Richland County board debates FAST committee role, schedules public tours as athletic-complex cost estimates circulate

Board members at Richland County Community School District 1 spent an extended portion of the meeting debating how the district should handle planning for a potential athletic-complex renovation after community members circulated committee minutes and preliminary cost figures online.

Superintendent Jason Fox told the board the numbers shared on social media were “initial numbers from particular companies we’ve talked to up to this point,” and emphasized they were not firm bids: “Those numbers are budget numbers, initial budget numbers that are conversation about this is where we’re looking.” Fox said the district is still waiting on topo and water surveys and that “the admin team and the board have not yet talked at all about what we’re willing to spend or the direction of this project.”

Several board members said the original brief for the FAST (Facilities and Safety/Assessment?) committee was to identify needs and recommend priorities, not to run bidding and detailed design. One board member, who identified himself as Jake, told the board: “I personally think the board should take that part of the project over.” Another board member reviewed historical practice, saying the original committee previously returned multiple options and cost ranges to the board and recommending the board establish clear expectations for the FAST committee’s role before proceeding.

Board members agreed the committee should play a role in outreach and public buy-in but that the board and administration should produce preliminary design options for the committee’s review. Multiple members urged more frequent updates to the full board about FAST meetings so that board members can answer constituent questions accurately.

The superintendent offered two community tour dates for the athletic complex—April 2 and April 9 at 6 p.m.—and said administration would provide additional contractor proposals and the still-pending topo and water surveys before the board schedules any special meeting to decide direction. Fox also said the board’s stated goal is not to raise taxes for the project and that the district is exploring funding sources including reserves and the district’s 1% sales tax.

Board members discussed specifics that will affect scope and cost, including whether to build an 8-lane or 6-lane track, how repairs would affect field layouts (noting potential conflicts between track footprint and the softball outfield), and whether the FAST committee should be limited to outreach and recommendation instead of managing bids and architects’ decisions.

Several board members said communication about the committee’s work had been insufficient and urged clearer public reporting of FAST minutes and board discussion. The board directed administration to compile the architectural and cost information and to arrange a special board meeting once the topo/water survey is available. No votes on project scope or spending occurred at the meeting.

The board’s discussion emphasized transparency and community engagement before approving any contracts or a funding plan. Members recommended presenting several design options (for example, 'fix only' vs. partial renovation vs. full renovation), then seeking FAST-committee and public input before the board adopts a final plan.