LAJC sets $8.5 million cap as county advances radio tower upgrade planning

The Law, Justice and Safety Committee voted in favor of asking the Richland County Board to authorize borrowing not to exceed $8,500,000 to fund a planned public-safety radio system upgrade, including site work, towers, radios and related equipment.

The committee’s chair front‑loaded the discussion with the most consequential detail: consultant estimates, vendor proposals and a recently added jail-door/lock and camera element pushed an earlier $7.5 million budget up to about $8.3 million; members amended the motion upward to $8.5 million to provide additional contingency and passed the amended authorization.

The vote follows a multi-hour technical briefing from the county’s radio consultant, Mike Day, who told the committee that the number of towers and the heights available at prospective sites will strongly affect cost. Day said some parts of the county—particularly Viola and areas around Casanova—are difficult to cover from existing towers and may require one or more “greenfield” sites or different tower arrangements to meet indoor coverage targets.

County Administrator Clint Langrick and County Finance Director Carol Worth joined the discussion to describe financial options. Worth told the committee the borrowing authority resolution would give the county up to five years to draw the funds and that the county could choose to delay incurring debt until it had spent an initial portion of the project from cash on hand, or to use phased borrowings. Langrick summarized possible payment milestones the committee should expect once a vendor contract is signed, and warned that a state rule about equipment-heavy projects would require the county to spend some proceeds within an 18-month window.

Committee members discussed levers to control costs: reducing the planned number of radio channels, limiting county‑purchased subscriber radios (and instead allowing subscribers to use existing P25‑capable radios), and the uncertain civil work costs that won’t be firm until detailed site design and bids are complete. Day estimated the consultant and civil work could add roughly $2,000,000 to the civil/vendor portion in his worst‑case estimate and that contingency was prudent.

The committee also discussed an approximately $350,000 estimate for separating the county jail’s door‑control and camera systems from the dispatch console (the county already has about $50,000 available for that work); that amount was carried into the project budget and contributed to the higher total. Members agreed that land acquisition for greenfield sites was not included in the current cost estimate and could be an additional expense.

The committee asked Day to return with a vendor recommendation and additional design detail; Day said he expected to present a recommended vendor and more-detailed site information in May. The committee said it would seek a three‑quarters majority vote of the county board to authorize the bond resolution at the May board meeting and that it wanted contract terms and the draft resolution cleared in advance with county counsel and finance staff.

The committee discussed financing mechanics in detail with Worth and Langrick. Options discussed included (1) delaying bonding until the project is roughly six months underway so the county would not be constrained by the 18‑month equipment spend rule; (2) phased financing, with a first borrowing sized to cover the bulk of costs that will be incurred within the 18‑month window and a second borrowing later for remaining costs; and (3) state trust‑fund loans as an alternative to bonds. Worth said phased financing was possible but would require additional administrative work; she and Langrick both flagged interest‑rate risk if the county delayed borrowing for the second phase.

Next steps the committee agreed: (a) request county board borrowing authority not to exceed $8.5 million at the May 2022 board meeting, (b) finalize vendor selection and contract negotiations in May so the county can meet planned July contract milestones, and (c) continue design work to refine civil/greenfield needs and contingency requirements.

Committee members framed the decision as a budget‑driven one: the county needs a reliable, modern P25 system and must balance that operational requirement against the cost, coverage gaps in specific towns and the timing constraints of equipment procurement and construction.