City Council Minutes 6-3-25

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2025

Members Present:
Wes Estep
Beau Lewis
Bret Rohde
Lyle Vance
Blair Westergard
Lyle Holmgren, Mayor
Bill Cobabe, City Manager
Linsey Nessen, Assistant City Manager
Cynthia Nelson, City Recorder

CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP

Mayor Holmgren called the June 3, 2025 City Council Workshop to order at 5:59 p.m. The meeting was held in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Those in attendance were Mayor Holmgren, Councilmembers Estep, Lewis, Rohde, Vance, and Westergard, City Manager Cobabe, Assistant City Manager Nessen, and City Recorder Nelson. The following Department Heads were also present: City Planner Jeff Seedall, Police Chief Dustin Cordova, Fire Chief Jeff Jarrow, Parks and Recreation Director Zach LeFevre, and Library Director Kim Griffiths. Also in attendance was Finance Director Curtis Roberts.

Cody Deeter first approached the Council about the interlocal cooperation agreement with the RDA regarding tax increment funding in the Autoliv Solar Community Reinvestment Project Area. Mr. Deeter said there are three resolutions for you to consider tonight—one for City Council and two for RDA. This relates to the solar project in Autoliv’s backyard. When we created that last year, we missed a step. In order to correct that we need to amend the interlocal cooperation agreement between the City and the RDA, and the Box Elder School District and the RDA. These resolutions instruct the County to trigger that so they can remit increment back. Once approved we will send those to the County and 30 days later, you will receive checks to the RDA that can be remitted back to the City and school district. Nothing has changed. It is a personal property tax that has already been paid to the County. It is just sitting in their accounts waiting to be distributed.

1. Review Operational Budgets discussion

Director Roberts said the bottom-line number for the General Fund, excluding any transfers for capital needs, is $506,000. That is revenue in excess of expenditures. If we want to allocate enough to replace police vehicles on a routine basis, we would need at least $500,000 there. That would leave $6,000 to help fund future capital needs. We should set aside about $400,000 a year just for police vehicles in order to replace all the vehicles every five years. We do need to go back through and reanalyze some revenues. We might be able to tweak the sales tax number a bit. We should have $3,360,000.

After some detailed discussion, Councilmember Vance said that million has been worked within the budget. We are having a hard time accepting the $500,000 because we cannot run the City on that. We are in trouble. We cannot increase income without getting new businesses here, so we have to cut the budget. It is really difficult to go through 147 pages of budget. I like numbers, but you cannot figure out what is going on without being able to see it right in front of our face. That $500,000 only takes care of the police and nothing else. Councilmember Rohde said why are we the ones making these decisions? It seems the City should be coming back with a balanced budget and telling us this is where we were last year and this is where we are going to be this year. This is a decision you guys should have made a long time ago. We have to find a way to reduce expenses. We cannot continue to go this direction. Councilmember Lewis said what does next year look like for increases? Manager Cobabe said this year, the increases included the 3% market adjustment that would not be expected every year. We have been behind the eight ball when it comes to market rate increases across the board. This was suggested as an avenue we could use to bring everybody more into where the market really is. Chief Cordova has made the point that we stand to lose people if they can make significantly more somewhere else. The numbers show that we have a surplus. We have $500,000 or $6,000, depending on how you look at it. To me, that is a balanced budget. It does not get you where you want to be with future goals for staff to accomplish. As far as our operations and maintenance, we are keeping the lights on. This is where the Council’s discretion and direction comes in. If the Council decides it is necessary and desirable to pursue the goals that have been put forward, then the revenues are not there. So how do we change that? We can either increase revenues or decrease expenses. These expenses are not arbitrary, they are a response to the market conditions. Overall, we have seen an 8% increase in our operations budget. That is an $800,000 increase on a $10 million budget. That is not a huge bump, especially when you consider insurance rates went up 10% industry-wide and our cost of living went up 3% across the board. We are just trying to pay for all the things we have to pay for, which is similar to your family budget. Nobody wants to raise taxes or increase fees, but the way we are doing things right now is not sustainable long-term. Several years ago, the City did not do a Truth in Taxation and kept the rate the same. Having that money would be a much sunnier outlook than the $6,000 surplus. These are decisions the department heads and City staff cannot make. This is the purview and realm of the City Council.

Director Roberts said the budget is balanced, but does not provide anything for future. To fix that you either increase revenue and decrease expenses or do both. These are hard decisions. Remember property tax is designed to collect the exact same amount of revenue as the prior year. You also get the growth on top of that. When you increase population, the number of people covered by each officer becomes greater and that is the same for the fire. There are also increases to park usage and how many people come into the City offices. New residents impact services being provided. If I previously had 10 people coming into our offices for services and now have 13, we either have to work harder or add more staff to help with that increase. Our growth dollars have gone into paying for current operations in the City without setting aside money for future officers and firefighters. Manager Cobabe said we did not increase taxes for several years because of that growth. We will probably see a similar number in growth this year, but that is not sustainable because you just get further behind. Impact fees go to enterprise funds and have to be put toward specific projects. The impact fee analysis tells you where those fees are going and then you can impose an impact fee. Director Roberts said impact fees do not pay for increased operations or cover new people. They will cover a portion of things in a six-year window. Impact fees can only cover their portion of growth. The City has to come up with the additional funds. With impact fees, you have to be careful that you do not over commit the City. Manager Cobabe said growth does not pay for itself and that is why you have to look at the economic development piece. That is why you have to always be looking at Truth in Taxation. Other cities are doing it every year even if it is just to keep the rate the same. Our staff goal is to always live within the means we are given, but when we have other goals, we need to find a way to pay for them. The goals that we have are continuing our quality of life and the level of service we are providing residents. Councilmember Westergard said obviously we cannot go 23 years without Truth in Taxation. I am not saying it has to be this year, but at some point, we have to at least keep up with that. Director Roberts said property tax is designed to bring in the exact same amount as last year. There is a justification to raise your property tax equal to the inflation rate. Councilmember Vance said we went through this two years ago and patted ourselves on the back for not raising taxes for years. We went in with a 50% request and ended up going 25%. I keep hearing that we are not keeping up, but we were up to par two years ago and now we lost all our ground? Councilmember Lewis said the school board will be raising property tax in order to fund the schools that are needed. That is going to hit our same constituents. Director Roberts said two years ago after the budget was adopted, inflation went up 9%. So, when we came around to the 2023 budget and we said inflation is killing us, but the decision was made to hold the property tax level. It was not just trying to catch 3% to 5%. It was trying to catch up to 9%. We are probably behind 11%, not 30%, but it is going to feel worse every year. We can cut some things, but we may be doing without some services. If we do not do an increase at least equal to the inflation factor for the year, we are falling behind for the property tax portion. I can tell you, we can make this budget work, but I cannot tell you that it will last for three years or that you are set up to avoid a huge tax increase years from now. We can try to cut cost and services, but you might lose people.

