Richland County committee hears flood‑plain limits for former campus, approves officer slate and directs staff on next steps

An ad hoc Richland County committee reviewing possible uses for the former campus property heard a presentation on flood‑plain limits and voted to organize its leadership, direct staff to draft a formal application process for proposals, and seek outside cost estimates for building systems and repairs.

Zoning administrator Mike Bindel told the committee that much of the campus lies inside mapped flood zones and that parts of the site are in the floodway and flood fringe, which limits what can be built or how the ground can be raised. "All this here is the flood plain," Bindel said, adding that the floodway "water is moving during a flood event; the flood fringe is kind of where the backup storages." He said changes in elevation would likely require a hydraulic study and outside engineering review and estimated review fees of about $4,000 for an initial review and a similar cost for a follow‑up study if a project proceeded.

Committee members described several possible paths for the property, ranging from targeted demolition and limited redevelopment to preserving green space with infill housing. A participant who said an engineering firm reviewed the site reported the firm found room for seven or eight duplexes or, alternatively, 10 to 12 single‑family homes using a smaller‑footprint plan shown by a local builder, Jason Glassblower. Several members said builders had expressed interest but that financing for small developments was a barrier. "Nobody wants to form the money for 7 duplexes," one member said.

County staff and committee members flagged maintenance and immediate building‑system issues as a near‑term constraint. "As of this for 2023, the county is budgeted $40,000 to maintain those facilities," one committee member said, adding that as of July 19 the county had spent about $52,000 this year on maintenance and that two air‑conditioning units were not working. Members asked staff to obtain quotes from qualified firms to inventory HVAC, water and structural systems and to estimate repair, replacement and operating costs.

The group discussed financing tools and options. A committee member noted the presence of a tax‑increment financing (TIF) district across the road in Panorama Estates and suggested the county could explore extending TIF benefits to support redevelopment. The University of Wisconsin System was repeatedly cited as the current steward of certain facilities on the site; committee members said any use in the near term would need to respect UW System control until property‑ownership or management decisions change.

On organization, the committee conducted nominations and a ballot for leadership. After nominations and a tie resolved by procedures described during the meeting, the committee declared David Turk as chair. The committee then nominated Steve Williams for vice chair; members moved to suspend the rules to confirm the single candidate, a motion seconded during the meeting and approved by voice vote.

The committee reached consensus on several staff directions rather than formal ordinances or binding commitments: staff should draft a uniform submittal/application document for outside organizations and developers who wish to propose uses for the property; staff should solicit and return cost quotes for an engineering assessment of flood‑plain impacts (hydraulic study) and for an HVAC/structural systems inventory; and staff should explore the county's legal options for accepting donated services, including whether an ordinance or policy is needed and whether insurance and disposal requirements (for diseased trees, etc.) apply.

Finally, the committee agreed to meet again in conjunction with the next county board meeting and proposed a 6 p.m. start at the Phoenix Center to allow a longer discussion ahead of the county board session.

Votes at a glance

• Chair: David Turk — elected by committee ballot (tally not specified).

• Vice chair: Steve Williams — confirmed after a motion to suspend the rules; motion seconded in the meeting and approved by voice vote (tally not specified).