[PAGE 1]
AMERICAN FORK CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 13, 2026
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Members Present:
Bradley J. Frost Mayor
Staci Carroll Council Member
Ryan Hunter Council Member
Tim Holley Council Member
Ernie John Council Member
Clark Taylor Council Member
Staff Present:
David Bunker City Administrator
Camden Bird Assistant City Administrator
Anna Montoya Finance Officer
Stephanie Finau Deputy Recorder
Patrick O'Brien Development Services Director
Sam Kelly Public Works Director
Aaron Brems Fire Chief
Cameron Paul Police Chief
George Schade IT Director
Heather Schriever Legal Counsel
Also present: Royce Shelley, Steve Reiber, Rio Honaker, Richard Mickelson (TSSD), David
Barlow (TSSD), and Brandon Watt (TSSD),
The American Fork City Council held a public hearing in conjunction with the regular session on
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, in the American Fork City Hall, 31 North Church Street,
commencing at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Pledge of Allegiance; Invocation by Council Member Taylor; roll call.
Mayor Frost welcomed everyone to the meeting. Those present recited the Pledge of
Allegiance and an invocation was offered by Council Member Taylor.
Mayor Frost welcomed attendees and clarified that, although the agenda indicated a public
hearing would be held, the public hearing had been canceled and was not advertised.
Therefore, no public hearing would be held that evening.
2. Twenty-minute public comment period - limited to two minutes per person.
Steve Reiber introduced himself and requested a variance related to irrigation costs for two
properties he owns in American Fork. He explained that he is paying double for one property
and triple for a second property for pressurized irrigation. He questioned if he would be
allowed to get more than one dump pass for each of the properties. Mayor Frost indicated he
would have staff contact him tomorrow,
January 13, 2026 1 | P age

[PAGE 2]
Royce Shelley introduced himself and expressed sincere appreciation to the City Council for
taking an additional month to consider the proposed bond. He stated that he was pleased to
see a 9.5 percent reduction in the bond amount. He noted that he still had some concerns with
the cost and encouraged the Council to continue seeking additional cost savings. He thanked
the Council for its efforts and for the clarification provided.
Rio Honaker introduced himself and addressed the Council regarding longstanding concerns
related to development near his property. He stated that he had previously allowed access
through his property for a roadway and that he and his father had attempted to work
cooperatively with the City to improve conditions. Mr. Honaker expressed frustration that
certain commitments he believed the city had made, specifically replacing a fence and
providing a driveway, had not been fulfilled. He further stated that City personnel had
recently visited and photographed his property and that he had received a nuisance weeds
notice, despite his belief that his property is located within the county. Mr. Honaker
questioned why enforcement actions were taken on his property while, in his view, similar
conditions existed on nearby development properties. He asserted that he felt he was being
unfairly targeted.
Mayor Frost and Mr. Honaker agreed to meet at the mayor’s office at 9:00 a.m. the following
morning. Mr. Honaker thanked the mayor for his time.
3. City Administrator's Report
Mr. Bunker explained the fitness center is offering sales on annual passes. He noted that
many residents, including himself, are working toward improved fitness goals and
encouraged anyone interested to visit the fitness center for details on the promotional pricing.
4. Council Reports
Council Member Hunter had nothing to report.
Council Member Holley expressed personal appreciation for the American Fork Fire
Department. He shared that the department had recently participated in his son’s firefighter-
themed birthday celebration by stopping by with a fire truck and allowing the children to
explore it. He thanked the Fire Department for not only performing their duties with
excellence, but also for being an engaged and supportive part of the community.
Council Member John had nothing to report.
Council Member Carroll reported that the PARC Tax process is beginning, noting that the
kickoff meeting is scheduled for the following day and that she would be in attendance. She
further stated that the PARC applicant workshop will be held on January 21 at 5:30 p.m. and
encouraged anyone interested in applying for a PARC Tax grant to attend. She noted that
additional meetings are scheduled over the coming months as part of the process. She
reported that she spent several hours participating in the evaluation of applicants for the
school district superintendent position and commented that there are a number of strong
candidates.
Council Member Taylor had nothing to report.
January 13, 2026 2 | P age

