Richland County committee accepts transportation needs assessment, approves on‑call engineering roster

At a meeting of Richland County’s Transportation and Out Committee, members voted unanimously to accept a final transportation needs assessment and to approve an on‑call engineering roster that will be used to assign engineers and construction services for projects tied to the county's transportation penny and other program work.

The accepted needs assessment is the consultant's final report, which Director Maloney described as a 109‑page document dated June 5 and capped by a needs assessment spreadsheet that lists recommended locations and preliminary cost estimates. Committee members emphasized that accepting the report does not approve individual projects, nor does it establish a funding or priority order.

Director Maloney, Richland County Department of Transportation, told the committee the report compiles goals, public input gathered across the county's 11 council districts and Central Midlands COG project lists. He said the consultant updated vetted projects and that the final report includes projects carried forward from the 2012 Richland penny as well as recently added items such as Spears Creek Church Road sidewalks. Maloney said the needs assessment's final pages contain an itemized spreadsheet meant to inform later scoring and prioritization.

Committee members asked for clarity on next steps and public communication. One councilor cautioned that the public might perceive the assessment as a list of projects the council has approved for construction. The committee agreed staff should make clear the assessment is informational and requires scoring, prioritization and separate approvals before projects advance to construction. Councilors were told rankings will be generated in a separate scoring process, with an initial ranking expected "middle of the summer," and that the ranked list will be updated annually.

On a roll call vote the committee approved the motion to accept the transportation needs assessment. The clerk recorded votes from Councilors Pugh, Livingston, Weaver, Aline and Mackie as "Yes," and the motion passed.

The committee also considered and approved an on‑call engineering team roster produced through a recent RFP. Director Maloney and procurement staff said the on‑call roster is a pool of firms prequalified to receive task orders for design, construction inspection, testing and related services; contracts resulting from the RFP would generally be five‑year on‑call agreements under which the county can issue task orders. Staff said the procurement and task‑order process does not circumvent competitive requirements for specific procurement needs and that smaller or specialized firms may be solicited through a separate, subsequent RFP if needed.

Members discussed program management concerns, including monitoring firm performance so no single firm becomes overloaded and ensuring the county can add firms later if demand outpaces the roster. A member of TPAC, Mr. Black, told the committee "you can adjust the list pretty much at any point," emphasizing the roster would not lock the county out of adding or changing firms.

The motion to approve the on‑call engineering roster passed unanimously on a roll call vote: Pugh, Livingston, Weaver, Aline and Mackie all voted "Yes." Committee members asked staff to continue monitoring capacity, to use performance and schedule metrics when issuing additional assignments, and to proceed with the scoring and prioritization work that will follow acceptance of the needs assessment.

Next steps described to the committee include issuing an RFP for scoring/consulting support to vet roughly 50 intersections and other project sites (collecting traffic counts, accident statistics, aerial and street‑level photos), standing up a project scoring team, and publishing ranked lists so residents understand the distinction between assessed needs and projects that have received funding or construction approval.