Fulton County weighs repair vs. replacement for aging chip-seal distributor; bond dollars eyed

Fulton County road staff told the Board of Commissioners on July 21 that the county’s chip-seal distributor has a discontinued solenoid and is incompatible with available replacement parts, forcing a decision between an expensive update or full replacement.

The county road official said the least-invasive option is a systems “update” — replacing electronics, spray bar and nozzles while retaining the truck and tank — which would cost about $94,000. Buying a new distributor and truck would cost about $365,000. Hiring a contractor to spray the county’s roads at current rates would cost roughly $0.35 per gallon, which the official estimated would amount to about $122,000 a year at the county’s current usage.

Why it matters: the distributor is central to the county’s chip-seal program, a major ongoing road-maintenance activity. The equipment problem arrived in the middle of the chip-seal season; without a functioning distributor the county cannot complete scheduled surface treatments.

County staff described three short- and medium-term options: (1) order a custom-fabricated replacement solenoid part (months-long lead time and would leave the county with an outdated system); (2) buy the $94,000 update to modernize the control and spray systems while keeping the existing truck and tank; or (3) replace the entire unit and truck for about $365,000. The road official said the county’s truck is otherwise in good condition (about 32,000 miles) and argued the update is the more economical route if the county wants to keep the chassis.

Because a part could take months to be fabricated, staff said they have arranged to borrow a distributor from Pulaski County to finish the current season. The official also said about $135,000 remains available in an earlier bond allocation and recommended taking the update to the county council for approval to use that bond money.

The road official added that the county obtained a price for outside work (Central Paving) but the contractor was near capacity; if hired to spray the county’s work at the quoted per-gallon rate it would cost significantly more over a year than the update. The official also discussed a longer-term plan to request a new chipper and to schedule replacement of other aging units in future bond cycles so that the county does not face repeated obsolescence problems.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about trade-in and life-cycle costs and about the status of a separate bridge project that had an earlier bond allocation. Staff noted that the bridge work is paid for and that borrowing Pulaski County’s distributor reduces the urgency to make a purchase immediately. The road official said the update vendor recommended the refresh and that county mechanics believe the chassis could last another 10–15 years, which would improve the cost-per-year calculus for the update compared with a full replacement.

Staff also reported related equipment concerns at the maintenance shop: vehicle lifts are aging, repair parts are slow to arrive (sourced overseas), and replacement quotes have risen since prior purchases. Estimates discussed for lift replacement were roughly $60,000 each versus about $35,000 at the time of the earlier purchase; staff said they are exploring trade-ins and bond timing to reduce budget impacts.

Ending: Commissioners endorsed the staff plan to borrow Pulaski County’s distributor to finish the season and directed staff to bring a funding request to the county council for use of remaining bond funds; no formal spending vote was taken at the July 21 meeting.