Utah and Juab officials to convene surveyors and planners to resolve Santaquin boundary split

Officials from Utah County and Juab County met to address a long-standing boundary-line issue after annexations by Santaquin City left dozens of subdivision lots split across the county line. Participants said the split affects roughly 24–25 lots (about five bisected) and estimated the disputed parcels represent about $75,000 in annual tax revenue, a figure several attendees said needs verification by county assessors.

The meeting focused on technical and practical remedies rather than immediate policy changes. "I think it's about $75,000 in taxes that we're looking at," said Speaker 1, identifying the preliminary fiscal stake. Speakers debated whether that number was accurate and stressed the need for assessor and recorder review. Speaker 2 said the assessor and recorder should verify plat lines and values before the counties make trade decisions.

Participants reviewed possible compensation options if a boundary adjustment moved property and tax jurisdiction. Speaker 1 suggested non-land trades such as water rights: "Does Utah County have any ... water rights that'd be willing to trade?" Several attendees called that a viable idea to equalize value, while others cautioned that water-rights holdings and legal transferability would need detailed vetting.

Speakers also discussed an earlier proposal to swap land near Eureka; Speaker 3 said that option "doesn't look like it's gonna go forward," so planners should not rely on that path. Juab representatives noted concerns about mining and patent claims on some parcels, warning that taking on additional acreage could introduce ownership uncertainties and administrative liability.

Rather than make a decision at the session, the counties agreed on a technical next step: convene county recorders, assessors, surveyors and planners from both counties to develop two or three retraceable boundary-line options and to verify lot counts and valuations. Speaker 3 volunteered to help host follow-up sessions. Participants discussed reconvening in late summer and asked staff to circulate proposed dates and preliminary options beforehand.

The meeting closed with mutual emphasis on finding a durable, survey-based boundary that follows section lines where possible to avoid repeated disputes. No formal motion or vote was recorded; officials described the outcome as an agreement to pursue technical work and report back with verified data and proposed boundary adjustments.