[PAGE 3]
5. Mayor's Report
Mayor Frost reflected on the recent holiday period and noted that the Council had not met
since the holidays. He shared that the quieter pace in the community provided a meaningful
opportunity to focus on family and neighbors and described the break as refreshing and
beneficial. The mayor thanked City staff for their work during the holiday period, noting that
while the city was quieter, essential public safety services remained on call and responsive.
He stated that the community remained safe and that overall conditions were positive. He
concluded by expressing pride in the community and appreciation for the environment and
quality of life in the city.
COMMON CONSENT AGENDA
(Common Consent is that class of Council action that requires no further discussion or which is routine in nature.
All items on the Common Consent Agenda are adopted by a single motion unless removed from the Common
Consent Agenda.)
1. Approval of the December 2, 2025, work session minutes.
2. Approval of the December 9, 2025, city council minutes.
3. Approval of the authorization to release the Improvements Durability Retainer of
$35,235.00 for Autumn Crest Plat F, located at 935 East 1060 North.
4. Approval of the authorization to release the Improvements Construction Guarantee in the
amount of $123,940.25 and issue a Notice of Acceptance for the American Fork 860
Apartments (Arza) construction of public improvements located at 778 South 860 East.
5. Approval of the authorization to release the Improvements Construction Guarantee in the
amount of $1,571,739.21 and issue a Notice of Acceptance for the Meadowbrook Phase 3
construction of public improvements located at 560 South 850 West.
6. Approval of the authorization to release the Improvements Construction Guarantee in the
amount of $2,019,929.78 and issue a Notice of Acceptance for the Meadowbrook Phase 2
construction of public improvements located at 560 South 850 West.
7. Ratification of city payments (December 3, 2025, to January 6, 2026) and approval of
purchase requests over $50,000.
Council Member Taylor moved to approve the common consent agenda. Council
Member Hunter seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
SECONDER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
YES: Carroll, John, Holley, Taylor, Hunter
ACTION ITEMS
1. Review and action on the following appointments to boards, commissions, and committees:
a. Robert McGee to the PARC Tax board.
b. Bob Nelson to the PARC Tax board.
Mayor Frost noted that two appointments being considered were to replace two members
who needed to step down and expressed gratitude to the individuals willing to fill the
vacancies. He then asked if there were any questions regarding the two appointments.
Council Member Hunter asked whether the new appointees would be filling the remainder of
the current terms or beginning new terms. Mayor Frost responded that the appointees would
likely fill the remainder of the existing terms.
January 13, 2026 3 | P age

[PAGE 4]
Mr. Bunker confirmed that the terms would run through 2029 and explained that because
appointments typically occur in January, the new appointees would begin their terms at that
time. He noted that if the prior members had left midterm, the replacement terms would have
been adjusted accordingly.
Council Member Hunter expressed concern about creating an irregular cycle or uneven
turnover. Mr. Bunker agreed to review the schedule to ensure it does not create an offset in
future terms.
Council Member Carroll moved to approve the appointment of Bob McGee and Bob
Nelson to the PARC Tax Board with the terms ending in 2029. Council Member John
seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Staci Carroll, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: Hunter, John, Carroll, Holley, Taylor
2. Review and action on a resolution recognizing the American Fork Utah250 Committee,
along with a memorandum of understanding and licensing agreement for support of
America250 Utah.
Mr. Bird stated that this was for a small grant and is intended to engage communities in
partnership with state-level activities to support branding and celebrations. He explained that
a committee had been formed to organize a single event and that the grant application
focused on leveraging existing community celebrations, including Steel Day, America Day,
and Pioneer Day. Mr. Bird noted that the application requested funding for the minimum
activities, specifically a drone show and associated branding in publications. Mr. Bird stated
that the city has obtained the necessary licensing agreement and will adhere to the
requirements. Mr. Bird stated that the City’s approach would start with a simple
implementation and that additional examples from other cities could be gathered and
presented for reference.
Council Member Hunter moved to adopt Resolution No. 2026-01-01R to recognizing the
American Utah250 Committee along with the memorandum and the management and
licensing agreement for the Support America250 Utah. Council Member Holley
seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Tim Holley, Council Member
YES: Hunter, Carroll, Hunter, Carroll, John
3. Review and action on approval of an amended reimbursement agreement with Phelon
Lakeland LLC for infrastructure improvements.
Council Member Carroll moved to approve the amended reimbursement agreement
with Phelon Lakeland LLC for an amount no greater than $991,538 for system
improvements in conjunction with the Lakeland Industrial Park Development.
Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
January 13, 2026 4 | P age

[PAGE 5]
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Staci Carroll, Council Member
SECONDER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
YES: Holley, Taylor, Hunter, Carroll, John
4. Review and action on a water banking agreement for water shares with Layne Downs for
19-acre feet of water.
Council Member John moved to approve the water banking agreement for water
shares with Lane Downs for 19-acre feet of water. Council Member Carroll seconded.
Motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ernie John, Council Member
SECONDER: Staci Carroll Council Member
YES: Holley, Taylor, Hunter, Carroll, John
5. Review and action on a revised water banking agreement for water shares with Patterson
Construction for 17.6-acre feet of water.
Council Member John moved to approve the amended water banking agreement for
water shares of Patterson Development LLC for 17.6-acre feet of water. Council
Member Hunter seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Tim Holley, Council Member
YES: Carroll, Taylor, John, Hunter, Holley
6. Review and action on a resolution to consider the petition for annexation of the TSSD Boat
Harbor Pump Station Annexation, consisting of 31.956 acres at approximately 20 East
1700 South.
Mr. O’Brien explained that the item represented the first legislative step in the annexation
process. He noted that the applicants had already participated in three meetings with staff
and had met all county requirements. The petition before the Council was for consideration
of whether to accept the annexation into the city. He noted that an annexation agreement,
including specified zone and other requirements, would be drafted at a later date. The
packet included a document outlining existing and required utilities, as well as other
pertinent information required by municipal code.
Mayor Frost indicated that representatives from TSSD were present to answer any
questions.
Ms. Schriever informed the Council that amendments to the resolution had been
distributed, noting that the changes were minor and not substantive. She summarized the
key revisions:
• The first “whereas” statement was updated to reflect a single petitioner, removing
the plural reference to “owners.”
• The fourth “whereas” statement was revised to clarify that the petition contains the
signature of the owner of all publicly owned property within the area proposed for
annexation, and that the public owner is not the federal government.
January 13, 2026 5 | P age

