Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

A legal opinion dropped into the middle of American Fork’s PARC Tax Advisory Board review process is drawing scrutiny, not just for what it said, but for who it targeted.

City Attorney Heather Schriever raised federal Establishment Clause and Utah State Constitution No Aid Clause concerns during an April 15 PARC Tax Advisory Board meeting, calling into question whether public funds could be directed toward the Harrington Center for the Arts’ Living Bethlehem event.

Living Bethlehem is an immersive, 20‑minute theatrical experience at the Quail Cove Amphitheater. Guests walk through a recreated ancient Bethlehem, following a narrator and meeting characters such as a shepherd family and the angel Gabriel as they search the streets for the Christ Child and eventually arrive at a nativity scene. This custom scripted theatrical experience has over 150 volunteers, live animals and historically researched sets designed to resemble authentic ancient corrals that entertain about 8,000 visitors a year.

Schriever’s advice, delivered by phone partway through the committee’s deliberations, applied only to the Living Bethlehem event. No other organization in the 2026 funding cycle faced the same constitutional standard.

That asymmetry didn’t go unnoticed.

“This is the third year that this question has been posed by legal counsel, and I still don’t understand the rationale for it,” said Spencer Stevens, representing the Harrington Center. “We are not a church. We qualify as an arts and culture organization, so we are not seeking funding as a religious entity.”

What the attorney said

Schriever acknowledged during the call that federal courts have recently “loosened the reins” on what qualifies as an Establishment Clause violation, noting that if an event is not coercive and serves a secular purpose, it generally passes constitutional muster under U.S. law. But she argued Utah’s state constitution and case law remain “a little bit tighter,” and said the safer approach would be to restrict public funds to clearly secular portions of the festival.

“I just always think the safest thing is to say, hey, we’re going to use public money for this,” Schriever told the board. “Let’s find ways to allocate those public funds to the secular parts of the festival, as opposed to the religious parts of the festival.”

From Schriever’s comments and questions, she has not attended the event prior to offering that characterization. According to those present at the meeting, the attorney’s understanding of the event came entirely from questions posed to board members during the call and side conversations with City Council member Staci Carroll.

A scripted reenactment, not a worship service

What Schriever described as a “potentially religious festival” is, by the Harrington Center’s own framing, a scripted theatrical experience, closer in form to a stage production than a church service. Attendees make timed reservations, walk through scenes that include choir performances and live animals, and exit through the Christmas market. The event is part of a broader celebration that also includes Santa Claus, a holiday market, food trucks, a community stage featuring local dance and musical groups, and outdoor bonfires.

Stevens pushed back on the framing directly. “It is a play,” he told the board. “We do have actors. The story content is religious in nature, similar to other religious plays and songs performed by other artistic groups in this city.”

His point landed. Board member Hugh Johnson agreed. “I do see it as a play, culturally,” Johnson said, drawing a comparison to “Fiddler on the Roof,” and questioning whether the city’s caution amounted to overcorrection.

The selective standard

What Stevens and others found hardest to accept wasn’t the legal argument itself, it was the fact it was applied to one organization, mid-process, without warning.

“I don’t see her evaluating the artistic merit content of every artistic and cultural organization that’s an applicant here and saying, ‘If you say the word Jesus in a Christmas program, you cannot receive funding,’” Stevens said. “So I don’t understand the level, the threshold of legal review that this event is receiving versus the rest.”

PARC tax dollars have historically funded Christmas concerts in American Fork where religious pieces are performed or played. Past grants have supported productions like “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,” and the annual Steel Days art show has accepted and displayed artwork with overtly religious themes, all without triggering the same constitutional review. None of those applicants faced mid-cycle opinions from the city attorney.

Nothing in the rulebook covers this

The PARC Tax Policies and Procedures, in both the 2023 version and the February 2026 amendments, contain no language about religious content, constitutional limitations on funding faith-adjacent events, or any standard for evaluating the religious character of a cultural organization’s programming. The published criteria cover nonprofit status, qualifying operating expenses, arts and culture definitions, and funding priorities.

Nowhere do the policies mention the Establishment Clause. Nowhere do they mention the No Aid Clause of the Utah Constitution. There is no published framework that would have put any applicant on notice that the religious character of their programming could disqualify, or partially disqualify, a funding request.

Stevens raised exactly that point. “There’s a big question on why this concern keeps being raised, but not allowing us to actually address the merits of the legal arguments,” he said.

Ohio watched this movie last year

American Fork isn’t the first U.S. municipality to fumble this particular legal question. In October 2025, the city of Pataskala, Ohio denied local resident Susan Conley’s permit to set up a live nativity scene at a holiday-themed farmers market, allowing Santa Claus and other Christmas displays while singling out the religious content. First Liberty Institute fired off a demand letter arguing the move violated both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. Within days, Pataskala reversed course, allowing the nativity with a simple disclaimer that the city wasn’t officially endorsing it.

The lesson from Pataskala wasn’t that nativity scenes are unproblematic, it’s that selectively applying constitutional standards to religious expression, while waving through everything else at the same event, creates its own legal exposure. Singling out one applicant, or one display, tends to invite the very litigation officials are trying to avoid.

Committee navigates around the controversy

The board ultimately chose not to financially penalize the Harrington Center for a legal dispute it had no hand in creating. After discussion, members landed on a solution:

recommend $25,000 to Living Bethlehem, with language limiting those funds to the secular components, the Christmas market and winter community stage. To offset the portion the city attorney flagged, the board increased the Harrington Center’s Fork Fest allocation by $10,000, a separate event large enough to absorb the shift without disrupting the organization’s overall programming.

Board Chair Scott Okelberry framed the workaround plainly. “The big goal is that the community likes the event. We generally support it,” he said. “The attorney says we shouldn’t use public funds for the religious side. Spencer can debate that with her separately, and that’s fine.”

One board member said she didn’t want to risk losing the event to another city. “I would hate to have them think they have to take it to another city because we’re being sticklers about it,” she said. “I think it’s a benefit for this community.”

The vote to approve the full recommendations passed without dissent.

Questions that remain

What the committee could not resolve, and what the workaround cannot paper over, is a set of process failures with real consequences.

The city attorney’s opinion arrived mid-cycle, after Harrington had already completed the published application process in full. No policy put them on notice. No rubric warned them their programming might be evaluated on constitutional grounds. And the attorney never reached out to the organization directly, never attended the event, and never reviewed the scripted content of the reenactment before rendering a judgment about its religious character.
That’s not a small thing. The PARC grant process runs on clear, published criteria. Applicants invest time and resources preparing proposals against those criteria. Introducing a constitutional standard that exists nowhere in the published policies, applied to one applicant at the 11th hour based on a description of the event rather than direct knowledge of it, raises legitimate due process questions the board acknowledged but was not positioned to answer.

The committee did right by the Harrington Center in the final allocation. But the underlying question remains heading into the city council’s review: Why does Harrington keep facing a legal standard no other applicant encounters, and who gets to decide when that standard applies?

