HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2020-07-14JULY 14, 2020
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Per Executive Order 2020 -5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March
18, 2020, this meeting will be conducted electronically and may be viewed
on the City'sYouTube channel .
An anchor location will not be provided.
Regular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Roll Call Attendance
COVID -19 Updates
Open and Public Meetings Act Training
Approval of Minutes
Minutes: June 9, 2020 Regular Meeting
min -cc -2020 -06 -09 draft.pdf
Minutes: June 23, 2020 Regular Meeting
min -cc -2020 -06 -23 draft.pdf
Minutes: June 25, 2020 Special Meeting
min -cc -2020 -06 -25 draft.pdf
Mayor and Council Reports
Administrative Reports
Citizens to Be Heard
To have your comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard
portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found
here: https://forms.gle/lvcmtlb9rvi6kpnaa
You must submit your comments by 7:00 pm on July 14, 2020.
Please limit your comments to 400 words.
New Business
Proposal to develop a Moab Community Garden at Anonymous Park
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary mocom anonymous park proposal.pdf
anonymousparkgarden_proposal.pdf
Discussion of a potential Pre -Annexation Agreement Request For 10.02 Acres
located adjacent to the current City Limits in the vicinity of 500 West by KM Real
Estate Enterprises LLC and M. Dean & Company, LLC (“Property Owner ”)
Discussion only
shumway preannexation agreement staff report 7.14.2020.pdf
exhibit 1 shumway pre -annexation agreement draft.pdf
exhibit 2 chapter 17.21 code.pdf
exhibit 3 cc shumway2017 ph staff report.pdf
exhibit 4 cc minutes 10.10.2017.pdf
Discussion of potential Ordinance 2020 -13 creating the rules and regulations
pertaining to the administration of bicycle and scooter share permit program
Discussion Only
agenda summary.pdf
rules and regulations.pdf
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab
Adjournment
Special Accommodations:
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
1.
1.1.
2.
3.
4.
4.1.
Documents:
4.2.
Documents:
4.3.
Documents:
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.1.
Documents:
8.2.
Documents:
8.3.
Documents:
9.
10.
JULY 14, 2020REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.Per Executive Order 2020 -5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting will be conducted electronically and may be viewed on the City'sYouTube channel .An anchor location will not be provided.Regular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.Call to Order and Roll Call AttendanceCOVID-19 UpdatesOpen and Public Meetings Act TrainingApproval of MinutesMinutes: June 9, 2020 Regular Meetingmin-cc -2020 -06 -09 draft.pdfMinutes: June 23, 2020 Regular Meetingmin-cc -2020 -06 -23 draft.pdfMinutes: June 25, 2020 Special Meetingmin-cc -2020 -06 -25 draft.pdfMayor and Council ReportsAdministrative ReportsCitizens to Be Heard
To have your comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard
portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found
here: https://forms.gle/lvcmtlb9rvi6kpnaa
You must submit your comments by 7:00 pm on July 14, 2020.
Please limit your comments to 400 words.
New Business
Proposal to develop a Moab Community Garden at Anonymous Park
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary mocom anonymous park proposal.pdf
anonymousparkgarden_proposal.pdf
Discussion of a potential Pre -Annexation Agreement Request For 10.02 Acres
located adjacent to the current City Limits in the vicinity of 500 West by KM Real
Estate Enterprises LLC and M. Dean & Company, LLC (“Property Owner ”)
Discussion only
shumway preannexation agreement staff report 7.14.2020.pdf
exhibit 1 shumway pre -annexation agreement draft.pdf
exhibit 2 chapter 17.21 code.pdf
exhibit 3 cc shumway2017 ph staff report.pdf
exhibit 4 cc minutes 10.10.2017.pdf
Discussion of potential Ordinance 2020 -13 creating the rules and regulations
pertaining to the administration of bicycle and scooter share permit program
Discussion Only
agenda summary.pdf
rules and regulations.pdf
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab
Adjournment
Special Accommodations:
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
1.1.1.2.3.4.4.1.Documents:4.2.Documents:4.3.Documents:5.6.7.
8.
8.1.
Documents:
8.2.
Documents:
8.3.
Documents:
9.
10.
Page 1 of 12
June 9, 2020
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2020
The Moab City Council held its Special City Council Meeting on the above date. Per Executive
Order 2020-5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting was
conducted electronically. An anchor location was not provided. An audio recording of the
meeting is archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl00z0Zgdmz4y1FoI0l7CJA.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting Call to Order and Attendance: Mayor Niehaus called the Regular City
Council Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Participating remotely were Councilmembers Mike
Duncan, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Rani Derasary, Kalen Jones, and Karen Guzman-Newton. City
staff participating remotely were City Manager Joel Linares, Assistant City Manager Carly
Castle, City Attorney Laurie Simonson, Finance Director Klint York, and City Recorder Sommar
Johnson. City Engineer Chuck Williams joined the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Planning Director Nora
Shepard joined the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
Approval of Minutes: Councilmember Duncan moved to approve the minutes for May 26,
2020, with pre-noted corrections. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. There
was no discussion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Duncan, Jones, Guzman-
Newton, Derasary, and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye in a roll call vote.
Mayor and Council Reports:
Mayor Niehaus reported attending the swearing-in of Marcy Mason as the City Treasurer and
thanked the Council for their confidence. She reported attending a Southeastern Utah
Association of Local Governments Board meeting, a CAST Mayor’s meeting, a meeting with staff
and the Chamber of Commerce to create a 4th of July celebration with fireworks and vendors,
and working with Chief Edge and staff on the proclamation later on the agenda. She reported
the MIC bathrooms are open from 8 am to 4 pm which will ease reliance on City park
bathrooms. Mayor Niehaus then shifted her report to a discussion with the Council regarding
the proposed bike skills park and asked what desired action the Council would like to see
moving forward. Councilmember Duncan requested a public hearing. Councilmember Derasary
expressed concern about holding a public hearing without knowing whether or not the City is
responsible for the project and stated her desire for better communication and clearer processes
going forward on future decisions about city property. City Manager Linares explained that the
bike skills park is a Trail Mix project and the City’s involvement comes from financial backing
from the use of our property and the previous City Manager’s commitment to allocate funds for
the bathrooms. He explained that state law does not require a public hearing because the
property ownership is not being transferred and that the previous city manager acted within his
purchasing authority to allocate funds for the bathroom. He said the options for the Council are
to violate the interlocal agreement that the City Council approved to act on this project or pull
the use of the land for the project. Mayor Niehaus asked if the Council would like action on a
future agenda to reconsider allowing use of the property or proceed without any further action.
Councilmember Jones said he felt adequately informed about the project and is in favor of
proceeding without any further action. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd echoed the statements
of Councilmember Jones and is in favor of moving forward without any further action.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton said she was also in favor of moving forward without further
action. Councilmember Duncan requested a stipulation that the project not be promoted to
Page 2 of 12
June 9, 2020
tourists. Councilmember Derasary reiterated her request for better processes on future projects.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton asked about sharing emails with the public about the project
on the city’s website or sending it to Grand County Active Transportation to put on their
website. Councilmembers felt the comments should be posted on the City’s website and
Councilmember Derasary volunteered to compile the emails into a document to post on the City
website. It was ultimately decided by a majority of the Council members that the project would
move forward with no further action.
[6:50-47:38]
Councilmember Derasary provided an EMS update stating that over Memorial Day weekend
there were 13 calls on Saturday, May 30 and they averaged 4 to 6 calls on each day between June
1 to June 7. She reported attending the joint City Council, County Council, and Castle Valley
Town Council meeting about the phased timed entry system for Arches and Canyonlands and
taking part in a phone call with members of Grand County on June 1 with Representative John
Curtis about it as well. She reported speaking to the media about black lives matter and thanked
staff and EMS for their presence at the march on Friday. She also mentioned that the Mountain
2030 collaboration is having an online series about Net Zero Progress in the Current COVID
Climate on June 16.
[47:40-50:04]
Councilmember Duncan reported attending an Arches Hotspot meeting and a tour around the
downtown area to examine things on a block by block basis. He also said the groundwater
management plan process is still going and some folks are concerned about growth in San Juan
County.
[50:09-52:52]
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd said the Housing Authority did not have a meeting last month
due to a lack of agenda items nor did the museum. She said the Museum Executive Board put
out a good proclamation about their mission and said the Care Center has not had their meeting
yet this month, but it is scheduled for Thursday.
[53:08-56:09]
Councilmember Guzman-Newton reported attending an Airport Board meeting where they held
a lengthy discussion about free rent for tenants at the airport that was impacted by COVID-19
and a decision was made to defer two months of rent payments until the end of the year. She
reported that FEMA distributed facemasks to airports across the country and CNY will receive
2,300 masks for passengers and employees. She reported attending an Arches Hotspot meeting
discussing Main Street improvements and an Arches Hotspot Committee field trip to discuss
adding parking to side streets. She also reported attending the joint city-county meeting about
the endorsement of a reservation system at Arches. She also reported that the Small Business
Administration made positive changes to the PPP bill through the Paycheck Protection Program
Flexibility Act of 2020. Mayor Niehaus added that there is still commercial rental assistance
money available through the Commercial Rental Assistance Program.
[56:18-63:02]
Councilmember Jones reported attending a GNAR (Gateway and Natural Amenity Resort
Community) meeting where they focused on policies and practices for reopening those areas. He
reported that the Solid Waste District had their annual audit and they did not find much to
critique and he said the Moab landfill has stockpiled organic material and processed 8000 cubic
yards into mulch. Mayor Niehaus asked if he would like to speak to a letter from Evan and
Councilmember Jones said he had a strategy, non-quorum meeting about various items where
they discussed Monument Waste developing a landfill in Mack intended for use by their Grand
Junction customers and as a backup for Grand County operations. He said they have an
Page 3 of 12
June 9, 2020
agreement with Monument Waste about pricing if they have to divert to a landfill in Carbon
County, but they intend to use the Mack landfill instead which is causing financial concern to the
District. He reported attending a County Council meeting where they discussed projects in the
North Highway 191 corridor in the overnight accommodations overlay. He reported attending
the Housing Task Force meeting, Moab Area Travel Council meeting, Trail Mix meeting, and an
Arches Hotspot meeting. He also noted the EA for the December oil and gas sale was just
released.
[63:07-71:40]
Administrative Reports
Mayor Niehaus said she contacted Moab Regional Hospital CEO Jen Sadoff and Orion Rogers
with the Southeast Utah Health Department to provide a COVID-19 update, but neither could
attend but both had no news to report.
City Manager Linares reported that the City is currently following the yellow guidelines for
COVID-19 and working diligently to open City Hall, MRAC, MARC and the gym with a tentative
opening date of June 22 for City Hall, the MARC, and the gym and a tentative opening date of
June 26 for the MRAC. He explained that with reduced hours and significant cost cuts, the
MRAC may not experience a loss this year.
City Manager Linares reported that the Highway 191 widening project is on schedule and they
continue finding hidden infrastructure.
He reported that the protest held on June 5 went well and those involved were respectful. He
thanked the high school, police department, streets department, and public works for keeping
the event safe for all involved.
He encouraged the public to follow the City Council agendas to stay informed about what is
going on in the community.
Citizens to Be Heard
Mayor Niehaus summarized the process for submitting Citizens to be Heard comments and said
that twenty-six comments were received for this meeting.
Sara Melnicoff said, “I am deeply concerned about the bike skills area planned for 100 East at
the Parkway. The parkway is a gem of an oasis within city limits but is getting littered with
"thrill" sites that are pushing people out who want to enjoy the calm, the sounds of water and
birds, and, a very real concern, be able to walk without fear of being hit by a bike, many of whom
are riding way too fast on the "slow biking" parkway system.
The ever-expanding bike jumps near the hospital almost displaced folks who have walked in that
area for years and years. Moab Solutions, in coordination with Trail Mix under Sandy Freethey,
built a trail from the parking area down to the walking path so that bikers and walkers would
each have safe use of that area. We also maintain it as needed. (Side note: Moab Solutions
installed, and maintains to this day, recycling at the bike jumps.)
In August of 2004, Moab Solutions entered into an agreement for a partnership with the city
when we formed Friends of the Parkway. Since that time we have removed thousands of pounds
of trash and recycling, pulled and removed tons of weeds, (which were hauled to be recycled
with Jeff Adams of TerraSophia, who uses the organic material to build up land around his
dwelling), and worked extensively with the homeless, whose camps were all over the parkway at
one time, causing endless headaches for law enforcement and sparking fear in many citizens.
Page 4 of 12
June 9, 2020
We had hoped that we would be, at the very least, personally informed of any huge changes
planned for the parkway. And that our knowledge, based on 16 years of volunteer work and
improvements on the parkway, would count for something.
I am opposed to turning yet another natural area into a playground. With pandemics accelerated
by human-caused climate disruption, the more naturalized we can keep areas, or restore them,
the better for all of us. Thank you.”
Trisha Ann Hedin said, “I am not a resident of the city of Moab, but I live within Grand County
and work and volunteer extensively with the city. I'm writing in regards to the opening of the
Aquatic Center in which I'm an annual member. I hope that you will entertain reopening
portions of the Center. It is feasible to run the Center within minimal staff. My recommendation
is to have a key-card entry in which members need to make an appointment online and then can
enter remotely (without staff) to use the gym. On the Aquatic side, you can do very limited lap
swim, by appointment, with limited staff. Thank you for the consideration.”
Joette Langianese said, “In your meeting scheduled for June 9th the Council is to consider
adopting the budget for 2020/21. Included in that budget is increase in salaries for Council
Members and Mayor. It is difficult to understand how the Council can consider this major
increase to your salaries at this time when you have to lay off staff and keep services closed to
Moab residents. My undersstanding is that the salary increases went into effect in the middle of
last years budget when the City's financial situation was not as dire as it is now. This is not to say
the Council and Mayor do not work hard and deserve to be paid but it seems now is not the time
to continue with salary increases that were made before an ecominic crisis. Please consider
reducing your salaries for the upcoming 20/21budget and show the residents of Moabs that you
too are willing to sacrifice in this uncertain time. Respectfully submitted.”
Angela Nuttall said, “I live just outside of the city limits and I have 3 grand daughters who love
to ride bikes. I am asking you to keep the parkway as is for quiet walks and peaceful ways to get
out of the house. My grand daughters love all the biking opportunities that Moab and Grand
County offer and I feel we do NOT need this park in this area as they have plenty of other places
to ride. What about the biking into town from the south valley? Any plans yet. Surely that money
can be spent on better bike projects.”
Steve Langello said, “This is a good idea on a bad location. The parkway should be a place for
peace and serenity and shade plus it’s a habitat for other animals. Drawing more bikes onto the
pathway is probably not s good idea but cutting down trees is totally unacceptable. Moab has a
bad track record with trees. Lions park was horrible and I don’t but the excuse, the large
cottonwood across from the post office was another disaster that should not have happened, the
tree cutting in the path from gonzo to 500w displaced many bird species and the amount of trees
that were removed from swanny park for a swimming pool was totally unacceptable. Haven’t
you learned anything yet ? Trees make oxygen and provide a habitat for animals plus in the
desert SHADE is critical and shouldn’t be taken for granted. Put your skills park somewhere else
and stop cutting down the trees !”
Justin Ricks said, “Dear Mayor Emily Niehaus and the Members of Moab City Council
We are writing in support of the new bike park, planned to be installed along the Millcreek
Pathway. The skate park and the Moab bike park are already well used parks in our city. The
school bike racks are full of bikes every day. Local kids ride bikes, skateboards, and scooters
Page 5 of 12
June 9, 2020
everywhere. The current parks are aimed more at older kids, who have already developed bike
skills. The new park will allow kids to start learning sooner.
The current pandemic has brought the need for a healthy lifestyle to the forefront of our minds.
More locals than ever before can be seen walking, running, and riding through town. To protect
a more vulnerable population, the kids in our town lost school, sports, concerts, and lots of time
with friends. Investing in a park for our youth is the right thing to do. It is a long-lasting
investment in generations of children.
As runners, we like the idea of a bathroom being installed in that spot along the path. Especially
in the summertime, the parks are a welcome spot to get a drink and use the restroom. We use
the path quite often, as do our children. The area where the park is proposed is often busy with
walkers, skateboarders, cyclists and runners, and the bathroom would be a benefit for all of
these users.
We have already spent time and money to bring this park to fruition, and it would be
unfortunate to lose all of that momentum. Please consider continuing with the plan for the skills
park, so that our local kids do not have to suffer yet another loss this year. The park will
definitely get its use!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Justin and Denise Ricks
Mad Moose Events”
Mr. Marc Thomas said, “I'm fine with the bike skills park location. The park is aimed at kids
(remember what it was to be young?), so a compact location close to where the children are, like
the middle school and high school, makes sense. The far west side jump park is for expert
advanced riders; the new skills park is solely for beginners. At the last city council meeting, the
drawbacks for mixing the two together were gone over in detail, including the prohibitive cost of
making an addition to the jump park ADA-compliant.
