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, October 5, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

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

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 Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Dean of the School of the Environment Bruce C. Coull; USC Spartanburg Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Robert Connelly; USC Aiken Associate Chancellor for Business and Finance M. Ginger Steel; Associate Vice Provost for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Carolyn A. West; Director of Student Life Jerry T. Brewer; Director of Facilities Planning and Construction and University Architect Charles G. Jeffcoat; Director of Facility Services James D. Demarest; Director for Planning Services, Facilities Planning and Construction, Donna Collins; Information Resources Manager for Facility Services Teresa Morrison; Assistant to the Vice President for Business and Finance Ken Corbett; Director of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; Public Information Coordinator, Office of Media Relations, Jason Snyder; and members of the media.

Chairman Loadholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those present inviting them to introduce themselves. 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 Committee members; and a quorum was present to conduct business. Chairman Loadholt directed attention to the agenda and called on Mr. Jeffcoat.

I. Project Status Report: Mr. Jeffcoat addressed the report which had been mailed to the Committee members. It included a brief description of all ongoing projects that the Board had approved.

The South Campus Housing project had been completed on time, was occupied, and had been well received. Landscaping and site work would continue through the fall. The Sloan College renovation, the most significant core campus project currently underway, was scheduled for substantial completion in October 2000. The Department of Sociology would occupy the building during the latter part of December.

The first stage of the Russell House and Library Quadrangles had been completed. The Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center was under construction. Demolition of the arena site had begun; the early site work would begin later in the year with the actual construction to begin early in 2001.

II. Administratively Approved Project Budget Increase, USC Beaufort, Deferred Maintenance/Renovation Beaufort College Building: Chairman Loadholt stated that this project was approved in compliance with established Board Policy. Mr. Jeffcoat explained that it had been requested to increase the project to renovate the Beaufort College Building by $18,000 to be funded with $16,750 in Renovation Reserve Funds and $1,250 in Private Funds. The increase was needed to correct an existing condition of the original exterior finish of the brick which was not known at the time construction started. The original finish needed to be removed before the new finish could be applied.

The revised budget was $1,593,000 funded by $1,084,500 in Capital Improvement Bonds; $445,890 in County Funds; $40,860 in Private Funds; and $16,750 in Renovation Reserve Funds; and $5,000 in other Institutional Funds.

III. Bond Bill Projects: Mr. Jeffcoat prefaced the presentation by stating that these projects had been included in the recently proposed 2000 Bond Bill. The Governor had not yet signed the Bond Bill; therefore, he retained the right to veto it. The projects were being presented for establishment or to increase budgets to the level of state funding. In most cases, these proposals were not the full budgets. Mr. Jeffcoat noted that if approved, the money could not be drawn until after January 2001.

A. USC Columbia:

1. Gibbes Green - LeConte College Renovation: Mr. Jeffcoat explained that the project to renovate LeConte College, which currently housed the Department of Mathematics and the Department of Statistics, was estimated to cost $15 million. The state had proposed providing $3 million in Capital Improvement Bonds, and the administration requested the establishment of the project at the level of funding provided by the 2000 Bond Bill.

Mr. Miller moved to establish a project to renovate LeConte College with a budget of $3 million funded with Capital Improvement Bonds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mr. Adams seconded the motion and asked how the University intended to fund the remaining $12 million. Mr. Jeffcoat explained that the University would continue to seek funding from the state.

The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

2. School of Law - New Building: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the estimated cost to build a new law school facility was $40 million. The state previously provided $5 million, and the proposed 2000 Bond Bill contained an additional $5 million. It was requested to increase the project by the level of funding provided by the 2000 Bond Bill. He noted that the architects had been selected and the project was in the design stage.

Mrs. Harvey moved to increase the budget of the construction project for a new Law School building by $5 million for a total budget of $10 million funded with Capital Improvement Bonds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and questioned the proposed source of the remainder of the estimated cost. Mr. Jeffcoat explained that the legislature had indicated its willingness to fund an additional $5 million and the Law School was attempting to raise the balance from private donors.

The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

B. USC Aiken Convocation Center: Mr. Jeffcoat said that the USC Aiken Convocation Center was estimated to cost $19,500,000, but a project had been established with a budget of $50,000 to fund a feasibility study. Funding of $6 million for this project was included in the proposed 2000 Bond Bill. The request was to increase the established project by the level of funding provided in the 2000 Bond Bill.

