HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2017-10-10Moab City Council
October 10, 2017
Pre -Council Workshop
5:30 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY CENTER
(217 East Center Street)
Page 1 of 79
Page 2 of 79
City of Moab
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532
Main Number (435) 259-5121
Fax Number (435) 259-4135
www.moabcity.org
Moab City Council
Regular Council Meeting
City Council Chambers
Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:30 p.m.
..........................................••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
5:30 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
SECTION 1:
SECTION 2:
SECTION 3:
SECTION 4:
SECTION 5:
SECTION 6:
SECTION 7:
Workshop — Culinary Water Study Update — Marc Stillson
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1-1 September 26, 2017
1-2 October 4, 2016
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
PROCLAMATIONS
None
PRESENTATIONS
4-1 Presentation of the Mayor's Student Citizenship of the Month Award for September
2017 for Helen M. Knight School
PUBLIC HEARING (Approximately 7:15 PM)
5-1 Proposed Ordinance #2017-33 — An Ordinance of the Governing Body of Moab
Annexing Property to the City of Moab Located at approximately 1001 North and
500 West and 967 North and 500 West
OLD BUSINESS
6-1 Approval of Proposed Resolution # 55-2017 — A Resolution Approving an Extension
of the Existing Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement
NEW BUSINESS
7-1 Approval of Proposed Resolution # 56-2017 — A Resolution In Support of Extension
of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program; Permanent Legal
Status for Dreamers; and Urging Utah's Entire Congressional Delegation to Support
the Passage of Permanent Dream Act Legislation within Six Months
7-2 Approval of Proposed Resolution # 57-2017 — A Resolution Concerning Victim
Targeting
7-3 City Manager Annual Report
7-4 Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget Closeout Report
Page 3 of 79
7-5 Approval of a Request to Send Proposed Resolution # 58-2017 — A Resolution
Amending the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Annual Budget to Public Hearing on November
14, 2017 at Approximately 7:15 PM
7-6 Request for Approval of a Competitive Proposal/Bid — as outlined in Moab Municipal
Code 2.28.050 for the Purchase of Eight LED Speed Limit Signs in an amount not to
exceed $30,800.00
SECTION 8: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
SECTION 9: MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
SECTION 10: READING OF CORRESPONDENCE
SECTION 11: APPROVAL OF BILLS AGAINST THE CITY OF MOAB
SECTION 12: EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION
12-1 An Executive Session to Discuss the Character, Professional Competence, or Physical
or Mental Health of an Individual
SECTION 13: ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should
notify the Recorder's Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259-5121 at least three (3) working days
prior to the meeting. Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
Page 4 of 79
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -- DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
Regular Meeting & Attendance: The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date in
the Council Chambers at the Moab City Center, located at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. A
recording of the meeting is archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html.
Pre -Council Workshop: Mayor David Sakrison called the Workshop to order at 6:31 PM. In attendance
at the workshop were Councilmembers Rani Derasary, Heila Ershadi, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd and Kalen
Jones. Councilmember Kyle Bailey was absent. Also in attendance were City Manager David Everitt,
Human Resource Manager/Deputy Recorder Danielle Guerrero, City Attorney Chris McAnany, Public
Works Director Pat Dean, Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Planning Assistant Sommar Johnson,
Communications Director Lisa Church, Sustainability Director Rosemarie Russo and Recorder Assistant
Eve Tallman.
The Workshop consisted of a Discussion Regarding the Elimination of Conditional Use Permits (CUPS)
from the Municipal Planning Code. City Planner Reinhart presented a report on the effort to eliminate
conditional uses from the Code. He noted the revision would be ready for Council consideration in
upcoming weeks. Councilmember Derasary asked for a brief explanation for the public to understand
why there is a need to removed conditional uses from the code. Planner Reinhart and City Attorney
McAnany described recent Utah legislation that may interpret conditional uses as accepted uses.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd asked if the movement away from CUPS would be fair to future
development. Reinhart explained one example that has come up across the country is permitting bed -
and -breakfast businesses in residential areas.
At the conclusion of Reinhart's presentation, Councilmember Derasary asked about the recent change to
the City code regarding serving alcohol at city -permitted events. Derasary also asked about the agenda
item regarding the South Trunk Sewer Line.
Mayor Sakrison next reported on a meeting he recently attended where he discussed a grant
opportunity to install photovoltaic charging stations for automobiles in Moab.
City Manager Everitt announced that ballots for the municipal election would be mailed October 17.
Everitt next updated the Council on the Fall chipseal project. He said the project would take
approximately one month, and that a $5000 change order would be approved at the staff level for
added scope.
He next mentioned the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) hotspot funding for planning in
highway regions around the state that are impacted by recreation traffic congestion.
Regular Meeting Called to Order: Mayor Sakrison called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at
6:59 PM and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Twenty-six members of the public and media were present.
Page 1 of 5
September 26, 2017
Page 5 of 79
1-1 Minutes
Approval of Minutes: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve the minutes of the September 5 and
12, 2017 meetings. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0 aye, with
Councilmembers Ershadi, Jones, Derasary and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye.
Citizens to be Heard:
Dr. Ray Andrew spoke in favor of affordable housing. He stated that, as a small business owner, he has
trouble recruiting and hiring good employees from out of town because they cannot find affordable
housing. He noted that he finds this to be true among many small business owners in Moab. He urged
the Council to explore ways to solve the affordable housing dilemma.
Presentations:
Public Works Response to Area Flooding: Public Works Director Pat Dean reported on the City response
to the flood events in late July and mid -September.
Grand County Solid Waste Special Services District #1: Deb Barton of the Grand County Solid Waste
District made a report to the Council. She noted the District had recently made two new hires. She also
reported statistics regarding the landfills, notably the average of thirteen pounds of solid waste
produced per day per capita. She compared this statistic to a national average of 4.4 pounds per day.
She also reported a twelve percent recycling rate at the Klondike Landfill, which is a higher rate than in
the past. Councilmember Derasary asked about the new baler.
Rocky Mountain Power Energy Cooperation Statement: Deb Dull, Regional Business Manager for Rocky
Mountain Power, introduced George Humbert, Customer and Community Regional Manager, and Clay
Monroe, Commercial and Industrial Supply -Side Manager. Mr. Monroe described the Wattsmart
Communities program. He stated Moab has been selected to be the first Wattsmart Community, and
the Rocky Mountain Power staff will assist in the development of the Moab Community Energy Plan. He
outlined the elements of the program, including workshops and assistance in the identification of
baseline photovoltaic use in Moab, energy efficiency incentives, and an action plan for the City.
Councilmember Jones asked about the selection of Moab to be the first and Monroe noted the
readiness of the City for such a venture, including the recently -adopted renewable energy goal.
Councilmember Derasary asked about the time commitment expected. Councilmember Jones asked if
one aspect of the program would be to assist the City in managing power demand.
Special Events/Vendors/Beer Licenses:
American Alpine Club Moab Craggin' Classic —Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to approve licenses and permits for the American
Alpine Club Moab Craggin' Classic 2017 at Center Street Ball Fields October 27 and 28, 2017, with
conditions. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0 aye, with
Councilmembers Ershadi, Jones, Derasary and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye.
Amplified Music Event —Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Ershadi moved to approve licenses and permits for an Amplified
Music Event at Old City Park on October 6, 2017 with conditions, for Richard Mick. Councilmember
Jones seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0 aye, with Councilmembers Ershadi, Jones, Derasary
Page 2 of 5
September 26, 2017
Page 6 of 79
1-1 Minutes
and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye.
Waiver of Park Use Fee —Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve a Waiver of a Park Use Fee (not to
exceed $85) by Friends of Indian Creek to hold a Family Extravaganza at the Boulder Park and Lions Park
Pavilion on Friday, October 27, 2017, with one condition. Councilmember Ershadi seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
New Business: (1:14 on recording)
Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement —Tabled
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to approve Proposed Resolution #55-2017 — A
Resolution Approving an Extension of the Existing Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement.
Councilmember Knuteson-Body seconded the motion. City Manager Everitt proposed a change to the
proposal to include the management of refuse cans by the contractor. The proposal was viewed
favorably and the contractor was in the audience and gave positive input. City Attorney McAnany
suggested the new language could be firmed up for a future vote. Councilmember Jones then moved to
table the motion, and Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion to table. The motion to
table passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Development Improvements Agreement with Moab Springs Ranch —Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve Proposed Resolution #54-2017 — A
Resolution Approving a Development Improvements Agreement with Moab Springs Ranch.
Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones,
Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Shumway Annexation —Discussion (1:19 on recording)
City Planner Reinhart presented a briefing on the Proposed Shumway Annexation. He outlined the
process involved in an annexation. City Manager Everitt noted the evening's discussion represented a
preliminary briefing in advance of the public hearing to be held at the October 10, 2017 Regular Council
Meeting. It was stated that no action would be taken on the proposed annexation until the November
14, 2017 meeting, at the earliest. Planner Reinhart said the annexation applicants have proposed C-4
and R-4 zoning from the current County Rural Residential zoning. Reinhart noted the proposal would
include a 56-foot wide gap between neighboring R-2 properties, comprised of a street right-of-way in
addition to a landscape buffer. Reinhart pointed out access to the property would be from 500 West.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd asked about the rationale for requesting commercial rather than all R-4
zoning. Councilmember Ershadi pointed out the difficulties that arise regarding the proximity of R-2 and
C-4 zones.
100 West Sewer Replacement Project Professional Services —Approved
Motion and Discussion: Councilmember Ershadi moved to approve a Task Order with Bowen Collins &
Associates to Provide Professional Services for the 100 West Sewer Replacement Project.
Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. City Engineer Williams made a brief presentation about
the 100 West Sewer Project. Councilmember Jones asked about the procurement process for this item.
Councilmembers Derasary and Ershadi asked about potholing and blue stakes in the area.
Vote: The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting
Page 3 of 5
September 26, 2017
Page 7 of 79
1-1 Minutes
aye.
South Area Sewer Trunk Line Professional Services —Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to approve a Task Order with Bowen Collins &
Associates to Provide Professional Services for a Geotechnical Investigation of the South Area Sewer
Trunk Line, in an amount not to exceed $20,000. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Entrada Development Contamination Issue —Report (1:47 on recording)
City Manager Everitt presented an After Action Report on the Entrada Development Contamination
Issue.
Mayor and Council Reports:
Councilmember Jones reported he had been briefed on an upcoming presentation by graduate students
regarding a lighting inventory as part of a Dark Sky project. Discussion ensued regarding whether that
presentation would need to be posted as a Council meeting if a quorum of Councilmembers attended.
Councilmember Ershadi described a Homeless Coordinating Committee meeting she attended with
Police Chief Jim Winder. She noted the next meeting would be October 11 at 1:00 PM.
Councilmember Derasary noted she attended a Wabi Sabi meeting, as well as a meeting of the
Canyonlands Healthcare Special Service District and a meeting about geo-design regarding housing
potential. She also mentioned a proposed upcoming resolution on the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) Act, as well as State Senator Thatcher's bill intended to stiffen the punishment for bias -
related crimes including those related to gender identity.
City Attorney McAnany reported that he is working on a draft document regarding electronic
participation at City Council meetings. Councilmember Jones noted his support for the change. Mayor
Sakrison and Councilmember Bailey stated their non-support for the change.
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab: Councilmember Derasary moved to pay the bills against the
City of Moab in the amount of $1,311,580.16. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-0 aye, with Councilmembers Ershadi, Jones, Derasary and Knuteson-Boyd voting
aye.
Executive Session: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to enter an Executive Closed Session to
Discuss the Character, Professional Competence, or Physical or Mental Health of an Individual.
Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones,
Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi, and Derasary voting aye. The Executive Closed Session was entered into at 8:39
PM.
Councilmember Ershadi moved to end the Executive Closed Session and enter into open session.
Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones,
Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye. The Executive Closed Session ended at 9:41 PM.
