Wagoner County commissioners table courthouse roof repairs after dispute over moisture testing and scope

The Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners on March 13 voted to table further action on courthouse roof repairs and exterior waterproofing after a lengthy dispute between county staff, contractor representatives and the county—s hired consultant over moisture-testing methods, the condition of existing roofing layers and what work is needed to secure a manufacturer warranty.

The item, listed under old business as a progress update on county roof projects, drew repeated technical disagreements over whether surface moisture meters or penetrating (pronged) probes should be used to verify "entrapped moisture" in the existing roof assembly. Ed, the county—s consultant, said he used a Tramex surface moisture scanner and other nondestructive tools that indicated wet readings in some patched areas; county maintenance staff members and contractor representatives said openings made during a joint inspection showed no visible moisture.

Why it matters: the dispute affects whether previously completed repairs can be accepted, whether change orders are owed, whether a manufacturer will provide a warranty for the applied coating system, and whether the county must approve more extensive—and more expensive—remedial work.

County and contractor accounts differed on testing and findings. The county—s maintenance manager, Chris, said inspectors opened marked areas and "when they peeled that back, I felt it myself and it's dry." Ed said he had brought his equipment to demonstrate its reliability and noted his experience in moisture investigations: "I've demonstrated this equipment's effectiveness in courtrooms and litigation on roofing cases. So, I've got 30 years experience using this equipment." The commissioners and others pressed for clarity about instruments and test settings after several surface-meter readings that several people called false positives.

Contractors and the consultant also debated whether delamination of existing coatings and underlying insulation explained blisters and failures. The manufacturer—s earlier inspection (December) was cited in the meeting; a county representative said samples measured roughly 19 mils of coating in some horizontal locations while the contract required a minimum dry thickness in the mid-30s (the manufacturer—s specified dry mil minimum), and that the manufacturer had declined to warranty some roof areas because of compromised substrate and blistering beneath the applied coating.

Several concrete figures and proposals were discussed in public at the meeting: a roofing subcontractor—s repair proposal for $8,800 to address localized damage; a larger proposal to completely tear off and replace the front entry roof area quoted at roughly $75,000; and line-item comparisons of alternative full-replacement bids ranging widely (participants referenced lower- and higher-cost bid totals of the overall project during the debate). Commissioners repeatedly asked for a clean written bid that itemizes the cover board, insulation, membrane and counterflashing work so the board can compare options and keep the county under procurement thresholds.

Contractors said some change orders were driven by unforeseen conditions revealed only after openings and foot traffic on the existing roof showed delaminated or failing substrate. The roofing representative said some existing insulation (described in the meeting as perlite) had deteriorated with time and that pressure-washing alone would not address all delamination. Ed and others recommended more diagnostic testing before further destructive opens, with at least one commissioner urging a penetrating (pronged) moisture probe be used in future checks to avoid repeat openings based on questionable surface reads.

The discussion also covered related exterior waterproofing work at the courthouse entrance, including counterflashing and caulking that several speakers said were not included in the original roofing scope but appear to be a likely source of water intrusion. Participants agreed the flashing detail at the front entry requires a more definitive fix than repeated caulking.

Action taken: Commissioner Tim Manning made a motion to table further action on the roofing item so contractors and the consultant can consolidate proposals; Commissioner Randy Stamps seconded. The board—s roll call vote (Commissioner Manning, Commissioner Stamps, Commissioner Kelly) was unanimous in favor, and the commission asked for a revised, itemized change-order proposal to be presented at a follow-up meeting on Monday.

Ending: Commissioners said they want a single, clear written proposal that meets manufacturer and code requirements (including required insulation R-value) before authorizing further destructive testing or additional change orders. The board scheduled the follow-up for Monday to consider the revised cost and scope and avoid beginning extensive work as the spring weather season approached.