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork City has launched a free online utility dashboard giving residents a first-ever look at their pressurized irrigation usage, and the timing couldn’t be more critical. A historic snowpack collapse is threatening the city’s water supply just as state law pushes cities toward metered irrigation rates.

The dashboard is designed to get residents ahead of the change, not blindsided by it.

State law is driving the change

Metering pressurized irrigation and adopting metered rates isn’t a local policy choice, it’s a Utah State mandate. In 2022, the legislature passed HB 242, followed by SB 251 in 2023. Together, those bills produced Utah Code 73-10-34, which requires that all secondary pressurized connections across the state be metered by Jan. 1, 2030.

The law also requires that city rate structures account for three things: revenue stability, water conservation and cost of service. According to the Utah Division of Water Resources, hundreds of thousands of residential connections in Utah rely on secondary water for outdoor irrigation. Historically, most of those connections have been unmetered.

That matters because meters work. Research shows customers use less water when they pay based on actual consumption rather than a flat fee. Unmetered systems make it nearly impossible to track or reduce waste.

Why American Fork isn’t waiting until 2030

Although the state deadline is 2030, American Fork is moving sooner — for two reasons: drought and rising costs.

With 2026 shaping up to be one of the driest years on record, encouraging conservation is urgent. At the same time, material and construction costs have driven up what it takes to run and maintain the city’s irrigation system. Rate adjustments were already necessary to cover those costs, so city officials determined it made sense to complete the metered rate study and launch the new structure at the same time rather than asking residents to absorb two separate transitions.

How the new rate structure works

Residents will pay in two parts: a year-round base rate and a seasonal usage rate that runs April through October.

The base rate covers ongoing costs of operating and maintaining the PI system — costs that don’t stop when the water does. The seasonal usage rate is layered on top and is specifically designed to encourage conservation, as required by state law.

City council and staff have been working with water engineers to develop a tiered rate system that balances covering operational costs with rewarding conservation. What’s currently visible in the dashboard reflects proposed rates for 2026 through 2030. Those rates are not yet in effect and won’t impact any PI bill until the council formally votes to adopt them.

“The American Fork city council is currently discussing the best timeline for implementing these rates,” according to city communications. “They are weighing both the urgency of conservation and the need to fund system improvements against the desire to give residents time to learn and understand how the rate changes will impact them.”

The city will notify residents once a date is set for the approval vote.

Will my rates go up?

Probably, but not necessarily by as much as you might fear, and it depends heavily on how much PI water you use.

The new rate structure has two objectives: cover operational costs and reduce overwatering. On the first point, the city expects most bills to increase at least somewhat. On the second, residents who already use PI water conservatively should see little to no additional cost related to the conservation component.

The city is also planning for annual PI rate increases over the next five years, with the percentage of increase getting smaller each year. The adjustments are needed to fund essential repairs and system improvements planned over the next decade. Construction, labor and material costs continue to rise, and the rate structure is intended to keep pace with those realities.

How the dashboard helps

The utility portal lets residents see exactly where they stand before any rate takes effect. Accessing it takes about a minute: visit americanfork.gov, navigate to the utility billing section, and enter the phone number or email address on file with the city. The city sends a direct link to your inbox or phone.

From there, residents can view current and past bills, track culinary and pressurized irrigation water usage, and see how the proposed PI rate changes would affect their specific bill based on their 2025 consumption data. That last feature is the point, not an estimate, but a projection built from your own meter.

Council votes on irrigation share agreements

On March 24, the city council took formal action on a related matter that has frustrated some residents for years: a resolution governing shareholder discount agreements and long-term rental agreements for American Fork Irrigation company shares.

The vote was 4-0, with Council Member Ernie John absent. The resolution draws a clear line going forward: new shareholder agreements will no longer carry the same provisions that older agreements have held, but the council was equally clear that anyone already in the process would be protected.

City Attorney Heather Schriever read the protective language directly into the record before the motion.

“Any party that has initiated contract negotiations with either the city or the canal company before March 24th, 2026; those negotiations will be honored, completed, and finalized if agreed to by all parties,” she said.

Council Member Ryan Hunter, who acknowledged his own family is caught up in the same situation, made the motion and pushed to make the grandfathering provision explicit before the vote.

“I just want to make sure that we’re maintaining the integrity of the commitments that have been made for a couple decades now,” Hunter said. “If that’s the case, then I’m happy to make that motion.”

Mayor Brad Frost confirmed it was.

“Yes, that is the case,” Frost said. “Any agreements that are in place or any that have been in process, we will honor all of those agreements.” He noted the irrigation system has been in operation for 19 years, meaning several agreements have accumulated over that time.

A drought year unlike any other

The dashboard launch comes against a water supply backdrop that city leaders described at a March 31 work session as the worst in memory.

American Fork City water manager Jay detailed the numbers: the Provo River water allocation drawn through the Murdoch canal pipeline came in at just 50% this year, down from 100% in each of the past two years. That’s roughly 750 acre feet of water the city won’t receive. The American Fork River, which normally drives 65 to 70% of PI demand in a typical year, is already running low after one of the fastest snowpack collapses in the city’s 45 years of records.

Council Member Ernie John, who also oversees water operations with American Fork Irrgigation Company, said he’d never seen anything like it.

“In the 24 years that I’ve been doing this with Jay, we’ve never seen a year like this,” John said. “We were at 96% of year-to-date snow pack average on February 26. As of yesterday, we dropped to zero.”

Water rights prevent the city from capturing the early runoff — that water has to move downstream to Utah Lake. Running wells around the clock will help fill the gap, but staff estimates well electricity costs could hit $100,000 this summer if full operation continues.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

American Fork residents could see culinary water bills rise this summer for the first time in seven years. City staff recommend a one-time 12% increase for the fiscal year 2027 budget. Officials say it is overdue, citing rising infrastructure costs and the lack of a rate adjustment since 2019.

The proposal was presented at a March 17 city council work session and included in the city’s tentative budget released on May 6.

Culinary rates: the case for 12%

Finance Director Anna Montoya presented the numbers. The culinary water fund supports pipelines, wells, and treatment facilities. These deliver water to every home and business in American Fork. The fund is restricted: money that comes in stays in and is used only for the water system.

“We are recommending an increase based on our study,” Montoya said. “We are in need of some additional funding in our water fund.”

Council Member Staci Carroll noticed the gap while reviewing a fund trend chart and asked whether 2019 was the last rate hike. Montoya confirmed it.

“We have not raised water rates since then,” Montoya said. “It’s been quite a few years.”

The culinary fund faces substantial capital obligations. Next year’s projects include water line reconstruction on 100 East, 100 West, 200 West, 300 West, 600 West, and 700 North. Well rehabilitation is also planned. The 36-inch water line, completed in 2025, was among the most expensive recent projects. System depreciation is about $440,000 annually, regardless of new work.