[PAGE 6]
Ms. Schriever explained that these changes clarified the annexation qualifications for a
single public entity and removed references to private property owners and associated
statutory requirements.
Council Member Carroll asked whether there are any differences in the annexation process
when annexing public property. Mr. O’Brien explained that the process is generally the
same but noted that certain distinctions arise when both public and private properties are
included in the same annexation. He described that for private property components,
requirements such as private land volume and valuation must be met, including approval by
over 50% of private property owners. He clarified that these private property requirements
do not apply to public entities, and public institutions or governmental groups cannot be
compelled into annexation through this process.
Council Member John asked how much of the property would be designated as shoreline-
protected. Mr. O’Brien responded that the exact amount had not yet been determined. He
explained that shoreline protection and other designations would be specified in the
annexation agreement.
Council Member Taylor moved to adopt Resolution No. 2026-01-02R accepting the
petition for annexation for the TSSD Boat Harbor Pump Station annexation
consisting of 31.956 acres approximately 20 East and 1700 South. Council Member
John seconded the motion.
Ms. Schriever asked Council Member Taylor to clarify on the record that the motion being
proposed is articulated as amended.
Council Member Taylor moved to approve the resolution as articulated and amended.
Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: Holley, Carroll, Hunter, Taylor, John
7. Review and Action on an application for a Zone Change, known as Walton Lot Change,
located at 794 West 1000 North Circle. The Zone Change will be on approximately 0.58
acres and is in the RA-1 and R1-12,000 zones. The applicant seeks to change to the R1-
12,000 Zone.
Mr. O’Brien provided background regarding a subdivision lot currently under
consideration. He explained that when the subdivision was originally approved, the lot was
legally conforming to a 1-acre minimum. Over time, boundary adjustments recorded with
the county but outside of City processes resulted in the lot shrinking and becoming an
illegal, non-conforming lot. The current proposal is to rezone the property from RA-1 to
R1-12,000, which would bring it into compliance with the required density and allow the
applicants to build their home. Mr. O’Brien noted that the issue was identified during the
winter building permitting process, when City staff perform verification checks to ensure
compliance with zoning requirements. He stated that rezoning was the most straightforward
process to bring the property into compliance.
Council Member Hunter asked for clarification on why the lot became non-conforming.
Mr. O’Brien explained that prior ownership of both lots and an accessory structure built
January 13, 2026 6 | P age

[PAGE 7]
over the property line led to boundary adjustments when part of the property was sold,
resulting in the lot’s irregular shape. Council Member Hunter noted that this would make
the lot the only one in the cul-de-sac not zoned RA-1. Mr. O’Brien confirmed the adjacent
subdivision is zoned R1-12,000 and acknowledged the irregularity. Council Member
Hunter added that since the prior owner created the non-conforming situation, rezoning the
lot to compliance is reasonable. Mr. O’Brien confirmed that all adjacent property owners
were properly notified.
Council Member John moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-01-01 approving the zone
change located at 74 West 1000 North Circle of Americn Fork City from the
residential agriculture RA-1 to the residential R1-12,000 zones subject to any
conditions found on the staff report. Council Member Holley seconded the motion.
Voting was as follows.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ernie John, Council Member
SECONDER: Tim Holley, Council Member
YES: Holley, John, Taylor, Hunter, Carroll
8. Review and action on a resolution ratifying the action taken by the council to authorize the
issuance of lease revenue bonds and establishing the maximum amount of the bonds.
Mr. Kelly outlined the City’s need for a new facility, highlighting deficiencies in the
current building. He stated that approximately ten staff members currently lack office
space, particularly on the south side of the complex, preventing access to computers, GIS,
timekeeping, and other basic functions. He also noted a shortage of bay space.
Mr. Kelly compared the proposed facility needs to those of Orem, a city with a similar
projected population (approximately 80,000–90,000). He explained that Orem’s facility
totals roughly 18,900 square feet, with an additional 4,000 square feet for the Sewer
department and 12,000 square feet dedicated to Development Services, including Zoning,
Planning, Engineering, and Building safety, resulting in approximately 34,000–36,000
square feet overall. He stated that the City’s proposed building would provide comparable
space, with two stories and a basement, sufficient to house all departments at full build-out
without requiring future remodels or retrofits.
Mr. Kelly noted that while the City’s land area is smaller than Orem’s, the infrastructure
needs—particularly water lines and pressurized irrigation—are similar. He further noted
that the current facility has 22 bays, compared to Orem’s 36, indicating that the proposed
facility would meet comparable operational requirements. Mr. Kelly concluded by
emphasizing that the proposed size aligns with the City’s anticipated needs and asked if
there were any questions regarding the planning process.
Council Member Taylor sought clarification on whether the current building project
addressed the garages and sheds south of 200 South. Mr. Bunker explained that Phase I
does not, and that Phase II would cover the south side. Council Member Taylor asked
whether the bond would cover Phase II, and Mr. Bunker confirmed it would not; a separate
bond would be required.
Council Member John expressed support for consolidating all City services in one location,
providing a “one-stop” for the public from the utility building through development
services and engineering. Mr. Kelly agreed on the need for the Administration building and
January 13, 2026 7 | P age

