the campus and the town are linked and dependent on mutual success, economic and operational." 

Dr. Wilson commented that he thought that was a nice vision of the interests that concern us and, that is, much of the funding will come from the historic character.  Dr. Wilson encouraged everyone present to share questions and concerns.  Dr. Wilson reemphasized that this was the second round of preliminary research data compiled by Sasaki, looking toward the final data; input and comments are critical.  Dr. Wilson introduced Greg Havens with Sasaki.

Greg introduced the team involved in the project.  Greg reviewed the agenda for the day (shown on PowerPoint presentation included on the website).   

Agenda Item #2:  Space Needs Findings – President. Leland stated that the enrollment numbers shown vary from the presentation at the September 23, 2004 meeting, which took the 8,000 figure and assumed that role would be the same on the Milledgeville campus, and the Macon and Warner Robins campus.  Dr. Leland stated that the assumptions have been altered knowing that part of what is special about GCSU Milledgeville campus is the small campus character that creates a real academic learning community.  Leland added that GC&SU cannot successfully be Georgia's Public Liberal Arts College and get too big.  The figures shown represent a growth of only 500 students on the Milledgeville campus.  The rest of the growth is projected in Macon and Warner Robins because outside of metropolitan Atlanta, this area of Georgia has one of the largest populations in the state with no real competition at the graduate level in the public sphere. 

Greg stated that the projected Faculty and Staff headcount on the main campus will have obvious implications regarding office space and parking which will be addressed in the presentation.  Greg also pointed out that, based on information received from the university, the Student/Faculty ratio has been changed to 15:1 and has been applied in Sasaki's calculations for space needs.

Greg continued with the Power Point presentation.  Referring to the Existing Space Use vs. CEFPI Guidelines For Current Enrollment table, Greg stated that in the classroom category, the guidelines show a surplus. The issue is, as on many campuses, the classroom size is larger than the section size of the course enrollment; theoretically some of the classroom space is wasted in that way.  Greg said that the tables are used as guidelines and considerations are taken for conditions on the campus. 

Regarding the space surplus shown using the guidelines, Dr. Mike Whitfield asked if there was some objective way of having a number that reflects the actual need for space first rather than first showing that there is plenty of classroom space (which is what is remembered) and everything after that includes the rational and qualifiers.   Greg stated that many factors must be considered in this calculation such as when classes are being scheduled and the section size.   Dick Galehouse stated that his understanding of Dr. Whitfield's question addressed calculation of space needs based on the number of classrooms and sorts the classrooms by size or some other objective measure.  Galehouse said that Sasaki's instinct is that because there is no central scheduling process and sharing of space and turf issues, the university has the space that is needed.  President Leland commented that GCSU has just submitted to the Board of Regents a space utilization study which was not favorable toward the university.  She added that the information will be shared with the Deans at a later date.  President Leland said that the study will drive the university to a more coordinated scheduling process.  Galehouse asked what the assumptions on utilization of classrooms were, numerically.  President Leland reported 65%.  Galehouse said stated that 65% was not a demanding standard; the issue is the total amount of square feet as opposed to the number of rooms in certain categories.  Galehouse said that information would be added as an objective major.

Mary Jane Phillips asked if the current needs finding for the student union include the Student Union Annex (Old Methodist Church).  Greg said that it did.

Greg reviewed the Space Needs Findings – 8,000 Enrollment figures and Outcomes Associated with 8,000 Headcount figures.  Greg stated that this information includes President Leland's vision for the satellite campuses. 

Regarding housing, Greg stated that Sasaki is operating on the assumption that GC&SU will have 40% of the population housed on the main campus.  When the current housing programs are in place, the university will be within 63 beds of that target.  Greg added that based on recent discussions, the population housed on campus could increase to 50% which will result in additional demand for housing which will be discussed later.  President Leland stated that the prior percentages were obtained from COPLAC average and GCSU is slightly under that.  President Leland stated that some of the very best schools in GCSU's category, whether COPLAC or not, have a much higher residential student population.

Greg continued the presentation.  Greg stated that Other Space Needs, based on interviews and the meeting in September, are Performing Arts Center, Conference Center, Faculty Club/Resource Center, and Extended University/Continuing Education.