Page 4 of 5
September 26, 2017
Page 8 of 79
1-1 Minutes
City Manager Employment Agreement —Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Ershadi moved to approve Proposed Resolution #53-2017—A
Resolution Approving the Employment Agreement by and between the City of Moab and David Everitt
for the Position of City Manager. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Adjournment: Councilmember Ershadi moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Jones seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary
voting aye. Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 9:42 PM.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
David L. Sakrison, Mayor Rachel E. Stenta, City Recorder
Page 5 of 5
September 26, 2017
Page 9 of 79
1-1 Minutes
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -- DRAFT
SPECIAL JOINT MOAB CITY COUNCIL/GRAND COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2017
Special Meeting & Attendance: The Moab City Council held a Special Joint City/County Council
Workshop Meeting on the above date in the Council Chambers at the Moab City Center, located at 217
East Center Street, Moab, Utah. A recording of the meeting is archived at
www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html.
Special Meeting Called to Order: Grand County Council Chair Jaylyn Hawks called the Special Joint
City/County Council Workshop Meeting to order at 12:03 PM with Governor Gary Herbert and State
Senator David Hinkins. In attendance were Moab City Councilmembers Rani Derasary, Tawny Knuteson-
Boyd and Kalen Jones, Mayor David Sakrison, City Manager David Everitt, City Recorder/Assistant City
Manager Rachel Stenta, Special Projects Director Amy Weiser, Sustainability Director Rosemarie Russo
and Recorder Assistant Eve Tallman. Also in attendance were Grand County Councilmembers Jaylyn
Hawks, Mary McGann, Curtis Wells, Greg Halliday and Evan Clapper, County Council Administrator Ruth
Dillon, Community Development Director Zacharia Levine and County Clerk Diana Carroll. Forty-five
members of the public and media were present.
Economic Development and the 25,000Jobs Initiative Update: Governor Gary Herbert spoke about the
high quality of life in Utah and the robust Utah economy, and also noted his concern about economic
development in rural Utah. He expressed his interest in hearing from the assembled group for ideas
regarding economic development. Grand County Councilmember Curtis Wells opened the discussion by
commending the 25K jobs initiative.
Proposed Short -Term Rental Amendments - HB 253: Wells next moved to the topic of short-term rental
legislation. He mentioned the City/County opposition to the bill proposed in the Utah legislature last
year. Next, Mayor Sakrison spoke on this topic. Governor Herbert asked for clarification about how
nightly rentals in residential areas impact the affordable housing issue. The Governor stated his support
for the economic philosophy of supply and demand. Wells stated that nightly rentals in residential
neighborhoods degrade the quality of life in those neighborhoods, and also excludes that local working
class from the housing market. Wells stated he believes short-term rental zoning should be under local
control. The Governor reiterated his support for private property rights, and added that local entities
should be able to determine appropriate local zoning codes. State Senator David Hinkins mentioned the
confusion of charging primary residence taxes on second homes if they are rented, even as vacation
rentals. Governor Herbert gave an example of Provo changing zoning to cut down on student housing in
residential neighborhoods.
Utah State University -Moab (USU-Moab) Campus: Councilmember Wells stated that Moab's number
one export is its children. He explained the concept of USU-Moab as a destination campus and noted
local support for the proposed campus. USU-Moab Executive Director Dr. Lianna Etchberger spoke
about raising revenues for the new campus by touting the destination campus theme plus supporting a
workforce. The Governor asked what would be requested from the State. Dr. Etchberger stated that
money is needed for the new campus, to support new programs, and to hire new faculty. The Governor
explained that Moab's needs must be addressed by the college president and board of trustees, and also
Page 1 of 4
October 4, 2017
Page 10 of 79
1-2 Minutes
the State -level regents. He then suggested approaching the legislature, with specific requests for
earmarks, programs, and hiring assistance. Councilmember Wells gave an overview of progress on the
USU-Moab plan, including Mayor Sakrison acting to secure a Permanent Community Impact Board (CIB)
loan for an access road and infrastructure. Dr. Steve Hawks, former USU-Moab Dean, noted the amazing
support of the community. The Governor noted that Mike Mower, the Governor's representative on the
School and Institutional Trust Land Administration (SITLA) advisory board, voted yes on USU-Moab.
S100 Million Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Appropriation - SB 277: Councilmember Wells
stated the $100 Million appropriation for the Utah Department of Transportation to support congestion
mitigation in key outdoor recreation corridors is a good direction for the state, signifying outdoor
recreation is doing its job in Utah's economy. Wells outlined the dilemma of Highway 191 serving as
Moab's Main Street. Wells noted that Moab is seeking $300,000 for planning for congestion mitigation
and related economic development issues. City Manager David Everitt noted he is grateful for
partnership with UDOT staff, including Carlos Braceras and Rick Torgerson. The Governor also praised
UDOT and urged Moab and Grand County to pursue the appropriation funding and noted the return on
investment in Grand County is high. He added that, if Utah doesn't get a handle on transportation
infrastructure, the economy will suffer.
Transient Room Tax (TRT) Law and Collection Issue: Councilmember Wells noted there has been a
healthy debate locally. He added that promotion of tourism has enabled the economy we now have, and
stated that Moab is now a mature tourism destination. He stated that there are now only two months of
"off season." The flip side, he added, is that visitation volume has doubled. Kate Cannon,
Superintendent of the Southeast Utah Group of the National Park Service, stated that Arches National
Park has had 1.6 million visitors per year. Councilmember Wells stated that it is important for the local
governments to assume the ability to mitigate impacts of tourism using the TRT revenues. He mentioned
that the percentage of revenue that must be used for more publicity should be reduced. He stated the
issue surrounds the equitable use of revenues for mitigation including infrastructure, emergency
services, and police versus more promotion. Governor Herbert encouraged local officials to have this
conversation with the Utah Association of Counties (UAC) regarding amendments to the law for
mitigation versus promotion. Wells next introduced the issue regarding the local ability to collect TRT.
He reiterated the local control issue. He noted that six years ago, the law changed, giving the State
control of collecting TRT. The Governor affirmed this was due to a lack of trust in the accountability of
some local governments. Moab Area Travel Council Director Elain Gizler stated the County paid
$158,000 to the State to collect TRT fees on behalf of Grand County. The Governor recommended
working with UAC to change the law. Senator Hinkins added that some local jurisdictions wanted the
State to take on this tax collection. The Governor recommended a discussion that may result in
legislation providing more flexibility in how TRT revenues can be spent, specifically for infrastructure and
roads. He noted that a successful economy in Utah is due to diversification, and TRT monies should be
able to be used to diversify the economy.
Future considerations: Superintendent Cannon provided an update on Arches National Park. She stated
that visitation at Arches is booming and that a reservation system is proposed to create a manageable
pattern of visitation. She stated that the current usage patter resulted in forty percent unused capacity.
The added that the Park seeks to provide a quality experience for visitors. She pointed out the
rehabilitation of the park's roads is happening for the first time in fifty years, with a plan to finish in
November. Councilmember Wells concurred that it is a real challenge with tourists spending one to two
Page 2 of 4
October 4, 2017
Page 11 of 79
1-2 Minutes
hours in line to enter the Park for this world-renowned resource, and lacking quality of experience.
Senator Hinkins brought up former Congressman Chaffetz's recommendation to add another entrance
to the Park. Superintendent Cannon responded that a second entry wouldn't be a solution, since
Delicate Arch and the Windows area are gridlocked destinations. Cannon added that the reservation
system is proposed to ensure a steady stream of visitors throughout the day, and throughout the year.
Governor Herbert stated that there may not be a need for a second entry. He added that people don't
like to hear it, but a reservation system might be best. Senator Hinkins praised the Governor for
providing funding to open the Park during a recent federal government shutdown.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd asked the Governor to reconsider the recently -legislated blood alcohol
limit due to it having a negative impact on businesses, and also to recognize Moab's stance on public
lands. Councilmember Derasary requested input about how to communicate about Moab's housing
needs, including short-term rental legislation, and legislative control over Utility Transport Vehicles
(UTV/ATVs) on local thoroughfares; she also advocated support for the upcoming victim targeting bill.
Councilmember Jones mentioned the 25,000jobs is a great metric, and in Moab we have a problem of
quality of jobs paying a living wage. He also mentioned the need for local governments to manage lands
within municipalities. Councilmember McGann also noted the UTV/ATV issue as well as affordable
housing. Councilmember Wells praised the Governor's approach to the Bears Ears designation. Wells
noted the need for a balanced plan and respect for the local culture. He noted environmentalists were
influencing tribes. Councilmember Halliday suggested UTV/ATV muffler requirements could be a
solution to the noise concerns. He added that the Castle Valley Volunteer Fire Department was having a
tough time getting volunteers and hoped the State could come up with incentives. Councilmember
Clapper mentioned the divisiveness locally surrounding the public lands issues, and noted his relief that
clean water as a priority for the Governor. He added that clean air in the area's national parks is an
issue. He stated that clean air is important for all Utah citizens, and he supports the Environmental
Protection Agency's efforts.
Closing Remarks: Governor Herbert addressed the Councilmember concerns in his closing remarks. He
stated that change is a constant. He lamented the distortion of messages from right and left. He
stressed that he wants to understand clearly what local governments want.
On the blood alcohol level issue, he stated the new law is not about drinking, but about impaired
driving. He suggested that perhaps the lowest blood alcohol level should have different penalties. He
stated that, with regard to public lands, divisiveness is bad. He mentioned his impression of the
mischaracterization of the State's position. He said it is clear we are a public lands state, but he wants to
optimize management of public lands. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Wells on Bears Ears. He
stated it is a myth that the State wants to develop energy in the Bears Ears region. He stated that the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the ability to regulate areas even more than a monument
status, including limiting access to archeological sites. He stated it is tougher to privatize public lands in
Utah than elsewhere. He noted the profit would go to federal government anyway. He urged attendees
to communicate with Mike Mower regarding the housing issues, or the constituency services office.
He discussed the irony of the Off -Highway Vehicle (OHV) issue. He stated that perhaps the approach is
to tweak the law regarding acceptable noise levels. He said that different sides need to come together
regarding the upcoming hate crimes legislation. He went on to say that, with regard to job quality, the
living wage idea is not part of the free market place. He urged the local governments to work together
to develop a plan and to broaden opportunity and incentives.
Page 3 of 4
October 4, 2017
Page 12 of 79
1-2 Minutes
With regard to zoning and local control, the Governor stated he supports that. On the topic of volunteer
fire departments, he noted that Utah leads the nation in volunteerism. He raised the question of paying
the fire fighters, and added that it is not a State issue.
He defended his stance on clean air. He said that the State needs to balance jobs with clean air. He
confirmed that the public wants sustainable, clean, affordable energy and noted that most pollution is
from vehicles.
Adjournment: Councilmember Clapper moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Derasary
seconded the motion. County Council Chair Hawks adjourned the meeting at 1:48 PM.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
David L. Sakrison, Mayor Rachel E. Stenta, City Recorder
Page 4 of 4
October 4, 2017
Page 13 of 79
1-2 Minutes
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: October 10, 2017
#:_
PI-17-143
Title: Public Hearing for the Review of Council 2017-33 to Approve the 10-Acre Shumway
Property Annexation Located at 963 and 1001 North 500 West and Applying a
Zoning Designation
Date Submitted: October 2, 2017
Staff Presenter: Jeff Reinhart, City Planner
Attachment(s): Draft Ordinance #2017-33, PC approved minutes-8-10-2017, aerials,
annexation plat, annexation evaluation, use comparisons/purpose for specific zones, public
comments
Options: Approve as submitted, deny, or modify.
Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance #2017-33 to approve the annexation
of the Shumway Property 963 and 1001 North 500 West, into the City of Moab and the
Zone Districts of C-4 and R-4 be applied as submitted.
Background/Summary:
The Shumways are requesting the annexation into the City of two lots that are
approximately ten acres in size and located at 963 and 1001 North 500 West. The land is
currently zoned Rural Residential (RR) and the historic uses are a single-family residence
and industrial uses.
The requested zoning includes C-4 that will be applied to the eastern three -acre portion of
their property that abuts 500 West and the C-4 on the east and north along Main Street.
