Summit County Council Reports Progress on Snyderville Basin Cemetery Plans
Summit County trustees and staff told the council in late February that progress continues on the long-running Snyderville Basin cemetery effort organized under the Snyderville Basin Cemetery District.

Summit County Council meetings in late February included trustees and county staff reporting progress and continuing discussion on the long-running effort to establish a Snyderville Basin cemetery, an effort organized under the Snyderville Basin Cemetery District, county materials show.
The assembled meeting records and summaries do not include parcel numbers, a timeline, funding details, or direct quotes from trustees or staff about site selection or next steps for the cemetery, indicating those specifics remain to be produced in subsequent staff reports and council packets.

Council business that same week also covered land-use and fiscal items. Matt Leavitt presented two budget-resolution agenda items listed at 6:29 p.m. (Resolution 2025-31, 2025 Budget Amendments) and 6:33 p.m. (Resolution 2025-32, 2026 Budgets) on the Granicus agenda. The meeting convened additional governing-board public hearings: a Truth-in-Taxation hearing for the Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District with Brad Rogers listed for Resolution SBSRD 2025-33 and Ben Castro listed on Resolution SBSRD 2025-34 for the SBSRD 2026 budgets. The agenda also showed a Mountain Regional Water Special Service District public hearing (MRW 2025-29) and a Park City Fire Service District hearing with Pete Emery listed for PCFD 2025-30; the Granicus stream listed an adjournment time of 8:55 p.m. and carried a notation of “No documents available.”
Land-use items tied to the Snyderville Basin proceeded through the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission in parallel. Commission Chair Mooney closed a public hearing at 6:10 p.m., and “No one came forward to speak,” the Cloudfront transcript records. Makena Hawley “made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to amend certain sections of the Snyderville Basin Development Code to the County Council based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law found in the staff report. Matthew Nagie seconded, and all voted in favor, (7-0).”
Separately, the Planning Commission forwarded the Junction Commons redevelopment to the County Council after more than a year of discussion with the development team, Park Record coverage shows. The redevelopment would reduce commercial space and create 433 residential units with housing on the northwest corner, central commercial and retail areas, and some residential units above storefronts; developers proposed adding bus stops for an expanded High Valley Transit route. Commissioners mandated a traffic mitigation plan for each construction phase and voted 6-1 to forward the rezoning and master plan—Tim Jeffery cast the lone no vote. “Jeffery said he voted against because he was uncomfortable with the size of the project and its potential effect on traffic congestion in the Snyderville Basin.” The Park Record summary also notes that “Junction Commons is envisioned as a mixed-use residential neighborhood designed for locals.”
The County’s planning docket included an administrative-review plat amendment for Silver Creek Commerce Center Lot 7A Amended Subdivision at 6342 Silver Creek Drive, Parcel SCO-C-AM-7A. The Cloudfront agenda lists Applicant Brandon Brady, Summit County; Owner Silver Creek Commerce Park LLC, Don Craig; Project #25-200, with a partial name fragment “Tiffanie N.” appearing in the record.
Local coverage tied to the council’s late-February meetings also referenced regional events: a Heber Valley tractorcade protesting UDOT’s preferred Heber Valley bypass route on Feb. 28, 2026 through the Wasatch County North Fields; the Kouri Richins murder trial in Summit County on Feb. 27, 2026; and drone footage of an avalanche in Butler Basin, Big Cottonwood Canyon on Feb. 21, 2026.
Planning Commission recommendations on code amendments and on Junction Commons have been forwarded to the County Council for consideration; the cemetery district updates reported in late February remain at the “progress and continuing discussion” stage while staff reports, parcel details, and funding information are not yet provided in the public meeting records.
Sources:
Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?
Submit a Tip