Greg said that Sasaki is looking a ways the current space on campus can accommodate the needs of the University  

Space Allocation Strategy:  Greg explained that Sasaki has looked at space that is currently available on campus to begin accommodating some of these needs; those spaces include Ennis, Beeson, the old Courthouse, and Terrell Hall which totals approximately 85,000 square feet.  Greg stated that primary studies have indicated that relocating the Art Department in Ennis Hall would be a good fit with the exception of sculpture and other heavy equipment; many universities have relocated the larger items at remote locations depending on the activity.

Greg stated that after looking at buildings downtown, additional audio/visual space will need to be located on campus.  Additional office space available will be in Beeson, Terrell, McIntosh, Blackbridge, and Mayfair may potentially be reutilized.  Greg stated that there will be enough space on campus to begin relocating faculty back onto campus plus accommodate new faculty with offices.

Greg stated that another space needs finding was in the dining area.  Sasaki proposes a new facility at the Centennial Campus; the tennis courts and another space near the Train Depot are being considered.  Greg said by refiguring dining services in either of these proposed areas will allow for a reconfiguration of the Maxwell Student Union for more student union space which the University currently lacks. 

Dr. Wilson asked Greg what this would mean for any dining at Maxwell.  Greg responded that a less intensive dining function could be located there to serve the people on the main campus but said this would require a little more study. 

Greg informed the group that according to the guidelines in guidance, with the new library, the University will have a significant surplus of library space.  Greg said that the team understands that every aspect of the library has been accommodated to serve a purpose, but according to the guidance, for an institution the size of GCSU, the library is about 45,000 square feet over where it should be.  Greg asked if, with this opportunity, the University would consider putting more student center space in some portion of the library which is the approach being taken at universities around the country. 

Lorene Flanders asked Greg if Sasaki had looked at the spaces already designated "quasi Student Union" and if Sasaki had looked at the older part of the library which will be the museum section which will have a conference area when completed.  Greg responded that they have and that Sasaki is raising this has a discussion point, as something that will be discussed further.  Greg went on to say that looking long term, it would make sense to incorporate more student activity type spaces.  Flanders asked where that discussion would take place.  President Leland and Greg answered it would be done on campus; President Leland added that more fact-finding will need to be done and asked if it would need to be resolved in four weeks.  Dick Galehouse said that it did not.  Galehouse said that what is so impressive is the intensity of use in the computer labs, the coffee shop, and the lounge space and what must be asked is can these functions be extended at this level, which is available 24/7, theoretically.  Lorene informed the group that on November 30, yesterday, the daily headcount at the library was 2,200.  Galehouse said that this is desirable.  Greg asked if the periodicals, which are in the middle area of the ground floor, be relocated so that the entire ground floor could be devoted entirely to computer labs, group study, lounge, and coffee shop.  In closing, Greg said that this was just "food for thought."  Harry Keim added that one thing that needs to be considered is that on the second floor, there are a series of study rooms that are now housing special collections until the renovation on the old part of library is completed.  Harry said that when this is moved, the number of people using the library might increase.  President commented that the issue is not to satisfy the students, but to ensure that the all space on campus is being used as effectively as possible. 

Greg continued the presentation reviewing other current space needs findings.  Regarding Faculty Club/Resource Center, Blackbridge is being considered for this function coupled with the idea that Mayfair could be converted into a college inn (a place where visiting professors and other could stay on campus). 

Tom Toney commented on the science labs space needs stating that one of the problems/constraints is the location of Herty Hall which is located on property that reaches private property very quickly.  Tom asked if Sasaki was looking at options as to where Herty could expand.  Greg responded that Sasaki has looked at the possibility of land acquisition, which may or may not be available; also being questioned is the greenhouse – is it necessary to be in its current location or can it be relocated.  Tom said that relocating the greenhouse has been discussed and was part of the plans when the initial renovation of Herty Hall began; Tom said that they have been unable to find a place to relocate the greenhouse.  Harry Keim stated that property adjoining the Herty property is pretty sacred because of its history in the black community.  Todd Shiver (I think) asked about closing a portion of Wilkinson Street, maybe one-half a block.  Todd said that closing up to the County Courthouse should not be a problem.  Harry said the problem was that there is one private company that will be involved in this closure.  Harry added that when the county was building the courthouse and that portion of Wilkinson Street was closed, the University suggested keeping that portion of Wilkinson Street closed; the idea was not received very well.  Tom Toney referred to the last meeting stating that the idea of integrating the campus was a priority for the Master Plan; Tom noted that Herty Hall's location is unknown by many faculty on campus and those who do where Herty is located comment that Herty is "way over there."  Tom said he would love to see Herty become more a part of the rest of the campus voicing his approval to the idea of closing a portion of Wilkinson Street.  Dick Galehouse referred to the University of South Carolina that had a similar situation; the public street is closed during the day but functions as a city street after that.  Dick said Sasaki would be hard pressed to suggest closing a portion of the street but will investigate other options. 