2. Capital projects discussion

Director Roberts said we have $9 million we can spend out of savings. We need to add a couple because the Council is moving on them. This includes the Midland Square updates. We have the money, but need to authorize the budget to pay the bills. If the Council wants, we will go through and put in our recommendations of capital projects to be done and show those to you at the next meeting. The biggest thing is we wanted the Council to understand we are concerned. We are focusing on getting through this year and will come up with a plan. There could be some projects we wait to discuss in the fall. Councilmember Westergard said the parks are behind. We have to do something there. We cannot just keep putting that out. Manager Cobabe said roads are behind, too. We are doing pretty well with our water and sewer. Our roads are kind of suffering and there are definitely projects we could look at as far as trails and other things. You are right to be concerned, but we can work through this. We just need to make sure everyone’s hearts and minds are open to the possibility or the concerns we have related to ongoing expenses. That is the purpose of doing the capital projects list the way we have done it so that instead of being reactionary to things, we are thinking ahead. We either will issue a little bit of debt to make up the difference or use our savings.

Councilmember Vance said we discussed doing an analysis on streets. Is that happening? We also discussed an analysis on the Meals on Wheels. We need to go over that, too. There is probably a couple hundred thousand we are losing there. Councilmember Lewis said the same goes for animal control. It appears we are taking care of a lot or even all of Northern Utah. This is costing us a lot of money. Other cities or jurisdictions should help.

3. Presentation of the Fraud Risk Assessment – Curtis Roberts

Director Roberts said my score was 355 out of 395. This is the same as last year. That puts us in a very low progress assessment for the State Auditor’s office. There are no changes and it is solid. We are in great condition. The Council does not have to adopt this. We just have to note that we reported it and will submit it to the State.

4. Review of the agenda items identified on the 7:00 p.m. City Council Agenda

5. CLOSED MEETING: No Closed Meeting held at this time.

a. Strategy session to discuss the purchase of real property when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; and/or
b. Strategy session to discuss the character, professional competence or physical or mental health of an individual; and/or
c. Strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; and/or
d. Discussions regarding security personnel, devices or systems

The meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m. by consensus of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Mayor Holmgren called the June 3, 2025 City Council Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tremonton City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Those in attendance were Mayor Holmgren, Councilmembers Estep, Lewis, Rohde, Vance, and Westergard, City Manager Cobabe, Assistant City Manager Nessen, and City Recorder Nelson. The following Department Heads were also present: City Planner Jeff Seedall, Police Chief Dustin Cordova, Fire Chief Jeff Jarrow, Parks and Recreation Director Zach LeFevre, and Library Director Kim Griffiths. Also in attendance was Finance Director Curtis Roberts.

1. Opening Ceremony: Prayer – Councilmember Rohde and Pledge – Student Ethan Jacobs

2. Introduction of Council

3. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

4. Approval of Agenda:

Motion by Councilmember Lewis to approve the agenda with the following changes. Remove 6. b. from the agenda and have a discussion on 9. b. prior to public comments. Motion seconded by Councilmember Vance. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

5. Approval of minutes – May 20, 2025

Motion by Councilmember Estep to approve the minutes of May 20, 2025. Motion seconded by Councilmember Westergard. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

6. Presentations

a. Tremonton City Citizenship Award to Elementary and Intermediate Students

Mayor Holmgren said this is one of our favorite things as we recognize students for their efforts in showing respect, being responsible, and being safe. They presented their awards and then took a picture.

b. Presentation on Economic Development – Shawn Milne from Bear River Association of Governments

This item was removed from this week’s agenda.

7. Years of Service Awards

a. Rebecca Jeppesen, Assistant Librarian – 15 years
Doug Fuhriman, Firefighter/EMT – 45 years

Kim Griffiths gave a bio on Ms. Jeppesen and Chief Jarrow gave a bio on Mr. Fuhriman. The Council thanked them both for their years of service.

