A Polycote Products representative and contractor briefed the Wichita County Commissioners Court on a proposed elastomeric waterproofing and protective coating system for the courthouse steps, saying the system is designed to stop moisture intrusion, provide a non‑slip finish and flex with concrete movement.

Why it matters: County staff and commissioners said moisture is penetrating the concrete steps at the courthouse and that the surface needs a durable, UV‑stable coating that will accommodate expansion and contraction without rigid cracking.

What was presented: The proposed system is a liquid elastomeric membrane (presented as a PC‑220 base membrane) topped with a wear coat (Polyglaze AL50) and a dry‑sand broadcast to provide slip resistance. The product specialist said the base membrane “is a tough rubber” that moves with the concrete and that the top coat will be the wear surface; installers squeegee and back‑roll the liquid material during application. The representative said curing is moisture‑cure based and that an economical cure profile is roughly 16 hours, with faster cure options available. The supplier said the system is UV stable and, with light pedestrian use, should provide 10+ years of functional life; the manufacturer’s standard pedestrian warranty starts at five years.

Prep, warranty and maintenance: Polycote stressed surface preparation — mechanical profiling or grinding to open concrete pores, detailed crack repair with polyurethane sealant, and then membrane and top coat application within the manufacturer’s recoat window to avoid delamination. The representative said if gouges occur from later heavy impact the installation will have to be patched and the top coat may be renewed without a full system replacement.

Procurement and scope questions: Commissioners and staff asked whether to include all stairways around the courthouse in the work; the contractor said the existing quote covered both sets of steps but commissioners discussed adding a third set for parity and future repaving plans. They also asked whether the vendor participates in cooperative purchasing programs (a co‑op could avoid a separate competitive bid) and were told the vendor would confirm.

Discussion vs. decision: The presentation was informational; commissioners asked technical and scheduling questions and requested a formal quote and confirmation of co‑op eligibility. No contract or expenditure was authorized at the meeting.

Ending: Staff and the vendor agreed to provide a formal proposal and follow up on cooperative purchasing options and scheduling; commissioners signaled interest in moving forward after staff reviews pricing, warranty language and scope.