Lorene Flanders asked Greg about the houses across the street from the mansion and clarification on plans for them.  Greg said he realized that most of the houses on Clark Street are a result of the University purchases as they became available; the recommendation is to look at those facilities for uses that would be appropriate for a residential type structure i.e. faculty club, office space, etc.  Harry said that this should be specifically mentioned in the recommendations because part of the desired outcome of the Facility Master Plan avenue to document the need to restore, upgrade and maintain those facilities and the need for funds to do this.  Greg said that they will develop an implementation regarding these issues. 

Greg continued space needs findings stating that Extended University/Continuing Education may be better suited to be off campus which will be discussed in more detail later. 

In reviewing the documents regarding land and building use, Greg stated that Sasaki was looking at Beeson and Terrell becoming office space and between the two buildings, it is estimated that this could create space for 150 offices. 

Greg went on to explain that the old Courthouse could be used for a visitors center and some of the Universities external function offices such as University Communications could be located there; Greg said this could also be a potential space for the President's Office.  Greg said it was important to take advantage of the presence that the courthouse has.

Regarding the Centennial Center, Greg said there has been some discussion about relocating Extended University/Continuing Education in the unutilized space under the Centennial Center.  Greg explained that there will also be opportunities for reutilizing and redefining space in the Centennial Center.  As an alternative, Greg said there has been discussion of relocating Continuing Education off campus; if that occurs, the unutilized space at the Centennial Center could be used for fitness area.  Harry Keim reminded the group that it was important to be careful about what is put in the Facility Master Plan because what is included will be the way things are going to be, period.  Harry stated that there has already been discussion of Extended University relocating to the Forstmann Building and now the idea of being located at the Centennial Center could cause more difficulty than the University needs.  President Leland said that was a discussion she has been involved in because there is still hope of acquiring the Forstmann Building.  President Leland said she would like to see a Fitness/Wellness place for faculty and staff. 

Harry stated that another advantage of Extended University relocating at the Forstmann Building is the abundance of parking that is available versus the lack of parking at the Centennial Center.  Harry reemphasized the importance of definite recommendations in the Master Plan.

Greg stated that the next item to review is the Open Space Opportunities on campus (shown on Power Point Presentation).  Greg said that a major opportunity for more open space is the Fountain Walk area with more landscaping, more trees.  Another area with major opportunities is the preservation of the Formal Garden and possibly extending the Formal Garden toward Clark Street and in front of Russell auditorium.  Greg said that another area that could be utilized more is the area south of the Arts & Sciences Building; the space is not really used now; the front of Ennis, which now is used for 16 parking spaces, could be created to green space.  Greg suggested creating a definite perimeter of green space around the main campus. 

Looking at green space for the long term, Greg said that at the Centennial Campus there is the potential of creating major campus green space as student recreation area by removing the tennis courts.

Greg reviewed the Vehicular Circulation and Parking – Future Demand Table (See Power Point Presentation).  Greg said that with faculty and staff increases, Sasaki is estimating a deficit of approximately 500 parking spaces.  Greg pointed out that the Irwin Street parking lot is underutilized at this time; managing the parking resources that GCSU already has may be the way to create more parking suggesting Freshmen being required to park in the Irwin Street parking lot or maybe even at West Campus. 

Regarding West Campus, Stan Aldridge suggested that there will eventually be a need for a field house if tennis courts are to be added to the area with the soccer, baseball, and softball field; this field house would be readily accessible to all four fields/areas rather than having a building that was isolated from the area.  Greg said that Sasaki would need to meet with Stan about this in order to get more updated information. 

President Leland noted that she has asked Sasaki to consider Greek housing that is consistent with the preservation of the historic district around the campus for West Campus.  Dick Galehouse asked President Leland to submit to them a brief paragraph describing what is desired for Greek Housing.  Also, Harry Keim asked that the maps showing Vehicular Circulation and Parking at West Campus be updated to include student housing that is currently being built.        

