TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 25, 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—excused
Bill Cobabe, City Manager
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held February 25, 2025 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Ellsworth, Miller, Phillips, Stickney, Thompson (arrived at 5: 40 p.m.), Van Tassell, City Councilmember Rohde, Manager Cobabe, and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance. Planner Seedall was excused

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Phillips to approve the February 25, 2024 agenda. Motion was seconded by Commission Member Ellsworth. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Thompson – absent, Commission Member Van Tassel – yes. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest:

Chairman Capener said historically, we have said just declare it and define that you have a conflict. You could then still vote. Manager Cobabe provided the Commission with a summary, saying the concern is there are two different codes (local and State) that are at play when it comes to governing conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are a major concern. We do not want people voting themselves into a better financial situation when they have been put in a position of public trust. These items are legal and written as such to be open for interpretation. What really matters is where we all come to in our own hearts and minds as to what is moral and ethical. If something is illegal, we will be held accountable, but I also believe we will be held accountable to a higher individual for our responsibility in life. Also, the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the Council so a lot of these regulations apply more directly to them since they make the ultimate decision. However, you will participate in conversations and make recommendations to them, finalizing certain details. The chances for real malfeasance and problems in our particular community are small, but we have to have these conversations. We want to garner public trust and act in the light of day. Our local ordinance says if there is a conflict of interest the person will declare the conflict and refrain from engaging in any part of the conversation. They do not have to leave the room. They can listen as a spectator. They shall make no effort to persuade the non-conflicted members on the matter. We do have First Amendment rights, so you can speak during regular comment period, but should you? That is a bigger moral question. One of the things we ran into last summer with regard to adopting the City’s budget was, we had two Councilmembers who are also employees. There was a concern about that conflict because they were voting for their new wage. They initially voted. After it was brought to our attention that they should not have, we reconvened a public hearing, held the vote again and they did not vote or discuss it. State code is actually very simple and less strict with regard to what they require. Basically, if there is a potential conflict of interest, you declare it. It is the declaration that is important. Transparency is important when we are trying to foster trust. The code talks about direct impact on financial gains. If this affects your bottom line as a business owner in the City immediately and directly, it would be a direct conflict. However, if we change the zone that your business is in and it changes the values of all the properties in that zone. While you might be a beneficiary of that, it is not unique to you. If it is in furtherance of a common betterment for the City than it is an indirect benefit to you, but not specific, immediate and unique.

The Commission then discussed different hypotheticals. Councilmember Rohde said this statement helped me understand, a direct conflict of interest is when an official’s personal gain, money, property, or family benefit is immediately tied to the decision. Chairman Capener said everybody is saying all the right things, but the code does not say any of that. I am concerned about the language. Other cities just say you have to declare a direct conflict, but can still vote. Manager Cobabe said it says direct impact on financial gains. Those financial gains are not defined here. State code says gifts of $50 or less are acceptable. We are trying to parse out what does direct mean? That definition says characterized by close, logical, causal, or consequential relationship. You did A and B was the result, which ended up with more money in your pocket. That is direct. Indirect means we voted on this change for every property in the zone and everybody’s property values went up. That is not unique to one person. We just need to clarify what we mean when we say direct.

3. Public Comments: None.

4. Approval of minutes—January 28, 2025

Motion by Commission Member Phillips to approve the January 28, 2025 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Ellsworth. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Van Tassel – yes. Motion approved.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 6:00 p.m. to receive input on amending Land Use and Appeals Authorities. There was one person in attendance.

5. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on amending to 1.04 Land Use and Appeals Authorities.

There were no public comments. Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 6:01 p.m.

6. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of 1.04 Land Use and Appeals Authorities

Manager Cobabe said we are adding some alternate members to the DRC in an effort to allow for absences. The Fire Chief, Assistant Public Works Director and Assistant City Manager are proposed as individuals who could step in. They would not be required to attend the meetings regularly, just help as needed.

Motion by Commission Member Miller to approve and send to the City Council. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Van Tassel – yes. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of Moderate-Income Housing Strategies

Manager Cobabe said how did we get here and what do we do now. What is being proposed and how does this apply to Tremonton. LUDMA was adopted in the 2000s to cover land use in Utah. This would help streamline things so developers know what to expect and municipalities have a clearly defined sandbox to play in. That did not work well. There have been subsequent changes since then. Affordable housing was an element of this 20 years ago, which is ever evolving. When the City first adopted strategies, we chose B, E and N. The City later decided not to pursue those. Information from 2022 gives us a snapshot of what the market looks like for Tremonton. This is three years old, so things have only got more exacerbated. Housing affordability is when a person is paying about a third of their income to housing. Simple math is to multiple that by three. Someone who is making $50,000 a year can afford a house that is $150,000. In 2010, we were relatively affordable. Over the years we have exceeded the 3.0 average.

The Commission then discussed the definition of affordable housing and area median income. Manager Cobabe said 80% is the target when it comes to affordable housing. That and below were considered affordable in 2020. We are probably closer to 70 now. If your median income is $70,000, and you triple that, an affordable house is $210,000. Having more than one income in the house helps. There is a shortage of 775 affordable units as of 2020. I do not think we have got any better in the intervening years. The State looks at an area and aggregates all of the incomes to find the median. This is how much you are supposed to spend on your mortgage. We like to think Tremonton is doing okay, but we are all struggling. We cannot ignore it. Tremonton is a little more affordable than most places, but we are rapidly catching up.

Manager Cobabe said originally cities could adopt these strategies or not. In 2019, they made it so cities have to adopt at least three and report back on their implementation and progress every year. Our report was done by Zions Bank. If cities do not comply, the State will hold back funding. They want to see action being taken by cities to address affordable housing concerns. The point of this conversation is to look at these strategies and decide if what we want to do is reflecting what we have said we are going to do. We will decide what strategies we want to do at our next meeting. Your homework is to take this discussion and look at the existing and proposed implementation strategies to see if there are any revisions we ought to make.

The Commission spent some time discussing the area median income further. Manager Cobabe said the reason why the database has not appeared yet is because that effort is almost unachievable. It is always changing. The State has to collect all of the assessor’s data and then compare it with real estate data. They have to pull in all of the parcel data, which is constantly changing with new subdivisions and lot line adjustments. They also have to pull in building permits from all of the different communities, which changes every year. They have to do all that and come up with a database. Once we decide on the strategies then we can work on putting together a plan for implementation. We already have adopted some that we are working on, but some were transactional. Once you have rezoned then that one is done. For Strategy S we eliminated impact fees. That is done because we cannot redo that again.

Manager Cobabe said there are some options for smaller homes on 5,000 square foot lots. This is the kind of the model we are thinking of in Tremonton to help with affordable housing. As we have these discussions, we need to remember this is not just about houses, it is about families. These are our kids, siblings and people we want to stay in the community. They are being forced out because they cannot afford to live here. The Commission also talked about supply and demand. Chairman Capener said we have our homework to review and figure out what ones we want to propose going forward.

7. Planning commission comments/reports:

Manager Cobabe asked the Commission to confirm who will be attending the planning conference May 7-9.

8. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:52 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 will be taken.