The Richland County Public Works Committee reviewed a staff-prepared capital improvement plan and debated how to prioritize facility projects and next steps for a 10-year facilities strategy.

Committee members noted the plan in the committee’s administrative folder was prepared by a staff member identified as Clint and described a mix of completed items and a long “wish list” of future work. Committee members said much of the list is conceptual and not tied to identified funding, and they urged staff to refine the list into a prioritized set of projects that reflect near-term needs.

Committee members said some items on the list appear to be discretionary “wish list” items rather than necessary repairs. Members flagged the need to distinguish work required to keep county operations running from improvements that should wait until the county confirms a long-term occupancy plan for the campus. One committee member suggested asking whether the county plans to remain in the buildings for a minimum of 20 years; if not, the mix of investments should change.

Staff and committee members discussed next steps: have Trish and Randy work with staff to refine the list into a top-five set of priorities, incorporate facility condition assessments that are incoming for Pine Valley, Simons and the ambulance building, and then present a shorter, prioritized set of projects. Committee members said decisions on broad campus reconfiguration or a venture/relocation option should involve the full County Board so the committee does not repeatedly forward items that the board will later reconsider.

The committee also discussed timing: members said the capital strategy should be considered in tandem with the budget discussions for the next fiscal year because budget direction will affect what can be funded across a 10-year horizon. No formal vote was taken; the discussion resulted in direction to staff to refine priorities and to coordinate presentations with other county decisionmakers as appropriate.

Several committee members raised examples of items that need clearer justification before funding—one member referenced a hypothetical $150,000 expenditure for locks and keys as an illustrative decision that should be weighed against longer-term plans. Members also noted the capital folder did not include nonfacility items (for example, squad and plow truck data is on separate pages) and recommended the committee separate facility capital needs from fleet and equipment lists when prioritizing projects.

The committee asked for the incoming facility condition assessments to be made available to the committee and discussed whether to schedule a daytime presentation with contractors or assignees who performed the assessments.

The discussion closed with a request for staff to return with a refined, prioritized list that includes the assessments and clearer funding recommendations so the committee and, if needed, the full County Board can decide next steps.