Richland County committee to submit $1.5 million redevelopment grant; discusses bridge reimbursement, demolition and surveys

Trish, staff member, told the Richland County Ad Hoc Campus Committee that the grant cover sheet lists a proposed spend of $1,500,000 for the redevelopment of the former campus, and that the amount "does not cover the full $2,000,000," leaving some items, including survey costs and potential demolition, unspecified.

The committee heard that the application could include items added after submission within a two-year window. "Part of me thinks it would be nice to have a little bit of leeway," Trish said, noting the county does not yet have final survey estimates and that some costs — for example, demolition of a second bridge — could increase the total. Committee members discussed including Simon's HVAC work on the list but acknowledged that state or federal grant administrators might rule some items ineligible.

Members discussed reimbursement for work already completed on a nearby bridge. Trish said the county had gathered invoices and was "gonna continue to pursue getting reimbursed for that bridge," and that the funds in question were "statutorily obligated to Richland County, without strings attached to it." Committee members asked for clarification about which roads and bridges were involved and whether city standards would apply when converting a gravel or walker path to a city street. One committee member noted a $75,000 estimate for moving the path from I Drive to Simons but cautioned the true cost to build to city specifications could be higher.

The committee heard technical and condition reports on the other bridge: speakers described it as "severely weight restricted" and "probably realistically past end of life," though still drivable by passenger vehicles. Josh (role not specified in the record) was identified as the person who could provide more detailed condition information. Committee members also discussed a planned hardness test on demolition materials to determine whether on-site material (rock/millings) could be reused for driveways.

Other items committee members said should be clarified before or shortly after submission include survey costs, Corps counsel time for parcel work, separation of utilities (electric metering in particular), and the presence and configuration of subsurface tunnels carrying steam or other utilities. The committee asked staff to add a future agenda item to determine the location, size and condition of tunnels under the property prior to demolition work.

Procedural actions recorded in the meeting include a unanimous voice vote to move into a closed session "pursuant to a statute section 9 85 (E)" for deliberations and negotiations regarding public property and funds; after the closed session, the committee voted to forward the item discussed in closed session to the county's executive finance committee. The motion to forward was moved by Manning and seconded by Frank and passed by voice vote. Minutes reflect the committee expects to finalize a grant package at a future meeting once remaining cost items are known.

The committee directed staff to continue preparing the application and to gather and submit invoices necessary for bridge reimbursement. Staff said it would try to include Corps counsel time and other contingency line items in the application so the county could add items later if necessary.

Next steps noted by committee members include coordinating required city approvals for roadway work, completing surveys, testing material for reuse, collecting any outstanding invoices for reimbursement, and adding boundary and demolition-cost discussions to the next meeting packet.