Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pavement Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to proceed with FY26 pavement work, delays Fountain Hills Boulevard and Kingstree segments
Summary
After an update from a pavement-management consultant, the council approved a multi-street preservation and paving plan while deferring two large arterial/collector segments to allow further study and budgeting.
The Fountain Hills Town Council approved staff’s recommended pavement-management plan for fiscal year 2026 but asked staff to defer two large projects — a full segment of Fountain Hills Boulevard and a Kingstree segment — while redirecting funding to a proposed chip-seal with cape pilot on Richwood and several neighborhood super-segments.
Consultant Roadway Asset Services presented the town’s pavement condition index (PCI) based on a 2022 field survey and an aging model. The consultant reported a current network-average PCI of 66 with backlog (very poor/poor roads) just under 8%. The firm advised that steady-state funding of roughly $4.5 million annually is needed to maintain that average; about $8.3 million per year would be required to arrest backlog growth and raise the average condition substantially.
Council discussed tradeoffs between doing smaller preservation treatments across the network versus larger reconstruction projects on arterials. Director Justin Weldy recommended deferring the large, costly Fountain Hills Boulevard reconstruction and Kingstree segment so staff could plan a multi-year super-segment strategy and explore a chip-seal + cape approach on Richwood (between Golden Eagle Boulevard and Boulder) after limited repairs.
Action: The council voted unanimously (7–0) to proceed with the pavement program as presented, with the specific direction to delay/ defer the Fountain Hills Boulevard and Kingstree projects and to pursue a Richwood chip-seal/cape option and other local super-segments. Staff will return with budget numbers and a timeline for the Richwood option.
Public and council comments emphasized logistics (lane closures and contractor availability), the pilot chip-seal success on El Lago and Chama, and the need to balance visible short-term fixes with long-term reconstruction planning.
Ending: Staff was authorized to proceed with the FY26 pavement selections excluding the deferred segments and to return with cost estimates for the Richwood chip-seal/cape and for any changes required to sequencing and traffic-control planning.
