Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roaming Shores council weighs long-term asphalt overlays after asphalt bids top chip-and-seal estimates
Summary
Council members discussed road‑repair strategy after two asphalt quotes came in about three times the chip‑and‑seal estimate. Administrator Mark recommended a multi‑year chip‑and‑seal rotation while members requested a written long‑range program and targeted drainage repairs.
Roaming Shores Village Council spent a substantial portion of its January work session debating how to repair and maintain village streets after administrator Mark said two asphalt bids for the planned spring project were roughly three times the cost of a chip‑and‑seal approach.
Mark told the council that quotes from two contractors — including a Cleveland firm — priced asphalt at about three times what chip‑and‑seal would cost, and he recommended a four‑ to six‑year chip‑and‑seal rotation to fit the village budget while scheduling spot repairs where pavement and drainage need it most. He also said two village employees had passed clean‑water operator certification, which could let the village take some operations work in-house and reduce contracted costs.
Council members pressed for more detail about past plans and grant implications. Several members and staff recalled an original phased plan for Morning Star Drive that had been broken into chunks, but they said the paperwork and exact schedule were not readily available. Members noted that pursuing certain state public‑works grants (referred to in discussion as OPWC/public‑works funding) can raise project scope and costs because grant standards may require additional widening, drainage work or other upgrades.
Council discussed alternatives including limited asphalt overlays on select segments, using grindings for other village needs, and contracting spot patching on problem areas such as Beaver Dam Road and the south end of Plane Lake. Mark said an initial spring project and a fall project could, together with last year’s boulevard work, put the village‑owned roads on a multi‑year maintenance schedule.
Council asked Mark to locate prior planning materials and present a written, multi‑year road program that would allow members to compare the lifecycle costs and grant tradeoffs of asphalt overlays vs. recurring chip‑and‑seal maintenance.
What happens next: Council did not vote to approve an overlay contract at the meeting and asked staff to bring prior plans and contractor recommendations back to a future work session.
