Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campus Reconfiguration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates reuse of former county campus and hears plea to let Simon’s use campus gym
Summary
Board members explored options for the vacant county campus — from housing and courts to community uses — without adopting a final plan. A public commenter representing Simon’s Recreation Foundation urged the board to allow Simon’s access to the campus gym to help the program become financially sustainable.
The Richland County Board of Supervisors spent a substantial portion of its meeting discussing the future of the county’s former campus property, its maintenance costs and possible reuses, but the board did not adopt a final course of action.
In public comment, Allen Linz, introducing himself as a member of the Simon’s Recreation Complex Foundation Board, asked the board to give Simon’s access to the campus gymnasium, saying the facility would help the program become “more financially sustainable” after membership growth. Linz said Simon’s has seen membership increases to “2,250 active members” and that the foundation contributed “approximately $50,000” in 2024 and plans another $50,000 in 2025. He described the gym as essential for offering programming such as volleyball, pickleball and indoor walking.
County officials and committee members reviewed logistical issues tied to the campus property. The campus reconfiguration committee reported that buildings contain large volumes of leftover contents and that an online auction — grouped by building and offered in lots — would likely be the most practical disposal method. The county is also exploring outside assistance: a state representative agreed to contact the UW System to seek cooperation for handling the property’s contents.
Board members emphasized fiscal constraints and competing priorities. The administrator said the county spends an estimated $10,000–$12,000 per month on utilities for largely vacant buildings and acknowledged the county lacks funding to hold buildings indefinitely. Supervisors repeatedly urged that mandated services — such as jail and courthouse needs — must be prioritized before committing county resources to other uses.
Legal constraints also shaped the discussion. The city attorney warned that “we cannot put a jail on the campus property under the current city zoning ordinance,” and said the city would have to change its zoning code before a jail could be located there. That legal clarification left zoning change and intergovernmental coordination as prerequisites for certain reuse scenarios.
Several supervisors urged the committee to continue exploring options, including partnerships with nonprofit and private entities to relieve the county of ongoing holding costs. Suggestions discussed ranged from housing and mixed-use redevelopment to community spaces that could host natatoriums or other public amenities. No formal vote was taken; the board asked the campus reconfiguration committee to continue its work and present refined options at a future meeting.
The board also flagged next steps: continuing committee meetings with public elements, further outreach to potential partners (including Neighborhood Housing Services and local foundations), and additional analysis to balance near-term cost reduction with longer-term redevelopment goals.
The campus reconfiguration committee will continue work; supervisors were invited to attend committee meetings to hear proposals and provide guidance.
