Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Improvement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County committee separates $50 million jail planning from $7 million facilities bond; asks for priorities and cost estimates
Summary
The Executive & Finance Standing Committee reviewed a proposed comprehensive facility improvement plan that staff estimated at up to $7 million, debated whether to include a proposed $50 million jail, and voted to create two separate resolutions so facility repairs and jail planning proceed on separate tracks.
The Richland County Executive & Finance Standing Committee voted June 22 to split planning for a proposed new jail from a broader facilities improvement plan and asked staff to return with prioritized projects and cost estimates.
At the meeting the County Administrator summarized work by the county facilities planning committee and told members she "got estimates from department heads, from outside entities" and that "it would be a max of 7 million to complete all of the tasks." The committee also discussed a committee recommendation to plan for a new jail and a timeline that aims to occupy a new sheriff's department facility in 2030.
Members voiced concern about including the jail in the same resolution as the other facility projects. One member said the jail "is its own entity" and that "$50 million is a lot of money" that should be handled separately; another said the jail planning and other repairs could run in parallel but should have "their own piece of paper." The chair asked staff to provide a priority list and estimates for the non-jail projects and to prepare a separate resolution for jail planning.
The committee briefly advanced then rescinded an initial motion to approve the comprehensive plan in order to follow Robert's Rules and clarify the record. Members then voted to create two resolutions — one covering the prioritized facility projects and one covering the jail — and the motion carried. The chair said she will return to the committee with the two resolutions and a prioritized list with cost estimates.
The committee also discussed debt-structure timing: staff explained taking two smaller loans rather than one larger loan would extend the period available to spend bond proceeds (up to five years for the smaller loans versus three years if a loan exceeds $5 million), a factor cited in recommending two loans for the non-jail projects.
Next steps: staff will prepare two resolutions and an itemized, priority-ordered list of projects with dollar estimates for the committee's next meeting, and the committee signaled it expects public input and sheriff involvement when the jail location and plan are developed.
