TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 22, 2017
Members Present:
Robert Anderson, Chairman
Val Bennett, Commission Member
Micah Capener, Commission Member (arrived 5:32 p.m.)
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member
Troy Forrest, Commission Member—excused
Ben Greener, Commission Member
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember—excused
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Robert Anderson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. The meeting was held August 22, 2017 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Robert Anderson, Commission Members Bennett, Capener (arrived 5:32 p.m.), Eberhard, Greener, Stokes, Zoning Administrator Steve Bench, and Deputy Recorder Cynthia Nelson were in attendance. Also in attendance were Manager Shawn Warnke, City Attorney Dustin Ericson and Councilmember Lyle Vance. Commission Member Troy Forrest and City Councilmember Bret Rohde were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Eberhard to approve the August 22, 2017 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Anderson – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes: August 8, 2017

Motion by Commission Member Bennett to approve the August 8, 2017 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Eberhard. Vote: Chairman Anderson – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Further discussion on secondary water – Shawn Warnke and Dustin Ericson
During the last meeting, questions about the legality of exacting water rights was discussed. Manager Warnke explained that according to the State Code, that is well within the City’s authority to exact water similar to roads and other infrastructure improvements. The City meets the necessary tests in the State Code. City Engineer Chris Breinholt has put together a secondary water study, which touches upon the need for the City to exact water and a need to increase the water system capacity. Manager Warnke said the City is at capacity and that is the reason the City Council is moving forward with putting in a secondary water system. The Planning Commission’s role is to look at the technical aspects of this specific land use ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council to approve or potential changes they would like to see. That is why it is important to look at the State Code and review the technical aspects of it and how the proposed ordinance meets the State Code and matches up with the allowance under State law. The Planning Commission does not need to get involved or contemplate how it will be funded or its fairness.

Attorney Ericson talked about the exaction of water under the State Code. A municipality may not impose an exaction for water interest if the culinary water authority’s existing water interest exceeds the water interest needed to meet the reasonable future water requirement for the public. The water report by the City Engineer found that Tremonton does not have sufficient water interest for the foreseeable future. The Code defines that reasonable future water requirement for 20 to 30 years and Tremonton has a shorter timeframe than that when it comes to the expected demand. For that purpose, Tremonton meets the threshold to exact water.

Commission Member Capener asked if the State Code addresses how much water can be exacted. Attorney Ericson said it has to be proportionate to the development’s use. The City cannot take more than is needed, it has to be what is roughly proportionate and would be determined on a case-by-case basis. The water study found the City needs .6 of a water share per acre, but the problem is that right now the Bear River Canal Company does not divide a share into less than one. Manager Warnke said the City is at the Canal Company’s mercy. The City is using their rules and right now their rules say one share per one developed acre. The City has had some conversation on a staff level to reduce that and done some preliminary engineering that would show one share roughly equal to .662 acres. There are some efficiencies that could be realized when irrigating through a pressure system rather than flood irrigating. However, the Bear River Canal Company needs to have that policy formally adopted and then will monitor how much water the City is taking out so that might be adjusted going forward.

Commission Member Capener thought Manager Warnke and Attorney Ericson were saying two different things and said they need clarification. Manager Warnke said that is why the City did preliminary engineering and there is an argument to be made in front of the Bear River Canal Company Board that it should not be one share per developed acre, but that is not what the policy is right now. Commission Member Capener said they don’t care how many acres someone has, all they care is what they are watering. All a person needs is .6 to water .6 you don’t need one to water .6. Manager Warnke agreed with the methodology, but it is not clear what the policy is. The Canal Company does not have a policy for development. Commission Member Capener said they have done this on a bunch of areas and when they are pulling water out of the ground, they handle it on a per gallon basis, not per acre. It is all metered at the source and is 1.3 million gallons per share. Commission Member Capener asked if the Code says the City can take enough to water the irrigated dirt or the entire acre. Attorney Ericson said the Code does not have a set definition of how many shares—it just says what is roughly proportionate. It allows the City to make a determination and the City needs to justify that is what it needs. In this situation, where the Bear River Canal Company may have a different policy, the City has to factor that in. If Tremonton is playing, they have to play by the Bear River Canal Company’s rules and if those rules requires a one for one that is what their rough proportionate share would be.

