Wagoner County commissioners table contested courthouse roof change order, approve targeted waterproofing work

Wagoner County commissioners on March 24 debated continuing problems and rising costs on a multi-part courthouse roofing project and voted to table a disputed $57,000 change order while approving contractor waterproofing work on the jail side of the building.

The board’s prolonged discussion focused on contractor performance, missed scope items and disagreement with the county’s roof consultant over moisture testing and how repair work has been directed. Commissioners expressed frustration that work originally described as a coating had expanded into TPO recovery and additional tear-off and replacement, driving the project cost far above its original figure.

The dispute centered on whether flashing and other items that are failing should have been included in the original scope, and on whether consulting oversight directed unnecessary work. “I don't issue a warranty on the water tightness of the building. Nowhere in my contract says that that's my responsibility,” said the consultant, identified in the meeting as Mr. Owens, during the exchange with commissioners. Owens said he can guarantee the accuracy of the work he performed and that errors and omissions insurance is available for claims.

Board members said they want the project reconciled as a single contract so the county can hold the prime contractor accountable. One commissioner said the board had expected a courthouse that “didn’t leak” from the outset and voiced alarm at a project that has grown from an initial contract into a sequence of additions; the meeting transcript records concern that a $662,000 project had accumulated a $57,000 change order and could continue to increase.

Separately, the board heard an on-site update from Trevor Olsen of Continental Restoration about immediate waterproofing plans. Olsen said coating work would be rolled on in most places and sprayed in a small area later, and that crews would focus on the jail side after completing the west-side waterproofing. After Olsen’s update the board approved moving forward with the waterproofing work by voice vote and roll call; the record shows the motion passed with all present commissioners voting aye.

The board also decided to table formal action on the disputed change order and contractor oversight to allow additional documentation and to request the roofer and other parties return for a follow-up discussion. A motion to table carried on a roll call vote.

Why it matters: The courthouse roofing project involves capital funds, contractor performance and consultant oversight. Commissioners said they want a single line of accountability so remaining deficiencies and any additional costs can be reconciled against the original contract before the county issues further payments or separate agreements.

The board asked staff to assemble the contract documents, submittals and moisture-test records and to schedule the roofer and consultant to appear at a future meeting. The county also discussed whether separate work should be bid if removed from the prime contract; one commissioner warned that separating work could require a public rebid.

Details and next steps: Commissioners asked for photos, submittals and the contractor’s schedule; staff said they had not received the contractor’s submittals needed for material ordering. The consultant and board disagreed over moisture-meter tests and whether some penetrations had been opened unnecessarily. The board did not adopt a final direction at the March 24 meeting beyond tabling the change order and approving immediate waterproofing at the jail side.