County officials reviewed a contractor estimate to repair loose and unstable brickwork on the government center and debated whether to use contingency or emergency funds and whether the work must be competitively bid. Staff described visible loose bricks in an original construction layer, cited a contractor quote of about $42,800 for the current repair section and warned the problem could recur in other wall sections. Staff asked finance and the county attorney to advise on procurement and emergency-funding rules before proceeding on any larger program of work.

Why it matters: the masonry work affects a core county facility, may require immediate repairs to avoid safety or weather damage, and could carry additional costs if more sections are found to have the same original-construction defect. The decision also raises procurement and budget-process questions (competitive bidding versus emergency selection of the existing contractor).

What staff reported: contractors found a section where an exterior brick layer appeared not tied into the wall substrate and recommended removing and resetting roughly 400–500 bricks in the affected area. Staff said the contractor who identified the problem provided the estimate and that doing the work now could avoid a later, costlier emergency in winter months. Staff described timing constraints and the difficulty of finding replacement contractors quickly; they also noted the company that discovered the problem is already on site and has equipment in place.

Board and staff concerns: officials questioned whether to authorize immediate repair using emergency funds or to put the full remedial package out to competitive bid. One participant said that because the contractor is already on site and has identified the defect, it might be more efficient to continue with that contractor rather than delay for bidding and risk seasonal weather delays. Others asked the county attorney and finance office to review whether the circumstances meet the county's procurement rules for an emergency contract. Staff also flagged that further inspections could reveal additional sections requiring similar repairs, which could multiply the cost.

Funding context: staff discussed using contingency or an emergency allocation and mentioned a county contingency balance during the meeting (a participant asked whether a contingency of about $250,000 was available; staff said they would check and confirm). No formal budget reallocation was approved during the meeting; staff were directed to take the contractor estimate and related documentation to the finance office and seek attorney guidance on procurement steps.

Process direction and next steps: the board asked staff to coordinate with finance and legal counsel and to return with a formal recommendation on how to proceed (competitive bid versus emergency authorization), a clear scope for the full building review, and cost projections for additional sections if found. Staff also noted site sequencing: remove bricks in the open area so contractors can inspect adjacent sections and determine whether larger work is necessary.

Ending: no final procurement decision or appropriation was made in this meeting. Staff will bring the contractor estimate, legal advice and finance guidance back to a future meeting to request formal authorization.