Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Pavement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates 5‑year pavement‑preservation plan; some members urge front‑loading repairs for worst streets
Summary
Staff presented a PCI‑based pavement preservation program and a $1.6M estimate; councilmembers called for a revised list to include some very poor streets, requested a public 5‑year forecast, and asked staff to return with a revised plan.
Bulverde City Council spent extended time discussing a proposed pavement‑preservation program after staff presented PCI (pavement condition index) data, treatment recommendations and cost estimates for fiscal year 2025–26.
Public works staff said the program favors preservation treatments on streets with PCI in the satisfactory to good range to maximize return on investment and prevent premature failures. "If the street's bad, it's going to stay bad; what we're trying to do is target the streets that are on the verge of going bad," the public works director said while describing the preservation strategy.
Several councilmembers pushed back, arguing residents on very poor streets deserve priority and that short very‑poor segments can be expensive to rehabilitate but cannot be ignored. "At 3 a year, it's going to take us 10 years to touch them," Councilman Watson said of the list of 31 streets rated very poor or poor; Watson urged flipping some priorities to front‑load repairs for the worst streets so residents are not waiting a decade.
Staff acknowledged tradeoffs: full‑depth reclamation (FDR) on short segments raises mobilization costs and can be more expensive per linear foot but is sometimes necessary for public‑safety or functional reasons. The proposed plan totals about $1.6 million in estimates compared with a $1.5 million budget; staff said bid results and contractor interest will determine the final scope and that lower‑priority items can be removed if bids exceed estimates.
Council directed staff to revise the priority list to add a small share (council discussion referenced roughly 1.0–1.1% of centerline miles) of very poor roads into year‑one work, to provide a two‑year ramp‑up and to publish a 5‑year forecast that residents can consult. A motion was made for staff to proceed with a forecasted 5‑year plan and to return with a revised list that meets the budget constraints; staff said they will bring the revised plan back for council approval.