As to noise, along the Mill Creek Parkway there are already in place a bunch of kid-centric play
structures. outdoor musical instruments. a public space often used for soccer or the like. the
high school, a football field, the middle school, the Bark Park, multiple road crossings, and the
noise of Main Street. While it still remains a pleasant-enough place to walk or bike near
downtown, I don't mind adding the ambient sounds of happy children to the mix.
To me, its accessibility for school & neighborhood children, its cost-effectiveness because of level
terrain, and its small environmental impact due to its "pocket" size make it a worthy addition to
near downtown Moab. The fact that it will also provide the young (and their parents) access to
the Mill Creek bike path is another bonus, enabling them to dig deeper into pockets of the
natural world found along the path between Rotary Park and the jump park.”
Liz Ballenger said, “Just adding my voice to the many who were surprised to find out about this
new bike park construction through the newspaper last week. I'm in favor of the park, just not of
this location and think something of this scale should involve more public input. Please hit the
pause button on this project and consider more input from the community. Thanks!”
Kaki Hunter said, “I'm happy to pay higher rates for water. The options suit a variety of budgets
and are fair.
Although I would triple the fees for all corporate franchised overnight lodging.
Page 6 of 12
June 9, 2020
What are the rates when you go over your limit?”
Nancy Orr said, “Dear Council:
My bad for not being more informed, but I have only become aware of the proposed Bike Skills
Park from a late reading of last week’s TI article. I’ve heard much about it in the last couple of
days, and you no doubt are getting an earful, but I would like to raise an issue that so far I’ve not
heard mentioned. That issue is the location of the proposed site under huge cottonwood trees.
In my years of river running, I have seen two tents, a river kitchen, a canoe, and two rafts
squashed by cottonwood limbs. In the South where I grew up, they are called widowmakers.
During yesterday’s meeting at the proposed BSP site, Chuck Williams explained the grading and
drainage proposals. He indicated that the drain hole would be where I was standing, about eight
feet from the largest tree. Cottonwoods do not have a tap root, so cutting the root system will
shorten the tree’s life, and possibly destabilize the tree (don’t take my word for it - consult Dr.
Google.) It won’t be immediately apparent - trees adhere to a longer time scale than we do - but
excavation so close will probably contribute to its early demise.
Just look around town at all the limbs brought down from last Friday’s windstorm - Mother
Nature’s pruning services. About 70 feet away from the big tree is the carcass of another large
cottonwood that fell over several years back - I presume you’re all acquainted with the damage
that it did to the fence. Even healthy cottonwoods lose large limbs in big winds, so not a good
idea to build under one.
While the city assures us that the big trees will not be removed to put in the BSP, its
construction will hasten the future need to remove that huge tree for safety considerations.
Without infrastructure at its base, it might be allowed to die a natural death long after our
current generation has returned to dust. With a children’s play area underneath, its slow death
limb-by-limb will endanger small humans whose focus is not skyward, and it will have to be
removed. So although the stated plan is that the big tree will not be removed, in truth it is just a
postponement of that fate.
Aside from the moral question of sacrificing a splendid old tree for a children’s play area, does it
make sense to lure a group of kids into an area where one large falling limb can injure many at
once? I am all in favor of the BSP, but it seems more appropriate for many reasons to append it
to the existing facilities at Anonymous Park.”
Sara Melnicoff said, “Moab Solutions supports the bike skills park but continues to strenuously
object to the location. It is antithetical to the General Plan, the founding principles of the
parkway itself, and is in a floodway/plain (that functioned perfectly during the flash floods we
just experienced).
A few points from your GP:
Policy 2 – Encourage the preservation and enhancement of existing landscape resources
Action Step a : Continue planning and developing the Mill Creek and Pack creek parkway
Action step b: Support Community efforts to beautify public spaces and private properties with
climate-appropriate trees, shrubs, and ground covers
Page 7 of 12
June 9, 2020
Goal 11 – Open Space: Promote green space within and surrounding Moab
Policy 1 – Conserve sensitive undeveloped areas for riparian, wildlife, and watershed protection
These should be the guiding principle for your decision to relocate the bike skills park to a
disturbed area, or to another suitable location. And to show respect for the council that worked
to create this general plan.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.”
Beachem Bosh said, “I am for the bike skills project the bmx track is for more advanced riders
and rarely see little guys succeed on that track I live on Bartlett currently so I regularly see the
bmx track being used by advanced riders plus the area proposed for bile skills could use a little
cleaning up”
Richard Allred said, “build the park”
Jesse Bosh said, “I am in favor of the Beginner’s bike skilled park being built along the Millcreek
path. We need to invest more in our youth, and I think this is a great example of that.”
Jeff Adams said, “I am writing to express opposition to the proposed location of the Bike Skills
Park, and my support for creating a Bike Skills Park at a different location - preferentially at
Annonymous Park where an area is already used by all ages for slow speed bike skills training
adjacent to the bike jump area.
The proposed location does not align well with Moab City General Plan goals such as Element 3,
goal #11 Open Space policy 1 "Conserve sensitive undeveloped areas for riparian, wildlife, and
watershed protection". There are additional references to preserving and enhancing green
spaces and protecting riparian areas in the General Plan.
Preservation and enhancement of riparian areas and tree canopy in downtown for ALL users
seems to be more aligned with the General Plan than allocating this space for a bike skills park.
There are additional areas suitable for a bike skills park, though riparian areas and relative quiet
in downtown Moab are very hard to come by. And the floodway and floodplain in this area have
much more important work to do protecting our community and providing ecosystem services,
along with a nice place to sit in reverence or have a conversation.
Please consider hitting the pause button on this park, and allow an opportunity for the
community to discuss alternative locations and the potential highest uses of the proposed
location.
Thank you,
Jeff Adams
TerraSophia LLC, ecological design consulting and landscape contracting
Canyonlands Watershed Council, director”
Nancy Kurtz said, “The bike skills park plans seem to have slipped by a fair number of people. I
must admit, sadly, this is the first I have heard about it, there's been quite the buzz the last
couple of days, and I hope it isn't a done deal. The area designated is a quiet jewel and very
special oasis to many of us, obviously. i walk through there all the time, and it feels kind of
Page 8 of 12
June 9, 2020
sacrosanct. I am truly surprised it has been chosen for a bike park site, being one of the few
treed riparian areas close to town that is undisturbed by development or recreational
opportunities. There is even a bench where a person on foot can rest and replenish on a hot
summer's day.
So sorry to be commenting at this late hour when apparently the grant money is already spent,
but again, I don't think I am the only one caught unawares on this planned project. Some of the
residents of the neighborhood also have expressed surprise. I sincerely hope that if there is
enough of an acknowledged problem with this particular site, the park can be retrofitted to a
more appropriate locale we and the kids will all love.
Thank you so much.”
Saxon Sharpe said, “Dear City Council,
I would like to voice my opposition to the location, not the project, of the Bike Skills Park. I walk
that stretch of the Mill Creek Parkway several times a week to enjoy the quiet, natural beauty of
a creekside setting. Mill Creek is a unique landscape in Moab that should be preserved for native
vegetation and wildlife. Additionally, placing a children’s recreation area in a flood plain
beneath large trees is poor planning and a liability for the City. A bike skills park can be placed
anywhere. Please place it in a safe location and preserve Mill Creek in its natural state.
Thank you,
Saxon Sharpe”
Mitchell Peterson said, “I live in Spanish valley, I would like to see the bike skills area set up and
give our kids a fun place to go while Learning to go over obstacles with their bikes. Thanks”
Kirk De Fond said, “I am opposed to the addition of a Bike Skills Park in the Mill Creek Parkway
for several reasons. At a time when The City of Moab is trying to make ends meet by laying off
employees, keeping the Recreation and Aquatics Center closed,and is unable to repair streets
from last years sewer repairs, it makes no sense to take on any expenses associated with owning
and operating a Bike Skills Park. The Parkway was developed to provide safe, quite, non
motorized transportation through town in a beautiful natural setting. I feel the Bike Skills Park
is not compatible with the Parkways purpose and goals, and would gives it somewhat of a creepy
amusement park vibe. Having an unsupervised Bike Skills Park on City property opened 24/7/7
is a near text book example of attractive nuisance and may open the City up to numerous
lawsuits. Please protect our Mill Creek Parkway from unnecessary, non compatible development
and reopen the Recreation and Aquatics Center.
Respectfully, Kirk De Fond”
Joshua Relph said, “I fully support the beginning bike park. Opportunities for young children
are far and few between in this town. This park would allow for an entry level mountain bike
skills builder Course to be established. We as a community currently do not have this option.
Moab offers plenty of places for solitude and wildlife observance areas. Using our short term
budget crisis to shut down the long term benefits a project like this would bring is short sighted.
And to be honest, Millcreek and Millcreek parkway are not Sara Melnicoff’s personal areas to
run as she sees fit. I know she dedicates a vast amount of time to these areas, but she still just a
citizen with no more say than any other!”
Caitlin said, “Please keep the plans of the bike skills track in place. This will be perfect for the
littles of Moab.”
Page 9 of 12
June 9, 2020
Colman said, “County”
Michael Peck said, “Why build a bike park when it's already a beautiful peaceful place to ride
now. Use the funds for something the town really needs.”
Theresa King said, “Dear City Council:
I would like to address two items on your agenda this evening.
First is the budget..
I can see that there has not been any monies allocated for the Moab Arts Council's regranting
program. This partnership with the City of Moab was started in 2002 (18 years ago) with an
MOU. We, the Moab Arts Council do recognize these are unusual times in our community, but
would like to you know that this program has been very successful.
Second topic: under New Business the RAP tax.
I know the Moab Arts Council is preparing to be an advocate for this new funding stream for the
arts and recreation needs of the City. The Moab Arts Council is a non-profit organization
separate from the MARC but in close communication on projects. The Moab Arts Council is
looking forward to help educate the public regarding this new sales tax option and hopes to
continue this unique partnership with the City of Moab.
Artfully yours,
Theresa King
self-appointed community art leader
Board Member, Moab Arts Council”
Mathew Niesen said, “Late comment for the bike park near the Millcreek pathway.
Just got word that this will be on the agenda tonight. I think this is an excellent idea. Most of the
Moab experience caters to the more experienced riders. This park makes sense for both visiting
and resident families looking to support their more accomplished riders and build their own
skills. My kids love the pathway. This would be one more excuse to get them off the couch and
outdoors. I hesitate taking my younger children to the bike park near the hospital because of its
intensity. It's a great park but we're just not there yet as far as skills go. This seems like a great
idea to bridge that gap. Moab is biking. Lets embrace it and invest in it. Seems like the governor
agrees with that by matching the funds. It's my understanding that the equipment is paid for
and all that is left is one last permitting hurdle and then construction. The location is also ideal
when weighted with other possible sites.
Thanks for reading and thanks for your consideration of my thoughts and wishes.”
Diane Walker said, “This is pertaining to the proposed Ordinance 2020-07. I am against a water
rate increase to the residential property owners of Moab. I think that if there are to be increases,
they should be shouldered by the businesses that are profiting from the Tourism Industry, which
is creating the greatest strain on our town's infrastructure and profiting from it.
Thank you, Diane Walker
268 East 100 South”
Proclamations:
City of Moab Proclamation 6-4-2020
Mayor Niehaus read the last portion of the proclamation and thanked Chief Edge for co-signing
Page 10 of 12
June 9, 2020
and staff for helping to prepare the proclamation.
Public Hearing (Approximately 7:30 p.m.):
Proposed Ordinance 2020-07: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.50, Master Fee
Schedule, of the Moab Municipal Code to Update and Modify Certain Fees and
Rates Charged by the City
Mayor Niehaus opened the public hearing at 8:43 pm.
There were no public comments received during the meeting.
Councilmember Jones moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Duncan, Jones, Guzman-
Newton, Derasary, and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye in a roll call vote. Mayor Niehaus closed the
public hearings at 8:45 pm.
Proposed Ordinance 2020-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of Moab
Annexing the Lions Back Holdings, LLC, Property Located at 938 and 940 South
Highway 191 to the City of Moab and Assigning the Zone of C-4 Commercial to the
Parcel
Mayor Niehaus opened the public hearing at 8:55 pm.
There were no public comments received during the meeting.
Councilmember Duncan moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Guzman-Newton
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Guzman-Newton, Duncan,
Jones, Derasary, and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye in a roll call vote. Mayor Niehaus closed the
public hearings at 8:56 pm.
Old Business:
Proposed Resolution 14-2020: A Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Year 2020/2021
Budget
Discussion: Mayor Niehaus explained that this budget needs to be passed but there will be
future budget amendments. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd felt this would be one of the more
complicated budgets the Council has passed.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Jones moved to adopt proposed Resolution 14-2020
adopting the fiscal year 2020-2021 annual budget. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Jones,
Duncan, and Guzman-Newton voting aye in a roll call vote.
Proposed Ordinance 2020-09: An Ordinance Adopting the City of Moab Pay Plan
Schedule and Adopting the Exempt and Elected Officials Salaries for Fiscal Year
2020-2021
Discussion: Councilmember Derasary clarified that elected officials are given three options on
how to exercise salary offerings and wondered if it would be best to have them in the discussion
or part of the motion. She believed it was helpful from a transparency basis to clarify that salary
options for the Council include taking the salary and using it to purchase health insurance,
taking it as salary only, or taking a lesser amount.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to approve Ordinance 2020-09 adopting
the City of Moab pay plan schedule and adopting the exempt and elected official salaries for
Page 11 of 12
June 9, 2020
fiscal year 2020-2021 with an amendment to include salary and benefit options for elected
officials to reflect those that were approved for January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020 in the fiscal
year ending 2020 budget; these include a salary for the mayor of $12,922 and benefits of
$24,418 for a total compensation of $37,410 and the salary for council members of $7,826 and
benefits of $21,977 for a total compensation of $30,814. Councilmember Derasary requested an
amendment to add a sentence that says council and mayor have three options in the coming
year to (1) to take the salary and purchase health insurance benefits through the city; (2) to take
the combined salary and benefits amount as salary; or (3) take a lesser amount of salary or
compensation. Councilmember Duncan accepted Councilmember Derasary’s amendment to his
motion. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with
Councilmembers Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman-Newton, Duncan, Jones, and Derasary voting aye in
a roll call vote.
Proposed Ordinance 2020-07: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.50, Master Fee
Schedule, of the Moab Municipal Code to Update and Modify Certain Fees and
Rates Charged by the City
Discussion: Councilmember Derasary asked if the motion will suggest insertion of one of the
water rates options to replace current water rates listed in the master fee schedule. Finance
Director York confirmed that the water rate chosen during the meeting will replace the water
rate listed in the master fee schedule. Mayor Niehaus clarified if the motion is to approve the
ordinance as is, the water rates remain as currently listed in the master fee schedule. City
Manager Linares requested that Council specify what rate they are adopting as part of their
motion. He also said the Council will see amendments to the master fee schedule throughout the
year as we work through the budget and the financial impacts of COVID-19. Councilmember
Knuteson-Boyd asked when the water rates will go into effect. Councilmember Jones felt it was
best to adopt one of the new water rate fees given the City’s capital needs and explained his
methodology for his proposed water rate option “E”. Councilmembers discussed the various
water rate options stating that options “B” and “C” were more aggressive in adjusting rates in
the first year while option “E” builds more slowly. Finance Director York and City Engineer
Williams agreed that option “E” was the preferable rate options. Councilmember Derasary noted
that options “A”, “B”, “C”, and “E” all generate the $8.5 million in bonding capacity but stated
option “E” drops below the debt coverage ratio in 2021 and days cash on hand drops below
minimum in 2022 and did not see that with the other three options. City Engineer Williams said
he discussed those concerns with Alex Buxton from Zions Bank, and he did not think they would
be a problem. Councilmember Jones explained that he was trying to get the same debt coverage
ratios and days cash on hand with the greater stability of a higher base rate in his proposed
option “E”.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Jones moved to adopt Ordinance 2020-07 an ordinance
amending Chapter 3.50 Master Fee Schedule of the Moab Municipal Code to update and modify
certain fees and rates charged by the city including proposed culinary rates option “E”.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-3 with
Councilmembers Jones and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye and Councilmembers Derasary,
Guzman-Newton, and Duncan voting nay.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to adopt Ordinance 2020-07 an ordinance
amending Chapter 3.50 Master Fee Schedule of the Moab Municipal Code to update and modify
certain fees and rates charged by the city including proposed culinary water rates option “C”.
Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 with Councilmembers
Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan, and Guzman-Newton voting aye and Councilmember Jones
voting nay.
Yard Waste Disposal Options – Discussion only
Page 12 of 12
June 9, 2020
Discussion: City Manager Linares said the purpose of the discussion was to provide direction
to staff regarding disposal of yard waste. He said the disposal options were burning yard waste,
creating a chipping yard waste program, or creating a hauling program. Mayor Niehaus
conducted a poll of the Council on the three options and the majority of the Council would like
staff to create a chipping program but wanted to make sure the City did not compete with any
private businesses providing that service.
