HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2020-03-10MARCH 10, 2020
PRE -COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532
Pre -Council Workshop - 5:00 p.m.
Workshop to solicit public input on Hotspot Funding for dispersed parking
projects located near Emma Boulevard
Regular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Minutes
Minutes: February 11, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting
min -cc -2020 -02 -11 draft.pdf
Mayor and Council Reports
Administrative Reports
Citizens to Be Heard
Public Hearing (Approximately 7:30 p.m.)
Proposed Resolution 15 -2020: A Resolution Directing the Termination of
Agreements Related to the Downtown Parking Structure Project and Directing
Coordination with Grand County to Pursue Different Projects for Hotspot Funding
(Sponsors: Councilmembers Duncan and Guzman -Newton)
councilmember duncan dps presentation.pdf
resolution 15 -2020 cancellation of downtown parking structure
rev d.pdf
Old Business
Proposed Resolution 15 -2020: A Resolution Directing the Termination of
Agreements Related to the Downtown Parking Structure Project and Directing
Coordination with Grand County to Pursue Different Projects for Hotspot Funding
(Sponsors: Councilmembers Duncan and Guzman -Newton)
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary resolution 15 -2020.pdf
resolution 15 -2020 cancellation of downtown parking structure
rev d.pdf
udot letter 6 month pause.pdf
Proposed Resolution 17 -2020: A Resolution Suspending Design of the Downtown
Transportation Hub and Considering Alternative Uses of the Hotspot Funding
(Sponsor: Councilmember Jones)
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary and resolution 17 -2020.pdf
dth pause kj agenda item and resolution.pdf
Improvements to City Communication and Outreach Based on Observed
Discussions Around Highway Widening and Hotspot Funded Projects (Sponsor:
Councilmember Derasary)
rani agenda summary.pdf
Motion to Reconsider Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use
Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed
Parking Facility (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)
Reconsideration of Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use
Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed
Parking Facilities (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)
Briefing and possible action
emma dispersed parking agenda summary.pdf
north main street business parking lot development - emma
blvd without maxine.pdf
New Business
Parking Layout Options for 100 South between 100 West and Main Street Agenda
Summary
parking layout options for 100 south between 100 west and
main street agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - parking layout options 1 and 2.pdf
Main Street 2 -hr Parking Restriction Agenda Summary
main street 2 -hr parking restriction agenda summary.pdf
2 -hr restricted parking concept.pdf
Proposed Ordinance 2020 -05: An Ordinance Repealing Alcohol Licensing in
Moab City
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary sheet - repeal of alcohol licensing.pdf
ordinance 2020 -05 repealing alcohol licensing.pdf
Proposed Resolution 13 -2020: A Resolution of the Governing Body of the City of
Moab Declaring Certain Property Owned by the City of Moab as Surplus
Briefing and possible action
moab city council agenda summary 13 -2020.pdf
resolution 13 -2020.pdf
donations to non -profit organizations 02_20_2020.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:
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.1.
Documents:
9.
9.1.
Documents:
9.2.
Documents:
9.3.
Documents:
9.4.
9.5.
Documents:
10.
10.1.
Documents:
10.2.
Documents:
10.3.
Documents:
10.4.
Documents:
11.
12.
MARCH 10, 2020PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M.REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.City Council Chambers 217 East Center Street Moab, Utah 84532Pre-Council Workshop - 5:00 p.m.Workshop to solicit public input on Hotspot Funding for dispersed parking projects located near Emma BoulevardRegular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.Call to Order and Pledge of AllegianceApproval of MinutesMinutes: February 11, 2020 Regular City Council Meetingmin-cc -2020 -02 -11 draft.pdfMayor and Council ReportsAdministrative ReportsCitizens to Be HeardPublic Hearing (Approximately 7:30 p.m.)Proposed Resolution 15 -2020: A Resolution Directing the Termination of Agreements Related to the Downtown Parking Structure Project and Directing Coordination with Grand County to Pursue Different Projects for Hotspot Funding (Sponsors: Councilmembers Duncan and Guzman -Newton)councilmember duncan dps presentation.pdfresolution 15 -2020 cancellation of downtown parking structure rev d.pdf
Old Business
Proposed Resolution 15 -2020: A Resolution Directing the Termination of
Agreements Related to the Downtown Parking Structure Project and Directing
Coordination with Grand County to Pursue Different Projects for Hotspot Funding
(Sponsors: Councilmembers Duncan and Guzman -Newton)
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary resolution 15 -2020.pdf
resolution 15 -2020 cancellation of downtown parking structure
rev d.pdf
udot letter 6 month pause.pdf
Proposed Resolution 17 -2020: A Resolution Suspending Design of the Downtown
Transportation Hub and Considering Alternative Uses of the Hotspot Funding
(Sponsor: Councilmember Jones)
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary and resolution 17 -2020.pdf
dth pause kj agenda item and resolution.pdf
Improvements to City Communication and Outreach Based on Observed
Discussions Around Highway Widening and Hotspot Funded Projects (Sponsor:
Councilmember Derasary)
rani agenda summary.pdf
Motion to Reconsider Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use
Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed
Parking Facility (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)
Reconsideration of Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use
Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed
Parking Facilities (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)
Briefing and possible action
emma dispersed parking agenda summary.pdf
north main street business parking lot development - emma
blvd without maxine.pdf
New Business
Parking Layout Options for 100 South between 100 West and Main Street Agenda
Summary
parking layout options for 100 south between 100 west and
main street agenda summary.pdf
attachment 1 - parking layout options 1 and 2.pdf
Main Street 2 -hr Parking Restriction Agenda Summary
main street 2 -hr parking restriction agenda summary.pdf
2 -hr restricted parking concept.pdf
Proposed Ordinance 2020 -05: An Ordinance Repealing Alcohol Licensing in
Moab City
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary sheet - repeal of alcohol licensing.pdf
ordinance 2020 -05 repealing alcohol licensing.pdf
Proposed Resolution 13 -2020: A Resolution of the Governing Body of the City of
Moab Declaring Certain Property Owned by the City of Moab as Surplus
Briefing and possible action
moab city council agenda summary 13 -2020.pdf
resolution 13 -2020.pdf
donations to non -profit organizations 02_20_2020.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:5.6.7.8.8.1.Documents:
9.
9.1.
Documents:
9.2.
Documents:
9.3.
Documents:
9.4.
9.5.
Documents:
10.
10.1.
Documents:
10.2.
Documents:
10.3.
Documents:
10.4.
Documents:
11.
12.
MARCH 10, 2020PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M.REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.City Council Chambers 217 East Center Street Moab, Utah 84532Pre-Council Workshop - 5:00 p.m.Workshop to solicit public input on Hotspot Funding for dispersed parking projects located near Emma BoulevardRegular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.Call to Order and Pledge of AllegianceApproval of MinutesMinutes: February 11, 2020 Regular City Council Meetingmin-cc -2020 -02 -11 draft.pdfMayor and Council ReportsAdministrative ReportsCitizens to Be HeardPublic Hearing (Approximately 7:30 p.m.)Proposed Resolution 15 -2020: A Resolution Directing the Termination of Agreements Related to the Downtown Parking Structure Project and Directing Coordination with Grand County to Pursue Different Projects for Hotspot Funding (Sponsors: Councilmembers Duncan and Guzman -Newton)councilmember duncan dps presentation.pdfresolution 15 -2020 cancellation of downtown parking structure rev d.pdfOld BusinessProposed Resolution 15 -2020: A Resolution Directing the Termination of Agreements Related to the Downtown Parking Structure Project and Directing Coordination with Grand County to Pursue Different Projects for Hotspot Funding (Sponsors: Councilmembers Duncan and Guzman -Newton)Briefing and possible actionagenda summary resolution 15 -2020.pdfresolution 15 -2020 cancellation of downtown parking structure rev d.pdfudot letter 6 month pause.pdfProposed Resolution 17 -2020: A Resolution Suspending Design of the Downtown Transportation Hub and Considering Alternative Uses of the Hotspot Funding (Sponsor: Councilmember Jones)Briefing and possible actionagenda summary and resolution 17 -2020.pdfdth pause kj agenda item and resolution.pdfImprovements to City Communication and Outreach Based on Observed Discussions Around Highway Widening and Hotspot Funded Projects (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)rani agenda summary.pdfMotion to Reconsider Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed Parking Facility (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)Reconsideration of Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed Parking Facilities (Sponsor: Councilmember Derasary)Briefing and possible actionemma dispersed parking agenda summary.pdfnorth main street business parking lot development - emma blvd without maxine.pdfNew BusinessParking Layout Options for 100 South between 100 West and Main Street Agenda Summary parking layout options for 100 south between 100 west and main street agenda summary.pdfattachment 1 - parking layout options 1 and 2.pdfMain Street 2 -hr Parking Restriction Agenda Summary
main street 2 -hr parking restriction agenda summary.pdf
2 -hr restricted parking concept.pdf
Proposed Ordinance 2020 -05: An Ordinance Repealing Alcohol Licensing in
Moab City
Briefing and possible action
agenda summary sheet - repeal of alcohol licensing.pdf
ordinance 2020 -05 repealing alcohol licensing.pdf
Proposed Resolution 13 -2020: A Resolution of the Governing Body of the City of
Moab Declaring Certain Property Owned by the City of Moab as Surplus
Briefing and possible action
moab city council agenda summary 13 -2020.pdf
resolution 13 -2020.pdf
donations to non -profit organizations 02_20_2020.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:5.6.7.8.8.1.Documents:9.9.1.Documents:9.2.Documents:9.3.Documents:9.4.9.5.Documents:10.10.1.Documents:10.2.Documents:
10.3.
