Wagoner County commissioners on Jan. 6 discussed ongoing roof repairs and exterior waterproofing at the county courthouse, questioned a contractor change-order request and agreed to table action until the county can get clearer proposals and schedules.

The discussion followed reports that recent contractor work left a visible white strip along a shingled ridge where modified bitumen had been applied over ridge shingles, and that leaks continue in the booking office area. A registered architect and roof consultant who inspected the building said the installations appear watertight in many places but noted unfinished work and details that likely caused current leaks, including an unsealed, surface-applied metal counter flashing with weep holes and cracking at a wall joint.

The consultant told commissioners that the contractor’s installation left a nonstandard counter-flashing detail that appears never to have been properly sealed, and that the visible white material over ridge shingles is a cosmetic mismatch. He recommended either sealing the top of the surface-applied flashing where feasible or, for a longer-term repair, cutting a reglet (a standard recessed flashing detail) into the mortar joints above and installing new metal counter flashing to provide a durable waterproof overlap.

Maintenance manager Platter said Carlisle (the original roof warranty contractor) and the roofing contractor were contacted after a leak report at the sheriff’s office and that the county has filed claims under the manufacturer’s warranties. He said a contractor inspection was delayed over the holidays and that the county has not yet received a schedule for warranty repairs. For a separate leak over the booking office, Platter said the manufacturer-supplied warranty identifies the manufacturer as Elevate and the county is awaiting its response; the roofing contractor has argued the leaks could be from windows.

Commissioners and the consultant discussed a change-order request from the roofing contractor for additional sealant work after wall washing revealed water infiltration. Commissioners repeatedly raised the concern that a surface-applied sealant could fail again on the coarse brick surface and that a cut-in reglet with new counter flashing is a more durable — but more expensive — repair.

After discussion, Commissioner James (recorded on the motion) moved to table the change-order request to allow staff to get a priced alternative that includes cutting-in a reglet and any necessary metal counter flashing. The motion was seconded and carried on a roll call vote, with commissioners recorded as voting aye.

The board also discussed related warranty and waterproofing matters separately and later voted to table the broader exterior waterproofing item as well so staff can provide additional documentation and pricing.

Commissioners asked staff to obtain more detailed, priced options from the contractor (including the cut-reglet alternative), to secure a schedule from Carlisle and Elevate for warranty inspections and repairs, and to document which portions of the work remain under warranty and which are change-order scope.