Wichita County reviews $13,540 proposal to fix jail roof leaks; flashing repair disputed

Wichita County Commissioners Court on May 9 reviewed a facilities report on widespread roof leaks at the county jail and a contractor proposal of $13,540 to repair multiple leaks, excluding a separate water test and the flashing repair staff say likely caused the worst damage.

County jail staff told the court the facility has multiple leak sites across the newer jail building, with the worst problems in Hallway 1 where heavy rain damages ceiling tiles and risks further interior damage. The county presented a written proposal from Jay Reynolds (formerly Techta Corporation) that covers patching punctures, tears and loose membrane areas for $13,540; a separate water test to locate the Hallway 1 unit leak was quoted at $2,500, and the contractor said the work does not include flashing repair for the Hallway 1 rooftop unit.

The report said inspectors found approximately 43 punctures and 15 cuts or tears in the TPO membrane across the roof and identified one rooftop HVAC unit in Hallway 1 where flashing appears not to have been installed. The presenter said sealing and patch work could stop current leaks but that properly repairing the Hallway 1 unit would require lifting the unit and installing flashing — a job that would add crane logistics and cost. “It was $13,540 that did not include the water test,” the chief said. “That flashing did not include the flashing repair.”

Commissioners and staff debated whom to hold financially responsible for the missing flashing. One commissioner told the court, “I think they owe us the repair. It’s their mistake.” County staff said Jay Reynolds had inspected repeatedly and done temporary seals in the past; Reynolds’ proposal includes a warranty on the repairs and a guarantee to return if the same spots leak after the work, but staff said they want the county attorney or procurement staff to review the original warranty and contract to determine whether the original roofing contractor must cover flashing installation.

Staff described the nature of the roof membrane failures: fasteners that have backed out and are now penetrating and abrading the TPO membrane, jagged tears that look like material dragging or impact damage, seams with missing sealant, and rusted gutters. They said some repairs previously done with black tape and field patches stopped leaks temporarily but may void portions of the roof warranty if not performed to an authorized-materials standard. Staff also reported separate leaks on the gun range roof and older facility portions; those roofs were described as having shorter effective lifespans for TPO in the local climate.

Next steps discussed included ordering the water test to pinpoint the Hallway 1 source, asking the county attorney or contracting officer to review contractual warranty and installation responsibilities, and moving forward with immediate patching to protect interior spaces. Staff asked to place the Reynolds proposal on the next agenda so the court could authorize repairs while staff pursue warranty coverage.

The court did not take a formal recorded vote on the proposal during the meeting; staff said they would share the full, color proposal and warranty documentation with commissioners before the next meeting.