Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheridan council tables recommendation on Bucking Iron Business Park after debate over water and paving
Summary
The council tabled a formal recommendation on the 20‑acre Bucking Iron Business Park final plat after developers and residents warned that city requirements to extend water and pave roads could add hundreds of thousands in upfront costs; staff will return with requested data at the next meeting.
The Sheridan City Council on Dec. 2025 tabled action on city staff recommendations about the proposed Bucking Iron Business Park, a 20‑acre county subdivision proposed as six industrial lots at 170 East Ridge Road. City planner Kelly Schroeder had asked the council to forward three comments to the Sheridan County Board of Commissioners: require extension of city water to the subdivision to city design standards, accept decentralized sewer (no centralized sewer available now), and require Bucking Iron Circle be paved and built to an appropriate rural section.
The recommendation touched off a lengthy public hearing in which the applicant and local business owners warned the city could be imposing disproportionate costs. Developer Eric Mansell said bringing water from the nearest available main would require roughly 2,700 feet of new 8‑inch main if an easement through an adjacent property cannot be secured. Mansell said material estimates for pipe alone were $110,000 and that total costs with excavation, valves, hydrants and paving could be “$350,000 plus for 6 industrial lots,” with an engineer’s high‑end estimate near $1,000,000. “That adds about 30% to the cost of each lot,” Mansell told the council.
Small‑business owner James Schmidt (County Trash) and other speakers said those added infrastructure costs would make lots unaffordable for local businesses and could push owners to pass costs to customers. Schmidt described the subdivision as “a dream come true” for his business and urged council members to consider phased improvements or financing mechanisms so a single developer is not burdened by all upfront costs.
City staff defended the recommendations as consistent with the city–county memorandum of understanding (MOU) that applies city standards within the urban service area and as necessary for life‑safety reasons — notably access to hydrants and fire protection as the area is likely to be annexed and developed over time. Planner Kelly Schroeder and utilities staff noted that, under the MOU, municipal design standards apply when public water and sewer are feasible and that water‑line extensions and paving have been required on other subdivisions in the urban service ‘donut’ to protect public health and safety.
Council members were split. Some expressed sympathy for the applicant’s affordability concerns and suggested delaying the water‑extension requirement or using mechanisms such as special‑improvement districts or tax‑increment financing to spread costs. Others stressed the city’s obligation to protect life and safety and said that if building occurs near or inside the city, requirements for hydrants and water capacity are appropriate.
After asking staff for additional documentation (comparisons to prior WLM subdivision decisions, the Goose Valley/fire‑district letter referenced by the applicant, and production tests for the property’s two on‑site wells), the council voted to table the recommendation until the next regular meeting so those items can be supplied. The mayor announced staff will present the requested information at the next work session and the upcoming regular meeting.
What’s next: Staff will return with the Goose Valley letter, prior staff comments on comparable subdivisions, well production figures and other requested materials; the council scheduled the issue for the next work session and a vote at the next regular meeting.
