Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

Four people who helped YouTuber “Reckless Ben” in American Fork last March sued the city and 13 of its police officers in federal court Wednesday.

The complaint says no one was charged with a crime.

The 52-page complaint, filed Oct. 14 in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, lists 19 counts. Plaintiffs Sheldon Norcross, Tyler Shaw, Sierra Lauts and Steven Allen allege officers violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights over four days. They seek a jury trial and damages.

The complaint often cites a recording of a meeting between Police Chief Cameron Paul, Mayor Brad Frost and resident Daniel Sroka, obtained by the American Fork Citizen.

When Sroka asked why police had arrested everyone at an Airbnb where officers served a March 11 search warrant (nothing illegal was found), Paul said detaining occupants during a search warrant “is almost always the norm, just because we don’t know who they are.”

Five weeks later, Paul told Sroka that detention combined with transport “in almost every case . . is going to turn into an arrest,” according to the complaint. The suit also quotes Paul calling the warrant affidavit “one of the biggest places where we screwed up.” The department’s own report to the state listed five arrests from the warrant service.

The plaintiffs were helping Ben Schneider in a dispute over a Star Wars Lego collection an Oregon family says a Bricks & Minifigs store never paid for. The company announced a settlement with the family in August. Schneider visited American Fork to serve an Oregon lawsuit to Joshua Johnson, a resident tied to the store.

Schneider, who is not named as a plaintiff in this case, still faces misdemeanor stalking and targeted residential picketing charges in 4th District Court. Prosecutors postponed a Sept. 30 preliminary hearing after saying they could not subpoena a witness and that both sides wanted time to “work on a potential resolution.” The preliminary hearing is now set for Dec. 16. Prosecutors dismissed unrelated Provo charges in September at their request “in the interest of justice.”

On March 8, officer Cole Richardson stopped Tyler Shaw for a stop-sign violation. Paul later said it “was clearly not one [a violation],” according to the suit. The next night, another officer stopped Shaw, said on his in-car camera, “I was gonna scare him a little bit and let him go,” and held him nearly two hours. Shaw’s blood alcohol level was .000, and a canine search turned up nothing.

On March 10, another plaintiff in the case, Sierra Lauts, was detained in her parked car while waiting to serve court papers and was told she was trespassing on property she says she never entered.

On March 11, officers seized plaintiff Sheldon Norcross’s phone after he declined to answer questions. “He stated he was not willing; therefore, I felt the best course of action was to seize his phone,” Richardson wrote. Officers said he was destroying evidence; Norcross said he was locking his phone screen. Norcross was held about four and a half hours and was released.

In August, Paul defended the officers. “We detained him for stalking issues. It wasn’t just that he was trying to lock his phone,” he said. “Now, I’ve seen the video. I don’t know necessarily what I would have done in that instance.”

Hours after Norcross’s arrest, officers served the warrant at an Airbnb for stolen Lego merchandise. AFPD officer Richardson swore the homeowner heard people inside talking about “possible stolen Lego toys that they had taken.” The plaintiffs call that accusation false. According to the complaint, officers entered with guns drawn, including a patrol rifle, and handcuffed all five occupants, among them a 16-year-old. The formal legal report from the warrant return reads: “No items seized.”

Paul also acknowledged errors in his May 29 video. “It certainly was not my trying to deceive or really do anything wrong whatsoever,” he said. “I just don’t know how to go back and correct that.”

“If a hammer needs to come down, we will make it come down because the trust of the public is more important than allowing an officer’s actions to be somewhat disregarded,” Paul said.

Frost said elected officials “typically aren’t prepped on everything that the police do” and rely on the department to flag problems.

In the recording, AF resident Sroka said he’d like to see “an outside third-party review, even if the police department is doing their own review.” Frost didn’t directly respond. “We can do better. We always can,” he said, but called it “a little myopic” to judge police oversight from a handful of cases.

Frost said he’s received as many as 800 hostile emails, some profane, from people he said: “don’t even live here.”

“I’m becoming a little cynical, and I don’t like it,” Frost said. “It’s 800 to one right now, and you’re the one.”

“There’s more than just me,” Sroka replied.

Since the allegations surfaced this spring, neither Frost nor any member of the City Council has made a public statement. Residents have repeatedly asked for an independent investigation in the public comment period of American Fork City Council meetings.

In his May 29 video, Paul said officers answered repeated calls from a resident who felt harassed, and that Schneider admitted to staging a fake package delivery.

“The fact that someone may believe they had been wronged financially does not exempt any individual from the laws governing harassment, trespassing, stalking or other conduct within our jurisdiction,” Paul said then.

