Property owner presents annexation, sewer extension plans; council to review legal contiguity and utility constraints

McCoy, a property owner, told the Orangeville City Council on Jan. 14 that he is pursuing annexation of a parcel east of Main Street and is exploring a sewer-line extension and financing options to serve a proposed subdivision.

McCoy said there is a “30% grant” available and discussed loan terms he had been told — “a 40-year loan with either 2.5% interest or 3 and a half percent” — and said he could temporarily cover monthly payments “anywhere between 5 to $600 a month” until housing occupancy generated revenue. He told the council he planned a phased build and estimated a first phase of about 22 lots based on available water allocation.

The council and staff focused on two constraints: whether the parcel meets Utah statutory contiguity requirements for annexation and whether the city has sufficient water shares. City staff cited Utah law and the city’s annexation policy while noting a gap on maps between the city boundary and some eastern parcels. McCoy said his title search and state-code language suggest the property “is contiguous with other properties” by virtue of Main Street and right-of-way connections, and he offered to provide documentation for staff review.

McCoy also reported water availability as a practical limit. He said the parcel included “one or two” water shares and that Orangeville currently leases additional water because “we don't have enough water shares to cover” future meters. City staff confirmed water-share shortfalls are a factor in how many new connections the city can permit.

Council members and staff discussed possible routes for a sewer extension, potential easements across adjacent private parcels, and alternatives if annexation or sewer access cannot be obtained (including county subdivision with septic systems or one-acre lot options). Council asked staff to review McCoy’s title and annexation materials and the referenced Utah code sections before the council takes any formal annexation action.

No formal council action or vote was taken on annexation, sewer construction or grant application at the Jan. 14 meeting; the item remained a discussion and information request to staff.

McCoy asked council members to consider potential economic benefits from new housing and said he had been contacted by employers interested in bringing jobs to the area, but he acknowledged local opposition from a nearby landowner who has said he would oppose access across his property.

The council directed staff to examine McCoy’s materials, check map contiguity against the city boundary, clarify utilities and easement status, and report back at a future meeting so the council can determine whether to proceed with annexation steps or advise the applicant to pursue county subdivision options.