Virgin council narrows capital plan, debates pavement strategy and impact-fee spending ahead of public hearing

The Virgin Town Council reviewed a near-final budget and five-year capital improvements plan on June 11, 2025, focusing debate on whether to add a proposed pavement-management program, how to spend impact fees and which road projects deserve full reconstruction rather than chip sealing.

The discussion matters because the council must balance constrained general-fund revenues with restricted impact-fee accounts and state reporting requirements; several council members said the draft plan as written would commit money to projects they consider lower priority or an inefficient use of funds.

Council members and staff said the draft budget to be published for a public hearing next Tuesday incorporates only a small number of edits made after the council’s June 3 meeting. Staff presented an updated Capital Improvement Plan that incorporated project pricing received from Rod Mills, the public-works contact referenced during the meeting. Council members asked that a handful of items be clarified or removed from the general-fund portion of the budget until more pricing and prioritization are agreed.

A central dispute arose over a pavement-management recommendation from staff. Council member April argued that many deteriorated local roads are in too poor condition for chip seal and that a more targeted pavement-management plan should prioritize older, badly deteriorated streets for full reconstruction rather than broad chip sealing. “A chip seal is not really a, proper solution to deteriorating roads,” April said. She urged the council to talk to Rod about the methodology and prioritization in the pavement-management plan before committing money.

Staff said the pavement-management proposal includes a $225,000 line item per year for the next eight years to fund suggested work. Council members noted that adding that $225,000 to this year’s list would push the schedule above $1 million in proposed projects for the fiscal year, which the general fund cannot absorb without using impact fees or other earmarked accounts.

Council members and staff discussed impact fees — funds collected for system improvements — and reviewed a separate spreadsheet in SharePoint showing collections for roads, water and parks. Staff reported roughly $1.1 million in combined impact-fee receipts over the past four years (water, roads and parks combined) and said some of those funds are already reserved in state-held accounts. Staff cautioned the council that state reporting now requires project-level specificity for impact-fee reporting, and that unspent impact fees risk forfeiture under the state’s timetable if not spent in accordance with the reporting rules.

Because of that timing, some council members supported using impact fees for appropriate road and water projects this year, while cautioning against using general-fund dollars for major capital projects unless the council first confirms available revenues. Staff said parts of the parks work — shade structure, playground equipment and BMX-track improvements — are intended to be funded with park impact fees and parking-park fees and are already included in the capital budget.

Council members also raised bookkeeping and presentation concerns. Several said the budget and the financial statements do not clearly present funds already sitting in state investment/escrow accounts (PTIF or similar accounts) tied to specific impact-fee purposes. One council member asked staff to prepare a clearer worksheet or separate pages for projects funded from reserved accounts so the public and council can see which expenditures are covered by accounts already on deposit.

Other budget items discussed briefly included adding the town-manager salary to the personnel section and clarifying how proposed water-line upgrades would split costs between the utility fund and impact-fee-eligible work. Staff said they will add the missing salary line and produce clearer documentation in the meeting materials before the public hearing.

On the floor of the meeting the council agreed to present the updated budget and capital-improvement plan at the public hearing next Tuesday; one council member summarized the plan as the version to be presented with a single change to a park allocation discussed during the meeting. “My proposal is that this one that we have here today, we present this is the one we voted on on Tuesday,” the council member said.

As the meeting closed, a motion was made and seconded to enter a closed session to discuss personnel and pending or imminent litigation; the meeting was to be reconnected via a new Zoom link for the closed session.

The council will hold a public hearing on the budget and proposed capital improvements next Tuesday; staff said they will upload clarified spreadsheets and the pavement-management plan to SharePoint for council review before that hearing.