The requested R-4 zoning would be applied to the seven (7) acres farther west, much of
which is adjacent to the Palisades Subdivision. (Please refer to attached aerials and
drawings.)
The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their meeting held on August 10,
2017. There was considerable discussion about the zoning, but the Commission could not
reach a consensus. Subsequently, a 2-2 vote killed a motion to refer the annexation to City
Council with a recommendation for the zoning. Council must now determine the
appropriate zones for the properties and several use lists have been provided for
comparison of the uses in the considered zones.
Page 14 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
The attached Review (PL-17-117) contains an evaluation of the proposed annexation as
required by MMC 1.32.
Page 15 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
ORDINANCE #2017-33
AN ORDINANCE OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF MOAB
ANNEXING THE SHUMWAY PROPERTIES TO THE CITY OF MOAB
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2017, the City of Moab received a petition for
annexation of certain properties approximately ten (10) acres in size as described in
Exhibit "1" hereto; and
WHEREAS, the property is proposed for urban development as defined by Utah
State Law; and
WHEREAS, the landowners of the affected property have consented to and
petitioned for this annexation and the City Recorder on July 31, 2017, certified that the
application complies with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Moab Planning Commission reviewed the application in a public
meeting held on August 10, 2017, to review the requested zoning for C-4, General
Commercial Zone, and R-4, Manufactured Housing Residential Zone and determined that
the requested C-4 Zone was appropriate but could not reach agreement on the
appropriate residential zone; and
WHEREAS, the Moab Planning Commission in a 2-2 vote failed to reach a
decision to recommend a zoning to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must consider comments from affected entities, if
any, and no notice of protest has been filed subsequent to the publication of notice of the
application, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the property meets the
requirements of the City's annexation policy plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the property meets the
annexation requirements of Utah State Code; and
WHEREAS, the governing body has held the appropriate public hearings, given
the appropriate public notice and received public input.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Moab
that:
The property known as the Shumway Annexation as described in "Exhibit 1" and
illustrated on the attached plat, "Exhibit 2", and located at 963 and 1001 North 500
West, is hereby annexed into the City of Moab and the zoning designations, determined
by City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall be
and .
Page 16 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and this ordinance
constitutes an amendment to the articles of incorporation for the City of Moab.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2017.
ATTEST:
Rachel Stenta
City Recorder
David L. Sakrison
Mayor
Page 17 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
EXHIBIT 1
Beginning at a point on the Moab City limits, said point being N 00°31' E 729.90 feet
from the East Quarter corner of Section 35, Township 25 South, Range 21 East, Salt Lake
Base and Meridian and running along said city limits thence S 89°46' W 548.60 feet;
thence S 00°03' W 5.40 feet; thence N 89°57' W 1646.98 feet; thence SOUTH 197.38
feet along ownership line; thence EAST 903.00 feet to a point on Moab City Limits;
thence EAST 1290.74 feet along city limits; thence N 00°31' E 203.6 feet the point of
beginning
435,181 SQ. FT. OR 9.99 ACRES
Page 18 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
Exhibit 2
Page 19 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
/0_1110.11,J
.aocroaH unnaa
.LLIJ EV.% 0,011detl
Laa
1,1M101:16:1V110.11,5
,I11,11,1000.5,0
NOIld1.530 AGIV.1110E1
3.01A11.0.
mr,
z.op
Page 20 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
MOAB CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
:: MINUTES :: AUGUST 10, 2017 ::
Members Present: Allison Brown, Jeanette Kopell, Wayne Hoskisson, Joe Downard, Laura Uhle
Members Absent: None
City Councilmembers: Kalen Jones
City Staff: Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Zoning Administrator/Planning Assistant Sommar
Johnson
Public Members: 20
The Moab City Planning Commission held its regular meeting on the above date in the Council Chambers of
Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. Planning Commission Chair Laura Uhle called
the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
1. Citizens to be Heard
There were no citizens to be heard
2. Action Item
Approval of Minutes:
July 27, 2017
Commissioner Downard moved to approve the minutes of July 27, 2017. Commissioner Brown seconded the
motion. Commissioner Uhle mentioned that there is a typo that needs to be corrected from quick claim to quit
claim in the minutes. The motion carried 5-0 aye.
3. Action Item — Planning Resolution 38-2017
A Resolution Favorably Recommending to Council Ordinance 2017-33, Approving the Annexation
Of the Shumway Property and Approving the Requested C-4 and R-4 Zoning.
Planning Director Reinhart gave an overview of the proposed Planning Resolution 38-2017 of the Annexation of
the Shumway Property and the rezoning of C-4 and R-4.
Commissioner Uhle asked for a description of where the R-4 and C-4 are located on the map. Director Reinhart
explained where the R-4 and C-4 would be. Director Reinhart showed where the boundary adjustment would be
and where there is a buffer. Commissioner Uhle asked Commissioner Brown to leave. Commissioner Uhle then
clarified to Commissioner Brown that because Commissioner Brown had signed the petition and for the planning
commission and Commissioner Brown's protection she needed to leave without comment. Commissioner Brown
still stayed to make a comment and ask a question about what zone the Buffer area would be. Commissioner Uhle
explained why it was important for Commissioner Brown to recuse herself. Commissioner Brown wanted to go
on the record as recusing herself due to signing the petition that the Commission had received.
Page 21 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
Director Reinhart went into detail of what kind of housing could possibly be put in the R-4 and the possible
developing uses for the C-4. Commissioner Uhle questioned if we had put in our annexation map any kind of
proposed zone for annexation. She believes it would help if we had a recommendation for the best zone when an
annexation is being proposed. Director Reinhart did state that we need to develop a future land use map, and
explained that the decision needs to be made whether or not to have it rezoned R-4 and C-4.
Commissioner Uhle did tell the audience that the public is allowed to come and listen but this is not a public
hearing and public comments would not be accepted in this meeting. She did state that the Commission had
received what was given to them and the Commission had read it. She then stated again that they could not take
public comment at this time.
Commissioner Kopell asked to clarify that there was a house on the diagram, Commissioner Downard mentioned
about the turnout needing to be fixed and straightened out. Commissioner Hoskisson asked about extending R-2
to the west, Commissioner Downard pointed out that there is R-4 above it. Commissioner Hoskisson mentioned
that we need to be thinking about what should happen going forward. Commissioner Uhle stated that we need to
increase density going into town and decrease it going out of town. Commissioner Uhle asked about the size of
the existing homes on Westwood. They did discuss that the R-4 is 1800 sq. ft. for lot size. Commissioner Uhle
wanted to view the slide of the right away of the property. They went over the dimensions of the right away
needing to be 50 and the street would be 30-35. Director Reinhart discussed that the right away could be moved in
different directions and how that would affect the existing residences.
Mike Duncan asked a question and Commissioner Uhle stated again that there could be no public comment. Mike
Duncan then said he had a procedural question. Commissioner Uhle directed him to Sommar and Jeff. Mr.
Duncan asked if "It is the commission's intent on ruling on this annexation and zoning change. Zoning
Administrator Johnson explained that the planning commission is just reviewing the proposed zoning and making
a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Duncan then proceeded to plead his case that Commissioner Uhle
should, as the chairperson allow people to make a public comment since there was so many in the audience.
Zoning Administrator Johnson then proceeded to explain that State Law does not allow public comment to be
made when it was not advertised as a public hearing where the community as a whole could be represented.
Therefore, there can be no public comment due to the State law.
Commissioner Kopell stated that one of the big concerns for her, as a property owner is that if you buy a piece of
property and want to change the zone for your benefit is not ok. This property is surrounded by residential and
fifth west is an artery to 191 and is set up to be a commercial byway. She is worried because the property was
previously industrial and the shape of the property is making her hesitant. Commissioner Uhle aske Director
Reinhart and Zoning Administrator Johnson for clarification if they can make a recommendation for the right
away to not be on the south side. There was discussion that they are only deciding on the annexation and the zone
change, not a development plan. Commissioner Downard made the statement that you cannot decide where the
road is for the developer as this is an annexation hearing only.
Commissioner Downard made a motion to adopt Planning Resolution 38-2017. There was no second, therefor the
motion failed.
Commissioner Hoskisson stated that he was not going to seconded it because he is not sure if he believes in the R-
4 zoning part of it.
Commissioner Kopell moves to pass on to the city council with a negative recommendation on the zoning.
Commissioner Hoskisson seconded the motion with the suggested amendment for the city to work with the
developer for a different zone rather than the R-4. Commissioner Downard stated that is not what is before the
commission. There was discussion on what they could and could not recommend to the City Council.
Page 22 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
Commissioner Hoskisson wants to move forward with the recommendation that the City Council needs to decide
on this.
Commissioner Kopell accepts the amendment, and Commissioner Hoskisson seconded it.
There was more discussion on it being a zone change. Commissioner Kopell mentioned that they should proceed
slowly, because even when they have recommended a resolution in the past the City Council "shuts it down".
Commissioner Uhle stated that she thinks that they are going to be hard pressed to disallow the zoning of the C-4.
The R-4 is debatable as it is bringing in the option of employee housing. She also stated that she has no problems
with the C-4 either. Commissioner Kopell and Commissioner Uhle discussed again about the future use and the
buffer between these two zones.
Administrator Johnson clarified the motion.
Motion failed 2-2. With Commissioner Downard and Commissioner Uhle voting against.
Commissioner Brown asked to make a comment and Commissioner Uhle said for Commissioner Brown's
protection she would not be allowed to make a comment on anything to do with this subject. Again,
Commissioner Brown asked if she could make a "general comment", for a third time during this meeting
Commissioner Uhle stated that Commissioner Brown could not make a comment on this subject. Commissioner
Downard also stated that Commissioner Brown could not comment on this subject as well. Commissioner Brown
proceeded against Commissioner Uhle and Commissioner Downard's statements anyways. Commissioner Brown
stated, "We should remember that we need to keep in mind what our general plan says and what the public is
asking for when it comes to rezoning and annexing. At this point, none of the people she has spoken to including
current City Council Members has stated, "that nothing in our general plan says we need more commercial. In
fact it is saying we need more residential." Commissioner Uhle stated to take that and use that when going
forward with Annexations as a guide.
There was no further discussion.
4. Workshop Discussion- Conditional Uses
1. Dwellings in the C-4 Zone- There was discussion if dwellings should be allowed in the commercial zone.
Commissioner Brown stated that she did not want residential in commercial and commercial in
residential. There was 4 for yes's and Commissioner Brown was against it.
2. Historic Dwellings- All Commissioners stated that they were ok with this.
3.
4. Multi -Household dwellings, seven or more units- Commissioner Uhle recused herself. There should be no
conditional use in the R-3 & R-4 zones. Allowed those as a permitted use with standards. 4 yes's and
Commissioner Uhle had previously recused herself.
5. Group Home -The state dictates how this is handled
6. Utility Provider Structures- Permitted at this point but the standards need to be tightened up.
7. Premises Agricultural Biz- Permitted in the RA-1
8. Trucking Co. / Terminal- Should be permitted in I-1 only
9. B&B- With standards allowed in the Residential area
Page 23 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
10. RV/Travel Trailer Park or Court- Make it permitted with standards in the C-4
11. RV Area within a Mobile Home Park- Get rid of the RV Area
12. Golf Course- Permit in the RA-1, A-2
13. RV Court- They want to look at the standards and compare to #10 to combine it and #13 together.
14. Self —Storage Warehouse- Draft ordinance to move that to C-4 and I-1
15. Asphalt/Concrete Batching Plant, Perm.- Allowed in I-1, C-4?
16. Asphalt/Concrete Plant Temp- Allowed in I-1, C-4?
17. Wireless Telecommunication Towers- Cannot really stop this one due to Federal Law
18. Drive-Thru Windows- Conditional Use Permits
19. Large Commercial & Home -Based Day Care Ctrs- 9 kids and beyond. They need to discuss the sizes and the
appropriate conditions.
