Boundary commission opens public hearing on contested annexation of Money property

The Utah County Boundary Commission opened a public hearing Dec. 3 on a dispute over the proposed annexation of roughly 130 acres known in the record as the Money property, after presentations from Springville City, Spanish Fork City and the property's owner.

Springville City attorney John Panerat told commissioners the parcel has been part of Springville’s annexation planning for decades and does not meet statutory requirements for a conflicting annexation. "If it was in another city's annexation plan, we would simply say, hey. You've gotta go to that city because it's in their plan," Panerat said, citing provisions the transcript records as in the state code governing annexation policy plans.

Springville asked the commission to deny the petition and issue a written decision ordering Spanish Fork to remove the parcel from its annexation plan. "We would ask this commission to provide a written decision denying the proposed annexation, because it doesn't meet state law and it conflicts with our annexation policy plan," Panerat said.

Brent Money, the landowner and applicant, testified he has farmed the parcel for generations and said Spanish Fork "can service my property with all utilities" today. Money said he fears waiting years for Springville to bring utilities and estimated potential lost value at about "$150,000 an acre" if annexation is delayed. He urged the commission to support the property owner's request to proceed with annexation to Spanish Fork.

Spanish Fork city attorney Vaughn Pickell acknowledged the amended boundary overlaps Springville's plan but argued Spanish Fork applied the statutory criteria in weighing the petition. He told the commission utilities already surround the property and that annexation would "promote efficiency, avoid waste, and allow the property owner to proceed" rather than waiting for uncertain future utility extensions.

Commissioners questioned whether Money had been advised that the parcel was in Springville's annexation declaration when he approached Spanish Fork. Money said he had discussed his plans with Springville officials and later submitted a petition to Spanish Fork; Spanish Fork representatives said they considered the statutory factors when accepting and then amending their plan.

During public comment, Clayton Rackham of Clyde Capital Group said the parcel’s size "doesn't mean a lot to Spanish Fork City" in tax revenue but "to him personally it means a lot," urging sensitivity to the landowner's economic position. Tom Brockbank, another commenter, urged the commission to weigh landowner rights. Bridal Snyder, who identified herself as a Spanish Fork employee, said the city had told Money upfront that the parcel was in Springville's annexation plan and confirmed a May petition filing in the record.

The commission voted to open the public hearing and, after public comment, voted to close it. The commission then moved into closed deliberations; the record provided ends with deliberations beginning and does not include a final decision or vote on the annexation petition.

The commission's next public action will depend on the outcome of its closed deliberations; no effective action was announced in the public record at the meeting's close.