Gonzales County court authorizes exploratory work and scaffolding plan for courthouse annex facade

The Gonzales County Commissioners Court on a routine agenda item authorized contractors to perform exploratory cutting and to pursue scaffolding and a mock-up for repairs to the county annex facade after a consultant warned of extensive stone delamination and cracking.

A county-hired consultant addressed the court and described the annex as a "mass wall" with many facade elements integrated into the masonry. The consultant said some decorative stonework had been replaced previously and that pockets of delamination and cracking were visible across multiple elevations. He recommended shaving back certain elements to reveal where cracking stops, using epoxy injection where practical and replacing elements where necessary.

"When we start getting into some of these elements where we're shaving the front face...the cracks will, if not go away, become significantly small," the consultant said during the presentation, and he recommended a mock-up in a less-visible corner to test appearance and method before broader work.

Commissioners and staff pressed on safety and logistics. The consultant and contractors described a work plan that would include scaffolding with a protective pedestrian walkway, HEPA vacuuming for dust control, dumpsters and lifts, and a staged schedule intended to limit noise and public disruption (for example, crews working Monday through Thursday). They also noted early voting and other public uses of the building as scheduling constraints.

Cost estimates presented to the court included a scaffolding erection/dismantling figure reported around $31,000 (document figures varied) and a monthly rental figure discussed at about $2,900. Commissioners and contractors warned the full remediation program would vary widely depending on findings during exploratory cuts and mock-ups; one estimate discussed during the meeting put the multi‑crew work and scaffold time in a range that could bring total program costs into the high hundreds of thousands to around $1 million if extensive rebuilding and replacement proved necessary.

After deliberation, the court approved a motion to permit limited exploratory cutting (a mock-up and a small number of test cuts) and to begin contracting for scaffolding so staff and contractors can proceed in a staged, safety‑focused way. The court asked staff to coordinate scaffold timing and public‑entrance routing around early voting and other events and to return with firm bids and a project committee recommendation before committing to larger work.

The court directed county staff to: secure a mock-up location and a scaffolding proposal, name a day‑to‑day point of contact to approve limited site decisions during work, and require dust‑containment and pedestrian protection measures in any contract. No final construction contract or full‑scope budget was adopted at the meeting.

The court’s next steps are to receive the scaffold contract and mock‑up results, review firm cost and schedule proposals, and consider a formal contract and funding authorization at a future meeting.