Wagoner County commissioners table further work on courthouse roof and waterproofing after contractor disputes and warranty failures

Wagoner County commissioners on Jan. 13 tabled decisions about a series of additional change orders and coating work on the county courthouse roof after commissioners and contractors raised concerns about missing scope items, warranty rejections and the potential for escalating costs.

The board’s discussion began when staff presented change order proposal No. 3 from Mid Continental Restoration for an additional $3,600 tied to waterproofing work. Commissioners quickly widened the conversation to cover multiple outstanding items on the project, including flashing details, failed sealant joints, coating thickness, warranty denials and access challenges for crews.

The matters drew repeated warnings about continuing to add contractors or scopes without centralized oversight. Commissioner Hanning said, “I’m just worried that it’s not gonna end. I mean, we this start off as a couple $100,000 deal and we’re gonna be exceeding $1,000,000 before this year’s up.” He recommended pausing the item and bringing the county’s engineer to a meeting to answer questions about scope and oversight. The board voted to table the Mid Continental change order and related roofing items until staff and the county engineer could provide additional input.

Architect and project representatives described several technical problems. The waterproofing contractor’s estimator reported the original scope did not include some counter flashing and that the contractor would need to engage a sheet-metal subcontractor; the roofing contractor had not responded to a request for pricing on that metal work. The architect said the coating warranty inspection “failed” and that the coating manufacturer rejected coverage based on insufficient thickness on vertical surfaces; he cited a published minimum of “34 mils” and reported readings in some places “about 19” (as measured during the inspection). The architect also said some areas had only a single coat applied and that the coating work varied by location.

Contractors and staff also flagged access problems at high roof walls and vertical joints. A contractor told the board the 65-foot lift on-site could not reach some control joints and that an 85-foot lift or other rigging would be required; scaffolding was complicated by the lack of tie-in points above 20 feet. Concerns were raised that additional equipment or subcontractors could produce overlapping work and subsequent disputes over responsibility and warranty coverage.

The board also directed staff to meet with the roofing and waterproofing contractors at a scheduled Wednesday meeting to review roof damage claims and to try to isolate whether leaks stem from roof membrane work, failed sealant joints, windows or other building elements. Commissioners asked staff to pursue a plan to “stop cost” escalation and requested a timeline for follow-up; they expected additional updates at the next meeting. The board’s motion to table the change order and related items passed on roll call.