Commissioner Downard left at 7:20pm
20. Manufactured Home Sales- Permitted with Standards
21. Division of Small Lots- Do away with this one.
22. Moved Buildings -This should be moved to a building permit, not a conditional use. REMOVE
23. Cemeteries, Public or Private- This one needs to be reviewed **
24. Animal pound or Kennel -Private- Permitted with Standards in the existing zones. Clarify size of animal that is
able to be boarded. REREVIEW
25. Vet Clinic w/ Kennel- Permitted in A-2 and RA-1 with Standards. REREVIEW
26. Schools, Churches, Monasteries- State Code overrides for schools. REREVIEW
27. Other Public Facilities- REREVIEW and Evaluate with #26
Commissioner Brown asked why Rainbow has not been paved yet. Director Reinhart explained that there was
$28,000 posted with the City back in the 1950's for this project. When Director Reinhart started researching this
matter, it was a dead-end. They could not find if the money had actually been paid, or any information explaining
what happened with the project.
Commissioner Brown mentioned that a number of community rebuilds have been turned into nightly rentals and
she expressed her concern over this. Administrator Johnson explained that we could not site them if they are listed
on a website. However, if the activity is actually occurring then something could be done. It was also discussed
that usually in the building process or loan process it does state that the homes cannot be used for nightly rentals.
Page 24 of 79
5-1 Public Hearing
Administrator Johnson asked if Commissioner Brown had a name or any actual proof. Commissioner Brown
stated that her source has the actual information. That she would discuss with her source and decide what to do.
Commissioner Uhle Adjourned the meeting at 7:45pm
Page 25 of 79
Shumway Annexation 0 200 400 600100Feet
1 inch = 200 feetÜ
Grand County
City of Moab
Westwood Dr.
Palisade Dr.Rainbow Dr.US
-
1
9
1
-
M
a
i
n
S
t
.500 W St.Page 26 of 79
Shumway Annexation 0 200 400 600100Feet
1 inch = 200 feetÜ
RC Zone C-4 Zone
R-2 Zone
Grand County
City of Moab
Westwood Dr.
Palisade Dr.Rainbow Dr.US
-
1
9
1
-
M
a
i
n
S
t
.500 W St.Page 27 of 79
Page 28 of 79
Page 29 of 79
Page 30 of 79
PL-16-41
Memorandum
PL-17-117
To: Members of the Moab Planning Commission and City Council
From: Jeff Reinhart, AICP, Planning Director
Date: August 10, 2017
Re: Shumway Annexation Review
____________________________________________________________________________________
Background
The sponsor of this 9.99-acre annexation is Kelly Shumway who is manager and registered agent for KM
Real Estate Enterprises, LLC, owner of the subject properties. The properties are currently zoned RR,
Rural Residential and are located at 1001 and 967 N. 500 West.
The improvements on 1001 consists of an old residence and the property at 967 North 500 West
includes a small business office and a large metal building that has historically been used for commercial
and industrial businesses for over sixty years. The exhibit below indicates the lot configuration and
existing development on the property.
As shown to
the left, the
lot is a long
narrow
rectangular
shape that is
about 2,178
feet in length
and 200 feet
in width. It is
adjacent to
the Palisades
Subdivision
along the
southern
boundary for
much of its
length. The
requested annexation, if approved by City Council, will remove this peninsula and bring the property
into the City.
City of Moab
Planning Department
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532-2534
(435) 259-5129
Fax (435) 259-0600
Mayor: David L. Sakrison
Council: Kyle Bailey
Rani Derasary
Heila Ershadi
Kalen Jones
Tawny Knuteson-Boyd
Page 31 of 79
The surrounding City of Moab zoning includes the C-4, General Commercial Zone, to the north and east
along Main Street and south along 500 West; and R-2, Single- and Two- Family Zone, to the South. The
property owner is requesting that a zoning designation of R-4, Manufactured Housing Residential Zone,
be applied to the western 7 acres of the property and C-4, General Commercial, to the remaining 3
acres.
Evaluation
Moab Municipal Code Section 1.32.030 applies to the evaluation of the proposed Shumway Annexation
and requires that each annexation be evaluated against several factors as discussed below.
a. Compliance with Appropriate Provisions of State Code
Applicable state code provisions have been reviewed and staff has determined that the annexation
complies with the relevant requirements, including but not limited to the following:
The annexation must be contiguous to Moab City Limits. The property is a peninsula and
adjacent to City Limits on three sides.
The annexation must maintain contiguity through the entire area to be annexed. The
property is comprised of two adjacent lots.
The annexation must not create islands or peninsulas of unincorporated county land
unless it is within the Annexation Area and the county has no concerns. The property lies
within the Annexation Area and no islands or peninsulas are created.
The annexation must be initiated by a petition that meets all state requirements- the
petition has been certified by the City Recorder to meet state requirements.
Page 32 of 79
Again, this property is a an unincorporated peninsula that is clearly within the annexation area as
established by both the General Plan and the Annexation Policy Plan Map shown below (MMC Chapter
1.32).
Page 33 of 79
The following table indicates the types of uses allowed in the R-4 and C-4 Zones.
R-4 Zone-City (17.51.020) C-4 Zone (17.27.020)
One-family dwellings Dwellings-CUP
Fences, walls, and hedges seven feet Office buildings
Customary household pets Funeral establishments
Temporary construction yards Churches
Agriculture Gymnasium
Temp construction buildings and yards Agriculture/pasture
Home occupations Retail establishments
Two-family dwellings Testing labs
Day care centers/foster homes Home occupations
Apartment houses other multiple
dwellings
Schools
Court apartments Hospitals
Boys’ schools/ correctional institutions Public buildings
Communication towers Research establishments
Secondary dwelling units Warehouses
Pasturing of animals Assembly of appliances
Plant nurseries Service establishments
Mobile home parks/ subdivisions Apartments-CUP
Public buildings Fraternity organizations/lodges
Clubs and lodges (nonprofit) Eating establishments
Boarding and rooming houses Commercial parking lots
Planned unit developments Farm equipment sales
Lodging establishment
Manufactured home sales-CUP
Taxidermy shops
Electrical appliance shops
Plumbing shops
Carpentry shops
Hardware stores
stone and monument sales
Service stations
Auto body shops
Car sales
Engraving/printing
Employee housing
Wholesale sales
Trucking company-CUP
Manufacturing
RV courts
Garages
b) Proposed Land Uses
The property has a county zoning designation of RR, Rural Residential, which requires a minimum lot
size of 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) per single residential dwelling. If the requested R-4 and C-4 zoning is
accepted, the allowed uses will be changed to multi-family residential as well as those commercial uses
listed above.
Page 34 of 79
c) The Assessed Valuation of the Property
Property Use Area Total acres Valuation
KM Real Estate
Ent.
963N 500W Manuf/Indus 304,920 sq.
ft.
10.0
637,296.00
M. Dean and
Company
1001N 500W Residential 130,680 sq.
ft.
d) The Potential Demand for Municipal Services, Especially Those Requiring Capital Improvements.
The City currently provides water and sewer to the proposed annexation. Law enforcement will be
provided by the city, and the Public Works department will provide maintenance of any dedicated street
rights-of-way subsequent to the annexation.
Pre-annexation Agreements with the Petitioner will cover the provision of all services to the Shumway
Annexation.
Water: Water service is currently provided by the City. Any costs for additional development that
requires extensions of the service lines will be paid by the developer and impact fees and connection
fees will be due. All design and installation of water distribution systems are approved by the public
works and engineering departments.
Sanitary Sewer: Sewer service to the site is currently provided by the City of Moab.
Onsite Roads: The developer will design any onsite public streets to comply with the construction design
standards for construction of public improvements.
Trails: Trails have not been proposed for the area.
e) Recommendations of Other Local Government Entities Regarding the Potential Impact of the
Annexation
Grand County can respond to the appropriateness of the annexation.
f) Potential land use contribution to the Achievement of the Goals and Policies of the City.
This criteria is difficult to address because of the lack of specifics for the planned uses on the property.
However, if multi-family housing is constructed, then it will satisfy several sections of the General Plan.
Historically, the attitude has been that residential uses do not contribute significantly to the
maintenance of infrastructure as do commercial developments because no additional revenue is
realized. This observation has been made by many local jurisdictions in efforts to justify annexing
commercial development for its increases in sales or property taxes while discouraging residential
annexations because it costs money to maintain the infrastructure without direct cost offsets.
However, as with past annexations, it should be recognized that residential uses provide dwelling space
for consumers of goods purchased from merchants in the commercial districts. Residential uses also
provide housing for the working population so stores and services remain open to generate much
needed sales tax revenue.
The proposed development of the R-4 tract portion can potentially provide numerous housing options
for residents. The R-4 does not allow short term rentals and the petitioner does not desire to pursue this
use for seven of the ten acres. Any housing will be an asset to the community.
Page 35 of 79
The C-4 zoning is requested to be applied to the eastern portion of the property adjacent to the C-4
along Main Street and fronting 500 W. All development will be consistent with the General Plan and the
regulations of the Moab Municipal Code (MMC). The allowed uses in the C-4 and the R-4 are listed
above.
g) Identification of any Special Districts or County Department Currently Providing Services.
Grand County School District is a county-wide district for which there is no contemplated change
in level of service or responsibility because of the annexation.
Moab Fire Department- This is also a county-wide district and there is no contemplated change
in service level or responsibility.
Grand County Hospital Service District- This is a county-wide district and there is no
contemplated change in service level or responsibility.
Health department of Southeastern Utah- This is also a county-wide district and there is no
contemplated change in service level or responsibility.
Cemetery District- This is a county-wide district and there is no contemplated change in service
level or responsibility.
Moab Mosquito Abatement District- This is also a county-wide district and there is no
contemplated change in service level or responsibility.
Grand County Library Board- This is also a county-wide district and there is no contemplated
change in service level or responsibility.
Solid Waste District- This is a county-wide district and there is no contemplated change in
service level or responsibility.
Recreation District- This, too, is a county-wide district and there is no contemplated change in
service level or responsibility.
h) If an application includes a specific proposal for urban development, an Understanding as to the
provision of improvements will be concluded between the city and the applicant.
A Pre-annexation Agreement between the City and Petitioner that addresses the provision of public
improvements discussed above shall be approved by the City Council.
i) New Annexations should create area in which services can be provided efficiently.
This annexation will not create a geographically isolated area that would make service difficult or
extremely expensive to provide. Utilities are now on the property.
j) Tax Consequences for Affected Entities.
While new housing developments do not necessarily bring in new tax revenues, the use of such
mechanisms as homeowners associations can be created to provide maintenance of improvements in
residential neighborhoods. Additionally, housing projects will provide much needed dwellings for the
community and those residents will buy goods from local businesses. The proposed residential uses will
provide another level of housing in the community.
Projected Population:
Approximately 45% of the property is located in the Colorado River 100 Year Flood Zone. The flooding
would not be a surge of water but a gradual increase in the elevation. The development on this western
end of the parcel will need to be on engineered fill to meet FEMA requirements. This fill may or may not
affect the actual housing densities. The following chart is a general guide for the possible population
Page 36 of 79
Zone Property
Gross area
sq. ft.
Required
Lot area
per d/u
Current
Residents
Total
allowable
units
Potential
Number of
Residents
R-4 304,920
1,800
Sq. ft.
N/A 127 units 3081-3932
C-4 130,680 Unlimited
if above
ground
floor
N/A Unknown N/A
1 Average household size=2.43 2 Average Family Size=3.1
ANNEXATION PLAT
Average Water Demand:
In August 2014, the USGS Utah Water Science Center (David Susong) announced that the average
household in Moab used 185,000 gallons of water per year.
Page 37 of 79
ADDENDUM
Utah Code Effective 5/12/2015
10-2-402. Annexation -- Limitations.
(1) (a) A contiguous, unincorporated area that is contiguous to a municipality may be annexed to the
municipality as provided in this part.
(b) An unincorporated area may not be annexed to a municipality unless:
(i) it is a contiguous area;
(ii) it is contiguous to the municipality;
(iii) annexation will not leave or create an unincorporated island or unincorporated peninsula:
(A) except as provided in Subsection 10-2-418(2)(b); or
(B) unless the county and municipality have otherwise agreed; and
(iv) for an area located in a specified county with respect to an annexation that occurs after
December 31, 2002, the area is within the proposed annexing municipality's expansion
area.
