BAINBRIDGE -- The Bainbridge Town Council received and considered three bids to complete various roadwork in the town Wednesday night. However, one road, which is partially owned by the county, has resulted in a temporary hang-up.
The council received bids from Wabash Valley Asphalt, Baumgartner and Co. Asphalt Services and Grady Bros. Inc., with Wabash Valley being the lowest bid at $89,541.
Each bid was written according to the specifications sent by the town's utility board. But this was part of the problem, as the council had to accept an entire deal as it was quoted and it could not pick and choose which parts it did or did not want to do.
This became a problem when the board came to Main Street going toward U.S. 36. Though part of the road is in town, the rest of the road belongs to the county.
Jason Hartman, town treasurer, said he has tried to contact the county offices about dividing the cost for the road between the two parties. However, there is nothing in writing that would confirm that action. If the town chose not to do any work on that part of the road, it would cut $16,780 from the quote.
The board decided that Hartman would try to talk to the county about splitting the cost in some way and that town attorney Jim Ensley would determine if doing work on the road without county approval is illegal.
The board then scheduled a special meeting for next Wednesday at 7 p.m. to determine whether they will accept the Wabash Valley quote.
The board also discussed the possibility of legal action against Land and Sons Construction for work on the Bainbridge walking trail. According to the contract, Land and Sons guaranteed its work for two years, and at the moment, the town claims the trail's asphalt is so thin weeds are poking through parts of it.
The board would like to see 2.5 inches of asphalt before compaction on the trail, as per the stated contract, and it would like to not be forced to compensate any more of the costs.
"We want it done right. We want it the way you said you would do it," said board member Bonnie Osborn.
Ensley said he will attempt to contact the company again as he has lost contact with them after meeting with one of the two owners briefly. However, Ensley asked the board whether it was worth having them back to repeat the job if it was not done correctly the first time.
Board member Chuck McElwee said that is irrelevant; the contract and guarantee require them to come back until the job is completed to contract specifications and workman standards.
"Man up to what you said you would do," McElwee said.