Presiding official (speaker 2) and members paused action on a roughly $130,000 payment for road work on Old Spring Road after members raised procurement and material concerns.

The issue was introduced by Speaker 3, who said the county lacks evidence the project was properly bid and that a required surface treatment was likely not applied. "We spent a $130,000 in taxpayers' money to pay for this when we're gonna have constant problems if tack coat was not applied," Speaker 3 said, urging caution and documentation before approving payment.

Court members described their exchanges with state officials. Speaker 3 summarized the state's response: documentation of the procurement bid and proof of applied tack coat would be required before the state would consider reimbursement. Members discussed options for verifying the work, including core sampling: "The only way is that I have to do core samples," Speaker 3 said, noting state specifications for pavement testing.

Several members also raised legal and contractual limits. Presiding official (speaker 2) cited county attorney guidance that approving expenditures over $40,000 that did not follow bidding procedures could be unlawful and could leave the county to absorb the cost if the state did not reimburse it.

After debate on verification steps, responsibility, and the potential for the county to carry the cost, Speaker 4 moved to table action on the payment until the court could obtain documentation or the state signaled a waiver. The motion was seconded and carried by the court.

Next steps identified by members included obtaining procurement records, consulting the county attorney, and—if necessary—conducting core sampling to determine if required materials were applied. The court did not approve payment at the special meeting.