[PAGE 8]
noted that while the number of bays could be adjusted between 22 and 36, the current
concept plan of roughly 30,000 square feet aligns with facilities in similarly sized cities.
Council Member John noted that existing space is inadequate, citing crowded pre-
construction meetings and limited conference room capacity. Mr. Kelly noted that while
the city has outdoor storage space, none of it is covered. He explained that many water
supplies and materials, including plastic pipe and wire clamps with rubber fittings, are
vulnerable to sun damage, which degrades the materials and renders them unusable. He
added that certain equipment, such as a tractor used for mowing and a grader, also requires
storage that does not necessarily need to be in a bay but must be protected from the
elements.
Council Member Taylor noted that the current bond does not address the outdoor storage
and equipment protection needs previously described by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly clarified that
Phase I, on the north side, would include some covered three-sided storage around the
building perimeter, providing protection from the sun for equipment such as tractors,
graders, mowers, and Parks vehicles. Council Member Taylor asked whether all storage
needs would move to the south side after Phase II construction. Mr. Kelly explained that in
Phase II, the larger bays and material storage currently on the north side, including
aggregate bins, would be relocated to the south side. He noted that some of the existing
bays are outdated and have issues, such as pest intrusion, and that relocating these
functions would allow for construction of new bays and proper material storage on the
south side.
Council Member Carroll asked how many staff from the utility building department would
be relocating. Mr. Bunker explained that the utility billing staff would be relocated to the
new building, consolidating services in one location. Currently, residents needing
assistance with bills, leak checks, or planning inquiries must navigate between multiple
offices. Moving the utility billing group, which is approximately six staff members, would
streamline these interactions. He noted that other departments, including Finance, the
Recorder’s Office, the Mayor’s Office, and HR, would remain in the main administration
building. Mr. Bunker emphasized that consolidating utility services with the water
department in the new building would improve efficiency and convenience for both staff
and residents, especially as meter reading demands increase with the expansion of the
pressurized irrigation system.
Mr. Kelly added that coordination between departments is intensive, noting that during
December and January, approximately 120 meters required work orders and integration
with other building operations, highlighting the high level of interdepartmental
coordination.
Mayor Frost asked Mr. Dugdale to discuss the timing of the City’s current actions,
including potential risks and market trends.
Mr. Dugdale provided a municipal bond market update, noting that while future interest
rates cannot be predicted, historical trends can inform timing decisions. He explained the
“January effect” in the municipal bond market, where bond supply is typically lower due to
fewer issuances nationwide, often resulting in higher demand and lower interest rates. He
stated that this timing strategy had been discussed previously with City staff.
Mr. Dugdale reviewed current market data, including recent declines in AAA-rated
municipal yields across 5, 10, and 30-year terms, and noted that rates had decreased
January 13, 2026 8 | P age