This was a discussion on 9. b. held before the public comment period. Planner Seedall said last week this topic went to the Planning Commission. As we have seen through the past few years, housing prices continue to climb. The Planning Commission felt this rezone would help address some affordability while expanding capital needs for hillside growth. Widening the roadway on 1000 North and focusing on improving to the I-84 interchange would become a higher priority. He also discussed roadways and connectivity. This will help with circulation on the hill. This is currently zoned R1-12 (minimum 12,000 square feet). The developer has indicated they would like to use the PUD (Planned Unit Development) to bring in mixed residential. That includes cottage homes, smaller single-family, some R1-12 lots, and multi-family housing. There would be quite a number of townhomes and some apartment buildings. Manager Cobabe said when you rezone for the R1-8, you get a base density and that is the number of units you are entitled to. The PUD allows flexibility in that. You can squeeze units into certain areas, leaving others as open space. This is particularly useful on the hill where there are areas of steep slope that cannot be developed. The units that would have gone on the slope areas are moved into higher density places where it is more feasible and economical. Developers can get density bonuses and have additional units if they give additional amenities. For example, if they increase the amount of open space, they can get additional units on top of what is entitled. The base density they are entitled to is regulated by the zoning you would put in place tonight or leave the same. Planner Seedall said we would transition from what is up there into more dense single-family lots. This creates a buffer space so it is not as abrupt. After that, it goes dense. We have been working with them on how to turn ponds into usable park space with amenities. Manager Cobabe said the question we need answered tonight is straightforward. Is this the right time and place for this change in zoning? Very broad discretion is given to City Councils to make decisions about zoning. It is different from administrative decisions. Legislative decisions are a time where people’s voices really do matter. Listen to the input you receive and weigh that in your minds and make a decision based on what you feel is the right thing. The questions are is this the right time and is this the right place? There are a whole host of other things that will be answered through the subdivision process. They have a zone in place that is R1-12 for third acre lots. The developer is asking for R1-8, which is about fifth acre lots. There is also the density bonus they could be looking at if the PUD ordinance is approved. That is a separate question for another time. Planner Seedall and I are proponents of the PUD ordinance because it allows flexibility in the code, as well as the architectural standards and other things that come into play in the development agreement. We can give bonuses to the property owner so they meet a higher standard than what typically would apply. We would bring the PUD at another time with the development agreement.

8. Public comments:

Debbie Brantner said I have some comments about the budget. I have nothing against the guys in uniform, but listening to the budget I was thinking, at my house, I had to cut costs because I only got a 3% raise. Utilities went up, insurance is up, property taxes are up, and I had to do something. I got rid of some luxuries. We all have to make sacrifices. Maybe these guys can go back and see where they can make cuts in their budget. It was mentioned there are four accounts for Amazon costing $86 a month. That is $344 a month for those accounts or $4,128 a year, opposed to $1,032. Having one shared account creates a savings. Meals on Wheels was also mentioned. There are places you could save money if you just looked.

Denise Lasley asked who is on the zoning committee? Who is the developer? Who owns the property? Who is it that wants to make these changes on the hill. Councilmember Rohde said part of public comment is we should not engage in answering questions. We are meant to listen. Planner Seedall could answer all your questions. Ms. Lasley said I have always known that area was going be developed. I knew that when I bought the house in 1994. So, what I ask is for you to take care of us. How many years have we waited for that beautiful road and sidewalk? I love them and they did a wonderful job, but it needs to come all the way to the State sheds. How much longer do we have to wait for that? That sidewalk needs to go all the way up whether the zoning changes or not.

ChrisDean Epling said first of all, I do not envy your job or position. I am submitting a copy of both a petition and email I sent the Council. I do appreciate and thank you for this opportunity. I come with sincere respect for the responsibilities you have. At the planning meeting, I understood that the engineer was planning for 400 houses. If it was R1-8, then it would go to 650 houses. I understand that the proposed zoning will not stop homes from being built and that is okay. We acknowledge the broader challenge that there is a housing shortage in Utah and that the market is eager for more affordable options, but we must ask ourselves at what cost. Studies show that more residential development does not automatically mean more revenue for the City because of the infrastructure strain. When you add more people and more housing, you are not growing at a balanced rate because you are adding more liability for the City. You are adding more services and impact fees are not going to cover that. Our schools are overcrowded. If these foundational pieces were in place, if the schools had room, the sidewalks were poured, the businesses were thriving, perhaps we could see high density as a viable tool for our growth strategy, but we are just not there yet. In 2020, Tremonton had funds available to complete the sidewalk, but we could barely cover a fraction of the cost once they came around to do it because of inflation. Growth is not the way to go. We are not here to say no to growth. We are advocating to say yes to smart growth, to ensure that infrastructure leads development and development does not lead infrastructure. We are asking you to protect our community by planning for its future with care and caution and compassion and to protect the values and properties of people who are already on the hill.

Lisa Harrow said I work at Garland Elementary. I have the privilege of working with behavior students and those with emotional needs. Prior to that, I was at North Park. I stand here tonight deeply concerned about the impact the proposed rezoning and resulting growth will have on our schools and most importantly, our children. Over the past few years, we have seen the number of students with behavior needs more than double in general ed classrooms. This is not just a number to me. It reflects children struggling with stress, anxiety, and challenges. Growing schools become overcrowded and resources become stretched thin. Currently, Garland Elementary has five classes per grade level with 30 students packed into the classrooms. This high student to teacher ratio makes it incredibly difficult for teachers to give every child the attention and support they need. Our classrooms are overcrowded, our hallways and cafeteria are noisy and busy and even the school buses are overcrowded, which all create an environment that can increase stress and behavior issues. The new homes proposed in this development will send many more children to our already packed schools. More students mean even larger class sizes, more strain on the children, teachers, and supporting staff, and an increase in behavior children not getting the help they desperately need. It means teachers working longer hours stretched thinner and ultimately, it means our children suffer. We need growth that matches the capacity of our schools, not growth that overwhelms them. Before approving any zoning changes, I urge you to think about what this means for our schools, its teachers, and every child who walks through those doors hoping to learn, grow, and succeed. Every single one of those children matter.