New Business:
Proposed Resolution 32-2020: A Resolution of the City of Moab, Utah,
Consideration, Discussion and Decision on Whether the City of Moab Shall
Impose a .1% Sales and Use Tax to Fund Cultural Facilities, Recreational
Facilities, and Zoological Facilities and Botanical Organizations, Cultural
Organizations, and Zoological Organizations in the City (RAP Tax)
Discussion: Councilmembers discussed this as the last tourist-based tax that the City has not
taken advantage of and it will not generate fortunes but will help us in areas where it is
desperately needed.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to put the RAP tax forward to our
community on the ballot. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan, Jones, and Guzman-
Newton voting aye in a roll call vote.
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab:
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the bills against the City of Moab in the
amount of $698,365.76. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0
with Councilmembers Guzman-Newton, Duncan, Jones, Derasary, and Knuteson-Boyd voting
aye in a roll call vote.
Adjournment: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to adjourn the meeting.
Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Niehaus
adjourned the meeting at 9:48 PM.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Page 1 of 9
June 23, 2020
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 23, 2020
The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date. Per Executive Order 2020-5
issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting was conducted
electronically. An anchor location was not provided. An audio recording of the meeting is
archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA35BaF6yog.
Executive Closed 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 or
Individuals. Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman-Newton, and Duncan voting aye.
Mayor Niehaus convened the executive closed session at 6:04 PM. Councilmember Guzman-
Newton moved to adjourn the executive closed session. Councilmember Duncan seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd,
Guzman-Newton, and Duncan voting aye. Mayor Niehaus ended the executive closed session at
6:52 PM.
Regular Meeting—Call to Order and Attendance: Mayor Niehaus called the Regular City
Council Meeting to order at 7:07 PM. Participating remotely were Councilmembers Karen
Guzman-Newton, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Rani Derasary, Mike Duncan, and Kalen Jones. City
staff participating remotely were City Manager Joel Linares, Assistant City Manager Carly
Castle, City Attorney Laurie Simonson, Finance Director Klint York, Chief of Police Bret Edge,
Planning Director Nora Shepard, Senior Projects Manager Kaitlin Myers, Arts and Special
Events Manager Liz Holland, and City Recorder Sommar Johnson. Also participating remotely
were Utah Division of Water Quality Director Erica Gaddis, Ann Christensen of DHM Design,
Courtney Kizer of Architectural Squared, and Dan McCann of Architectural Squared.
COVID-19 Update:
Mayor Niehaus introduced Utah Division of Water Quality Director Gaddis. Gaddis provided
initial results of the COVID-19 wastewater testing. Councilmembers inquired about the
correlation between increased visitation and decreased virus detection in Moab, the percentage
of samples from Moab that tested positive, and the turnaround time from samples to results.
Approval of Minutes: May 29, 2020—Approved
Motion: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to approve the minutes for May 29.
Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion.
Discussion: Councilmember Derasary said she sent a few things to City Recorder Johnson
which have already been corrected.
Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan,
Guzman-Newton, and Jones voting aye in a roll call vote.
Mayor and Council Reports:
Mayor Niehaus reported being asked to participate on a board that was developed by Grand
County Community and Economic Development Director Levine. She said SB 95 will provide
funding to counties for economic development; however, due to coronavirus and budget
shortfalls, that funding might be in jeopardy. She stated the Office of Outdoor Recreation asked
her to present to the Western Governors’ Association regarding the impact of coronavirus on
Page 2 of 9
June 23, 2020
gateway communities. She reported attending a board meeting for the Utah League of Cities and
Towns (ULCT). She emailed the link for GOED (Governor’s Office of Economic Development) to
the Council. She said Utah Leads Together 4.0 is a document regarding economic recovery. She
said it is the time to decide what should be manifested in our community regarding
trails/outdoor education. She said the ULCT’s top concerns are the CARES Act funding, water
conservation, public infrastructure districts, and community trust and public safety. She also
relayed the tier two and tier three concerns for the ULCT. She reported being asked to testify by
the ULCT on a political subdivision committee. She reported attending Mill Creek Community
Collaborative meetings about four different management options for the Mill Creek/Powerhouse
area, and those options will be presented to the public for input. She said the GOED information
should be shared with local entrepreneurs to connect them to state resources. She said she is
sharing the paper she wrote for the Governor’s World Partnership Board with the Council.
Councilmember Derasary reported attending an EMS Special Service District Board meeting on
June 15. She said the EMS call volume is returning significantly, but the volume is down 6% this
year. She said it is looking like a $400,000 budget shortfall. She said staff reviewed the budget
with the board and there were tentative cuts of about $200,000. She said they are moving
forward with the building, and most of the time will be spent on the design phase. She offered to
share some design sketches from the meeting. She reported the call statistics. She reported
participating in the Mountain Towns 2030 webinar. She thanked the editor of the Times-
Independent for educating everyone on the death at Arches National Park. She said she sends
her condolences to the family of Ester Nakajjigo. She thanked Mayor Niehaus and
Representative Curtis’ office for assisting the family in Uganda to repatriate Nakajjigo’s body.
She inquired about the dirt being moved at Lion’s Back and who people can contact if they have
questions.
Councilmember Duncan reported attending a Water Board meeting with Assistant City Manager
Castle. He said a mandatory water conservation report will be due in August 2021. He reported
participating on the Hotspot focus committee. He said there is potential for 100 new parking
spots in a four block radius if the bike lanes are removed on 100 West; however, no one on the
focus committee wants the bike lanes removed. He said he will expand the study area to try to
qualify for reducing congestion with off-Main Street parking.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd said she was supposed to attend a Health Care Special Service
District board meeting, but the invite was sent to the wrong email account. She spoke with
Health Care Special Service District Chair Joette Langianese about the meeting. Langianese
informed Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd that the discussion included making up lost revenue
and how to permit families to visit people in the care center. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd
reported that the Canyonlands Care Center does not have any cases of COVID-19. She said there
may be visiting hours outdoors. She reported attending a museum board meeting where two
board members resigned due to differences of opinion regarding how the museum handled
some of the messaging during the protests. She said the museum issued a statement
acknowledging support for justice and racial equality. She said the museum reopening plans
have been delayed due to COVID-19 and some of the displays/exhibits are still being installed.
She reported listening to TED talks and other seminars about museums in different
communities. She said the staff and trustees are receiving training on health and safety
procedures and how to properly explain and honor the exhibits. She said a couple of small
grants were received from the Utah State Historic Records Advisory Board and the Utah
Humanities Council. She reported attending a HASU board meeting about the 2021 fiscal year
budget. She said the senior housing project’s construction is complete and the plan is to start
moving people in at the end of June. She said HASU Executive Director Ben Riley has inquired
Page 3 of 9
June 23, 2020
who to contact at the City regarding the $35,000 donation to the MAPS Senior Project. She said
construction began on the multifamily portion of Wingate Village, which is behind the KOA
Campground and the Spanish Trail Arena. She said the COVID-19 Task Force Rent Relief Fund
has served 40 families and given out roughly $30,000.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton reported a brief meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, City
staff, and the Mayor regarding the 4th of July celebration. She reported attending the Mountain
Towns 2030 Net Zero Summit which discussed different communities trying to help businesses
affected by COVID-19. She reported attending the Economic Response Task Force Town Hall
with the Salt Lake Chamber. She said there are 28 items on the special session agenda and most
of those are about economic restructuring due to the loss of revenue impacts at the state level.
She said the Salt Lake Chamber has started a new campaign called “Stay Safe to Stay Open” and
they are trying to get businesses to pledge support. She said the governor made a point about
using the CARES Act funding to invest in large-scale infrastructure projects. She said GOED, the
Utah Office of Outdoor Recreation, and Governor Herbert are going to try to invest in outdoor
projects. She said the state reported close to $100,000,000 shortfall due to lost sales tax
revenue because of COVID-19. She reported attending an Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating
Committee (AHRCC) meeting with a presentation from Downtown Main Street Alliance
member Matt Hancock about the possibilities for downtown side street parking. She reported
attending a discussion about 4th of July logistics with City staff. She said the airport will have a
ribbon-cutting on July 7 for the new taxiway and apron construction.
Mayor Niehaus inquired if Council would consider the closure of Center Street for a block party
for the businesses. Councilmembers Derasary, Guzman-Newton, Jones, and Duncan indicated
they would consider it. Councilmember Derasary said the City should verify with the businesses
on Center Street.
Councilmember Jones reported attending two Hotspot meetings. He thanked City Engineer
Williams, Assistant Engineer Jolissaint, and Planning Director Shepard for their participation
on the focus group regarding downtown parking and urban design. He reported attending the
Mountain Town 2030. He said Jackson Mayor Pete Muldoon recently had success with the
elimination of parking downtown. He said other communities are struggling fiscally to have the
resources to implement sustainability and climate-related changes.
Administrative Reports
City Manager Linares said this is the first week that City Hall and the Center Street Gym have
reopened to the public. He said the MARC is doing Arty Farty kids camp this week; the doors
may be locked due to safety reasons, but the MARC is open and operating. He said the MRAC is
scheduled to open on Friday. He said Lion’s Back has a grading permit and is moving dirt under
the approval from 2009 which is still vested outside of the lawsuit. He said general questions
regarding Lion’s Back can be sent to Communications and Engagement Manager Church or City
Engineer Williams. He said it is a private development project and specific questions will need
to be deferred to the developer. He said 4th of July fireworks are coming up; Ordinance 2019-20
from last year remains in effect, which states that fireworks are only permitted within City limits
at Center Street Ballpark. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd inquired if the ordinance restricts
personal fireworks. He confirmed that personal fireworks are permitted at Center Street
Ballpark and the Grand County/Moab City fireworks at Sand Flats will still take place.
Councilmember Derasary expressed concern regarding fireworks violations of large fireworks
being fired off in the park. City Manager Linares recalled the difficulties with violations for last
year’s fireworks and the issue was resolved when police officers got involved. Mayor Niehaus
said the 4th of July event this year will require City staff to patrol and monitor the perimeter.
Page 4 of 9
June 23, 2020
Councilmember Derasary requested signs on all sides of the park as a reminder of what is
permitted. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd inquired if the sprinklers could get the ballpark
really saturated prior to the fireworks taking place. Mayor Niehaus said the sprinklers might run
the first ten minutes of every hour on the afternoon of July 4 to allow kids to play in the water.
Administrative Report: COVID-19 Budget Update
Finance Director York reviewed the budgeted sales and resort tax revenue for the 2020-2021
fiscal year. He said the actual sales tax received for May and June were higher than the projected
revenues. He thanked the local citizens for the sales tax revenue that the City received.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton inquired where the sales tax dollars were spent. Finance
Director York said he could send the breakdown to the Council. Mayor Niehaus requested the
information be posted on the City website.
City Manager Linares said it is great news that the City did not lose as much sales tax revenue as
projected, but the City is not where it needs to be. Finance Director York said the updated
predicted shortfall is now $2 million dollars instead of $3 million dollars. He added that Moab
was allocated $470,000 in relief funding from the CARES Act and the first distribution should
be received tomorrow for $157,000. He said these are restricted COVID-19 funds. City Manager
Linares said the COVID-19 related spending is at about $280,000. He said there is no guarantee
that the City will receive more funding from the CARES Act in the future. He said the remaining
funds will be used towards COVID-19 related costs going forward. He said the COVID-19 related
expenses include new types of cleaning supplies, fog machines, hand sanitizer dispensers, hours
of work for employees reacting to situations, PPE for law enforcement, and many other things.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd inquired if the Treasurer’s office remodel is covered under the
COVID-19 funds. City Manager Linares said the remodel is funded by a FEMA grant that covers
70% of the expenses. He said windows and protections had to be ordered for the MRAC’s
reopening.
Finance Director York said the July sales tax revenue will provide a better baseline of what to
expect going forward. City Manager Linares said there is a million dollars in a rainy day fund
and the reductions in spending and staff have saved another million dollars. He said that, if
these numbers hold and the state does not return to orange or red status, the City will break
even. He said the rainy day fund will be depleted.
Finance Director York said there will be a public hearing for the 2019-2020 fiscal year budget
amendments in July. Mayor Niehaus requested the Council receive the materials prior to the
agenda posting.
Administrative Report: MRAC Update
Finance Director York reviewed the MRAC financial breakdown. He presented the revenue vs.
expense from 2012-2019. He said the MRAC has never acquired enough revenue to cover the
cost of labor. He said the City is putting a plan together to open the MRAC and get it more in
line with expenses and revenue. He said some ideas to get closer to breaking even include
adjusting labor rates and hours to maximize efficiency, adjusting open swim hours, raising fees,
adding concessions, and the RAP tax. Councilmember Jones inquired if the expenses breakdown
could be aligned with the different areas of the MRAC to show profitability. Finance Director
York offered to share that information.
City Manager Linares said it was determined that it would be cheaper to keep operating the pool
while closed as opposed to trying to bring it back online later. He said there are no deferred
Page 5 of 9
June 23, 2020
maintenance costs. Councilmember Jones inquired if there were predictable maintenance items
that should be accounted for on these projections. City Manager Linares said the cladder on the
outside of the building and drywall issues on the inside of the pool area that are failing need to
be included.
Councilmember Derasary reported receiving two emails from gym members requesting a partial
opening of the gym and providing insight for how to do it cheaply. She asked if those emails
should be shared with City staff. City Manager Linares said that would be great. He said it is a
staffing and financial issue to open the gym. He said every staff member at the MRAC was laid
off.
Councilmember Derasary inquired if the organization chart is up to date. City Manager Linares
said there are about 20 lifeguards getting recertified right now. He said there were a lot of salary
cuts; other communities are paying lifeguards $8-$10 an hour, and Moab was paying $17-$18
an hour. He said some lifeguards have chosen not to return due to the wage decrease, so the City
has reposted the job. He said MRAC employee Stacie Sheets will certify new recruits through the
Red Cross.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton inquired how the MRAC was funded when it was built. City
Manager Linares said the County Recreation District pays the annual bond payment. He said the
County has financial hardship due to COVID-19; if they cannot make the bond payment, it will
be the City’s legal obligation to pay it.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton inquired if there were other recreation/aquatic centers that
operate in the black. City Manager Linares said he did not know, but he does not expect the
MRAC to ever operate in the black. He explained that the gap needs to be closed. He said, if the
RAP tax is passed and the gap is closer to the 2016 numbers, the MRAC could potentially
operate in the black.
Citizens to be Heard:
City Recorder Johnson reported there were 11 comments received from Citizens to be Heard.
Mayor Niehaus said there was discussion regarding the direction to staff to follow up with
Citizens to be Heard questions.
Theresa Wilson said: “I am completely opposed to the proposed location of a Bike Skills Park at ~100 East along the
Millcreek Parkway for these reasons: 1. It is the only in town place to walk in relative quiet where there are not roaring
ATVs and other vehicles; 2. Flood channel and riparian area should not have added gravel, concrete, etc etc.; 3. No
trees should be removed or compromised; 4. Habitat for birds and other animals should not be removed or made
unlivable. Last week I sent this email to Mike Duncan and Rani Derasary: We walked the location of the proposed
bike skills park today. I walk there at least once a week. Moab does not have a Walking Park. If we walk on streets
ATVs roar past us as well as trucks and cars. Even when we are on the parkway bicycles startle us as it is, though it is
by far the best option available in town for walking peacefully. If we go on the hiking trail near the old senior center
bicycles come roaring down scaring us and our dog. Bicycles have the run of this town and there are already two other
bike parks, a skate park, and a dog park. Is there anything we can do? Walkers need space too. I read that it’s too late,
however nothing has started. When is a bad idea ever too late to turn around -- if it hasn’t started? Thank you for
standing up for the best interests of Moab Citizens. Sincerely -Theresa Wilson”
David Wilson said: “My wife Theresa commented and I want my voice counted as well as hers saying I am very
opposed to the proposed location of a Bike Skills Park at ~100 East along the Millcreek Parkway for these reasons: 1.
It is the only in town place to walk in relative quiet where there are not roaring ATVs and other vehicles; 2. Flood
channel and riparian area should not have added gravel, concrete, etc etc.; 3. No trees should be removed or
compromised; 4. Habitat for birds and other animals should not be removed or made unlivable. Thanks, David
Wilson”
Mary Moran said: “I've always enjoyed the area proposed for the bike skills park. There aren't that many quiet shady
Page 6 of 9
June 23, 2020
natural areas along the creek in the city. I was disappointed to hear that it might be turned into a bike skills park,
which will undoubtedly attract tourists there. If the decision, fraught as it is, is to go ahead with the bike skills park in
the proposed area, please retain all native trees, including cottonwoods and hackberry. Also, please diligently avoid
construction noise/disturbance during nesting season. If construction is happening this year, that means waiting until
all birds have fledged and are away from their nest areas. As this timing varies between species, a biologist could be
employed to monitor birds in this area that are or might be nesting to aid in determining the timing. If construction
won't start for a couple/few months, this won't be an issue, unless it is not completed by mid-winter 2021, when the
next nesting season will start for some species. Thanks. I live outside city limits now, but lived in Moab near the Mill
Creek parkway for a couple decades.”
