Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campus Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County staff say campus maintenance is time-intensive but currently within budget; pump, drain repairs discussed
Summary
County staff told the commission that campus maintenance is taking staff time but not creating an immediate budget shortfall. Officials discussed replacing a failed pump (estimated $7,000–$10,000 installed) and a precast-floor drain repair estimated at $2,400; Fund 32 has an $80,000 appropriation for campus expenses with about $73,000 remaining.
Shirley Welty, a resident who spoke during public comment, asked county officials how campus buildings and related efforts are affecting the public works budget and whether “difficult decisions” will be needed to cover expenses.
Property management staff and county officials said maintenance has taken staff time away from normal duties but that costs so far are being covered from funds set aside specifically for the campus. “Just time impact is what it is,” a facilities staff member said. The county is not yet seeing a “large financial burden,” the staff member added.
In departmental reports, property staff outlined several immediate maintenance items. Johnson Controls is scheduled to perform a five-year sprinkler inspection in May; the inspection was described as an unforeseen bill but included in the maintenance budget and estimated at about $2,100–$2,200.
Officials described plumbing and mechanical problems in one campus wing. A precast-floor drain in a van room would require cutting and replacing concrete; Ash Creek quoted $2,400 for that work. Separately, a pump on an air-handling system failed; the vendor gave a range depending on availability: if an in-stock unit is obtained now, the pump alone was quoted at about $3,700; ordering a unit could raise the quoted part price to $5,700 and add weeks of lead time. Labor, piping adjustments and associated parts were estimated to bring the total replacement cost for that pump to roughly $7,000–$10,000.
Board members and staff discussed procurement next steps. One board member said: “I can ask him to get the 3,700 [pump] now,” and others urged staff to check other vendors first and report back. Property staff described a possible transfer of an existing 2-horse pump from a gymnasium boiler room to the affected wing if it fits. There was no recorded formal vote to purchase; staff were asked to investigate availability and price and report back at a future meeting.
On campus funding, county staff said Fund 32 had an $80,000 maintenance budget for campus buildings. At the start of winter, about $73,000 remained in that fund, and utilities and maintenance costs will rise if a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is finalized that increases county responsibility for utilities.
Board members who spoke urged prompt procurement if an in-stock pump is the lowest-cost option to avoid mid-summer shortages and price escalation. No formal action was recorded at the meeting on procurement or repairs; staff will return with additional vendor information and pricing.
The discussion about campus maintenance began during the public comment period and continued in property management reports. Further updates were promised when staff have vendor confirmations, and the board flagged the pump, the drain repair and the Johnson Controls inspection for near-term follow up.