[PAGE 9]
compared to the prior week. He stated that the City’s strategy has been to issue bonds
during favorable market conditions to secure the lowest possible rates, given the size and
scope of the project. He reported that the City’s bonds are rated AA2, with the City’s
overall rating having been upgraded to AA1 and noted that while lease revenue bonds are
typically rated one step below general obligation bonds, the City’s rating remains strong.
Mr. Dugdale outlined the remaining process, stating that the city is targeting January 22 for
the bond pricing date. He explained that pricing is the point at which bonds are offered to
investors, interest rates are locked in, and orders are received. Following pricing, there is an
approximately two-week period to finalize documentation and close the transaction. He
concluded by offering to answer any questions from the Council.
Mr. Johnson reminded the Council that at the December 9 meeting, the Council approved a
bond resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds, after which the required public notice
was published. He noted that the original resolution approved a maximum bond amount of
$50 million, but that Council members had expressed concern about the size of the bond.
As part of that action, the Council directed staff to return with a revised amount for
consideration. Mr. Johnson explained that the item before the Council was to approve a
new “not-to-exceed” amount of $45,250,000, which represents the staff-recommended
figure based on the project scope. He clarified that while the Council may set the amount at
any level it chooses, it cannot exceed the previously authorized maximum of $50 million.
Mayor Frost emphasized that while even small expenditures represent meaningful taxpayer
dollars, the magnitude of this project requires careful deliberation. He stated that the
proposed building is intended to be practical, durable, and designed to serve the community
for generations. He stressed that the facility will not be excessive or impractical, but rather
thoughtfully designed and appropriate to its surroundings. He noted that Public Works
represents the backbone of the community’s infrastructure and houses a significant portion
of the City’s workforce, underscoring the importance of investing wisely in the facility. He
expressed confidence in the project while acknowledging the need for thorough Council
discussion, stating that the matter warrants deliberate consideration to ensure alignment
with the City’s values and long-term goals.
Council Member Holley stated that after discussions with the Mayor, Council members,
and staff, reviewing staff materials, and comparing facilities in other cities, he believed the
proposed building is larger and more expensive than appropriate for the city. He noted that
comparable public works facilities typically range from 15,000 to 25,000 square feet and
supported a more modest, fiscally responsible approach, particularly given other major
capital projects on the horizon. Council Member Holley indicated support for a facility in
the range of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet, which he estimated could reduce costs by $5
million to $10 million. He concluded that he would be unlikely to support a bond
exceeding $35 million to $40 million and did not support the currently proposed 45,000-
square-foot scope.
Council Member Carroll emphasized the importance of ensuring that comparisons with
other public works facilities account for differences in staffing levels and departmental
functions. She noted that the proposed facility would serve a broader range of departments
than a traditional public works operation, extending beyond sewer, storm drain, and
pressurized irrigation. She acknowledged that the proposed bond represents a significant
January 13, 2026 9 | P age

[PAGE 10]
financial commitment to the City and stressed the need to ensure that the decision is
fiscally prudent.
Council Member Carroll questioned whether excluding the utility billing department from
the move would reduce the required building size or overall project cost. She expressed
uncertainty about whether consolidating departments into one facility would meaningfully
reduce inefficiencies or public inconvenience, noting that two buildings would still exist
and some level of coordination would continue to be required. She concluded by asking
staff whether retaining the utility billing department in its current location would result in
measurable space or cost savings.
Mr. Bunker explained that reducing the number of staff housed in the proposed building
would allow for a reduction in square footage, which would in turn lower overall
construction costs. While he could not specify an exact amount, he noted that decreasing
the office space by several thousand square feet would reduce the bond amount required for
the project.
Council Member Carroll asked for clarification on how construction would be phased and
whether the existing building would remain in use during construction. Mr. Bunker
responded that the proposed phasing plan would allow the new building to be constructed
while staff continue operating out of the existing facility. Once construction is complete,
staff will relocate to the new building, after which the old building will be demolished. He
noted that this approach avoids the need to lease temporary off-site space, reduces
disruption to operations, and minimizes logistical challenges commonly associated with
rebuilding on an active site.
Council Member Taylor expressed reluctance to approve the bond at this time, citing the
scale of the project and the Council’s responsibility to taxpayers. He stated that, unlike
other major City projects, this proposal had not yet been fully vetted through a dedicated
work session. While acknowledging the importance of timing the bond issuance and the
operational need for the facility, he raised concerns about committing to a bond amount
near the maximum without first exploring alternatives, including potential reductions in
square footage and overall cost. He stated that additional discussion would help clarify
needs and cost tradeoffs and indicated that, based on these concerns, he was not prepared to
support the bond that evening.
Council Member John expressed general agreement with Council Member Taylor’s desire
for additional discussion but cautioned against delaying the project too long. He
emphasized the importance of planning and building for long-term build-out rather than
taking a short-sighted approach. Drawing on past experience with the pressurized irrigation
(PI) system, he noted that repeated delays significantly increased costs over time, citing
how the project grew from under $8 million to $47 million by the time it was finally built.
He used this as an example of how postponement can lead to substantially higher costs.
Council Member John acknowledged that further review and refinement would be
beneficial but stressed that population projections and infrastructure planning often lag
behind actual growth. He stated that this project presents an opportunity to thoughtfully
determine current and future needs without overbuilding. He expressed confidence that
staff are not seeking to overspend but rather to create a functional, practical facility that
meets operational needs. Ultimately, he supported taking a measured look at the project
January 13, 2026 10 | P age

