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

Developer proposes relocation and upgrade of main water line; district outlines conditional cost‑share and requirements

August 23, 2025 | Beaver County Commission Meeting, Beaver County Boards and Commissions, Beaver County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Developer proposes relocation and upgrade of main water line; district outlines conditional cost‑share and requirements
A developer told the Health Meadow Special Services District board he wants to relocate a main water line that runs through the most attractive part of a new subdivision, arguing relocation would open lots and improve the neighborhood. The board described a conditional path forward and outlined the district’s requirements for any relocation work.

Shane (developer) said the existing main is about 45 years old, runs through future lots and is near the ski run, and that moving it would make lots more usable. He asked the district to provide pipe and help with costs. District staff and board members said the district is willing to permit a developer-driven relocation but will not set a precedent of the district contracting directly for developer projects or using board members’ private arrangements. Instead, staff said the district could provide material assistance limited to covering the incremental cost to upgrade pipe size (for example, the cost difference between 8-inch and 10-inch pipe) while the developer would be responsible for engineering, excavation, demolition of the old line and installation to meet district standards.

Staff discussed rough material costs: a ballpark estimate in the meeting cited 1,100 feet of pipe with a $14 per foot premium to upgrade from 8-inch to 10-inch pipe, and estimated that if the district covered the size-difference cost the developer would still cover labor and installation. Board members emphasized that any work must be documented through standard plan submittals, engineering approvals, written service letters, and formal agreements; the district will not bypass procurement or create unique contract privileges for a single developer. The district also flagged fire‑flow and fire‑marshal requirements for future subdivision service, noting that any will‑serve letter will require engineers to demonstrate adequate fire flow (for example, tank sizing and hydrant spacing consistent with state standards).

Board members asked the developer to provide a detailed estimate and maps, and staff said they will return with numbers and a recommended path forward once the developer submits plans and a cost estimate for materials and installation.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Utah articles free in 2025

Excel Chiropractic
Excel Chiropractic
Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI