Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Maintenance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Courthouse wall and roof repairs on agenda; administration seeks $56,800 from fund balance

Craig County Board of Supervisors · September 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff told the board that failing roof drainage and saturated brickwork are causing interior plaster damage to the Craig County Courthouse’s front offices and presented contractor quotes to make repairs.

County maintenance and an outside architect told supervisors that moisture penetration through the courthouse exterior brick and failing roof drainage have caused plaster to bubble and crack in front-facing offices. Consultant Don Witt and Building Specialists reported that saturated masonry lacking weep holes and failing window sealants have driven moisture to the interior plaster and baseboards.

The maintenance office obtained multiple quotes. Building Specialists' adjusted value-engineering quote to correct roof drainage, re-point exterior mortar, reseal brick faces and make associated repairs (excluding patio pavers) was $81,800. Maintenance reported $25,000 had previously been budgeted for roof repairs in FY25-26; staff requested an additional $56,800 from the general fund balance to complete the adjusted package. The resolution language in the packet (R25-73) requests appropriation of $56,800 from fund balance into maintenance to cover the adjusted package.

What the packet shows: The staff report includes inspection findings (no weep holes, ponding at roof drains, deteriorated sealant at windows) and recommended actions (re-point mortar, apply siloxane or 25-year waterproofing cream, correct gutter slopes, lower clogged drains or add scuppers). The packet contains three contractor estimates; Building Specialists was presented as the lowest responsive bidder for the full scope reviewed by staff. The Oct. 2 packet contains a draft resolution (R25-73) and a separate authorizing resolution (R25-74) to approve Building Specialists for contracting services. The provided transcript pages include the packet text; the finalized vote for these specific R25 items is not recorded in the pages supplied and should be confirmed in the official minute roll call.