Lisa Christensen said I want to address the landfill that was up there. Several people have said it was in this same area. That is my concerns. It is common knowledge for long-term residents that this site was used for decades as an unregulated dumping ground. Everything was allowed to be dump there. The landfill was closed in the mid 1990s, but it does not mean it is safe to build homes on top of it, especially not without a full environmental review. I spent a couple hours at the County courthouse today trying to find documentation of where that was. The only thing they could give me was the name of the people who owned the land when the landfill was there and who currently own the land. Under Utah law specifically, the Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, any post closure development on a landfill site must require a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality. This process includes a detailed environmental assessment as well as a 45-day public comment period. These steps are not optional. They exist to protect the health and future of the residents, and financial liability of the City. If the City proceeds with rezoning or development approval without initiating this process, it risks bypassing State law and exposing Tremonton to serious legal and environmental consequences. Building homes over unknown buried hazards without proper soil testing and groundwater monitoring is reckless. When these problems eventually surface, it will not be the developers who pay, it will be the residents. It will be our City and it could lead to long-term lawsuits and cleanup costs. I am not anti-growth. I appreciate the comments about is this the right time? I do not believe it is the right time to change the zoning.

William Pickett said I live up there. When you were working on approving the previous development, Lookout Point, we noticed our water pressure dropped from 80 pounds to 60 during certain parts of the day. That is okay, but has been a problem. During that same time, it was pointed out that the development had no exit road. That was a violation of code, which was allowed to happen. This new development would apparently take care of that, but that is not something I would like to see at this point. There are underground streams and several of the current houses have had their basements flooded. Since they closed the freeway, the traffic on 1000 North has increased four-fold. Those drivers are not paying attention to the speed limit. There is no sidewalk and we have people walking that street. Take these things into consideration. High density housing is not meant for hillsides. Los Angeles found that out recently with the firestorms on their hillsides.

Tiffany Purcell said I live on Country View Drive. Our youth ride their bikes, walk, and play in the neighborhoods. That is wonderful and terrifying because of increased traffic, speeding vehicles, and distracted driving, all putting them at risk. You add in the topography of the low visibility on that hill and it is scary. From my understanding, you are proposing not only 400, but 600-800 homes. Every single child on that hill is at a higher risk. Construction vehicles pose additional risks. Not to mention, they often lack the proper safety measures, creating hazardous conditions for children who may not recognize the risks. We are worried about the geological studies already going on and the big holes in the ground that our kids are used to playing around. I understand we need to watch our children—no one is saying we do not, but by adding more construction and vehicles, we are making our kids more vulnerable. Their smaller stature makes them hard to see, their unpredictable movements make them more at risk, and their developing judgment means they often misjudge vehicle speeds. Accidents involving children are often preventable. The best way is to prevent it and not have more traffic, big vehicles, and construction. I urge you to consider waiting on any more development, but especially extra development on that area. We are talking about the right time and place. I do not think that this is either one. This would be really poor planning to put low-income housing in a high-cost area to build. To excavate on the hill is expensive. How are they going to put lower income housing when it costs so much more to build? Even if we get another outlet that is a total of five outlets for 800-900 homes if you are adding in what is already there. I do a lot of my stuff in Tremonton and am not going to drive a half a mile further west. Even if we have another output further west, are people going to use it? In an evacuation, possibly, but it is not a viable option. Can we just slow it down? Let us get better infrastructure and sidewalks. Let us use our best judgment in where to put higher density housing.

Stan Smith and I live on that hill close to the end of the populated area. We bought up there 25 years ago with a lot of promises from Tremonton and those who own the property. Secondary water was promised and the road surface being kept up. We have seen nothing but empty promises. I understand there are budget constraints. I believe we are moving at a very fast rate and I think putting high density housing on that hill is a big mistake. One day it is going to bite us all if this happens. We have watched our water bills go up and our usage go down. We have watched a lot of building take place in Tremonton. I question if we feasibly have the ability to incorporate the things we need to and the infrastructure to put this kind of housing on the hill. I question what that is going to turn into. There are places on that hill that are very steep. In Utah people have been allowed to build on hillsides, especially large multi-level structures, and they do not take into consideration the footings. I am very concerned about what will happen. We have always known homes would be built on that hill. We are not against growth. The road is not going to be sufficient for all the traffic for 800 homes.

Norm Fertig said I live on the hill. I thank the Council for allowing me to address you. One of my grandsons told me he discovered a rattlesnake den. I know people are more important than rattlesnakes, but I know the State thinks the world of rattlesnakes because they have legislated protection for them. They are not to be molested in anyway. The trouble is, if we build around them so as not to disturb them, who is going to want to live there? Is there any liability that accrues to the State township if somebody is bitten? Or having allowed housing to be built in what we must have considered a hazardous area? Hazardous in the sense that poisonous snakebites are hazardous. Take a good look at it.

Troy Forrest said I live up there too. I served for 10 years on the Planning Commission and we created a master plan at that time. We went through all that process. I thought it was pretty well thought out and we discussed where we were going to put houses. This was zoned the way it was zoned for a purpose. Frankly, a developer coming in and buying the land, he knew what it was zoned. It was zoned R1-12. He was 100% aware of that when he bought it. If he was not, he did not do his due diligence. So why would we just change the zoning and make it more dense per his request? We have been through the process. We created the zoning plan. If we are going to spend that time and make that effort, let us stick with it. That was planned out. Just because somebody buys something and they want to change it does not mean we change it. That is not why we have a Planning Commission. Dare to think out in front and decide where it fits. We do not have developers come in and dictate to us what we are going to do with our town. That is why we have a Planning Commission. That is why we set out a Master Plan. We vet it with the citizens. We make sure that everybody is comfortable with it and we move forward. Every time a piece of property changes hand we should not come here and rezone it. That is not the purpose. That is why people are upset. How many times do you get this kind showing up at your meetings? Not very often, so you know people are lit. Do the right thing. Table it, move away and move on, tell them no. That is your prerogative. We will back you and if not, we will find new guys to sit there.

Robert Wood said I live on the Hill. I retired after 30 years in law enforcement and in all that time of government service I was told we need to do more with less. What I want you all to understand is that high population density leads to high crime. One of the nice things about living in Tremonton is it is safe. Before we add hundreds of new houses to the plan, I think somebody needs to think about how we are going to police that area. What facilities do we have and how many officers are we going to have to add to make sure that nobody is hurt. These are very real concerns. The time to think about how we are going to deal with that is before that comes about.