Brian Pearce with Sasaki made a presentation on the preliminary ideas for Signage and Wayfinding Guidelines.  Documents on this were provided to each committee member via e-mail and included in Section 7 in the Facility Master Plan Notebook.

Diana Miles with The Jaeger Company presented a historic landscape assessment of GC&SU and opportunities available to continue this type of landscape. (A copy of the presentation is included with these minutes.)  Based on information obtained from their research, Diana recommended the landscape on the campus include what is present today and also reflect what was present historically.  Diana also recommended reviving areas that could be brought back to their historical state relatively easily.  Diana reemphasized Greg's point of creating a perimeter of green space around the campus.  She stated the importance of retaining the grid pattern of the campus, which is extremely significant historically.  Several historic photographs were shown in the Power Point presentation.  Diana recommended continuing the paving patterns and retaining wall styles currently on campus.    

Jim Wolfgang, committee member, asked why Chappell is still included in the Master Facility Plan and what are the criteria for keeping it in the plan.  Diana said that the lifespan of the Master Plan does not end in 2005; it would extend for a period of time that would justify Chappell's significance in the University's history.

Susan Turner with Lord, Aeck and Sargent presented a Power Point presentation regarding the role of historic preservation in the Facility Master Plan.  (A copy of the presentation is included with these minutes.)

Susan also presented the findings of the archeological survey done by Southern Research showing the results of a data research phase.  This phase of the project identifies area that are likely to yield archeological artifacts if the time comes that the areas are to be actively surveyed down to those which are very unlikely to yield artifacts.  (Maps showing these areas are included in the Power Point presentation included with these minutes.)  

Susan stated that Lord, Aeck, and Sargent compiled a list of all structures on campus that were 50 years old or older and extended that by 10 years to cover the time of the Facility Master Plan and presented that list to the committee.  (Included in the Power Point Presentation included with these minutes.)  Susan said that each building was assessed; based on that assessment, it was determined if the building qualified to be a historic structure.  Greater detail determined the building's ultimate potential for reuse.  Susan presented an illustration that listed each structure in question and its relationship to National Register qualifications.  (A copy of this illustration is included with these minutes.)

In closing, Susan stated that from a historic resource perspective, a few thoughts have come from this research.  1 – Continue with the plans that are in place regarding circulation; 2 - GCSU is an unique institution with very important structures with strong ties to early Georgia history; it is very important to preserve and protect those structures as the planning process goes forward; 3 – For all structures on campus, pay attention to the restoration and maintenance of these buildings by following the Secretary of Interior's Standards which is a "do no harm" philosophy.  

Regarding thoughts toward the future planning, Susan said that there has been a great tradition at GCSU merging campus and community; one of the things in the State Stewardship Guidelines strongly urge campuses look to acquire buildings for future; and lastly, these guidelines encourage campuses to continually evaluate buildings in the historic district of their city.

President Leland asked Susan what is acceptable from a historic preservation prospective when most of the buildings on the campus (such as GC&SU) reflect the Greek Revival Era architectural styles on the interior and the exterior but have buildings such as Maxwell Student Union or Chappell Hall that do not follow these architectural styles.  Susan said that buildings such as Chappell Hall are an ongoing issue that preservationists will be dealing with as mid-century modern structures become historic; the Historic Preservation philosophy is truly starting to embrace the idea that there should be an appreciation for mid-century modern structures even though they often depart from the previously established aesthetics.  Michael Miller with the Board of Regents said that the Secretary of the Interior Standards try to respect buildings in their own era.   He added that he thought buildings such as Chappell represent what architects were interpreting as the neo-classical architecture of that time.  President Leland stated that, on the other hand, it is a blatant example of replacing a wonderful structure and totaling missing the history when it was built.  Dick Galehouse commented that things could be done with historic landscaping to blend in these types of building with the rest of the campus.  Harry Keim asked about the possibilities of creating a shell around Chappell before it reaches "historic" phase.  Susan responded that in her opinion as a preservationists, she would say that the building is significant for the era in which it was constructed; GCSU only has a couple of examples of this type structure on the campus.  Susan said that in time, justifying the reason the National Register sets the 50 year limit, is that things will be valued after the perspective of time has passed.   

