Summit County weighs revoking Spoil to Soil permit after years of compliance disputes

County staff say violations remain unresolved, while business argues some conditions were misapplied or impossible to fix during suspension

SUMMIT COUNTY, Utah — Summit County is still weighing whether to revoke the conditional use permit for Spoil to Soil, a local composting and recycling operation whose Browns Canyon site has been tied up in a years-long dispute over grading, materials, road access and other permit conditions.

The County Council took the matter under advisement Sept. 2 after hearing competing accounts from county staff and attorney Kyle Reeder of Cannon Law Group, who represents business owner Kylee Mimbach. Troy Long Enterprises Inc. owns the property at 7550 W. Lower Bowl Road.

County staff recommended upholding the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission’s earlier decision to revoke the permit, saying inspections showed multiple violations remained unresolved.

Spoil to Soil argues it has made good-faith efforts to comply and that some of the alleged violations involve activities already allowed under its permit or could not be corrected after the county halted work on the site.

County says violations remain

County staff told the council that multiple inspections had not shown substantial changes since the council last reviewed the property in February.

Staff said unresolved issues included notices of violation, road requirements and other site conditions. County enforcement records have also identified materials officials said were not allowed under the permit, including asphalt, roto-mill material, shipping crates, junk metal and tires.

Staff argued that the repeated compliance problems show the existing permit is not working as intended.

County officials told the council that revoking the permit would allow the business to return with a new application and establish clearer expectations for what activities are permitted on the property.

Business disputes county’s interpretation

Reeder challenged several of the county’s allegations.

He told the council Mimbach had tried to address violations the business believed were valid and argued that some activities the county cited were already authorized under the conditional use permit.

Reeder also objected to the county relying on issues raised during a June 9 reinspection that he said were not included in the original notices of violation and therefore had not been given a separate opportunity to be corrected.

One central dispute involves grading and unfinished earthwork on the property.

Reeder said some slopes and tree-platform areas remained incomplete because the county ordered work to stop. He argued the business could not finish those areas without being allowed to resume work.

He also maintained that soil processing and fill activities were contemplated under the existing permit and questioned why a separate permit should be required for that work.

A role in Park City’s food waste program

The permit fight carries implications beyond the property.

TownLift reported in April 2025 that Spoil to Soil partnered with Momentum Recycling and Park City Community Foundation to expand food waste recycling across the Wasatch Back. Under that agreement, Momentum took over pickups and delivered food waste to Spoil to Soil’s Browns Canyon facility for local processing.

As the permit dispute continued later that year, Park City Community Foundation developed a backup plan to send food waste to Wasatch Resource Recovery if local processing became unavailable. TownLift reported in September 2025 that Spoil to Soil remained operational while appealing the loss of its permit.

The dispute therefore sits at the intersection of two county priorities: diverting organic waste from the landfill and enforcing land-use and safety requirements.

Council holds off on a decision

Council members did not reach a final decision Sept. 2.

Councilmember Tonja Hanson said she believed she had enough information to move forward, citing unresolved state permitting questions about commercial composting.

Other council members raised concerns about what would happen to the property if the permit were revoked, including how the existing materials and unfinished work would be addressed.

County legal staff recommended taking the matter under advisement because the council was acting in a quasi-judicial role. Members agreed to continue deliberations and indicated they hoped to return to the issue within about two weeks.

The council made no final decision on the permit on Sept. 2.