Cottonwood Heights council rejects joining Utah Renewable Communities after heated public comment

Cottonwood Heights’ City Council voted down ordinance 4 6 4, which would have enrolled the city in the Utah Renewable Communities (URC) program, after a lengthy public‑comment period and a split council debate centered on the program’s opt‑out enrollment mechanism.

Supporters of joining URC — a statewide community clean‑energy initiative intended to expand renewable generation and offer a $4/month option for customers who choose 100% renewable service — filled the council chamber and urged the council to maintain participation. “I urge our city council to vote yes to the URC, make something historic happen in a very significant way,” resident Drew Tidwell told the council, saying the program could reduce electricity costs and expand renewable energy access.

Opponents focused on the program’s default enrollment and the risk that low‑income, elderly or otherwise vulnerable residents could be automatically signed up without adequate notice. “I am against the Utah renewables community opting into it or having it an opt‑out option,” Kim Steamblick, who identified herself as a District 3 resident, told the council. Several speakers urged delaying the vote to allow more outreach and education.

Council debate reflected that split. Councilmember Matt Holton said conversations with residents had changed his view and that the $4/month structure could be regressive for households struggling to pay basic bills, recounting a constituent who said, “I do not have the wherewithal to be able to keep up with these tax notices.” Councilmember Suzanne Hyland also expressed concern about the opt‑out design and the lack of a clear off‑ramp if the program’s costs or benefits did not materialize for the city.

Councilmember Ellen Burrell argued the program had been studied for years and emphasized potential health and climate benefits; she voted in favor. The mayor also voted yes. In the final roll call, the ordinance failed on a 3‑2 split, with three councilmembers voting no and two voting yes.

The public‑comment period provided sharply contrasting frames: medical professionals and parents cited health impacts of air pollution and urged action, while engineers and some residents warned the program could shift costs to households and permit projects and expenditures outside Cottonwood Heights. One speaker, Dave Schoenick, alleged a conflict of interest involving a council member’s outside lobbying connections; the allegation was raised in public comment but not resolved on the record during the meeting.

After the URC item failed, the council approved several other measures on the agenda, including ordinance 4 6 5 regarding separate utility meters and ordinance 4 6 6 updating the city’s fireworks hazard map. Council also approved a design contract for the Bengal Boulevard pedestrian trail and heard quarterly reports from public works and police.

The council did not set a follow‑up vote on URC during the meeting. Several residents asked the city to expand outreach — through the city newsletter, email, billboard and additional town halls — and some councilmembers said they will continue pursuing legislative or programmatic changes, including seeking an opt‑in structure at the state level. The council adjourned after routine reports and departmental updates.

What’s next: No formal action to reintroduce URC was taken at the meeting; councilmembers who opposed the ordinance said they would pursue alternatives (including state legislation to change URC’s structure) or additional safeguards if the issue returns to the agenda.