Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Maintenance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Wagoner County commissioners pause courthouse roof, waterproofing work pending more inspection and contractor quotes

2215380 · January 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners heard extended updates about ongoing courthouse roofing and waterproofing work, ordered more documentation and pictures, and voted to table related change-order decisions until staff can produce missing reports and on-site inspections after rain.

Wagoner County commissioners on Monday heard a detailed update on ongoing courthouse roofing and exterior waterproofing work and voted to delay further decisions until staff and contractors provide clearer documentation and on-site verification.

The update came as county staff and a roofing consultant described new splits and flashing problems on multiple roof areas, including a newly discovered split on the lower roof called “Area P” and a slipped gutter and fascia on the VIV building that a contractor must re-fastened. Joe Wilson, MCR, the roofing consultant, told the board the work on the VIV building was largely complete but that several items — flashing, tuckpointing and an uncovered split at Area P — remained to be repaired before forecast rain.

Why it matters: commissioners said the county needs a single, consolidated record of reported leaks, photographs and contractor proposals so they are not making piecemeal repairs that could repeat or miss prior problems. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to assemble field reports, supporting photos and contractor cost proposals and to hold an on-site review after rain to confirm which repairs remain.

During the discussion commissioners pressed staff to identify which contractor is responsible for each defect and whether repairs can be addressed via the waterproofing contractor—s warranty or should be issued as change orders to the roofing contractor. County staff described two pathways: (1) ask the roofing contractor to provide a price and have that contractor bill the waterproofing contractor (deducted from the waterproofing contract) or (2) the waterproofing contractor directly accept responsibility and make the repair. Commissioners preferred resolving responsibility between the two private contractors when possible.

Commissioners also discussed a previously presented change-order proposal for additional sealants versus installing new counter-flashing. Planning and zoning and county staff said the original roof analysis should have documented these flashing issues and that the items probably should have been included in the initial scope; they therefore want a consolidated field report before approving change orders.

Board action and next steps: the board voted to table decisions on the roofing/waterproofing items and directed staff to gather the full leak-report packet and the missing photograph that staff said existed from earlier field work. Commissioners also asked staff to obtain itemized proposals from the roofing contractor for new counter flashing and from the waterproofing contractor for tape/patch repairs, and to meet on-site after rain (staff proposed evaluating the roof on the Monday after forecasted rain). The board asked staff to stop copying a former county engineer on routine distribution lists because that person is no longer an employee; commissioners said they will circulate a final distribution list of who should receive the reports.

What commissioners emphasized: Commissioners repeatedly requested consolidated paperwork rather than successive, piecemeal change orders: full field reports, dated photographs, contractor proposals and clear assignment of responsibility. Commissioner Hanning said the county should not be —piecemealed— over time and urged a coordinated on-site meeting; Commissioner Stamps and Commissioner Kelly joined in directing staff to gather the missing photos and reports before the board considers additional change orders.

The board scheduled no immediate contract approvals on the roofing items and tabled related agenda items pending the requested documentation and an on-site review after the forecasted rain.

Ending: Staff agreed to print and deliver the full field-report packet for commissioners to review and to request all outstanding contractor price quotes. Commissioners said they will consider change orders only after receiving the consolidated records and seeing the conditions on an on-site inspection.