Norman Fukui said I would like to make a couple clarifications that have been brought up tonight. I was one of the partners who purchased the property 18 years ago. At that time, it was zoned R1-12. If you compare what has happened between 18 years ago and what things look like today, it is significantly different. During the initial development, lots sold for $30,000. A home on that hill would have gone for $150,000, maybe $200,000. The issue that we are dealing with here is affordability. It is my concern that affordable homes are available in Tremonton. I was born here, raised here, my whole life. Tremonton is my community. Tremonton was the home of my grandparents, parents, and I hope it would be the home of my children. I do not know of a better place to raise a family. The reality is it has to be an affordable situation for that to happen. I would like to address the landfill. I was around back in the 1960s and I remember where that landfill was. It was not on this property. If it was, we would not have purchased it.

Jonathan Pearson said I live up on 1000 North. I am afraid that doing high density housing will erode trust from people who are in the neighborhood. Obviously, not everybody feels that way, but many of us do. We moved up there knowing space would be up on that hill. We are there because we like that. If you shrink that down to higher density housing, our trust is eroded at that point knowing that we cannot know what to trust from the City. The idea that the rest of that is just going to remain open in perpetuity. I have a hard time believing that. I feel like these gentlemen are going to be working hard to get more changes in the future so that they can put more housing up there. Our trust will be weak and we are going to find it difficult to take the word of the City and that the ordinances we have in place even mean anything.

Johnathan Butler said I live on 2300 West, north of McDonald’s. A year or two ago, we had a meeting at the fairgrounds regarding River’s Edge subdivision. Multiple people addressed concerns, one of which was water. At the time, the City said the water was good for another 1,500 homes because everybody was living conservatively on water. Multiple developments have not even been started yet. My question is partly on the water source that will be able to mandate all this. More houses do not necessarily mean revenue to the City. I have been to planning meetings where they have discussed trying to get businesses in to bring revenue. We are not running low on grocery stores or fast food. We have nothing to keep people in our communities. Rent gets raised consistently so just because we get high density housing does not mean the rates are going to stay affordable. We can take things slower and keep it under control. We do not need to grow so fast and kill ourselves the way we think it needs to happen.

Robert Epling said I heard it said here last week that if you do not grow, you die. That is garbage. That is not true. You do not have to grow your city to an exorbitant amount to survive as a city. I purposely moved my family here 17 years ago. I chose to reside in Utah because I felt it would keep my family the safest. I have lived in places where I did not feel safe. So I moved to Tremonton, and it has been an incredible thing for our family. We live up on the hill and I purposely built in a place where there are no apartments, townhomes, or duplexes because those types of homes breed crime. We did not want that. The only time our family has had crimes committed against us is when we lived in multi-family homes. People who live in an apartment do not have a vested interest in the place they live. They do not have money in that. It is just a rental. I keep hearing that nobody is going to be able to afford a house, but the Inland Port, in their initiative, the authority says one of their big goals is to bring in high paying jobs. Those high paying jobs are not going to look for an apartment. They are going to want a house. They are not going to look up on the hill and say, oh there is an apartment up there, I want to buy it. They are going to be looking for homes. Our property values are going to go down if apartments and townhomes move in up there. The people who live in that area purposely bought up there for the way that neighborhood is built. If we change that, it is going to change everything. People will move away. It is not the job of the government to manipulate the market and bring prices down. That is the job of the free market. If we are in the business of market manipulation so people can buy houses, that is not right. Sometimes you have to rent for a while. Trying to force the system so everybody can buy a house is going to hurt everybody and all our property values will go down.

Kristie Bowcutt said first, the budget. I saw your pain and how hard it was, but everybody cuts their budgets. It is not going to kill you. I have to cut my budget at home when my taxes go up. Cut your budgets. Sorry guys in blue. I do not think the police department needs those expensive trucks. SUVs are a lot cheaper to run and maintain. A couple of the salary raises are very excessive. I was at the Planning Commission meeting the other night and that vote was taken on false pretenses. They were not given the information we were given tonight to vote on. The truth needs to come back to the Planning Commission to do it right. The residents on 1000 North got into a lifestyle and we are asking them to change that drastically. Just because not everybody can afford that type of house does not mean that we should pigeonhole them. I was told yesterday that high density is going to fix tax issues and bring taxes down. It is not. We are going to have to hire more police and EMTs due to crime. That means more vehicles and City employees. I ask you to be really careful in what you are doing.

Kathy Ransky said I live off Country View. I moved here 17 years ago. Affordable housing prices have changed nationwide. This is not a phenomenon unique to Tremonton. This has gone through the entire State. Utah survived the housing market crash. You had businesses moving in. The taxes on my house have gone up almost double what I paid to build that house. Adding housing is not the answer. Yes, we need to build housing for people when they move in. When you have jobs to support that, when you have infrastructure to support that, I do not disagree with building. You have already zoned for one section to be built out. What do you mean by affordable, what constitutes affordable? How much housing in this State is being used for short-term rentals? That is a big problem in a resort area and we are not immune from that either. This is driving our costs up. I live on that road. I drive and bike up and down 1000 North and I cringe every time I am on that road. People are speeding, not looking. Let us do this smart. Stick with your original zoning and see where it goes. Throwing more density into that area is not the answer.

