Committee Rejects $6,000 Cress Hill Tower Inspection, Moves Toward Replacement

Montgomery County Board | September 8, 2026

Article Summary: Rather than pay Hurst-Rosche $6,000 to inspect the county’s Cress Hill Tower, the Buildings & Grounds Committee voted Sept. 1 to reject the agreement outright and begin the process of replacing the structure — a decision Committee Chairman Mark Hughes reported to the full board on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2026.

Cress Hill Tower Key Points:

• The Buildings & Grounds Committee rejected the Structural Visual Tower Inspection agreement with Hurst-Rosche on a motion by Russell Beason, seconded by Roy Schieferdecker.
• The proposed drone inspection would have cost $6,000.
• Beason said he would prefer to begin the process of replacement instead of spending the money on an inspection.
• No replacement cost, timeline or funding source appears anywhere in the county’s materials.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY — A $6,000 proposal to inspect the Cress Hill Tower is dead, and Montgomery County is instead looking at replacing the structure, Buildings & Grounds Committee Chairman Mark Hughes told the county board on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2026.

Hughes reported that his committee “discussed a proposal to inspect the Cress Hill Tower, but instead opted to begin the process of replacement.”

The proposal reached Buildings & Grounds by referral. At the Coordinating Committee’s Aug. 27 meeting, members reviewed EMA/EPA/911 Director Dan Hough’s report along with the Hurst-Rosche proposal, and, “after debating the cost for the drone inspection, the proposal was forwarded to the Buildings & Grounds Committee for a recommendation,” those minutes state. The committee also agreed that the tower itself “will be added to the committee agenda.”

What the Inspection Would Have Covered

Chase Connor of Hurst-Rosche appeared before Buildings & Grounds on Sept. 1 and described the scope of work: “looking at each member and looking for missing connections and cracks with a drone, inspecting the steel thickness at the base, inspecting wires, anchor bolts, and observing for twisting and distortions.”

Committee member Russell Beason “said instead of spending $6,000 on an inspection, he would prefer to begin the process of replacement,” according to the minutes. Beason then moved to reject the Structural Visual Tower Inspection agreement with Hurst-Rosche. Schieferdecker seconded. The motion carried with all in favor.

The committee took no second action — no motion to solicit replacement proposals, no cost estimate, no funding source. What “begin the process of replacement” will consist of is not described in any document before the board.

What the Record Does Not Say

The county’s materials do not describe what the Cress Hill Tower is, what it carries or who depends on it. The only other references in the September packet come from Hough’s monthly activity log, which records a meeting with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at Cress Hill on July 29, and from earlier county coverage in which the Information Systems Department was reported to be finishing building work at the site.

Nor does the record indicate whether the decision to skip an inspection in favor of replacement rests on any engineering assessment. Connor’s description of the proposed scope is the only technical material in the file, and the committee declined to buy it.

Buildings & Grounds also paid its bills Sept. 1 on a motion by Connie Beck seconded by Keith Hancock, and adjourned at 9:07 a.m. on a motion by Beason seconded by Cody Gudgel.