Storm drain up, sewer down — net effect near zero

Staff proposed a $2 increase to the storm drain fee, supported by a rate study showing the fund needs additional revenue for capital projects. To offset the impact, Montoya recommended lowering the city’s sewer rate by $2 at the same time.

The math is intentional. Both are restricted funds that can’t share revenue. Offsets mean most residents would see little net change on their total utility bill from these two line items combined.

Montoya was direct about why the funds can’t simply borrow from each other.

“These are restricted funds,” she explained. “Revenue from water stays in the water fund. We can’t use it for another utility.”

Council Member Clark Taylor appreciated the transparency but wanted to ensure the sewer reduction wouldn’t cause future problems.

“I like giving back and absorbing some of this with the fund balance,” Taylor said, “but what about next year? Will we catch up and see even higher rates?”

Montoya said she’s comfortable with the sewer reduction, given the fund’s surplus over the past five to six years, and wouldn’t propose anything she’s not confident in. “I wouldn’t come back unless I felt comfortable absorbing this,” she said.

Sanitation fees held flat

Garbage and recycling contracts are increasing; city agreements limit increases to the lesser of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 3.5%. American Fork is absorbing these costs rather than passing them on to residents.

Recycling costs will increase by $1 per month under the contract terms. Instead of billing that through, Montoya recommended drawing on the sanitation fund balance to hold fees flat. As a result, there will be no change to resident garbage or recycling bills in the coming fiscal year.

What’s next

The city’s budget process runs through June. Staff presented a tentative budget at a May 6 public hearing. The final adoption vote is expected in June. If approved, the changes to the culinary water and storm drain fees would take effect at the start of the new fiscal year. As outlined in the 2027 Tentative Budget, the city is absorbing $6.46 in third-party utility fee increases: $5.46 for the Timpanogos sewer fee and $1 for garbage/recycling fees.

Pressurized irrigation rates will be addressed separately once the rate study wraps and the council settles on an implementation date.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

The legal ordeal is over for Harry and Verna Gammon.

American Fork City formally dropped all charges against the couple on May 6, the very day their trial was set to begin. City Administrator David Bunker personally delivered the news to the Gammons on May 1.

Council members Clark Taylor and Tim Holley had both advocated directly with city administration in the days leading up to the trial date, and their push, combined with growing public attention, accelerated what the city says was always its preference.

“The city’s priority remains observance and resolution, not punitive action,” American Fork City said in an official statement released May 4, two days before the scheduled court date.

Harry Gammon, 90, said he and his wife are very grateful. “I want to thank the city for dropping the charges,” he said. “I’m looking forward to a more positive relationship with the city going forward.”

The case drew sharp public criticism after the American Fork Citizen reported that the Gammons had planted seven miniature flowering cherry trees in their parking strip because of information from a document they found on what they believed was the city’s website.

A Class C misdemeanor citation followed, along with the prospect of up to 90 days in jail or a $1,800 fine. The couple spent nearly $1,000 on attorney fees before the charges were dropped.

City officials said the code enforcement officer worked diligently and patiently with the couple for 5 months before a citation was issued.

According to the city’s official statement, the case began in September 2025, when American Fork received an anonymous complaint that trees had been planted in a residential parking strip that didn’t meet current code requirements.

The city updated parking strip regulations in 2024 to address longstanding problems with tree roots damaging sidewalks and public infrastructure, and to manage limbs overhanging the public right-of-way. The updated code prohibits planting new trees in parking strips that are less than eight feet wide.

On the first visit with the homeowner, the city’s statement notes, the homeowner indicated the trees had been planted by their landscaper, who “should have known about the ordinance.” The Gammons told code enforcement they would look into coming into compliance.

On Oct. 8, 2025, the Gammons sent a formal letter to city officials. Harry hand-delivered it to the front desk of City Hall. To this day, it remains unaccounted for, and the city’s statement notes that no one on the Beautification Committee reported receiving it.

The Gammons had been clear about the document they found on the city’s website. In their October letter, they wrote: “When planning our landscaping, we consulted the city’s website for guidance and reviewed the ordinance that was publicly available at the time. Based on that information, our trees complied fully with city regulations.” They added, “Only after being informed of this new ordinance did we go hunting and discover, after some searching, that an updated ordinance existed, but it wasn’t easy to find. If the older version is still what appears first online, many residents could easily be misled, though no fault of their own.”

Even without a response from the city, the code enforcement officer chose not to act at the October follow-up visit, giving the Gammons additional time to find a solution.

By mid-December, during another follow-up visit, the Gammons showed code enforcement the document they had from the city’s website listing the types of trees allowed and said, based on that information, they were in compliance.

Here is where the city and the Gammons see things very differently.

The city’s statement describes the document as a 25-year-old PDF created by a former Beautification Committee, “not part of the City’s official website, adopted code, or online code portal,” the statement said, noting it was only accessible through external search results. The city said it was previously unaware that the document remained findable online and has since removed it.

But the URL the Gammons accessed, americanfork.gov/DocumentCenter/View/516, uses the city’s domain name and resides within the city’s Document Center. Whether that makes it an official city document is a distinction the city has drawn clearly; whether residents accessing a document at americanfork.gov could reasonably be expected to draw that same distinction is a harder question.

According to the official city minutes on November 27, 2001, “Beautification Committee members worked with Brook Lee of the State Forestry Division and Kevin Bennett, our City Attorney, to develop acceptable guidelines that would motivate citizens to participate in proper planting and maintenance of trees in park strips. The “Street Tree Selection Guide” was published this summer, and copies were placed at City Hall, Public Works, and the Library so residents would have easy access to the information. The guide was also included on the City website for reference. We received many positive comments about the Guide and might expand to offer it through nurseries, realtors and other useful locations next year.”

With no resolution reached and the trees still in place, code enforcement issued a formal citation on Jan. 16, 2026. The city expressed support for the officer involved, noting he had extended multiple opportunities for compliance over five months. “Ultimately,” the statement read, “the property owners decided not to remove the trees, and the code enforcement officer was required to cite the property owner for non-compliance.”

In the May 4 statement, the city wrote, “Even though the document cited by the homeowner was not on any of the city’s webpages or an official document of the city,” the statement said, “the city is willing to work in good faith with the homeowner to clear up the misunderstanding, including efforts to dismiss the citation.”

That effort concluded May 6 when the charges were formally dropped.

The fate of the seven cherry trees remains unresolved. They are still considered non-compliant under the current city code, and the city says it will continue working with the Gammons to find a mutually agreeable outcome.

The city statement mentioned the city council has committed to reviewing the existing parking strip ordinance, weighing residents’ desire for trees against the city’s responsibility to protect public infrastructure and manage liability.

