Lake County public works outlines five-year pavement-preservation plan, seeks to sustain 30–50 miles of chip seal yearly

Interim Public Works Director Lars Yuing told the Lake County Planning Commission on April 9 that county-maintained roads total 612 miles, including 464 miles of paved surface and 148 miles unpaved, and that the county’s Pavement Condition Index was in the "poor" range (about 34 in 2022).

Yuing said the county’s road operation is a crew of about 28 staff spread across three road yards (Lower Lake, Upper Lake and Kelseyville), plus a sign-and-paint shop and a central garage that maintains the fleet. He described routine maintenance (pothole patching, striping and vegetation control), emergency response and pavement preservation — most commonly chip seal — as the primary ways the county preserves roadway assets.

Why it matters: Yuing framed chip sealing as an affordable preservation tool that extends pavement life without the far higher costs of full reconstruction. County crews completed roughly 38.5 miles of chip seal in 2025 at an estimated $1.6 million total cost, he said; the per‑mile chip‑seal cost in that project averaged roughly $41,000–$42,000. By comparison, the county’s recent five‑year average had been closer to 17 miles per year.

Funding and program targets: Yuing said the bulk of ongoing road funding comes from gas-tax sources — the state Highway Users Tax Account and the newer SB1 Road Repair and Accountability Act funds — with some federal RSTP dollars and a small contribution from property tax revenue (he said property tax contributions are roughly in the "$1 million per year" range). One‑time capital projects still rely primarily on competitive grants. He told commissioners the county currently spends about 70% of recurring funding on operations and administration, leaving SB1 and some grants for pavement preservation and capital projects.

The five‑year presentation laid out a program to sustain roughly 30 miles of chip seal per year over 2026–2030. Yuing said county staff have modeled an accelerated scenario to reach 50 miles a year, with a planning estimate of roughly $50,000 per mile and a five‑year total program cost in the neighborhood of $7.8 million; that approach would require additional contracting capacity, equipment or personnel.

Public and commission questions: Commissioners asked for more detail on the administration portion of the budget; Yuing estimated administration at roughly 10–15% of operating costs. Tribal and public commenters asked about roadside spraying and the effect on culturally important plants; Yuing said the county maintains controlled spray areas, excludes some locations such as waterways, and that some corridors are not sprayed. He provided the Public Works after‑hours line for service requests and emergencies, 7072632341, and advised residents to call 911 for immediate threats to life or property.

Next steps and limits: Yuing and the commission emphasized that the five‑year plan is a living document; the county intends to post more-detailed yearly road lists online but said web restructuring for Public Works remains in progress following a departmental merge. Commissioners and members of the public urged the county to continue pursuing legislative advocacy and alternative local revenue options, noting that rural counties with local sales taxes or other 'self‑help' measures often sustain higher pavement condition indices.

Ending: The presentation closed to applause and a robust Q&A; the commission thanked Yuing and his staff for the briefing and directed follow‑up questions about grant opportunities, road‑use fees and public notification procedures to the department.