Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County contractors and engineer disagree on courthouse roof fix; replacement could cost ~$120,000
Summary
After rooftop HVAC units were installed without required padding, contractors and the county’s engineer disagreed on remedies; Graphite Construction said padding would not meet requirements and ETI Engineering recommended full roof replacement with insulation; rough estimates were $70,000 for a work-around and $120,000 for a replacement.
Audubon County officials, the roofing contractor and the county’s engineer discussed a disputed rooftop HVAC installation at the courthouse during the May 14 meeting.
Custodian John Hansen said McDermott Roofing — which installed the courthouse roof — told him the contractor that set the rooftop HVAC units should have placed a proper pad under the unit feet or the roofing warranty could be voided. McDermott suggested pads under each foot as a possible remedy.
At about 11:00 a.m., Shannon CeCe of Graphite Construction told supervisors by phone that the padding option would not meet the requirements for rooftop units. CeCe said the McDermott padding suggestion "is not going to work." County staff and contractors discussed two paths: a full roof replacement or an on‑top work‑around to stabilize the unit locations.
Estimates discussed during the call put a full roof replacement at about $120,000 and the work‑around at roughly $70,000. The county contacted Justin Veik of ETI Engineering, who recommended replacing the entire roof with insulation to meet requirements; that recommendation differed from Graphite’s assessment, and county staff noted the resulting confusion between the contractor and the engineer.
Supervisor Heath Hansen said he wants to "do what’s best for the Courthouse and taxpayers," and the board acknowledged further coordination among the contractor, the roofing company and ETI Engineering is needed to determine the compliant, cost‑effective solution.
No final contract or funding decision was recorded during the meeting; the board discussed next steps for resolving the issue and obtaining a clear engineering recommendation.
The county will need to reconcile contractor and engineer guidance before authorizing work that could affect the roof warranty and county expenditures.