The case exposed a gap between how residents search for city information and what the city considers authoritative. American Fork is now encouraging residents to go directly to americanfork.gov/trees under the “Recommended Trees” section. Residents with questions can email [email protected], call 801-763-3000 during business hours, or use Yoppify, the chatbot on the city’s website, where, the city notes, a real person answers every message.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

The process of rewriting American Fork’s municipal code is heading back to square one — at least in part. During a March 31 work session, it was revealed that a consultant hired earlier to modernize the city’s development regulations had drifted well beyond the City Council’s intentions. As a result, the Council directed that many proposed changes be stripped back to align with the current code.

While the March 31 work session produced no vote or public comment, it clarified just how far the code rewrite had drifted from its purpose. Residents preparing for the May public comment period must still rely on the same draft presented at February’s Planning Commission hearing—no new draft has been published.

What the rewrite was supposed to do

The overall consensus among city leaders and residents is that American Fork’s municipal code is overdue for an overhaul. Some sections date to the 1980s. References to building standards long since replaced by state adoption of the International Building Code remain embedded in the document. Definitions for terms used daily in planning decisions are absent entirely.

“The main point at the beginning of the project was just trying to bring our code into modern times,” O’Brien said. “It’s from the 80s. None of our planning staff were even born when some of the sections of the code were written.”

Mayor Brad Frost said the main goal was to make the code understandable to those without technical backgrounds. It should clearly communicate requirements to anyone building or starting a project.

Council Member Clark Taylor put it similarly: the layman should be able to read it as American Fork residents can the city’s transit-oriented development code. “What we intended when we went in should be legible to anyone,” he said.

Where things shifted

Code consultant and former City Attorney, Cherylyn Egner, opened the March 31 discussion by asking the council a pointed question: What exactly do you want from this rewrite?

“I know that seems like a silly question to be asking now,” she said, “but it seems like there’s been some different perspectives that have been brought forward.”

Egner explained that the original scope included not just reorganization, but modest alignment with neighboring communities’ standards — setbacks, building heights and similar technical benchmarks. American Fork’s side-yard setbacks, for example, sit at 8 feet. Most neighboring cities require 10. The draft code reflected that shift.

The February hearing shifted the situation: residents firmly opposed any perceived changes to residential standards, prompting the council to respond decisively—reorganize and clarify, but keep the numbers unchanged.

“Sounds like the city likes what it has, as far as the standards, setbacks, building heights, that type of stuff,” Egner said. “We just want to leave that alone for now.”

Taylor added an important distinction: if the council wants to revisit those standards in the future, the rewrite’s cleaner structure will make that easier — not harder. “We have what we have today,” Council Member Ernie John said. “If we make a change down the road, we go and change it here.”

What the rewrite has accomplished

Despite the course correction, both Egner and O’Brien said the rewrite has achieved meaningful housekeeping that the city has needed for years.

About 30 pages of outdated building code references have been removed — sections that referenced standards the state supplanted years ago. When the city formally adopts a new version of the International Building Code, those provisions will now update automatically rather than requiring separate city action.

Definitions have been added for terms the current code leaves undefined. “We use the word every single day,” O’Brien said of one such term. “What does it really mean? According to our code, it doesn’t even have a meaning.” Fragmented processes — commercial site plan review, for example, currently scattered across three sections of code with one dead end — have been consolidated into single, navigable pathways.

“It streamlines it a lot,” Egner said. “It’s going to make it more user-friendly — even developers struggled with the current code.”

Egner also noted that some changes flagged by engineering and development services staff as critical operational fixes would still move forward — things that have caused real-world problems in the field — but those would be clearly identified so council members know where the code departs from current practice.

What residents still can’t see

The most immediate concern for residents is what hasn’t been published. The city has not released an updated draft of the code rewrite since the February hearing. Those planning to engage during the public comment period ahead of the May 20 open house are, at this point, reviewing a document that the council has since directed to be significantly revised.

Council Member Carroll said the current code is difficult enough to navigate that meaningful public review requires a readable, organized version to exist first. “It’s super hard to have a logical conversation” with the existing structure, she said — which is precisely the problem the rewrite was meant to solve.

Egner said her team would work through the revisions, flagging state-mandated procedural changes — such as appeals processes and approval workflows — separately from any substantive policy choices. The goal is a clean document that makes clear what changed, what stayed and why, before it goes to the Planning Commission on April 15.

What comes next

On April 15, the Planning Commission reviewed the code rewrite, general plan, and zoning map. On May 20, a public open house will allow residents to review materials and speak with staff. The Planning Commission is scheduled to vote on June 17, and the City Council will vote on June 23.

Residents can contact the city at [email protected] or visit americanfork.gov with questions. As of now, the city has not published an updated draft of the code rewrite for public review.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

A sprawling American Fork rezoning proposal that sent hundreds of residents crowding into city hall last February has nearly been scrapped. What remains from the proposal is a pair of targeted changes — one near the hospital, one along State Street — and a city that spent two March work sessions accounting for how the original proposal went so far off course.

City staff and council members met March 17 to work through proposed zoning map amendments and a general plan update. No public comment was taken and no vote was held. What emerged was a dramatically narrowed scope and unusually candid admissions about the role a grant-funded outside consultant played in producing a proposal the city wasn’t ready to stand behind.

“That zoning map that we had proposed initially, we scrapped it,” Development Services Director Patrick O’Brien told the council. “It’s done with. We’re not even remotely near moving forward with that.”

The original proposal, which sparked the standing-room-only February public hearing before the Planning Commission, recommended rezoning broad swaths of the city — including residential zones — in ways residents said threatened property rights and neighborhood character.

Two areas, two changes

According to a zoning map document released March 16, only two areas remain under consideration.

The first sits north of American Fork Hospital along the Professional Office-1 zone. The proposal would square out that zone’s boundary by reclassifying a handful of residential lots into PO-1 on the South side of 300 North, East of North County Blvd. Homeowners would not be forced to leave. “Residences can stay as long as they want,” the city’s document states, “but when they sell, someone could keep it as a house or convert use for healthcare business uses.”

Mayor Brad Frost addressed concerns that residents in that area (near the hospital) had been told that the zoning would be otherwise. “If you currently have a house in that little spot or anywhere, you’re grandfathered in,” he said. “The only time that would change is if the use changed.” Under state law and city code, that protection does not extend to a neighbor’s property — meaning a homeowner who never sells could become a residential island as surrounding lots convert to office use one by one.

Council Member Ryan Hunter said most residents he’d spoken with near that corridor were on the North side of 300 North, worried their street view would shift from houses to medical offices.

The second change targets the eastern gateway along State Street near 500 East — the corridor running toward Pleasant Grove near what used to be Big Lots and VASA Fitness. The city proposes replacing some General Commercial-1 zoning with General Commercial-2, pushing out large-footprint warehouse and distribution uses in favor of customer-facing retail and restaurants along the primary frontage.

“State Street is what we would envision as being a primary frontage street,” O’Brien said. “It makes better sense to activate pads, have more customer-generated retail, rather than large distribution or warehouse-type spaces there.”

The city’s own document put it plainly: “Most all other changes that had been proposed have been removed, restoring most everything to the current zoning maps.”

