Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Houston County approves final acceptance of 2026 crack‑fill work and orders courthouse curtain‑wall replacement
Summary
The Houston County Board accepted final work on the CP 2026 CRA‑04 crack‑fill contract and approved replacing the courthouse west‑entrance curtain wall after staff and the county attorney cited code and liability concerns; the board moved into closed session later for an unrelated personnel matter.
The Houston County Board of Commissioners on May 29 approved final acceptance of contractor work on a county crack‑fill project and voted to authorize replacement of the glass curtain wall above the courthouse’s west entrance.
At the meeting, staff reviewed the CP 2026 CRA‑04 crack‑fill contract, saying the contractor was cut off when the board‑budgeted amount was reached and that certified work totaled $130,898.34. The board voted to accept the final exception and close out the contract under Resolution 26‑16.
The board then considered a change order from Lacrosse Glass to replace the glass curtain wall above the west courthouse entrance. County staff said the existing glazing is roughly 25–30 years old and that Lacrosse Glass told staff the paneling does not meet current building codes. The vendor proposed a replacement that would meet code at an additional cost to the county of $49,677 with a $16,596 credit from the original entrance work, producing a net added cost of about $33,081. The county attorney advised replacement to reduce liability if the older glazing were to fail during a storm and cause injury. Several commissioners raised concerns about fitting the unbudgeted cost into capital funds; others said replacing the system now would avoid higher future costs to remove and reinstall doors.
A motion to proceed with the replacement passed on a voice vote; one commissioner voiced opposition before the motion carried.
The board later reported it had met in closed session under Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) to discuss preliminary allegations and private personnel data related to an employee grievance and said it took no action in closed session.
The board adjourned after routine updates and scheduling items.
