Paragonah council accepts 25-foot utility easement for Red Creek King Road property; outlines development requirements

PARAGONAH, Utah — The Paragonah Town Council voted to accept a 25-foot utility easement for a water line on property at 777 Red Creek King Road and asked the property owner to work with town staff on subdivision, flood-control and road requirements before proceeding with additional development.

Council members discussed the easement, testing and inspection requirements for the water line, and the town’s record of an earlier annexation ordinance from 2007 that appears in the county recorder’s office. The buyer of the property, identified in the meeting as Chris, told the council he was not aware of the annexation agreement when he bought the land.

Council members said the town will require documentation and infrastructure steps before allowing the water service to be used fully. During the discussion the council noted a requirement identified in the meeting as an “AISMA” must be obtained before turning water on, and that the line has been pressure-tested and sampled but would not be left operational until the town’s conditions are met.

Town members also addressed related development processes that would apply if the owner subdivides the parcel. They described the town’s subdivision ordinance and reminded the owner that creating two lots can follow a shorter process than creating three or more lots. The council said impact fees are normally charged when lots are developed and that building permits and flood-elevation, grading and engineering reviews are required before infrastructure is accepted.

Council members clarified inspection responsibilities: the county building inspector typically does not inspect infrastructure such as water lines; the town is responsible for infrastructure acceptance. The council discussed an existing hydrant and the need to meter or otherwise account for temporary hydrant use pending full acceptance.

The council raised long-standing drainage concerns tied to the property and nearby canal-company drainage easements. Members cited an earlier annexation map and ordinance recorded in the county in 2007 and said the annexation agreement itself should be recorded in the future so subsequent buyers are on clear notice of obligations tied to the parcel. When asked if he had been aware of the annexation agreement, Chris answered, “No.”

Survey and right-of-way details came up in conversation: council members said the easement for the water line was written by a surveyor (identified in the meeting as Steve Walz/Wolsey), and that the recorded description shows a 25-foot strip (referred to in the discussion as “west 25 feet” in places). The council noted existing record inconsistencies in older surveys and said the town may need to confirm placement and, if necessary, pursue reformation or correction through survey/legal processes.

After discussion, a council member moved to accept the easement and ask the owner to work with town staff on the outstanding items; another member seconded the motion. The motion was approved (vote tally not specified in the meeting record). The council directed staff to provide the property owner copies of the subdivision ordinance, the town’s road master plan and the flood-prevention documents the town is updating.

The town flagged several follow-ups: ensure annexation agreements are recorded on title in the future; confirm exact easement placement with the surveyor; require town engineering review for flood elevation and grading before final acceptance of the waterline; and clarify when impact fees must be paid if and when lots are developed.

The council did not set a specific timetable at the meeting for filing additional documents or for the owner to apply for a building permit, but members said they would provide the owner guidance and materials to meet town standards.