Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Annex Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County approves demolition, brickwork bids for courthouse annex
Summary
At a March 17 special session, the Clay County Commissioners approved a demolition contract with Premier Commercial Group not to exceed $7,000 and a separate contract for window infill and brick repair with a local contractor for roughly $33,034 following staff presentations and discussion of historic‑preservation grant prospects.
Clay County commissioners on March 17 approved two contracts to remove and repair the small annex attached to the courthouse, voting 4‑0 to accept a demolition bid for Premier Commercial Group capped at $7,000 and a separate masonry/infilling contract for about $33,034.
The action came during a special session called to consider bids for the courthouse annex. Pickett, a county official who had been handling contractor outreach, told the court that three contractors inspected the annex. He said Premier Commercial Group offered a demolition range of $4,000–$7,000 and that another contractor’s price for infilling windows and finishing exposed brick was substantially lower than an earlier Premier infill estimate.
The decision matters because the county wants the annex removed to improve the courthouse’s condition and to strengthen the county’s position for a future historic‑restoration grant. Carl Komatsu of Komatsu Architects told commissioners that the Texas Historical Commission has already given the county conditional approval to remove the addition and that taking the annex down could improve the county’s standing for a major restoration grant; Komatsu also noted the planning grant requires a 30% local match and that the planning phase under discussion is on the order of $2,000,000.
Commissioners and staff discussed logistics and risks. Pickett and others warned that unknown conditions might appear once demolition begins—particularly around electrical runs that serve the elevator, which Robbie (the contractor contact) indicated may need a new run of wire rather than splicing—and that some brick removed during demo might be salvaged for repairs. Pickett said that some costs cannot be fixed until demolition reveals the underlying conditions and emphasized staying below the $50,000 statutory bidding threshold to avoid a different procurement process.
Court operations and records were also a focus. Staff reported the annex contains the court’s server, files and workspace used by probation and court staff; commissioners directed coordination so court dates would not be disrupted. The court generally schedules sessions the second Monday of each month and members said they would try to have demolition completed before the next court date on April 14.
Funding and timing: commissioners were told the county has repairs-and-maintenance funds (reported in the meeting as $175,000) that could cover the work. Pickett asked the court to permit using Premier for demolition and a separate contractor for the masonry finishing to keep each contract below the $50,000 bidding threshold; the amended motion accepted by the court mirrors that approach.
Motion and vote: A county commissioner, Ben, moved to amend the motion to accept Premier Commercial Group’s demolition bid not to exceed $7,000 and to accept the masonry/infilling bid (recorded in the meeting as approximately $33,034) for sealing window and door openings and related brickwork; Jack seconded. The motion passed on a 4‑0 voice vote.
Next steps: staff will coordinate a firm demolition schedule with Premier Commercial Group, arrange temporary workspace for affected staff (options discussed included using nearby assessor or district attorney offices), and confirm the elevator electrical scope before work begins. Commissioners asked staff to salvage reusable brick where practicable and to avoid incurring costs that would push the single‑contract value above the county’s formal bidding threshold.
