Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CRA approves survey for Horn Shadow Solar expansion after debate over incentives and battery ownership
Summary
The CRA approved a survey-area resolution to add roughly 37 acres to the Horn Shadow Solar project area to study battery/storage placement; the board discussed battery ownership structures, possible incentives and how new growth might be used to reduce local debt.
The Emery County CRA on Dec. 16 approved a survey-area resolution (12-16-25C) to consider adding about 37 acres to the Horn Shadow Solar CRA project area to accommodate battery storage planning.
Staff explained that the action before the board was the statutorily required survey-area resolution — a nonbinding first step that allows staff and the developer to prepare maps and begin the public process for a formal amendment. Staff noted that when a project area expands the process starts with a survey-area resolution and then proceeds through public hearings and interlocal negotiations if the agency proposes a formal amendment.
Board members focused on whether the batteries would be part of the same participation agreement or run by a different LLC; staff said the battery ownership for this portion of the development would likely be under a different LLC and thus could require a separate participation agreement and potentially different incentive percentages. Staff estimated potential sales-tax revenue from battery purchases (if point-of-sale occurs in unincorporated Emery County) in the range of $3.5–$4 million, which would be considered in subsequent participation talks.
Commissioners also debated the policy trade-offs of granting incentives. One board member argued incentives can be structured so new growth can be used to pay down local bonds; another urged caution, asking whether the board should offer incentives at all. The survey-area resolution passed on a roll call with one recorded no vote (Jordan Leonard recorded as voting no); board members emphasized the resolution does not itself grant incentives and that any incentive or participation agreement would be negotiated separately and subject to public hearings.
Staff offered to work with commissioners and the developer to model options that show which approach would produce the largest net benefit to taxpayers (for example, whether captured growth should be used to pay down local bonds or reduce school levies).