“We are not anti-police, but we are anti-police corruption, and pro-accountability,” said the plaintiff’s lead attorney Solomon Radner.

The suit argues the city failed to train a young patrol force, quoting Paul that the average officer has one to two years on patrol. As far as the plaintiffs know, no officer has been disciplined, though Paul has said new training is in place.

American Fork declined to comment on pending or current litigation. The complaint contains allegations. No court has ruled on them.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork approved detached accessory dwelling rules Sept. 22, meeting an Oct. 1 state deadline while leaving parking, height and infrastructure questions for further discussion.

The City Council voted 4-0 at its last regularly scheduled meeting before the deadline. Members agreed to establish regulations now and consider changes after additional review.

Council member Tim Holley supported passing the ordinance while preserving the option to revise it.

“Then if we want to next month, we can amend it,” he said.

The ordinance opens American Fork to separate backyard residences, a housing option the city had not previously allowed. American Fork already permitted internal accessory apartments.

Lehi, which already allowed detached accessory dwellings, revised its rules in July. Both cities had to conform to the new state requirement.

Enacted through Senate Bill 284, the law takes effect Oct. 1 and requires covered municipalities to permit detached accessory dwelling units on lots of at least 11,000 square feet that contain a single-family home where that use is permitted. The dwellings must comply with applicable building, health and fire codes.

“This is something that is being required by the state,” Patrick O’Brien, American Fork’s development services director, told the council.

The mandate left officials deciding which local standards to adopt within the authority the Legislature preserved.

Mayor Brad Frost described the ordinance as a way of “at least carving out the things that are important to us.”

O’Brien warned that waiting could leave the city without restrictions it otherwise could impose.

“So I guess the default is, if we don’t put a restriction in place, there may not be a restriction, and that could open up some major problems for us,” he said.

City Attorney Heather Schriever emphasized that adopting the ordinance would not end the council’s work.

“It’s a living document. We can amend it,” she said.

Council member Ernie John asked whether the proposal offered a reasonable starting point while officials worked through remaining issues.

“So, is this a good start?” he asked.

“I think it’s a fair start, and it complies with the statutory requirement that we shall enact an ordinance,” Schriever replied.

American Fork homeowners seeking to build a detached backyard dwelling must have a lot of at least 11,000 square feet with an existing detached single-family home where that use is permitted. The new unit’s footprint cannot exceed 1,500 square feet or the main home’s footprint, whichever is smaller. It cannot stand taller than the main house or exceed 24 feet. Most side and rear setbacks must be at least 12 feet, increasing to 20 feet on the street-facing side of a corner lot. The unit and other accessory structures together cannot occupy more than 25% of the rear yard’s open space.

Units smaller than 650 square feet require one on-site parking space; larger units, including those measuring exactly 650 square feet, require two. Owners must live in either the main home or the accessory dwelling, cannot have a second accessory unit on the property and cannot rent the backyard dwelling for fewer than 90 consecutive days. Projects must also meet building, health and fire codes, have adequate utility service and capacity, and undergo review by the city’s Development Review Committee.

But council members wanted more discussion about how those standards would work in established neighborhoods.

Council member Staci Carroll questioned whether taller buildings should sit farther from property lines. John also raised concerns about placing a tall backyard dwelling among single-story houses.

“My concern was how it would fit in the neighborhood,” John said.

Council member Ryan Hunter sought further review of parking, including tandem spaces where one vehicle blocks another. O’Brien said that arrangement could encourage occupants to park on the street instead.

John questioned how additional households would affect water and sewer systems in older neighborhoods and whether the city would collect appropriate impact fees.

“How do we support the infrastructure?” he asked.

Those concerns remained part of the council’s follow-up work rather than reasons to postpone the ordinance beyond the state deadline.

Before moving for approval, Hunter requested a future discussion of parking, height and a potential impact-fee strategy. Holley seconded the motion, and Carroll and John joined them in voting yes.

“We can bring this back fairly quickly, I think,” Frost said.

O’Brien said actual applications could help identify provisions that need adjustment. If the rules created greater barriers than officials intended, staff could bring those problems back to the council.

“So if there’s changes that need to be made in six weeks’ time or in six months’ time, that’s something that we should consider,” he said.

Officials also questioned how quickly residents would pursue detached dwellings, given the cost of building a separate residence rather than converting space inside an existing home.

O’Brien did not anticipate a rush of applications, but he expected some projects would test the new regulations.

“We’ll probably have one or two test cases for sure, but we can work with people through that,” he said.