Documents:
10.4.
Documents:
11.
12.
Page 1 of 13
February 11, 2020
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES--DRAFT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 11, 2020
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. An audio recording of the evening meeting is archived at:
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html and a video recording is archived at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLgRiYQp0ts.
Executive Closed Session:
Councilmember Tawny Knuteson-Boyd moved to enter an Executive Closed Session for a Strategy
Session to Discuss Reasonably Imminent and/or Pending Litigation. Councilmember Kalen Jones
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Kalen
Jones, Mike Duncan, Karen Guzman-Newton and Rani Derasary voting aye. Mayor Emily Niehaus
called the Executive Session to order at 6:04 PM. Councilmember Kalen Jones moved to end the
Executive Closed Session. Councilmember Tawny Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Kalen Jones, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Rani Derasary, Karen
Guzman-Newton and Mike Duncan voting aye. Mayor Niehaus ended the Executive Closed session at
7:02 PM.
Executive Closed Session:
The Executive Closed Session regarding the Character, Professional Competence, or Physical or Mental
Health of an Individual or Individuals was not held due to time constraints.
Regular Meeting—Call to Order and Attendance:
Mayor Niehaus called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM and led the Pledge of Allegiance. In attendance
were Councilmembers Karen Guzman-Newton, Mike Duncan, Rani Derasary, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd
and Kalen Jones. Staff in attendance were City Manager Joel Linares, Assistant City Manager Carly
Castle, City Attorney Chis McAnany. Assistant City Planner Cory Shurtleff, City Engineer Chuck
Williams, Assistant City Engineer Eric Johanson, City Communications and Engagement Manager Lisa
Church, City Recorder Sommar Johnson and Deputy Recorder Joey Allred. Thirty members of the
public and media were present.
Approval of January 14, 2020 meeting minutes:
Councilmember Derasary moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 2020 with a correction to
reflect that she was interested in metering overnight accommodations based on concerns about water
that is left in the valley. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0
with Councilmembers Derasary, Guzman-Newton, Duncan, Knuteson-Boyd and Jones voting aye.
Mayor and Council Reports:
Mayor Niehaus attended the League of Cities and Towns stating there is a lot going on at the Legislature
and they are watching several bills. She advised Council to get with her if they would like to see the list.
She attended the Tech Summit in Salt Lake stating it was good networking toward working to create
connectivity with the Wasatch Front. She reported attending a meeting with the City Manager,
Assistant City Manager, County Attorney and City Chief of Police to work on collaboration and dialogue.
She attended the Innovation Summit hosted by Jim Sorenson in Salt Lake where they talked with
developers pitching housing projects and looking for investments. She attended the Moab Business
Summit where Lieutenant Governor Cox was the keynote speaker and Congressman John Curtis was
also a speaker. She noted that the free science-fiction movie night is Friday at the MARC at 7:00 PM.
including free popcorn and candy.
Page 2 of 13
February 11, 2020
Councilmember Derasary reported attending an EMS SSD meeting and the overall January call volume
was up by 24%. She stated 77% of those calls were local with 46% of those calls were within City limits.
She reported that EMS is constructing a new building and the engineers have scheduled a site plan
design review. Councilmember Derasary stated there are a few legislative items concerning EMS that
Council should be aware of. These include HB 190, proposed legislation that would make EMS an
essential service similar fire and law enforcement, as well as sales tax amendments, such as TRT, that
could help EMS. She reported the Rural EMS Directors Association Conference will be held in Moab in
March. She attended the Utah League of Cities and Towns Legislative Policy Committee meeting. The
bills that came up were HB 273 - Property Rights Ombudsman amendments, SB 39 - Affordable
Housing amendments, HB 261 - Eminent Domain revisions, and HB 265 - Government Records
Transparency Act. She received a request that the City keep in mind potentially paving Rainbow Drive.
She reported speaking with another citizen that lives in the City whose property borders two County lots
expressing frustrations with inconsistent enforcement between the City and County. Councilmember
Derasary asked if it would be appropriate to discuss how the City and County enforce code at one of
their joint meetings. She reported to Council that the Special Service District meetings she attends,
discussions arise about the City’s potential role in helping fund districts and feels this is something the
City would need to address at some point.
Mayor Niehaus noted that she will be attending the Rural Caucus where EMS will be presenting.
Councilmember Duncan reported that he was informed at the County Water Board meeting that
snowpack was slightly below normal but most of it could come in the next month or two. He said the
community could still hope for a decent year. He reported attending the Vail InDeed meeting and
briefly explained their process for maintaining affordable housing. He also attended a networking
meeting with an individual from Jackson, Wyoming who explained how their resort town handles
growth. He attended the GAIN meeting at 98 Center where people shared business ideas. He also
attended the League of Women Voters meeting where they talked of State Legislature issues and the
progress on TRT reform.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd reported attending the Emergency Management training at EMS. Her
takeaway was to be brief and concise when speaking to the press. She announced that Council should
have received invitations to attend a sneak peek at the Museum of Moab on February 25th between 4:00
PM and 7:00 PM.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton reported attending the Vail InDeed presentation given by Vail
Housing Department Director George Ruther who demonstrated a deed restriction tool for
governmental entities that is tied to resident occupancy instead of income limits. She attended the
Chamber of Commerce ribbon cutting at Arches Property Management and attended a Chamber Board
budget meeting. She attended an Airport Board meeting where the daily parking rate was increased to
$5.00 and passenger count is above 6,000 people. She reported that United Airlines currently has a
daily flight scheduled which will increase to twice daily on March 6, 2020, with additional increases
during the height of the season. She attended a discussion about 21st Century Governance stating the
City and County need clearly defined roles in order to achieve their goals. She reported that the Census
meeting was cancelled but they would meet on February 18 to discuss the terms of the $25,000.00
grant they received. She reported there will be a Chamber luncheon at noon on February 18 sponsored
by Marion Tidwell. She stated speakers Derrick Cook and Carrie Strecker from Grand County High
School will be discussing the Pathways program which is an opportunity for businesses to utilize interns
as employees. The Grand County High School will offer a free event on Thursday at 6:30 PM with
motivational speaker Collin Kartchner discussing the screen-induced public health crisis and the direct
Page 3 of 13
February 11, 2020
link between smartphones and social media and an epidemic rise in depression, anxiety and suicide
among kids ages 10-17. She said that the State of Utah’s suicide rate has increased 140% over the last
couple of years.
Councilmember Jones reported that the Solid Waste Special Service District received a new compactor
for the Klondike landfill and will be more reliable for compacting solid waste. The National Park
Southeastern Group is in a leadership transition and assessing how to more effectively engage with the
community. He attended a Moab Dark Skies meeting that discussed improving the City’s application as
an International Dark Sky Community. The International Dark Sky Association recently adopted
stricter standards for certification with increased application requirements. He reported that Moab
Dark Skies is doing a community engagement program for businesses to apply to be a “Friend of the
Milky Way”. The businesses lighting will be assessed utilizing the new codes for the City or County as
applicable. He reported attending the Affordable Housing Task Force where the County’s version of
affordable housing deed restrictions is under legal review. He also reported that the Task Force will be
updating their priorities for 2020.
Mayor Niehaus held a moment of silence to honor the families impacted by the tragic events of Sunday
night.
Administrative Reports:
City Manager Linares reported on Sunday night’s automobile accident and said our thoughts go out to
the families. He announced donation options for Council and the community to help those affected. He
thanked the Police Department, County Attorney’s Office, City, County and UDOT Streets Departments,
Sheriff’s Office, Highway Patrol, EMS and Moab Regional Hospital for their service to the community
on Sunday night. Linares announced that City Wastewater Reclamation Facility Superintendent and
Chief Operator Greg Fosse officially retired at the end of January after 17 years of service. He
announced that registration is open for Spring sports for youth and adults. He reported that the
Legislature is in session and our lobbyist is tracking approximately 20 bills including three eminent
domain bills. He mentioned that Rainbow Drive was rated and ranked on the Capital Projects list and
that it would be brought before Council at the next meeting.
Assistant City Manager Castle provided an update on progress made on HB 411 - Community
Renewable Energy Act and the City’s participation in the program. She reported that ICLEI - Local
Governments for Sustainability helps communities reduce their carbon emissions and the City is
participating with them. They are providing the City and the County with technical expertise and
resources to produce a greenhouse gas inventory for the community. The City will be engaging a
graduate student to help with the analysis which will include tourism and that inventory should be
completed by the end of May.
