Facility study finds widespread deferred maintenance across Richland County campus, courthouse and jail; replacement costs could top $69M

A consultant presentation to the Richland County Board on the county—s facility conditions concluded on Thursday that years of deferred maintenance have left multiple campus buildings, the courthouse and the jail in need of significant repairs or replacement.

Venture Architects, the Wisconsin-based firm hired after a competitive RFP, told the public it collected more than 1,300 data points across nine buildings at three sites and produced renewal-cost and replacement-cost estimates for each structure. "We collected over 1,300 data points over the nine buildings at three different site locations," the Venture Architects representative said during the presentation.

The assessment highlighted common problems: original 1966 building shells with single-pane windows, failing sealants, aging mechanical systems often converted to residential-size furnaces or piecemeal equipment, accessibility shortfalls in restrooms and entrances, and deferred roof and masonry work. For the courthouse and adjacent jail, the team found that certain jail cell sizes, corridors and other layouts no longer meet modern Department of Corrections expectations and cited roughly 7,700 square feet currently in jail space that would be inadequate for a modern facility; Venture estimated a combined replacement cost for a new justice center (courthouse, sheriff—s office and jail) at about $69.5 million.

Why it matters: County leaders said the presentation gives them a first comprehensive, data-driven view of long-term needs and a baseline for budgeting and planning. County Board Chair opened the session by stressing the meeting was informational only: "This is not a board meeting ... we haven't heard any of this yet," the Chair said, adding the county would convene a campus reconfiguration committee in the coming weeks to digest the findings and identify next steps.

Key findings and cost snapshots: Venture identified building-specific renewal and replacement estimates (representative examples from the presentation): Building B (Arts & Education) renewal ~ $632,000; replacement ~ $4.2 million. The library (Building C) renewal ~ $1.17 million; replacement ~ $6 million. Melville Hall (administration) renewal ~ $739,000; replacement ~ $7.95 million. The gymnasium renewal ~ $1.89 million; replacement ~ $9.7 million. The downtown Health & Human Services building renewal ~ $444,800; replacement ~ $6 million. For the courthouse and jail combined the presentation listed a renewal figure of about $555,000 with the full replacement (new justice center) estimated at roughly $69.5 million. (Venture emphasized these are planning-level estimates and that construction-market volatility can change figures.)

Mechanical and operational risks: The assessment repeatedly flagged mechanical and HVAC configurations that complicate repairs or replacement. Several buildings had improper retrofits (for example, rooftop air-handling units removed and replaced with multiple residential-size furnaces), meaning future upgrades could require either piece-by-piece disassembly and reassembly or installation of new ground-mounted systems with duct transitions. Venture also noted electrical gear and power-distribution systems of original vintage in many buildings that will likely require upgrades before any major reuse.

Courthouse and jail concerns: The report noted the courthouse has notable historic finishes but multiple functional and safety shortcomings (inaccessible restrooms, cramped corridors and circulation problems for courtroom security). The jail, assessed with the sheriff—s office, contains cell and corridor layouts that do not meet current Department of Corrections guidance and present safety and code issues. Venture said some conditions could prompt state attention if not addressed.

Public reaction and next steps: During a 15-minute Q&A, residents and board members praised the County Board for commissioning the work and pressed for pragmatic, prioritized approaches given limited local funding. "Deferred maintenance does not save money at all," one attendee said during public comment. Venture and county staff said the next steps will include department-level interviews, master-planning to define actual square-footage needs, and development of staged options and cost-phasing. The County Board Chair said the county will continue public engagement and will not make any immediate decisions without further study.

What the county will do next: Venture confirmed it is moving from the facility assessment phase into master planning, meeting with departments to document current and required space and to produce options and a road map for staged improvements. The board plans to convene its campus reconfiguration committee within weeks to begin weighing priorities, funding scenarios and possible preservation paths for historically significant spaces.

Limitations: The presentation provided planning-level cost estimates and a data-driven condition survey; Venture cautioned that market volatility and additional, more detailed engineering work will be needed for firm project budgets. Several attendees requested follow-up technical reports (for example, detailed electrical analysis) that Venture said it would provide.

The County Board did not vote or take formal action at the meeting; the session was limited to receiving the consultant—s findings and hearing public questions. The board and staff said they will return to the findings in forthcoming committee and public meetings as they develop a phased plan.