Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Wichita County staff review $13,540 roof-repair proposal, debate responsibility for missing flashing
Summary
County facilities staff discussed a $13,540 proposal from contractor Jay Reynolds to repair a rooftop leak; the quote excludes flashing repair around a hallway air-conditioning unit and a separate $2,500 water test, and staff debated whether the contractor must cover the flashing work under the roof warranty.
Wichita County facilities staff reviewed a contractor proposal to repair a leaking TPO roof and debated who is responsible for missing flashing around an air-conditioning unit.
The discussion focused on a $13,540 repair estimate that, according to county staff member Melvin, did not include a separate water test or the flashing repair for “hallway 1.” Melvin said the water test to pinpoint the leak would cost $2,500 and that the quoted $13,540 “did not include the water test.”
Why it matters: staff said the flashing around the hallway air-conditioner appears to be missing and that a simple caulk-type fix would likely fail in Wichita County’s climate. One staff member warned that without the flashing the repair would “do nothing but fail” within a year or two. Staff also described temporary fixes already made on the roof, including black tape applied over cuts to stop leaks.
Staff described uncertainty about the cause of several gashes and cuts in the TPO membrane. Several speakers said the cuts look jagged and may have been caused by equipment or material dragged across the roof during other work; one staff member said the gashes appeared after awning installation near a secure entrance. No speaker said they could prove the source of the damage.
Contractor and warranty: county staff identified Jay Reynolds as the contractor who provided the proposal. Melvin said the contractor’s repairs are warranted and that, if the same spots leak again after the repair, the contractor “will come out and fix it.” Melvin also said he had the roof-warranty PDF and would email it to colleagues for review.
Scope and access constraints: staff discussed that some screw heads protruding through the TPO membrane will need to be cut or ground shorter before patching. One participant said accessing screws from underneath would be “an arduous task” and likely infeasible, so the practical repair approach is to cut or shorten screws from the top and patch the membrane.
Costs and next steps: staff said the $13,540 proposal covers the listed repairs except the hallway-1 flashing; the water test and any resulting flashing or flashing-related repairs would be separate costs. Staff agreed to share the roof-warranty PDF by email and to pursue whether the contractor should cover the flashing replacement as part of their responsibility for earlier work.
The county did not take a formal vote or issue a final decision during the discussion; staff described the proposal, warranty terms, and follow-up items for future action.
