At a Pulaski County meeting, participants discussed advertising a county project in December with bids expected in January and debated whether to hold a public hearing before awarding the contract.

Speaker 2 said a public hearing should occur "before you award it," recommending that "all the landers" be invited because the item had become "such a heated" topic and landowners should be shown what the bids came in at. Speaker 1 had earlier proposed advertising in December "depending on when the televising comes in and then get bids in, January."

The discussion included scheduling details. Speaker 2 estimated bids could open in January or February and suggested a public hearing could follow the next month within a 30–40 day window. No formal motion or vote on the hearing schedule or procurement timing was recorded in the provided segments.

Contractors’ timing preferences also figured into the conversation. Speaker 3 asked whether work would take place next fall or during the summer and said some contractors "wanted to go through summer because of the hundred days and stuff, less moisture." That point was raised as a practical constraint for construction scheduling. Speaker 3 also noted impacts on farming schedules, saying the farmer "will have to..." work through related logistics, a consideration left unresolved in the excerpt.

The meeting did not record a final decision in the available transcript segments. Next procedural steps—whether a formal public hearing will be scheduled before contract award and whether the county will prioritize a summer construction window—were not specified in these segments.