Venture Architects: Richland County buildings need major repairs; courthouse and jail flagged for code and security upgrades

Venture Architects presented the results of a facility assessment for Richland County on an informational night for the County Board, reporting widespread deferred maintenance across nine buildings and preliminary multi‑million‑dollar cost estimates for renewal and replacement.

The consultant said its team collected "over 1,300 data points" across three campus locations during a three‑day April site review and used a third‑party software platform to make the findings as objective as possible. The study covered the former campus buildings, the courthouse complex and the downtown Human Services building; the Assignment Center was not included.

The presentation itemized problems building by building. The science building (Building A) retains much of its original 1966 shell and has accessibility gaps in some restrooms, single‑pane windows and mechanical equipment reaching the end of its useful life; the lab spaces constrain alternative reuses without major renovation. The Arts & Education building (Building B) was described as the worst‑condition structure on campus: tile and flooring delamination with "a high likelihood" of asbestos‑containing materials in adhesives or tile, broken windows, and an aging condensing unit. Venture Architects gave a renewal estimate for that building of about $632,000 and a replacement estimate of about $4.2 million.

The library (Building C) also showed extensive floor delamination that has been concealed in places with carpet; the mechanical team found residential furnaces had been substituted where larger air‑handling units once were, complicating future replacements. Venture Architects reported a renewal figure of roughly $1.17 million and a replacement cost near $6 million for the library.

Melville Hall (Building D) includes a functional later addition but the original offices are undersized and a central courtyard has structural deterioration; the consultant estimated about $739,000 in renewal work. The cafeteria/student center/theater (Building E) had partial accessibility fixes but many remaining barriers and aging air‑handling systems; the study listed a renewal estimate near $527,000 and a replacement cost near $1.9 million. The gymnasium and its associated mechanical plant were noted as functionally strong (the athletic floor is in good condition) but face envelope and mechanical deterioration; the renewal estimate for the gym area was given as about $1.89 million and replacement around $9.7 million.

For the downtown Human & Social Services building, the consultant praised grade‑level access and the building's programmatic location but flagged an odd HVAC approach: 14 residential furnaces/condensing units were observed on the roof feeding zoned ductwork, and an ad‑hoc cooling arrangement for the county IT/server room had required emergency measures during the visit. The transcript did not clearly capture the renewal figure asserted for that building.

The courthouse, sheriff's office and jail were discussed together. Venture Architects said the courthouse is not on the historic register (which reduces regulatory limits for alterations) but has significant accessibility and functional issues in circulation and courtroom layout. The consultant cited a Supreme Court standard referred to in the presentation as "SCR 68" regarding courtroom and jury‑deliberation room sizing and said the courthouse and jail together lack roughly the square footage required by current standards. On the jail, the consultant said many cell dimensions, corridor widths (some as narrow as 4 feet 6 inches) and mechanical and safety conditions do not meet contemporary Department of Corrections requirements and are unsafe for detained persons and staff by current expectations.

Venture Architects presented combined figures for renewing versus replacing the courthouse/jail complex: a renewal estimate of approximately $555,000 and a replacement (a new justice center combining courts, sheriff and jail) estimated at about $69.5 million. The consultant cautioned that replacement and construction numbers have been very volatile since the COVID‑era cost escalations.

County and public participants used the 15‑minute Q&A to press on next steps and finances. A resident, Dale, thanked the board for commissioning the study and asked for pragmatic options within the county's constrained fiscal capacity; the consultant said the next phase is master planning with department heads to develop phased, fiscally realistic road maps. Another attendee raised the courthouse's cultural and aesthetic value and asked whether historical status could be pursued; Venture Architects said pursuing designation was possible as a subsequent step but was not part of the initial assessment.

County Board leaders and the consultant said they will schedule a campus reconfiguration committee meeting in the coming weeks to review department needs, phase options and financing strategies. No formal decisions were taken during the informational meeting.

Quotations used in this article are limited to statements made during the presentation and Q&A. Significant figures cited were reported by Venture Architects during the session; where transcript numbers were unclear or inconsistent, the article notes that the figure was not specified or that the presentation included an unverified figure. The board and consultant plan further public meetings as the county refines options.

Ending: The County Board will convene a campus reconfiguration committee in the coming weeks to consider phased options and financing; Venture Architects will continue into master planning to produce a roadmap for potential repairs, reuses or replacements of county facilities.