Richland County committee launches facilities master plan and directs staff to begin jail planning

The Richland County Ad Hoc County Facilities Planning Committee opened a meeting and approved its agenda and March 19 minutes before moving into discussion on the creation of a county facilities master plan.

Committee members agreed the county needs to begin master‑planning work now to address long‑standing facility needs, with a particular focus on a replacement jail and related sheriff's facilities. The committee asked staff to expand site evaluations, obtain ballpark cost figures and consult bond counsel on debt capacity and sequencing before the plan is presented to the full county board.

The committee heard from a consultant, Corey, who outlined a realistic schedule for a new jail: “you're looking at 10 to 12 months for design and then depending upon the size and where it's located, probably at least two years before you can occupy it after design,” making a roughly three‑year period from start of design to occupancy. Corey also gave a current ballpark construction estimate: “it would probably cost you around 30 million 35 million,” and said architect/engineering fees commonly run about 6.5–7.5% of construction cost.

Members discussed siting tradeoffs, including placing a jail outside the city to reduce utility and street rerouting costs, and reserving 10–15 acres where feasible to allow for parking, runoff management and possible future additions such as a courthouse. Committee members noted earlier work that considered adjacent campus lots, a north industrial park parcel and land east by Pine Valley; they asked staff to broaden the site search and to produce comparative information on acreage, utilities and likely acquisition hurdles.

On courthouse needs, the committee weighed whether to build a courthouse alongside a new jail or to phase courthouse construction later. Multiple members favored sequencing—building a jail first and addressing a courthouse later—after consulting bond counsel and reviewing the county’s debt capacity. The committee identified nearer‑term courthouse priorities for the 2027 budget cycle, including courtroom security improvements, jury circulation changes and AV upgrades.

The group also reviewed a suite of maintenance and lower‑cost projects (locks for clerk/treasurer offices, reception glazing for ADRC, private HR space, generator and chiller repairs, and routine roof and HVAC work). Committee members directed staff to gather quotes on key items (for example, fire‑suppression for the highway garage) and to provide a short memo on options and rough costs prior to the next meeting.

The committee emphasized process cautions: the consultant and staff advised against completing detailed design work before a site is selected because contours, utility runs and runoff measures materially change budgets. The immediate next steps are for staff to obtain cost estimates, fire suppression quotes and bond‑counsel guidance; the committee scheduled a follow‑up meeting to consider those findings and to prepare a draft plan for the full county board.

The meeting closed with scheduling and procedural notes. A procedural motion to adjourn was made by Perry, seconded by Kramer, and the chair declared the meeting adjourned.