How a grant — and a deadline — shaped the original proposal

The general plan update was funded in part by a grant from Mountainland Association of Governments, the regional planning body that covers northern Utah County. MAG contracted with an outside planning consultant to produce the plan — and, O’Brien acknowledged at the March 17 session, the relationship became strained between the American Fork City planning department and the outside planning consultant.

“We gave significant feedback on it, and a lot of the stuff was not updated on numerous versions,” O’Brien said. “A little bit of burnout on being ignored, on getting those elements updated, while still being on a little bit of a timeline because funding is running out. MAG, who helped with the funding for the project, are like, we want to wrap this up as well. We need to get you close to the finish line. You’re already two funding cycles behind now.”

By March 31, O’Brien told the council that MAG was still applying pressure. “MAG are telling us they want it wrapped up because it’s still an open project on their books,” he said. “Until there’s an ordinance in place, they envision it as an incomplete, funded project.”

That pressure is notable given that Mayor Frost serves as vice chair of the MAG board — the same body whose funding deadlines O’Brien cited as a contributing factor in the rush that produced the original proposal.

Council Member Ryan Hunter offered his own read on what went wrong with the consultant’s work. “My interpretation is they were taking liberties to say we’re going to paint with a broom instead of a fine, detailed paint brush,” he said. “And therefore, we have wholesale swaths of city that were impacted. That was not necessarily staff’s intent.”

O’Brien didn’t dispute it. “There’s an element of that for sure,” he said, adding: “I apologize. I know you all got hit up heavily on that one. That’s something I need to take ownership of. There was a lot of things that could have been done better as we worked with our consultant team.”

Council Member Ernie John said he had found “several huge issues, misstatements” in the consultant’s draft that city staff would have caught. Council Member Staci Carroll captured the confusion many residents shared. “If I’m confused, certainly I can’t expect other people who aren’t sitting in every meeting to not be a little bit confused,” she said.

General plan: still a work in progress

The general plan — a long-range document guiding land use, transportation and growth over the next 10 to 15 years — remains incomplete. At the March 31 work session, staff showed the council a proposed land use map.

Council members Carrol and Taylor flagged several apparent errors on the map — a 30-acre park in the wrong location, residential home lots being shown between the frontrunner station and I-15, the sewer plant rendered as commercial versus a civic use, and other errors noted. Council member Carrol followed up with a few questions, “Can I just feel confident that this is not the map? I don’t need to sit and vet every street from this map, correct?”

“There is no final map yet,” O’Brien responded. “I decided to get some input from council before we move forward with this.”

No corrected version has been officially released. As of this writing, the only document the city has published is the five-page March 16 zoning map presentation. No general plan text, no updated land use map and no revised code draft have been made available ahead of the May public input period.

General plan update timeline

City Manager David Bunker laid out the timeline for the new general plan at the March 17 session. The Planning Commission will hold a work session April 15. On May 20, the city will host a public open house where residents can review materials, speak with staff and submit input. A Planning Commission vote is set for June 17, followed by a City Council vote June 23.
“We will also have to give another notice to the public to make sure that they all are aware that the city code changes are broadcast to the public, and we can get input on that,” Bunker said.

April Slaughter | American Fork Citizen

A new facility under construction in Lehi aims to redefine women’s recovery after childbirth and surgery by offering extended stays and rarely available post-hospital support.

Levata, a 38,000-square-foot retreat designed for postpartum and surgical recovery, is currently being built in a residential area of Lehi. Crews have completed the foundation and are now framing the structure, according to co-founder Amber Packer.

A groundbreaking ceremony for Levata was held in January 2026, marking the start of construction on the two-story facility. The center is expected to open early in 2027.

The facility serves two groups: new mothers recovering after childbirth and women healing from surgery. It offers medical support and extended recovery in a setting focused on rest and education.

Levata departs from traditional short hospital stays by offering longer, structured recovery periods.

The second floor of the facility will be dedicated to postpartum care, featuring private suites, a professional nursery, gathering spaces and amenities such as dining areas, physical therapy space and optional spa services. The design is intended to allow mothers to remain with their newborns while also having access to support when rest is needed.

For Packer, the idea for Levata grew out of her own postpartum experience.

“We chose this location because it is in a residential neighborhood, which offers a cozier feel,” she said. “We are also conveniently located near Common Spirit Holy Cross Hospital, Lehi Intermountain InstaCare, and just across the freeway from the new Primary Children’s Hospital.”

She added that Utah County’s high birth rate made Lehi a natural location for the project.

Stays at Levata include a private suite, meals and a 24/7 staffed nursery where trained caregivers assist with newborn care, including feeding support.

On-site lactation consultants and mental health support are also available, reflecting a focus on both physical and emotional recovery.

“I think the biggest thing is just having someone there to help,” said a Lehi mother who asked to remain anonymous. “You go home, and suddenly it’s all on you. Even having a few hours of real rest would have made a huge difference.”

In addition to postpartum care, Levata will include a separate surgical recovery floor. This area is intended for women recovering from procedures such as cosmetic, reconstructive or orthopedic surgeries, as well as other treatments requiring extended healing time.

Patients are expected to receive monitoring and assistance throughout recovery. Specific details about medical oversight are still being finalized.

“Our primary goal is to provide comfort and education,” Packer said.

The project comes at a time when postpartum care has become a growing topic of discussion nationwide, with many women reporting limited support once they return home from the hospital. Levata’s model seeks to address that gap by offering a structured environment where recovery can unfold over a longer period.

The cost of a stay has not yet been finalized. Packer said the goal is to keep services as affordable as possible while maintaining a high level of care.

Packer said the company does not currently offer insurance coverage for these services but is exploring it in the future. For now, the focus remains on completing the Lehi facility and serving local families.

While Levata’s long-term influence remains uncertain, the project represents a new approach to women’s recovery.

By: Elizabeth Spencer

American Fork Citizen

The Miss American Fork organization invites young women to an open house for its 85th anniversary pageant. More than just a pageant, the event offers opportunities for growth, confidence and friendship.

Dorinda Ledkins has been involved in the Miss American Fork Program for 12 years, with this year marking her sixth as director. Reflecting on her time with the program, she shared, “I still remember my first year helping with the pageant, watching young women walk into orientation feeling nervous and uncertain. By the time competition night arrived, they stood on stage, brave and confident. Seeing that transformation is one of the most rewarding parts of this program.”

Participants commit to weekly workshops where they learn skills such as walking, posing, interviewing and answering on-stage questions. These experiences help young women grow not only as competitors but also as confident individuals prepared for future opportunities. Each participant chooses a community service initiative, allowing them to serve the community and raise awareness for causes important to them.

Current Miss AF Whitney Wilkins grew up seeing advertising for the program around the community, but it wasn’t on her radar to participate since she returned home from an LDS mission just months before the competition.

“A friend reached out and shared the information with me. I didn’t think I was a ‘pageant girl,’ but I kept thinking about it and felt like I should do it,” shared Wilkins. “I was excited to be involved in the community, do lots of service and push myself out of my comfort zone. I knew it would help me practice interview skills, get back into dance and strengthen my confidence.”

