Box Elder landowners say proposed Cimarron, Chisholm assessments would be ruinous; council hears public hearing

Box Elder opened a public hearing Oct. 1 on a proposed reconstruction of Cimarron and Chisholm drives that city staff estimated would cost about $4.5 million in total and result in assessments of a little over $1.1 million against benefiting parcels.

City Engineer Scott Lang told the council the project would add curb and gutter, storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer loops to complete the Chisholm loop and upgrade Cimarron to a 39-foot collector with an 8-foot multiuse trail. Lang said the city’s draft assessment calculation came to about $478.78 per front foot and described the statutory assessment steps, including a potential resolution of necessity that the council could consider as early as Oct. 15.

Property owners packed the meeting to object. Paul Bridal, who is building Oxfield Plaza, said the assessment would “forcibly take about 50% of my income” and would place a “tremendous financial burden” on his project. James Barrow, speaking for Sharp Storage, said the area is low-traffic and subject to Air Force accident-prevention-zone restrictions that limit redevelopment, arguing the benefit does not justify the cost and urging the city to explore gravel repairs or targeted maintenance instead of full reconstruction.

Several small-business owners and retirees said the assessment figures on the mailed worksheet would be devastating. Shane Newsom, owner of Almost Home Pet Resort and self-storage, said his share would amount to about $25,000 a year and could force him to cut employees. David Johnson, who identified his parcel as agricultural and inside the accident-prevention zone, said his proposed $192,000 assessment would be “more than three times the value” of his property if annualized.

At least two speakers raised questions about who should bear responsibility for road completion. Dwayne Olerking of Go Auto told the council that Sea Eagle and earlier developers subdivided and sold lots without building roads and asked why earlier developers were not held accountable. Olerking also suggested a potential conflict of interest because a consultant who helped prepare numbers is also a local landowner; Scott Lang responded that the consultant (TDG) would “feel the same assessment as every other property owner” and said there was no gain to the firm from the assessment calculation.

Lang also acknowledged a private water main installed by Sea Eagle in 2023 and said his proposal to the council included cleaning up outstanding development agreements; if those connections are used, Lang said the city would account for the value of prior private work in the assessment calculation.

Several speakers said notice and transparency were problems: Bridgetta Sharp, participating remotely, said she received hearing notice eight days before the meeting and that her proposed special assessment on undeveloped acreage exceeded $1 million. Attorney representation for the Donna Doyle Trust said his client found gaps in available cost information and requested additional transparency on how numbers were derived.

The mayor closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. without a decision. Scott Lang asked property owners to leave contact information and said staff would follow up; the council indicated it would review comments and could consider a resolution at its Oct. 15 meeting.

What’s next: The council did not vote on assessments Oct. 1. Staff said preliminary engineering, additional cost detail and follow-up with property owners would be provided before the October meeting, when the council could take formal action on necessity and assessment methodology.