A panel of commissioners expressed concern over a large invoice from a consultant engaged for solar-related work and directed staff to demand a detailed billing breakdown before payment.

What happened: Commissioners reported receiving an invoice of roughly $48,000 that included a 33% "loyalty" discount; they said the contractor's logs and the county counsel's logs did not match on dates and hours. At least one commissioner said he had spoken with the consultant only once or twice and could not reconcile the billed hours. The county's counsel had previously engaged the consultant and the commission asked for clarification on who authorized specific contacts with solar companies.

Board action: Commissioners instructed staff to prepare a formal letter stating the board's objection, asking for a detailed hourly breakdown, and to hold payment until the records are reconciled. They also requested staff obtain Gary (counsel) logs, the consultant's time logs, and any contract or engagement terms that specifically set billing rates.

Why it matters: The dispute involves tens of thousands of dollars of county funds and raises governance questions about contractor oversight and authorization of outside work.

Next steps: Staff will draft the certified letter of objection, seek a redacted copy of the contract and related logs, and inform the consultant that late fees will be discussed but payment is being withheld pending documentation.