Steve Hawks said: “First of all, please know that I appreciate your dedicated service during a time of crisis--thank you
for your tireless work on behalf of our community! I was excited to hear that the MRAC pool will be opening on June
26--well done! At the same time, I encourage you to explore ways to open the fitness center as well. I have been a
member of the fitness center since it opened and deeply value the opportunity to work out at the gym. For me, it has
been an essential source of emotional, mental, and physical well-being over many years--and I am aware that many
other long-time MRAC members feel the same way. It could be an especially valuable community resource at present
given the toll COVID-19 is taking on all levels of personal wellness. I realize that there are significant economic and
health constraints that have led to the decision to keep the fitness center closed for the time being, but am hopeful
that solutions can be found. Reopening the fitness center to current members will not provide any new revenue, sadly,
but at the same time it may be possible to reopen the gym without imposing significant costs: 1. Limit the reopening
of the fitness center to current members on an appointment only basis (limiting the number of individuals in the gym
at any given time); 2. Per CDC guidelines, require gym users to clean equipment before and after use, maintain social
distancing, wear masks, and follow other recommendations; 3. Use MRAC personnel that will be on hand for pool
operations (front desk, custodial, management, etc.) to also manage the flow of traffic and basic duties in the gym; 4.
…and I’m sure there are other useful strategies that could be explored! I have a strong background in public health
administration and if helpful would happily work with MRAC staff on a pro bono basis to design a reopening strategy
for the fitness center that is both health-protective and fiscally responsible. Thank you for your consideration and
again, thank you for your service! Sincerely, Steve Hawks”
Trisha Ann Hedin said: “Thank you for considering comments from the citizens of this community. I feel that it
imperative to seek out the feedback of one's citizens to maintain a community where individuals feel empowered. I
am writing in regards to the opening of the MRAC, our beloved recreation facility. I want to thank the Council and the
City for the partial reopening of the facility, but encourage you to push for the reopening of the gym also. I have used
this facility tirelessly since it's opening as a swimmer, runner and avid gym member. While the reopening of the pool
is a step, I believe that we can further support our community by reopening the gym. I believe that the reopening of
the gym can be done safely, with little additional efforts and/or expenditures by the city. I encourage you to seek out
the assistance of gym members as we can put together a committee to put together a proposal for an opening. This
committee can work to come up with safety procedures, gym use and maintenance that would be effective and
economical. Please consider this proposal and put me on the list to assist in it's reopening! Thank you. Trisha Hedin
Marc Thomas said: “I concur with Councilman Jones that the council should take a stand on protecting and providing
access to our special public landscapes while not impairing our recreation-based economy. This means putting our
federal and state government leaders on notice that we want to pull or severely cut back on the speculative oil and gas
leases being auctioned in September near Moab, our precious rivers and our national parks. Locals have worked with
government representatives in Colorado and New Mexico to prohibit leasing near Chaco Canyon and Great Sands
Dunes National Monument. Let's try to do the same here, particularly since our leaders claim they listen more
attentively to what they hear from locals. To provide that requested input, let’s signal to our congressmen, Governor
Herbert and the BLM that they can join Moab residents in leaving a legacy by canceling all the leases close to Arches,
Canyonlands, Bears Ears and the Colorado/Green River watersheds.”
Jennifer Wenzel said: “I live on Old City Park and have a one year old son who I hope will be able to enjoy all Moab
has to offer.. walkways, creeks, green space, bike parks, old city park. With that said if we don’t budget our money
better our town will fail to exist. Spending on projects should be stopped while we are unable to pay employees and
meet current demands Or fully operate existing infrastructure. Our riparian zone is unique and a huge asset to town.
Please don’t build in flood ways, flood zones or remove trees/grass. We don’t have much of these places to walk with a
toddler and removing them is disgraceful. Add to existing parks where parking & restrooms exist once the economy
improves. Adding an annual maintenance expense for additional bathroom just is not smart when tourism has been
down and international traveling is nonexistent. Please considering revising plans and acting later on when time and
funds are appropriate. Thank you.”
Lisa Paterson said: “Please locate this bike park either at Swanee Park or near the Anonymous bike park or some
other agreed-upon location. I am not opposed to it being built, in fact I welcome this new addition to the community's
recreational offerings. But please, don't destroy this peaceful part of the Parkway. We have Razrs zooming by us on all
Page 7 of 9
June 23, 2020
city and county roads. I have found solitude and quiet at this junction of the Parkway in part because of the very tall
trees. Cutting down mature cottonwood trees in an area where many find a measure of quiet and peace is not what
this community now needs. Even if trees are not removed, the addition of this venue will eliminate the peaceful quiet
in this shady riparian section of the parkway. It has been argued that this bike park will be nearby so that families
don't have to drive. I think it's important to take into consideration that many children who will use the bike park live
on the west side of town much nearer to the Anonymous Park and to the Swanee park. It is also important to
remember that families have multiple ages of children and so may have older children wanting to ride at the
Anonymous Park and younger children wanting to ride at the new bike skills park. It makes a lot of sense to keep the
venues closer together. Please do not approve this location at this time. Please delay this decision giving time for the
community to fully offer input and for alternative locations to be fully vetted. Thank you for your consideration of this
issue. Sincerely, Lisa Paterson Lisa Paterson Coaching Gently Held, Deeply Seen”
Janet Buckingham said: “I believe my previous communication has made clear the mistake I believe the city made in
eliminating Terry Lewis's position at MRAC as well as reclassifying Patrick Baril and Stacie Sheets positions. Today I
have a question: I'd like to see a new organizational chart for the MRAC with position titles, pay, hours, and the
benefit status of each. I know there have been new hires and I believe it's a fair question to ask if there has actually
been any budgetary savings in your elimination of experienced staff and the hiring of completely inexperienced
personnel. You have already created a safety issue by doing this; let's see if, especially after paying health insurance
benefits to new hires and their families, there's actually been a savings. If it's a wash, or if you have only managed to
implement the budgetary changes recommended by Ms. Lewis, what is your justification for eliminating highly skilled
personnel, hiring less skilled personnel and putting the community's safety at risk, especially during such a
pandemic?”
Matthew Guymon said: “Some concerns are the location which is a green space with trees and grass for people to walk
their dogs and children which would be eliminated. The constant maintenance and upkeep of a park and restroom is
extra money that could be better spent elsewhere. The amount of use will increase which will add more trash and
more people to a nice quiet walkway through town. A better spot would be the bike park on 500 west with a restroom
already and less work to establish and maintain since it’s already in the budget. Adding extra expenses in a time of
crisis seems irresponsible and unnecessary.”
Cal Bulmash said: “Thanks for addressing the 8 can’t wait campaign, and the need for regular, annual implicit/anti
bias trainings. As a community member I would appreciate the MPD allow these de-escalation and implicit bias
training materials to be shared with members of the public concerned with accountability. I would hope that the City
of Moab take a clear stance against any oil and gas leasing on BLM parcels around our community that would put our
already fragile and limited water shed at more risk. Not to mention climate change is here NOW- yesterday for the
first time ever Siberia reached temperatures of 100 degrees F- we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.”
Presentation: Moab Police Department – Maintaining Standards Beyond
Community Expectations
Chief Edge said the “8 Can’t Wait” is an eight point political action campaign to reform policing
in the United States that is inexpensive, can be implemented quickly, and has a goal of reducing
police violence. He reviewed the eight points of the plan and explained how the Moab City Police
Department policy is compliant with all eight points. He said a section might be added to the
generic use of force policy that discusses de-escalation. He said there will be an annual use of
force analysis report. He reviewed the steps that Moab City Police Department has completed to
improve the level of service for the public. He reviewed what the police department will continue
to improve upon.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd said the implicit bias training in 2016 was good, but it needs to
be updated and repeated. She said the mandatory annual discrimination and harassment
training from the Utah Local Governments Trust (ULGT) has not been updated in 12 years. She
inquired if the Council could request an update of that training to make it more relevant for
current events. Mayor Niehaus asked Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd to draft a letter to the
ULGT regarding the training updates. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd inquired if there is a
wristband or necklace for people with autism which would inform officers. Chief Edge said that
would be interesting to investigate.
Page 8 of 9
June 23, 2020
Councilmember Guzman-Newton thanked Chief Edge for the presentation and signing the
proclamation with Mayor Niehaus. She inquired if this is the first time the officers are going
through de-escalation training. Chief Edge said all officers receive de-escalation training in the
academy, but this is the first time it will happen in Moab. Councilmember Guzman-Newton
asked how much training the police department has received for identifying mental illness and
getting people to the right sources for help. Chief Edge said the police department has received
training to identify and interact with people who are experiencing some type of mental health
crisis; however, the department has not received specific de-escalation training for those
situations. He said the crisis intervention training (CIT) takes 40 hours, and the Moab City
Police Department is working with the police academy in Price to possibly bring a CIT academy
to Moab.
Councilmember Duncan asked Chief Edge’s opinion regarding qualified immunity. Chief Edge
said removing qualified immunity would have a drastic negative effect on law enforcement. He
stated Moab City Police officers would leave the law enforcement profession if qualified
immunity went away. He said qualified immunity is critical for public safety and to maintain
good officers/employees.
Councilmember Derasary mentioned a recommendation from the community regarding a
training group called Transformative Alliances. She inquired if the de-escalation and implicit
bias training materials could be made available to the public. Chief Edge said some of the
training is copyrighted and cannot be distributed outside of the training. Councilmember
Derasary inquired about members of the public or press being able to attend the trainings and if
people could contact Chief Edge to offer their feedback. Chief Edge said the community board
must be small to be productive, and he encourages feedback from the community regarding who
should be on the board. Councilmember Derasary asked if the governor has banned chokeholds
for the state. Chief Edge said the use of a knee on the neck has been prohibited by the governor,
and other chokehold restrictions are being considered.
Mayor Niehaus thanked Chief Edge for the presentation, being engaged with community
members and protest organizers, for signing the proclamation, and for being a good solid leader.
Old Business:
Ordinance 2020-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of Moab Annexing the
Lions Back Holdings, LLC, Property at 938 and 940 South Highway 191 to the
City of Moab and Assigning the Zone of C-4 General Commercial to the Parcel
—Approved
Discussion: Planning Director Shepard reviewed the two parcels and the pre-annexation
agreement that was approved January 28, 2020. She said Grand County supports the City in
this endeavor.
Motion: Councilmember Duncan moved to approve Ordinance 2020-08: an ordinance of the
City Council of Moab annexing the Lions Back Holdings, LLC, property located at 938 and 940
South Highway 191, otherwise known as Main Street, to the City of Moab and assigning the zone
of C-4 general commercial to this parcel. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Duncan, Guzman-Newton, Jones,
Knuteson-Boyd, and Derasary voting aye in a roll call vote.
Discussion of Walnut Lane Priorities
Senior Projects Manager Myers introduced the project and design team. She said Council
received a prioritization spreadsheet which will be the basis of later discussion. Kizer, McCann,
and Christensen presented conceptual ideas for the project and requested feedback from
Page 9 of 9
June 23, 2020
Council regarding goals for the development. Mayor Niehaus proposed a workshop on Thursday
at noon to further discuss Walnut Lane priorities.
New Business:
Discussion and Approval of Special Event Permit and Special Use of City Park for
a Fourth of July Celebration—Approved
Discussion: Council discussed having vendors through the Chamber of Commerce and the
Coronavirus concerns regarding social distancing and masks. Arts and Special Events Manager
Holland reviewed the possible vendors and events.
Motion: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve a special event permit for the 4th of
July celebration and the market on Center. Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman-
Newton, Jones, and Duncan voting aye in a roll call vote.
City Comments on the September 2020 BLM Oil and Gas Lease Sale
Discussion: Councilmember Jones reviewed the potential oil and gas lease sale in September
for 80,000 acres of land near Moab. He inquired if the Council wanted to proceed with a letter
opposed to the lease sale, or if they wanted to cite specific parcels that should not be included in
the lease sale.
Motion: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve the letter the way it is written.
Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Knuteson-Boyd, Jones, Duncan, Guzman-
Newton, and Derasary voting aye in a roll call vote.
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab
Motion: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the bills against the City of Moab
in the amount of $183,060.05. Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion.
Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Guzman-Newton,
Duncan, and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye in a roll call vote.
Adjournment: Councilmember Jones moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember
Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Niehaus
adjourned the meeting at 10:21 PM.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Page 1 of 3
June 25, 2020
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 25, 2020
The Moab City Council held its Special City Council Meeting on the above date. Per Executive
Order 2020-5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting was
conducted electronically. An anchor location was not provided. An audio recording of the
meeting is archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqLgCBhxEMY.
Special Meeting—Call to Order and Attendance: Mayor Niehaus called the Special City
Council Meeting to order at 12:02 PM. Participating remotely were Councilmembers Kalen
Jones, Karen Guzman-Newton, Rani Derasary, and Mike Duncan. Councilmember Tawny
Knuteson-Boyd was absent. City staff participating remotely were City Manager Joel Linares,
Senior Projects Manager Kaitlin Myers, Communications and Engagement Manager Lisa
Church, City Recorder Sommar Johnson, and Deputy Recorder Kerri Kirk. Ann Christensen of
DHM Design, Courtney Kizer of Architectural Squared, Dan McCann of Architectural Squared,
and Shik Han of Shik Han Consulting participated remotely.
Discussion of Walnut Lane Priorities
Senior Projects Manager Myers led the discussion regarding sustainability for the Walnut Lane
project. Kizer shared a slide with sustainability options ranging from low cost, high return to
high cost, low return.
Councilmember Derasary said the sustainability certifications are not a high priority.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton said the native and climate adapted landscape and energy star
appliances should be included. She requested more information about the pre-
manufactured/reduced material item. McCann provided more information on the pre-
manufactured buildings. Councilmember Guzman-Newton said it is worth considering if it does
not increase the cost too much. Kizer said it would be added to the list to explore.
Councilmember Jones said he is disinclined to incur the overhead of sustainability certifications.
He suggested including a conduit for electrical vehicle charging in the future. He said the high
cost, high return items could be included if the amortized cost in the long term does not
increase. He said the low VOC materials could be done in a few units to accommodate
chemically sensitive residents.
Councilmember Derasary expressed interest in the low VOC materials being used in every unit if
the cost is not too high. She requested clarification on mechanical ventilation. McCann said it is
a system to bring in fresh air from the outside while pushing out air from the inside.
Councilmember Derasary expressed interest in exploring mechanical ventilation. She also
requested information on options that would pertain to COVID-19 mitigation. Christensen said
it is recommended to let fresh air circulate after carpet installation and painting. Kizer said it is
not necessary to have both low VOC materials and mechanical ventilation. She said contractors
can be requested to include these items as alternates.
Mayor Niehaus agreed with Councilmembers regarding the certification as unnecessary. She
agreed with Councilmember Guzman-Newton that xeriscape landscaping can be affordable. She
agreed with Councilmember Jones about preparing for electrical vehicle charging. She said solar
PV can help reduce the utility payments for residents and should be included in the budget.
Page 2 of 3
June 25, 2020
McCann inquired if there was interest from Council regarding greywater. Mayor Niehaus
suggested having a consolidated laundry facility in the apartment complex with one or two
machines labeled for non-greywater use and the rest of the machines could be labeled and used
for greywater. She said it is not effective/efficient to plumb the entire development for
greywater. Councilmember Jones said the greywater plumbing will be difficult to retrofit; he
suggested pre-plumbing for it or at least having limited implementation.
Councilmember Duncan joined the meeting at 12:29 PM. He said plumbing for greywater for
group facilities might work; however, he is not in favor of plumbing every unit at this time.
Senior Projects Manager Myers requested discussion regarding the site plan and parking.
Councilmember Derasary said Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd had mentioned the possibility of
parking underneath the units. She expressed interest in having a variety of unit sizes.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton said achieving the most housing is a priority. She said
underground parking could create higher cost.
Mayor Niehaus inquired about parking requirements for the R-4 zone and the PAD. Kizer
shared a slide that reviewed both types of requirements. Mayor Niehaus asked Council if the
focus is on apartments or a more mixed typology. Councilmember Derasary said affordability is
a high priority.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton inquired how many units fit onsite. Kizer said about 80 units
works onsite, but the difficulty is the PAD parking requirements. She said the site can handle
80-90 units with mixed typology if there is the possibility of a variance on the parking.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton suggested the Council have a meeting about changing the
PAD parking requirements.
Mayor Niehaus asked Council what ratio of unit bedrooms should be considered.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton said affordability is a top priority. She said the most
successful communities are mixed communities. Councilmember Jones said it is partially a
below-market-rate housing development and that he prefers a mixed typology. He suggested the
design be driven by the market for these units, which will include both data and judgment. He
said it is unclear if the target income bracket in unit counts needs to be driven by
accommodating the people that live onsite currently. He suggested those tenants could be
accommodated by self-imposed rent control. Kizer proposed bringing information from HASU
regarding wait lists and different unit sizes to the next meeting. Councilmember Duncan said
70% of the development should be for low income people. He said affordability is the main
issue. He said he is willing to modify the PAD parking requirements, but he requested
information about off-street parking. Mayor Niehaus expressed interest in studio apartments as
part of the mixed typology. Councilmember Derasary said she is open to having five units
without associated parking spaces. She expressed concern about the narrow width of Walnut
Lane regarding the possible off-street parking.