Mr. Adams moved to increase the budget of the construction project for a new Convocation Center, as presented, by $6 million for a total budget of $6,050,000 funded with $6 million in Capital Improvement Bonds and $50,000 in County Funds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

C. USC Spartanburg New Library/Technology/Information Center:

Mr. Jeffcoat explained that this project, important to the Spartanburg Campus, was in the early, conceptual stages. The project was estimated to cost $24,500,000 to build 125,000 gross square feet which would be a consolidated library and technology center that would contain, among other things, a learning resource center, information centers, and business information technical centers. The project was established with a budget of $1 million from an earlier bond bill. The request was to increase the established project by the level of funding provided in the 2000 Bond Bill.

Mr. Adams moved to increase the budget of the construction project for an Information Resource Center, as presented, by $5 million for a total budget of $6 million funded with Capital Improvement Bonds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

D. USC Beaufort New River Facility: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that this request was for the total estimated project budget of $9.37 million for the USC Beaufort New River Facility because all funding was in place. Originally, the project was established with a budget of $2,870,000 funded with $2.5 million in Capital Improvement Bonds and $370,000 in County Funds. The 2000 Bond Bill had proposed an additional $1.5 million, and full funding of the remaining proposed budget had been identified.

Mrs. Harvey moved to increase the budget of the construction project for the initial building on the New River Site, as presented, by $6.5 million for a total budget of $9.37 million funded with $4 million in Capital Improvement Bonds, $3.37 million in County Funds, and $2 million in Private Funds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

E. USC Salkehatchie Campus Renovation: Mr. Jeffcoat said that the Salkehatchie campus had requested $980,000 in Capital Bond Funds to create and improve the campus communication and technology infrastructure. The project would include the installation of a fiber optic system and copper cable network in Allendale and Walterboro as well as equipment for computer laboratories on those campuses. The request was to establish the project at the level of funding provided in the 2000 Bond Bill.

Mr. Hubbard moved to establish a project to renovate/upgrade the communication/technology infrastructure at USC Salkehatchie, as presented, with a total project budget of $980,000 funded with Capital Improvement Bonds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion and asked if the entire project budget would be applied to technology infrastructure and equipment. Mr. Jeffcoat responded affirmatively. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

F. USC Sumter Alice Drive Baptist Church Acquisition: Mr. Jeffcoat explained that the acquisition of the Alice Drive Baptist Church project had been previously approved by the Board of Trustees with a budget of $1.5 million funded by Capital Improvement Bonds. The request was to increase the established project by $1 million to renovate the facilities.

Mr. Adams moved to increase the budget of the project to acquire and renovate the Alice Drive Baptist Church property and facility, as presented, by $1 million for a total project budget of $2,508,000 funded with $2.5 million in Capital Improvement Bonds and $8,000 from Renovation Reserve Funds contingent upon approval of the 2000 Bond Bill and authorization to draw funds for this project. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

IV. Monticello Road Property: Chairman Loadholt changed the order of the agenda for this item to be considered at the end of the meeting in Executive Session. There were no objections expressed by the Committee.

V. Change in Sources of Funds for the School of Medicine Library Renovation: Mr. Jeffcoat said that this project was to renovate, expand, and reorient the Medical School's Library building. The School of Medicine had requested a change in the sources of funding for the project.

Mr. Miller moved to approve the change in sources of funding for the School of Medicine Library Renovation project with its budget of $700,000 to be funded with $150,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds and $550,000 in Appropriated State Funds. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

VI. Barnwell College Renovations: Mr. Jeffcoat explained that there was a little known research facility in the lower level of Barnwell College which housed the Department of Psychology. Recently, the facility failed to pass inspection by the accrediting agencies. The request was to establish a budget to renovate the Behavioral Laboratory space by replacing the ventilation system and making other code improvements.

Mr. Adams moved to establish a project to renovate the lower level of Barnwell College, as presented, with a total project budget of $300,000 to be funded with Research Indirect Cost Recovery. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

VII. Engineering Shop Building - Project Increase: Chairman Loadholt stated that earlier in the day, the Executive Committee had approved a contract to construct an engineering shop building which had been established under an emergency procurement.

Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the administration requested to increase the budget of the project to construct an Engineering Shop Building by $274,000.

Mr. Adams moved to increase the budget of the project to construct a new shop building, as presented, with a total project budget of $1,074,000 funded with $800,000 in State Institutional Bonds, $155,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds, $110,000 in departmental appropriated state funds, and $9,000 from other departmental funds with the proviso that if there were sufficient Institutional Capital Project Funds, these would be substituted for the State Institutional Bond Fund. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried. Mr. Adams questioned the proposed location of the new building. Mr. Jeffcoat replied that it would be built at 300 Sumter Street, directly behind the "back door" of the Swearingen Engineering Center.

VIII. USC Aiken Softball/Soccer Field Upgrade: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that this project was previously approved by the Board and had been started with a very preliminary, conceptual budget which proved to be inadequate to complete the project. USC Aiken had begun this project to provide lighting, seating, bathrooms, and dressing room facilities at its softball and soccer fields.

Mr. Miller moved to increase the budget for the Softball/Soccer Field Upgrade by $175,000 for a total project budget of $575,000 funded with $400,000 in Institutional Bonds and $175,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

IX. Fitness/Wellness Center Pedestrian Bridges: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the design of pedestrian bridges, which would provide access to the Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center, was a challenge to the architects. The initial proposal was to create "on grade" crossings, but reservations were expressed with respect to safety. The option of underground access was considered, but it was determined to be expensive and unattractive. Access to elevated crosswalks was often difficult due to limitations of access on either end via stairs or elevators; therefore, the architects endeavored to design natural accesses.

The current proposal called for the creation of two elevated walkways: one from the corner of Park and Blossom Streets and one from mid-way on the block of Wheat Street between Main and Assembly Streets. The walkways would bridge the traffic and taper back down to the facility at the appropriate level of the security checkpoint.

Mr. Jeffcoat presented an overall floor plan of the concept which was being proposed. The walkways would have gradual elevation so that walking, bicycling, or rollerblading were possible, and they would provide seating spaces and would overlook the volleyball court and swimming pool. He added that the actual design had not been finalized, but they would be very attractive bridges. The exterior would have brick piers and match the detail on the Fitness/Wellness Center. The structures would be made of light-color, coated steel with a handrail, and fine mesh to prevent objects from being thrown off of the bridge, but still providing ventila-tion. At night, both bridges' ceilings would be lit with "up-lighting," and the detailing of the project would match the detailing of the Fitness/Wellness Center.

Mrs. Harvey asked from where the grants would originate that were proposed to fund the project. Mr. Glenn replied that there had been considerable discussion with the state, and the state had been receptive thus far. He believed the grant funding would be realized within the approaching six months, and, if funding was not received, the project would not move forward.

Mr. Adams moved to establish a project to construct two elevated pedestrian crosswalks, as presented, with a total project budget of $4.9 million funded from a combination of $4 million in grant funds and $900,000 in Institutional Funds contingent upon confirmation of the grant funds. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

X. Campus Streetscape Project: Mr. Jeffcoat began his presentation by explaining that it would be necessary to complete the Campus Streetscape project in phases because total funding was not currently available. The City of Columbia had received the presentation in a first reading and requested additional planning. The overall plan was to landscape specific streets and identify the campus edge. Improvements were planned to the campus side of Pendleton Street, Greene Street, Blossom Street, Wheat Street, and others.

Mr. Jeffcoat then outlined the plans for Phase I. The first phase would 1) landscape Blossom Street from Gadsden Street to Pickens Street; 2) landscape two important blocks of Sumter Street, including the gateway at the corner of Blossom and Sumter Streets through the intersection at Greene Street; and 3) landscape two blocks of Bull Street from Blossom Street to Greene Street.

Mr. Jeffcoat displayed architectural renderings and explained the specific plans for each block of Blossom Street because each block had different conditions. He also described the plans for Sumter Street and Bull Street.

The lanes of traffic on Blossom Street would not be disturbed a great deal, but they would be narrowed in some instances. The median would be re-planted with Palmetto trees. On either size of Blossom Street a landscaped area, a "tree zone", would be established between the street curbs and the sidewalks. Additional trees were planned for the other side of the walkway where sufficient space existed. Vines would be planted where only brick walls were located. The lighting would be replaced from its current wooden poles to pedestrian scale lighting fixtures which would be consistent throughout the campus.

