Hideout leaders begin overhaul of road funding after advisory review

Hideout — Financial advisers and town staff told the Hideout Town Council on Sept. 11 that the town is underfunding road maintenance and will need new policy and revenue options if the town intends to own and operate its streets long term.

The council heard from Jason Birmingham, principal and managing partner of LRB Public Finance Advisors, and Katie (town staff), who reviewed recent budget history and a Utah LTAP (Local Technical Assistance Program) pavement evaluation. Birmingham said the town’s general fund likely does not generate enough recurring revenue to fully maintain and replace the roadway assets at current standards.

“The town really owning and operating the roads is a governance option that is common, but you need a clear policy about when you accept roads and adequate funding to preserve useful life,” Birmingham said. He walked council members through three governance models: municipal ownership with contracted services, private roads maintained by homeowners associations, and use of a local improvement or special service district to manage some or all roadway infrastructure.

Town staff and Birmingham emphasized two interlocking needs: an engineering-based inventory of lane miles and pavement condition, and a financial plan that matches revenues to the forecasted capital and maintenance requirements. Birmingham said an engineering study being completed by the town’s consultant will produce lane-mile inventories and a multi-year capital forecast that town finance staff can use to evaluate options such as incremental rate increases, bonds, grants, or a transportation utility fee.

Katie presented the town’s recent spending patterns and LTAP findings. She said Hideout has increased the share of road funding devoted to materials and repairs since FY2020, but the current major-expenditures budget (about $150,000 in FY26) is likely insufficient to preserve pavement in the state of good repair. “At our current budget, models show we could see about 10.8% of town roads fall into the 1–2 year remaining service-life category; increasing the major-expenditure budget to $225,000 would lower that to about 6.2% and a $300,000 budget would reduce it nearer to 4%,” Katie said.

Council members and staff discussed practical policy steps: adopt a clear acceptance standard for developer-built streets before condemning them to the town’s maintenance responsibility; ensure construction inspection and short-term maintenance guarantees; complete the engineering condition study; and consider revenue options such as dedicated property or sales tax allocations, municipal energy tax, or a transportation utility fee (a user-based fee intended to tie payment to facility use and wear). Birmingham described the transportation utility fee as equitable in that it can be scaled by vehicle usage, though he noted no single solution is a perfect fit for every community.

Why it matters: council members said the town is at an inflection point because development is increasing lane miles and deferred maintenance. Council members and staff asked for an accelerated schedule to finalize the engineering study and return with a combined fiscal model and concrete policy options for a future council workshop.

What’s next: Birmingham said he expects the finance work product could be ready within about a month after the town’s engineering study is complete. The council asked staff to push the engineering consultant to finish sooner and to schedule a detailed workshop so the council can consider specific revenue scenarios and acceptance/inspection policy language.