For the council, approval secured rules before Oct. 1 while preserving the opportunity to revise them.

“I’d like to see it come back then, maybe to work session,” John said.

Jennifer Thomas | American Fork Citizen

Kids with Disabilities Adventures, a local volunteer-run nonprofit, brings the joy of the outdoors and builds confidence in children with special needs through accessible fishing and hunting events.

Founded by brothers Mike and Kevin Pritchett, Kids with Disabilities Adventures works to ensure that physical and developmental challenges never stand in the way of an individual experiencing nature. What started over 37 years ago with a modest “fishing day” event for 16 children with disabilities at Payson Lakes has grown into a beloved community tradition.

The organization hosts signature events like the annual Kids Fishing Day at Salem Pond, alongside tailored, all-inclusive turkey hunts and big game guiding experiences.

By utilizing adaptive equipment and compassionate volunteer support, the group turns daunting outdoor environments into safe, welcoming spaces where participants can learn new skills and discover a profound sense of accomplishment.

These outdoor adventures also provide a powerful outlet for participants facing severe health battles—like Lehi resident Cru Morrison, who has spent the past year fighting osteosarcoma, a rare and aggressive bone cancer.

According to Kids with Disabilities Adventures, “Some battles change you, but some moments remind you just how strong you are.” That is exactly what a deer hunt adventure did for Morrison. “It fueled his strength to conquer something challenging, and that is pretty powerful,” said Mike Pritchett, founder and president of the organization.

Operating entirely on volunteer power, the organization relies heavily on community generosity, hands-on mentorship, and event sponsorships. The organization launched its first hunt alongside the legendary Doug Miller for his Outdoors Show. Today, Kids with Disabilities has appeared multiple times on KSL’s “Outdoors with Adam Eakle,” where the host accompanies the children on hunting adventures.

Programs are structured not just around catching a fish or tracking game, but around fostering peer connections, family memories and lasting self-esteem for every child who attends.

“One of the first outdoor adventures we planned was for a child whose parents were told that ‘the best thing to do was put the child in the state hospital,’” said Pritchett. “That hunting trip changed his life. He went from being someone people wanted to hospitalize to a confident family man with a job who now helps others.”

“These outdoor adventures give children confidence in everything from learning how to drive, to graduating from high school as well as helps them recognize their potential,” said Pritchett.

He added, “every single child has successfully completed every step of the program, from the hunter safety course to their final adventure experience.”

Since its founding, the organization has engaged thousands of young people through its annual fishing event and provided outdoor adventures for hundreds more.

While anyone can apply for an outdoor experience directly through the Kids with Disabilities website, the organization also connects with many participants through personal networks.

“We find many of our participants through personal connections. We love speaking with kids at our annual fishing event and hearing their stories at local hunting shows,” said Pritchett.

“Just last week, we crossed paths with an amazing family at Costco. After hearing their story, we invited their young boy to join us for our next outdoor adventure,” added Pritchett.

According to the Kids with Disabilities Adventures website, “Each team member shares a commitment to ensuring every child feels supported, empowered, and capable of exploring the wonders of nature. Together, we work tirelessly to bring joy, build confidence and create a welcoming environment where every child and family can thrive.”

For more information or to donate, please visit the Kids with Disabilities Adventures website at: https://kwdadventures.org/.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

The City Council voted Sept. 8 to sell city-owned land along 100 West for $1.4 million, a sale tied to the Chipman/Stake Center annexation.

The council approved the resolution with little discussion beyond a brief mix-up over the property’s address. They accepted an offer from buyers LeRoy Love and Devin Chipman under a real estate purchase contract and a second addendum negotiated alongside the roughly 24-acre annexation agreement.

City documents place the property near 700 South and 100 West, though the printed meeting agenda listed the annexation itself at 510 South 100 West. Council Member Tim Holley asked for clarification just before the vote.

“The address is 700 South, not 510 South,” Holley said.

Mayor Bradley Frost acknowledged the mix-up. City Administrator David Bunker told the council the annexation covers “a long strip from about 500 to 700,” with the two addresses reflecting different points along that stretch.

Council Member Ryan Hunter made the motion to approve the land sale, and Holley seconded it. Council Members Ernie John, Clark Taylor, Holley and Hunter each voted yes. Council Member Staci Carroll’s vote on this item was not clearly recorded before the meeting moved to the next agenda item.

The resolution’s own language does not agree on how many parcels are involved. Its preamble lists three Utah County parcels — 13:050:0262, 13:050:0263 and 13:066:0024 — but the section formally defining the “City Parcels” being sold lists only two, leaving out 13:050:0263. The underlying real estate purchase contract, signed by Love and Chipman in July, backs the three-parcel version, also listing 13:050:0263 among the property for sale.