Some parking on Blossom Street would be eliminated to accommodate the "tree zone," and a left turn lane would be created from Blossom Street onto Bull Street to access the garage. A six foot high wall would be erected at the rear of the Men's Quadrangle, which faced Blossom Street, to screen service access to the dormitory.

Sumter Street, from Blossom Street to Devine Street, would be narrowed to two one-way boulevards thereby creating a wide median with a left turn lane at the intersection. Two tree zones could be accommodated to separate the sidewalks from the road. A gateway at the corner of Blossom and Sumter Streets would be designed to mark the entrance to the University of South Carolina.

Bull Street was unsightly but heavily used by students. This use necessitated that some parking remain. Diagonal drive-in parking would be created with the periodic placement of islands of trees. Bull street would be landscaped similarly with rows of trees, reduced width to calm traffic, pedestrian scale lighting, and altered sidewalks away from the edge of the road.

The two reasons for the proposed project were campus beautification and safety. The former would be addressed by the addition of green spaces and enlarged tree zones, uniform and attractive light posts and pedestrian scale lighting along every street, and removal of certain curb side parking. The safety benefits were more important: wrought iron fencing to prevent mid-block crossings, uniform and increased street lighting, removal of certain hazardous curb parking, and relocation of sidewalks away from traffic. Many of these changes would address student safety as well as calm and slow the traffic through campus.

Mr. Jeffcoat said that the administration requested conceptual approval of the proposed project and, specifically, Phase I. The project would proceed contingent upon available funding.

Mr. Lister asked about the parking which would be lost, and Mr. Jeffcoat replied that approximately 140 to 175 metered parking spaces owned by the city of Columbia would be removed. The plan was to reduce the number of vehicles on campus by having their owners drive to designated areas instead of searching for metered parking places. The plan also called for improvements to the Shuttle-Cock system which would include the purchase of new air-conditioned buses and the hiring of full-time drivers.

Mr. Glenn added that a great many people within the University had been involved with the proposal, but a great many people outside the University had also been involved. When the University appeared before City Council several weeks prior, Chairman Hubbard led the presentation. Student leadership addressed the plan, local neighborhood associations attended to express their support, the Executive Committee and Issues Committee of the Chamber of Commerce passed resolutions of support, Mayor Coble enthusiastically supported the proposal and lent his support, the local Department of Transportation Commissioner John Hardee quickly understood the benefit to the entire community and lent vigorous support, and Columbia Green also had a supportive presence at the City Council meeting. Mr. Hubbard added his appreciation to the Department of Transportation's response which had been one of "how can we help" a co-agency of the state, and he then praised the efforts of Mr. Glenn who had spent hundreds of hours on the plan.

Mr. Adams enthusiastically moved to approve the overall concept of the campus streetscape enhancement project, as presented, and to approve Phase One of the project which included specific modifications and improvements, as presented. The motion was seconded by the entire Buildings and Grounds Committee. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

XI. Status Report on Plan to Improve the Appearance of USC Columbia: Mr. Finan said that the Committee had just heard reports on two of the very important projects which would contribute to the appearance of campus: the bridge-scape to the Strom Thurmond Fitness/Wellness Center and the street-scape plans for campus.

Mr. Finan directed attention to the newly completed green-space in front of the Thomas Cooper Library and beside the Russell House. An improved plan of coordination was developed to meet with representatives from Admissions, Special Events, and others, to form a schedule of events such as graduations, homecoming, etc., for which specific clean-up crews would prepare.

Organizational changes had been implemented in the custodial/grounds areas. The administration determined that the more attention paid to the appearance of campus at the lower level, the more that could be accomplished by the employees through a greater degree of pride in the work.

Cleaning of the reflection pool at Thomas Cooper Library had begun. Filters and a fountain had been added. Several specific projects had been identified which would be completed in conjunction with the Bicentennial activities. The campus clean-up project had been well received by students. It was anticipated that similar projects could be successful in the future.

New employees had been hired to assist with recycling efforts, and a major tree trimming, pruning, and flower bed restoration/cleanup effort had been completed near Sims Quad, Pickens Street, Patterson Hall, Greene Street, Columbia Hall, Capstone, and McBryde. Parking lot repair and clean up had occurred at Columbia Hall, Callcott, and behind the Law School.