[PAGE 11]
now to balance fiscal responsibility with long-term value, ensuring the city gets the best
outcome and use of taxpayer dollars over time.
Council Member Hunter supported consolidating City services into a single campus and
emphasized the importance of long-term, phased planning. He noted that the current
proposal represents Phase I rather than a full build-out, with additional land available for
future expansion. He cautioned against comparing costs with other cities, explaining that
many figures exclude total bond-related expenses, and expressed appreciation for staff’s
transparency in presenting an all-inclusive budget. Council Member Hunter recommended
establishing a firm overall budget, hard bidding the project with defined add alternates, and
deferring non-essential elements to a future phase. He emphasized the need for clarity on
whether the city intends to fully build out the project now or deliberately stage
development over time to manage costs while planning for future needs.
Council Member Carroll asked about the options available to the Council, noting that they
could set a different standard, establish a different rate, defer action, delay the decision, or
pursue an alternative approach. She asked whether the current rate was known or if it
would only be determined once the bonds were taken to market. Mr. Dugdale responded
that the rate can be estimated, explaining that it is typically about 5 percent of the interest
rate. However, he noted that the actual rate is not known until the bonds are sold and
investor orders are received.
Council Member Hunter asked a follow-up question, stating that he was unsure what bond
market rates are typically tied to, and asked whether they are connected to Treasury bills or
another benchmark. Mr. Dugdale explained that municipal bonds operate within their own
market, which includes both a primary and secondary market. He clarified that they are not
priced the same way as mortgages.
Council Member Hunter referenced recent federal investments of hundreds of billions of
dollars into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acknowledging that those entities are not directly
related to municipal bonds, but asked whether such actions could still have an impact on
bond rates. He noted that the Federal Reserve influences the broader financial markets and
asked whether those investments might drive base rates down. Mr. Dugdale responded that
he did not believe those investments would be a significant driver in the municipal bond
market, adding that he was not aware of a comparable situation in the past. He explained
that while estimates can be made, there are differing opinions among economists. Some
anticipated rates could decline this year due to actions by the Federal Reserve, which would
primarily affect the short end of the yield curve. Others believe long-term rates will remain
relatively stable. He concluded by noting that there are many unknowns at this time,
particularly due to geopolitical factors.
Council Member John stated that, based on historical experience, the current period is
traditionally considered a favorable time to enter the bond market. He added that if the city
were to wait two or three weeks, rates could move in the opposite direction, potentially
affecting the city either significantly or minimally. He acknowledged that such projections
involve uncertainty.
Mr. Dugdale responded that interest rates can move either up or down, but the timing and
magnitude of those changes are difficult to predict. He noted that short-term movements
over a two- to three-week period are generally modest and expressed appreciation for
January 13, 2026 11 | P age

[PAGE 12]
staff’s strategic approach. He emphasized the importance of reviewing historical trends and
targeting the market appropriately.
Mr. Dugdale stated that interest rates alone should not be the primary driver of the
decision; rather, the project itself, preferred timing, and the Council’s comfort level should
guide the process. He explained that once the city directs staff to proceed to market, more
detailed analysis can be conducted. While rates change week to week, he noted that there
have not been recent significant shifts. He explained that in the municipal bond market,
even a 0.25 percent change is significant, particularly for a $45 million issuance.
Council Member Hunter stated that he could support a $40 million project cap,
emphasizing that a firm budget would help staff manage scope and avoid an overly
elaborate design while still delivering a durable, 50-year facility. He noted that certain
features could be deferred to a future phase if necessary. Council Member Hunter
expressed his belief that construction costs are unlikely to decline and that building sooner
is generally more cost-effective, though he acknowledged the need to balance this project
against other funding priorities, including road and infrastructure needs on the west side of
the City.
Council Member Hunter further stated his concern about layering this bond on top of other
major obligations, such as a recreation center, additional projects, Fire Station 53, and other
capital improvements. In his view, the city has multiple competing needs. He noted that
reducing the project budget by $10 million would be significant, stating that such an
amount represents approximately half the cost of a fire station. While acknowledging that
the City may not be able to fund the entire project as envisioned, he expressed hope that a
reduced budget could still deliver a substantial portion of the facility.
Council Member Hunter moved to adopt Resolution No. 2026-01-03R ratifying the
actions by the council to authorize the issuance of lease revenue bonds and establish a
maximum amount of bonds at $40 million. Council Member Holley seconded the
motion.
Council Member Holley stated that the $40 million figure should be understood as a
maximum cap, emphasizing that setting that amount does not mean the city intends to
spend the full amount.
Council Member Taylor stated that he was not advocating for a lengthy delay or asserting
that $45 million was the correct budget but rather seeking additional discussion to clearly
define the project scope and cost. He emphasized that the City’s goal is to consolidate City
administration, Public Works, and Engineering into a central facility to improve efficiency
and customer service, following years of strategic property acquisition. While appreciative
of the proposed $5.2 million reduction, he noted that the revised figure still felt arbitrary
and reiterated that his intent was not to stall the project, but to ensure the Council fully
understands the plan and considers potential scope adjustments to reach an appropriate and
agreed-upon budget.
Council Member Holley asked if staff could provide updated information for the Council to
review and revisit in two weeks. Mr. Bunker responded that it would be difficult to provide
precise numbers within that timeframe because an architect has not yet been hired. He
explained that once an architect is procured, a detailed analysis of layout, space needs, and
January 13, 2026 12 | P age

