr. Garvin replied that the original plan called for tubular steel tresses in the open spaces, but the new proposal was to use a wide-flange type section that was much more economical in the current market. The tresses would be steel, only a different type of steel.

Mr. Jeffcoat said the administration was requesting an increase to the project budget for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center in the amount of $6.3 million. The increase would be funded with a combination of $2.5 million in additional Institutional Bonds and $3.8 million realized from the revised construction schedule with the majority funded from accrued student fees. Once approved, the total project budget would be $44,474,000 funded with $3 million in State Capital Improvement Bonds; $31,174,000 in Institutional Bonds; $5,688,515 in Institutional Capital Project Funds; and $4,611,485 from Bell Camp proceeds.

Chairman Loadholt called for a motion. Dr. Floyd moved that the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center Project budget be increased from the Board approved amount of $38,174,000 to $44,474,000, and that an additional $2,500,000 in Institutional Bonds be authorized for the project. Mr. Adams seconded the motion.

Discussion ensued regarding the integrity of the original design of the facility by maintaining skylights as well as concerns regarding the extremely high bids. Mr. Finan addressed the later issue saying that the firm that determined the budget indicated its problem came from the intricacies of the building; the types of high quality materials such as the expensive tubular steel; and the marketplace. When asked, Mr. Finan said the firm did not waive its fee for the original work, but assisted with the value engineering without additional payment. It had not yet been determined if the same firm would be employed for the second phase.

Mr. Whittle opined that the decision to employ the same firm should be presented to the Buildings and Grounds Committee for decision. He noted his concerns that the delay would cost the University a higher interest rate on the bonds and that no representative from the firm was in attendance to offer an explanation.

Chairman Loadholt accepted the recommendation from Mr. Whittle, and stated that it was the consensus of the Committee that the exterior of the facility not be compromised in any way.

Mr. Adams inquired about the streetscape project mentioned by Mr. Garvin. Mr. Jeffcoat replied that it had not been presented to the Buildings and Grounds Committee because the size of the project did not require Board approval. The recommendations would come from Wilbur Smith Associates who had completed a traffic study of Blossom Street. The study counted the number of vehicles, the number of left and right turns, and determined the timing sequences of the signals. A computer generated program simulated the gaps in traffic and determined that the majority of the pedestrians would cross Blossom Street from the parking lots behind the Carolina Coliseum. There would be an opportunity to cross the northern most lanes of Blossom Street at one stage in the break in traffic. A wide median might be constructed containing landscaped furniture. Another break in traffic from the other direction would allow crossing the remainder of Blossom Street. The crosswalks would be articulated with a different type of paving.

Mr. Adams said that the safety of students crossing Blossom Street had been a major concern with the location of the Wellness Center. Regardless of its value, the streetscape project should be presented to the Committee.

The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

Mr. Bahnmuller cautioned that the proposed new basketball arena might also receive extremely high bids.

When there were no other matters to come before the Committee, Chairman Loadholt declared the meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary