TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2025
Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Karen Ellsworth, Commission Member
Andrea Miller, Commission Member
Mark Thompson, Commission Member
Ashley Phillips, Commission Member (alternate)
Jack Stickney, Commission Member (alternate)
Raulon Van Tassell, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Jeff Seedall, City Planner
Bill Cobabe, City Manager
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. The meeting was held January 28, 2025 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Ellsworth (arrived at 5:33 p.m.), Miller, Phillips, Stickney, Thompson, Van Tassell, City Councilmember Rohde, Planner Seedall and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to approve the January 28, 2025 agenda with the amendment that they discuss item 5. c. before items 5. a. and b. Motion seconded by Commission Member Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Public Comments:

Jamie Poppleton asked that the public be able to make their comments after the presentation from the Inland Port. The Commission agreed and the following comments were given after that presentation.

Kristie Bowcutt said I have sat through this demonstration twice. I find it a little confusing, convoluted and one-sided. I worry about our water and sewer. Our infrastructure in Tremonton is up a creek. We know the sewer treatment plant is at or over capacity. Water is an issue. I have strong feelings as to what you are considering. I know you are just an advisory board and the City Council will make that decision, but is this really a good thing? Why can we not get our own industry. We have a gentleman sitting on the Council, who is knowledgeable about business. Why can we not tap into his brain before we jump on this bandwagon with the Inland Port.

Jamie Poppleton said thanks for moving the public comment to after the presentation. She then read from a previous Commission meeting, saying “the City gets 25% of that increase and the other 75% goes to the PID to pay off the debts. The State is trying to find chunks of land they can market large industry businesses to bring people in. Industry spaces require a lot of land. They have been successful in finding landowners willing to see that growth happens. Chairman Capener said it speeds up the process. Lakeshore would normally have taken three more years. They get incentives for a period of time, but then the taxpayers get a shot in the arm when the incentives go off.” I am wondering if somebody could explain to me what that means. Chairman Capener said all the taxes are exactly the same when you start the process. That becomes the base year and then if they build a building, let us say $1,000 worth of tax. Then $750 of that goes to the entity to administer however they agreed and $250 goes to all the taxing entities. Mrs. Poppleton said that makes sense, but what about the last part that says the taxpayers are going to get a huge shot in the arm. Chairman Capener said after 25 years then they get the full amount. The 75% drops off at the 25-year mark. Many of our local companies have done this, they just did it without the Inland Port. Mrs. Poppleton said is it better to let a company come in without the Inland Port? Chairman Capener said we are trying to create an incentive so they are incentivized to come. This ensures everything is ready so businesses can come in. Mrs. Poppleton asked if this would increase taxes. Chairman Capener said no. The taxes will never go up and because of this they go down. Mrs. Poppleton said but the infrastructure and everything this brings could eventually cause an increase to the taxpayer for one thing or another whether it is roads, sewer or water. I know the City Council is already discussing storm drain increases. Chairman Capener said Manager Cobabe would love to meet with you and explain how the taxes work. Businesses subsidize residential. They essentially make our taxes go down. That is why cities want businesses. Mrs. Stephanie Pack said the more businesses that come in pick up the tax revenue and less falls on the citizens. You need businesses and residential to create a balance. Tremonton is a little unbalanced right now with not enough businesses.

Darlene Stump said I agree we need businesses. We are a bedroom community and have to sustain our community with businesses, but I worry about how we want our community to look. Do we want big trucks and a bigger airport along the interstate right along our houses. Lighting can be an issue and we are part of the international migratory bird route. What will this do to that migration? We really need to think about what we want our community to look like.

Kris Udy said I am not a Tremonton citizen but you are trying to make me become one through annexation and I am not happy about that. Chairman Capener said no, there is no annexation on the plans. We are not going to force you. Mrs. Udy said I do have to be a part of the City if you make me. Who is in control and who picks the business that comes to Tremonton? Does the City get to pick? If not, then you do not have control. Chairman Capener said we do not pick the business, but we pick the zoning and what the code says. The code chooses the business. Mrs. Udy said we are not picking. The whole area out there is not happy. I chose to buy that house out there to be in the County before you chose that I am in your future annexation. How fair is that to me. Citizens need to be aware. I think you would do yourself a favor to keep that line of communication open.

Chairman Capener called the Public Hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. to receive public input on amendments to the chapter listed below. There were 8 people in attendance.

4. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on amending Chapter 1.27 Sign Permit

There were no public comments. Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:36 p.m.

5. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of Chapter 1.31 Rezoning of Property

Planner Seedall said one change is that an applicant no longer has to bring addressed and stamped envelopes with a list of homeowners who are within 300 feet of the City. The City does public noticing and I feel this is something the City should just handle. That is more of a standard practice. I want to remove this to make the application simpler. Also, any errors comes back on the City anyway when someone was not notified so it is easy for us to internally verify it. I would rather we prepare this information than ask the applicant to do so.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to amend this. Motion seconded by Commission Member Miller. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of Chapter 1.07 Residential Zone District

Planner Seedall said this would allow residents to have 4-H animals. Cattle and other large animals would not be allowed. The number of animals allowed would be based on your lot size. Those over the half acre fall under the livestock code. If this becomes a public nuisance then we have the ability, within 30 days, to force them to relocate the animals. That same revision is in the livestock one. That is all on a case-by-case scenario. The permit for application is pretty much showing their 4-H registration and what animals they have. Chairman Capener said we probably need to add FFA, too. They further discussed how foals would play into this and that animals would need to leave after the fair and would not be allowed as pets.