That contract contains its own apparent error, though: It lists one parcel as 03:050:0262, not 13:050:0262, the number used everywhere else in the packet. Under the deal, Love and Chipman agree to dedicate portions of the property back to the city, without compensation, for future roadway improvements and protections along the American Fork River corridor, according to the resolution’s dedication covenant. The covenant is written to bind future owners to those obligations even after the land changes hands.

The resolution states that accepting the offer does not grant the buyers any vested development rights and does not itself approve the annexation. It also says that if the purchase agreement makes closing contingent on the annexation’s completion, city staff cannot close the sale until that condition is satisfied.

The council approved the annexation ordinance later in the same meeting on a 5-0 vote, placing the roughly 24-acre area in the city’s PR-3.0 zone. Before that vote, John said the annexation has come before the council “in a couple of different guises” over the past two years and thanked city staff for their work on it.

Frost is authorized under the resolution to sign the purchase agreement, the dedication covenant and any deed conveying the property. The city attorney may approve minor, non-material revisions to the closing paperwork, as long as those changes don’t change the purchase price or materially expand the city’s obligations, among other conditions.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork City Council members voted unanimously Sept. 8 to let a proposed extended-stay hotel build fewer parking stalls than city code requires, siding with the developer over the city’s own planning commission.

The project, known as American Fork Hotel, would rise at 714 South 600 East in the city’s GC-2 zone. Developer TGC Group wants to build a 122-room hotel under the Woodspring Suites brand with 129 parking stalls, a ratio of 1.06 stalls per room. City code calls for 1.25 stalls per room, or 153 stalls total.

Patrick O’Brien, with the city’s Development Services Department, told the council the applicant had not yet filed a formal land use application. Instead, the developer used a provision in city code that lets a property owner petition for a parking reduction early, before spending money on design work that could later be rejected.

“You are the final step in that process,” O’Brien said. “You make that ultimate determination of whether you think that reduction is something that is appropriate for that site.”

The city’s planning commission had already reviewed the request Aug. 19 and voted 5-2 to recommend denying it. Concerns raised there centered on oversized vehicles and trailers taking up extra space, along with comparisons to high-density housing where multiple cars per unit are common.

According to the planning commission’s Aug. 19 minutes, Commissioner Rodney Martin compared the project to the neighboring Holiday Inn, which he said has 120 stalls for its 80 rooms, a 1.5-to-1 ratio, and warned that under-parking the new hotel could push overflow onto nearby properties. Commissioner Geoff Dupaix said he was open to a compromise splitting the difference on the 24-stall gap between the applicant’s request and the city standard, though not as far as the developer wanted. An initial motion to recommend approval failed on a 3-4 vote before commissioners moved instead to recommend denial, which passed 5-2.

Back before the council, O’Brien addressed Martin’s trailer concern directly, saying it was not the kind of issue that could sink the request.

“It’s not something that’s codified that we have any control over,” O’Brien said, “but his main concern was someone traveling with a large vehicle towing a trailer, and they’re going to take up significant space.”

Council members largely disagreed with the planning commission’s overall assessment. Council member Tim Holley said neighboring cities already allow parking ratios closer to one stall per room.

“I think 1.25 seems like a lot,” Holley said. “I’d love to see this hotel come in there and be another business in the community.”

Councilmember Ryan Hunter pushed back harder, questioning whether the site plan left enough of a buffer if landscaping requirements later forced the loss of more stalls. He noted the 122-room hotel would be larger than the company’s typical property, which runs closer to 101 rooms.

“Very seldom does a hotel run at 100% occupancy,” Hunter said, adding he did not want the council’s approval “construed as, ‘Oh, now we go to a landscape evaluation,’” only to find the numbers no longer work.

Blake Heiman, representing TGC Group, told the council his company operates 41 hotels in 23 states with an average parking ratio near 1.08 stalls per room. He said newer projects under construction in five states use one-to-one parking or close to it.

“I will absolutely not be back here to ask for a further reduction,” Heiman said. He predicted actual demand would run below the cap regardless, telling council members, “I think we’ll average about 100 of the 129 stalls on any given night.”

Councilmember Staci Carroll told her colleagues she had not been able to review the planning commission’s minutes before the vote, having received them only hours before the meeting.

“I didn’t get the planning commission meeting minutes until later, like today,” Carroll said. “I would like an opportunity to look at their discussion.”