Chairman Loadholt stated that the report was received for information.

XII. Payments to Architects and Project Managers in the Past 3 Years: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that the administration had asked him to provide a report on architects and project managers. He then distributed materials. The first document contained the Procedures for Professional Services which was published by the Office of the State Engineer which controlled all procurement for state construction, architectural/engineering (A/E), and other professional services.

An A/E Selection Committee was established for each project approved by the Board of Trustees. The University required that a Trustee serve on the committee for each project with a budget that was estimated to exceed $1 million. Each project was advertised for professional services and resumes were received from architectural firms interested in the project. It was typical to receive 25 resumes per project. The selection committee would then meet to review the resumes and narrow the list to at least five who would later be interviewed by the Committee. The selection was based on the qualifications, and the law prohibited negotiations regarding fees and compensation. The procedure was the same for architects as it was for project managers.

Mr. Jeffcoat explained the types of information listed in the second document titled "Architectural/Engineering/Project Management Selections and Fees Contracted in the Past 3 Years" which was distributed.

He noted that when the University hired an architectural group, it was with the understanding that the University was contracting for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical engineering services at the very minimum for each project. In some instances, the contract included landscaping services and interior design ser-vices. Some architects had such disciplines in-house; others hired consultants. For the latter, typically 35 percent of their fee was used by the architects to pay outside consultants. In cases where architects associated with national firms, typically 47 to 50 percent of their fee was paid to consultants. Usually the local architects negotiated with the design firms to determine the amount of activity in which they would participate.

Indirect Delivery Contracts (IDCs) were used to hire architects, contractors, and engineering disciplines. This practice was allowed by the State Engineer for quicker response to the needs of the campus. A great many firms were under contract because there were limitations on the amount of business which could be given to each one. Each contract was for two years although it could be cancelled. The total of the payments could not exceed $750,000 during the two year period; no single project could have a fee of more than $150,000.

Ms. Moore questioned the handling of multiple projects with budgets of less than $1 million. Mr. Jeffcoat replied that selection of architects occurred in some cases, but no member of the Board of Trustees had to be included. Projects with budgets of more than $250,000 required approval by the Board of Trustees. Smaller projects, with budgets of more than $100,000, were considered "state projects" and required guidance and regulations by the State Engineer. IDC agreements allowed the University to hire these contracted architects as long as the budgets of the projects did not exceed $150,000.

Chairman Loadholt stated that the report was received for information. A copy of the materials distributed by Mr. Jeffcoat will be retained in the permanent file of this meeting in the Board Office.

XIII. Environmental Policy Statement: Dr. Palms introduced Dr. Coull, principal dean of the virtual college of environment science, who had been actively engaged with a team of university representatives on the issue of an environmental policy for the University.

Dr. Coull explained that several years prior, the presidents of MUSC, Clemson, and USC signed a joint agreement to try to make the universities in the state "greener, cleaner, and meaner." As part of the initiative, called the Sustainable Universities Initiative which was funded by a Danish foundation, each university agreed to establish an environmental advisory committee on its campus. The purposes were to set examples for the state, educate students in how to be good stewards of the earth, and make the facilities of the Universities examples of practicing what they preached.

Dr. Coull said that President Palms had appointed an environmental advisory committee which consisted of faculty, students, and facilities management personnel. The committee had met during the previous year and drafted the proposed policy statement for the University. Students were working on an environmental management system for the University, and the committee was working with facilities and in the educational arena. He added that most Association of American Universities (AAU) members had similar statements regarding the environment.

Mr. Miller moved to approve the Environmental Policy Statement as distributed. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

XIV. Monticello Road Property: Mr. Jeffcoat requested that the Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees to declare 56.597 acres of property, located on the east side of Blue Ridge Terrace in the northeast quadrant of Interstate 20 and 215, north of the city of Columbia, which the University currently owned, to be surplus property for the purpose of following state procurement regulations for the disposal of that property.

Mr. Adams moved that the Monticello Road Property owned by the University, as outlined in the materials distributed, be declared surplus and be disposed of in accordance with state procedures. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.

There were no other matters to come before the Committee, Chairman Loadholt declared the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary