[PAGE 1]
AMERICAN FORK CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 6, 2026
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Members Present:
Bradley J. Frost Mayor
Ryan Hunter Council Member
Ernie John Council Member
Clark Taylor Council Member
Tim Holley Council Member
Staci Carroll Council Member
Staff Present:
David Bunker City Administrator
Terilyn Lurker City Recorder
Anna Montoya Finance Director
Heather Schriever Legal Counsel
Cameron Paul Police Chief
Sam Kelly Public Works Director
Also present: Kay Kristofferson, Corey Maloy, Brady Brammer, Val Petersen, Craig Peterson,
Ryan Peterson, and George Brown
The American Fork City Council held a work session on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, in City Hall,
located at 51 East Main Street, commencing at 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Frost welcomed everyone to the work session.
1. Discussion with the city’s state legislative representatives.
Mayor Frost thanked the representatives for coming to the meeting. He stated there were some
concerns the city has that they would like to discuss with the representatives.
Mayor Frost started the discussion about articles staff have been reading on the land use
authority, as there are rumors of broader state authority. He questioned if the representatives’ feel
that will be addressed this legislative session.
Mr. Brammer thought the governor would push that this year. The Beehive zones came up last
year, but they were not on board. He thought it would be repackaged this year. The biggest
successes have not come by forcing cities to increase density, but by allowing communities to
develop farther out. He would like to see that model move forward and let cities do what is best
for their community.
Mayor Frost felt that American Fork has done our part with density. It was noted that the League
of Cities and Towns will weigh in on this issue heavily.

[PAGE 2]
Council Member Taylor stated that the city has done our part with the TOD and FrontRunner. If
they had the concentration on transportation corridors prior to the development, that would help.
The frustration of the citizens if not being able to get around the city. He questioned how they
talk about transportation corridors, which will make a difference on affordable housing. The
roads are not adequate. The city has tried to do it right with the TOD area, but the corridors are
not adequate. Mayor Frost noted the funding never proceeds development, and citizens do not
understand that.
Mr. Brammer stated they need to address the MPO game, which is controlled by COG. He
explained that the funding does come after the development has taken place, when it is failing,
and they are not getting funding for the local roads. MAG needed to look at the matrix being
when evaluating projects.
Mr. Kristofferson stated they have been meeting with four cities (American Fork, Lehi, Saratoga
Springs, and Eagle Mountain) to discuss an east-west corridor. As a result, UDOT has put in $5
million and MAG has set aside a couple of million for a study of the entire north area, which will
take about three years.
Craig Peterson stated they need to look at how Bangerter Highway was addressed if they want a
lesson on what happens. When that went in, it was forced on them; no one wanted it. However,
the only thing they did wrong was they didn’t maintain right-of-way, which then cost them
hundreds of millions of dollars. He brought up congestion mitigation. Their challenge was
looking at where growth was happening, where it was reasonably projected to go. It seemed
there was a hesitancy to acknowledge the problem. The challenge they have is that they are
almost pre-determining what can and cannot be done. When it states they will look at different
options, they will focus on the most environmentally friendly option. Mr. Peterson stated he was
hired to get funding for the flyover, but the flyover would be a local road. They are now looking
at what is more of a global solution. It will take this leadership to get this done, and he was
thrilled to have our representatives here today. It will take all the cities to work together so they
can come up with a solution for the congestion; they need to plan for growth.
Mayor Frost indicated he would like to talk to Senator Brammer more about the matrix, as he sits
on the MAG board. They needed to look at buildout and get out in front of the issue.
Mayor Frost asked what the city could do to help to push the agenda forward. Was there
information they needed from the city that would be helpful?
Council Member Hunter’s biggest concern was the TOD area and the traffic that is funneling to
the station; they were already failing with 200 South.
Council Member Taylor asked what they intend to gather from the three-year study. Mr.
Kristofferson stated there were three big areas across the lake, and they want to look at what they
have to do with the road across the lake before they move on. Another part was the traffic study.
There was not going to be one solution, but multiple solutions.
There was a discussion about things the city could do to help move this along, such as giving
them the city’s plan. It was noted that the city has reached out to the state, but nothing has been

[PAGE 3]
done yet. It was noted that the population numbers that UDOT has are lagging, so they do not
understand the severity of the issue.
There was a discussion on the flyover and where it would go. It was noted this road would give
the quickest connection for people on the north to get to the station. The traffic flow around the
FrontRunner station was pointed out.
Mr. Bunker pointed out the “Pony Express Parkway,” which was a section of the Vineyard
Connector alignment, from west of Lehi to where it would connect to the Vineyard Connector.
The issue was they are moving forward with the piece to 700 West, but when it gets to that point,
there is nowhere for the traffic to go. This will create a massive problem; they need to get that to
1500 South to get people back on the freeway. It was noted the city has been doing what can be
done to preserve the corridor.
Mr. Craig Peterson commented the state does not build local roads, so having a regional
designation will help the state legislature move funding forward.
Council Member Holley brought up an article that addresses the lack of UTA funding for Utah
County. Mr. Val Peterson stated there has been some modification to that, but he is not familiar
enough with that to explain. The transportation commission would have two seats added, which
would include two members from high growth areas in Utah County.
Council Member Carroll asked if property tax would be addressed. Mr. Kristofferson stated there
is a bill that states a taxing entity can’t increase property taxes more than 5% without going to
the people for a vote. The result would be that cities increase the property taxes in small
increments every year. Mr. Brammer commented that one thing that would be helpful would be
to include the rate of inflation. Mr. Kristofferson explained another senator is suggesting a
growth factor in property tax increases that doesn’t deal with truth in taxation.
Mr. Val Peterson stated that water funding may be included in property taxes and would include a
small property tax component.
Mr. Brammer stated that citizens are most upset about large yearly increases in property taxes for
schools. A bill is possible that would allow for referendums on property tax increases over a
certain percentage.
Council Member Holley brought up TSSD and the requirements that they are being forced to do.
Mr. Brammer stated he would fight that; he felt the sewer districts had done their part.
With water reuse, Mr. Bunker explained what the water reuse program is, noting the city made an
application that would take the water from the sewer plant, treat it, and then put it in the PI
system. The state has not made any decisions. It was explained the concern was the water would
not make its way to the Great Salt Lake. Mr. Bunker felt that reusing water was a way to have
water for the development that is taking place.
It was noted the state legislature made a state law that ended the ability to apply for water reuse,
but there was a period that would allow for grandfathering. American Fork did get their
application in prior to that deadline.

