Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debate on solar ordinance ends without vote after lengthy public comments and legal caution
Summary
After a multi‑hour discussion about proposed limits on future large‑scale solar projects, commissioners expressed divided views on tax impacts, CRAs, water, reclamation and litigation risk; a motion to amend the solar ordinance failed to carry and the issue will receive further review, including attorney input and planning‑and‑zoning analysis.
The Emery County Commission engaged in an extended discussion on July 21 about a proposed resolution to amend the county's solar ordinance and limit future large‑scale solar projects not yet permitted.
Commissioners, county staff and members of the public debated multiple aspects of solar development: potential tax revenue and its effect on property tax burdens, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) incentives and distribution of proceeds, proximity of projects to homes, reclamation and revegetation practices, and litigation risks surrounding proposed projects in the county.
The Chair cautioned about closing access to possible revenue sources at a time of declining centrally assessed industrial property values, saying the county could channel proceeds to the school district bond or the water conservancy district for projects such as piping canals.
Multiple speakers urged safeguards. One public commenter and several commissioners recommended strict setbacks, noise limits and provisions to require revegetation when projects are built. Other commissioners advocated a moratorium of approximately one year to allow planning and zoning to draft protective ordinances. Several commissioners also noted litigation risks tied to specific proposed projects and asked the county attorney to review any resolution language.
A commissioner moved to adopt the proposed amendment/resolution; after discussion the motion failed to pass for lack of support and was effectively tabled. Commissioners asked the attorney to review the draft resolution and for planning and zoning to continue work on ordinance language before any final action.
Next steps: county staff and planning and zoning will continue drafting ordinance language, the county attorney will review proposed resolution text, and commissioners signaled they want clearer options (setbacks, CRA terms, tax allocation alternatives) before another vote.
