Washington County supervisors spent a substantial portion of the Nov. 6 meeting on the county's road and bridge program, describing ongoing construction activity, disputes about which projects fall in which supervisory districts, and a vendor proposal for a foundation‑level pavement technology that a presenter characterized as a sole‑source solution.

The county engineer reviewed multiple bridge projects under construction, including work on Club 17, Hanley Road, Baker Road and Stanley Road, and said contractors have been driving piles, pouring caps and removing old structures. "We would try to, like, get both of those hopefully done by the end of the year as far as the plans," the county engineer said during the update.

Supervisors raised recurring concerns about the quality and longevity of paved roads after several projects failed quickly. One board member said a recently paved road deteriorated in under two years, producing vehicle damage for residents. "We put blacktop on it again, and guess what? The road is back bad again," the supervisor said during the discussion.

A vendor representative introduced a proposed demonstration project that the materials call a foundation‑strengthening treatment (presentation materials refer to a product and process used in Europe and by other U.S. entities). The vendor quoted a demonstration cost of roughly $144,000 for the proposed demonstration area and asserted the technique had been used elsewhere, but supervisors asked for verifiable references and longer‑term results. "For me to ask you the question, where has this project been done that's at least 5 years old?" one supervisor said. Staff and board members noted much of the vendor documentation was recent and did not include multi‑year performance data.

County Attorney Miss Griffin reminded the board of procurement rules for sole‑source contracts: the county must make a formal determination and finding in the meeting minutes that no other vendor can perform substantially similar work before executing a sole‑source contract. "Before this board can enter into a sole source contract, there has to be a determination and a finding in the board minutes that this, in fact, is a sole source provider," she said.

Rather than approve a sole‑source contract, supervisors asked staff and the county engineer to collect additional specifications, independent DOT references and documentation of five‑year performance where available, and to report back to the board. The engineer said he had requested additional specifications from the vendor and would continue the inquiry.

Board members also pressed staff on process and capacity constraints: the county has limited crews and many competing district requests, and supervisors urged prioritization so crews can perform deeper subgrade work where needed. One supervisor suggested earmarking anticipated energy‑related tax revenues for major road reconstructions that exceed routine asphalt resurfacing costs.

Ending: The board did not approve the vendor contract at the Nov. 6 meeting. Staff were directed to compile technical specifications, DOT or state infrastructure references, and cost estimates and return to the board with a written recommendation at a future meeting.