Harry Keim stated that one thing of great importance and needs to be incorporated into the Facility Master Plan, is that GCSU has three historic buildings, Ennis, Terrell, and the courthouse, that are in dire need of repair;  if something is not done within a short time frame, the buildings will not be savable.  Keim stated that, somehow, within the plan there needs to be a recommendation that these buildings need to be taken care of as soon as possible; one of the reasons for including the Historic Preservation portion of the Facility Master Plan, was to elaborate on the concern for these three buildings.  Susan said the team could certainly do that and might even recommend some interim stabilization that would be helpful.  Susan said they were also going to a "Statement of the Condition" for each structure that is surveyed and highlights dire needs on these buildings.  Dick Galehouse said it was his understanding that Keim wanted these buildings noted as emergency project, not a stabilization project and thought that could be done.

Michael Miller asked if the all buildings could be included in the maps and color code them to differentiate older buildings from the newer buildings on campus.  Susan said that will be done.  Keim asked Miller if the preliminary Facility Master Plan had accomplished what was envisioned by the Board of Regents regarding the Historic Preservation part of the plan.  Miller said that it had. 

President Leland stated that one of most significant things missing is the detailed evaluation/recommendation for each historic structure which will be key to GCSU carrying out the Facility Master Plan.  Michael said that when President Leland presents the information later on, the needs of specific buildings should be emphasized in order to make Facility Master Plan process successful.

Stan Aldridge asked if preserving buildings built in the 1960's a "hard and fast" rule or Susan's opinion.  Susan said that preservation of these buildings is not a "hard and fast rule"; as a representative of Lord, Aeck and Sargent, she is giving recommendations on what should be preserved and what they think State of Georgia would want the institution to preserve.  Michael Miller added that, in terms of process, GCSU in conjunction with the Board of Regents, when appearing before the Historic Preservation Division regarding the stewardship process, a recommendation to follow these guidelines would be made and stressed the importance of good stewardship.  President Leland stated that there must be a really good reason to tear down a historic building, i.e. structurally beyond repair.

Linda Irwin-Devitis, committee member and dean of the School of Education, asked about the Preservation Society's opinion on buildings such as Kilpatrick, where one-half of the building is 1977 and the other half is 1939.  Susan said that the 1939 piece is the part that is considered eligible for historic status. 

Greg Havens stated that one of the outcomes of the historic assessment and all the other evaluations, is taking an initial look at Designs guidelines, Urban, Architectural, Landscape and Signage/Wayfinding (included in the Power Point presentation included with these minutes).  These guidelines are intended to provide guidance to future designers as to what is the essence of GCSU and what the designers should be aware of in this environment. 

Regarding the Planning and Review Process, Greg suggested the creation of a Design Review Board. Greg also established Design Review Board Procedures (both are included in the Power Point presentation included with these minutes).  Bob Wilson asked Greg about the archeological survey included in this process.  Greg said that the survey information Susan has provided identifies the areas  where awareness of issues is present.  Dick Galehouse said that because the campus is a historic district, GCSU is unable to build any new buildings on the main square without archeological surveys first, which is a Historic Preservation guideline; Dick also said that Sasaki is prepared to say that there are no more building sites left on the main square. 

Stan Aldridge referred to the September meeting with Sasaki and preliminary discussions about Little Fishing Creek and the university managing the golf course for the county.  President Leland stated that she was not aware of these plans and questioned the source of resources for this plan.  Stan said that Foundation resources had been discussed but rather than buying the property, there had been discussion of leasing the property from the State of a one year period.  Dick Galehouse said they needed clarifying on some of the requests being made for the Master Plan and that the plan could not be used as a political document to rationalize projects to the Board of Regents.  Galehouse included the Forstmann Building  as an example.  President Leland stated that the Board of Regents is aware of GCSU's interest in this building and the Facility Office at the Board of Regents was considering putting it as an "Item of Opportunity;" the Chancellor may have changed his mind on this but GCSU has not been notified of any changes.  Harry Keim stated that it had been on the "Major Capital" project list for three years.