[PAGE 4]
The challenge was the state engineer was looking at changing the point of diversion on reuse. It
was noted the water rights were not property rights, but a use permit that can be revoked at any
time.
Mayor Frost brought up the option of changing the structure of Utah County Government. Mr.
Kristofferson stated he ran a bill last year that would make it so the number of commissioners
could be increased without changing the form of government or requiring a vote from the
citizens. There were issues with the way Utah County is run, such as not having districts,
therefore, possibly having two commissioners from the same city. There have been discussions
on ways to address this, but one issue was the additional funding required.
Council Member Holley asked what the status was on congressional redistricting and if changes
were going to be made. It was noted it was in the hands of the courts. There is an initiative to
repeal Proposition 4, but they do not know if the maps will change until they hear from the
courts. This upcoming election will be with the new districts.
Mayor Frost brought up Utah Lake, mentioning that the city was typically first response on the
lake. American Fork does not have the assets to keep at the lake, but by the time search and
rescue deploys, it will be too late. A lot of search and rescue equipment was personal, and one
suggestion was to house a personal boat without charge if the city could use the boat when an
emergency arises. DNR may have something they could store here, or that the Utah Lake
Commission was an option to coordinate with.
Council Member Taylor brought up public safety. He stated that the city works hard to make sure
our officers and fire personnel are properly compensated. As municipalities, they work together
but if one city gives large increases, there is cannibalism that takes place. It seemed that cities are
teamed against each other with their workforces. He felt there needs to be some mechanism
where the city who pulls an employee over would be required to pay the other city for their
training expenses. Council Member Taylor felt the cities needed to work together. Mr. Brammer
stated that some organizations have vesting in place. Council Member Holley brought up the
military pay scale and wondered if that was an option for municipalities. Another option was a
contract or vesting schedule. They discussed possible solutions to retaining employees.
Mayor Frost asked the representatives if they had any idea on the budget outlook. Mr. Val
Peterson stated they must pay for the Big Beautiful Bill, which is about $300 million ongoing
and $200 million one time. That bill covered many aspects that hit the states hard. To pay for this
bill, they have asked each committee for a decrease of 5% for a reallocation. There are four
primary areas that take up 75% of the state’s budget: public education, higher education, family
and human services, and transportation. The total budget was $30.5 billion for the state of Utah.
Council Member Taylor expressed his appreciation for their willingness to come to the city for
this discussion. Mr. Val Peterson stated he gets to see the representatives in their natural habitat,
and the city was lucky to have these representatives.
2. Introductory training for municipal officers.

[PAGE 5]
Heather Schriever, legal counsel, was present to go over the annual Open Public Meetings Act
(OPMA) training. She reminded the council they had the council rules of procedure on how to
conduct meetings.
Ms. Schriever stated that American Fork is extremely efficient, very professional, and cordial in
the way the council conducts themselves. She stated that OPMA, which can be found in Title 52
Chapter 4, was there to make sure they conduct business in the open. The should not act or enter
deliberations unless they are in a public meeting. She explained a public meeting occurs when
there are a quorum and public business is discussed. A quorum is when there are three members
present. Social gatherings are different, but when they have three of them together discussing
city business, it is a meeting. The anchor location depends on whether it is a work session or
regular session. They do have an option for electronic participation.
Ms. Schriever wanted to focus on agendas. They try to get the agenda to the council on
Thursdays, but there are times when they get the agenda out on Friday when they have all the
information. It was noted that Mr. Bunker will be meeting with each of the council members on
Monday before the meeting to go over any questions they may have. The requirement is to post
the meeting agendas a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the city’s website, the
Utah Public Notice Website, and in one public place. She stated the recorder’s office does a good
job of making sure those requirements are met.
Ms. Schriever continued that minutes are required and approved by the council. Each meeting
must be audio recorded; the city does have the council regular sessions on YouTube.
Closed meetings can be held with a roll call vote and 2/3 vote approval. The city was not
required to have closed meetings, but most often they are for strategy sessions. There are specific
things that can be discussed within a closed session, and those reasons are outlined in state law.
She explained that closed meetings must be recorded, except for when personnel issues are
discussed. The closed meeting records are protected records and never released unless a judge
requires it. One thing to keep in mind is the council needs to stick to what is within the
paraments of the closed meeting.
Ms. Schriever stated there will be the annual conflict of interest notice that will be due by
January 31st. The recorder will send out that information and form to fill out.
Mr. Bunker pointed out the state auditor makes them do a fraud risk assessment training where
they log on, watch a video, and take a quiz. This needs to be done and he will send a link for that.
It was suggested to have all the training courses be due on January 31st.
3. Adjourn.
The work session ended at 6:10 p.m.
Terilyn Lurker, City Recorder