During the meeting, a commissioner proposed moving forward with a lower‑cost roofing vendor. The motion in the transcript said, “have we go with sweet onion roofing. Being a lot cheaper, and that's what we want anyway.” Commissioners asked whether the tourism board or the development authority would contribute to the cost. One commissioner asked, “If we move forward with it, we're not obligated to pay for it correctly. The tourism board isn't gonna pay for it. Is that right?” and another remarked the development authority “might need to be involved in also.”

A discussion later in the transcript referenced dollar figures in a way that is not fully clear in the excerpt. One speaker stated a figure that was transcribed as, “we would still have $5.34 That's 29,300. Right? Yep.” The transcript does not identify what the $29,300 represents (total project cost, remaining county share, or a line item) and does not include an explicit vote or contract award result.

Because the transcript excerpt does not record an award motion outcome or an executed contract, the county’s final procurement decision and payment commitments are not specified. Commissioners indicated they want staff to pursue the proposal and to check whether the tourism board or development authority will share costs before a final vote.

The transcript does not identify the roofing company beyond the spoken name in the record; spelling and official vendor name should be verified in procurement documents before any public notice of award.