Galehouse asked Michael for his understanding of this project.  Michael conferred that the Board of Regents was made aware of the property and there was some discussion of including it as a "Minor Capital" project and discussions with the Chancellor indicated adding the Forstmann Building to the list or substituting the project for another one.  Michael said that the timing on this project was not good and did not think it could be added for this year.  President Leland asked about the acquisition of a downtown building for the Performing Arts because there is no place on campus for it and it needs to be noted as a need for GCSU; she also requested that included in the Facility Master Plan is a statement that GCSU is looking at acquiring off-site property downtown in conjunction with Oconee River Greenway property and acquiring off-site property for Continuing Education.  Michael asked Alan Travis with the Board of Regents for clarification on property acquisitions by universities and the Board of Regents.  Alan stated that it is his understanding that if something that was considered for a change from the previous plans, should be a combination of "slam dunk, must do right now" and an opportunity that could not wait for consideration under the normal period of time.  Alan said that he understood that the Vice Chancellor did not think the Forstmann building meet those standards and therefore would be risky to juggle in lieu of things that were attempted last year.  President Leland asked if and how, in crafting the master plan, should these projects be included and to what degree of specificity be given to these acquisitions.  Alan said that since there is awareness of acquisition of these properties, GCSU might consider not zeroing in on assumptions of acquiring the property, but doing some kind of explanation of what the anticipated uses will be and the effects on space program otherwise.   In regards to the Forstmann building, Harry Keim said even if the property is not used for the Performing Arts Center, the property is still so valuable that moving departments such as the Physical Plant to this property makes sense in order to have room for other type of academic program.  President Leland said that part of the expense for the original estimates for the Performing Arts Center had to do with relocation of the Physical Plant; if the Forstmann acquisition could accommodate the Physical Plan, supposing GCSU could get a public partnership for the center, that area would be available as another alternative for a Performing Arts Center and at less expense.  President Leland verified that that the recommendation is to play out the alternative scenarios.  Michael verified that and said it should provide options and flexibility.

Mike Whitfield asked if the Facility Master Plan needs to be as rigid with the guidelines as the plans move further from the main campus, i.e. West Campus.  Greg stated that there would be general defined guidelines for three areas of Milledgeville campus.  The areas are:  Main Square and Clark Street and Hancock Street; Centennial Square area; and West Campus. 

Greg addressed Off-Campus Requirements for areas to include Lake Laurel to encompass the Outdoor Education Program, and Macon and Warner Robins facilities whose visions will be changing somewhat as the mission for higher enrollment in the graduate programs are in place.  President Leland explained that the Physical Master Planning process is preceding the Strategic Planning Process for graduate education in Macon and Warner Robins and in some way, is unfortunate.  President Leland also explained that because the increase in graduate education programs could not be accomplished by using the system in place now, she has asked Sasaki to imagine GCSU having its own facility or facilities so that classes can be offered when they are needed, and as many as needed and become more of a free standing type of facility.  President Leland said that GCSU is actively looking at buildings in the historic area of downtown Macon.  She said that she is not sure of what will become of the Fort Valley State facility in Warner Robins but if the facility is left, she will ask that GCSU  be considered for that.  President Leland asked that everyone not think in terms of incremental growth of where we are now because it limits our imagination and ability to do a whole lot more that we are already doing,  Harry Keim asked that the vision for Macon/Warner Robins show a headcount of 2,200 rather than 8,000 so there is no misunderstanding regarding enrollment.

Rick Ruark made two questions:  If GCSU has an off-campus center, will there also be an off-campus bookstore.  President Leland said that part of the information presented is incorrect; there is a series of questions that have not been answered because GCSU has just received approval from the Board of Regents to follow the vision that is stated for the graduate education program. 

Mike Whitfield asked President Leland if she was confident that Macon State will not be expanding its graduate program.  President Leland said she was confident there will be no competition because both institutions have their own distinctive missions. 

Tom Toney asked if she was envisioning expanding the Macon campus for more graduate programs and possibly separating it from the liberal arts mission of the Milledgeville campus.    President Leland said she has tested the idea with many faculty and staff and for the most part, the responses have been very positive in the sense that what we do is meet area workforce needs and that is done by targeting the part-time student who is also a professional.  Toney asked that if GCSU was going to push this aspect of the graduate program, what considerations will be made for the graduate students who are traditional graduate students and an integral part of the Milledgeville Campus.  President Leland said there would be no shift there.  President Leland conveyed the vision in business terms by stating that GCSU is looking to develop a new market.

Bob Wilson asked Greg to reiterate the next phase as far as Sasaki's presentation to the committee.    Greg said that the Sasaki team has some coordination work to do regarding recommendations and the team has a duty to provide GCSU a plan that will be something that will give step-by-step, specific directions about issues that have been raised in the meeting which will occur over the next four to six weeks to create the final documentation.  The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.