(2) Except as provided in Section 10-2-418, a municipality may not annex an unincorporated area
unless a petition under Section 10-2-403 is filed requesting annexation.
(3) (a) An annexation under this part may not include part of a parcel of real property and exclude part
of that same parcel unless the owner of that parcel has signed the annexation petition under
Section 10-2-403.
(b) A piece of real property that has more than one parcel number is considered to be a single
parcel for purposes of Subsection (3)(a) if owned by the same owner.
(4) A municipality may not annex an unincorporated area in a specified county for the sole purpose of
acquiring municipal revenue or to retard the capacity of another municipality to annex the same or
a related area unless the municipality has the ability and intent to benefit the annexed area by
providing municipal services to the annexed area.
(5) The legislative body of a specified county may not approve urban development within a
municipality's expansion area unless:
(a) the county notifies the municipality of the proposed development; and
(b) (i) the municipality consents in writing to the development; or
(ii) (A) within 90 days after the county's notification of the proposed development, the
municipality submits to the county a written objection to the county's approval of the
proposed development; and
(B) the county responds in writing to the municipality's objections.
(6) (a) An annexation petition may not be filed under this part proposing the annexation of an area
located in a county that is not the county in which the proposed annexing municipality is
located unless the legislative body of the county in which the area is located has adopted a
resolution approving the proposed annexation.
Page 38 of 79
(b) Each county legislative body that declines to adopt a resolution approving a proposed
annexation described in Subsection (6)(a) shall provide a written explanation of its reasons for
declining to approve the proposed annexation.
(7) (a) As used in this Subsection (7), "airport" means an area that the Federal Aviation Administration
has, by a record of decision, approved for the construction or operation of a Class I, II, or III
commercial service airport, as designated by the Federal Aviation Administration in 14 C.F.R.
Part 139.
(b) A municipality may not annex an unincorporated area within 5,000 feet of the center line of
any runway of an airport operated or to be constructed and operated by another municipality
unless the legislative body of the other municipality adopts a resolution consenting to the
annexation.
(c) A municipality that operates or intends to construct and operate an airport and does not adopt
a resolution consenting to the annexation of an area described in Subsection (7)(b)may not
deny an annexation petition proposing the annexation of that same area to that municipality.
(8) (a) A municipality may not annex an unincorporated area located within a project area described in
a project area plan adopted by the military installation development authority under Title 63H,
Chapter 1, Military Installation Development Authority Act, without the authority's approval.
(b) (i) Except as provided in Subsection (8)(b)(ii), the Military Installation Development Authority
may petition for annexation of a project area and contiguous surrounding land to a
municipality as if it was the sole private property owner of the project area and surrounding
land, if the area to be annexed is entirely contained within the boundaries of a military
installation.
(ii) Before petitioning for annexation under Subsection (8)(b)(i), the Military Installation
Development Authority shall provide the military installation with a copy of the petition for
annexation. The military installation may object to the petition for annexation within 14
days of receipt of the copy of the annexation petition. If the military installation objects
under this Subsection (8)(b)(ii), the Military Installation Development Authority may not
petition for the annexation as if it was the sole private property owner.
(iii) If any portion of an area annexed under a petition for annexation filed by a Military
Installation Development Authority is located in a specified county:
(A) the annexation process shall follow the requirements for a specified county; and
(B) the provisions of Subsection 10-2-402(6) do not apply.
Effective 5/12/2015
10-2-418. Annexation of an island or peninsula without a petition -- Notice -- Hearing.
(1) For purposes of an annexation conducted in accordance with this section of an area located within a
county of the first class, "municipal-type services" for purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(ii)(B) does not
include a service provided by a municipality pursuant to a contract that the municipality has with
another political subdivision as "political subdivision" is defined in Section 17B-1-102.
Page 39 of 79
(2) (a) Notwithstanding Subsection 10-2-402(2), a municipality may annex an unincorporated area
under this section without an annexation petition if:
(i) (A) the area to be annexed consists of one or more unincorporated islands within or
unincorporated peninsulas contiguous to the municipality;
(B) the majority of each island or peninsula consists of residential or commercial
development;
(C) the area proposed for annexation requires the delivery of municipal-type services; and
(D) the municipality has provided most or all of the municipal-type services to the area for
more than one year;
(ii) (A) the area to be annexed consists of one or more unincorporated islands within or
unincorporated peninsulas contiguous to the municipality, each of which has fewer
than 800 residents; and
(B) the municipality has provided one or more municipal-type services to the area for at
least one year; or
(iii) (A) the area consists of:
(I) an unincorporated island within or an unincorporated peninsula contiguous to the
municipality; and
(II) for an area outside of the county of the first class proposed for annexation, no
more than 50 acres; and
(B) the county in which the area is located, subject to Subsection (3)(b), and the
municipality agree that the area should be included within the municipality.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection 10-2-402(1)(b)(iii), a municipality may annex a portion of an
unincorporated island or unincorporated peninsula under this section, leaving unincorporated
the remainder of the unincorporated island or unincorporated peninsula, if:
(i) in adopting the resolution under Subsection (4)(a)(i), the municipal legislative body
determines that not annexing the entire unincorporated island or unincorporated peninsula
is in the municipality's best interest; and
(ii) for an annexation of one or more unincorporated islands under Subsection (2)(a)(ii), the
entire island of unincorporated area, of which a portion is being annexed, complies with
the requirement of Subsection (2)(a)(ii)(A) relating to the number of residents.
(3) (a) This Subsection (3) applies only to an annexation within a county of the first class.
(b) A county of the first class shall agree to the annexation if the majority of private property
owners within the area to be annexed has indicated in writing, subject to Subsection (3)(d), to
the city or town recorder of the annexing city or town the private property owners' consent to
be annexed into the municipality.
(c) For purposes of Subsection (3)(b), the majority of private property owners is property owners
who own:
(i) the majority of the total private land area within the area proposed for annexation; and
(ii) private real property equal to at least one half the value of private real property within the
area proposed for annexation.
Page 40 of 79
(d) (i) A property owner consenting to annexation shall indicate the property owner's consent on
a form which includes language in substantially the following form: "Notice: If this written
consent is used to proceed with an annexation of your property in accordance with Utah
Code Section 10-2-418, no public election is required by law to approve the annexation. If
you sign this consent and later decide you do not want to support the annexation of your
property, you may withdraw your signature by submitting a signed, written withdrawal with
the recorder or clerk of [name of annexing municipality]. If you choose to withdraw your
signature, you must do so no later than the close of the public hearing on the annexation
conducted in accordance with Utah Code Subsection 10-2-418(4)(a)(iv).".
(e) A private property owner may withdraw the property owner's signature indicating consent by
submitting a signed, written withdrawal with the recorder or clerk no later than the close of the
public hearing held in accordance with Subsection (4)(a)(iv).
(4) (a) The legislative body of each municipality intending to annex an area under this section shall:
(i) adopt a resolution indicating the municipal legislative body's intent to annex the area,
describing the area proposed to be annexed;
(ii) publish notice:
(A) (I) at least once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation within the municipality and the area proposed for annexation; or
(II) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in the areas described in
Subsection (4)(a)(ii)(A), post at least one notice per 1,000 population in places
within those areas that are most likely to give notice to the residents of those
areas; and
(B) on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Section 63F-1-701, for three weeks;
(iii) send written notice to the board of each local district and special service district whose
boundaries contain some or all of the area proposed for annexation and to the legislative
body of the county in which the area proposed for annexation is located; and
(iv) hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation no earlier than 30 days after the
adoption of the resolution under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
(b) Each notice under Subsections (4)(a)(ii) and (iii) shall:
(i) state that the municipal legislative body has adopted a resolution indicating its intent to
annex the area proposed for annexation;
(ii) state the date, time, and place of the public hearing under Subsection (4)(a)(iv);
(iii) describe the area proposed for annexation; and
(iv) except for an annexation that meets the property owner consent requirements of
Subsection (5)(b), state in conspicuous and plain terms that the municipal legislative body
will annex the area unless, at or before the public hearing under Subsection (4)(a)(iv),
written protests to the annexation are filed by the owners of private real property that:
(A) is located within the area proposed for annexation;
(B) covers a majority of the total private land area within the entire area proposed for
annexation; and
Page 41 of 79
(C) is equal in value to at least 1/2 the value of all private real property within the entire
area proposed for annexation.
(c) The first publication of the notice required under Subsection (4)(a)(ii)(A) shall be within 14 days
of the municipal legislative body's adoption of a resolution under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
(5) (a) Upon conclusion of the public hearing under Subsection (4)(a)(iv), the municipal legislative body
may adopt an ordinance approving the annexation of the area proposed for annexation under
this section unless, at or before the hearing, written protests to the annexation have been filed
with the city recorder or town clerk, as the case may be, by the owners of private real property
that:
(i) is located within the area proposed for annexation;
(ii) covers a majority of the total private land area within the entire area proposed for
annexation; and
(iii) is equal in value to at least 1/2 the value of all private real property within the entire area
proposed for annexation.
(b) (i) Upon conclusion of the public hearing under Subsection (4)(a)(iv), a municipality may adopt
an ordinance approving the annexation of the area proposed for annexation under this
section without allowing or considering protests under Subsection (5)(a) if the owners of at
least 75% of the total private land area within the entire area proposed for annexation,
representing at least 75% of the value of the private real property within the entire area
proposed for annexation, have consented in writing to the annexation.
(ii) Upon the effective date under Section 10-2-425 of an annexation approved by an
ordinance adopted under Subsection (5)(b)(i), the area annexed shall be conclusively
presumed to be validly annexed.
(6) (a) If protests are timely filed that comply with Subsection (5), the municipal legislative body may
not adopt an ordinance approving the annexation of the area proposed for annexation, and the
annexation proceedings under this section shall be considered terminated.
(b) Subsection (6)(a) may not be construed to prohibit the municipal legislative body from
excluding from a proposed annexation under Subsection (2)(a)(ii) the property within an
unincorporated island regarding which protests have been filed and proceeding under
Subsection (2)(b) to annex some or all of the remaining portion of the unincorporated island.
Moab Municipal Code
1.32.030 Annexation policy plan.
A. Pursuant to U.C.A. 10-2-401.5, the city hereby adopts the following annexation policy declaration.
1. Sound urban development is essential to the continued economic development of this state;
2. Municipalities are created to provide urban governmental services essential for sound urban
development and for the protection of public health, safety and welfare in residential,
commercial and industrial areas, and in areas undergoing development;
3. Municipal boundaries should be extended, in accordance with specific standards, to include
areas where a high quality of urban governmental services is needed and can be provided for
Page 42 of 79
the protection of public health, safety and welfare and to avoid the inequities of double taxation
and the proliferation of special service districts;
4. Areas annexed to municipalities in accordance with appropriate standards should receive the
services provided by the annexing municipality as soon as possible following the annexation;
5. Areas annexed to municipalities should include all of the urbanized unincorporated areas
contiguous to municipalities, securing to residents within the areas a voice in the selection of
their government;
6. Decisions with respect to municipal boundaries and urban development need to be made with
adequate consideration of the effect of the proposed actions on adjacent areas and on the
interests of other government entities, on the need for and cost of local government services,
and the ability to deliver the services under the proposed actions and on factors related to
population growth and density and the geography of the area; and
B. The map from the adopted Annexation Policy Plan is attached in the addendum below and includes
a description map showing the anticipated future extent of the city of Moab’s boundaries and areas
that are more readily available for service and more readily available for future expansion.
C. (1) Criteria for annexation of unincorporated areas include:
a. The property is contiguous to the boundaries of the city;
b. The property is located within the area projected for the city municipal expansion as
noted above;
c. The property is not included within the boundaries of another incorporated municipality;
d. The annexation is an unincorporated peninsula within the boundaries of the city;
e. The property will not be annexed for the sole purpose of acquiring municipal revenue or
for retarding the capacity of another municipality to annex into the same or related
area.