Commission Member Eberhard asked if this is the first time Tremonton has gone through this process of exacting water. Manager Warnke said the City started a secondary water system years ago and at the time were exacting water. Shortly after, they decided not to move forward with the secondary water system, but some water shares were exacted at that time. He clarified that the City is talking about exacting the water shares and the secondary water distribution system.

Commission Member Capener asked Attorney Ericson if the City can exact water for one property and use it on another and then come back 20 years later and put it on that original property. Attorney Ericson said as far as water shares are concerned, the City can exact from each development the proportionate amount for each parcel and whether those shares go to that particular parcel or another part of town does not matter because it all goes to the same water system.

Commission Member Capener asked if the City exacts secondary water on a parcel, if that parcel has a time limit to utilize that water. Attorney Ericson said an exaction is necessary for that development in the moment. When someone comes in for an application, the exaction cost—a dollar amount or the share—must be given and the irrigation system be placed into the development regardless of when that goes online. That would just be a part of the approval process. Commission Member Capener said if those improvements are not made then they would have to reimburse the developers. Manager Warnke agreed, but said the City is actively moving forward. They have been given the go ahead to start the bid documents for Service Area 1 and 2. If the City does not use that, the water would be returned. The City needs to acquire water rights for existing development so the hope is they could come to terms with the Canal Company and realize something less than the one to one ratio, which would reduce the number of shares the City needs to acquire.

Commission Member Greener said the 12 districts have an irrigated total of 752 maximum shares needed, but there are currently 1,630 acres of farm land. If all those acres are developed, then there will be 1,630 shares. Manager Warnke said this just shows that within the incorporate area, there are shares applied on the land for farm indicating there should be water available as development occurs. That illustrates the fact that there are shares depending on what the needs are and what could be out there.

Commission Member Greener asked about the annexation of 60 acres in their last meeting and if they would now exact 60 water shares. Manager Warnke said the exaction would be applied when they develop the property. He said annexing would not trigger the exaction because there is no added demand on the water system. If they ask to develop five of those acres, the City would ask for the five shares. He added, if the City is able to work with the Canal Company and come to a lesser amount, then it would be that.

Commission Member Greener said it looks like a nice plan. Manager Warnke said the Engineer Breinholt and City staff have spent a lot of time on this and the City Council has been involved for at least eight months.

Councilmember Vance said when a person is pumping 10 shares onto eight acres (because of buildings on that development) they can actually water more land with those 10 shares so there is going to have to be some way the Canal Company can monitor the City’s use. Commission Member Capener said it would be metered. Councilmember Vance said that is the bottom line, how much is the City actually going to use. It can only be calculated by whether the City is going to do the whole system or piece mill. That question has to be answered before we can start having an argument or a driving decision as to why we need to exact water. Commission Member Capener said that is why they need to clarify the policy with the Canal Company. If a person has 10 acres but is only watering eight, then only eight shares are needed. Manager Warnke said the intent is to exact what the demand is or what they are calculating what the demand would be. Attorney Ericson said as far as the law is concerned, the City just has to subject itself to the Bear River Canal Company. As far as this ordinance, the determination is, is this ordinance legal. We adopt it and then we have to play by the Canal Company’s rules. If they allow the City to do less than one to one, then the calculation would support that.

Commission Member Anderson, who has a well to irrigate his lawn, said he also uses it to keep the water table low during the wet season and asked if the secondary water system is going to help him with that or if he will still have to pump out of his well to keep his basement from flooding. Commission Member Capener said secondary water will increase the water table and further complicate flooding, but Commission Member Greener said the City can limit what they have by alternating days. Commission Member Anderson said there is a lot of water in the ground and they may not need the Canal. Commission Member Stokes said ground water is salty, while Commission Member Eberhard stated that some trees and plants do not like that. However, Canal water has other stuff and potential chemicals.

Commission Member Capener asked if it is possible to create a regional basin and pump water into it to be filtered. They are citizens who have wells that are much cleaner water, who are reluctant to pay $20 to $40 a month to hook onto the dirty canal water system. Manager Warnke said the first system design was based upon having a reservoir on the hill, back in early 2000’s, however, it was much more expensive. Engineer Breinholt felt this was the most economical approach to do pumping stations in service areas and use the canal as the reservoir.

Commission Member Capener said they need to know if Tremonton is going to do a citywide implementation now or a partial implementation as they go and what the cost difference is. Manager Warnke said it is a little outside the scope of what the Planning Commission needs to focus on, but they can, as a citizen, come to City Council and express concern. What is before the Planning Commission tonight is the land use ordinance that they are supposed to evaluate the technical aspects of; is the City following State law, are they applying it fairly, are they missing something in the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission’s concerns are valid, but it is something that is the City Council’s decision.

Commission Member Capener asked about the ordinance and Manager Warnke said State Code allows for cities to start applying a land use ordinance if it is a pending ordinance. The City Council adopted a resolution that embodied the proposed ordinance to put people on notice to start applying the regulations now. Commission Member Capener asked if the City is supposed to adopt this ordinance prior to defining the canal company’s rules. Manager Warnke said they can go back and make changes as needed. Administrator Bench said they will talk to the Canal Company and bring it back for their recommendation. Manager Warnke summed up that the City’s intent is to comply with the law, which is roughly proportionate. Whatever the Canal Company will accept is what the City will exact.

Commission Member Eberhard said if the .6 shares takes care of the acres being developed, then where does the water come from for those acres already developed. Manager Warnke said the City would purchase additional shares from the Canal Company or use their lease pool.

Commission Member Capener said it will be good to have a secondary water system, but it should have been done 10 years ago. Administrator Bench said the City did not necessarily have the funds to do it then. The price has gone up since the 2000’s but that is why they will do it in phases. Commission Member Greener asked if residents would be changed a connect fee and how they plan to plumb it to their property. Manager Warnke said it will be stubbed to the property and when the City deploys it, the residents would be responsible to connect. The financing has yet to be figured out. The City is moving forward with revenue and they will finance it in cash they have from the Water Fund. Commission Member Greener said he likes the idea, but the City should educate people so they have the right sprinkler heads and filtration.

Commission Member Greener asked if the City has seen an increase in revenue or a decrease in water consumption after going to the tiered system on culinary water. Manager Warnke said it has increased the revenue, which is what the Council intended to do. We have seen more water usage, but it is an early sample size. We do not know what the trend will be in the long term.

Commission Member Stokes asked how often the City has to certify their culinary need with the State and if the Planning Commission will see that report. Manager Warnke said it is annually and they would not because the City Council does not even see it. Commission Member Stokes asked how they know when to stop then. Manager Warnke said the City has a Culinary Water Authority Board for culinary and sanitary sewer and Public Works Director, Paul Fulgham, heads that. It is also stated on plats that the City reserves the capacity within its wastewater and sewer system and culinary water at the time a building permit is issued.

The Commission Members thanked Manager Warnke and Attorney Ericson for coming and further explaining this process. Administrator Bench said they would review this again and hold a public hearing at that time. Manager Warnke said the changes will be pretty insignificant and they will have the clarifications needed for that meeting on September 19.

b. Preliminary Review of one (1) lot subdivision for Stan Peterson

Administrator Bench clarified this is the Elm Tree Park subdivision amendment on 6th north. Lot 2A and 2B are currently a one-acre lot. The house on 2A wants to split it and the house on 1B wants to buy it. This is technically one lot, but this would turn it into a three-lot subdivision.

There is a driveway going into Lot 2B, along with water and sewer. They will connect to the sewer, water and the secondary water system that is already in place. They meet the zoning with the size of their lots, which is 20,000 square feet or a half-acre. Currently Lot 2B owns 1B and they will add the 24 feet of paved driveway. This will be a private lane so the City will not maintain it. Commission Member Bennett asked if Lot 2B will be a separate building lot. Administrator Bench said Lot 1B plans to build a new home there and the family will move in or they will sell it to another individual. Commission Member Bennett did not see any concerns.

Motion by Commission Member Capener to approve and send back to the Land Use Authority Board. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Anderson – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

4. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Capener to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:33 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 ___________, 2017.

______________________________
Linsey Nessen, 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.