Richland County committee designates recreation facilities, develops process to assess campus 'specialized items'; school gym MOU postponed

The Richland County Campus Reconfiguration Committee voted to formally designate the tennis and basketball courts, walking trails and the soccer field on the former campus as part of the Simons Recreation Complex and agreed on a process to assess specialized equipment left in campus buildings, while postponing final action on a draft facility‑use memorandum of understanding with the Richland School District.

The votes and discussions took place during the committee’s regular meeting, where committee members also heard staff reports on a recent water leak and the need to replace a failed pump, and public comments from residents and county partners. "This is the stuff that gossip and rumors are made of," said Larry, a newly assigned county board member, urging clear public processes and broad notice before any transfer of campus facilities. Josh, who spoke for the school district team, said, "If this committee has no interest in ever opening up to private groups other than Simon's, that solves all of the rental problems."

Why it matters: The designation clarifies which outdoor facilities the county intends to preserve for public recreational use and for management by Simons Recreation Complex, while the specialized‑items process is intended to protect potentially valuable instruments and lab equipment from loss or premature disposal. The postponed MOU keeps in place further review of utility, maintenance and financial details before the county finalizes how the gym will be scheduled and managed.

What the committee decided and directed - The committee approved a resolution to designate the tennis and basketball courts, soccer field and walking trails as part of Simons Recreation Complex. Committee members voted in favor after discussion of grant restrictions that require public access; the motion was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote. The resolution clarifies oversight expectations but the committee agreed the language could be refined to address logistics and cost responsibilities. - The committee adopted a process for assessing "specialized items" found in campus buildings (examples discussed included pianos, science laboratory equipment, telescopes and other lab specimens, library collections, commercial kitchen items and IT hardware). Staff were directed to create a single contact point (phone/email) and a simple intake form; a small team of county staff and volunteers will accompany qualified specialists to inspect items and report findings back to the committee. - The committee postponed action on a draft facility‑use agreement with the Richland School District (the draft MOU would allow the district to manage bookings for gym space using its existing facility‑use process). Members cited unresolved questions about utilities, maintenance responsibilities, revenue treatment and whether a simple public meeting acknowledgement would suffice or whether a formal contract would be required. The postponement passed on a motion to return the item with additional information at the next committee meeting.

Supporting details and context - Grant restrictions: Committee members were reminded that the tennis and basketball courts were originally funded by a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant (or similar state/federal park grant) that requires the facilities remain open and free to the public unless equivalent replacement is provided; that constraint shaped discussion of any transfer or change in oversight. - Specialized‑items process: Staff and committee members described examples they want experts to evaluate: multiple pianos (one described as a semi‑concert instrument), science lab gear (microscopes, telescopes and stored specimens), commercial kitchen fixtures and IT equipment. County facilities staff reported they have been limiting public access to the buildings until an inspection process is in place. Jason (county staff) has already begun tagging monitors and equipment that appear reusable; the committee asked that experts document salvage value versus the cost to remove and re‑install items (staff noted in at least one example the labor cost to move equipment would exceed replacement cost). - Water leak and pump: County facilities staff reported a water leak that was isolated and repaired by shutting a valve; however, a pump serving part of the campus is failed and staff estimated replacement would be "probably in the $210,000 range." The committee was told that the pump replacement will be brought to the Property Committee for approval before work proceeds. - School gym MOU: The draft agreement would use the school district’s existing facility‑use reservation system so community users could view and book gym times without double booking. The draft includes a clause stating the county will provide utilities and access to scoreboard and control panels; committee members requested concrete estimates of utility costs, clarity on which party would retain rental fees when private bookings occur, and counsel input on whether the document should be a public meeting acknowledgement, an MOU or a legally binding contract. Corporate counsel was not present to answer all legal questions; the committee asked counsel to attend the next discussion. - Sheriff's training and other uses: A sheriff’s deputy spoke in public comment to request that the county continue to permit the sheriff’s department to use vacant campus buildings for training exercises (including active‑shooter response scenarios) and for staff fitness use. Committee members said they are open to coordinating training access under the new access process but emphasized the county needs to continue managing liability and facility condition.

Meeting engagement and next steps - The committee asked staff to develop a short intake form and to coordinate inspection visits with technical volunteers (examples: piano technicians and lab specialists). Staff said they will prioritize items identified by specialists and will return findings to the committee. - The gym facility‑use MOU was postponed to allow corporate counsel and school‑district representatives to provide additional information on costs, revenue sharing and the legal form of agreement. The committee set a follow‑up meeting for April 9 at 6:00 p.m.

Ending note: Committee members emphasized that they want a deliberate, documented process to avoid rumors or disputes as the county completes campus takeover tasks. Several speakers urged the county to involve community groups, the school district and any interested nonprofit partners in decisions about reuse of equipment and open‑space amenities.