City Attorney McAnany reported that the Utah Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the second Lions
Back case that has been in litigation for many years. The court ruling dealt a setback to the parties
stating that the City’s public process in approving the zoning status agreement was insufficient because
it did not include a public hearing. He explained that this left several unanswered legal questions that
were the subject of the litigation. The City’s representation is now evaluating whether a petition for
certiorari to the Utah Supreme Court is appropriate. The original entitlements were granted in 2008
and SITLA indicated they still plan to pursue the project. City Attorney McAnany believes that SITLA
and the developer will be petitioning the Utah Supreme Court. He explained that the project can move
forward as it was originally approved and SITLA has procured appropriations to pay for infrastructure
and design work. He reminded Council that the City is caught in the middle of this dispute between two
opponents who are adamantly defending their positions. Councilmember Derasary requested an
Page 4 of 13
February 11, 2020
overview of the development for Councilmembers and staff that were not involved when the project
began.
Citizens to Be Heard:
Matt Hancock stated he is a business and commercial landowner in the center of town and spoke in
opposition to the parking structure. He said that he had lost confidence in the project as the community
was originally told that it would cost 7.3 million, then 8.3 million and it was reported on Friday and
confirmed with the City Engineering that would cost 10 million of the Hotspot funding leaving little for
other projects. He said that the number of parking spots has been reduced from 320 to 250 which
works out to be about $56,000 for each parking spot. He said that according to research the cost per
parking spot is more than double the average cost of a new parking spot in San Francisco and New
York. He said that Main Street needs additional safety infrastructure such as protected pedestrian
crossings. He understands that UDOT is providing the funding, so it is not coming out of the City’s
pockets, but it is public money and the City has a fiduciary duty to ensure that it is prudently spent. He
said that parking in Moab is severely constrained especially during the tourist season. He also said that
the City’s parking study indicates there is ample parking available for the needs of all land users. He
said more diverse parking could be readily and cheaply provided. He stated that the parking structure
made sense when the removal of parking from Main Street was discussed but that is no longer the case.
He said that the parking structure is hopelessly overpriced and will deprive the City and its residents of
critical funds for other projects. He encouraged Council to support the resolution of Councilmember
Duncan.
Wendell Williams said that he owns over one acre of C-3 zoned property. He said that one valuable
lesson he learned over the years was to do your due diligence on projects small and large. The second
lesson was that the devil is in the details. He stated that was why he was there to speak strongly against
the parking garage. He said that the parking garage was now going to cost $10,000,000 for 250 parking
spaces. He said that the City paid about $50,000 on their parking study and in its opening paragraph it
says that the current lot on which the garage will be built currently sits less than half full and never
reaches capacity. He didn’t understand why the City was about to build three floors of expensive
parking over what they already have. He said that the report also states that Moab has more total
parking available than is needed to meet demand and recommends Moab make better use of its
dispersed parking. The report also provided suggestions such as parking limits during peak times. He
said that the City would need to pay ongoing costs for the parking structure such as maintenance and
operating costs which UDOT estimated at $125,000 per year. He said that the parking garage was
promoted to be the site of a valuable transportation hub but wondered why they were spending on that
when the City didn’t have any busses. He also said that it was said that the structure would promote
housing throughout mixed use development by removing parking requirements for developments. He
said that as the parking structure is in one centralized location it will only benefit developers who have
land immediately surrounding the complex. The City also commissioned another study to explore
dispersed parking on West Center and he thinks that the study presents an excellent model for
providing attractive landscaped diverse parking that could be applied across all downtown.
Jim Englebright said that he was a business owner adjacent to the proposed parking structure. He said
that he had owned that business for about 30 years, and they have had problems with parking there the
entire time. He said that the parking lot where the parking structure is planned is full during the
summer. He said that it is unusual to receive the kind of one-time funding that the City did and that
there needs to be parking somewhere. He said that he believed that they should move forward with the
parking structure while they have the money. He stated it is needed and if they don’t use it now, they
won’t get a chance again. He said that the community had the opportunity to do a bypass many years
ago and they lost it. He said that it would be much more difficult now. He thought that Moab had
Page 5 of 13
February 11, 2020
become a destination and that parking is going to continue to be an issue. He asked that they please
consider moving forward with the parking structure. He said that he wouldn’t be happy with all the
construction that will be going on there, but looking at the broader interest, he thinks they have a one-
time shot at something pretty good with funding and that’s pretty unusual. He strongly encouraged
Council to go ahead with the project.
Jessica O’Leary said that she was not there in the capacity of the Planning Commission, but as a citizen
and wanted to talk about parking. She said it goes beyond just parking. Our goal is to get cars off the
road. She felt that the bigger issue was safety and the environment and parking the cars doesn’t
necessarily do that. She felt that people would still need to drive from the north and south ends of town
to the center where the parking structure would be so they would still be creating more traffic
congestion and impacting the environment. She said that society is built around the automobile. She
believed that without a transportation system that people can use to get around town, people will still
drive to work and do their shopping and tourists will still drive to where they want to go. She felt that a
parking structure in the middle of town would change the character of the town and she thought that
they should change the character of the town to represent environmental sustainability and increase
safety by getting cars off the streets. She felt that a transportation system would eliminate the need for a
parking structure.
Mike Bynum said that he was a local business owner and provided some history on a committee that
was formed in 2017 to determine how the $10,000,000 of UDOT Hotspot funding could be used. They
came up with a list of priorities with two primary objectives. The first objection was a bypass around
Moab and that hasn’t gone away. He was in support of reclaiming their town and their streets and get
that bypass done and he said that UDOT is willing to work with the community to do so. After a study
was done for a bypass and to determine what other needs were, the second objective was a study to
determine where to spend the money. What developed from that was a regional downtown
transportation district. A centralized parking hub became a primary usage for part of the money and
then a study for the bypass would be the other part. The bypass wasn’t going to be built with the
$10,000,000 that they had, so the money was earmarked to do a project or projects in Moab. The study
for the bypass was to be an entrée to be working with UDOT in the future to get a bypass done. He said
that Ryan Anderson with UDOT was present to answer any questions and to confirm that this is literally
a use it or lose it. This can be a regional transportation hub in the middle of our city. He said that the
City needs to build for the future.
Michael Liss said that he was there to speak against the parking structure and asked if he could have
more time than the allotted three minutes. Mayor Niehaus said it was her job to make sure that
everyone feels heard and that there is equality and that is why everyone has equal access to speak as a
citizen to be heard. He provided a powerpoint presentation. He said that he was frustrated that the
largest infrastructure project in Moab is being handled without understanding and considering all the
information. He said that he found the perfect book named Project Management for Dummies and rule
11 states whenever you get new information stop everything and make sure you’re still doing the right
thing. He said that he plans large-scale infrastructure for a living and every time you get new
information you re-evaluate your decision. He said that the current parking lot was only used 40% of
the time on the busiest week of the year and when you get information that says you don’t need
something you move on. He said that Council had four choices: 1. Do not change the project, 2. Make
changes to the project, 3. Stop the project, and 4. Find a new solution. He then said that Moab ignored
all the information and kept going. He mentioned that he had presented a proposal that shows you
never build a parking structure if the land values do not support it. He said that they could buy land
around town for the 320 spaces. He said that Kimley Horn is now down to 250 spaces for $10,000,000
and asked what happened to the UDOT contract that says 320 spaces for 8.3 million. He also talked
Page 6 of 13
February 11, 2020
about dispersed parking. He said that he had spoken to UDOT and that he and Curtis Wells have been
told that if the City and County come up with a new use UDOT will listen. He said that if the City
terminates the contract, they’ll cover what is already spent. Rule 17 of Project Management for
Dummies states ethics matter, not just illegal improprieties but do give even the appearance of
impropriety. He then went on to rule 29 that states when you get the largest grant in the history of your
town do something wonderful that benefits all citizens.
Brendon Cameron said that he was not there to talk about the parking structure. He was there to invite
everyone to the Business Summit 2021. He said that they had gleaned a lot that would have been
beneficial to the town. They had talked about goals and what the City and County should look like and
he wished more of the City and County Councilmembers could have been there. He would like to figure
out a way to get everyone there for next year’s Summit. He said that they learned a lot and a lot was
done. He said that the business owners and the City and County representatives were better because of
it. He was there to invite Council to the 2021 Summit because it would benefit the whole town.
Deb Slechta said that studies have shown that there was no need for a downtown parking garage. She
was concerned that the area would be forever dramatically changed by the parking structure. She was
concerned that it would be four stories high which she said was double the height of the Hoodoo hotel
which compliments the surroundings, but the view of the portal is blocked now and was concerned
about a taller parking structure. She asked if it would be allowed if it was a private venture. She said
that the parking structure would come with the added need of a traffic circle near Williams Way. She
said that safety was a concern with parking structures because stairwells become zones for illegal
activities. She said that Moab has an elderly and disabled community and didn’t think that the parking
garage would address their needs. She said that the City parking lot is underused, and the proposed
parking garage will be even more empty. She asked Council to think the proposed development through
in its entirety.
