The Joint Bond Review Committee carried over final approval of the College of Charleston’s planned purchase of downtown property after committee members asked for more detail about closing costs and fees tied to the transaction.

Committee members questioned why the college’s capital project request listed a $75,000,000 purchase price while related bond paperwork accounted for additional closing and carrying costs. Paul Patrick, College of Charleston, said the closing totaled $75,300,000 and described the omission as “an oversight on behalf of the College of Charleston.”

The committee pursued the matter after members flagged a $175,000 assignment fee paid to the College of Charleston Foundation and asked for a full breakdown of foundation and attorney fees related to exercising an option on the property. Scott O’Connor, identified in the meeting as a committee participant, urged the college to discuss contractual protections that would limit the state’s exposure to unexpected environmental remediation costs in related downtown property exchanges.

Why it matters: Committee members said they rely on institutional due diligence under Act 214 and want clearer accounting before authorizing capital project adjustments. The transaction also ties to a larger development plan the college described—demolition of an existing parking garage and a planned mixed‑use project financed in part with revenue bonds.

Key details: The college described two linked agenda items: one authorizing debt issuance for $78,000,000 (intended to cover acquisition plus closing and carrying costs) and a separate capital project item to record the purchase price. Patrick told the committee the debt authorization was correct; the capital project entry omitted the closing cost and must be corrected to $75,300,000. Patrick said the foundation exercised an option on the property and that the option payment was applied to the sale price.

Committee direction and next steps: Committee members asked that the college provide a full breakdown of the closing costs and the $175,000 fee paid to the foundation and requested that the item be carried over until those materials are provided. One committee member asked that the college explain its processes to avoid similar oversights in future submissions. The committee did not vote to approve the revised capital project during the meeting.

Context: The property acquisition was presented as part of a larger College of Charleston plan to add residential beds via redevelopment of multiple parcels downtown. Committee members emphasized the speed and competition of the real estate market as factors in the college’s timeline but said that factual transparency and complete budget submissions remain essential.

What the transcript shows: The item was carried over for further review and the college agreed to provide the requested fee breakdown and contractual terms related to environmental cost allocation.