Despite not having reviewed the board’s full reasoning, Carroll said she was inclined to support the reduction. She also raised the possibility that extended-stay guests could bring more than one vehicle.

“I don’t have a lot of problems with reducing the parking,” Carroll said. “There seems to be some good explanation for why.”

O’Brien cautioned the council that a future, formal land use application would still require a traffic impact study to confirm the reduced parking would not push vehicles onto neighboring streets.

Council member Clark Taylor moved to approve the reduction to 129 stalls for the 122-room hotel. Council member Ernie John seconded the motion. It passed unanimously, with Holley, Carroll, Hunter, Taylor and John all voting yes.

The project still needs to clear a formal land use application and site plan review before construction can begin.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork City Council members voted 4-1 Aug. 25 to raise property taxes by 5.7% for the current fiscal year, scaling back an 8.7% increase the council had proposed two months earlier.

Council Member Staci Carroll made the motion to adopt the reduced rate, and Council Member Ernie John seconded it. Council Member Tim Holley cast the lone no vote. Council members Ryan Hunter, Clark Taylor, Carroll and John all voted yes.

The new rate raises the city’s general fund property tax revenue by $435,000, according to Finance Director Anna Montoya. That’s down from the $660,000 increase, or 8.7%, the council adopted in its interim budget June 23 and later put through a Truth in Taxation hearing Aug. 11, as state law requires whenever a city raises property taxes.

Montoya told the council the money is earmarked for one purpose. “This is approximately $33 per year for the average resident … and will be used for partial staffing of a new fire station,” she said, describing the original proposal before the council trimmed it.

City staff found roughly $100,000 in insurance premium savings after the interim budget passed in June, letting the council soften the increase without giving up the fire staffing plan. The revised budget also shifts $125,000 out of economic development funding, combining with the insurance savings to add $225,000 to fire department personnel costs.

Council members spent nearly 20 minutes debating the increase, and the discussion exposed a familiar tension between the city’s finances and residents’ own tightening budgets.

Taylor set the tone early, telling colleagues he opposed a tax increase when the council first discussed it earlier this year but had come around to the smaller number. “I’m not in love with it, but I am more in favor of the reduced, where we would have a 5.7% increase, which would amount to less than $2 a month for residents, us included,” he said.

John pointed to the city’s bond rating as a reason to avoid pulling money from reserves to cover fire station costs instead. “If we were to pull a continuing use out of reserves, that’s going to affect our bond rate,” he said. “That bond rate is really important to our city and could affect the residents down the road in terms of millions and millions of dollars.”

Carroll, who made the final motion, said the decision never gets easier, even when she agrees with the need behind it. “It’s never easy, even when you agree with the need,” she said, adding, “I think I might have to bite the bullet and do the 5.7% increase.”

Holley held to a position he had staked out over the summer, saying residents are already squeezed by rising costs across the board and pointing to his own city utility bill as an example. “I’m going to vote no for a tax increase this year, simply for the purpose of … we’re getting hammered. Residents are getting hammered,” he said. He also criticized how the city communicated the increase to the public. “I didn’t like the messaging around this tax increase about what it was funding,” he said.

Hunter argued for a different long-term approach, saying smaller, more frequent tax increases would spare residents the kind of large jump American Fork saw this year. He pointed back to a 2021 Truth in Taxation hearing where residents asked the city to avoid big, infrequent hikes.

After the tax rate passed, the council voted 5-0, with Holley joining the majority, to adopt the full fiscal year 2027 budget built around the new rate.

Mayor Brad Frost closed out months of budget work by thanking Montoya and city staff. “What started in February ends tonight, as far as just that process of the budgeting,” he said. “It’s really the most important thing we do. It sets priorities. … Anything that touches our citizens is going to be set forth in the budget, for the most part.”

The new tax rate, 0.001475, applies to the fiscal year that began July 1 and runs through June 30, 2027.

The chart shows one home’s effective tax rate over time in American Fork. The effective rate matters more to a homeowner than the nominal rate because it answers the real question people want to know: how much of my house’s value am I paying to the city each year? The nominal rate doesn’t fully answer that.

It’s calculated after a home’s taxable value has already been cut by 45% for a primary residence, and it can go up or down based on how much home values changed across the whole city, not just your home. That means your own tax bill could go up even while the nominal rate goes down, if your home’s value rose faster than the city average. Or your bill could go down even while the rate goes up, if your home’s value rose slower.