Kizer inquired about the maximum building height. Councilmember Derasary said she does not
want to go above three stories. She said she liked the idea of building lower close to the existing
residential areas. Councilmember Guzman-Newton said she is open to four stories, but the R-4
zone only allows 30 feet high; it is unclear how many stories are possible in the current zoning
height requirements. Councilmember Jones expressed concerns regarding taller buildings but
said he is open to having a conversation about it. Councilmember Duncan said 30 feet is the
maximum as far as he is concerned. He advised paying careful attention to the setbacks and
Page 3 of 3
June 25, 2020
solar access for the residents on the North side. Councilmember Guzman-Newton said the
density slide shows the design team has been conscientious about the single-family
neighborhoods that are adjacent to this development. Councilmember Jones said the center
building could possibly accommodate taller buildings without impacting the neighbors. Mayor
Niehaus suggested shorter, wider, higher windows to prevent residents from looking down onto
other people’s property. She also suggested restricting patios on the sides of the single-family
neighborhoods.
Senior Projects Manager Myers thanked Council for their input. Mayor Niehaus thanked
everyone for meeting today.
Adjournment: Mayor Niehaus adjourned the meeting at 1:07 PM.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: July 13, 2020
Title: Proposal to develop a Moab Community Garden at Anonymous Park
Date Submitted: July 8, 2020
Staff Presenter: Carly Castle, Assistant City Manager
Attachment(s): Moab Community Gardens Proposal to Develop the Anonymous Park
Community Garden
Options: Briefing and Possible Action
Recommended Motion: N/A
Background/Summary:
Moab Community Gardens (MoCom Gardens) has approached the City with a proposal to
develop approximately .25 acres of City property into a community garden. The vision for the
proposed Anonymous Park Community Garden is to provide Moab Valley residents with
accessible gardening spaces. While the East Bench Road Garden in Spanish Valley and the
plots at the Our Village Community Center are great assets, MoCom Gardens has faced
increasing demand for additional in-town garden spaces. Additionally, many garden applicants
have expressed that the commuting distance from town to the East Bench garden is a deterrent
to their participation. To address this growing need, MoCom Gardens seeks to develop a garden
in Anonymous Park on Moab City Property north of the BMX bike park on 500 West. This
location is optimal for garden development because it is centrally located in Moab and is
readily accessible to the public from either 500 West or Bartlett Circle to the north.
Figure 1
The City and MoCom Gardens assessed several City properties but identified Anonymous Park
as a preferred location due to space constraints, access issues, and conflicting uses present at
other properties. The City and MoCom Gardens also evaluated three potential garden
development areas within Anonymous Park (Figure 1), all of which were above the flood zone
and could be set up with an irrigation system by running a water line from neighboring
residential roads. Option A was selected as the preferred location because of its proximity to
parking, flat topography that is mostly free of trees, and because there are no other current or
planned uses for this area.
Public Engagement
MoCom Gardens has agreed to assist the City in a robust public engagement effort to further
develop and define this proposal. This work will engage the Moab community at large, with
specific attention given to the neighborhoods adjacent to Anonymous Park. This public
involvement effort will include a website, social media outreach, written materials provided to
residents living in the Bartlett Circle area, public comment opportunities with the City Council,
and tools for the community to submit feedback on the proposal to MoCom Gardens and the
City.
Process and Project Terms
Once the project proposal is finalized and approved, the City would enter into an MOU with
MoCom Gardens that outlines the terms of use and the responsibilities of each of the parties.
Currently, MoCom Gardens proposes to be responsible for the following:
1.Maintaining communication with the members of the community garden and oversee
their activities undertaken at the Anonymous Community Garden to ensure adherence
to the MoCom Gardens Gardener’s Contract.
2.Installing an irrigation system to provide water to the community garden plots, which
will attach to the water line and irrigation connection established by the City.
3.Installing adequate infrastructure including 10-ft x 20-ft garden plots, pathways to
garden plots constructed of natural materials (e.g. soil, mulch, gravel), an 8-ft tall deer
fence surrounding the garden area, and a storage area for tools and compost.
4.Maintaining all installed infrastructure at the community garden, including maintaining
reasonable control of annual and brushy weeds on the property, making irrigation
system and fence repairs to ensure its proper function, and maintaining a tidy and
nonobtrusive garden space. Maintenance does not include other unspecified activities,
including but not limited to, development of an access road, repair of main water
connection lines, path development outside the garden, and developments not listed
within the scope of this MOU.
5.If desired by the City, MCG will remove garden infrastructure if/when the Anonymous
Community Garden ceases and remediate areas used for gardening, by removing and
raking out of plots and pathways, and broadcast seeding the resulting bare ground with
an all-native species seed mix at a rate of at least 10lbs pure live seed/acre.
MoCom Gardens requests that the City do the following:
1.Provide the land at Anonymous City Park for use by Mo as a community garden space.
2.Installing water line, including backflow prevention and irrigation connection, to service
the community garden space.
3.Waive water connection base rates and all usage fees associated with water use by MCG
for the garden.
Attachments:
Moab Community Gardens Anonymous Park Proposal
Moab Community Gardens
-Anonymous Park -
May 19, 2020
Proposal Packet
5/18/2020
Moab Community Gardens
Proposal to the City of Moab to develop Anonymous Park Community Garden
Submitted By
Makeda Barkley, Anonymous Park Project Leader & primary point of contact for proposal
barkley.makeda@gmail.com • 319-521-5687
Rebecca Mann, MoCom Gardens Manager
mocomgardens@gmail.com • 307-690-3658
Introduction
Moab Community Gardens (MoCom Gardens) is a local, volunteer-based group that facilitates
the development of sustainable, organic community gardens for the benefit of Moab and
Spanish Valley residents. They operate as a project under the Resiliency Hub, a non-profit
organization which aims to inspire resilience in the Moab community through dynamic learning,
open conversations, and stewardship of creative initiatives that rethink, retrofit, and regenerate
our community.
MoCom Gardens' primary objective is to support local food security by providing plots of
irrigable land so that individuals with limited or no access to gardening resources may have an
affordable opportunity to grow food for themselves and their families. We also aim to create
welcoming community spaces that are open and safe for people of all abilities and backgrounds.
Our group was formed in February, 2018 and has had a very successful start, maintaining the
East Bench Community Garden in Spanish Valley, which serves 10-15 Moab Valley gardeners
yearly. In 2020, we added two new community garden spaces in 2020: five plots at the Our
Village Community Center, and a large garden space on Center Street that is dedicated to
growing food for the food bank. Our long term vision is to expand our network of garden spaces
and our capacity to meet the total demand for affordable and easily accessible garden spaces in
Moab on publicly accessible land.
The MoCom Gardens leadership team includes Makeda Barkley, Claire Core, Shiree Duncan,
Luke Kantola, and Rebecca Mann. We host monthly workdays with garden and community
members, during which we tend the garden spaces and work on special projects (e.g. pollinator
gardens, raised beds, food bank plots). All events and garden plots are open to the public.
Project Objectives
●Provide accessible, affordable gardening spaces to Moab Valley community members
1
5/18/2020
●Activate and tend spaces in Anonymous Park that have otherwise been largely unused
and overrun with invasive plant species.
Project Description
The Anonymous Park Community Garden is a project proposed by the Moab Community
Gardens leadership team to provide Moab Valley citizens with accessible gardening spaces.
While the East Bench Road Garden in Spanish Valley and the plots at the Our Village
Community Center are great assets, we have had increasing demand for additional in-town
garden spaces. In 2020, we had a total of 29 gardener applicants, but did not have the space to
fully accommodate all of them. Many garden applicants have also expressed that the
commuting distance from town to the East Bench garden is a deterrent to their participation. To
address this growing need, we seek to develop a garden in Anonymous Park on Moab City
Property north of the BMX bike park on 500 West. This location is optimal for garden
development because it is centrally located in Moab and is readily accessible to the public from
either 500 West or Bartlett Circle to the north. We assessed three potential garden development
areas within Anonymous Park (Appendix A, Figure 1), all of which were above the flood zone
and could be set up with an irrigation system by running a water line from neighboring
residential roads. We selected option A as the preferred location because of its proximity to
parking, flat topography that is mostly free of trees, and because there are no other current or
planned uses for this area. We believe that developing a community garden space in this
proposed location will also improve the value of land owned by Moab City by turning an
otherwise weedy area that may be prone to wildfire into a tended landscape that can be
appreciated by Moab residents in a new capacity.
The major components of establishing a community garden at Anonymous Park would include:
1) developing a water line and irrigation system for the garden, 2) clearing brush from the
garden area, 3) fencing the garden to prevent deer herbivory, 4) designating and developing
garden plots and other growing spaces, and 5) prepping the soil for growing by adding organic
amendments (e.g. manure, soil pep) and cover cropping for a season prior to opening plots to
the public. The City of Moab Water Supervisor, Levi Jones, and the public works department
have expressed their ability to supply water to the preferred location by connecting to a line from
Bartlett Circle; their rough estimated cost for connection and development of the water line is
$3,000. Moab DNR office Fire, Forestry and State Lands WUI Coordinator, Duncan Fuchise,
has offered to donate their fuels crew to clear brush within the proposed garden location
(Appendix A, Figure 2), as a component of their fuels reduction program. Once materials are
acquired (see proposed Budget, below), the MoCom Gardens management team and volunteer
group can donate their time to install the fence, design and develop garden plots, install a plot
irrigation system, and prepare the soil through amendments and cover cropping.
Community Garden Layout
We aim to initially develop 10 garden plots in Anonymous Park, approximately 10ft x 20ft each,
and hope to leave room for expansion if warranted by increased demand. Some space would be
2
5/18/2020
reserved for tool storage, a compost area, and a workbench. In addition to these personal plots
for gardeners, the proposed community garden would also include a common space developed
for the community at large, e.g. which could be used to grow herbs for anyone to use, to grow
food for the Grand County Food Bank, and which may otherwise provide an area for food
education, gardening workshops, public art, and other programming to benefit our community.
MoCom Gardens has reached out to the Full Circle Intertribal Center to invite them to co-lead
development of this common space. Potential placements of this conceptual layout (below) at
the preferred Anonymous Park location are in Appendix A, Figure 3.
Project Funding
To address the expenses associated with the community garden development, we are
requesting that the City of Moab assist with the water connection fee and yearly water usage
fees. We have also approached the Grand Conservation District to inquire about their ability to
assist with funding a community garden. To date, they have been supportive of the idea,
pending a garden location and development plan. We anticipate submitting this proposal to
their board as well as other granting agencies to request partial funding of this project once we
have approval from the City of Moab to develop the land and water resources at Anonymous
Park. In addition, we plan to approach local businesses and the Moab community to seek
donations for seed, irrigation materials, tools, and other supplies.
3
5/18/2020
Project Budget
EXPENSES
Water line installation $3,000.00
Annual water usage fee $1,200.00
DNR fuels removal crew work $1,200.00
Fence building supplies: 4"x4"x 8' corner posts,
400 ft horse fence, 64 T-posts, metal swing gate
$1,700.00
Fence install labor cost $1,500.00
Irrigation supplies $500.00
Cover Crop & Herb garden seed $250.00
Miscellaneous supplies: tools, worktable, bench,
signage
$300.00
TOTAL: $9,650.00
REVENUE
GCD Sponsorship $3,000.00
Moab City contribution* $3,200.00
Grants $500.00
In-kind, DNR: Fuels removal $1,200.00
In-kind, MoCom Gardens: Fence install $1,500.00
Seed and supply donations $250.00
TOTAL: $9,650.00
*Subsequent yearly water usage fees may also be covered by
Moab City and will be reviewed on an annual basis.
Project Timeline
Summer 2020 Select a garden location in Anonymous Park and acquire support from
Moab City for its development.
Summer/Fall 2020 Secure funding to develop an irrigation system for the community garden
and to provide basic infrastructure, e.g. fencing and tool storage.
Clear brush and invasive trees from community garden area
Summer-Fall 2020 Purchase and install water connection and irrigation, fencing, and basic
infrastructure
4
5/18/2020
Winter 2020 Amend soil, sow a winter cover crop.
Spring 2021 Pending soil condition and site status, begin using Anonymous Park
Garden as a community garden site for the Moab community.
5
Figure 1. Potential garden locations within Anonymous Park. Area A is the preferred
location.
Figure 2. Proposed brush clearing in Area A
Figure 3. Two potential garden layouts in Area A
Layout 1
Layout 2
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: July 14, 2020
Title: Discussion of a potential Pre-Annexation Agreement Request For 10.02 Acres located
adjacent to the current City Limits in the vicinity of 500 West by KM Real Estate Enterprises LLC
and M. Dean & Company, LLC (“Property Owner”)
Disposition: Discussion and possible direction. This discussion session is for the City Council
to give staff direction as to whether to entertain entering into a Pre-Annexation Agreement on
the subject property. If the Council directs staff to move forward with the Pre-Annexation
Agreement, the City Staff and the Developer will bring a Pre-Annexation Agreement back to City
Council for consideration. If the City Council directs that they do not wish to entertain a Pre-
Annexation Agreement, the Developer can submit an Annexation Petition and follow the
required process for Annexations, which includes a Zoning Designation.
Staff Presenter: Nora Shepard, Planning Director
Attachment(s):
- Exhibit 1: C-2 Zone Description
- Exhibit 2: October 2017 Staff Report on previous petition
- Exhibit 3: Minutes of 2017 Public Hearing
Background/Summary:
Summary
The Property Owners are asking the City Council to consider entering into a Pre-Annexation
Agreement for 10.02 acres of property located in the vicinity of 500 West .
This property is an “island” of unincorporated land surrounded on 3 sides by properties already
in the City Limits. The adjacent zoning includes C-4 General Commercial, RC Resort
Commercial and R-2 Single Household and Two Household Residential Zone.
The current County Zoning is RR Rural Residential. The Property Owner is requesting the C-2
Commercial-Residential Zoning (See Exhibit 2) as a transition from the R-2 zoning to the south
and the C-4 Zoning to the north.
The existing uses on the property include a small office building and a large metal shop building
that have historically been uses for commercial and industrial uses for many years.
An Annexation Petition has not been filed. The applicant wishes to enter into a Pre-Annexation
Agreement at this time that indicates that, if the annexation is applied for and approved, the
appropriate zoning for the property would be the C-2 Commercial-Residential Zone for the entire
10.02 acres. If the Council so directs staff, the staff will work with the applicant on a Pre-
Annexation Agreement. If the City Council does not have an interest in entering into a Pre-
Annexation Agreement, the Property Owner can file an Annexation Petition that would go
through the Annexation Process, including assignment of Zoning.
The Western portion of the property has been identified as being in a Flood Zone and it will be
used for storm drainage for the highway widening. UDOT and the Property Owner have been
negotiating for UDOT to purchase that property. Development would therefore occur only on
the eastern portion of the parcel. The request is for the entire parcel to be zoned C-2, if
annexed.
Background
An Annexation Petition was filed by the Property Owners in 2017. At that time, the
request was for C-4 on the easterly portion of the parcel and R-4 to the west. After
significant public comment and consideration of various zones, the Planning
Commission failed to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Annexation
(could not pass a majority vote either way). The City Council held a public hearing but
ultimately no action was taken by the City Council on the Annexation. Attached as
Exhibit 3 is the staff report that went to City Council in October 2017 for your
information. The 2017 staff report is comprehensive and includes information on public
comment received at that time. The minutes of the City Council Public Hearing are
attached as Exhibit 4.
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Moab
Attn: City Recorder
217 E Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
FOR THE SHUMWAY PROPERTIES
THIS PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (“Pre-Annexation Agreement”) is entered
into this ___ day of June, 2020, by and among KM Real Estate Enterprises LLC and M. Dean &
Company, LLC (“Property Owner”) and the CITY OF MOAB, a municipality and political
subdivision of the State of Utah (the “City”). Property Owner and the City are hereinafter
sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Property Owner is the Owner of approximately 10.02 acres of real property that is
currently located in Grand County and not located in the City, at approximately 1001 North and
963 North and 500 West in Moab, Utah as more fully described in Exhibit A which is attached
hereto and incorporated by this reference (collectively, the “Shumway Properties”).
B. The Shumway Properties’ current zoning designation in Grand County is
“County Rural Residential” in the Grand County Land Use Code., However, the Shumway
Properties have been used and operated for over sixty years as a commercial/industrial property,
and continue to be placed to commercial and industrial uses, and they have been taxed over that
sixty-year time period as commercial/industrial property. Consequently, the Shumway Properties
have vested rights to commercial/industrial uses.
C. The Shumway Properties are a peninsula of land in the jurisdiction of Grand
County surrounded on three sides by property located in Moab City. Annexation will not create
unincorporated islands but will eliminate a peninsula of unincorporated land jutting into Moab
City. The Property is not within the boundaries of another incorporated city and lies within the
area projected for Moab City expansion.
D. The Shumway Properties are located less than one-half block from the busy
commercial intersection of SR 191 and 500 West and is immediately adjacent to C-4 zoning on
its north and west boundaries. The Parties have been in discussions regarding the Shumway
Properties annexing into the City.
E. It is the intent of this Pre-Annexation Agreement to provide a clear understanding
of the zoning for the use and future development of the Shumway Properties in accordance City
of Moab Ordinances and to be in compliance with the provisions of the Moab Municipal Code
and other applicable land use regulations (collectively “Land Use Regulations”).
