State, County Move to Designate Bridal Veil Falls as State Monument with $1.2 Million in Legislative Funding

Utah State Parks and county attorneys briefed the Utah County Board of Commissioners on plans to designate Bridal Veil Falls as a State Monument and work with the county on improvements.

Jeff Rasmussen, director of Utah State Parks, told commissioners that the State Monuments Act creates a lighter footprint than state parks and is intended for historically or geologically significant sites that will not be developed with full park facilities. "It was $1,200,000 that the legislature appropriated last session to go towards improvements to the Bridal Veil site," Rasmussen said, adding that the appropriation requires a dollar‑for‑dollar match from Utah County and that an additional roughly $400,000 was provided to a sister agency for trail work.

Ben Stanley of the county attorney’s office introduced a draft interlocal agreement and asked commissioners for guidance on local design, signage and maintenance expectations. Stanley said the county has already invested in on‑site basics such as restrooms and some early trail work and that the county and state expect to formalize roles in the interlocal so the state’s monument brand is applied consistently while local priorities — including a community preference for no admission fees — are protected.

County and state staff discussed likely components of the project: permanent, rock‑mounted entrance signage consistent with state branding; restroom upgrades; trail realignment and a new bridge; and continuing annual presentations from the state to the commission so county officials can stay involved. Rob Moore, county attorney, noted an existing conservation easement on part of the property that could restrict some uses and will be considered in the interlocal negotiation.

Members of the public asked whether private vendors or concessionaires would be allowed at the monument and whether events would be permitted. Rasmussen said the state’s current draft treats Utah County as the partner ("I misspoke earlier when I said private partner; our partner here is Utah County"), that the conservation easement may impose limits and that event requests would be handled through a coordinated process. Resident Miguel David Gedo raised public‑safety concerns about people climbing the falls and asked whether the county has plans to deter or memorialize fatalities; commissioners acknowledged the point and said it will be part of planning discussions.

Next steps: county staff said they will circulate a redline of the interlocal agreement, gather commissioner feedback on signage and sign placement, and return the interlocal for formal approval in the coming weeks so state appropriations can be programmed into project work.