Daniel Loveridge said that he is the general manager of the Hoodoo hotel but was there as both a
businessman and a private citizen. He believed that the parking garage was necessary. He moved to
Moab a year ago and when he first got to town, he was driving around trying to find a place to park. He
said that the City parking lot is difficult to find which may contribute to the low parking percentages. He
said that after having worked in Moab for a while he has seen true needs for parking in town and that it
is a major source of economic growth for the community. All the businesses in the downtown area
would benefit from it. He believed that it would be a safety issue for the town to have more parking
available and to get cars off the sides of the streets so that they are not blocking traffic. He said that
people have not considered the impact on 100 West. With the hotel open they have held several
community events including local weddings and sponsored fundraising events. He said that if Council
had attended the Red Rock Soiree, they would have seen the true need for parking. He said it is his
honest belief that a parking garage is truly necessary for downtown and the funds are there so let’s not
lose them. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. We don’t get them back. If we’re being responsible, we
should take advantage of what we have and put it to good use.
Mark Thomas said that the state’s generous contribution for a parking garage downtown is very
appealing. However, he wanted Council to consider a few things before more money was spent. He felt
that any significant new building should be part of a master plan for downtown as it would define the
future look of downtown. He wanted Council to consider protecting the viewshed as one of the town’s
main assets. He didn’t think that a parking garage would fit in with its surroundings and that it would
interrupt the streetscape. He asked Council to consider form-based codes that delineate the appropriate
form and scale and therefore, the local character of development. He said that if it was the Council’s
consensus that a parking structure is important to the community to investigate other funding sources
Page 7 of 13
February 11, 2020
to improve the design with an underground parking proposal. He asked that they stop the project while
they consider options for downtown.
Theresa King spoke regarding the RAP tax. She wanted to congratulate Council about being community
leaders and encouraged them to start the conversation with the County about this process. She said she
was very happy to see it happening and that she would do whatever she could as a board member of the
Moab Arts Council to facilitate the conversations. She said that she was looking forward to seeing how it
will progress and hoped Council continued forward.
Joe Kingsley stated that SB-52 was in its final stages and would be going to the floor of the legislature
and hoped that Council would support it. He said that SB-52 is to remodel and refine UDOT so that they
are not only responsible for roads and automobile transportation but also responsible for rail passenger
traffic. When neighboring states got involved with rail passenger traffic, the rural communities spoke
up and said that they wanted to be a part of it. He said that the bill would give UDOT the legal rights to
plan and have vision for the future to provide rail transportation to rural communities in Utah. He was
excited about it and thought that was getting high traction in the Senate Committee. He thanked the
Moab Giants as they plan to be a temporary station making it very feasible.
Ryan and Erin Bird said that they are business owners in downtown Moab. They said they wanted to
address a comment made earlier in favor of the parking structure stating they disagreed that just
because the money was available, they should use it. They felt that would be a mistake and that it might
not suit Moab best. They said that they had seen the parking struggle but thought that it was a little
exaggerated at times. They would like to see more dispersed parking and thought it was a better
solution. They also thought that the parking code for business owners was difficult. He felt that those
who spoke in favor of the parking structure were those who would benefit most by being next to it. They
said that people are lazy and believe that the parking structure will serve businesses in possibly a two-
block radius because they didn’t believe that people would park their car and walk if they could find an
opportunity to park somewhere else. They also stated that there is no regulation on Main Street for how
long people can park in a parking spot. They said that they have had RVs parked in front of their
businesses for full business days and there is no restriction for that. They felt that should be addressed
before building a $10,000,000 parking structure or that the money could be allocated elsewhere and
would like to understand why the money couldn’t be re-allocated.
Old Business
Back-in Angle Parking Recommendation:
Discussion: Mayor Niehaus stated this item was previously reviewed by the Council and was on the
agenda as an administrative decision. Council needs to provide direction to staff on how to proceed but
no motions were necessary. Councilmember Duncan said that most of the comments from residents
were negative about the back-in parking. He was willing to try it as an experiment and did not dispute
the City Engineer’s assertion that there was a modest safety advantage; however, he felt that it was a
minor advantage compared to the other dangers that bicyclists face. He believes that motorists find it
more difficult backing in versus backing out. He does not support expanding the back-in parking or
keeping it in its current location. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd said that she taught herself how to
use the back-in parking, but she supports removing it from the current area. She also stated she would
support trying it in front of City-owned property where it would not negatively impact businesses.
Councilmember Derasary said that she agreed with it at the time; however, she now feels that it was not
the best location to start with. She states that most of the comments she hears are that people don’t like
it. She said that she would only support trying it somewhere else if the residents and businesses that
would be affected were in support, or if it was in front of City-owned property. Councilmember Jones is
Page 8 of 13
February 11, 2020
in favor of removing it from 100 South since it appears to be a challenging location. He would like to try
it somewhere else. He believes that bicycle safety needs to be a priority. Councilmember Guzman-
Newton is also in favor of removing it from 100 South. However, she reminded Council that they had
discussed putting it in front of Moonflower since it’s one of the most dangerous locations for drivers,
cyclists and shoppers to access. She states that she doesn’t know if Moonflower has contacted the City to
express an interest. She felt that it would be more effective to stripe bike lanes. Mayor Niehaus clarified
that the consensus was to revert to pull-in parking on 100 South. However, she has a concern about the
two parking spaces closest to the corner of 100 South and Main Street because they are too close to the
busy intersection. She also points out that it is the route students take to the elementary school and that
delivery trucks are parked in the road every morning. She also wants Council to consider a
loading/unloading zone that is delineated for that purpose when re-striping the street. Councilmember
Derasary stated that, in terms of equanimity, if Council considers removing any parking spots near
corners that they would need to look at doing the same for the entirety of downtown. She doesn’t feel
prepared to pick one location without a larger community discussion first. She also said that the
loading/unloading zone sounds like a good idea on the surface, but she wants input from businesses
who observe that traffic flow. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd doesn’t see a lot of value in adding a
loading/unloading zone but thought that it should be a different discussion. City Manager Linares
acknowledged that the back-in parking was an experiment that could be reversed if it didn’t work.
Mayor Niehaus said that it sounds like the direction to staff is to re-stripe 100 South as pull-in parking.
She said that Council will need to have another conversation about parking. She said that the confusion
comes from inconsistent parking throughout the City. Councilmembers Derasary and Guzman-Newton
asked that staff present a discussion about striping bike lanes in the future. City Engineer Williams
explained that it would take a few weeks before the re-striping could be completed in order to allow the
asphalt temperature to rise. City Manager Linares requested that City Engineer Williams present a
diagram of the possible re-striping to Council prior to moving forward.
New Business
Resolution 01-2020: A Resolution Approving the Two-Mac Minor Subdivision at 1053
Mill Creek Drive, Moab, UT 84532, as Referred to Council by the Planning
Commission:
Discussion: City Assistant Planner Shurtleff was present to answer any questions that the Council
might have on this topic. Councilmember Derasary asked for confirmation of the location of the
property. City Assistant Planner Shurtleff displayed a satellite photo of the area. Councilmember
Knuteson-Boyd requested clarification on the name of the subdivision since the resolution shows “Two-
Mac Minor Subdivision” and the application shows “Tri-Mac Subdivision”. It was explained that, after
the applicant filed the application as Tri-Mac Subdivision, it was discovered that that name already
exists; therefore, they had to change it to Two-Mac Minor Subdivision.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve the Two-Mac Minor Subdivision
Resolution 01-2020. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with
Councilmembers Derasary, Duncan, Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman-Newton and Jones voting aye.
Resolution 09-2020: A Resolution Approving a Lot Consolidation for 46 E. and 76 E.
300 North:
Discussion: Councilmember Derasary stated that she tried to use the parcel viewer on the City Maps
webpage, but that it wasn’t accurate. She asked if a different application should be utilized. It was
explained that there is an updated ArcGIS map on the City website link. Councilmember Duncan said
that he uses an import in Google Earth and inquired if it was up to date. City Engineer Williams said
that staff has been updating the KML files on Google Earth and that they will send emails to Council
regarding the status of the updates.
Page 9 of 13
February 11, 2020
Motion and vote: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to adopt Resolution 09-2020 approving a
lot consolidation for 46 East and 76 East 300 North. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Duncan, Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman-Newton and
Jones voting aye.
Authorization to Pursue UDOT’s approval of Hotspot Funding to Construct Dispersed
Parking Facilities at Emma Blvd:
Discussion: Councilmember Guzman-Newton recused herself and left Council Chambers for this
discussion. Mayor Niehaus said that this item refers to the $1.7 million contract for dispersed parking,
not the $8 million contract for the Downtown Parking Structure, which would be discussed on the next
agenda item. City Engineer Williams displayed the plat for the Emma Boulevard Dispersed Parking.
Mayor Niehaus said that businesses in northern downtown had raised concerns about the expansion of
Highway 191 that could result in a loss of parking. The businesses had asked if some of the funding
designated for dispersed parking could be used to create parking on Emma Boulevard. It was proposed
that, by making it a dead-end street, a parking lot could be created with ingress and egress to the church
and nearby businesses. UDOT will allow the City to use Hotspot funding for a small parking lot on
Emma Boulevard, but the funding cannot be used to pave the road to access the parking lot from Main
Street. Therefore, the City would be committed to the paving and improvement of the road and bike
path. There is also a possibility of adding more parking on a road that would connect to Emma
Boulevard, but the required improvements would be at the City’s expense. Councilmember Jones
wanted confirmation that City staff had diligently pursued the possibility of utilizing some of the
existing lots in the area of Emma Boulevard. City Engineer Williams confirmed this, saying that staff
had sent proposals to the churches in that area. Church managers agreed to the proposals, but their
congregations did not. Staff had also asked private property owners, but the owners didn’t believe that
it would be the best use of their land. Williams explained how this proposal would work. However, the
City will need to pave Minnie Lee Avenue from Main Street to Emma Boulevard before UDOT will
permit use of the Hotspot funds for a parking lot. The cost for this proposed parking lot would be about
$280,000 that would come out of the $1.7 million Hotspot funds. Another $280,000 would be
provided by the City for the paving and bike path improvements. This project was included in the
Capital Improvements Priority Matrix. Councilmember Derasary asked if traffic circles are still planned
between Emma Boulevard and 400 North and/or Maxine Avenue and Emma Boulevard. City Engineer
Williams said that he is not aware of a traffic circle for Maxine Avenue and Emma Boulevard; however,
the City has been awarded UDOT funding for roundabouts. That funding is through a local government
funding program instead of Hotspot funding. Councilmember Derasary said that people have been
referencing the parking study and that people won’t walk more than 600 feet. She wants to know if the
parking spot would benefit the businesses near Emma Boulevard. City Engineer Williams showed
Council where the parking is in relation to the businesses in question. He informed Council that the
property owners between the parking and Main Street have discussed a pedestrian sidewalk easement
for access, but a decision has not been reached. Councilmember Derasary wanted to verify that staff had
spoken with everyone that might be impacted, including the school and apartment building. She asked
that staff keep the school updated about the project. She also asked if it would be possible to add some
oversized parking nearby. She stated that she wants to make sure this will benefit the community.
Councilmember Duncan thought Council might be open to criticism that almost $300,000 would be
used to provide a few parking spots. Councilmember Jones felt it was unfortunate that the original plan
didn’t work out, but he would support this proposal as a fallback to utilize the money and finish out the
area in progress. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd agreed with Councilmember Jones.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to request that staff seek UDOT approval
for the proposed use of Hotspot funding if Council concurs with funding the construction of Minnie Lee
Avenue. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1 with Councilmembers
Duncan, Knuteson-Boyd and Jones voting aye and Councilmember Derasary voting nay.
Page 10 of 13
February 11, 2020
Downtown Parking Structure Discussion and Potential Action (Sponsor:
Councilmember Duncan):
Discussion: City Manager Linares explained that there were three ways to terminate the agreement
with UDOT. One option is that the City and UDOT mutually agree to move out of the agreement. The
second option is that, if either party breaches the agreement, then the other party would have the right
to terminate it. The third option is that UDOT has the right to terminate the agreement whenever they
choose (this is in every UDOT contract and is non-negotiable). Staff had primarily been working
towards the first option to exit the contract in a legal format by having a discussion with UDOT to
negotiate an exit strategy. Staff wants to work with UDOT to see if the funding can be used elsewhere or
if the project description can be altered from what it was proposed to be. City Manager Linares advised
that, regardless of what direction Council chooses, it will give staff the ability to negotiate with UDOT
about how Council wants to move forward. The Council needs to decide if it should properly exit,
continue, or change the contract. This agenda item is sponsored by Councilmember Duncan who took
the lead on the discussion. He thanked City Manager Linares for enlightening Council regarding the
possibilities. He stated that it would be worthwhile to suspend work with the design contractor while
Council discusses the options. Councilmember Duncan wanted to confirm that unspent UDOT funds
could be used with UDOT’s approval for a different project that improves the Moab traffic pattern. City
Manager Linares clarified that two statements were made. First, that Council could suspend the project,
and second, if UDOT was approached to alter the project for a different scope. He said that the second
option is viable because UDOT could be approached to change the terms if both parties were amenable.
Suspending the contract is not a contractual right of the Council and it could create contractual issues in
the future. Councilmember Duncan is nervous that, without any contractual arrangements, the money
will continue to be spent until there’s none left over for other projects. City Manager Linares said that
there are some incomplete tasks that must be finished prior to the project’s cessation. If the plan is to
change the scope, then staff wants to save as much money as possible to proceed in a new direction.
Mayor Niehaus said that it would be helpful to get some facts out on the table, such as the project
timeline and when Council will view the design. She said that it might present a place for a natural
pause in the timeline process. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd suggested that it would behoove Council
to have a workshop on the issue. She said that she wasn’t ready to suspend or stop anything since she
hasn’t reviewed all the data yet. She said that it will require a more in-depth discussion than the time
allows in this meeting. She also stated that there was a lot of misinformation regarding this subject and
she wanted to clarify a couple of items. One was the parking study did not say that the parking structure
was unnecessary. The study said that parking is sufficient or ample for the current needs. One of the
study’s recommendations was that the City proceed with the parking structure. It doesn’t say that the
parking structure will solve every problem; it is only one recommendation among many. Mayor Niehaus
tried to get confirmation from the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) because it feels like there isn’t
consensus among the DAC. She would like the opportunity to see the design in a workshop format with
Council and the DAC to promote open discussion. She had written down several things from the citizen
comments that she would like to discuss, and they need to think at least 10-20 years down the road. She
felt that a conversation is needed about where business owners, employees, and tourists are currently
parking. Councilmember Jones clarified that the DAC was not tasked with whether the project should
happen; the DAC was directed to discuss the design features. He noted that the structure is being
designed with adherence to the code. It meets the same standards that the Hoodoo and Homewood
Suites met. The parking structure would be in the middle of the block and would be hidden as the block
develops. He said that, while there may be concerns about visuals in the short term, ultimately, it’s
going to be surrounded by other buildings, many of which do not provide on-site parking. So, it doesn’t
just benefit one landowner; it potentially benefits many landowners especially if they choose to develop
in the mixed-use modality. While he was concerned about the operating budget he was still in support
of the project. Mayor Niehaus stated that there will continue to be discussion regarding a bypass as well
Page 11 of 13
February 11, 2020
as other parking areas. She said that Council should keep in mind that this is only one project. She also
said that UDOT is a good partner and that they listened when the City approached them. This project is
what resulted and UDOT will continue to listen. She would like to continue working on the bypass and
identify other project areas where the City can increase additional parking opportunities.
Councilmember Jones agreed and noted that there is a transportation plan for the valley that is bigger
than this parking structure. He is hopeful that it will provide a basis for future funding opportunities
beyond parking and could be a precursor for the transportation plan. Mayor Niehaus reminded Council
that UDOT is funding the regional transportation plan and the rail study. UDOT has also encouraged
Senator Anderegg to sponsor the bill that is currently at the State Legislature. She encouraged Council
to look to the future. She talked about obtaining a coder to develop an application that shows parking
places for RV’s and other vehicles. Councilmember Derasary asked where the cost of the project was
currently and if it was over $8.3 million. She also asked what the City will be responsible for in both the
short-term and long-term. She wants input from the Finance Director regarding the City budget and
where this project falls. She asked City Manager Linares about meeting with UDOT soon to discuss the
matter. He responded that it is an unnecessary step which could cause damage. She requested
clarification because the agreement said that the parking structure would have an underground level
with three levels aboveground, but now there’s a possibility that the structure can’t go underground.
City Manager Linares said that ventilation is an issue with underground parking, and it becomes
extremely expensive. Therefore, the structure will only be partially underground. Councilmember Jones
said that the roof deck is considered a fourth story. Councilmember Derasary questioned the project
exceeding code because it is 42 feet at the parapet with the potential perception of being higher with
cars parked on the top level. City Manager Linares said that, when the City builds a structure, they must
abide by the zoning rules. There are buildings in the area that are 42 feet. Councilmember Derasary said
that, if they had a follow-up meeting with UDOT, she would inquire about the possibility of a two-story
structure and if that would decrease the cost. Some business owners stated that, for equanimity, they
could add a level to the Moab Information Center parking lot. City Manager Linares said that those
ideas would be needed when having a discussion with UDOT. Councilmember Derasary wanted to make
sure that a meeting with UDOT, if it occurred, would be open to the public. She requested clarity on the
sustainability of the project, the cost and justification per stall, and what the project would cost the City
over time. Council-member Guzman-Newton expressed concern about building constraint issues, the
tight timeline that the City has, and the project management contract and expenses. She read in the
newspaper that the project was now at $10,000,000 with an operational budget of $125,000 per year
that would be the City’s responsibility. She also said that the DAC has been discussing aesthetics more
than anything else. She also wants to ensure that the project is equitable for everyone. She believes that
they need to pause and discuss what the project will cost. Councilmember Duncan noted that UDOT has
previously discussed removing Main Street parking due to public safety. The primary purpose of the
Downtown Parking Garage was to make up for the loss of parking on Main Street. His concern is that,
by building the parking structure, it will give UDOT license to remove parking from Main Street. Mayor
Niehaus said that is not UDOT’s intention; the partnership with UDOT has a level of respect. Ryan
Anderson of UDOT was invited to join the conversation. Anderson felt that this needed to be discussed
in a workshop; however, he would address some of the questions that were presented. He addressed the
reallocation of funds first. He stated that the contract was clear that the number of stalls were
undetermined until a geotechnical investigation for design provided information. Prior to having an
agreement with the City, UDOT didn’t go into that depth of investigation. Therefore, UDOT specified in
the contract that determining how many levels would be feasible would dictate the number of stalls. He
said that, if the funds weren’t being used for the intended purpose, the funds would return to the
Transportation Commission. He said that he did not want that to be conceived as a threat. The funding
is not intended to be a comprehensive solution to all of Moab’s problems. Anderson also clarified that
the City could re-approach the Transportation Commission to receive funding for a different project. He
stated that it is not UDOT’s decision, because it is legislative funding that UDOT oversees
Page 12 of 13
February 11, 2020
administering. The agreement between Moab City and UDOT was that the City would take those funds
and build a parking structure since UDOT does not build them. UDOT’s mission is to find innovative
transportation solutions that enhance Utah’s economy and quality of life. He didn’t want Council to feel
as if UDOT is forcing a parking structure to happen. However, he felt that the parking issue in Moab
was underplayed and the other solutions were oversimplified. He said that dispersed parking is a good
solution since ground-level parking is cheaper. However, he had not seen a lot of local interest in selling
or donating land for that type of use. He said that the parking structure project would be the best use of
the property that is available. He appreciates the Council’s understanding that this solution was never
intended to be a complete solution for Moab’s parking needs. He also clarified the comment regarding
the preservation of Main Street parking. He stated that there was no connected action between the
parking structure and Main Street parking. He wants to be clear that he can’t commit UDOT to always
permit parking on the UDOT right-of-way, which is primarily intended for transportation. He doesn’t
believe that he committed to a lifetime of parking on Main Street. He hopes that UDOT’s demonstration
of the partnership with Moab City shows that they want to make communities better. UDOT would
never make such a decision without Council consultation. Councilmember Guzman-Newton asked if the
scope could be changed to two levels. She further inquired that if there were funds left over, could that
change the scope enough that they could use the money for dispersed parking. Anderson said that
would come back to the price per stall. Restrictions placed on the parking structure will decrease the
number of stalls, but it may not decrease the overall cost. Building a parking structure larger or taller
isn’t that much of a price increase. He said that UDOT has asked the consultants in charge of design to
build as many stalls as feasible within the budget, footprint, and parameters permitted. He believes that
it would be unwise to enter this project with low budget estimates, because it’s better to have more
realistic numbers. Councilmember Guzman-Newton asked if all the $10,000,000 could be redirected
towards dispersed parking instead of a parking structure. Andrew believed that a lot of the funding
would go to the right-of-way. Currently, most of the funding is going to infrastructure. Mayor Niehaus
asked if the Hotspot funding was an annual decision. Anderson said that this was the first occurrence of
Hotspot funding, and he’s unaware of any future plans to do anything further. Mayor Niehaus asked if
the Transportation Commission and UDOT would continue to be partners in additional future projects.
Anderson said that the Transportation Commission has been very supportive of the City’s proposals,
but he doesn’t know what the future will bring. He said that the parking structure is a great project in
terms of planning for the future. He stated that it would be the start of the community’s transportation
planning since he doesn’t foresee a reduction in parking anytime soon. He doesn’t believe that the
current use of the parking lot is a good indicator of the parking structure’s future use. He stated that
many people aren’t even aware of the parking lot, because there isn’t a lot of direction advising people
to park there. Council scheduled a workshop with the Parking Structure Design Advisory Committee
(DAC) and UDOT on February 18, 2020 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
Consideration, discussion and decision on whether the City of Moab shall impose 0.1%
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):
Consideration, discussion and decision: City Manager Linares explained that staff was
proposing that the City put forward a 0.1% Recreation, Arts, and Parks (RAP) Tax before the citizenry
for approval. State Code requires that the City give notice to the County beforehand. The RAP Tax is
paid at the point of sale, and it amounts to one penny for every $10 spent on non-food items, which
boils down to a tourist tax. RAP Tax is the last tourist tax that can be implemented by the City. The City
will prepare a website about the RAP Tax and all the available information would go on that website.
Some examples of the what the RAP Tax could be used for are: Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center
(such as expanding the pool), Moab Arts and Recreation Center, Center Street Gym, and new arts
facilities. The City wants to use the funds to support the programs that are currently provided. The tax
Page 13 of 13
February 11, 2020
could potentially generate $200,000-$400,000 per year.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to submit an opinion question to the residents of
the City of Moab for their opinions on the imposition of a local sales and use tax of 0.1% located within
the City to fund cultural facilities, recreational facilities and zoological facilities and botanical
organizations, cultural organizations and zoological organization may be considered and to provide the
proper notice of intent to Grand County. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Duncan, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman-Newton and
Jones voting aye.
Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab:
Discussion: The Amazon expenditure had increased slightly. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd checked
the items that she is certain could have been obtained locally. She will provide the list to City Manager
Linares who will follow up on it.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the bills in the amount of
$144,222.73. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with
Councilmembers Knuteson-Boyd, Derasary, Duncan, Guzman-Newton and Jones voting aye.
Adjournment: Councilmember Jones moved to adjourn. Councilmember Duncan seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Duncan, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd and
Guzman-Newton voting aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 PM.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
WHY CANCEL THE DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE?
•Let’s first review 2017 UDOT Arches Hotspot $10M Program
•Who sat on committee that created it?
- Two City Council members
-Two County Council member
- City staff
- Two downtown business owners with property near DPS
•What’s happened so far?
•What do we want a future downtown Moab to look like?
•To that end, what would be a better use of Hotspot funds?
So how goes the 2017 UDOT Arches Hotspot $10M program?
•Not particularly well so far
•The first two priorities (Bypass & Main St) never happened
•The third priority (Downtown Parking Structure) consumes most funding
•Remaining possible expansions mired in land owner concerns
•Remaining priorities not funded
PRIORITY #1 – THE BYPASS.
•Hotspot funding provided a conceptual study (only)
•Due to excessive cost and time line,
• - no further consideration under Hotspot funding
•Interest nonetheless remains
Priority #2 - Main Street Improvements
•UDOT owns Main Street
•Pulling Main St. parking (320 cars) overwhelmingly rejected by merchants
•If future garage replaces lost parking:
•It’s an incentive to possibly pull on-street parking
Priority #4 - East Parking Structure
•This is the MIC lot.
•Not funded
Priority #10 - Bike Share
•Public owned rent-a- (e-) bike station(s)
•Loc’s not defined
•Not funded
Priority #8 – South Rec Parking
•Near 191 S of town
•< 100 oversize vehicles, loc undefined
•Not funded
Priority #9 -North Rec Parking
•Near 191 N of town
•< 100 oversize vehicles, loc undefined
•Not funded
Priority #11 - Kane Creek Blvd
•Widen the 3 mi portion S and W of 500W
•Not funded
Priority #6 – (Downtown) Dispersed
Parking
•$1.7M allocated
•A work in progress
It’s a great time to visualize the future
•What do we want our town to look like in years to come?
•What visitors and residents say is “Like it used to be”
•Funky, rural, small, uncrowded
•See our spectacular rim
Is the town in danger of becoming -
•The urban area visitors and residents left to
come here?
•Stop and go traffic
•Too commercialized
•Too many people
•High rise buildings that block the view
•Can’t find a place to park
Everything is a trade
•You can’t go around Moab
•We have choices!
•Quantity or Quality?
Priority #3 - West (Downtown) Parking Structure
•Intended to replace 320 lost Main St. parking that didn’t happen.
•Provides only 250 spots
•At $7.5 or $8.3 or $10M, it consumes the vast bulk of $10M Hotspot funding
•Grown for cost reasons to four stories above ground, 42’ high, blocks viewshed
•A boon for a few businesses within 600’ , little for all others.
•The underlying lot is rarely full
•Likely to be a loss center whether paid parking or free
•Can’t accommodate over-size (long) vehicles
•Requires signing for motorists to find
•Located in an already congested area
IF NOT A PARKING GARAGE, THEN WHAT?
•A lot of ideas have been brainstormed – this is healthy
•Nothing is set in stone, nothing decided
•Collaborative effort with wide public participation
•Two concepts are widely supported that have synergy with each other
•Widely dispersed parking
•Critically needed for oversized vehicles
•A regional (valley-wide) transportation system
•Has been advocated and discussed for years
•Both concepts distribute public funds over a broad region
•We have 6 months to create concepts and an operating plan
•This is a higher and better use than a single parking garage
How to encourage shuttle use?
•They won’t if it’s easy to drive & park for free
•They will if:
•It’s congested, and the shuttle can get them
downtown quicker
•If it’s free and downtown parking isn’t
•If it runs frequently, or
•If it can be called and arrive quickly
•If it’s fun, can see something new
•If it introduces them to cool,
environmentally clean transportation, eg
electric vehicles, bikes
How to operate a shuttle system for what
we can afford?
•Keep expenses under control
•For visitors:
•Run it only during high season
•Run it only in benign
spring/summer/fall weather
•For residents
Make annual pass affordable
•Find revenue sources
•Hotels contribute in lieu of private
shuttle(s)
•Solicit other funding sources – ie TRT,
state, federal grants
•If parking meters used, divert some
fraction to shuttle
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2020, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TERMINATION OF
AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE
PROJECT AND DIRECTING COORDINATION WITH GRAND COUNTY TO
PURSUE DIFFERENT PROJECTS FOR HOPSPOT FUNDING
WHEREAS the primary need for the Downtown Parking Structure as identified in the 2017
UDOT Region 4 Arches Hotspot Study was to replace on-street parking lost as part of Main
Street Improvements, but that those Improvements were rejected by residents and Council who
objected to loss of on-street parking; and
WHEREAS the solution to Moab’s congested Main Street can hardly be improved by drawing
more vehicles to downtown, the intent of DPS; and
WHEREAS the DPS, according to the Downtown Parking Study, primarily benefits businesses
within 600 feet of the structure, that is a limited number of businesses, and thus is a poorer use of
public funds than dispersed parking or a regional shuttle which benefits a broader number of
businesses; and
WHEREAS DPS design has changed significantly from its original less-intrusive partially
buried bottom floor and two additional stories, to an imposing and view-shed blocking four story
structure of 42 feet including its roof parapets; and
WHEREAS the DPS, still early in its design phase, has already incurred significant cost
overruns forcing the adoption of structural construction techniques that trade lower construction
cost for increased maintenance cost during its life; and
WHEREAS the DPS will incur significantly higher maintenance cost than the existing surface
lot, with poor prospects for offsetting revenue whether it charges for parking or not, since
according to the Downtown Parking Study the lot is often under-utilized; and
WHEREAS the DPS cannot accommodate over-sized vehicles, a critical parking need; and
WHEREAS UDOT is receptive to the redirection of Hotspot funding as long as their goals of
reduction of congestion, increased economic development and increased tourism opportunity can
reasonably be expected to occur; and
WHEREAS an alternate use of DPS funds has been identified that satisfies the above criteria,
namely a regional or valley-wide shuttle system that encourages visitors to leave their cars at
their hotel and residents to leave their cars at home;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Moab, Utah that:
1) City Council direct the City Manager to issue a “stop work” order to Kimley-Horn in order to
cease work on design for the DPS;
2) City Council direct the City Manager to negotiate the termination of the Cooperative
Agreement with UDOT, dated 22 July, 2019, in a way that minimizes legal and financial risk to
the City;
3) When the termination of the Cooperative Agreement is executed, the City Council direct the
City Manager to terminate the City’s consulting services agreement with Kimley-Horn dated 24
October, 2019;.
4) City Council coordinate with Grand County Council to form the “Arches Hotspot Region
Coordinating Committee,” with council members from each governing body. This committee
shall determine staff assistance on an as-needed basis as well as assistance from existing city or
county committees. The Committee will serve as the point contact with UDOT for purposes of
the Hotspot Funding Program and any subsequent applications for future project funding.
5) Council elect two members from Council membership to serve on the Arches Hotspot Region
Coordinating Committee.
MAYOR ATTEST: Emily S. Niehaus ____________________________________
CITY RECORDER Sommar Johnson ____________________________________
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: March 15, 2020
Title: Cancelling Design and Construction of the Downtown Parking Structure
Submitted: March 4, 2020
Presenter(s): Karen Guzman-Newton and Mike Duncan, Councilmembers
Attachments:
A presentation for Council, staff and public hearing audience discussing relevant issues
RESOLUTION NO. xx-2020, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TERMINATION
OF AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE
PROJECT AND DIRECTING COORDINATION WITH GRAND COUNTY TO
PURSUE DIFFERENT PROJECTS FOR HOPSPOT FUNDING
Recommended Motion: Approve. This item is scheduled for public hearing at the regular City
Council meeting March 10, 2020. A vote is scheduled for that meeting subsequent to the public
hearing.
Background/Summary:
In 2017, UDOT issued $10M of “Hotspot” (areas impacted by recreation and tourism activity)
funding to Moab for transportation improvements. In late 2017 a committee of business people
and local government officials proposed a Downtown Parking Structure (DPS). $8.3M was
scheduled for its design and construction. In late Oct 2019, the City entered a $850K contract for
DPS design with Kimley-Horn, a design consultant. At this time, a minority of those contract
funds have been spent for on-going design.
Since that time, dissatisfaction with DPS has grown even as its design has progressed: loss of
original motivation (to replace Main St. parking), a reduction in number of parking stalls
provided, an inability to accommodate over-sized vehicles, a growth in height blocking the
viewshed, cost overruns, changes in structural design to lower construction cost at the expense of
higher future maintenance costs, complaints that it would not help Main St. congestion and
complaints that its localized nature provided singular benefits to a few businesses rather than a
broad spectrum of the community.
For these reasons, and the observation that the great bulk of Hotspot funds remain unspent and
that UDOT is receptive to alternative uses as long as they meet the Hotspot funding criteria,
alternative uses of DPS funds have recently been suggested: namely a regional transit/shuttle/
/bus system which incorporates dispersed surface parking lots (a goal of the original Hotspot
study).
This resolution directs staff to stop Kimley-Horn work, then terminate the UDOT and Kimley-
Horn contracts in a manner that minimizes financial risk to the city.
The resolution also creates a city/county board which serves as a point of contact with UDOT
for purposes of the Hotspot Funding Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2020, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TERMINATION OF
AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE
PROJECT AND DIRECTING COORDINATION WITH GRAND COUNTY TO
PURSUE DIFFERENT PROJECTS FOR HOPSPOT FUNDING
WHEREAS the primary need for the Downtown Parking Structure as identified in the 2017
UDOT Region 4 Arches Hotspot Study was to replace on-street parking lost as part of Main
Street Improvements, but that those Improvements were rejected by residents and Council who
objected to loss of on-street parking; and
WHEREAS the solution to Moab’s congested Main Street can hardly be improved by drawing
more vehicles to downtown, the intent of DPS; and
WHEREAS the DPS, according to the Downtown Parking Study, primarily benefits businesses
within 600 feet of the structure, that is a limited number of businesses, and thus is a poorer use of
public funds than dispersed parking or a regional shuttle which benefits a broader number of
businesses; and
WHEREAS DPS design has changed significantly from its original less-intrusive partially
buried bottom floor and two additional stories, to an imposing and view-shed blocking four story
structure of 42 feet including its roof parapets; and
WHEREAS the DPS, still early in its design phase, has already incurred significant cost
overruns forcing the adoption of structural construction techniques that trade lower construction
cost for increased maintenance cost during its life; and
WHEREAS the DPS will incur significantly higher maintenance cost than the existing surface
lot, with poor prospects for offsetting revenue whether it charges for parking or not, since
according to the Downtown Parking Study the lot is often under-utilized; and
WHEREAS the DPS cannot accommodate over-sized vehicles, a critical parking need; and
WHEREAS UDOT is receptive to the redirection of Hotspot funding as long as their goals of
reduction of congestion, increased economic development and increased tourism opportunity can
reasonably be expected to occur; and
WHEREAS an alternate use of DPS funds has been identified that satisfies the above criteria,
namely a regional or valley-wide shuttle system that encourages visitors to leave their cars at
their hotel and residents to leave their cars at home;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Moab, Utah that:
1) City Council direct the City Manager to issue a “stop work” order to Kimley-Horn in order to
cease work on design for the DPS;
2) City Council direct the City Manager to negotiate the termination of the Cooperative
Agreement with UDOT, dated 22 July, 2019, in a way that minimizes legal and financial risk to
the City;
3) When the termination of the Cooperative Agreement is executed, the City Council direct the
City Manager to terminate the City’s consulting services agreement with Kimley-Horn dated 24
October, 2019;.
4) City Council coordinate with Grand County Council to form the “Arches Hotspot Region
Coordinating Committee,” with council members from each governing body. This committee
shall determine staff assistance on an as-needed basis as well as assistance from existing city or
county committees. The Committee will serve as the point contact with UDOT for purposes of
the Hotspot Funding Program and any subsequent applications for future project funding.
5) Council elect two members from Council membership to serve on the Arches Hotspot Region
Coordinating Committee.
MAYOR ATTEST: Emily S. Niehaus ____________________________________
CITY RECORDER Sommar Johnson ____________________________________
State of Utah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
SPENCER J. COX
Lieutenant Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
('ARLOS \4. BRACF:RAS.
Executive Director
JASON E. DAVIS. 1'. E.
Deputy Director of Engineering and Operarron.s
TERIANNE S. NEWELL. P.L.
Deputy D rccror of Planning and Investment
March 2, 2020
City of Moab
217 East Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
Mayor Neihaus:
SUBJECT: Recreational Hotspot Funding
The Transportation Commission and UDOT understand there are challenges when
developing project(s) that meet the criteria of the Hotspot Funding and garner the support of
the community and local leadership. UDOT and the Transportation Commission want all parties
to be successful in any project that is carried forward.
