Court reviews Ekden Road emergency repair payment after procurement and bonding questions

The fiscal court approved a supplemental bills payment for an emergency repair on Ekden Road, but several magistrates pressed staff for details about procurement, contracts, and bonding for the contractor who completed the work.

Officials said the repair was below the county's formal bid threshold and that the vendor completed the work after other bidders could not respond quickly. County personnel explained the work was executed via a purchase order and an invoice submitted for payment rather than a formal multi-year contract.

One magistrate asked whether advertising and procurement procedures were followed and whether the contractor was bonded; a county staff member replied the job was under $30,000 and performed under a purchase order. Another magistrate said a county employee negotiated the work on site with the vendor because the county lacked a road supervisor, and raised concerns a substitute employee was not bonded. The magistrate asked staff to confirm insurance coverage and bonding for workers performing county road repairs.

The court moved the payment and it carried. The court asked staff to provide a follow-up explanation and documentation about the procurement steps used, whether the purchase adhered to the county's procurement rules for work under $30,000, and the employee(s) who negotiated the work on-site.

Why it matters: Procurement and bonding affect county liability and the application of public contracting rules; the court requested documentation and clarification to ensure policy compliance and to avoid future exposure.