Wagoner County commissioners pause courthouse roof and waterproofing decisions after ongoing leaks and contractor disputes

Wagoner County commissioners on the record heard multiple updates about persistent leaks, incomplete contractor pricing and unresolved warranty inspections tied to the courthouse roof and exterior waterproofing, and voted to table final decisions while staff pursues more inspection and pricing information.

Officials said the courthouse has several leak locations, including a recurring stain above the first-floor entry and water in the court clerk’s office. Ed, the county facilities representative, told commissioners, “We found the source of the leak in the court clerk's office, but we weren't able…to do that,” and said crews will continue moisture scans and monitoring after forecast rain to determine whether the leak source is intermittent or persistent.

The discussion followed reports that some roof coating has split and that prior holes made for ladders or scaffolding may be contributing. Facilities staff said they have requested change-order pricing from the roofing contractor for work such as metal counter flashing and crossovers (steps to safely traverse two different vertical roof levels), but several quotes were missing or incomplete. Ed said the roofing contractor appears to be “not actively working on the project” and that submitted pricing appears inflated, and that waterproofing subcontractors have agreed to coordinate with the roofer to repair damage they acknowledge.

Commissioners and staff discussed short-term options. County staff described a possible temporary fix: applying a solvent-based, flexible sealant that remains pliable when dry; staff suggested the product could be applied even if rain is expected within a few hours. Commissioner questions focused on whether temporary repairs would create a long-term maintenance problem and whether moisture is trapped in roof layers that would need desiccation before sealing. One commissioner asked whether a cavity desiccant (a drying system) might be required “before the repairs” to avoid future blistering.

Facilities staff said the sheriff's office leak (separate from the primary roofing contract) drew attention from the manufacturer holding the roof warranty, and the manufacturer has acknowledged the problem and is arranging an inspection from its home office out of state. Staff said they had not yet received a scheduled inspection date.

The board also considered change order No. 3 for Mid Continental Restoration, described in staff comments as a $3,600 item to reseal failing sealant around a portion of masonry flashing as a temporary measure until a permanent metal flashing solution is agreed. Staff and commissioners debated whether the sealant work would meaningfully stop water intrusion or only delay recurring problems if the underlying flashing and roof transitions remain unresolved.

Because staff said they still lacked vendor pricing for metal counter flashing and the roofing contractor had not responded to some pricing requests, Commissioner Kelly moved to table further action on the waterproofing and roofing items to allow a separate, focused review. The motion to table carried by unanimous vote (roll call: aye, aye, aye).

Commissioners asked staff to arrange a dedicated, special meeting on roof and waterproofing issues once weather allows and moisture scans can be completed; staff recommended waiting one to two weeks for better conditions and to gather outstanding contractor quotes and the warranty-inspection schedule. Facilities staff said they will continue moisture scanning, coordinate with warranty inspectors and subcontractors, and prepare a consolidated change-order recommendation for the board once pricing and the manufacturer inspection are available.

The board also noted multiple active leak locations (court clerk's office, entry corridor, assessor offices and west end areas) and asked staff to produce a prioritized list of locations, moisture-scan results, outstanding contractor estimates and any warranty correspondence before the follow-up meeting.

Ending: Staff said it will return a schedule and recommended next steps after additional moisture scans and the manufacturer’s inspection have been set. Commissioners directed staff to pursue temporary measures where practical to limit further interior damage but withheld final approval for larger flashing or change-order work pending receipt of full pricing and warranty inspection results.