(2) The city will evaluate the following for each annexation:
a. Compliance with all requirements of appropriate state code provisions. Under new provisions
in UCA 10-2-418, adopted by the Utah State Legislature and in effect May 5, 2015, a
municipality may annex an area if:
1. municipal facilities have been provided to the property for a period of at least one year,
2. the area has fewer than 800 residents, and
3. the county and municipality agree that the area should be included within the
municipality. Grand County had no objection to the annexation.
b. The current and potential population of the area, and the current residential densities.
c. Land uses proposed in addition to those presently existing.
d. The assessed valuation of the current properties or proposed uses.
e. The potential demand for various municipal services, especially those requiring capital
improvements.
f. Recommendations of other local government jurisdictions regarding the proposal and
potential impact of the annexation.
g. How the proposed area, and/or its potential land uses would contribute to the achievement of
the goals and policies of the city.
h. Identification of any special districts or county departments that are currently providing
services. If the proposed area is receiving services that are to be assumed by the city, a
Page 43 of 79
statement should be included indicating that steps can be taken to assure an effective
transition in the delivery of services. A timetable for extending services should be included if
the city is unable to provide services immediately. If the proposed area is receiving services
that are not going to be assumed by the city a statement to that effect will be included in the
annexation agreement.
i. If an application for annexation includes a specific proposal for urban development, an
understanding as to the provision of improvements should be concluded between the city and
the applicant.
j. New annexations should create areas in which services can be provided efficiently. The
annexation should not create geographically isolated areas, areas for which the provision of
services would be costly or difficult, or an area in which surface water runoff would create
multi-jurisdictional problems.
k. The tax consequences for affected entities should be addressed.
(3) In order to facilitate orderly growth, the following city policies will apply to every annexation
proposal. However, compliance with any policy not expressly required by state law is not
mandatory, and failure to comply with any policy not expressly required by state law shall in no
way affect or jeopardize an annexation petition that otherwise meets the standards established
in the Utah Code.
a. The city’s policy is to consider annexation only in those areas where the city has the potential
to provide urban services (either directly or through interlocal cooperative agreement). These
areas may include locations served or to be served by city utilities, electrical service, police
and fire protection facilities, etc.
b. The city declares its interest in those areas identified in this policy declaration and other areas
lying within one-half mile of the city’s boundary. Any urban development as defined by state
law proposed within this specified area is subject to review and approval of the city as
provided in U.C.A. 10-2-418, as amended.
c. Due to the extraterritorial powers granted as part of the Utah Boundary Commission Act, the
city may exercise its initiative to prepare and adopt a general plan for future development in
those extraterritorial areas of interest for future annexation, as indicated in this policy
declaration. This general plan will define proposed land uses, nature, and density of
development desired by the city in each particular area. Once this ordinance is adopted, any
proposed development in an area to be annexed must conform to the general plan,
notwithstanding said plan may be amended from time to time as deemed necessary and
appropriate.
d. It is the policy of the city to require new development in annexed areas to comply with all city
standards and regulatory laws. Proposed actions to be taken to overcome deficiencies should
be identified and costs estimated.
e. To avoid creation of islands and peninsulas, unincorporated territory and publicly-owned land
such as roadways, schools, parks or recreational land, may be annexed as part of other logical
annexations.
f. In order to facilitate orderly growth and development in the city, the planning commission
may review a proposed annexation and make recommendations to the city council concerning
the parcel to be annexed, the effect on city development, and the recommended zoning
district designation for the proposed annexed area. Review by the planning commission is not
a requirement for annexation, and approval from the planning commission is not necessary
for annexation.
Page 44 of 79
g. The city council shall designate the zoning for the territory being annexed in the ordinance
annexing the territory. The zoning designations must be consistent with the general plan. The
city council shall not be bound by the zoning designations for the territory prior to
annexation. Nothing in this section shall be construed as allowing the city council to change
zoning designations in areas that are already within the municipal boundaries, without
following the procedures for zoning amendments found in the city code.
h. Landowners petitioning for annexation must file an application and follow the procedures for
annexation required by state law and the procedures specified by the city.
i. The city may require an annexation fee reasonable to the cost incurred as part of the
annexation process.
j. From time to time, the city may amend this master annexation policy declaration. This policy
declaration, including maps, may be amended by the city council after at least fourteen days’
notice and public hearing. Annexation policy declarations for individual annexations may be
considered amendments to this master annexation policy declaration and likewise require
adequate notice and public hearing as herein specified.
D. The character of the community.
1. The areas anticipated for future annexation contain a wide variety of land uses. There is vacant
land, as well as residentially developed property, and property developed and being developed
for commercial uses.
2. The city was incorporated in December 20, 1902 and has entertained numerous proposals for
annexation since that time. Recent interest in annexation has been shown by many surrounding
property owners. This policy declaration will help to define those areas that the city will
consider in a favorable manner.
E. The need for municipal services in developing unincorporated areas.
1. The city recognizes that municipal services to developed areas which may be annexed should, to
the greatest extent possible, be provided by the city. It may, however negotiate service
agreements in annexing areas.
2. For developing unincorporated areas to be annexed to the city, general government services
and public safety service will be provided by the city as the area is annexed and
developed. Where feasible and in the public interest to the citizens of the city, public utility
services will be provided by the city or through the appropriate utility companies or
improvement districts.
3. Subsequent policy declarations on individual parcels will address provision of utility service to
that particular area. Determination of how utility service will be provided to developing areas
proposed for annexation will be developed following discussion with the public works
department and other appropriate utility officials or entities.
F. Financing and time frame for the extension of municipal services.
1. Those areas identified in this master policy declaration as being favorable for annexation are
located near to the city. A basic network of collector roads presently exists in many of these
areas and the city can readily extend such services as police protection, street maintenance, and
general government services. Unless otherwise specified, city services for police and street
maintenance will begin in newly annexed areas immediately following the effective date of
annexation.
2. Services for newly annexed areas will be provided for out of the general and/or enterprise
funds. However, it is the city’s policy that all new development in areas requiring service bears
Page 45 of 79
the burden of providing necessary facilities. If and when the property sought to be annexed is
developed, the developer will have to construct and install appropriate municipal service
facilities such as streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, water and sewer lines, as provided by city
code. Construction of water and/or sewer line extensions involving multiple properties will be
phased to coincide with the financial readiness of said property owners and the city.
3. If services in an annexed area are substandard, then the financing of improvements to bring the
area up to city standards may be necessary through such means as a special improvement
district. The city may decline to annex areas that contain significant substandard
improvements. The site annexation policy declaration, submitted with individual annexations,
will identify a schedule for necessary improvements to the area.
4. Unless otherwise agreed by the city in writing, the annexation of real property into the
municipal, limits shall not obligate the city to construct or install utilities or other public
infrastructure. The decision to extend or install such improvements shall be vested solely in the
discretion of the city council.
G. The estimate of tax consequences. The estimate of tax consequences to residents in both new and
old territory of the city resulting from the proposed future annexations cannot be accurately
assessed at this time. As each annexation proposal occurs, the city will review the tax consequences
of that annexation.
H. Affected entities. The following is a list of potentially-affected entities, to which copies of the
annexation policy declaration has been supplied prior to its adoption. In addition, as annexation
proposals occur, the entities affected by the proposed annexation will be notified.
Grand County
10-2-402. Annexation -- Limitations.
(1) (a) A contiguous, unincorporated area that is contiguous to a municipality may be annexed to
the municipality as provided in this part.
(b) An unincorporated area may not be annexed to a municipality unless:
(i) it is a contiguous area;
(ii) it is contiguous to the municipality;
(iii) annexation will not leave or create an unincorporated island or unincorporated
peninsula:
(A) except as provided in Subsection 10-2-418(2)(b); or
(B) unless the county and municipality have otherwise agreed; and
An unincorporated area may not be annexed to a municipality unless:
(i) it is a contiguous area;
(ii) it is contiguous to the municipality;
(iii) annexation will not leave or create an unincorporated island or unincorporated peninsula:
(A) except as provided in Subsection 10-2-418(2)(b); or
(B) unless the county and municipality have otherwise agreed; and
Page 46 of 79
(iv) for an area located in a specified county with respect to an annexation that occurs after December
31, 2002, the area is within the proposed annexing municipality's expansion area.
(2) Except as provided in Section 10-2-418, a municipality may not annex an unincorporated area
unless a petition under Section 10-2-403 is filed requesting annexation.
10-2-418. Annexation of an island or peninsula without a petition -- Notice -- Hearing.
(1) For purposes of an annexation conducted in accordance with this section of an area located
within a county of the first class, "municipal-type services" for purposes of
Subsection (2)(a)(ii)(B) does not include a service provided by a municipality pursuant to a
contract that the municipality has with another political subdivision as "political subdivision"
is defined in Section 17B-1-102.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding Subsection 10-2-402(2), a municipality may annex an unincorporated
area under this section without an annexation petition if:
(i) (A) the area to be annexed consists of one or more unincorporated islands within or
unincorporated peninsulas contiguous to the municipality;
(B) the majority of each island or peninsula consists of residential or commercial
development;
(C) the area proposed for annexation requires the delivery of municipal-type
services; and
(D) the municipality has provided most or all of the municipal-type services to the
area for more than one year;
(ii) (A) the area to be annexed consists of one or more unincorporated islands within
or unincorporated peninsulas contiguous to the municipality, each of which has
fewer than 800 residents; and
(B) the municipality has provided one or more municipal-type services to the area
for at least one year; or
(iii) (A) the area consists of:
(I) an unincorporated island within or an unincorporated peninsula contiguous
to the municipality; and
(II) for an area outside of the county of the first class proposed for annexation,
no more than 50 acres; and
(B) the county in which the area is located, subject to Subsection (3)(b), and the
municipality agree that the area should be included within the municipality.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection 10-2-402(1)(b)(iii), a municipality may annex a portion of an
unincorporated island or unincorporated peninsula under this section, leaving
unincorporated the remainder of the unincorporated island or unincorporated
peninsula, if:
Page 47 of 79
(i) in adopting the resolution under Subsection (4)(a)(i), the municipal legislative body
determines that not annexing the entire unincorporated island or unincorporated
peninsula is in the municipality's best interest; and
(ii) for an annexation of one or more unincorporated islands under Subsection (2)(a)(ii),
the entire island of unincorporated area, of which a portion is being annexed,
complies with the requirement of Subsection (2)(a)(ii)(A) relating to the number of
residents.
