Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee to circulate RFPs after final market analysis; consultant to answer projection questions

Richland County Campus Reconfiguration Committee · February 5, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Campus Reconfiguration Committee heard a final FEH market analysis, raised questions about projected demographic and rent changes, and agreed staff will ask PlaceDynamics to explain anomalies and circulate answers; RFPs for housing and reuse options are expected to be issued in April–May with committee review of scope.

The Campus Reconfiguration Committee met Feb. 6 and reviewed a final market analysis for the county campus redevelopment, with staff saying the report has been updated for minor corrections and added to the meeting packet. The committee’s immediate action was to request clarification on two items in the report: a sharp projected increase in the 75–84 age cohort by 2035 and a steep jump in median rent projections for 2025.

Committee member Mr. Carroll said he studied the report’s projections between now and 2035 and could not reconcile the abrupt rise in the older age cohort and the nearly $500-per-month increase in the median rent projection for 2025. Staff said the analysis was prepared by subconsultant PlaceDynamics and that they will ask PlaceDynamics’ author, Michael, to provide detailed explanations and circulate the response by email. “Let me kick those questions over to Michael at PlaceDynamics, and I will follow up,” staff said during the meeting.

Staff also reported that SEH, the county’s consulting firm on redevelopment, has distributed surveys and received 149 responses so far. SEH told the committee it is engaging developers, Habitat for Humanity and other stakeholders and that the next step is to prepare request-for-proposal (RFP) documents. The committee discussed whether the consultant should draft the RFP or whether the committee should review the draft before release; members asked for the opportunity to review RFP language to ensure it reflects committee goals while SEH said it typically keeps RFPs broadly written to attract a range of developers.

Staff and consultants said the project timeline was delayed slightly while waiting on census data and the market analysis, and they expect to issue RFPs and begin receiving responses in April–May. SEH said the RFP process could include multiple solicitations (separate RFPs for housing, reuse of existing facilities such as the Wallace Center, and possible commercial development) or a single solicitation that allows respondents to propose mixed-use approaches. The committee agreed to plan for a March meeting and to invite the PlaceDynamics analyst or other consultants if further explanation is needed.

Next steps: staff will request a written explanation from PlaceDynamics on the demographic and rent projections, circulate it to committee members, and provide committee members an opportunity to review RFP drafts before issuance. The committee set its next meeting for March 4 at 4:00 p.m.