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, May 24, 2001, at 1:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Carolina Plaza.

Members present were: Mr. Miles Loadholt, Chairman; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. Alexander English; Mr. William C. Hubbard; Mr. J. DuPre Miller. Members absent were: Dr. C. Edward Floyd; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey and Mr. Toney J. Lister. Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Board Vice Chairman, was also present.

Others present were: President John M. Palms; Secretary Thomas L. Stepp; Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Jerome D. Odom; Executive Director of the Office of Foundations Susie H. VanHuss; 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; Interim Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Allan Barber; Vice Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; Assistant Dean of The Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health Cheryl Addy; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; 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; Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, USC Spartanburg, Robert Connelly; Director of Student Life, Division of Student and Alumni Services, Jerry Brewer; Director of Periodicals, University Publications, Chris Horn; Director of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; Board member of Workshop Theatre of South Carolina Mr. George (Chip) King; and Mr. Charles J. Hultstrand and Mr. Doug Quackenbush of the Boudreaux Group.

Chairman Loadholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those present. Mr. McKinney introduced members of the media.

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.

Chairman Loadholt directed attention to the agenda and stated that without objection, a slight deviation in the order of the agenda would be made. He then called on Mr. Jeffcoat.

1. Law School Site Selection:
   Mr. Jeffcoat welcomed Chuck Hultstrand and Doug Quackenbush of the Boudreaux Group who gave a report on the process for the Law School site selection.

   Chairman Loadholt noted that this agenda item would require action by the Committee.

   Mr. Hultstrand rendered a sense of how the process of the site selection evolved to arrive at a recommendation. A very deliberative process of working through all the issues that would impact the selection of the site was begun. Goals were developed for the Law School and other facets of its operation that would impact the site selection. A list of criteria was developed along with programmatic requirements and site analysis which lead to a concept design study. The goals were reviewed to determine the vision for the new Law School and the site selection, some of which included the building layout for effective legal education, developing appropriate massing, scale and articulation relative to the context, a realistic parking strategy, fostering a strong legal education community, and using this facility as a tool to strengthen our national reputation. The analysis of the different sites included existing conditions, buildable area, surrounding context, circulation and parking, development constraints, and cost factors. Programmatic requirements had been reviewed in detail.

   The site and programmatic issues were studied from a number of perspectives. Input was received from people representing the Law School, the University Administration, the Board of Trustees, the legal community in the state, the civic leaders of Columbia, and the neighborhood association around the University. From these discussions, different perspectives were gained that would affect the site selection. Some of the factors that emerged from the Law School perspective were an attractive setting that would accommodate the programmatic needs of an excellent Law School facility, easy access from campus and nearby parking, and positive connections to related programs. The issues emerging from the University were to develop a distinguished, landmark Law School and to respect and enrich USC's architectural and planning heritage. From the community perspective, the issues were to upgrade the character of the surrounding environment and have minimal impact on traffic and parking conditions.

   Out of the process, six potential site locations were considered which originated from the campus master planning work that was led by Sasaki Associates. The six sites that emerged were: 1) the Pendleton Street site directly across from the Advocacy Center, 2) the Museum Block site which contained the former Columbia Art Museum building, Workshop Theatre of South Carolina, and other historic buildings, 3) the College Street site near the School of Business, 4) the existing Law School block, 5) the Coliseum site (situated on the north side of the Coliseum), and 6) the Hardee's block located across Assembly Street from the Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center. Mr. Hultstrand provided a brief site analysis summary and concept design for each of the six site locations, but the Museum Block site emerged as the highest recommendation for the Law School. The buildable area was one of the largest of any of the sites.

   Additional details concerning the Museum Block site were discussed and numerous issues were outlined such as the potential approach for the overall vehicular and pedestrian circulation, parking, and specific context related to urban edges.

   Regulatory issues included historical buildings such as the Taylor House, which was the former Columbia Art Museum, as well as the Carriage House, the Guignard House, and a nearby garage. Research would be carried out to determine if the Carriage House and the garage would remain on the property. The removal of the Workshop Theatre building from this site was also a concern.

   The parking proximity, with more than 2000 spaces available nearby, would become a management issue and a parking study concerning a strategy for parking allocations would be forthcoming.

   A massing study depicted a mostly four-story building on this site for the new Law School. An urban setting would accommodate this type of massing.

   In closing, several recommendations for the Museum Block site were highlighted. They included a large, buildable area which would afford a good plan layout for an excellent Law School facility allowing for future expansion; on-site parking for faculty and visitors; a strong identity for the Law School and a new campus gateway into the historic core of the campus from the city; a positive relationship to the main campus, the National Advocacy Center, the legal community and State government; the reasonable cost of the site and building development due to a large, level land area; and a long-term value of this location balancing the high initial land cost.

   Chairman Loadholt asked if there were any questions or comments and President Palms formally recommended the Museum Block site to the Committee. It was strongly felt that this was the best site for this important building which would house the Law School.