[PAGE 13]
design efficiencies could be conducted. He noted that through this process, including value
engineering in the CMGC approach, the city would be able to refine the project scope and
identify potential cost savings.
Council Members Hunter, Taylor, and Holley discussed the timing and amount of the
proposed bond issuance. Council Member Hunter expressed concern about missing a
favorable bond market opportunity and asked about potential costs and premiums if the full
$40 million were issued but only $35 million were used. Council Member Taylor clarified
that issuing $40 million in bonds means $40 million is raised, and unused funds would not
be returned. Council Member Holley confirmed that a bond cannot be partially returned.
The discussion concluded with Council Members Hunter and Taylor noting that funds
could be reserved for future phases, including development on the south side of 200 North,
which made the proposed bond amount more acceptable.
Mr. Dugdale clarified that once bonds are sold, the full amount is borrowed and must be
spent within three years, noting that January has historically been a favorable time to issue
bonds, though market fluctuations can occur.
Council Member Hunter asked whether the public works facility is the City’s highest
priority. Mr. Bunker responded that the project is a very high priority due to limited space
and challenging working conditions, while acknowledging that other needs, such as
additional fire resources, are also important. He emphasized the importance of keeping the
bond amount as tight as possible and noted ongoing efforts to secure land on the south side
for future phases.
Mayor Frost stated that the City Council has the authority to conduct work sessions as
needed and expressed confidence in the staff’s ability to manage the bond process
responsibly. He noted that conceptual plans have been reviewed and that sufficient funds—
potentially at least $3 million—would be available for property acquisition across the
street. He emphasized that even with a $40 million bond, the city could accomplish a
significant portion of the project and implement necessary infrastructure improvements,
such as a bridge over the creek.
Council Member Taylor stated that he was comfortable proceeding with the bond, noting
that funds could be applied for or reimbursed within the 5-year period, which allows
flexibility in managing expenditure.
Mayor Frost called for a vote on the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Tim Holley, Council Member
YES: Hunter, John, Carroll, Holley, Taylor
9. Review and action on a resolution executing a lease/purchase agreement for the purchase of
Fire Engine 53 and related equipment.
Ms. Montoya reported that the truck ordered in April 2023 is expected to be received early
next month, noting that the process from order to possession has taken approximately 33
months. She explained that the equipment will be added to the truck and that the financing
is structured as a seven-year lease with a 4.47% interest rate through Zions Bank
Corporation, with debt service beginning January 27.
January 13, 2026 13 | P age

[PAGE 14]
Council Member Hunter asked whether there is a $1 buyout at the end of the lease, and Ms.
Montoya confirmed that it is a lease-to-own arrangement.
Council Member Huner moved to approve Resolution No. 2026-01-04R for the lease
purchase agreement in substantial form with Zions Bank Corporation NA, Salt Lake
City, Utah, in the amount of $1,137,152 and authorize the executive execution and
delivery thereof. Council Member Holley seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Tim Holley, Council Member
YES: John, Taylor, Hunter, Holley, Carroll
10. Review and action on the award of the design contract for the Boley Well Rehabilitation
Project.
Council Member Holley expressed concern about discrepancies in the estimated labor
hours among three bids for a project. He noted that while the dollar amounts vary, the
estimated hours differ widely, which raises concerns about whether a lower-bid firm can
deliver the same quality in significantly fewer hours. He emphasized that the issue is not
only cost, but also ensuring sufficient labor to meet project standards.
Council Member John noted that Horrocks is the engineer on a similar project and that
while their proposal aligns closest to the requested skill set, they have not performed
changeovers on the current project.
Council Member Hunter clarified that design hours from the engineering firm would not
include construction work, whereas the other firms’ proposals include both design and
construction, highlighting a difference in scope.
Mr. Kelly noted that Horrocks has an advantage because they have previously been
involved in other well-rehabilitated projects and are familiar with the equipment and
processes. This prior experience allows much of the work to be “plug and play,” reducing
labor requirements.
Mayor Frost and Mr. Bunker emphasized that Horrocks’ extensive experience with the
City’s water system and prior projects gives them a competitive edge. Mr. Bunker
expressed confidence that Horrocks’ bid accounts for all necessary work and noted that in
the past, bidders who underestimated their scope were questioned and sometimes withdrew
their proposals, ensuring accountability.
Council Member Taylor move that the city award Boley Well Rehabilitation design in
the amount of $53,286 to the responsible low bidder, Horrocks and to approve the
design agreement substantially as presented in addition to a project engineering
contingency of $10,000 to be held by the city. Council Member John seconded the
motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: John, Taylor, Hunter, Holley, Carroll
January 13, 2026 14 | P age

