Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates courthouse LED lighting upgrade; contract language and media-release clause draw objections
Summary
The board discussed a vendor proposal to convert courthouse lighting to LED with estimated net county cost of about $6,779 after incentives and projected five-year energy savings. Members raised contract concerns—references to non-existent exhibits and a broad media/photo release—and sought edits before final approval; a formal vote on acceptance was contested during the meeting.
On March 13 the Richland County Board considered a vendor proposal to replace fluorescent fixtures at the courthouse with LED lighting. The proposal cited a total project cost of $12,006.64 with Ameren incentives estimated at $50,000 to $55,885 and a net county cost cited at $6,779; the vendor projected cumulative electric savings over five years of roughly $18,000.
A board member said the contract included references to exhibits ("c and d and a student b") that are not attached and recommended striking that clause. The contract also contained a broad media release that would allow the vendor to use the county''s name, logo and images without approval. The board asked the vendor to remove or limit the media release language so the county could approve only use of its name and logo and could retain the right to review images.
A motion was made to accept the proposal subject to removal of the media language and Chelsea''s final review of the contract language. The motion was seconded and the board debated funding sources (maintenance/project line). During the subsequent vote sequence several members responded negatively when the board chair asked "All those in favor?", and the chair then moved on to other business and to an executive session.
The discussion recorded several unresolved points: the board wants contract language cleaned (removing or narrowing the media release and eliminating references to non-existent exhibits) and requested Chelsea''s final legal review before any acceptance. The board indicated it could fund the project from maintenance/project lines if it chooses to proceed.
Next steps: county staff will seek contract revisions (strike media-release language and clarify exhibits), Chelsea will review the contract, and the board will revisit the proposal at a future meeting for a final vote.
