Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pavement Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges asphalt overlay for Beverly Hills subdivision; county defends chip‑seal program
Summary
A Cole County resident asked commissioners to replace a planned chip‑seal treatment with an asphalt overlay for a Beverly Hills subdivision, saying chip seal would reduce property values. County road staff defended the chip‑seal preservation strategy as a cost‑effective, systemwide response to rising asphalt prices and limited budget.
At the May 5, 2026 Cole County Commission meeting, resident Derek Miles asked commissioners to reconsider a planned chip‑and‑seal surface for Beverly Hills subdivision on Highway 179, saying residents want an asphalt overlay instead.
"We are slated to get some road treatment and we highly oppose that," Miles said, adding that he and neighbors believe an asphalt overlay better protects property values and the long‑term condition of their road. Miles told commissioners he lives about two miles past the soccer fields and that the subdivisionroad, built in 2000, shows "alligator" cracking that residents say requires rehabilitation rather than preservation.
A resident introduced in the record as Carla Stack told the commission she paid to build the original asphalt road in 2000 and placed photographs documenting cracking and raveling into the public record. "Preservation maintains the pavement early in life, and rehabilitation restores pavement after decline," she said, urging the county to account for pavement age when choosing treatments.
County road staff responded that the county uses the PASER visual‑rating system and a pavement‑management model to determine preservation versus overlay. The road director (speaker 3) said the PASER score is one factor and that the county has begun a chip‑seal program to extend service life across hundreds of miles of paved roads as asphalt prices have risen.
"If we can apply a surface to it, extend the life, then it can stay in good condition," the director said, explaining that chip seal costs far less upfront than an asphalt overlay and lets the county treat more miles with limited funds.
An agency engineer who identified himself as the designer of some local roads (speaker 10) told the commission that chip sealing can be a preventive strategy that, if reapplied periodically, delays the need for full overlays. "I can put a chip seal on it this year, get 5, 7, 10 years out of it," he said, adding that grouped, geographically coordinated chip‑seal jobs lower contractor mobilization costs.
Commissioners and staff acknowledged tradeoffs: residents flagged fatigue cracking and base failures that chip seal will not cure, while staff said overlaying every qualifying road would rapidly deplete the pavement budget. Commissioners directed the residents to present their materials to the road and bridge committee for a more detailed review and left the countywide pavement program in place for now.
The commission did not vote on changing the treatment at the meeting; staff said the issue will receive deeper review at the road and bridge committee meeting later this month.