[PAGE 15]
11. Review and action on the award of the design contract for the Dixie Well Project.
Council Member Carroll moved to approve the design agreement and substantially
the form as presented for the Dixie Well engineering project with Bowen Collins &
Associates. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion.
Council Member Holley expressed concern that Horrocks did not submit a bid on the
project, noting that the city may have missed an opportunity to secure a significantly lower
price on a project valued at approximately $300,000. He suggested that, where legally
permissible, the city consider ensuring that preferred or previously successful vendors are
made aware of RFPs, so they have the opportunity to bid and the city does not miss
potential cost savings.
Mr. Bunker responded that the City uses pre-qualified firms through master services
agreements, which allow eligible firms to bid on projects. He noted that Bowen Collins is a
highly capable firm with strong experience locally and regionally and stated that he
believes the city is receiving good value on this project.
Mayor Frost added that bid participation can be influenced by timing and strategic
decisions by firms, noting that Horrocks is active across a broad regional market and may
have chosen not to pursue this particular opportunity.
Mayor Frost called for a vote on the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Staci Carroll, Council Member
SECONDER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
YES: Holley, John, Taylor, Hunter, Carroll
12. Review and action on the award of the design contract for the 860 East 1300 South Storm
Drain Project.
Council Member Hunter moved to approve the design contract and substantial form.
Council Member John seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: Hunter, John, Carroll, Holley, Taylor
13. Review and action approving the design contract for the 100 East Waterline Replacement
(740 North to 1120 North) Project.
Council Member Holley moved to approve the design agreement insubstantially the
form as presented for the 100 East Waterline Replacement project with Hansen, Allen
& Loose, Inc. Council Member John seconded the motion.
Council Member John asked whether his prior service on a board with a principal from
Hansen, Allen & Luce created a conflict of interest. Ms. Schriever responded that it did not,
noting that Council Member John has no economic interest. Council Member John
confirmed that the relationship was limited to board service.
Council Member Taylor asked when the project would begin. Mr. Kelly responded that the
intent is to begin design within the next few months and potentially proceed with
construction later this year. He noted, however, that recent and repeated waterline breaks
January 13, 2026 15 | P age

[PAGE 16]
on 200 West near Shelley Elementary may require the city to prioritize work in that area
instead, which could affect the timing or location of this project.
Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: Carroll, Taylor, Hunter, Holley, John
14. Review and action on approval of the Standard Operating Procedures for Municipal
Stormwater Responsibilities required under the American Fork City MS4 Permit.
Council Member Carroll moved to approve and adopt the standard operating
procedures for American Fork City Municipal Separate Storm sewer system activities
as presented and authorize the Storm Drain Division to implement and update
procedures as required for compliance with the small MS4 permit. Council Member
John seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Staci Carroll, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: Hunter, John, Carroll, Holley, Taylor
15. Review and action on an ordinance approving a code text amendment, known as
Easements, of the American Fork City Municipal Code. Amending Section 15.01.110, the
code text amendment removes standard side yard easements.
Council Member Taylor moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-01-02, approving the
proposed code text amendment amending section 15.01.110 title easements clarifying
easements references removing side yard easements requirements and providing an
effective date for the ordinance. Council Member John seconded the motion. Voting
was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
SECONDER: Ernie John, Council Member
YES: Carroll, John, Holley, Taylor, Hunter
16. Review and action on an ordinance approving a code text amendment, known as Sidewalks
- Cleaning by Property Owner, of the American Fork City Municipal Code. Amending
Section 12.12.030, the code text amendment plans to clarify the existing language to detail
that the owner or occupant of a property is responsible for maintaining the entire frontage
of the property, including front, side, and rear.
Mayor Frost stated that agenda item number 16 would be brought back for discussion
during a future work session to allow additional time for review and discussion.
17. Review and action on an Encroachment Agreement with the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT) for Project S-R-399(40).
Council Member John moved to approve the encroachment license agreement with
the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for the work project S-R-399 (40).
Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
January 13, 2026 16 | P age

[PAGE 17]
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ernie John, Council Member
SECONDER: Clark Taylor, Council Member
YES: Hunter, John, Carroll, Holley, Taylor
18. Review and action on a resolution providing for the continuity of government pursuant to
the provisions of the Emergency Interim Succession Act.
Council Member Hunter moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Holley
seconded the motion. Voting was as follows:
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ryan Hunter, Council Member
SECONDER: Tim Holley, Council Member
YES: Carroll, Taylor, Hunter, Holley, John
19. Adjournment.
Council Member John moved to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Hunter
seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Stephanie Finau
Deputy Recorder
January 13, 2026 17 | P age