Lexington to consider $1.9M road resurfacing request; council debates broader multi‑year plan for D‑ and F‑rated streets

Transportation Director Randy Edwards asked council to place a proposed road resurfacing authorization on the March 3 agenda to address 4.2 miles of F‑rated streets, with a requested town allocation of $1.9 million and a Golden Hills Special Tax District contribution of roughly $300,000 (project total estimated at $2.2 million). Council agreed to place the item on the March 3 council agenda for consideration.

Edwards said the town’s last major resurfacing was in 2013 and that the current list includes 4.2 miles rated F and an additional roughly 4.9 miles rated D that are approaching failure. He described the proposed work as full‑depth patching, milling and resurfacing, and estimated the town‑funded portion at $1,900,000; $891,680 is already budgeted for FY25 resurfacing, leaving a proposed $1,008,320 gap that staff said could be taken from the town’s undesignated general fund balance if council wishes to proceed this year.

Edwards offered order‑of‑magnitude unit comparisons to illustrate choices: full reconstruction/resurfacing is roughly $15 per square yard, microsurfacing about $5 per square yard and crack sealing around $1 per square yard. He also noted asphalt materials and placement costs have risen sharply (he cited about $140 per ton in place now versus roughly $40 per ton a decade earlier) and argued larger projects attract more bidders and produce lower unit costs.

Council members pressed for options and timing. Council member Karnes and others noted that impact‑fee funding was identified in the CIP for municipal facilities but that impact fees would not be available until 2026; Assistant Town Administrator Stuart Ford explained staff can use general fund balances or debt capacity and warned that taking one funding source away requires identifying another. Ford said the town has available general obligation bonding capacity (he referenced about $4 million available) and that staff would propose financing or budget options if council wishes to pursue a larger multi‑year solution.

Several council members urged staff to return cost comparisons for addressing both the F and D streets; staff said the additional D‑rated work would roughly double the mileage and that a broader program to take D and F streets to “fair” condition would cost in the low‑millions (Edwards and other staff discussed totals in the $4.6M–$5M range as an illustrative figure). Edwards recommended bidding a larger package if council can identify funding to gain scale economies and finish contiguous neighborhoods rather than piecemeal patching.

Council voted to put the resurfacing authorization on the March 3 agenda; staff will return with options on scope, funding sources (including undesignated fund balance, bonding and phased approaches) and a recommended bid/timing plan.