Taylor council deadlocks on awarding $2.7M asphalt resurfacing contract after bid‑rigging concerns

Taylor City Council on Tuesday failed to approve a low bid from Al's Asphalt for the city's 2025 asphalt pavement resurfacing program after council members split 3–3 following hours of public comment and debate.

The bid from Al's Asphalt was the lowest of seven received and would have allowed the city to resurface 29 streets for the money budgeted; the next-lowest bidder would have covered 20 streets, city staff said. Council members and staff described a $400,000 gap between the lowest and the next‑lowest bid.

Supporters of awarding the contract to Al's Asphalt, including Mayor Wooley and the city engineer, said the company is local, historically provided low pricing and quality work in Taylor, and that using the low bid saves taxpayer money and allows the city to repave more streets. “If I lived on Emmett Street, I would want my road redone,” Mayor Wooley said during the debate.

Opponents and members of the public cited federal investigations and guilty pleas connected to bid‑rigging schemes involving Al's Asphalt and other regional contractors. A public commenter, identified as Miss Carol, presented BidNet records and a U.S. Department of Justice press release describing conspiracies in which co‑conspirators submitted intentionally noncompetitive bids to give a false impression of competition. That commenter told the council she found the documents online in minutes and urged the council to table or deny the award.

Al's Asphalt owner Jason Swanson addressed the council and said the company's federal issues were tied to past conduct on federal contracts, not to municipal work in Taylor. Swanson said the company had cooperated with authorities, made internal changes, and was working to resolve a federal suspension related to MDOT/FDOT projects; he said Al’s was not federally debarred from all work.

City attorney and purchasing staff told the council the local purchasing policy allows the purchasing department and the mayor's office to consider debarment on a case‑by‑case basis for local or state funds, but federal debarment would bar a vendor from federally funded contracts. Council members said they had reviewed the materials and that the administration had investigated prior work history and bid quantities.

After public comments and an extended council discussion weighing ethics and practical street‑resurfacing needs, a motion to award the contract to Al's Asphalt was put to a roll call: Councilmember Rose voted no; Councilmember Daniels voted no; Councilmember Johnson voted yes; Councilmember Bridal voted no; Councilmember Witten voted yes; Councilmember Geist voted yes. That produced three yes votes and three no votes and the motion failed.

The council recessed further discussion to open business; with the failed motion the city currently has no approved asphalt contractor for the program. The mayor and council indicated the possibility of returning with a motion to award to the next‑lowest bidder or to re‑bid the work.

The debate included substantial public input and repeated requests for documentation from staff. Council members repeatedly said the decision turned on a balance between ethical concerns about a vendor's past federal conduct and the practical outcome of how many streets the city could repair with available funds.

No council action was taken to debar Al's Asphalt from future city contracts during the meeting.

Ending: Council members said they would continue discussions about next steps for the resurfacing program and whether to pursue the next‑lowest bidder or re‑issue the solicitation.