Contractors tell Pratt County courthouse roof has failed; replacement estimate given

Coreo Roofing representatives told Pratt County elected officials that the Pratt County Courthouse roof has reached the end of its useful life and recommended a full tear-off and replacement, while offering a lower-cost “layover” alternative.

The company’s commercial sales manager, Jacob Andrews, showed photos and a written assessment and said the existing modified-bitumen roof and white coating are failing. “The observed conditions were obviously severe rusts, ponding water, coating failure, saturation of the roofing system,” Andrews said.

The assessment rated the current roof an F and estimated a full replacement at about $28 per square foot for roughly 7,000 square feet (a high-level budgetary number that excludes parapet walls). Andrews said a more budget-friendly layover—removing debris, installing a gypsum recovery board and a Duralast PVC system—would likely come in closer to $16 to $18 per square foot but cautioned that a core sample would be needed to confirm whether moisture is trapped in the existing system.

Andrews said his firm recommends a complete tear-off “down to the deck” to inspect and repair rusted or deteriorated decking, but acknowledged the layover could be appropriate if a core shows only one roofing system and no trapped moisture. He added that modified-bitumen plus coating systems in this climate tend to crack and deteriorate due to expansion and contraction from weather extremes.

County officials asked procedural questions about procurement and bid specifications; one commissioner noted that if the project exceeds statutory bidding thresholds the county would have to put specifications on file and put the work out to public bid. Andrews suggested using manufacturer-created specifications (through Duralast) to produce an “apples-to-apples” bid and offered to provide a contact name for that service.

The contractor offered to return to take measurements and produce an “ironclad” price that would be lower than the high-level estimate. No formal authorization or contract award was made during the meeting.

Costs, alternatives and the need for follow-up inspection were left as next steps; Andrews said the roof should be considered for replacement in 2025 or 2026 if the county wishes to avoid progressive leak damage.