   Discussion ensued among Committee members regarding several items, one being the cost of securing the land, which was currently priced at $3.6 million and owned by the Foundation. The Workshop Theatre was a concern and Mr. Hultstrand advised that it was not certain at this point whether Workshop Theatre would be located on campus or off, but it would need to be moved from this site. Some of the ideas for the former Columbia Art Museum building were to convert it into reception spaces and administrative areas for the new Law School, with the potential that it could be used for something other than the Law School. There was flexibility either way.

   Mr. Hubbard moved approval of the selection of the Museum Block as the site for the new Law School building. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

2. Energy Master Plan Projects and Infrastructure Repair & Expansion:
   Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the proposed Energy Master Plan projects that would repair or replace existing 30 year old equipment with new high efficiency equipment and upgrade and expand the energy distribution system serving the campus. Work had progressed on the first year projects which would replace the existing boilers in some of the energy plants, as well as lighting retrofits, expansion of the energy management system, and the upgrade of the electrical and steam infrastructure located underground throughout the campus. Two chillers would be replaced with high efficiency chillers at the east and west energy plants. This project would also expand the energy loop from the west energy plant to the Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center and any future facilities to be located in the west campus. Improved efficiency of chilled water generation along with increased chiller capacity and improved distribution of utilities would be realized. The elimination of a hazardous material - chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs - from the energy plants was required as chillers were replaced. Redundant chiller capacity would be created in case of failure and ultimately, less energy would be used.

   While this project addressed the engineering and design of two of ten chillers, the proposed budget was not sufficient to completely upgrade the energy equipment and infrastructure. This project was a continuation of the Energy Master Plan which was scheduled to take about twelve years to complete and cost more than $30 million. However, if all the projects were realized during this twelve year period, the savings would be $10 million annually in payback. Additional funds would be identified and made available, with the appropriate review and approval by the Board of Trustees, and the project would be expanded or new projects would be created to continue the work of the Energy Master Plan.

   Approval was requested to establish a project with an initial budget of $3 million to be funded entirely with Institutional (facilities) Funds.

   Mr. Adams moved approval to establish a project for the Energy Master Plan Projects and Infrastructure Repair & Expansion with an initial budget of $3 million to be funded with Institutional (facilities) Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

3. USC Spartanburg:
   

   1. Facilities Management Center Conversion:
      Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the Master Plan called for the construction of a new facility to house the facilities operations for the campus. In lieu of constructing a new facility, the campus had leased a building adjacent to the campus and renovations would be performed in order to accommodate its planned use by Facilities. The purchase of building maintenance and grounds equipment as well as telephone and computer communications would be required.

      Mr. Jeffcoat noted that last month the Board approved the issuance of bonds for the Spartanburg campus.

      Approval was requested to establish a project with a budget of $350,000 funded with Institution Bonds (USCS).

      Mr. Adams moved approval to establish a project for the Facilities Management Center Conversion with a budget of $350,000 to be funded with USCS Institution Bonds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   2. Horace C. Smith Building, Deferred Maintenance:
      Mr. Jeffcoat stated that correction of critical deferred maintenance deficiencies were required for this project which included the air flow in laboratories to safely vent fume hoods, the roof replacement on a portion of the building and the repair of fire pumps, controls, and related piping.

      Mr. Miller moved approval to establish a project for the deferred maintenance of the Horace C. Smith Building with a budget of $390,000 to be funded with USCS Institution Bonds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. English seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

   3. Hodge Center Roof Replacement:
      Mr. Jeffcoat noted that in April, 2001, the Board of Trustees approved this project to replace the roof and seal the exterior of the Hodge Center with a budget of $500,000 funded with $200,000 in USCS Renovation Reserve Funds and $300,000 in USCS Institutional Capital Project Funds. A change in the source of funds for this project was requested with a budget of $500,000 funded entirely with Institution Bonds.

      Mr. Adams inquired about the need for the source of funds change and Mr. Jeffcoat advised that the bonds had not been approved for issuance when the project was begun. Mr. Connelly also expressed that this project needed to get started and it was more appropriate to do a bond funding to spread the cost out rather than using a straight cash draw.

      Mr. Adams moved approval to change the source of funds for the Hodge Center roof replacement from $200,000 in USCS Renovation Reserve Funds and $300,000 in USCS Institutional Capital Project Funds to a project budget of $500,000 to be funded entirely with USCS Institution Bonds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

4. Swearingen Engineering Center:
   Mr. Jeffcoat stated that this project was for the renovation of Room 3C01 in the Swearingen Engineering Center. This project was required to relocate the Department of Computer Science and Engineering from the Sumwalt Building to Swearingen to free up space to accommodate the Nanoscience project. The renovation would convert an open assembly hall in Swearingen into a suite containing offices and a conference room. Included in the project cost were new partitions, new finishes, modifications to the mechanical and electrical systems, audio/visual equipment and furnishings.

   Approval was requested for the establishment of a project for the renovation of Room 3C01 with a budget of $300,000 with funds provided by the Office of Research.

