Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves Brent Money annexation, conditions approval on annexation agreement

Spanish Fork City Council · February 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a staff presentation and Boundary Commission review, Spanish Fork Council approved the Brent Money annexation (about 220 acres north of State Road 77) and required the applicant to enter an annexation agreement clarifying utility responsibilities and conditions.

Spanish Fork City Council approved an ordinance tonight to annex roughly 220 acres owned by Brent Money on the north side of State Road 77, following a staff presentation, applicant remarks and council discussion. Staff said the annexation petition was accepted for study last year, a protest from Springville led to a Boundary Commission hearing in December 2025, and the commission published a decision on Dec. 17, 2025 denying Springville’s protest.

City planning staff recommended annexation with rural residential (RR) zoning as the initial municipal designation and advised that future land‑use changes would require subsequent applications. Staff also recommended the council condition approval on the applicant entering into an annexation agreement to clarify who will extend and pay for utilities, address sewer lift‑station capacity, and ensure appropriate sizing of infrastructure as development plans crystallize.

Brent Money, the applicant, told the council he had reached out to Springville but did not receive engagement from that city and stressed his desire to proceed with Spanish Fork. Council members questioned the infrastructure readiness and whether existing utilities built for adjacent Stockman Flats could serve the property; staff said water main and sewer lift‑station capacity are close but that developers will need to complete studies and possibly upsize infrastructure as part of future development. Staff noted some conduit stubs appear on site from prior work but described them as empty conduits, not active services.

Council members discussed consistency with the growth‑management element of the general plan and acknowledged some past annexations were technically inconsistent with previous boundaries; staff said the proposed new general plan element would incorporate the property into the city’s future land‑use framework. Several council members emphasized property‑owner rights and the Boundary Commission ruling, and favored conditional approval. Councilman Marshall moved to approve with findings that: (1) the annexation would eliminate an unincorporated peninsula, (2) the subject property can be serviced by Spanish Fork utilities, and (3) the applicant must enter an annexation agreement. The motion was seconded and passed by roll call vote; recorded votes on the record were affirmative.

The council’s approval is conditioned on finalizing an annexation agreement with the city; staff and applicant expect further design and service studies as part of the development process.