The effective rate skips all that confusion. It compares what you actually paid to what your home is actually worth, so you can see your true tax burden and compare it fairly from one year to the next. Anyone can figure out their own effective rate using the tax notice Utah County mails out each year. First, find the dollar amount listed for “American Fork City.” Second, find the “Full Market Value” listed for your home that same year. Third, divide the city dollar amount by the market value. Finally, multiply that number by 100 to turn it into a percentage. That percentage is your own effective rate, and you can do the same math for past years to see how it has changed over time.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork’s park strip tree ordinance, the one that threatened to put a 90-year-old man on trial over seven cherry trees, has a new author.

The City Council voted 5-0 on Sept. 8 to repeal Chapter 12.16 and replace it with a new chapter titled “Park Strips and Trees.” Council members Ryan Hunter, Ernie John, Clark Taylor, Tim Holley and Staci Carroll all voted yes.

The rewrite lands four months after the American Fork Citizen reported that Harry and Verna Gammon faced up to 90 days in jail or an $1,800 fine for planting trees based on an outdated guide they found through a Google search that led to an old PDF on the city’s domain. American Fork dropped the charges May 6, the day of the Gammons’ trial, and the city’s statement that day said the council had committed to reviewing the ordinance. The Sept. 8 vote is that review’s result, though no one named the Gammons.

Under the old code, no new trees could go into a park strip narrower than 8 feet. The rewrite loosens that: strips as narrow as 4 feet can take a small tree from the Approved Tree List, and 6-to-8-foot strips qualify for medium trees. Strips of 8 feet or more can still take a large tree.

The new code adds a grandfather clause the old one lacked: Trees “lawfully planted prior to the effective date of this ordinance may remain unless determined to be a hazard tree, nuisance tree, or otherwise required to be removed,” the ordinance states.

Derric Rykert, Community Services Director for the city, presented the rewrite for Urban Forester Brady McNaughton, who was absent, saying city attorney Heather Schriever had suggested starting over: “What if we just rewrite this thing? It’ll be more clean that way.” Planning Commission asked for one change first: measuring a tree’s location from the center of its trunk rather than its outer edge, “just in case it gets [bigger] as the tree grows.”

The new chapter requires the Approved and Prohibited Tree Lists to stay posted on the website going forward. That doesn’t address what tripped up the Gammons, though: a Google search, not a walk through the site’s menus, surfaced the old guide on the city website, which the city has since taken down. Council Member Ernie John tested the site’s navigation anyway. “I went to the city website to see. It’s not hard to find this on the city website,” John said. “You can go right to it with just three clicks and you’re there.”

Council members spent more time on enforcement than the ordinance’s text, led by Clark Taylor. He said the rewrite handles existing trees well, since old trees can stay unless they’re nuisance trees. “So I’m good to go forward with this,” Taylor said. But he called enforcement an unsolved problem well beyond trees, pointing to homes along 900 West, south of 700 South, where fenced yards back onto park strips filled with rocks that “look like trash.”

“None of them are coming over on the other side of their fence to clean that up,” he said. He described a similar stretch along North County Boulevard, past the developmental center and the temple, where a cinder block wall runs with no gates. “Who’s going to come all the way out and clean up that area? They’re not going to do it,” he said. Taylor said he’d still vote yes, since “there’s no change in what we’re doing that’s going to all of a sudden give us a light bulb for that,” but called enforcement his central concern.

“I don’t know how we make that work,” Taylor said. Staci Carroll agreed, saying the council had discussed at a work session that many homeowners likely don’t even realize the park strip behind their fence is their responsibility.

Assistant City Administrator Camden Bird said code enforcement plans education before citations. “The intent is that code enforcement would go through and could give them materials that have the findings and the facts and the information and set the expectations with them there, and it’d be a conversation,” Bird said.

Carroll, who made the motion to adopt the new chapter, said it at least gives residents and code enforcement a clearer starting point. “I think this provides a lot of clarity compared to where we were,” she said. “It’s just clear.”

Rykert agreed it won’t resolve every dispute. “It’s not going to fix everything,” he said, “but it is going to give us somewhere to start with the trees.”

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

A fight over a massive backyard structure on 900 West in American Fork is headed towards court. A Lehi homeowner, whose property is adjacent to the structure, told the American Fork City Council at its Sept. 8 meeting that he has retained an attorney and plans to seek an injunction. The city has responded by routing all further communication through its own attorney. This is the second announcement of legal action against the city this past month during the public comment period of a city council meeting.

The structure sits at 731 N 900 W, on a parcel the city’s Development Review Committee approved on April 6. City records list the building at 7,910 square feet of footprint and 11,146 square feet total, standing roughly 35 feet tall, compared to the single-story “rambler” homes that back up to it in American Fork and neighboring Lehi.