2
F. The City, acting pursuant to its authority under Section 10-9a-101, et seq. has
made certain determinations with respect to the Shumway Properties, and in the exercise of its
legislative discretion, has elected to approve this Pre-Annexation Agreement after all necessary
public hearings and procedures have been conducted.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals and Exhibits are hereby incorporated by
reference as part of this Pre-Annexation Agreement with annexation into the boundaries of the
City within two (2) months of the execution of this agreement.
2. Zoning Upon Annexation. It is agreed that upon the issuance of a Certificate of
Annexation by Lieutenant Governor that the Shumway Properties will be placed in the “C-2
Commercial – Residential Zone” to provide a buffer from the C-4 zoning and heavy commercial
and industrial development north and west of the Shumway Properties and the R-2 zoned
property south of the Shumway Properties.
3. Vested Rights.
3.1. Vested Rights. Property Owner shall have the vested right to use and develop
the Shumway Properties for the historic commercial and industrial uses, in addition to the uses
in the “C-2 Commercial-Residential Zone.
3.2. Reserved Legislative Powers. The Parties acknowledge that the City is
restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the limitations,
reservations and exceptions set forth herein are intended to reserve to the City those police
powers that cannot be so limited. Notwithstanding the retained power of the City to enact such
legislation under the police powers, such legislation shall only be applied to modify the vested
rights of the Property Owner under the terms of this Pre-Annexation Agreement based upon the
policies, facts and circumstances meeting the compelling, countervailing public interest
exception to the vested rights doctrine in the State of Utah. Any such proposed legislative
changes affecting the vested rights of the Property Owner under this Pre-Annexation Agreement
shall be of general application to all development activity in the City; and, unless the City
declares an emergency, Property Owner shall be entitled to prior written notice and an
opportunity to be heard with respect to any proposed change and its applicability to the
Shumway Properties under the compelling, countervailing public interest exception to the vested
rights doctrine.
4. Successors and Assigns.
4.1. Binding Effect. This Pre-Annexation Agreement shall be binding upon all
successors and assigns of Property Owner in the ownership or development of any portion of the
Shumway Properties.
3
4.2. Assignment. Neither this Pre-Annexation Agreement nor any of its provisions,
terms or conditions may be assigned to any other party, individual or entity without assigning the
rights as well as the responsibilities under this Pre-Annexation Agreement and without the prior
written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or
delayed. Any such request for assignment may be made by letter addressed to the City as
provided herein and the prior written consent of the City may also be evidenced by letter from
the City to Property Owner or their successors or assigns. Any such assignment shall require the
assignee to sign a form of acknowledgement and consent agreeing to be bound by the terms of
this Pre-Annexation Agreement.
5. Default.
5.1. Notice. If Property Owner or the City fail to perform their respective obligations
hereunder or to comply with the terms hereof, the party believing that a default has occurred
shall provide notice to the other party as provided herein. If the City believes that the default has
been committed by Property Owner, then the City shall also provide a courtesy copy of the
notice to Property Owner.
5.2. Contents of the Notice of Default. The Notice of Default shall:
5.2.1. Claim of Default. Specify the claimed event of default;
5.2.2. Identification of Provisions. Identify with particularity the provisions of
any applicable law, rule, regulation or provision of this Agreement that is claimed
to be in default;
5.2.3. Specify Materiality. Identify why the default is claimed to be material.
5.3. Meet and Confer. Upon the issuance of a Notice of Default, the Parties shall
meet within ten (10) business days and confer in an attempt to resolve the issues that are the
subject matter of the Notice of Default.
5.4. Remedies. If, after meeting and conferring, the Parties are not able to resolve the
default, then the Parties may have the following remedies:
5.4.1. Legal Remedies. The rights and remedies available at law and in equity,
including, but not limited to injunctive relief, specific performance and
termination, but not including damages or attorney’s fees.
5.4.2. Enforcement of Security. The right to draw on any security posted or
provided in connection with the development of the Shumway Properties and
relating to remedying of the particular default.
5.4.3. Withholding Further Development Approvals. The right to withhold
all further reviews, approvals, licenses, building permits and/or other permits for
development of the Shumway Properties on those properties owned by the
defaulting party.
4
5.5. Extended Cure Period. If any default cannot be reasonably cured within sixty
(60) days then such cure period may be extended as needed, by agreement of the Parties for good
cause shown, so long as the defaulting party is pursuing a cure with reasonable diligence.
5.6. Cumulative Rights. The rights and remedies set forth herein shall be cumulative.
5.7. Force Majeure. All time period imposed or permitted pursuant to this Agreement
shall automatically be extended and tolled for: (a) period of any and all moratoria imposed by the
City or other governmental authorities in any respect that materially affects the development of
the Shumway Properties; or (b) by events reasonably beyond the control of Property Owner
including, without limitation, inclement weather, war, strikes, unavailability of materials at
commercially reasonable prices, and acts of God, but which does not include financial condition
of the Property Owner or their successors.
6. Notices. Any notices, requests and demands required or desired to be given hereunder
shall be in writing and shall be served personally upon the Party for whom intended or if mailed
be by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid to such Party at its address shown
below:
Kelly Shumway, 410 West McGill, Moab Utah 84532
Kevin E. Anderson, Esq.
110 So. Regent Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
City of Moab
Attn: City Recorder
217 E Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
Any Party may change its address or notice by giving written notice to the other Parties in
accordance with the provisions of this Section.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Agreement to Run with the Land. This Pre-Annexation Agreement shall be recorded
in the Office of the Grand City Recorder against the Shumway Properties and is intended to and
shall be deemed to run with the land and shall be binding on all successors in the Ownership and
development of any portion of the Shumway Properties.
2. Entire Agreement. This Pre-Annexation Agreement, together with the Exhibits hereto,
integrates and constitutes all of the terms and conditions pertaining to the subject matter hereof
and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, promises, inducements, or previous
5
agreements between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any
amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the respective Parties hereto.
3. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement are intended for convenience only
and are in no way to be used to construe or limit the text herein.
4. Non-Liability of City Officials or Employees. No officer, representative, agent, or
employee of the City shall be personally liable to Property Owner, or any successor-in-interest or
assignee of Property Owner, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount
which may become due to Property Owner, or its successors or assignees, for any obligation
arising out of the terms of this Pre-Annexation Agreement.
5. No Third-Party Rights. The obligations of the Parties set forth in this Pre-Annexation
Agreement shall not create any rights in or obligations to any persons or parties other than to the
City and the Property Owner. The City and Property Owner alone shall be entitled to enforce or
waive any provisions of this Pre-Annexation Agreement to the extent that such provisions are for
their benefit.
6. Severability. Should any portion of this Pre-Annexation Agreement for any reason be
declared invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such portion shall not
affect the validity of any of the remaining portions, and the same shall be deemed in full force
and effect as if this Pre-Annexation Agreement had been executed with the invalid portions
eliminated.
7. Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Pre-Annexation Agreement shall
operate as a waiver of any other provision regardless of any similarity that may exist between
such provisions, nor shall a waiver in one instance operate as a waiver in any future event. No
waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the waiving Party.
8. Survival. All agreements, covenants, representations, and warranties contained herein
shall survive the execution of this Pre-Annexation Agreement and shall continue in full force and
effect throughout the term of this Pre-Annexation Agreement.
9. Public Information. The Parties understand and agree that all documents related to this
Pre-Annexation Agreement will be public documents, as provided in UTAH CODE ANN. § 63G-2-
101, et seq.
10. Governing Law. This Pre-Annexation Agreement and the performance hereunder shall
be governed by the laws of the State of Utah.
11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counter-parts which shall
constitute one and the same document.
(Signatures begin on following page)
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by Grand City, State of Utah,
pursuant to Moab City Municipal Code 17.72.100, authorizing such execution, and by a duly
authorized representative of Property Owner as of the above-stated date.
CITY OF MOAB, a Utah Municipality and
political subdivision of the State of Utah.
By:
Emily Niehaus, Mayor and
Chair, City Council
ATTEST:
Sommar Johnson, City Clerk/Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Laurie Simonson, City Attorney
KM Real Estate Enterprises LLC and
M. Dean & Company, LLC
By:
Kelly Shumway, their Manager
STATE OF UTAH )
:ss.
CITY OF SALT LAKE )
On the day of June, 2020, personally appeared before me Kelly Shumway, who
being duly sworn, did say that she is the Manager of KM Real Estate Enterprises LLC and M.
Dean & Company, LLC, and that the foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said limited
liability companies and said Kelly Shumway duly acknowledged to me that she executed the
same for the purposes therein stated.
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
17.21.010
17.21.020
17.21.030
17.21.040
17.21.050
Chapter 17.21
C-2 COMMERCIAL--RESIDENTIAL ZONE*
Sections:
Objectives and characteristics.
Permitted uses and regulations.
Area, width and location requirements.
Special provisions.
Supplementary regulations.
* Prior history:Prior code Sections 27-8-1 through 27-8-5.
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. (Ord. 93-16 (part), 1993)
17.21.020 Permitted uses and regulations.
A. Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted-by-right. If a use is not listed it is prohibited.
1. Arts and crafts shops.
2. Assembly of appliances from previously prepared parts (contained within a building).
3. Carpentry shops.
4. Convenience establishments that are less than three thousand square feet.
5. Day Care. Day care shall be permitted to operate subject to the following standards:
a. City of Moab business license is required.
Ch. 17.21 C-2 Commercial--Residential Zone | Moab Municipal Code Page 1 of 6
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
b. A valid day care license or certificate as issued by the State of Utah is required.
c. Applicants for a City business license shall submit a conceptual site plan that indicates:
i. Ingress and egress to the property;
ii. Drop-off/pick-up areas;
iii. Traffic circulation;
iv. Off-street parking (single-household residence plus space for each FTE staff member);
v. Landscaping;
vi. Buffering or separation from dissimilar uses;
vii. Open space for older kids.
d. Compliance with all applicable City regulations regarding noise, odor and glare.
6. Eating establishments less than two thousand square feet excluding drive-ins or drive-through services.
7. Established Overnight Accommodations. Established overnight accommodations, as defined in this code and
as indicated on the Established Overnight Accommodations Map, shall be considered legal, conforming uses.
a. Established overnight accommodations will be allowed to make improvements to the property, so
long as no new overnight accommodation units are proposed.
8. Electrical appliance shops (wholesale).
9. Engraving and printing establishments.
10. Funeral establishments.
11. Greenhouses and nurseries.
12. Group Homes.
a. Such homes must be licensed by the State of Utah.
b. All exterior aspects of a group home, including its scale and off-street parking configuration, shall
conform with the requirements of the C-2 zone.
c. Such homes shall provide off-street parking pursuant to Sections 17.09.210 through 17.09.340.
13. Gymnasiums.
14. Home occupations subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.80.050.
15. Hospitals.
Ch. 17.21 C-2 Commercial--Residential Zone | Moab Municipal Code Page 2 of 6
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
16. Multi-Household Dwellings. Developments consisting of seven or more multi-household units shall be
subject to the following additional requirements:
a. Access. Vehicular access shall be provided to the property in such a way that it does not impede traffic
patterns on adjacent streets.
b. Parking. Off-street parking shall be designed in such a way as to allow vehicles to pull forward into the
on-street traffic flow.
c. Garages or Carports. If provided, garages and carports shall not be located in the front yard and shall
be set back from the front wall of the principal structure at least fifteen feet or be accessed from the rear
or side of the property.
d. Landscaping. All off-street parking shall be landscaped and buffered from adjacent uses. A minimum
of fifteen percent of the interior of the parking area shall be landscaped to provide shade and break up
the expanse of asphalt.
e. Buffering. All adjacent uses shall be buffered by a distance of not less than fifteen feet and contain
berms, shrubs, and other plantings. Buffering may be combined with screens, fences and hedges.
f. Apartments and court apartments shall designate an open space/recreation area that is a minimum
of two hundred square feet in size to be developed into recreation, play or landscaped areas. The
requirement can be met with the construction of a recreation room (“rec room”) or club house of a
similarly sized area that can be used for residents and their guests for recreation/social activities and/or
relaxation.
17. One-household dwellings and accessory uses.
18. Outfitters and guide services and facilities.
19. Parking lots (commercial).
20. Places of worship. All places of worship shall be subject to the regulations established by Utah State
Code Annotated (“UCA”). The Planning Department, in accordance with Chapter 17.67, shall receive a complete
site plan which demonstrates that:
a. Traffic impacts are minimized so that on-street vehicle flows will not be impeded.
b. Noise, odor, and glare is contained on the property.
c. Landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the provisions located in Sections 17.09.360
(Landscaping – Required) and 17.09.370 (Landscaping – Specifications generally). A minimum of fifteen
percent of the interior of the parking areas must be landscaped. Trees shall be utilized to provide shade
for vehicles and must be of a sufficient size and placement to provide shade to forty percent of the
parking area within three years.
Ch. 17.21 C-2 Commercial--Residential Zone | Moab Municipal Code Page 3 of 6
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
d. Possible impacts on adjacent streets, sidewalks, and bike/pedestrian routes have been identified and
reduced to minimum levels.
e. Adequate parking for the intended use is provided.
21. Professional offices.
22. Public buildings. This use shall be allowed when in compliance with the following standards:
a. The proposed use shall be situated on a tract of land sufficient in size to provide for the activities of
the use as well as required landscaping, off-street parking, and trails;
b. Landscaping, screening, and fencing shall be installed and maintained to mitigate impacts on
surrounding residential uses;
c. Parking areas shall be an all-weather surface such as concrete, asphalt or sealed gravel that will not
generate dust or deposit gravel on paved roadways;
d. Dust, glare, odor, and noise shall be confined within the boundaries of the property;
e. Outside storage of equipment, materials, and supplies shall be contained and located within a
building or a sight obscuring fence;
f. The use shall demonstrate that there is a benefit to the neighborhood or community;
g. Traffic from the proposed use shall not create a significant negative impact on the neighborhood.
23. Public parks.
24. Retail establishments that are three thousand square feet or less.
25. Schools. All schools shall be subject to the regulations established by Utah State Code Annotated. The
City, in accordance with Chapter 17.67, shall receive a complete site plan showing that:
a. Traffic impacts are minimized so that on-street vehicle flows will not be impeded.
b. Possible impacts to adjacent streets, sidewalks, and bike/pedestrian routes have been identified and
reduced to minimum levels.
26. Secondhand stores.
27. Service establishments.
28. Two-household dwellings and accessory uses.
29. Veterinary clinic with indoor kennel.
a. Noise, odor and glare shall be contained on the property.
Ch. 17.21 C-2 Commercial--Residential Zone | Moab Municipal Code Page 4 of 6
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
b. Fencing, landscaping, the design of parking areas, and downward directed and full cut-off light
fixtures shall be used to reduce impacts on adjacent properties.
c. Parking shall be provided at a rate of one space per one thousand square feet and one space per
each employee. ADA handicapped accessible spaces shall be provided as required.
d. A buffer area of twenty-five feet shall be used to provide a separation from other uses and adjacent
properties. Buffering shall include the elements of subsection (A)(29)(b) of this section.
e. Vehicular ingress and egress traffic patterns shall be designed to not impede existing traffic flows and
provide adequate interior circulation.
f. Hours of operation for public access shall be from seven a.m. to seven p.m.
30. Wholesale establishments that are less than three thousand square feet (wholesale establishments with
stock on premises but excluding establishments whose principal activity is that of a storage warehouse). (Ord.
19-18 § 2.2, 2019; Ord. 19-13 § 21 (part), 2019; Ord. 18-01 (part), 2018: Ord. 08-03 (part), 2008; Ord. 93-16
(part), 1993)
17.21.030 Area, width and location requirements.
All buildings and structures in the C-2 commercial-residential zone shall be set back at least twenty-five feet from
any public street. Area, width and location requirements for buildings arranged, intended or designed primarily for
residential use, shall be set back from the front property line a distance of at least twenty-five feet. Minimum side
yards shall be at least eight feet or less by conditional use permit, with a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen
feet. Street-side setbacks for corner lots shall be no less than twenty feet in width. No area and width
requirements shall apply to dwellings located above the ground floor when the ground floor is devoted exclusively
to a commercial use permitted in the zone lot coverage of the principal use shall not exceed fifty percent of the
total lot area. (Ord. 08-24 (part), 2008: Ord. 93-16 (part), 1993)
17.21.040 Special provisions.
A. A strip of land at least fifteen feet in width adjacent to all public streets shall be landscaped as set forth in
Sections 17.09.360 (Landscaping--Required) and 17.09.370 (Landscaping--Specifications) of this title, except for
permitted driveways.
B. No dust, odor, smoke, vibration or intermittent glare or noise shall be emitted which is discernible beyond the
premises, except for normal traffic movements.
C. Storage of all merchandise, material and products shall be carried on within a building or within an area
enclosed with a sight obscuring fence or wall, except for vehicles in running order.
D. All off-street parking shall be hard-surfaced. (Ord. 93-16 (part), 1993)
Ch. 17.21 C-2 Commercial--Residential Zone | Moab Municipal Code Page 5 of 6
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
Disclaimer: The City Recorder's Office has the official version of the Moab Municipal Code. Users should contact
the City Recorder's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
Note: This site does not support Internet Explorer. To view this site, Code Publishing Company recommends using
one of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari.