Wilkins’ favorite week of the entire year was Steel Days. As Miss AF, she participated in numerous events. “We got to cruise around in old cars, perform our talents, be in the parade and even be on the news. I also played in so many of the fun tournaments, shared about my community service initiative, and met the cutest little girls at Tea with the Queen.”

During her time as Miss AF, Wilkins learned to work with city leaders, find sponsors and connect with the community. She also enjoyed helping at school carnivals, ribbon-cuttings and trick-or-treating on Main Street on Halloween. In November, Wilkins hosted a talent show at the senior center. “I love getting to see the light I can bring people through service.”

Serving in American Fork City placed Wilkins in the public spotlight, where younger eyes were also watching. “Seeing how little girls look up to you as a real-life princess is such an honor and tender experience.”

“Even just competing for Miss American Fork is so fun. You get to learn so many valuable skills that will bless the rest of your life. I have learned interview techniques, received scholarships and made networking connections that will help me long after this competition is over. It is also so fun to see how much the participants grow in their confidence and communication abilities,” shared Wilkins.

“One of my favorite things to say is, ‘Not everyone leaves with a crown, but they all leave with a new version of themselves,’” Ledkins said. “The Miss American Fork Program is about so much more than a title: it is about growth, confidence and discovering potential.”

“Being part of the Miss America Program is more than a beauty pageant; it is grounded in community service and lifelong success,” Wilkins shared.

Miss AF and her attendants receive scholarship money and will represent American Fork throughout the year, participating in Steel Days activities and various community events. The new Miss AFwill also have the opportunity to compete at Miss Utah 2027, where she will join a sisterhood of city queens from across the state.

“It truly is an inspiring program, and I hope more American Fork girls will come learn about it. It is an experience that can truly change their lives,” concluded Ledkins.

“Your year as Miss American Fork is truly what you make of it and what you want to be involved in,” said Wilkins.

Young women ages 17-27 interested in competing are invited to attend the open house on Saturday, March 28, from 1-4 p.m. at Fox Hollow Golf Club (1400 N. 200 E.). The event gives girls a chance to meet the Miss AF Committee, connect with other participants, and learn everything they need to know about joining the Miss American Fork Pageant. The open house is a friendly, low-pressure environment designed to share what the program offers. The Miss AF Pageant will be held June 27 at 7 p.m. at American Fork Junior High (20 W. 1120 N.). For more information about the program, text 801-636-4204 or email [email protected].

STAFF WRITER | American Fork Citizen

As part of our commitment to keeping voters informed, the American Fork Citizen invited candidates in contested Republican races appearing at the upcoming county convention to participate in a candidate profile by responding to the same three questions.

By asking identical questions, we aim to provide voters with a clear and consistent way to compare each candidate’s priorities, experience, and vision for our community. The profiles below include the responses we received by our publication deadline.

Here are the questions candidates were asked:

Why are you running for public office?

What are your top priorities if elected?

What separates you from other candidates?

If any of these convention races advance to a primary election, the Lehi Free Press will provide additional coverage during the primary cycle, May through June. Contested races for the general election will be covered in the September through October period.

For Seat A, Nate Helper and Renee Tribe did not provide a response prior to the print deadline.

For Seat B, Carolina Herrin, David Spencer, Tom Westmoreland, Truman Van Cott and William Brimley did not provide a response prior to the print deadline. Brian Voeks withdrew his candidacy.

CANDIDATE PROFILES SEAT A

Brent Bowles

I am running to bring fiscal responsibility back to Utah County government.

Commissioner salaries have increased from $111,000 in 2019 to $168,000 in 2025. During 2024–2025, more than twenty new staff members were added, along with the hiring of a County Administrator — creating another layer of bureaucracy between citizens and elected officials.

Instead of identifying areas to reduce spending, the county has increased taxes. Meanwhile, as cities expand their boundaries and county jurisdiction shrinks, county staffing continues to grow. When I asked why, I received no clear answer.

Utah County is also experiencing rapid growth, including increased high-density housing, without adequate infrastructure in place — including water, roads, utilities, and emergency services.

I propose a five-member, part-time commission. Salaries would be reduced to $60,000 per year, with representation from the North, South, East, West, and one at-large commissioner. This change would generate immediate savings of approximately $250,000 per year.

I am not running for a paycheck. I am running to restore the principle of public service.

During my nine years as a Homeowners Association President, I helped move our finances from long-standing debt to a stable position without increasing dues. I have volunteered countless hours in the community, worked with local officials, and followed a strict budget grounded in fiscal responsibility.

I retired after 23 years in firefighting and have operated my own independent anesthesia practice for 18 years. Having worked in both the public and private sectors, I understand the responsibilities and challenges of each.

My wife, Cindy, and I have lived in Utah County for 30 years. It has been a wonderful place to raise our children. As farmland continues to be sold and high-density housing expands, I believe we risk losing the family-centered lifestyle that has long defined Utah County. This deeply concerns me and is another reason I am running for County Commissioner.

Larry Evans

Having been raised in Utah County, I deeply appreciate the quality of life established here and am committed to ensuring our way of life continues for generations. Utah County faces important social issues that require thoughtful attention and a clear plan of action. My decision to run for public office stems from a desire to bring my perspective and unique experiences to address these challenges. My priorities include making the Commissioner’s office more accessible and responsive to residents, ensuring efficient and economical county operations, working collaboratively with city leaders for controlled growth, and introducing fresh ideas to county government. I believe that by listening to the community and fostering open communication, we can build a stronger, more vibrant Utah County. My goal is to serve with integrity, transparency, and dedication, always putting the needs of our citizens first and striving to preserve the values that make Utah County special.

With 40 years in Law Enforcement, I’ve developed skills in conflict resolution, problem solving, and crisis intervention. As Regional Administrator for Adult Probation and Parole, I supervised offices in Utah, Wasatch, Juab, and Millard counties, gaining experience in managing budgets, resolving personnel issues, and building partnerships with allied agencies. I am adept at effective interpersonal communication and leadership. Currently, I serve on the Utah State Retirement Board and have taught at Utah Valley University for 12 years as an Adjunct Professor. These roles have prepared me to address complex challenges and work collaboratively for Utah County residents.

Raising my family in Utah County has been a joy. I love hiking, running marathons, music, and travel. Patriotism and service are central to my life. Watching my grandchildren thrive here inspires me to give back and help ensure a vibrant, supportive community for future generations. My candidacy is an offer of service to the residents of Utah County, not a job application for a political career—I am committed to serving our community with integrity and dedication.