General plan annexation area boundary description
The boundary encompasses:
Portions of Sections 25, 26, 27, 34 and all of Sections 35 and 36 in Township 25
South, Range 21 East, Salt Lake Base & Meridian;
Portions of Section 31 in Township 25 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Base &
Meridian;
All of Sections 1, 2 and 12 together with portions of Sections 11 in Township 26
South, Range 21 East, Salt Lake Base & Meridian;
All of Sections 6, 7 and 18, together with portions of Sections 5, 8, and 17 in
Township 26 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Base & Meridian, and is more
particularly described as:
Beginning at the SW Corner of Section 18, T 26 S, R 22 E, SLBM;
Thence northerly to the NW Corner of said Section 18;
Thence westerly to the SW Corner of Section 12, T 26 S, R 21 E, SLBM;
Thence northerly to the SE Corner of Government Lot 1, Section 11, T 26 S, R 21 E,
SLBM;
Thence westerly to the NE corner of Section 10, T 26 S, R 21 E, SLBM;
Thence northerly to the SW Corner of Section 2, T 26 S, R 21 E, SLBM;
Thence northerly to the NW Corner of said Section 2;
Thence westerly to the SW Corner of the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 34, T 25 S, R 21 E,
SLBM;
Thence northerly to the NW Corner of Government Lot 10, Section 27, T 25 S, R 21 E,
SLBM;
Thence easterly to the NE Corner of Government Lot 8, Section 26, T 25 S, R 21 E,
SLBM;
Thence southerly to the SE Corner of said Government Lot 8;
Thence easterly to a point on the West Section Line of said Section 26;
Thence southerly to the NE Corner of the SE1/4SE1/4 of said Section 26;
Thence easterly to the NE Corner of Government Lot 6, Section 25, T 25 S, R 21 E,
SLBM;
Thence southerly to the NW Corner of Government Lot 3, Section 31, T 25 S, R 21 E,
SLBM;
Thence easterly to the NE Corner of the SE1/4NW1/4 of said Section 31;
Thence southerly to the SE Corner of Government Lot 9, said Section 31;
Thence easterly to the NE Corner of Section 6, T 26 S, R 22 E, SLBM;
Thence easterly to the NE Corner of Government Lot 4, Section 5, T 26 S, R 22 E,
SLBM;
Thence southerly to the SE Corner of the SW1/4SW1/4 of said Section 5;
Page 48 of 79
Thence southerly to the SE Corner of the SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 8, T 26 S, R 22 E,
SLBM;
Thence southerly to the SE Corner of Government Lot 35, Section 17, T 26 S, R 22 E,
SLBM;
Thence westerly to the SE Corner of Section 18, T 26 S, R 22 E, SLBM;
Thence westerly to the SW Corner of said Section 18, said point being the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Page 49 of 79
Page 50 of 79
C-2
1. Retail/convenience/wholesale establishments
less than 3,000 sq ft
2. Office buildings/clinics
3. Assembly of appliances from previously prepared
parts
4. Eating establishments less than 2,000 sq ft
5. Service enterprises
6. One-and two-family dwellings, apartments and
court apartments;
7. Fraternity organization lodges
8. Funeral establishments, mortuaries and churches
9. Gymnasiums
10. Home occupations
11. Lodging establishments under 10 units
12. Commercial parking lots
13. Public schools, hospitals, buildings and parks
14. Signs
15. Rest homes/day care centers
16. Green houses and nurseries
17. Pet shops
a. veterinary clinics
b. art and craft shops
c. taxidermy shops
d. electrical appliance shops (wholesale)
e. plumbing shops
f. carpentry shops
g. hardware stores
h. electrical retail stores
i. river running companies
j. bakeries
k. stone and monument sales establishments
l. engraving and printing establishments
m. secondhand stores
C-1
1. Retail/ wholesale establishments
and craft shops less than 3,000 sq ft
2. Office buildings, clinics
3. One-family and two-family
dwellings apartment houses and
court apartments
4. Funeral establishments,
mortuaries and churches
5. Gymnasium
6. Home occupations
7. B&Bs
8. Public schools, hospitals, buildings
and parks
9. Signs
10. Rest homes and day care centers;
11. Greenhouses and nurseries;
12. Planned unit developments;
13. Banks and credit unions;
14. Drive-up windows for financial
institutions.
Page 51 of 79
C-4 Zone (17.27.020)
Dwellings-CUP Farm equipment sales
Office buildings Lodging establishment
Funeral establishments Manufactured home sales-CUP
Churches Taxidermy shops
Gymnasium Electrical appliance shops
Agriculture/pasture Plumbing shops
Retail establishments Carpentry shops
Testing labs Hardware stores
Home occupations stone and monument sales
Schools Service stations
Hospitals Auto body shops
Public buildings Car sales
Research establishments Engraving/printing
Warehouses Employee housing
Assembly of appliances Wholesale sales
Service establishments Trucking company-CUP
Apartments-CUP Manufacturing
Fraternity organizations/lodges RV courts
Eating establishments Garages
Commercial parking lots
Page 52 of 79
C-1 commercial-residential zone
17.20.010 Objectives and characteristics.
A. The objectives in establishing the C-1 commercial-residential zone are to facilitate the development of attractive areas within the city that
allow the mixing of compatible commercial and residential uses; to provide a buffer zone between residential and more intensi ve commercial uses;
and to facilitate the orderly expansion of commercial uses on lots that lie adjacent to commercial zones.
B. The C-1 commercial-residential zone is characterized by attractive and well-maintained commercial and residential buildings set back from
public streets and surrounded by landscaped yards. In order to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this title and to stabilize and protect the
essential characteristics of the zone, the regulations set out in this chapter shall apply in the C -1 commercial-residential zone.
C-2 commercial-residential zone
17.21.010 Objectives and characteristics.
A. The objectives in establishing the C-2 commercial-residential zone are:
1. To facilitate the development of attractive areas within the city that allow the mixing of compatible commercial and residential uses;
2. To facilitate the orderly expansion of commercial uses out from the central commercial district.
B. The C-2 commercial-residential zone is characterized by attractive and well-maintained commercial and residential buildings set back from
public streets and surrounded by landscaped yards. In order to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this title and to stabilize and protect the
essential characteristics of the zone, the regulations set out in this chapter shall apply in the C-2 commercial-residential zone.
C-4 general commercial zone
17.27.010 Objectives and characteristics.
The C-4 general commercial zone has been established as a district in which the primary use of the land is for business and light industrial
purposes. Another objective of the zone is to facilitate the development of attractive entrances to the city. The C-4 zone is characterized by clean,
well-lighted and landscaped streets, ample pedestrian ways and vehicular parking lots for the convenience and safety of the public. In order to
accomplish the objectives and purposes of this title and to promote the characteristics of this zone, the regulations set out in this chapter shall
apply in the C-4 zone.
C-5 neighborhood-commercial zone
17.30.010 Objectives and characteristics.
The C-5 neighborhood commercial zone has been established for the primary purpose of providing a location where commercial establis hments
can be located where people who live in th e surrounding neighborhood can obtain daily household goods and services conveniently. This zone is
characterized by stores, shops and establishments situated in landscaped surroundings that are maintained in harmony with ame nities of adjacent
residential development.
Page 53 of 79
Page 54 of 79
R-2 residential zone
17.45.010 Objectives and characteristics.
The objective in establishing the R-2 residential zone is to provide a residential environment within the city which is characterized by smaller lots
and somewhat denser residential environment than is characteristic of the R-1 residential zone. Nevertheless, this zone is characterized by
spacious yards and other residential amenities adequate to maintain desirable residential conditions. The principal uses permitted in this zone
shall be one-family and two-family dwellings and certain other public facilities needed to promote and maintain stable residential neighborhoods.
R-3 residential zone
17.48.010 Objectives and characteristics.
The objective in establishing the R-3 residential zone is to provide appropriate locations within the city for high density residential development. In
general, this zone is located in the central part of the city, adjacent to commercial areas where the impact of vehicular tra vel and parking is
consonant with adjacent use of land, and where multiple dwellings can best be supplied with necessary public facilities. This zone is characterized
by more compact development and somewhat higher volumes of traffic than is characteristic of the R-1 and R-2 zones.
Representative of the uses within the R-3 zone are one-family, two-family, three-family and four-family dwellings and apartment houses, and
related community facilities. However, commercial and industrial uses are prohibited therein.
Owners and developers of property should bear in mind that primacy is given to multiple family dwellings, boarding houses, rest home s and other
high density residential uses, and should develop and maintain their property in recognition thereof.
R-4 residential zone
17.51.010 Objectives and characteristics.
The objective in establishing the R-4 residential zone is to provide the most appropriate locations for mobile home parks and mobile home
subdivisions along with conventional dwellings. The zone is characterized by open fields interspersed by well-maintained mobile home parks,
mobile home subdivisions, and other types of dwellings.
Page 55 of 79
Page 56 of 79
Page 57 of 79
Page 58 of 79
Page 59 of 79
Page 60 of 79
Page 61 of 79
Page 62 of 79
Page 63 of 79
Name Address Options:
Left as
County RR
Annexed as
R2
Annexed as
R3
Annexed as
C2
Annexed as
proposed (R4 & C4)Other Comments:
Katy Robertson 621 Palisade Dr.1 2 no no no
The zoning is in place to keep a buffer
between commercial & residential.
Respect the residential areas of Moab,
please!
Autumn Ela 808 Westwood x x
Katherine McGill 691 Palisade Dr.x
What happened to the buffer zones that
supposedly have been included in every
"master plan?!" Why are they already bull-
dozing and starting land clearing??!
Sherrie, Clint, Wanda Costanza 749 Wesdwood x x
Maggie Wilson 678 Palisade Dr.x
R2 for longer western parcel. Possibly C1
for eastern smaller parcel. 435-260-1639.
Chloe Hollis & Nate Ament 727 Palisade Dr.x x
Lloyd Bonnie & Jodie Wiggins 525 Westwood Ave.x
We are already dealing with 24/7 noise
from Denny's. People wander through our
street continuously. Marathons. I've had
people sleeping in my front yard (6 yrs
ago). The corner of Hwy. 191 and 500 W.
is busy all of the time. NO C-4 NO C-2
Mylene Snow 796 Westwood Ave.x
Chad Wilson 663 Palisade Dr.x
Jonathan Lohmann 655 Westwood Ave.x
Brian Hays 915 Rainbow Dr.x
Akasha Faist & Scott Ferrenberg 820 Westwood Ave.x Used by wildlife as a corridor!
Madolyn Ainge 537 Westwood Ave.x
Steve Goodwin 753 Palisade Dr.x
Kenneth L. Robbins 527 Palisade Dr.x
Ken Denney 739 Palisade Dr.x
Chris Prentice 651 Palisade Dr.x
Reed Kennard 662 Westwod Ave.x x
Lori Johnson 908 Rainbow x
Trisha West 718 Palisade Dr.x
Linda Grawet 737 Westwood Ave.x
Jessica S. Dye 909 Rainbow Dr.x
Russell Facente 772 Westwood Ave.x 3 acres C-1, 7 acres R2/R3
Rhonda Cowern 510 Westwood Ave x x
Bryan Nickell 690 Westwood Ave.x
John Cowan 926 Rainbow Dr.x
Katrina Lund 665 Westwood Ave.1 2 3 no no
Postcards from Adjacent Properties
Page 64 of 79
Name Address Business/Employer
Jessiqua Zufelt 372 Moenkopi Clean Focus
Kerry W. Lange 53 West 100 South Desert West Office Supply
Becky Wells 763 Palisade Dr.Self-employed
Chelsea Hagerman 1110 San Miguel Byrd & Co.
Devin Soli 1256 Holyoak Ln.Aarchway Inn
Kelsi Garcia 4504 Pueblo Verde Dr.Aarchway Inn
John B 23 N Main St.Redtail Air
Timothy Villarreal 400 N. 500 W. #206 Aarchway Inn
Brittni Adams 3330 S. Hwy. 191 Aarchway Inn
Gina Giffin 50 W. 100 South Resolutions Real Estate
Brandon McKeel 48 W. Mt. Peale Zax Restaurant
Justin Maxwell 382 Wingate Resolution Property Management
Dana Sutton 539 Cliffview Zax Restaurant
Shik Han 50 W. 100 South Business Resolutions
Michael H. Bynum 50 W. 100 South Business Resolutions
Autem Hirschfeld 1405 Spanish Valley Dr.Zax Restaurant
Mary Lou Shupe 400 N. 500 W. #119 Mike Bynum
Zach Bynum 802 Pear Tree Ln.Business Resolutions
Christian 400 N. 500 West Zax Restaurant
Jessica Delgado 1893 Plateau Circle Zax Restaurant
Vicki Davis 50 W. 100 South Business Resolutions
Terry Archer 2476 Vista Grande
Diane Hohnstein 999 N. 500 West Business Resolutions
Postcards Supporting Annexation
Page 65 of 79
Name Address
Star Kolb 643 Westwood Ave.
David Mealey 643 Westwood Ave.
Doug Fix 739 N. 5th West
Reed Kennard 662 Westwood Ave.
Marc Thomas & Judi Simon 827 Palisade Dr.
Rhonda Cowern 510 Westwood Ave.
Russell Facente 772 Westwood Ave.
Katherine McGill Palisade Dr.
Reed Kennard 662 Westwood Ave.
Email/Written Comments
Page 66 of 79
Page 67 of 79
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: October 10, 2017
#: 6-1
Title: Solid Waste Hauling Contract Extension
Date Submitted: October 5, 2017
Staff Presenter: David Everitt + Chris McAnany
Attachment(s): Draft Franchise Agreement Extension
Options: Approve, deny, or modify.