Eric Richardson said I live in Spring Acres. The City Manager and City Planner have talked about what can and cannot be done. If it cannot get built or certain infrastructure cannot work then there is no future growth. But the damage is already done. It is too late. The builder says they are going to do something and nobody is going to hold them accountable. They are going to leave and move on while the City and residents are the ones left with the lack of ability for most developers. The Council is elected by the people for the residents of the City, not for future residents, not for people trying to come in, not for developers. They are here to support us and we are here to support you. We need to work as a team. I want to quote Mayor Holmgren, when you ran for mayor, you said, that we are growing and as we do, critical decisions have been made and will still need to be addressed regarding health and safety, limited natural resources like culinary and secondary water, critical infrastructure, including but not limited to roads, wastewater, and of course, taking a little more pride in our community. I stand for those same things. That is one of the reasons I voted for you to become mayor. I do not know if things have changed, but we feel things have shifted. Changing from an R1-12 to an R1-8 is increasing housing density by 33%. I have serious concerns about more cars, traffic, and crime. We are concerned about the safety and management of resources, including water. My fear is the City is threatening us with 600 houses as a ploy or a distraction to convince us an additional 400 is okay. I am here for smart growth. I want to grow the City reasonably, but we need to be smart about it. Changing to R1-8 should not even be a discussion.

Ann Carter said I work at Garland Elementary. I have been here for 19 years and have seen the construction. We were told the sidewalk would go all the way down. I do have an issue with the safety as well. One of the things on the last election was the school bond. Nearly 68% of people voted it down. We do not have the capacity in our schools and right now we do not have the money. We are getting ahead of ourselves with this many new homes. There are going to be children going to our schools and we do not have room for them. Until we have the capacity to educate extra kids that are going to come into the community we need a pause and keep these as single-family homes. High density would increase that number even higher.

Marisha Menlove said I grew up in Tremonton and have lived away. During COVID, I brought my family to Utah as a safe haven. I am grateful to raise my children in this great community around so many wonderful people. I have similar feelings and I relate to some of the things people have said. However, I support this development. I support intentional growth over unplanned sprawl. I love the agricultural community we live in. I love the open fields. I love driving into the valley and seeing all the green. Up on the mountain, we can designate where housing is. We can build infrastructure and we can take some of the strain off our major City roads. It can be directed onto the freeway so people can quickly get to Hill Air Force Base, Amazon, Vulcraft, and Nucor without even hitting City streets. That is smart. Density brings people, but density also brings taxpayers. It brings economy of scale. It brings other people to help solve some of the problems we see. We all want a safe place to raise our families. We all want to be able to afford to take care of our yards. I live in Holmgren Estates where there are luxurious half-acre and third-acre lots. Not everybody that lives here has the luxury to take care of that. A lot of people in my neighborhood are struggling and cannot water their lawn. They cannot afford to hook up to secondary or buy fertilizer. Nor do they have time to work in their yards because they are working two or three jobs to make their current mortgage payment. This density brings open space, parks, mixed use, fully planned. It is an actual filled-out subdivision the first one that Tremonton will have. There will be more to come. The developer has experience and is doing their due diligence. It is our responsibility as a community to identify the things we need. How can we create a bike trail that we can get all the kids to a safe space? Let us create some synergy.

After an hour of Public Comments, Mayor Holmgren closed the public comment period. He said if you have questions or concerns that still need to be address our City staff will be happy to talk.

9. New Council Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 25-24 amending an interlocal cooperation agreement with the Tremonton City Redevelopment Agency regarding tax increment funding in the Autoliv Solar Community Reinvestment Project Area #1

Manager Cobabe said this triggers the provisions of the RDA that was developed for this particular project. It is ready to go and he just needs to get the compensation he is entitled to. There were some clerical miscommunication between us and the County. This is an effort to get that straightened out.

Motion by Councilmember Vance to adopt the resolution. Motion seconded by Councilmember Estep. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 25-25 adopting the revised Compensation and Classification Plan

Manager Cobabe said we found a need to revise some positions listed on our organization chart and in our compensation schedule. We have eliminated some positions and consolidated others. The step program gets people to a market rate. We also have the 3% COLA increase and a 3% market adjustment to get us to remain competitive, so 6%. We likely will not do the additional 3% market adjustment in the foreseeable future because these steps would get us to where we need to be. The 6% this year helps us remain competitive. Councilmember Westergard said if they are eligible for a raise then they probably should not be eligible for the 3% market because they are already getting it. Manager Cobabe said that is probably true, but again, department heads would have the discretion to apply that to certain individuals, whether that is the step or the additional 3%. They could get both if they are rockstars. Why not reward that kind of performance. Assistant Manager Nessen said this plan will come back next week because I have not added the COLA increases. I like to do that with the final budget because it could change. This just adds the fire department step scale, those different positions and title changes. Next meeting, I will bring it back with all these numbers. This is just approving those new positions and names, along with the fire department step scale. Councilmember Rohde said I have compared these to the scales in other cities and they are comparable. I am not uncomfortable with them. I am just uncomfortable with our lack of funds to pay for things this year. Mayor Holmgren said we do have the funds. It is just tight.

Councilmember Vance said next year there needs to be a third party going through these numbers. I feel uncomfortable with it. Assistant Manager Nessen said a salary survey would be done by the same company I use. TechNet is an online system we use. Most cities do not use the minimum and maximum scales anymore. They do a step scale. They would go through that and propose a whole new compensation plan for the entire City. That would cost us $17,000. There are a whole range of things they could do if we want to pay for it. Manager Cobabe said the cautionary tale here is if you find there are positions being significantly underpaid, are you prepared to bring people up to the market rate? If not, what message does that give our employees? Councilmember Vance said it would be nice to have someone other than our employees doing this work. It needs to be an unbiased party. Manager Cobabe said we are already subscribed to this service TechNet and that is a third party. That is where these numbers come from.

Motion by Councilmember Westergard to adopt the resolution. Motion seconded by Councilmembers Estep and Rohde. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

c. Discussion of approving an On-Premise Beer License for Western Billard’s new owner Kevin Hoesel

Assistant Manager Nessen said this is a new owner and since licenses do not transfer, they are applying for their own.

