Duchesne County continues public hearing on road‑impact fees after resident complaint over damaged Smiley Road

The Duchesne County Commission recessed a public hearing on proposed road‑impact and land‑use fee ordinances after extended discussion and public comment, directing staff to rework the draft and return in roughly two weeks.

The hearing focused on ordinances that would establish fees and options for road mitigation tied to energy development and other large users. County staff said they have discussed a minimum fee that would apply to users’ impact on local roads — commissioners and industry representatives in earlier conversations had suggested a one‑mile minimum with a three‑mile cap for calculating mitigation costs.

A small but emphatic public comment came from John Hancock, a resident, who described severe deterioration on Smiley Road — a county class‑D road — and pressed commissioners for a clear path to repair. “I can’t ride my bike to the highway; I’ve dumped it three times,” Hancock said. He said his road serves several elderly residents and families with children and that county maintenance is insufficient. Hancock asked whether county taxes or other county funds could be used to fix a road that he said had been damaged by industrial traffic.

County officials responded that class‑D roads are generally not maintained to the same standard as higher‑class county roads and emphasized past practice: developers and residents commonly share responsibility for upgrading private or lower‑standard roads before the county will accept maintenance. Staff and commissioners said options in the draft ordinance include a road‑maintenance agreement (a negotiated, site‑specific approach) or a fee in lieu of a maintenance contract; staff reported that several companies preferred a defined minimum/maximum fee rather than open‑ended maintenance agreements because the latter can leave uncertainty about future county acceptance and standards.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether to exempt vertical wells, compressor stations and water‑handling facilities from the fee; staff said they sought more data (well life, traffic profiles and industry input) before finalizing categories and rates. County staff also said they will re‑advertise the ordinance and submit a revised draft that includes clearer definitions for gravel roads, a minimum/maximum fee structure and explicit language clarifying that the county is not committing to reconstruct existing roads solely by adopting this fee.

The commission did not adopt an ordinance at the Jan. 6 meeting. Instead commissioners voted to continue the public hearing and return with revisions after additional review and consultations with county staff and counsel.

The county attorney and planning staff will return a revised draft with clarifying language on: the one‑mile minimum and three‑mile cap option, the mechanics and limits of road‑maintenance agreements, whether and how to treat vertical wells and ancillary facilities, and how to document enforcement and reimbursement. County leaders said they will also analyze pavement and road‑condition data to better match fees to observed impacts.