Commission Member Stickey was excused at this time as a non-voting member due to another obligation to attend to.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to recommend this to the City Council for consideration with the discussed changes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Phillips. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

c. Presentation of Utah Inland Port Authority—Golden Spike Project Area Stephanie Pack

Mrs. Pack said thank you so much for allowing me to present on this project area and provide more information about our partnership with Tremonton. She then provided background on the Inland Port and local project areas. The Utah Inland Port Authority was created by the legislature in 2018. As we looked at the needs of the State and assets, we realized the State does not need a traditional Inland Port. The infrastructure we have today is sufficient to maintain our economic flow of goods throughout the State. We looked at some of the tools the legislature gave us in creating us as an authority and decided to move toward creating projects of regional economic significance across the State. Step one is making sure our companies and businesses have the support they need to grow to utilize the infrastructure that already exists. By focusing on the economic impacts and development up front, we can optimize the logistics infrastructure on the back end and ensure we have a robust infrastructure system across the State. That was created back in 2022. We have seen a huge influx of interest in supporting the creation of these project areas. They make a significant impact on rural communities that have great assets already, like the rail lines, interstates and airports. Many are being underutilized. Our mission is focusing on creating projects of regional significance across Utah. We take a local first approach. Local legislative body needs to pass a resolution to invite us in before anything takes place. We take cues from your General Plan. We are just a financing tool in the hands of the community to help support economic development efforts. We then focus on the logistical infrastructure investments in the community. When it comes to project area optimization, we follow your lead in identifying what is best for your community. We want to ensure you can be proactive about your economic growth rather than reactive. We want to follow an approach that is specific to the needs of northern Utah. When a project area is created that kicks off that base tax year and then we capture the new tax growth, so we focus on greenfield development. We take that new tax growth and reinvest it back into the area. We use that to support infrastructure growth the community can also use that differential for incentives for specific industries they want to see here. We can also put it toward housing initiatives. Our statute keeps that definition pretty broad to allow for creativity. Based on our statute 75% of that differential will go toward the project area, 25% will continue to go to the taxing entities over the life of the project. The life of the project in this case is 25 years. The project area is then dissolved and all tax base will continue to flow to the taxing entities. We are just a financing tool in the hands of the community to support infrastructure development.

When asked why this is a beneficial partnership, Mrs. Pack said all of this can be done and developed without tax increment, but then landowners and developers are on the hook to pay that bill. This allows the community to participate and be proactive about how they want infrastructure to be built, especially if the community will own and maintain that infrastructure. We work with the community on your needs. The project areas are already created. Tremonton still has the land use and zoning authority permitting. Anything that gets generated in Tremonton will stay in Tremonton. This zone is currently unincorporated County, but the landowner has expressed interest in participating in the project area. The County took the initiative of including it into the project area, but we worked closely with Tremonton and the Council. Eventually this development is going to be in Tremonton. We are trying to better understand your annexation plans and what this area is going to grow into. You have project areas in your community and we are here to help support infrastructure growth that needs to happen. We also help by getting you access to the State recruitment arm. These are entities that are actively recruiting companies to Utah. We put your community in front of these projects so we can then bring them to you and you can vet them and see if they are a good fit.

Councilmember Rohde said it is vital; we need to zone it for what we want in our area. We need to determine what type of industries we want in this area. We cannot refuse anyone if they are building within our code, so we have to be very specific. Planner Seedall said we are working on improving our code because whatever we have adopted once they start the application process is what governs that. We are redoing the industrial zoning in its entirety. We have been breaking that out into a flex industrial, medium and heavy. We have requirements for mitigation plans for zoning and trying to vet out the planning, but also from an engineering standpoint what industrial growth we can handle. Mrs. Pack said once you have that zone in place, communicate that to us and we will work with the City on identifying users that fit those parameters. We will not bring in huge industrial projects that soak up all your utility capacity. We want to be up to speed on the code and zoning so we can find the right fit.

Mrs. Pack said this is an opportunity for Tremonton to diversify your tax base and bring in other revenue streams to help offset the high cost of residential and keep residential taxes lower. That is a huge win for your community. We want to focus on good employers who are going to bring in high paying jobs and diversifying your economy. We want to make sure we are building infrastructure right the first time. When asked about benefits of these projects Mrs. Pack said for Cedar their transportation is more inexpensive and efficient. We have taken a lot of trucks off the road and that is great for air quality and highways.

6. Planning Commission comment/report:

Planner Seedall said the APA spring conference in Logan will be May 7-9, and Planning Commissioners are invited. Councilmember Rohde said we just started a planning process to set strategic goals. Planning and zoning will be part of that strategy so there is more to come.

7. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Thompson to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.

The undersigned duly acting and appointed Recorder for Tremonton City Corporation hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this _____day of ___________, 2025.

______________________________
Cynthia Nelson, CITY RECORDER

*Utah Code 52-4-202, (6) allows for a topic to be raised by the public and discussed by the public body even though it was not included in the agenda or advance public notice given; however, no final action