Motion by Councilmember Estep to approve the license. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rohde. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

d. Discussion and consideration of adopting Ordinance No. 25-10 rezoning parcels 06-059-0082 and 05-175-0030 located at 3800 West 1000 North, from Residential District (R1-12) to Residential District (R1-8)

Councilmember Lewis said do we have a Master Plan as it relates to planning and zoning? Comments were made that 10 years ago, this was zoned that way. As it relates to a percentage of high-density, correlative to single-family homes, do we have a standard metric we are following? What is our stance on that and what has been set in place to govern that? Manager Cobabe said the primary way we regulate these things is through the zoning ordinance. The density you expect is the density you zone for. That is exactly the question we are considering tonight. Instead of R1-12, which this is currently zoned, should we change that to R1-8. The Planning Commission considered it and made a determination that they were in favor of the zone request. Ultimately, it is a legislative decision and falls to the Council to decide. The General Plan seems to support this kind of density. The zoning is where the legal entitlements are. Right now, they are entitled to the 3.4 units per acre. The General Plan can change it, but it does not change the number of units they are entitled to. You have to enact an ordinance to change the zoning that would allow for that higher density. Councilmember Vance said from a banking standpoint, the standard to getting a subdivision approved, they ask what does that market area hold? If you have 20% rental apartments and/or condos and townhomes up to 30% and residentials up to 50%, you have a healthy real estate market. That is my question with our General Plan. Where do we stand with multi-housing? That is what has to be driving our General Plan. Are we getting too overbuilt with townhomes? Tremonton needs to have the same kind of standards so we know if we have too much multi-housing. Manager Cobabe said we do not have a mechanism in place to specifically address a percentage. We live in a free-market society. The markets deals with those things.

Councilmember Rohde said I have been thinking a lot about things going on. I realize our job is to listen to the people. We represent the voice of the people. We need to support the majority. Somehow, we need to represent the majority and their feelings. People have commented about school growth. It is easy to say not my problem, but us bringing growth to the City does affect schools. Our school does need a better policy in place on preparing for future growth. That is where their policies fail because they are not allowed to plan for growth. They can only build for what is currently in place. Our main General Plan is old and outdated. We need to take time and create a General Plan and communicate with citizens to develop what we want our area to look like. That plan should include communication with the school district and keep them in the loop on what our plan is so they can plan. The General Plan also needs to include questions on safety, fire, police, and roads, all that needs to be figured out in our General Plan. Currently we are at a 70/30 mix—70% single-family housing and 30% multi-housing. With what we have approved that would become a 60/40 mix. This mix needs to be identified in the General Plan with communication from the citizens. This could push us to 32,000 residents. I think we should slow down. We should stop developing to the point that we do not change any more zoning. I have talked to a mayor from another city and this is a concept they have put in place and it is working. I am not saying stop growth, we just need to take time to develop our General Plan so that it drives our zoning and future, instead of us doing everything and hoping the General Plan catches up. It is not just this group of people. We had the same thing with a group south of here. It may feel like a minority, but we have a minority coming from each section talking to us. To me this feels like a majority. I think we need to take the time to develop our General Plan and use that to start driving how we are going to zone and change in the future. Manager Cobabe said that is a good suggestion. A General Plan really is only good for about 20 years before you need to do a comprehensive update. Unfortunately, they cost about $100,000. You mentioned slowing down growth, but we need to be very careful how we approach that. We need to use words like conscientious and careful. People have property rights. This is where cities get in trouble, is if we say we are going to slow down or halt or otherwise obstruct people from their property rights, then we could get sued and lose our ability to govern what goes on. We just need to be very careful how we approach this. We could do a moratorium on development. We can do that if there is a significant lack of infrastructure. We would have to have identified the need and put a plan in place to fund and implement a remediation for that. The other reason for a moratorium is a General Plan update. You would have to have a mechanism in place to get that written and adopted within a reasonable timeframe. Those are the only two legally defensible reasons you can put a pause on development. You are not eliminating people’s property rights—you are just putting a pin in it. I like that you are being responsive to the needs, concerns, desires, and thoughts of the community. Councilmember Rohde said managing growth means we have sat down and set ordinances and zones that make sense. Then I think we stick to those. Instead of having developers come in and just say, we want to change the density. Let us just move forward with what we have until we can develop our General Plan and get input. We have to take time to get this under control. We need to update our General Plan. I make a motion that we deny this ordinance.

Planner Seedall said the General Plan is outdated, but in 2023 the City adopted the Integrated Land Use Plan. This area was shown to be low to medium density housing. I personally think this is a medium density development. It has the ability to help bring infrastructure the City needs on the hill and to help fund the culinary water tank, secondary reservoir, sewer expansion, and some park needs. Yes, the General Plan is outdated, but we have a more recent document that shows this fits into the Land Use Plan that was adopted. Manager Cobabe said if the ordinance is denied it would remain R1-12. If they were to apply for a PUD, which they have indicated they would, that allows a more creative application of the zoning ordinance and some flexibility. The number of units on the property will not change at the base density. What would increase the number of units if they provided additional amenities and got additional points. The PUD overlay would be a separate legislative item and we would go through a similar public hearing. At that point, we would have a development agreement to work with. What you are establishing tonight is the base density for the property.

Motion by Councilmember Rohde to deny the ordinance. Motion seconded by Councilmember Vance. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

e. Discussion and consideration of adopting Ordinance No. 25-11 zoning parcel 05-200-0016 to Multiple Residential District (RM-16)

Planner Seedall said we just annexed this. We rezoned the frontage to RM-16 to match the density across the street.

Motion by Councilmember Estep to adopt the ordinance. Motion seconded by Councilmember Westergard. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

f. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 25-28 amending a professional services agreement with Black Thorn Media—Brenden Blackham

Mr. Blackham explained they have been creating video content for the City for three months and have hit a ceiling on capabilities in the current scope. This is a proposal to increase the number of deliverables. Our current scope is $600 a month to create up to seven short form videos. We are proposing to increase that scope and basically double the output. We have come out a few times and have three-months worth of edits on our desk. We can keep going business as usual with no changes, but let us keep moving forward. We propose 15 to 20 short form videos a month for $2,100 per month. Councilmember Estep said I have to say no. Councilmember Lewis said I say we table it tonight and have more discussion due to the late night.