“The Rovig accessory structure was approved on April 6, 2026,” Dale Stewart, a Lehi resident whose backyard abuts the project, told the council Sept. 8. “Many of you have seen the news reports now on KSL and Fox 13 regarding the size of the structure and the undue negative impact it has created on the neighborhood.”

Stewart’s case turns largely on how the city measured the property’s required “rear yard,” the open space behind a home where accessory-building coverage is capped. American Fork code defines a rear yard as the space between a building’s rear outer wall and the closest opposite property line. But when Stewart called the city on Aug. 24 asking how the calculation was done, city planner Cody Opperman told him the city had measured from “the plane that’s flush with the front of the home, and anything behind that is rear yard,” using the front of the house, not its rear wall, as the starting point. The city approved the project in April with no side yard calculated at all, according to Stewart.

After Stewart raised the issue, Patrick O’Brien, director of development services for the city, acknowledged in an Aug. 25 email that a side yard needed to be calculated and sent a drawing showing the correct approach: measuring from the rear of the dwelling, not the front. But the drawing excluded part of the home’s attached addition, labeling it a “detached structure.” Stewart said the addition was attached, and O’Brien agreed after sending an inspector to confirm it. “They confirmed that it is attached,” O’Brien wrote back.

Using the full, attached dwelling, Stewart calculates the rear yard at roughly 28,181 square feet. The accessory structure’s 7,910-square-foot footprint is 28.1% of that space, which Stewart says exceeds the 25% cap set by Section 17.5.105(1)(f) of the city code. He also told the council the building’s height, including a decorative cupola, could reach 37.5 feet, exceeding the city’s 35-foot maximum.

City records suggest officials anticipated a dispute like this well before it arrived. At an Aug. 19, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, eight months before Rovig was approved, O’Brien told the commission a code-compliant building could still feel “out of place and create a sense of concern,” citing a different accessory structure that had “met all code requirements” yet still drew complaints. Mayor Frost said the city needed rules flexible enough “while preventing someone from building something disruptive.” He asked staff what steps it could take “to prevent serious issues like the one that occurred previously.”

Stewart also quoted O’Brien from a December 2023 meeting, saying an accessory building “should be considered something subservient. If we have something that is borderline two times the size of the primary structure, it challenges that role.” Stewart said the structure behind his home is three times the size of the primary residence.

“Mr. Mayor, you made a commitment to us that evening that you would review the matter and, quote, ‘make it right if the city made a mistake’,” Stewart said, referencing a visit Mayor Frost made to his home. “I’m asking you to follow through with that tonight. I have hired an attorney, and they will be seeking an injunction this week.”

The fallout arrived by email two days later. David Bunker, American Fork’s city administrator, wrote to Stewart and his attorney, Jeffrey Colemere of the Draper firm Colemere Gibbs & Stout, on Sept. 10, copying the mayor, the council and the city attorney. “With the notification you provided during the city council meeting on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, that you are seeking legal recourse regarding this issue, we respectfully request that all communication with the city shall proceed through our city attorney,” Bunker wrote. “Heather [city attorney Heather Schriever] will be the point of contact for all communications with you or Mr. Colemere.”

Stewart first raised the issue publicly at the council’s Aug. 25 meeting, two days after construction began, and local media reported on the dispute the next day.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork’s City Council voted 5-0 Sept. 8 to adopt an updated general plan, closing out a two-year rewrite that opened with a standing-room-only backlash and ended, on a Tuesday night, with barely 15 minutes of discussion.

Council Members Ryan Hunter, Ernie John, Staci Carroll, Tim Holley and Clark Taylor all voted yes. Mayor Brad Frost presided.

Development Services Director Patrick O’Brien told the council the update has been in the works since roughly the end of spring 2024. An early version reached the Planning Commission for a public hearing in February that drew about 350 residents, most of them objecting to a sweeping companion rezoning proposal tied to the plan.

The city walked back the bulk of that proposal by April, the American Fork Citizen reported at the time, after officials acknowledged an outside consultant had taken a broad-brush approach to citywide zoning changes that staff never intended.

“We’ve taken into consideration a significant amount of public comment,” O’Brien said Sept. 8. “We’ve walked back a huge amount of the changes that were being proposed.”

State law requires every Utah municipality to adopt a comprehensive general plan and typically update it every 10 to 15 years. Utah Code 10-20-401 sets the requirement. American Fork’s new document covers seven required elements, including land use, transportation, moderate income housing, parks and open space, water, historic preservation, and a new “development focus areas” component tied to economic development around the downtown core and the city’s commercial gateways.

