Supervisors back staff study of chip‑seal pilot to extend life of lower‑speed county roads

Supervisor Carnell proposed a pilot project to use chip seal on selected low‑speed county roads to seal cracks and slow water intrusion that accelerates pavement failure.

Carnell argued chip seal costs are lower than full asphalt overlays and can extend service life by years, particularly for back roads with lower posted speeds and limited budgets. He said many counties outside California rely on chip seal and that the technique can be reapplied over time. He gave a rough example from his research: “Over $3,500 you can do 600 feet of road,” and argued that smaller line‑item investments could stretch limited funds further.

Public works staff and other supervisors cautioned about implementation details and liability. County staff recalled a prior chip‑seal project that generated a number of vehicle damage claims when loose rock remained on the surface; staff recommended sweeping, signage, and a two‑coat process (extra oil) for higher‑speed or plowed routes to reduce loose chip loss. The county’s public‑works director noted several pieces of equipment would be required, such as a sprayer (pot) and a roller, and said staff would gather firm pricing.

A local contractor offered free training to county crews if the board wanted to pursue a pilot. Supervisors asked staff to provide a prioritized list of candidate roads (members named Meadow Drive, Sugar Pine Drive, Irishtown Road and others), equipment and supply cost estimates, and an implementation plan that would limit liability exposure and include striping and signage as needed.

Decision: the board directed staff to return quickly with solid pricing, a list of candidate roads and a proposed pilot plan. No procurement or capital purchase was approved at the meeting.