Motion by Councilmember Lewis to table the item. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rohde. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

10. Consent Agenda

a. Adoption of April Warrant Register
b. Adoption of April Financial Statements
c. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 25-23 accepting the Development Agreement for Union Townhomes
d. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 25-26 appointing Zach LeFevre as the Community Services Director
e. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 25-27 appointing Jeff Seedall as the Community Development Director

Motion by Councilmember Vance to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

11. Calendar Items and Previous Assignment

a. Review of calendar

Mayor Holmgren said June 17 is the final approval of the budget. The Farmers’ Market events will be held on the second and the fourth Fridays each month. Councilmember Rohde suggested canceling next week’s Planning Commission due to a County meeting that same night. Tomorrow night is our town hall meeting at 7 p.m.

b. Unfinished Business/Action Items: None.

12. Reports & Comments:

a. City Administration Reports and Comments

Manager Cobabe said I work with an incredible group of people who constantly inspire me to be a better human being and public servant. I am honored every day to show up and work with these people. They really have dedicated their energy and time to meeting the needs of our City. I met with the Inland Port earlier today and there is nothing new going on. I have had some conversations with people who are looking at Tremonton in a segment of the Inland Port. More to come on that.

b. Development Review Committee Report and Comments: None.
c. City Department Head Reports and Comments

Chief Cordova said this is more of an education for the public. Officer Skyler Gailey has done an exceptional job of bringing down the cost of our fleet. I have only been here for three years, but by my calculations with the amount of grants and money we give back, we have saved $1,485,000 in three years. We are very responsible with our budget. I want to reassure the Council we treat that with the utmost respect and are always looking to save. We bring in grants and will continue to do that. A police department is very expensive, but it brings safety. We are on a smaller scale, but the amount of actual statistical impact we have made on our crime is huge. We arrested a child sex offender this last week. That was a multiple month-long investigation. It is a big win for the City. It sucks to hear about this stuff, but these are the types of people we are taking out of our community. That would not be possible without Council support so we greatly appreciate that. Staffing has been huge and that allows my guys to have free time to weed out these problems. We did have the drug distribution operation that we eliminated from our community as well. I am not sure who is running for election, but I wish you the best of luck and thank you for your service if you are stepping out.

Chief Jarrow said we want to maintain our standards. I have only been here for a month and a half and I was able to put in for the competitive EMS grant. I submitted for $200,000 for a new ambulance. Hopefully they will give us some money to help with that. There is $100,000 to help with retention of personnel and hiring. We were able to hire six part-time staff and are going to start orientation this month. We also have three full-time staff, two of those are paramedics with a combined experience of over 45 years. These guys are super experienced and competent. Another EMT advanced we were able to hire is very sharp. Her scores were comparable to the paramedics. These are great people for our full-time crew and I am excited to have them. The same goes for our part-time personnel. They are super sharp and competitive individuals. We are excited to keep moving our department in the upward and positive direction.

Director LeFevre said thank you for your trust in me and in our department. We feel we do a great job and try to meet the needs of our community. Last Friday we had the library’s summer reading kickoff party. There were about 800 people in attendance. It was a great success. About 40 authors were in attendance and we had a movie in the park, along with other activities. We are working on the Master Plan for Parks and Rec and that goes right in hand with the General Plan. When our portion is done later this year it will be ready to slip right in there. We are trying to find and meet the needs of our current residents. The needs assessment survey has concluded. We are meeting with the survey company next week to go through results. We will continue public outreach and gain other ideas. We will be conducting a facilities condition report of our parks and amenities. We will continue doing more public engagement based on the results of the needs assessment. Youth track is finishing up. We had over 100 participants this year. Youth baseball started yesterday and we have programs all the way from three-years-old to eighth grade. Youth golf and pickleball starts next week. There was talk of public outreach tonight. We have worked with Black Thorn Media for a few months and met several times to figure out what the scope was. We are also working with Bear River Live for community outreach and they are doing a great job covering news and events. We have multiple options as we reach out to the community.

d. Council Reports and Comments

Councilmember Rohde said last Thursday night we had a town hall and went over the third pillar. We will be going over the final pillar at the end of this month and then will roll those out. We had a full room and good participation.

Councilmember Vance said next week is my last meeting. This is the ending of an era. I have served for 10 years.

Councilmember Lewis said being over the Economic Development Committee we know not all businesses are alike. We saw that when the pig plant conversation happened. We very much want the public’s opinion on that topic so please talk to me about the industry types you would like to see here.

Mayor Holmgren said Flag Day is June 14, there will be a ceremony at 9 a.m. at Midland Square. We had a very successful Memorial Day program. We have added 79 planting pots to Main Street. We appreciate the Public Works for everything they did to help with that. They are doing a good job.

Motion by Councilmember Estep to move into closed meeting. Motion seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

The Council moved into a closed meeting at 10:02 p.m.

13. CLOSED MEETING:

Motion by Councilmember Estep to return to open meeting. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rohde. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

The Council returned to open session at 10:16 p.m.

14. Adjournment.

Motion by Councilmember Estep to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Council. Vote: Councilmember Estep – yes, Councilmember Lewis – yes, Councilmember Rohde – yes, Councilmember Vance – yes, Councilmember Westergard – yes. Motion approved.

The meeting adjourned at 10:17 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 for the City Council Meeting held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this 17th day of June, 2025.

Cynthia Nelson, City Recorder

CLICK HERE TO SEE ADDITIONAL CONTENT ASKED TO BE ADDED TO MINUTES

Archives