   Mr. Adams moved approval to establish a project for the renovation of Room 3C01 in the Swearingen Engineering Center with a budget of $300,000 with funds provided by the Office of Research as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

5. Graduate Science Research Center Budget Increase to Close Project:
   Mr. Jeffcoat advised that the Graduate Science Research Center had been completed and occupied for several months. The figures provided in the materials distributed for this meeting had changed and Mr. Jeffcoat furnished up-to-date information. This project involved a final settlement to the contractor, M. B. Kahn, in the amount of $75,000 for the financial closure of the contract. The final settlement, along with the contract retainage of $100,000, plus a final change order in the amount of $105,443 required to complete the facility, totaled $280,443 due M. B. Kahn. The project budget had a balance of $3,722 and a final budget increase in the amount of $276,721 was required to close this project. This budget increase would be allocated from existing Renovation Reserve Funds and the total project budget of $34,876,721 would be funded with $4,654,470 in State Capital Improvement Bonds, $17,200,000 in Institutional Bonds, $5,615,935 in State Surplus Funds, $786,123 in Endowment Incentive, $1,776,721 in Renovation Reserve, $2,300,000 in Auxiliary Funds and $2,543,472 in Indirect Cost Recovery Funds.

   The mechanical contractor for the project, ACM - Atlantic Coast Mechanical - had filed a claim with the Office of the State Engineer regarding its cost on the project. Should the University be required to settle this contingent liability, the payment would be handled as a legal settlement; not as a part of this project. At this point, the claim was in the amount of $170,000 and was based primarily on problems with the drawings. Depending on the amount required to settle, the University would probably take legal action against the architects and engineers to recoup all or part of the expense. Mr. Jeffcoat advised that this liability would not be a part of this project because the time of the claim settlement was unknown and it was important to close the project.

   Mr. Bradley moved approval to increase the budget for the Graduate Science Research Center by $276,721 using existing Renovation Reserve Funds as described in the material presented by Mr. Jeffcoat. Mr. English seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

6. Project Status Report:
   Mr. Jeffcoat stated that Beers, the general contractor for the Basketball Arena, had moved onto the site. A sign on the corner of Lincoln and Greene Streets had been erected at the spot which would be the front entrance to the arena. The site work was continuing and much more equipment was visible in that location. A rendering of the finished building was shown.

   Chairman Loadholt inquired about the schedule for completion and Mr. Jeffcoat responded that the project was on schedule and that the completion date was slated for November, 2002. The contract allowed the contractor to collect a bonus if the project was completed by October 31, 2002.

   Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center had been progressing very well and was on schedule. Several slides of the construction progress were shown as well as a rendering of the finished center. Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the completion date was scheduled for the end of 2002, but the center would not officially open until the beginning of 2003. The time gap between the completion of the project and the opening of the center was intentional.

   Extensive renovations to the Callcott Building took place to accommodate the Department of Geography. After providing some history concerning this building, Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the current project budget was $3 million funded with State Capital Improvement Bonds. Ideal Construction of Columbia was the general contractor for the renovation project, which was $2.2 million. The completion date for Callcott was scheduled for January, 2002, and this building was a part of the Gibbes Greene Project.

   The renovation and preservation of Sloan College was complete. Mr. Jeffcoat advised that it was the home of the Department of Sociology. A ribbon-cutting ceremony had been planned in honor of the re-opening of this college.

   Mr. Jeffcoat provided an update on additional projects and the various planning and completion stages for each. The list included the School of Law, the Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, the South Campus Housing - Phase III, the Streetscape Project, renovations to Petigru College, a Convocation Center for USC Aiken, an Information Resource Center for USC Spartanburg, the New River Campus Building at USC Beaufort, renovations to Hamilton and LeConte colleges, and the Medford Library addition at USC Lancaster.

   Mr. Jeffcoat entertained questions from the Board regarding the funds available for and the costs associated with specific projects.

   Chairman Loadholt advised that he had taken a tour of the Graduate Science Research Center and was very impressed with the facility. Dr. Odom advised that a building dedication was scheduled for October 19, 2001.

7. School of Public Health Potential Site:
   Mr. Jeffcoat advised that an option was being studied for the potential location of the new School of Public Health facility. The chosen location was on the corner of College and Assembly Streets adjacent to the Carolina Plaza. Architects had studied the feasibility of the School of Public Health's totally vacating their current facility and moving into the Carolina Plaza tower for office space. A four-story structure of approximately 70,000 square feet would provide classroom and lab space. All functions for the School of Public Health would be consolidated in one location. A parking study was also being conducted. A detailed program statement for the construction phase and a project budget would be presented at a later time.

   Mr. Adams inquired about the square footage of the present School of Public Health building and Mr. Jeffcoat responded that the building was 50,000 square feet. No confirmed plans for the use of that building had been made.

   Chairman Loadholt announced that a ribbon cutting ceremony in honor of the re-opening of Sloan College would take place at the corner of Pendleton and Pickens Streets at 3:00 p.m. and invited everyone to attend.

There were no other matters to come before the Committee, and Chairman Loadholt declared the meeting adjourned at 1:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary