Editors Note: This article was originally published in the July 26, 2023 issue of the Chronicle Progress. Some information may be outdated.
American Spec Modular pares down proposal in bid to satisfy city officials
A developer with plans for a multi-million-dollar manufacturing operation outside Fillmore returned to that city’s council last week in an effort to move forward on a proposed development agreement with officials, including a plan for future annexation into the municipality.
Calling his plans a public-private partnership with the city, Wayne Aston and his American Spec Modular have evidently pared down his original vision—building modular housing units, for example, as originally planned is now on hold—after city officials evidently pushed back on what they considered overly ambitious and unrealistic concepts outlined during various meetings and negotiations with the city.
However, there are still problems with Aston’s proposed development that have city officials concerned enough that a new committee is being tasked with hammering out a scaled-down version for the project’s initial phases before the city takes any official action.
During a lengthy discussion last Tuesday, a number of issues were raised about the development agreement Aston proposes the city sign off on.
Aston has a lengthy and checkered history of business litigation, including multiple bankruptcies, partnerships mired in civil litigation, numerous accusations of fraud as well as multiple court judgments amounting to millions of dollars, including one ordered by a Fourth District Court judge as recently as July 12 for nearly $400,000. That case was brought earlier this year by a commercial real estate developer who claimed Aston and a partner broke a signed lease for 40,000 square feet of office space in Spanish Fork.
Despite this history—and extensive coverage about it in the Chronicle Progress—Fillmore officials continue to entertain Aston’s grandiose plans, which at one point included a new highway interchange, a rail spur, hundreds of acres of industrial and commercial development, a geothermal project and utilization of nearly all of the city’s available culinary water supply.
Calling it the “tenth iteration” of his proposed development agreement, Aston said he now wants to develop a smaller project in two phases, including developing a plant for turning construction waste and wood fixtures, such as railroad ties and telephone poles, into extruded building products. Part of that effort includes infrastructure improvements as well as a creosote extraction facility, a waste reclamation facility and short-term housing for as many as 500 workers.
“We’ve boiled it down, I think, as far as we could to get it back to the original plan of we want to build a factory,” he told council members. “This (the development agreement) is the big box to check before we can really move anything forward on the project, including financing.”
But council members pointed out a number of problems they had even with Aston’s smaller project, part of what he originally proposed in March 2022.
Councilman Curt Hare, who led the discussion, said he was disappointed that the development agreement still contained many of the details the city was not going to accept anytime soon.
“I agree with the overall interest in development one and two, phase one and two, but throughout the stuff that I’ve read is a significantly repeat, as I’m reading it, of the other stuff that we’re not interested in continuing at this point. Constant references, plans past (phases) one and two,” he said.
At one point Hare said he was all for expanding Aston’s project, but only after the viability of the first phases— and more relationship building between the developer and the city—was proved.
“When we get down and one and two is working well and built out and going and we’ve established a relationship, I think…at that point (the council) can be looking at your ambitious plans for things beyond,” he said.
Councilman Dennis Alldredge raised other issues, particularly that Aston outlined plans in his proposal for property he doesn’t even own.
“That language is misleading,” the councilman said at one point. “For me it’s kind of inappropriate. I don’t know how you can build your building and your first business when part of the property isn’t even owned.”
Alldredge also brought up that the proposed development agreement discusses annexation of property into the city that has not taken place though the agreement states it has.
“It’s kind of the egg before the chicken. You’re saying you have to have it before you can annex and I’m saying I can’t pass this if you don’t own the property that you’re going to build the building on,” Alldredge explained. “That’s a problem for me.”
Annexation, in particular, is a process led by a property owner, not induced by the city.
Aston excused the “misleading” language by explaining that the proposed land acquisition was fundamental to securing financing for the project—he told city officials, coincidentally, that because the city and he had so far failed to come to terms he had already lost out on “significant financing resources.”
“It’s why we’ve got annex-able parcels as a schedule. We’re trying to articulate within the agreement that there could be, with the appropriate circumstances, additional parcels. And that would be one of them,” Aston said, adding later that he was confident he could add an additional 156 acres to his 151-acre project site and that he had already embarked on spending millions of dollars for engineering work there. He also mentioned swapping 15 acres of his property for 10 acres of another owner’s land as part of his plans.
Another issue that came up during the discussion was language in the development agreement that continued to suggest the city would reimburse Aston for utility upgrades that he initiates as part of the project that go beyond what’s required by city code.
Alldredge said that if the developer was choosing to upgrade or go larger with infrastructure improvements, “that’s not at our request, why are we reimbursing?”
Aston agreed with that and said as long as the city approves the public improvement district, a property tax facility that helps finance infrastructure improvements, then the project would bear the additional costs.
“That’s not an issue with us,” he said. “We’re not talking about large dollar amounts anyway.”
Councilman Kyle Monroe asked if the creosote extraction piece of Aston’s extrusion plant was inside the same facility or not. Aston said it was a 100,000 square-foot appendage in the same building. Aston said there were technically three buildings, the extrusion plant, a waste reclamation facility and a creosote extraction facility, all connected.
Monroe asked if Aston had any emission studies done or was able to report on what emissions would be produced by the facility.
“Because from what I’ve researched right now, you’re going to emit four level D toxins from that one plant,” Monroe said. “Me, I’m not sure I want four carcinogens blowing into the air in Fillmore, Utah.”
Aston said his goal was to be a net zero facility, with no carbon footprint and would address emissions as a concern moving forward.
“I have no intention of releasing any toxins in any of the processes,” Aston responded.
At one point an exasperated Aston said he felt like he and his partners were getting mixed messages from city officials.
“We’re getting some mixed signals on what the city wants,” he said, before adding later that his intentions were not to be disingenuous, but to lay out his full vision in hopes of getting the city on board.
“I really want to cultivate a relationship with the city that’s not disingenuous. I don’t want to sit, tell you something you want to hear today and be disingenuous about the true intention of what we think we can do,” he said. “And so, if we gut this down even further and take out references to phases three and four, which is basically an interchange and some commercial and industrial pads, those are still contingent on financing…those are still contingent on a battery of approvals. Having this alignment with the city now means we can pursue that. It’s not a guarantee we’re going to get it.”
Eventually, Mayor Mike Holt suggested a board be formed to quickly get the development agreement into shape so it can be more fully taken up by the council.
“Let’s get a group together and hash this out, refine it and get it back,” the mayor said.
Hare agreed with that and moved to table the item.
Aston said he was anxious to set a deadline for the work so that he could better plan his next steps. No deadline was set during the public discussion.
The Chronicle Progress formally sought a copy of the proposed development agreement through an open records request made last week. But a city official said they were unsure it could be released to the public since it is incomplete and so far not approved by the city. A copy of the document was not received by press deadline Monday.