City Website: moabcity.org
City Telephone: (435) 259-5121
Code Publishing Company
17.21.050 Supplementary regulations.
See also Supplementary Requirements and Procedures Applicable Within Zones (Chapter 17.09 of this title). (Ord.
93-16 (part), 1993)
Ch. 17.21 C-2 Commercial--Residential Zone | Moab Municipal Code Page 6 of 6
The Moab Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 20-11, passed April 14, 2020.
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: October 10, 2017
#: Click here to enter text.
Pl-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.
The attached Review (PL-17-117) contains an evaluation of the proposed annexation as
required by MMC 1.32.
Ordinance 2017-33 Page 1 of 5
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 ___.
Ordinance 2017-33 Page 2 of 5
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.
_______________________________
David L. Sakrison
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Rachel Stenta
City Recorder
Ordinance 2017-33 Page 3 of 5
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
Ordinance 2017-33 Page 4 of 5
Exhibit 2
Ordinance 2017-33 Page 5 of 5
Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 1 of 5
Meeting, August 10, 2017
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.
Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 2 of 5
Meeting, August 10, 2017
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.
Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 3 of 5
Meeting, August 10, 2017
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
Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 4 of 5
Meeting, August 10, 2017
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.
Moab City Planning Commission, Minutes Page 5 of 5
Meeting, August 10, 2017
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
Sh
u
m
w
a
y
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
0
20
0
40
0
60
0
10
0
Fe
e
t
1
i
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
Ü
Gr
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
o
a
b
We
s
t
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
Rainbow Dr.
US-1
9
1
-
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
500 W St.
Sh
u
m
w
a
y
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
0
20
0
40
0
60
0
10
0
Fe
e
t
1
i
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
Ü
RC
Z
o
n
e
C-
4
Z
o
n
e
R-
2
Z
o
n
e
Gr
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
o
a
b
We
s
t
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
Rainbow Dr.
US-1
9
1
-
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
500 W St.
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
2
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.
3
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).
4
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.
5
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.
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
(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.
10
(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.
11
(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
12
(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
13
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
14
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.
15
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
16
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
17
(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:
18
(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;
19
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.
20
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.
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
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.
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.
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Op
t
i
o
n
s
:
Le
f
t
a
s
Co
u
n
t
y
R
R
An
n
e
x
e
d
a
s
R2
An
n
e
x
e
d
a
s
R3
An
n
e
x
e
d
a
s
C2
An
n
e
x
e
d
a
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
(
R
4
&
C
4
)
Ot
h
e
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
Ka
t
y
R
o
b
e
r
t
s
o
n
62
1
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
1
2
no
no
no
Th
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
i
s
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
k
e
e
p
a
b
u
f
f
e
r
be
t
w
e
e
n
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
&
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Re
s
p
e
c
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
M
o
a
b
,
pl
e
a
s
e
!
Au
t
u
m
n
E
l
a
80
8
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
x
x
Ka
t
h
e
r
i
n
e
M
c
G
i
l
l
69
1
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Wh
a
t
h
a
p
p
e
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
z
o
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
su
p
p
o
s
e
d
l
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
e
v
e
r
y
"m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
?
!
"
W
h
y
a
r
e
t
h
e
y
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
b
u
l
l
-
do
z
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
?
?
!
Sh
e
r
r
i
e
,
C
l
i
n
t
,
W
a
n
d
a
C
o
s
t
a
n
z
a
74
9
W
e
s
d
w
o
o
d
x
x
Ma
g
g
i
e
W
i
l
s
o
n
67
8
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
R2
f
o
r
l
o
n
g
e
r
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
C
1
fo
r
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
4
3
5
-
2
6
0
-
1
6
3
9
.
Ch
l
o
e
H
o
l
l
i
s
&
N
a
t
e
A
m
e
n
t
72
7
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
x
Ll
o
y
d
B
o
n
n
i
e
&
J
o
d
i
e
W
i
g
g
i
n
s
52
5
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
We
a
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
d
e
a
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
2
4
/
7
n
o
i
s
e
fr
o
m
D
e
n
n
y
'
s
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
w
a
n
d
e
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
r
st
r
e
e
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
.
M
a
r
a
t
h
o
n
s
.
I
'
v
e
h
a
d
pe
o
p
l
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
m
y
f
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
(
6
y
r
s
ag
o
)
.
T
h
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
H
w
y
.
1
9
1
a
n
d
5
0
0
W
.
is
b
u
s
y
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
.
N
O
C
-
4
N
O
C
-
2
My
l
e
n
e
S
n
o
w
79
6
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
Ch
a
d
W
i
l
s
o
n
66
3
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Jo
n
a
t
h
a
n
L
o
h
m
a
n
n
65
5
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
Br
i
a
n
H
a
y
s
91
5
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
D
r
.
x
Ak
a
s
h
a
F
a
i
s
t
&
S
c
o
t
t
F
e
r
r
e
n
b
e
r
g
82
0
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
Us
e
d
b
y
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
s
a
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
!
Ma
d
o
l
y
n
A
i
n
g
e
53
7
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
St
e
v
e
G
o
o
d
w
i
n
75
3
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Ke
n
n
e
t
h
L
.
R
o
b
b
i
n
s
52
7
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Ke
n
D
e
n
n
e
y
73
9
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Ch
r
i
s
P
r
e
n
t
i
c
e
65
1
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Re
e
d
K
e
n
n
a
r
d
66
2
W
e
s
t
w
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
x
Lo
r
i
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
90
8
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
x
Tr
i
s
h
a
W
e
s
t
71
8
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
D
r
.
x
Li
n
d
a
G
r
a
w
e
t
73
7
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
Je
s
s
i
c
a
S
.
D
y
e
90
9
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
D
r
.
x
Ru
s
s
e
l
l
F
a
c
e
n
t
e
77
2
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
3
a
c
r
e
s
C
-
1
,
7
a
c
r
e
s
R
2
/
R
3
Rh
o
n
d
a
C
o
w
e
r
n
51
0
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
x
x
Br
y
a
n
N
i
c
k
e
l
l
69
0
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
x
Jo
h
n
C
o
w
a
n
92
6
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
D
r
.
x
Ka
t
r
i
n
a
L
u
n
d
66
5
W
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
.
1
2
3
no
no
Po
s
t
c
a
r
d
s
f
r
o
m
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
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
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 1 of 6
October 10, 2017
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 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 5:30 PM. In attendance
were Councilmembers Rani Derasary, Heila Ershadi, Tawny Knuteson‐Boyd, Kyle Bailey and Kalen Jones.
Also in attendance were City Manager David Everitt, City Recorder/Assistant City Manager Rachel
Stenta, City Attorney Chris McAnany, Public Works Director Pat Dean, City Treasurer Jennie Ross,
Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Recorder Assistant Eve Tallman, Water Superintendent Levi Jones,
Assistant City Engineer Eric Johanson, and Water Conservation Board Members Kara Dohrenwend, Mike
Duncan, Arne Hultquist and Jeremy Lynch.
The Workshop began with an update on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater Study.
Marc Stilson, Regional Engineer for the Utah Division of Water Rights, presented the findings, which are
in a preliminary state. He reported that the groundwater discharge consists of 10,000 to 13,000 acre
feet (AF) for the Moab/Spanish Valley, and 12,000 to 14,000 AF for the total watershed. This amount
differs, he explained, from the previously‐reported 14,000 AF discharge for the Valley and 22,000 AF for
the total watershed. The prior numbers were first reported by Sumsion in 1971, Stilson said, and until
this study, other research built on the Sumsion numbers.
Mayor Sakrison asked what the findings signify for San Juan County. Stilson explained that earliest rights
prevail. He also noted that if a primary water right holder is not using their allotment, they might lose it.
He went on to clarify that 20,000 AF of water rights have been allotted on paper, and he reported that
usage is currently as follows: approximately 1800 for Moab City, 900 for Grand Water and Sewer
Services Agency (GWSSA), 800 for irrigation, and 400 for small domestic users. The total water currently
in use is approximately 4,000 AF.
City Manager Everitt clarified that if a water right is not being used, a junior water right holder can use
the water. Discussion ensued about forfeiture of water rights, and Stilson explained that in 2008 the
state legislature passed protections for municipalities. Mayor Sakrison brought up the 5,000 AF
requested by San Juan County. Stilson explained that if that water is developed, they may have to shut
off as Moab and Grand County, as senior water rights holders, develop their own water.
Mayor Sakrison asked if the practice of transferring water rights on paper, as happened in San Juan
County, will end. Stilson explained that the draft groundwater management plan can defend against this
practice. He said the State will give pause to grant any more water rights because the data shows the
water isn’t available.
The discussion shifted to next steps recommended by the USGS plan. Installation of water gauges was
considered. Councilmember Jones asked about the benefit of installing a high‐priced gauge available
from the USGS versus a simpler string gauge. Stilson stated the State can help.
Page 2 of 6
October 10, 2017
Mayor Sakrison asked about the quality of the water, and Stilson explained it is better to have more
strategic tests. He explained that excessive drawdown will show in brine levels. He noted that the Glen
Canyon Group water is very good and there is evidence that the aquifers are linked. Councilmember
Jones asked if brine from the wetlands will intrude upstream.
It was noted that Ken’s Lake diversion was not measured. Stilson stated that there is a lot of water at
this time, and the key is to plan for when there will be a need to treat the surface water. Mayor Sakrison
asked if climate change would impact the water supply and Stilson replied that it depends on continuing
trends.
Councilmember Jones asked about the process for the groundwater management plan. Stilson explained
that the State takes the lead, all water users are stakeholders, and the plan will take two to three years
to develop. It was started in 2014. It was pointed out that population growth projections will come into
play.
Stilson reported that the City’s water rights are all proven (perfected). It was asked if the legislature can
take water rights away, and Stilson commented that Utah cities have a strong lobby.
It was noted that there has been no impact on increased water usage on wells that are monitored by
Grand County. Councilmember Jones asked about stream health. Stilson stated that irrigation efficiency
could keep more water in the creeks. He added that this is probably not in the groundwater plan.
Audience member Gerrish Willis asked what was meant in the report by “safe yield” in the report.
Stilson stated this is defined in section 73‐5‐15 of the Utah Code. It limits withdrawal of water to a safe
yield as related to recharge rates and the physical and chemical attributes of the water. Stilson also
noted that the groundwater levels are not impacted and there is no deficit spending.
Assistant City Engineer Johanson asked about models, and it was explained the State would participate.
Audience member Jeff Adams asked about Ken’s Lake and Stilson explained that what was counted was
the base flow into the Lake and not snowmelt.
Water Board member Duncan asked if the base flows are diverted, and it was explained the Bureau of
Land Management (SLM) requires three cubic feet per second (cfs) must always flow in the creek.
The workshop continued with the annual report by the City Manager. Everitt outlined progress of the
City in three areas: people, plans, and projects. He detailed hirings and noted thirty people were placed
in the past year. He touched on the various plans addressed by the City in the past year, including the
General Plan, the Downtown Plan, and the upgrade of the City Code. Projects outlined included the
improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure and mentioned the ten‐year capital
improvement plan. He noted the City is in a decent position financially, and mentioned the
sustainability plan, the communications strategy, and touched on upcoming infrastructure projects
regarding paving, striping, drainage, Utah State University, sewer replacement, stormwater
management at Stewart Canyon, installing a bathroom at the bike park, upgrades at the bark park, an
overhaul of police department procedures, issues surrounding homelessness, urban trails, firearms
Page 3 of 6
October 10, 2017
enforcement, water and sewer rates, and expanding programs at the Moab Arts and Recreation Center
(MARC).
The workshop concluded with questions from Council members. Councilmember Knuteson‐Boyd asked
about recent Pride Week activities and whether it was a City event. City Manager Everitt explained that
the City’s venue was rented to the Pride Week organizers.
Regular Meeting Called to Order: (1:20 on recording)
Mayor Sakrison called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:58 PM and led the Pledge of
Allegiance. Fifty‐eight members of the public and media were present.
Approval of Minutes: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve the minutes of the September 26 and
October 4, 2017 meetings with corrections. Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5‐0 aye, with Councilmembers Bailey, Ershadi, Jones, Derasary and Knuteson‐Boyd voting aye.
Citizens to be Heard:
Charlotte Mates announced the Moab People Mover, a shuttle that will travel a route from the Spanish
Trail Arena to Lions Park, seven days a week from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. She also announced the
election night dinner at the Grand Center.
Kenneth Robbins spoke regarding the proposed annexation, detailed below.
Student of the Month: Mayor Sakrison presented Jason McKinney with the Mayor’s Student Citizenship
of the Month Award for September, 2017 for Helen M. Knight School.
Public Hearing: (1:32 on recording)
At 7:11 PM, Mayor Sakrison opened a public hearing concerning 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.
The following citizens were heard:
Kenneth Robbins spoke in opposition of the proposed zoning of the Shumway Annexation.
Mike Duncan spoke about the proposed C‐4 zoning, and stated feedback he has gotten from residents is
for no more hotels.
Kara Dohrenwend spoke about the need to look at what is next door to the proposed annexation and
noted that more housing is needed.
Allison Brown spoke about the City’s General Plan and noted that it did not have an affordable hotel
plan but rather has an affordable housing plan. More housing is needed, she said.
Russell Facente spoke in favor of affordable housing. He referenced an earlier meeting at which Dr. Ray
Andrew spoke about the difficulty of finding affordable housing for his employees. Facente stated the
proposed commercial zone will make the housing problem worse. He also noted the recent candidate
Page 4 of 6
October 10, 2017
forum hosted by the League of Women Voters at which candidates spoke about the need for affordable
housing. Facente stated this is an opportunity to develop housing in an R‐3 zone. He noted R‐4 may be
too dense. He added that the developers could built to the densest standard allowed.
Rhonda Cowern stated she was opposed to the proposed C‐4 zoning and is in favor of R‐3 or R‐4 zoning.
She noted she is treating more stress‐related injuries in her physical therapy practice. She stated that
residents who are surrounded by nightly rentals and noise are affected. She said that anger, not
kindness, is spreading.
Kya Marienfield spoke in favor of more housing and fewer hotels. He said the community lacks
workforce housing. She urged Council to designate residential zoning and to not permit industrial or
commercial uses for the community benefit. She added that Council represents citizens and should not
rubber stamp the annexation application.
Star Kolb spoke in favor of residential zoning to serve as a buffer from the commercial zone.
Karen Guzman‐Newton spoke about the vision for the City. She stated that, if we have a plan,
developers know what is acceptable, and residents know what to expect.
Applicant Kelly Shumway spoke about the plan established by the City to promote the general welfare of
present and future inhabitants. She said that tourism will experience increases and workforce housing is
a priority. She noted the housing shortfall. She added that the proposed annexation properties have
been used for non‐conforming industrial business.
Applicant’s Representative Tim Keogh spoke about the annexation requirements being met. He stated
the proposed R‐4 zoning accomplishes the density needs of the City.
Maureen Clapper spoke about the increase in traffic on 500 West and stated a need for a buffer
between commercial and residential neighborhoods. She added Moab has more hotels than needed.
She noted the growth has been too fast and the City cannot sustain this.
At 7:56 PM, the Mayor announced he would keep the public hearing open in case there were more
citizens to be heard and continued to Old Business.
Old Business: (2:18 on recording)
Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement
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 Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers Bailey,
Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
New Business:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Knuteson‐Boyd moved to approve Proposed Resolution # 56‐2017 –
Page 5 of 6
October 10, 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. Councilmember Derasary seconded the
motion and noted that Senator Hatch stood up for DACA. The motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers
Bailey, Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Victim Targeting
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve Proposed Resolution # 57‐2017 – A
Resolution Concerning Victim Targeting. Councilmember Knuteson‐Boyd seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers Bailey, Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Fiscal Year 2016‐2017 Budget Closeout Report (2:25 on recording)
City Manager Everitt distributed the budget summary to Council. He stated that, as forecast, the City
underspent its budget. He reported that the fund balance is healthy and revenue came in as projected.
He noted that the budget was underspent by 13% in the general fund.
Setting Public Hearing for Budget Amendment
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Knuteson‐Boyd moved to approve 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. Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers Bailey, Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting
aye.
LED Speed Limit Signs
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bailey moved to approve 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. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5‐0 with
Councilmembers Bailey, Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye.
Public Hearing Resumed (2:32 on recording)
The Mayor recognized additional persons who wished to be heard.
Megan Macomber acknowledged that Moab is tourist‐dependent and noted we live in a valley with
finite land. She stated her concern that Moab is not yet built to capacity and fears we will overbuild. She
urged Council to not allow more hotels and to keep this parcel residential. She noted too much traffic
and too many hotels in the area already. She added there are not enough EMTs to handle the tourism
and urged Council to not add more commercial.
Jerry Shue noted that all discussion regarding the annexation referred to residential use, not
commercial. He asked Council, why not zone the whole property as residential.
Brian Hays supported the annexation and noted his opposition to commercial zoning. He stated his
desire for all residential zoning in this annexation. He expressed the City needs more residential housing,
not another hotel.