Recommended Motion: I move to adopt the “Resolution Approving an
Extension of the Existing Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement.”
Background/Summary:
10/5/17 Update: Per council direction, staff added language regarding the
contractor’s responsibility to maintain and distribute garbage cans. See
Section II.3.
The current waste hauling agreement between the City and Monument
Waste expires in November 2017. Pursuant to direction from the City
Council, staff prepared an extension to the Solid Waste Collection
Franchise Agreement that will expire in November 2018.
The extension provides for all of the same conditions as the original
contract, except that the rates are provided for by resolution of the City
Council.
The City will develop a revised RFP for waste hauling services during the
2018 calendar year.
Page 68 of 79
CITY OF MOAB RESOLUTION NO. 55‐2017
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
a. The City is under contract with Monument Waste Services, LLC (Contractor) to provide
for the collection of solid waste within the City of Moab.
b. The City is satisfied with the current performance by Contractor, and desires to extend
the existing Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement (Agreement) for an additional period
through and including April 1, 2019.
c. In addition, the parties intend to confirm a modification to the Agreement pertaining to
the purchase of replacement residential cans, up to an agreed upon cost.
Therefore, the City Council hereby approves the attached contract amendment and
authorizes the Mayor to sign same. Passed and adopted by the governing body in open session
this 10th day of October, 2017.
City of Moab
By:_________________________
Mayor David L. Sakrison
Attest:
By:_________________________
Rachel Stenta, Recorder
Page 69 of 79
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
For valuable consideration, the City of Moab (City) and Monument Waste Services, LLC,
a Utah limited liability company (Contractor), acknowledge and agree as follows:
I. Recitals.
a. Contractor currently provides solid waste collection services to customers in the City
pursuant to a Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement, dated November 30, 2009, as
amended (the Agreement).
b. The City is currently evaluating whether changes to its solid waste collection practices
and policies should be made.
c. It is necessary to continue solid waste collection services without interruption, and the
City is currently satisfied by the performance by Contractor.
d. This amendment is intended to extend the term of the Agreement and modify the
performances which will be undertaken by both parties during that time.
II. Agreement.
1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by reference. The Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:
2. The term of the Agreement is extended to April 1, 2019, expiring automatically on that
date.
3. The City will reimburse the Contractor for its cost to purchase new residential solid
waste containers conforming to the Agreement in an amount not to exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000.00). The Contractor shall purchase one hundred (100) 96‐GL Otto waste carts.
a. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for the assembly, storage, repair, and
distribution of all solid waste containers under the Agreement. All stored containers shall be
kept at the Contractor’s business at 2295 U.S. Highway 191, Moab, UT 84532. Contractor shall
additionally be responsible for disposal of containers which can no longer be used. And
Contractor shall keep accurate records documenting all container deliveries, exchanges,
removals, and containers which are scrapped. Contractor shall remain responsible for the
purchase and replacement of containers damaged by the carelessness or neglect of its
personnel.
4. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This extension
shall take effect automatically upon execution by both parties.
‐Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank‐
Page 70 of 79
Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement Amendment
Signature Page
________________________________________________
City of Moab
By:________________________ _______________
David L. Sakrison, Mayor Date
Attest:
By:________________________ ________________
Rachel Stenta, Recorder Date
Monument Waste Services, LLC
By:________________________ _________________
Dan Kirkpatrick, President Date
‐End of Document‐
Page 71 of 79
RESOLUTION #56‐2017
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF EXTENSION OF THE DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD
ARRIVALS (DACA) PROGRAM; PERMANENT LEGAL STATUS FOR DREAMERS; AND URGING
UTAH’S ENTIRE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF PERMANENT
DREAM ACT LEGISLATION WITHIN SIX MONTHS
WHEREAS, there could be no higher priority than ensuring the hopes and dreams of our young people;
WHEREAS, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) provides employment authorization and
protection from deportation for undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before they
turned 16 and has benefitted nearly 742,000 undocumented youth since it began in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the ability for youth to live and work in their communities without fear of deportation is the
foundation of sound, responsible immigration policy; and
WHEREAS, with work authorization and without the fear of deportation, these young people have been
able to participate in and contribute to our country, our cities and our economies; and
WHEREAS, DACA is good for our nation’s economy with 87 percent of DACA recipients employed by
American businesses and 6 percent of DACA recipients having started their own businesses, leading to
higher wages and better economic outcomes; and
WHEREAS, DACA recipients contribute 15.3 percent of their wages to taxes, which fund Social Security
and Medicare, and DACA recipients are investing in assets like houses, and starting new businesses,
bringing significant tax revenue to cities and states; and
WHEREAS, ending this program would leave 742,000 young people who now call this nation home
unsure of their legal status and would lead to the loss of 0.9 billion in tax contributions over the next
four years, the loss of at least 3.4 billion from the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over the next
decade; and
WHEREAS, according to data reported by the Deseret News on September 5, 2017, Utah has an
estimated 9,562 DACA recipients and 8,319 DACA workers. In total, the state stands to lose
$469,159,530 in GDP if the DACA is not reinstated. DACA recipients, some of whom work in, for and/or
reside in the City of Moab, positively contribute to our families, economy, schools and community; and
WHEREAS, the Armed Forces rely on DACA applicants to serve through Military Accessions Vital to the
National Interest (MAVNI), which enlists individuals who are fluent in critical languages or possess
medical or professional skills essential to the defense of our nation; and
WHEREAS, DACA helps further domestic public safety — 90 percent of DACA recipients obtained a
driver’s license or state identification card, and 54 percent purchased cars after getting DACA, resulting
in more insured and licensed drivers on American streets; and
WHEREAS, the young people who entered this country before they were 16, who benefit from DACA,
have significant bipartisan support, especially here in Utah where Senator Hatch sponsored the first
Page 72 of 79
DREAM ACT legislation, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, also known as the
Student Adjustment Act of 2001; and
WHEREAS, the threatening rhetoric being used by the current administration is causing uncertainty and
fear that threatens the future of these young people who have come forward and entrusted the
government with their information; and
WHEREAS, we encourage the President to demonstrate his commitment to the American economy and
the ideals of our nation by continuing DACA until Congress modernizes our immigration system and
provides a more permanent form of relief for these individuals; and
WHEREAS, Utah has a long and proud history of support for refugee and immigration policies which
balance the rule of law with humanitarian obligations of just enforcement, particularly for children, such
as the Utah Compact and 2002 Utah Legislature House Bill 144, which allows undocumented students to
qualify for resident tuition rates at Utah’s public colleges and universities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOAB, UTAH:
Section 1. Since our community has historically come together in the face of great challenges, we call
upon all governmental, business and nonprofit agencies and institutions in the City of Moab,
surrounding municipalities, and throughout Grand County to come together to urge the Trump
Administration to keep the DACA program in place, ensuring protection of these young people.
Section 2. The City of Moab and its community partners call upon the Utah congressional delegation to
support immediate federal legislation which would continue the DACA program.
Section 3. The Moab City Council hereby requests immediate action by Congress and the President to
permanently address the legal status of DREAMERS in such a way as to allow them a path to permanent
United States citizenship.
Section 4. The Moab City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor, the City Manager and their designees to
undertake any and all action consistent with the intent of this Resolution to proactively support and
encourage the adoption of federal legislation requested herein, including but not limited touse of the
City, federal and state lobbyists, Utah League of Cities and Towns, the United States Conference of
Mayors, and any similar partner organization.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF MOAB
_________________________________
Mayor David L. Sakrison
Attest:
___________________________
Rachel Stenta, City Recorder
Page 73 of 79
RESOLUTION #57-2017
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VICTIM TARGETING
WHEREAS, the United States of America's Declaration of Independence states that governments
are instituted to secure mankind's unalienable rights;
WHEREAS, in 2017 alone, Christian monuments have been destroyed, Muslim mosques have
been burned, and bomb threats have been made against Jewish schools, synagogues, and
community centers; including here in Utah;
WHEREAS, when a criminal deliberately targets a victim because of ancestry, disability,
ethnicity, gender, gender identity, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation to
deprive them of their unalienable right to life, liberty, property, or to pursue happiness, other
members of that community are deeply affected, as is society as a whole;
WHEREAS, law enforcement has asked for stronger tools to address crime in which the offender
targets victims, to assist law enforcement in building better relations and trust with communities,
and to more appropriately punish these vicious criminal acts;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Moab joins with community groups in
calling on the Utah State Legislature to act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a signed copy of this resolution be sent to all members of
the Utah Legislature representing any constituents residing within the City of Moab.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF MOAB
_________________________________
Mayor David L. Sakrison
Attest:
___________________________
Rachel Stenta, City Recorder
Page 74 of 79
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: October 10, 2017
#: 7‐6
Title: Request to Purchase LED Speed Limit Signs w/Class ‘B’ Road Budget
Date Submitted: October 2, 2017
Staff Presenter: Pat Dean, Public Works Director
Attachment(s): Three Bid documents for cost of LED signs and Universal
Mounting brackets, UDOT Uses of Class “B & C” Funds.
Options: Approve, deny, or modify.
Recommended Motion: Move to allow the purchase of LED Speed Limit
signs and Mounting brackets. The cost of the signs and Brackets not to exceed
$ 30, 800.00, to include shipping.
We recommend that the signs be purchased from Safety Supply & Sign Co.
who is the low bidder at $ 29,080.00, plus an additional $ 1,720.00 for extra
brackets and estimated shipping cost, for a total of $ 30,800.00.
Background/Summary:
Part of our ongoing safe street program, we would like to purchase 8 ea. Radar
Speed limit sign, Solar powered, these signs will use radar to inform you of
your current speed. Thus making the driver aware of the posted speed and
help keep them at that posted speed. These solar, radar signs will be
complimented with rectangle LED, solar powered speed limit signs that will
be posted as a continued reminder of the posted speed.
These signs are being proposed to be installed on 500 West, north and south
ends, 400 East north and south ends, 300 South , west and east end, and
Millcreek Drive, just east of 400 east and just West of Sand Flats turnoff.
These signs will be purchased with Class “B & C” Funds. In accordance with
section 4.1.B, of the UDOT Regulations Governing Class B & Class C Road
Funds dated Sept. 11, 2015. (Utah Code 72‐8‐101 to 72‐8‐105)
Page 75 of 79
Quote
Traffic Safety Corp.
2708 47th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95822
Phone: 916-394-9884
Fax: 916-394-2809
www.xwalk.com
Bill To:Ship To:
Moab City
Moab, UT 84532
United States
Moab City
Moab, UT 84532
United States
pdean@moabcity.org
Page:1
Salesperson:
Customer Number:
0075112
10/6/2017
02-QUOTEUT
Jennifer Kay
Quote Number:
Quote Date:
jennifer.kay@xwalk.com
11/5/2017Expires On:
Confirm To:
Patrick Dean
Ship VIA
BEST WAY
Terms
Net 30 Days From Invoice Date
Item /Description UOM Price AmountQty Quoted
Notes:435-260-7619
SI-SP100-S EA 20,792.008.00
Solar Powered Safe Pace 100 Radar Speed
Sign
2,599.00
Yellow or White Face Plate
SI-SP1BK2 EA 1,000.008.00
Universal Bracket Full Set for
SP100/250/450/475/625/650 with Anti Theft
Bolt.
125.00
Optional
SI-TS40R2124SB EA 11,960.008.00
Solar Flashing LED Speed Limit Sign24''x30"
Type IX Sheeting(Please advise Speed Limit
1,495.00
30 MPH (Mounting Hardware for 8" Round Pole)
Net Order:33,752.00
Freight:0.00
Sales Tax:0.00
33,752.00Order Total:
Thank you for considering us!!
Please contact us with any questions.
Terms and conditions apply. All prices are in U.S. dollars.
Freight at Customer's Expense
For Traffic Safety Warranty information:http://www.xwalk.com/pages/sys_warranty.htm
Page 76 of 79
Page 77 of 79
Page 78 of 79
Page 79 of 79