Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emery County commissioners press for clearer general plan language on solar siting and tax impacts
Summary
Commissioners reviewing Emery County’s updated general plan debated whether to include guidance limiting large-scale solar acreage, setbacks from property lines and wording to address leases being signed on public lands; staff noted a proposed $500 million project and explained how centrally assessed projects feed county finances.
The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 8 reviewed a draft update to the county general plan and focused much of its discussion on how the document should address large-scale solar and other energy development.
The commission’s chair, Gary Arrington, said the county must balance an "energy capital" vision with protections for local character: "We don't want to stomp it out because this county could be a major player," he said, urging careful plan language that preserves benefits while limiting adverse impacts.
Why it matters: commissioners were told an initial phase of edits to the draft is due in eight days — Oct. 16 — and that further public comment periods and a public hearing will follow. The general plan serves as the county's guiding policy for land-use priorities and can shape later ordinances and project reviews.
Discussion and specifics: staff and commissioners explained the draft’s markup conventions and how to submit edits; staff urged reviewers to focus on highlighted (yellow) text first. The meeting turned to energy questions: commissioners debated whether the general plan should set an overall acreage guideline for solar, require setbacks from city limits and property lines, and clarify where solar on public lands is acceptable.
A county staff speaker explained tax and assessment mechanics for large energy projects: certain energy and utility assets are "centrally assessed" by the state and comprise roughly 60% of the county’s tax base. The staff member said a proposed Pacific Corp project in the county is valued at about $500,000,000 and occupies roughly 1,800 acres, and that revenues from projects that have started generating are on the order of about $600,000 a year for the county from the facilities discussed.
The staff speaker noted many solar facilities were established in designated project areas (CRAs) that include tax incentives; those arrangements produce back-end payments to taxing entities (school districts, water districts and the county) rather than an immediate line-item tax reduction for individual homeowners. "We get the full tax... If they were incented 40%, we have to sign for a check for that amount and we keep our portion," the staff member said.
Disagreement and constraints: commissioners raised legal and practical constraints, including private-property rights and the county’s limited authority over activity on state or federal lands. One commissioner noted prior statements from a former commissioner about eliminating solar projects, and others warned that leases on public lands were being signed before local input.
What’s next: staff asked commissioners to submit Phase 1 comments by Oct. 16; the commission will compile edits, forward them to the consultant (BioWest), and return to additional public engagement and likely a public hearing as the next steps.
Votes at a glance: The meeting did not adopt new ordinances; it recorded routine approvals and procedural motions and closed after a motion to adjourn.
Ending: The commission closed the meeting after scheduling the next steps on the general plan update.
