Committee to solicit bids for campus tree removal, schedules vendor assessments and proposes shifting facilities oversight to Public Works

The Richland County facilities committee voted to solicit proposals to remove dying and hazardous trees on county campus grounds and moved to advertise the work for two weeks to identify contractors.

Committee members reported a recent site walkthrough found numerous trees in poor condition; staff said they would provide a final count (one member estimated about 28 ash trees). Contractors noted that stump grinders often leave short stumps; the committee recommended specifying a minimum grind depth of about 6 inches below grade in solicitation documents.

The committee also confirmed an on-site vendor walkthrough by a firm identified as Zimmerman (one of several firms operating under a common umbrella) to inspect mechanical, structural and energy-efficiency issues at the services facility and courthouse. Zimmerman was scheduled to be on site at 11:30 a.m. the following day. Members stressed the need for an honest, building‑by‑building assessment and noted that retrofitting can be more expensive than repairing existing systems.

A likely fire-protection threshold was raised during the vendor discussion; a committee member asked whether extensive remodeling would trigger a statutory requirement to install additional fire protection systems. Staff said that question had not yet been resolved and recommended keeping it in mind while planning potential work.

On governance, the committee introduced and seconded a motion to transfer responsibility for campus facilities from the education standing committee to the Public Works standing committee. Members noted that the board’s organization documents and committee rules would need an amendment to enact the transfer and that the committee would solicit stakeholder feedback (a questionnaire had been emailed to local stakeholders that afternoon).

Members spent substantial time on winterization planning given uncertainty over who will have operational control of the buildings. Staff stressed the county does not currently control the facilities; uses must be approved by the UW System under the existing agreement. The committee discussed practical winterization challenges—pumping and protecting water lines, heating-system work, warranty and contractor-standards concerns, daily part‑time checks of buildings for security and utilities, and the costs of stepping in should the UW System stop maintaining the properties.

Committee discussion noted a contingency path if the tenant were to cease maintenance or vacate: the county could seek enforcement of the agreement in court, but that process could take weeks to months and would require additional evidence and witness availability. Members asked staff to produce cost estimates and more precise lists of needed winterization work so the committee can be ready to act if UW System maintenance ends.

The committee agreed to pursue vendor assessments (three firms were anticipated), gather written cost estimates and proposals, and return recommendations to the committee and, if needed, Public Works to develop any required RFPs or budget amendments. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled after staff returns vendor reports and tree counts.

The meeting concluded with members noting a letter from State Sen. Mark Lyon offering potential legislative funding to assist campus transition work; members described the proposal as welcome but uncertain in its prospects. The committee adjourned at 6:00 p.m.