Page 6 of 6
October 10, 2017
Ray Andrew spoke about there being too many hotels. He mentioned the difficulty in getting staff and
added there is not enough affordable housing. He asked if it is relevant to find out what is planned. He
added that the annexation could become a noise and traffic factory.
The Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:17 PM. The following citizens presented written comments
during the hearing: David A. Quinn, Diane Quinn, Katrina Lund (opposed to C‐4 zoning and urged council
to keep the area residential) and T.J. Cowern (against the Shumway annexation).
Citizen Jim Blazik was heard on the topic of water rates. City Manager Everitt noted there was a
misunderstanding with the owners of Grand Oasis and a review of pricing and water meter designations
was proposed.
Mayor and Council Reports: (2:49 on recording)
Councilmember Jones reported that the housing task force plans to make recommendations to the local
governing councils regarding zone changes, annexations, and housing implications. He also reported he
attended a Solid Waste District workshop on recycling.
Councilmember Knuteson‐Boyd noted she had lunch with the Governor. She also added she will be
working with Molly McLish and Marcy Till on youth outreach for the Pride effort.
Councilmember Derasary reported she attended a land trust meeting and she had gotten a lot of
feedback from citizens concerned about boarding houses in the R‐2 neighborhoods. She added that
employers want to discuss the issue.
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab: Councilmember Derasary moved to pay the bills against the
City of Moab in the amount of $283,391.11. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5‐0 aye, with Councilmembers Bailey, Ershadi, Jones, Derasary and Knuteson‐Boyd voting aye.
Executive Session: At 8:35 PM, Councilmember Jones moved to enter an Executive Closed Session to
Discuss the Character, Professional Competence, or Physical or Mental Health of an Individual.
Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers Bailey,
Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi, and Derasary voting aye. The Executive Closed Session was entered into
at 8:41 PM.
Councilmember Knuteson‐Boyd moved to end the Executive Closed Session and enter into open session.
Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers Bailey,
Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and Derasary voting aye. The Executive Closed Session ended at 9:52 PM.
Adjournment: Councilmember Jones moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Bailey seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5‐0 with Councilmembers Bailey, Jones, Knuteson‐Boyd, Ershadi and
Derasary voting aye. Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 9:53 PM.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
David L. Sakrison, Mayor Rachel E. Stenta, City Recorder
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: July 14, 2020
Title: Ordinance #2020-13, an Ordinance creating the rules and regulations pertaining
to the administration of bicycle and scooter share permit program.
Presenter: Joel Linares
Attachment(s):
Proposed Ordinance
Suggested Motion: There is not a suggested motion as this item is on for discussion
only.
Background/Summary:
This Ordinance is proposed in draft form only. It has been placed on the agenda for the
sole reason to have the necessary discussions to form the policy regulating this industry.
The City wishes to be proactive in its enforcement of these types of uses prior to a
business wanting to bring this use to the City of Moab.
At this time the City has not received any request from a business to be permitted for
this type of use.
The content of this ordinance is merely for Council to review and to begin the discussion
to form its policy going forward. It is not an endorsement by staff as to this type of use.
Staff looks forward to forming the policy in reflection of the majority of Council and
implementing that policy going forward.
RULES & REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF A BICYCLE
AND SCOOTER SHARE PERMIT PROGRAM
Effective Date: __________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.DEFINITIONS
II.AUTHORITY
III.INTENT
IV.RESPONSIBILITY OF PERMITTEE
1.SAFETY
2.SERVICE AREA
3.PARKING
4.OPERATIONS
5.REPORTING
V.INSURANCE& INDEMNIFICATION
VI.FEES
VII.APPLICATION
I. DEFINITIONS
1. Bicycle and scooter sharing is an innovative transportation program, ideal for
short distance point-to-point trips providing users the ability to pick up a bicycle or
scooter from one location and leave it at another within a system’s service area.
2. Bicycle and scooter sharing systems provide users unencumbered access to
bicycles or scooters within a defined system area. Bicycles or scooters can be
remotely accessed via a smart phone application or other credentials and do not
need to be attended by the operator.
3. Bicycle and scooter sharing operators must provide easy access to bicycle or
scooter stations and/or bicycles or scooters for the broadest group of the
population. This access includes solutions for those individuals who do not bank
or have smart phone resources. Operators must make their system accessible
and affordable to the broadest group of the population.
II. AUTHORITY
1. The City Planner has the authority to promulgate departmental rules and
regulations for bicycle and scooter sharing.
III. INTENT
1. A goal of Moab City Council is to reduce travel time and reduce congestion
and provide expanded multi-modal mobility choices. Bicycle and scooter sharing
is an innovative transportation program, ideal for short distance point-to-point
trips providing users the ability to pick up a bicycle or scooter from one location
and return to another within a system’s service area. A robust bicycle or scooter
sharing permit program has the likelihood of expanding multi-modal mobility
choices through the Coty of Moab.
IV. RESPONSIBILITY OF PERMITTEE
1. SAFETY
1. All bicycles or scooters used in systems issued a permit under this
permit program shall meet the standards outlined in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under Title 16, Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 1512
–Requirements for Bicycles. Additionally, permitted systems shall meet
the safety standards outlined in ISO 43.150 –Cycles, subsection 4210.
2. Any electric bicycles or scooters used in systems issued a permit under
this permit program shall meet the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrations (NHTSA) definition of low-speed electric bicycles and
scooters; and shall be subject to the same requirements as ordinary
bicycles or scooters. This means that electric bicycles shall have fully
operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750 watts, and a top motor-
powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour when operated by a rider
weighing 170 pounds. Additionally, the City reserves the right to terminate
any permit issued under this program if the battery or motor on an electric
unit is determined by the City to be unsafe for public use.
3. All bicycles and scooters shall includes a front light that emits white light
and a rear red reflector visible to low headlight beams on vehicles from
600 feet.
4. All bicycle and scooters share operators permitted under this permit
program shall provide a mechanism for customers to notify the company
that there is a safety or maintenance issue with the bicycle or scooter.
5. All permitted systems shall have visible language that notifies the user
that:
a. Helmet use is encouraged while using a rented unit.
b. Users shall yield to pedestrians on sidewalks when access the
unit at the docking station.
c. When riding on-street, follow the rules of the road, as one would
in a motor vehicle.
d. Users shall not operate a unit on sidewalks other than when the
are accessing a docking station.
e. Units are not permitted on state highways.
6. Permitted bicycle or scooter share operators agree that the City of
Moab is not responsible for educating users regarding bicycle or scooter
laws. Neither is the City responsible for educating users on how to ride or
operate a bicycle or scooter. Permitted operators agree to educate users
regarding laws applicable to riding and operating a bicycle or scooter in
the City of Moab and Grand County and to instruct users to comply with
applicable laws.
7. Each bicycle or scooter should be equipped with a lock, key, and/or
smart technology equipment in order to track ridership data, owned and
provided by the bicycle or scooter share operator.
2. SERVICE AREA
1. A robust bicycle or scooter sharing permit program has the likelihood of
expanding multi-modal mobility choices in high demand areas
2. Permitted bicycle or scooter share operators must submit, as part of an
application to the City, a proposed service area that meets the goals and
intent of this regulation.
3. At a minimum, a bicycle or scooter share operator service area must
include the downtown area of the City of Moab.
4. Bicycle or scooter share operators, through the application process,
may propose a phasing plan to serve these areas in the first year of
operation.
3.PARKING
1. Docking Bicycle or Scooter Share Systems-for share stations that
require the installation and maintenance of objects in the ROW, an annual
permit is required for every location in addition to an annual permit for the
program. The City of Moab Planning Department will provide guidance on
locating share stations, as well as the required additional permits.
2. Free Float Share Systems-for free-floating bicycle or scooters share
systems, bicycles or scooters shall be parked in designated areas or at
any bike rack. Bicycle or scooter share operators shall inform customers
on how to park a unit properly.
3. Restrictions to eligible parking zones on sidewalks include:
a. Bicycles or scooters shall not be parked at the corners of
sidewalks.
b. Bicycles or scooters shall not be parked against trees or within
scape planting beds.
c. Bicycles or scooters shall not be parked on blocks where there is
not a designated area.
d. The City reserves the right to determine certain block faces
where free-floating share parking is prohibited.
e. Bicycles or scooters shall not be parked within:
a. Loading zones;
b. ADA Handicap parking zones;
c. Street furniture that requires pedestrian access (i.e..
benches, transit information signs, etc.);
d. Curb ramps;
e. Entryways;
f. Driveways
g. Landscape planting beds or other landscape materials
g. This permit is only valid for operations within the City of Moab.
h. The City of Moab retains the right to create geo-fenced stations
within certain areas where bicycles or scooters shall be parked.
i. Any free-floating bicycle or scooter that is parked in one location
for more than seven (7) consecutive days without moving must be
evaluated and/or moved by the share system provider. If the unit
remains in one location after 7 days, it may be removed by the City
of Moab and taken to a City facility for storage at the expense of the
share operator. The City of Moab shall invoice the violating
operator.
j. All permitted operators shall provide on every bicycle or scooter
contact information for bicycle or scooter relocation requests.
k. Bicycles or scooters shall be upright when parked.
l. Any bicycle or scooter that is parked incorrectly shall be re-parked
in a correct manner or shall be removed by the operator based on
these times:
a. 6am-6pm Mon-Fri (holidays excluded) – within 2 hours of
receiving notice.
b. All other times – within 10 hours of receiving notice.
4. OPERATIONS
1. All permitted bicycle or scooters share operators under the permit
program shall have a 24-hour customer service phone number for
customers to report safety concerns, complaints, or ask questions.
2. All permitted bicycle or scooter share operators under the permit
program shall provide the City of Moab with a direct contact for bicycle or
scooter share operator staff that are capable of rebalancing bicycles or
scooters. In addition, operators will provide a rebalancing management
plan to the City of Moab.
3. In the event City Staff identifies or receives a nuisance complaint, all
permitted bicycle or scooter share operators under the permit program
shall relocate or rebalance bicycles or scooters based on these times:
a. 6am-6pm Mon-Fri (holidays excluded) – within 2 hours of
receiving notice.
b. All other times – within 10 hours of receiving notice.
4. Any inoperable bicycle or scooter, or any bicycle or scooter that is not
safe to operate shall be removed from the operation within 24 hours of
notice by any means to the operator by any individual or entity, and shall
be repaired before returning the bicycle or scooter into revenue service.
5. All permitted operators shall have a minimum bicycle or scooter fleet of
50 units if using standard (non-electric) bicycles or scooters; operators
shall meet this fleet size within two weeks of initial launch date.
6. Every bicycle or scooter shall have a unique identifier that is visible to
the user on the unit.
7. If the City of Moab incurs any costs addressing or abating any violations
of these requirements, or incurs any costs of repair or maintenance of
public property, upon receiving written notice of the City costs, the
permitted operator shall reimburse City of Moab for such costs within thirty
days.
8. The City of Moab reserves the right to terminate permits at any time and
require that the entire fleet be removed from Moab streets. Such notice of
termination shall be delivered to the permit holder by certified mail. The
decommissioning shall be completed within thirty (30) days unless a
different time period is determined by the City of Moab.
a. Upon receiving notice of permit termination, the permit holder
has the right to appeal the decision to the City Planner. A request
for appeal must be provided in writing to the City Recorder no less
than seven (7) days after receiving the termination letter via
certified mail.
b. Any permit holder not satisfied with the City Planner’s decision
may request a final appeal hearing with a hearing officer, as
assigned by the City of Moab. Such hearing shall be set before the
end of the thirty (30) day decommissioning period set by the City in
the original notice provided via certified mail. The decision made by
the hearing officer shall be final.
5. REPORTING
1. Permitted bicycle or scooter share operators will report data to the City
Planner, for reporting and analysis purposes.
2. Permitted bicycle or scooter share operators are required to report, on a
monthly basis, information regarding their fleet and membership. This
report would not require providers to solicit comments from riders or
members of the system. The goal of these reports is to better understand
how the entire bicycle or scooter share system is being utilized and to
better inform future policy changes. Operators will work with the City to
provide the following information on their company’s operations in Moab:
a. Number of units in system
b. Origin and destination data
c. Usage (total trips, per timeframe, per location, per unit)
d. Total number of members
e. Member survey and general demographics
3. All permitted operators shall distribute an annual customer survey.
Results of these surveys shall be provided to the City of Moab.
4. All permitted operators shall keep a record of maintenance activities,
including but not limited to unit identification number and maintenance
performed. These records shall be sent to City of Moab monthly.
5. All permitted operators shall keep a record of reported collisions. These
records will be sent to the City of Moab monthly.
6.All permitted operators shall report the aggregated breakdown of
customers by gender and age monthly. Gender will be reported by male,
female, and other. Age will be reported into these age groups: under 5, 5-
17, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 56 and over.
7. All permitted operators agree to the City of Moab using a third-party
researcher for evaluation of the share permit program. Data will be shared
with the third-party researcher only for the purposes of evaluation and/or
enforcement of the requirements in this permit.
V. INSURANCE & INDEMNIFICATION
1.The permit holder will be required to procure and maintain, at their own
expense and without cost to the City of Moab, the following types of insurance.
The policy limits are to be considered minimum amounts:
a. Insurance and Indemnities: The permit holder shall maintain a
Commercial Property Insurance Policy on the premises during the term of
this agreement. The cost the required insurance shall be paid by the
permit holder. Prior to commencement of this agreement, the permit
holder and its subcontractors shall provide a certificate of insurance
evidencing the following coverages:
(a) Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the term of this
agreement, the permit holder and its subcontractors shall provide
general liability coverage against claims arising out of bodily injury,
death, damage to or destruction of the property of others, including
loss of use thereof, and including products and completed
operations in an amount not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000.00) general aggregate.
(b) Excess or Umbrella Liability. Permit holder and its
subcontractors shall maintain an Excess or Umbrella Liability on an
occurrence basis in excess of the underlying insurance described in
(a), which has coverages as broad as the underlying policies, with a
limit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000).
(c) Workers’ Compensation or Employers’ Liability Insurance. The
permit holder and its subcontractors shall provide proof of workers’
compensation coverage with limits as required by the laws of the
State of Utah. Additionally, the permit holder and its subcontractors
shall provide proof of Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits as
follows: $500,000 bodily injury each accident $500,000 bodily injury
each disease $500,000 bodily injury disease aggregate.
(d) Permitor as Additional Insured. All insurance policies required
by this agreement, except workers’ compensation, shall name the
City, its officers, employees and agents as an additional insureds
by endorsement and said coverage shall contain a waiver of
subrogation. Permit holder and its subcontractors shall provide a
copy of an endorsement providing this coverage.
(e) Limits of Insurance. The total limits of general and excess
liability insurance set forth above may be provided to the City using
a combination of primary and excess liability insurance.
(f) Certificates of Insurance. Upon the execution of this Agreement,
the permit holder shall provide certificates of insurance to the City
of Moab demonstrating that at the minimum coverages required
herein are in effect. Permit holder agrees that the required
coverages will not be reduced, canceled, non-renewed or materially
changed without Thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. All
certificates of insurance must be kept in force throughout the
duration of the services. If any of permit holder’s or any of its
subcontractor’s coverage is renewed at any time prior to the
expiration of this Agreement, the permit holder shall be responsible
for obtaining updated insurance certificates for itself and such
subcontractors from the respective insurance carriers and
forwarding the replacement certificates to the City within ten (10)
days of the expiration date of any previously delivered certificate.
The Licensee shall provide copies of insurance policies to the City
Recorder upon request. Any of the minimum limits of insurance set
out herein may be raised or lowered at the sole discretion of the
City of Moab in response to the particular circumstances giving rise
to the Agreement. The permit holder’s policy will be primary and
non-contributory with respect to any and all self-insurance or
insurance policies purchased by the additional insured. In the event
that the permit holder involves professional or consulting services,
in addition to the aforementioned insurance requirements, the
Owner shall also be protected by a Professional Liability Insurance
policy. The following policy limit is considered a minimum amount.
Professional Liability Insurance policy with a minimum of
$1,000,000 per claim. This policy shall provide coverage to protect
the Owner against liability incurred as a result of the professional
services performed under this contract.”
IX. FEES
1.The following annual permit fee schedule shall be applied to approved bicycle
or scooter share permit holders based on the size of the operator’s fleet. A
business license, separate from this permit, shall be required as well in order
to operate within the City of Moab.
a.25 units $500
b.26 to 35 units $1,000
c.Over 35 units $2,500.
2.The following annual permit fee schedule shall be applied to approved bicycle
or scooter share permit holders based on number of docking stations. A
business license, separate from this permit, shall be required as well in order
to operate within the City of Moab.
a.Per Docking Station $1,000
X. APPLICATION
1.Organizations interested in applying for a permit shall submit an application to
the City of Moab. The application must include these items:
a. Organization name and local, primary contact information
b. Insurance & Indemnification documentation
c. Images and description of units and mobile application
d. Size of fleet, including any planned fleet expansion over the year
e. Service area, including any planned area expansion over the year
f. Education and outreach plan for proper unit parking and riding
g. Plan to provide an equitable bicycle or scooter share service to service
areas