Construction lags have delayed the completion date for Fire Station 92, and problems with the roof could set it back even more.

At the Oct. 2 City Council meeting, Project Manager Amy DeDominicus said that crews have been working on the roof for six weekends, much longer than expected. The roof membrane and cap sheet were exposed to the elements, including wind and rain.

During an inspection with an outside consultant, Wetherholt & Associates, water was observed dripping off the steel decking between the roof and protection board.

The city is trying to determine if the problems  can be repaired without  voiding the warranty or shortening the expected life of the roof.

The Council scheduled an executive session on Oct. 20 to discuss the issue further, after a heated debate in the Council chambers.

“You’ve got yellow flags all over this, and we really need an executive session meeting,” said Councilmember Mike Cero.

DeDominicus said city staff shares the Council’s frustrations and concerns.

“Going into the details does us no good at this point,” said Mayor Bruce Bassett. “We will figure out what the way forward is given the Council’s deep unhappiness.”

Some councilmembers suggested that the city find alternate means of completing the project.

The city has an obligation to allow the contractor to fix mistakes that may have been made, said City Attorney Katie Knight.

DeDominicus said the city has issued three nonconformance reports to the contractor, which is Corp Inc., a  construction company based out of Salem, Ore.

Last year, it was estimated that project funds would fall $400,000 short, so Council and staff tried to find ways to slim down the budget.

Corp Inc.’s $3.5 million bid – the lowest of 14 presented – was awarded by the Council in November 2013.

On Sept. 15, City Manager Noel Treat said the low bid requirement in awarding construction contracts leaves little room for looking at qualifications and experience, according to meeting minutes.

Treat noted that the first priority is to get the project done correctly, which is put ahead of the time element, and that damages will be sorted out toward the end of the project.

“The frustration is really deep,” Bassett said. “How do we get a good conclusion out of this, because I’m just not seeing it.”

The two options seem to be to either tear off the roof and start again, or complete the roofing process and see where the project stands after the rainy season.

DeDominicus said that though there are issues with the cap sheet of the roof, 95 percent of them are correctable with patching.

Patching “isn’t a bad thing,”  she said, but water under the roof membrane could compromise the structure and its warranty.

The roof structure is composed of a series of corrugated cells. Each cell is a piece of steel that’s about 60 feet long.

“If we tear it off now, we’d probably be putting the project back at least another month and a half,” DeDominicus said.

Cero said that if that’s the issue, the roof should be replaced.

“I’ve lived through that community center building. I don’t want to do it again with this fire station,” Cero said.

Councilmember Tana Senn said that after the E. coli scare, the last thing the city should do is “mess with water issues again.”

“If this was your roof, would you want them to replace it,” Senn asked. “Or would you be OK with them drilling holes and saying it’s fixed?”