Christopher Forbush

I’m running for County Commission Seat A because I believe the county has a clear opportunity to hit the brakes on tax increases and improve administrative responsibility and efficiency, and I’m here for it. In recent years, the outgoing commissioner of this seat made significant budgetary missteps: (1) commissioner salaries rose 43%, from $119,000 to a staggering $170,000 annually in less than 5 years. (2) Commission-related positions exploded from 6 to 23, many unnecessary, costing taxpayers additional hundreds of thousands. (3) Failure to join the county to the Indigent Aggravated Murder Defense Fund, leaving taxpayers responsible for millions in capital case costs like the Charlie Kirk murder case. Meanwhile the commission tapped taxpayers – imposed a 48% tax increase for 2025, still here in 2026. I see opportunities to cut costs (priorities: lower commissioner salaries, eliminate commission-related staff positions) and allocate resources more efficiently to better benefit our county community.

I am currently the Vice Chair of the Utah County Board of Adjustment. I’ve served on this board in a quasi-judicial capacity for 4 years since being appointed. More importantly, I’m an attorney that has made a career of conducting corporate investigations, including at Amazon, and litigating cases involving breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and breach of contract. The county commission needs another commissioner that can look at the county budget with meaningful scrutiny and will seek to maximize the taxpayer benefit from every tax dollar. I will do that.

I was born in Payson to a police officer dad and a musician mom. I served an LDS mission to Brazil. I enjoyed 8 years at BYU where I earned my law degree in 2015. During undergrad I owned a fitness company that I exited to pursue law school. I met my wife soon after law school. We have two children. Beyond the law, I was a professor of golf at UVU for 2 years.

Taylor Fox

I chose to run for Utah County Commissioner because I believe in a government that prioritizes transparency, fiscal responsibility, and the well-being of families over bureaucracy. I recognize that many residents feel disconnected from decision-making processes, and I am committed to bridging that gap to restore trust in our county’s management of resources. My top priorities include: (1) ensuring responsible budgeting and sustainable financial practices, (2) fostering transparency and enhancing public access to county decisions, (3) promoting strategic growth and infrastructure development that safeguards our quality of life, and (4) implementing policies that prioritize families and support local businesses. As Utah County continues to grow, we need thoughtful leadership that plans wisely while also being accountable to taxpayers. 

My unique blend of private-sector experience and public-facing communication equips me with a distinct advantage. As a program manager at BYU and an entrepreneur, I am adept at managing projects, budgets, and stakeholder relationships. I approach challenges with a problem-solving mindset, focusing on efficiency and tangible solutions. My hands-on experience collaborating with students, customers, and community members has enhanced my ability to listen, communicate effectively, and ensure follow-through—skills essential for successful county leadership.

My name is Taylor Fox. I am a husband, father of three, small-business owner, true-blooded Utahn, and American. I care deeply about responsible government and the long-term strength of Utah County. I am running to bring practical problem-solving, transparency, and a family-focused perspective to county leadership.

Michelle Kafusi

This race isn’t about a title; it’s about putting my commitment and experience to work providing steady, principled, and reasonable leadership on the Utah County Commission.  I’m running because this is home – where I’ve raised my family, worshiped with neighbors, and learned the value of caring for one another.

Government should live within its means, respect local control, and make decisions the way families do – with a limited budget, common sense, honesty, and an eye toward the future. My years as Mayor of Provo taught me that real leadership means bringing people together to solve problems, while staying true to conservative principles.

Utah County is special because of hardworking, faith-filled families who serve without hesitation. I’m running to be a steady conservative voice for them: supporting law enforcement, strengthening our economy, protecting natural resources, and planning responsibly for growth to preserve our way of life for future generations.

I bring proven executive leadership.  Having served two terms as the mayor of Utah County’s largest city, I have significant experience – Running efficient government, Managing long-term investments, Leading multiple departments, Dealing with public safety issues, Understanding and coordinating transportation needs, and Making the tough decisions necessary to balance complex budgets.  I believe deeply in small, efficient government, strong public safety, and well-managed growth that strengthens, not strains, our communities. Putting these values into practice is much more difficult than just talking about them.  Utah County doesn’t need on-the-job training. It needs steady, experienced leadership from day one.

I was raised in Provo by a single mother who worked graveyard shift to put food on the table. We didn’t look to government to solve problems – we worked harder. These principles were deeply woven into my character – dignity comes from effort, freedom requires responsibility, and strong families – not big government – are the backbone of a strong community.

I’ve been married for 38 years and have five children and seven grandchildren.

Richard Smith

Our county’s tax system is not operating as efficiently as it should, largely because of communication failures between tax entities. The county is responsible for valuing property, setting tax rates for all taxing entities, and collecting and distributing those taxes. When communication breaks down—whether between county departments or between the county and our taxing entities—the entire process suffers.

Delays in receiving critical information from municipalities have directly affected our ability to perform our duties effectively. These are not minor inconveniences; they are systemic issues that cost time, reduce efficiency, and ultimately impact taxpayers.

I am running for County Commissioner to fix this. My priority is to establish clear, consistent communication standards among all taxing entities, so the system functions smoothly, efficiently, and in the best interest of the public.

I have experience working within the county government system, where I have heard firsthand the concerns of taxpayers regarding the burden of rising taxes and uncertainty about the future. Through this work, I have developed a strong understanding of how our local government operates, including both the strengths of our departments and the challenges they face. This direct, practical insight gives me a unique advantage in identifying opportunities for meaningful, efficient improvements that can increase productivity and better serve our constituents.

My wife and I are both from Utah, and we met while attending Utah State University. For the past four years, we and our five children have proudly called Spanish Fork home. We value being part of this community—building relationships, serving others, and contributing where we can. As a family, we spend much of our time outdoors, camping, hiking, and enjoying the natural beauty and local parks throughout our county.

CANDIDATE PROFILES SEAT B

Rod Mann

I’m running for Utah County Commissioner because I believe our county deserves experienced, steady leadership that puts taxpayers first and keeps government accountable to the people it serves. As the current Utah County Auditor, I’ve had a front-row seat to how county government works, where it works well, and where it needs improvement. This role has reinforced my conviction that transparency, fiscal discipline, and clear communication are essential. County government should be efficient, honest, and always respectful of the trust residents place in it.

Utah County is growing rapidly, and with that growth comes responsibility. I’m a leader who will ask tough questions, protect taxpayers, and plan carefully for the future without losing sight of what makes our communities great. I will apply my experience, commitment to transparency, and passion for public service to help guide Utah County forward responsibly, keeping our residents at the center of every decision

Before serving as Auditor, I had the honor of serving my community as both a city council member and mayor. Those experiences taught me the value of local decision making and the importance of collaboration between cities and the county. I understand the challenges our cities face, from growth and infrastructure to public safety and budgeting. I know that county leadership must work as a partner, not an obstacle. My goal as Commissioner is to bring practical, solutions-oriented leadership to the county and ensure the county delivers essential services effectively while keeping residents informed.

My wife, Suzanne, and I met in Utah County over 45 years ago and have lived here for the last 23 years. We have four children and fifteen grandchildren whom we adore. We both love to serve; it is part of our family’s DNA. I worked in technology for 30 years. I love data and sharing information with my constituents whether in person or via posts (see bit.ly/BlogHighland and bit.ly/BlogUCA).

