More money might be needed for additional work on the courthouse roof following a renovation to replace the flat section by Energy Savings Group, but not the shingled portion.
The new project to replace the shingles would cost $108,400.
During Tuesday’s Building and Grounds Committee meeting, the need for replacing the shingles was requested by County Executive Jimmy Haley.
“ESG did a previous assessment on the courthouse roof and they thought there might be four or five more years on the shingle roof. In the meantime, we’ve had two major storms, and there’s been quite a few shingles damaged,” said Haley.
The roof is continuing to leak, and the change order will work on the roof flashing, or a thin material used to direct water away from where the roof plane meets a vertical surface and is used to surround roof features.
Commissioner Cole Taylor, who objected to the ESG project only working on the flat section of the roof instead of the entirety of it, once again expressed his unhappiness with another repair on the roof to now focus on shingles.
“I’m all about fixing things the right way, but there’s a whole lot of stuff right there I feel like they should’ve seen. They were here for nine weeks walking around and looking at the building and roof,” said Taylor. “I understand we’ve had a couple of storms, and I respect that, but we didn’t have those storms until two months after the roof was fixed.”
Taylor voted against the request and expressed his desire to have the proposal taken to the full County Commission. The other four members of the Building and Grounds Committee voted for the repair of the shingles.
In the presentation of a $5.8 million ESG project in August 2019, ESG account executive Josh McNeil stated the only part of the courthouse roof needing to be replaced was the flat section.
Several commissioners, including Carl E. Bouldin and Taylor spoke out regarding McNeil’s statement on the shingles still being good.
“Did I understand you to say that the shingle roof at the courthouse was OK?” asked Bouldin during the meeting in August. “That roof has been on there 28 or 29 years.”
McNeil replied, “The flat section is the main problem. When we were walking through, based on our understanding, the shingles in those couple of sections are in good shape. The flat section is getting replaced.”
Haley claimed one roofer estimated putting the shingles on would cost a quarter of a million dollars, and if the request wasn’t approved, no more work could be done inside of the courthouse until the roof is fixed.
“We’ll have to continue to patch it if we don’t move to replace the shingles,” said Haley.
“If we’ve been patching it, then why didn’t they see that when they were first here?” asked Taylor. “For being as highly recommended as they were, I feel things like that should’ve been noticed.”
County maintenance supervisor Greg Bouldin, who questioned the fact the shingles weren’t being replaced during the first meeting with ESG, believes in going forward with the project since it’s needed.
The full County Commission will make the final decision.