The Rockingham County Board of Commissioners voted on May 22 to send a letter to Harvey Construction requesting receipts and backup for outside purchases submitted with its monthly payment applications, citing missing supporting documentation under the contract’s reporting provisions.

A commissioner moved that the county request all receipts "in accordance with section 11.1.4 of our agreement," referencing the contract clause that requires supporting documentation for applications for payment. During discussion the mover said the request aimed to clarify what small‑tool purchases and other general‑condition costs the contractor had acquired — items the county expects to become county property at project completion.

The county’s change request followed repeated staff questions about missing backup in prior payment applications. Meeting discussion referenced prior months where tens of thousands of dollars in billed items lacked supporting receipts; one commissioner said there had been months with roughly $48,000 of expense without receipts. Staff said the missing items commonly appeared under general conditions and included small supplies purchased from local suppliers.

The motion passed in public session with a single recorded dissent ("Commissioner Rodriguez: I vote no"). The board did not withhold payment at the meeting; the motion directs the chair to send the written request for supporting receipts to Harvey Construction and to require that future applications include the required documentation.

Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners repeatedly emphasized they support completing the project and acknowledged Harvey’s overall work, but said they need the requested documentation to satisfy the county’s contract, to verify reimbursements and to account for project‑owned tools and materials. The board did not take further enforcement steps at the meeting; staff said they would review any receipts received and raise additional follow‑up if discrepancies remain.

Clarifying details: The contract clause cited by the board is "section 11.1.4" (as referenced repeatedly during the motion discussion). Commissioners said the missing receipts tended to appear in the general‑conditions line items and cited examples such as purchases at local suppliers and winter‑condition materials. The precise cumulative value of undocumented items varied in comments but was described as tens of thousands of dollars for prior months.

Next steps: The board directed the chair to send the request to Harvey Construction, and staff will review any subsequent receipts. Commissioners indicated they expect regular compliance with contract documentation requirements going forward.

Ending: The board framed the request as a routine contract‑administration step rather than a change in their support for the overall construction program; it will revisit the matter if receipts are not provided or if further discrepancies are found.