Isaac Paxman

I come from a long line of people who believed in serving their community; that legacy drives me to make a meaningful impact wherever I can. We are at a pivotal moment. As the state’s fastest-growing county, we have the foundation to become the best‑run county in the nation, but that requires experienced commissioners who seize opportunities while staying true to limited government and strong family values.

We need commissioners who can step in immediately with expertise to navigate complex county issues. Working for the largest city in the county over the last eight years, I forged connections with community leaders at the local, county, and state level. And I gained the executive leadership experience necessary to preserve our heritage while preparing wisely for the future. 

My priorities include:

1. Public Safety
2. Protecting our Water/Agricultural Strength
3. Wise Investment in Transportation

I bring broad experience, from representing the United States in the Department of Justice to serving eight years as Provo’s Deputy Mayor, as a business owner, and working in the Utah Attorney General’s Office. I’ve been tested and prepared to serve as commissioner, having handled many of the same issues in Provo—public safety, transportation, overseeing department directors, and helping lead a Utah County task force recognized nationally for excellence. I’ve built a reputation for effectively managing both projects and people. This experience, both broad and specific, gives me a solid foundation to serve the people of Utah County.

I’m proud of my heritage. My great‑grandmother, Achsa Eggertson Paxman, served in the Utah Legislature, and my grandmother served on the local school board. Much of my ancestors’ service came without titles, yet they made a lasting impact on their communities. Their example inspires me to do the same. With generations of family ties throughout this great county, I’ll work hard to keep Utah County a strong home for families, taxpayers, and our shared values.

Rob Shelton | American Fork Citizen

More than 2½ hours of public comment stretched late into the night Feb. 4 as residents packed the historic American Fork City Hall for a Planning Commission hearing on proposed zoning changes.

Some attendees said the room filled 30 minutes before the 6:30 p.m. meeting began. By start time, every seat was taken. People stood in the aisles. Both staircases were lined shoulder to shoulder. Others spilled into the main floor entry, straining to hear.

“It really was,” resident Tom Clark said when asked if it was a packed house. “I counted … 25 people” just on one stairwell, he said, estimating “over 50 people there” between both staircases, not including those seated or standing in the chamber.

From where he sat, Clark said, “I couldn’t even see where the line was to go up and make comments and let alone be able to make my way over there because people were standing in the aisles in front of me.”

The turnout came despite a city Facebook post stating, “Most property owners will not be impacted by these updates.”

Several residents said that statement didn’t match what they were seeing or feeling.

High density and property rights concerns

The hearing centered on proposed updates to the city’s zoning code and general plan. Residents raised concerns about high-density housing in downtown areas, changes to agricultural zoning and new restrictions affecting private property.

Clark argued the draft code “creates special exceptions for developers to build on smaller, narrower lots to ‘infill’ neighborhoods,” while prohibiting detached accessory dwelling units, or ADUs.

“External Accessory Dwelling Units are prohibited,” Clark wrote in a Facebook post referencing Section 14.12.080 of the draft code.

He also warned of shrinking buildable space for homeowners, citing increased side setbacks and the removal of corner lot exceptions. “You are being ‘downzoned’ without even knowing it,” he wrote.

At the hearing, multiple residents echoed concerns about density increases in established neighborhoods, including areas south of the golf course and near the FrontRunner station. One resident described streets where cars already park on both sides, making two-way traffic difficult.

Others focused on agricultural impacts. Kip and Kris Bromley addressed the commission about land proposed to be designated as “civic” in the general plan.

“Designating large swaths of land as public or ‘civic’ greatly reduces options for land owners in the future — allowing them to sell only to city … which greatly reduces the value when buyers understand the restrictions placed on properties,” the Bromleys stated  .

They added, “It is my sincere hope that going forward — peoples rights, especially those that have purchased larger pieces of property for animals or other building expansion plans for children or aging parents, will be respected”.

The Bromleys also cautioned against rezoning being used to “implement or set up future land grabs or eminent domain situations”.

Because commissioners repeatedly asked speakers not to repeat prior comments, it was difficult to gauge how many residents shared identical concerns. The line to speak appeared to stretch beyond view from parts of the chamber.

One attendee later observed, “having just one person speaking per issue at a hearing doesn’t tell the City if 10 people or 1,000 people share the same concern.”

Questions about process

Beyond policy specifics, several residents questioned the process itself.

Clark said he emailed city officials, including the mayor, City Council members and Development Services Director Patrick O’Brien, expressing that he was “very unhappy with the zoning, proposed zoning changes.”

He said Council Member Ryan Hunter responded briefly: “received thanks Tom.” O’Brien responded that staff were sharing his information with others and thanked him for his involvement.

“They have received response indicating that I’m being heard,” Clark said. “But that doesn’t really tell me that I’m having any influence. … We need a two way communication where we know whether not just that we’re being heard, but that they’re considering making changes.”

In a Facebook post, Clark described what he called an “Outsourcing Problem,” writing that the city appears to be using regional grant funds through the Mountainland Association of Governments and has hired a consulting firm to draft the code.

“The Risk: Large consulting firms frequently use ‘standardized templates’ designed for developer efficiency, not for our specific community,” he wrote.

He added, “Public comment isn’t a dialogue. If we catch errors, we have no way of knowing if the City is hearing us.”

Planning Commission member Rod Martin thanked attendees after the meeting.

“Sorry there wasn’t more room to seat everyone,” Martin wrote on Facebook. “The comments overall were very helpful and we are so glad as a commission to have the citizens of American Fork help in the process of deciding what we want the future to look like here.”

Martin acknowledged communication gaps. The proposed maps and documents “were meant to be a draft and not ‘how it’s gonna be,’” he wrote. “I don’t think that was communicated effectively to us as a Commission and for sure to the citizens at large. This created un-needed angst and worry in my opinion.”

He also said, “The City can (and is trying, however clunky) do a better job at fostering trust.”

One attendee expressed their opinion that “the planning commission listened to our concerns but seemed to be under informed on all of the different areas affected”.

Christine Anderson, chairwomen of the planning commission, told the American Fork Citizen, “We were inspired by the large number of residents who attended the City Planning Commission meeting to share their views and perspectives. Public engagement and feedback is a vital part of the process, and we welcome the public’s continued involvement as we proceed.”

She encouraged residents to attend meetings and sign up for notifications on the city website.

What’s next?

The meeting lasted about 2½ hours. Many left unsure what comes next.

“I honestly didn’t know how to respond” when someone asked how to stay informed, Clark said. He added that a staff member indicated the city hoped to move quickly on the changes, though he said he is “hoping that she’s misinformed.”

For residents who filled the staircases and lined the aisles, the night signaled more than routine code updates. It reflected a deeper concern about density, property rights and whether their voices carry weight.

The crowd alone suggested one thing clearly: many residents believe they will, in fact, be impacted.