The Reconfiguration Committee of Richland County reviewed three broad options for county justice facilities: phased additions linking new court spaces to existing buildings, a renovation of the existing jail plus space for sheriff operations, or an off-site new justice center or full government campus. Consultant Corey presented conceptual plans and preliminary cost estimates and discussed capacity assumptions used for sizing.

The discussion matters because any chosen approach would shape county capital needs for decades and affect detainee transport, courtroom access and sheriff operations.

Corey told the committee that a two-story justice center addition housing courtrooms, clerk of courts, district attorney and child support is estimated at about $18,000,000. Renovating the existing jail to provide sheriff’s office space (including patrol, detectives and evidence storage) was estimated near $3,000,000 because of demolition and heavy structural work in grouted, rebar-reinforced walls. For a wholly new off-site justice center and jail, the consultant estimated roughly $86,000,000; tearing down downtown facilities and building a full new government center was estimated about $100,000,000.

On jail sizing, Corey said the plan used a 30-year projection and noted options to phase capacity: “that is a 30 year projection…there are ways to reduce this as far as phasing even inside the jail and just build out as what you need it.” The consultant described an approximate 80-bed planning target for a 30-year horizon but said a day‑one operational design could open with about 50 beds and then add housing pods later. Corey also noted a Department of Corrections–related operational planning detail: receiving/booking cells are commonly sized at roughly 10% of total capacity and the state’s occupancy practices mean planners model usable capacity at about 85% of nominal capacity.

Committee members asked about tradeoffs. Mister Carroll asked how quickly a new justice center would address current problems; other members said incremental courtroom work would improve safety now but could delay a new facility. Committee member Manning asked about square-footage differences; Corey said the jail sizes he presented assumed similar bed counts across options. Several members emphasized the balancing act of investing in interim improvements while planning for a potential new facility.

No formal motion to select a preferred option was taken. Several committee members suggested forming a separate ad hoc committee to focus on long-range county building and space needs (courthouse, jail and sheriff operations) so the reconfiguration committee can continue to prioritize campus redevelopment and near-term items.

The committee will consider next steps, including further cost refinement and prioritization, at a follow-up meeting.