O’Brien said the land use and transportation maps remain largely unchanged from the current plan, with growth projections and water planning driving most of the substantive updates. The plan also renames some residential zoning categories, replacing “single-family low density” and “single-family very low density” with “single-family detached,” a change O’Brien said gives the council more discretion on density when it considers future rezoning requests.

Before the vote, O’Brien flagged one correction the council needed to approve along with the broader document: a parcel south of 1100 South and east of Boat Harbor Road, identified as parcel number 13-067-0017, had been left showing as residential on the map by mistake. He asked the council to reclassify it for planned light industrial use instead, describing the sliver of land as too narrow to support a residential subdivision.

Council Member John moved to approve the plan with that parcel correction included. Council Member Carroll seconded the motion, and the roll call vote followed with no dissent.

John said the plan reflects long-running efforts to plan for the city’s water needs and eventual build-out. He recalled walking the city’s irrigation ditches with a former city engineer more than 20 years ago and being told American Fork would reach 40,000 residents by 2050, a benchmark the city is on pace to exceed years early. He also asked O’Brien directly whether the document meets the state’s requirements. O’Brien confirmed it does.

The general plan itself carries a project cost of $162,222, according to city budget documents, with the city’s share at $16,222, and the Mountainland Association of Governments covering the rest through a grant. O’Brien told the council that award was combined with funding for a related station-area planning project, bringing the full grant package to $222,000 and the city’s total match to $22,000.

O’Brien repeatedly called the plan “a living document,” one he said the city will revisit rather than shelve for another decade. Planning Commission members were told last month that staff intends to formally review the plan roughly every five years, or sooner if major developments or new state mandates demand it.

“As the city changes over time, we’ll look back into this document,” O’Brien told the council. “Are we moving in the correct direction? We’ll update it so we don’t end up in 15 years’ time saying this is nowhere near where we went, because the plan did not change with the changes that happened in the city.”

Staff Writer | American Fork Citizen

Construction on Huntsman Cancer Institute’s new Vineyard campus is beginning to rise above ground following months of site preparation and foundation work.

Institute leaders joined elected officials, donors, community partners and residents for a cornerstone celebration Sept. 1, marking the start of vertical construction on the future cancer care and research campus.

Crews have prepared the site, removed groundwater to allow excavation, and installed 830 deep foundation supports since the project broke ground in April 2025, Huntsman Cancer Institute said. Work will now shift toward construction of the building’s exterior structure.

The 284,000-square-foot campus will be built on 20 acres between Interstate 15 and Utah Lake. Plans call for a five-story clinical care building and a three-story research building connected by space for community engagement and education.

The first phase is expected to include multidisciplinary cancer clinics, radiation oncology, diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, infusion and pharmacy services, wellness and integrative health programs, cancer screenings and urgent care. Inpatient treatment and a surgery center are planned for a future phase.

Research and education will also be central to the Vineyard campus. Planned programs include clinical trials, computational oncology and data science, along with collaborations involving Utah Valley University, Brigham Young University and businesses in the Silicon Slopes area.

The site is adjacent to the Vineyard FrontRunner station and approximately 20 minutes from Provo Airport, providing transportation access for patients, employees and visitors throughout the region.

Huntsman Cancer Institute reported more than 52,000 patient visits in 2025 from Utah County and surrounding areas. Those patients traveled about 3.9 million miles—an estimated 86,000 hours of travel time—to receive care at the institute’s Salt Lake City facilities.

Officials estimate the Vineyard location could reduce that travel by approximately 1.1 million miles each year while bringing cancer treatment, research and support services closer to patients in central and southern Utah.

“Huntsman Cancer Institute in Vineyard is about much more than a new building,” institute CEO Bradley Cairns said during the celebration.

Vineyard Mayor Zack Stratton said the project represents the type of intentional growth that can strengthen the community for generations. He said it will improve access to cancer care, create jobs and contribute to a healthier future for area families.

The $400 million development is the largest single investment in Huntsman Cancer Institute’s history, according to the institute. The first phase is expected to create about 450 jobs in clinical care, research, administration and support services once it is fully operational.

Construction of the exterior structure is scheduled to begin this fall, with the building expected to be fully enclosed by summer 2027. That would allow interior construction and installation of major systems to proceed.

The facility is expected to receive its certificate of occupancy in June 2028 and welcome its first patients in September 2028.

Huntsman Cancer Institute is the National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center serving Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming. The Vineyard campus is intended to expand the institute’s reach across Utah and the wider Mountain West while providing additional training opportunities for future health care workers and researchers.