UDOT and the Transportation Commission support a collaborative process to define a
project that meets the requirements of the Recreation Hotspot funding and has consensus
support from the community and local officials. We understand there have been questions
regarding time frame for delivering a hotspot project and would like to offer additional time of
up to six months to work through the project selection process. Please work towards the goal of
having a project defined by September 1, 2020. The Region 4 leadership and staff are eager to
offer technical assistance to help move the process forward.
For clarity, following are the requirements of the Recreation Hotspot funding
from Senate Bill 277:
(b) $100,000,000 to be used by the Department of Transportation for transportation
improvements as prioritized by the Transportation Commission for projects that: (i)
have a significant economic development impact associated with recreation and tourism
within the state; and (ii) address significant needs for congestion mitigation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
MA/RT/jg
Monte E. Aldridge
Deputy Director, UDOT Region Four
Region Four, 210 West 800 South, Richfield, Utah 84701
telephone 435.393.4799 • facsimile 435-8d6-6455 • www.udot utah.gov;eon-eaion4
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: March 10, 2020
Title: Suspending Design of the Downtown Transportation Hub and Reconsidering Hotspot
Project Priorities
Submitted: March 5, 2020
Submitter: Kalen Jones, Councilmember
Attachments:
RESOLUTION NO. 17-2020, A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING
DESIGN OF THE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION HUB AND
CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE USES OF THE HOTSPOT
FUNDING
Recommended Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. 17-2020, A Resolution Suspending
Design of the Downtown Transportation Hub and Considering Alternative Uses of the Hotspot
Funding.
Background/Summary:
In 2017, UDOT was tasked with administering the distribution of $100M of “Hotspot” funding
to areas with significant congestion related to recreation and tourism activity, for transportation
improvements which met the three broad goals set by the Utah Legislature of congestion
reduction, improved recreation access, and economic development, and which would be awarded
via a competitive process. UDOT allocated $150,000 and staff time to support a process in the
Moab area to identify capital projects which would score well in more detailed criteria
established by UDOT, be deliverable within a reasonable time frame, and meet local interests.
UDOT hired consultants to assist in project development, feasibility analysis, and cost
estimating, and convened a local stakeholder group consisting of elected officials and staff from
Moab City and Grand County, members of the public, and UDOT staff and consultants. The
stakeholder group identified a range of possible projects which were scored relative to more
granular criteria descending from the broad goals set by the legislature. The most viable projects
for the Hotspot criteria were determined to be one or more parking structures in downtown
Moab, more efficient use of existing surface parking lots (“dispersed parking”) serving other
areas and additional vehicle types, and 191/Main St. improvements to increase pedestrian safety
and calm traffic..
$10M was awarded to Moab for these projects, the majority for the design and construction of
the downtown parking structure, recently rebranded as the Downtown Transportation Hub
(DTH). On May 14, 2019, the Moab City Council adopted the Moab Parking Management Study
which showed that the downtown block in which the existing City Parking Lot exists, parking
demand often nears and exceeds supply. This lot was determined to be the most suitable for
vertical expansion via a parking structure. On May 28, 2020, the City Council approved a
Cooperative Agreement with UDOT for the design and construction of the Downtown
Transportation Hub. In October 2019, the City Council approved a contract with Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc, for DTH design. Kimley-Horn has worked through several design iterations
to develop a design which balances raw parking capacity with site constraints, Moab City zoning
code including height limits, non-parking needs such as bathrooms and transit connections,
higher vehicle heights, aesthetics, sustainability, and connections with adjacent properties.. They
have worked closely with city staff and consulted repeatedly with a Design Advisory Committee
consisting of city officials, staff, business owners and public. The most recent construction cost
estimates project that the DTH can be built in budget. A preliminary operations and maintenance
budget indicates that the DTH can break even, or generate revenue. Approximately $250,000 has
been spent on design.
Moab City, Grand County, and UDOT have recently begun a one of several transportation
planning efforts. As currently conceived, a Regional Transportation Planning process which is
underway would be the first, which will support a Joint City-County Transportation Master Plan,
and finally a Transit Study and Design. While planning has begun, the planning sequencing is
not fixed and might be reprioritized. These planning efforts are hoped to support successful grant
applications for other transportation system components, possibly including a FTA grant for
electric buses, other federal grants for transit capital and operating expenses, and a transit tax.
Recently, and despite the many public meetings and decisions that have occurred, concern that
the DTH is not an optimal use of Hotspot funds has grown. Specifically, building additional
vehicle capacity may create short-term benefits, but supporting the continued use of private
vehicles may ultimately result in an increase in vehicle use and subsequent congestion. Other
projects which support a reduction in downtown vehicle trips may better meet goals. UDOT has
indicated that it would consider the reallocation of the funds originally allocated for the DTH, as
long as alternative project(s) meet the Hotspot funding criteria. While the current design of the
DTH has evolved to address community needs beyond parking, pausing the design to allow
other elements of transportation and transit design and funding to be developed would allow the
decision to cancel the DTH, proceed, or modify its program to better integrate into a broader
transportation vision, to be made with much more knowledge.
This resolution directs staff to suspend the Kimley-Horn contract, and facilitate a process to
expediently develop alternative projects, seek from UDOT clarity on the scoring criteria that
would be used for alternative projects, seek Hotspot funding for alternative projects, evaluate
prioritization of transit in current transportation planning, and improve Hotspot project
transparency.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-2020, A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING DESIGN OF THE
DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION HUB AND CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE USES
OF THE HOTSPOT FUNDING
WHEREAS, significant investments have been made in delivering a Downtown
Transportation Hub (DTH)/parking structure as supported by the Moab Parking Management
Study and state funding; and
WHEREAS, building private vehicle capacity, including parking ,does not always lead
to congestion reduction, and capital projects other than the DTH may result in better long
term satisfaction of Hotspot program goals and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, UDOT is willing to consider the reallocation of Hotspot funding for other
projects which meet the original goals of reduction of congestion, increased economic
development, and increased recreation and tourism opportunities; and
WHEREAS, developing a project proposal which is fundable, and meets the goals of the
State and community, and whose operating expenses are affordable and commensurate with the
benefits delivered will require significant professional support beyond what volunteers and local
government staff can provide; and
WHEREAS, Moab City is currently partnering with Grand County and UDOT on a series of
comprehensive transportation planning efforts, and is committed to improving transportation
throughout Spanish Valley including Moab City, but as currently sequenced the transit
component will not be complete until well after the Hotspot funding opportunity is past; and;
WHEREAS, non-Hotspot grant programs exist to support the capital and operational
expenses of transit, and competitive proposals for such must be supported by quality studies; and
WHEREAS, meetings of UDOT staff and local advisory bodies convened by UDOT, are not
subject to the conditions of Utah Open and Public Meetings Act; and
WHEREAS, on May 1 2018, Grand County formally convened the “Ad Hoc Moab Transit
Authority study committee,” but in the following twenty-two months has failed to support it via
meeting noticing, minute recordation, publication of such records; and
WHEREAS, Moab City Officials and residents value government transparency, and Moab
City is committed and capable of providing meeting noticing and record keeping facilitating that, as
well as other public engagement tools; and
WHEREAS, given a UDOT project may fall either entirely within or without Moab City
limits, or include both Moab City and Grand County; and
WHEREAS, Moab City has an interest in cooperating with Grand County to deliver services
to their shared constituents more efficiently, Moab elected officials are accountable first and
foremost to the citizens within their jurisdictional boundary, and Moab officials desire to cooperate
with the County on projects which include both their areas, and retain the authority over projects
entirely within City limits; and
WHEREAS, the Moab City Council believes that, despite the previous investments of
time, money, goodwill, public process, and commitments made, on balance the interests of
Moab and the satisfaction of the Hotspot criteria may be better served by project(s) other than
the Downtown Transportation Hub.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOAB,
UTAH that:
1.City staff negotiate a suspension of work for up to six months with Kimley-Horn with the
intent of minimizing financial liability to the City and UDOT; preserve the funding,
contracts, work product value, and relationships established thus far, while other potential
Hotspot projects are explored.
2.City staff shall seek clarity from UDOT regarding the measures by which alternative
projects will be evaluated to meet Hotspot criteria, and submittal requirements.
3.City Staff shall engage with relevant parties at Grand County and UDOT to determine the
feasibility, cost, and staffing needs to quickly shift the current transportation planning
focus to transit. This information shall be brought to City Council, and County Council
should their leadership so choose, for consideration.
4.City Staff shall procure a consultant to assist the City and stakeholders in developing other
proposals for Hotspot funding, including but not limited to transit, and multi-use path
expansion. Scope of Work may be informed by UDOT alternate project submittal
standards and ranking criteria.
5.City Staff shall negotiate a cost and staff sharing agreement with Grand County for the
resources necessary to sufficiently develop alternatives (including the item 2) consultant.
City Staff shall negotiate an MOU with Grand County outlining allocation of operational
expenses and revenues for new programs proposed for Hotspot funding which span
jurisdictional boundaries. If such agreements are not ratified by both Councils by May 10,
at the discretion of the City Council either a) the City shall pursue development of
alternative Hotspot projects within city limits without involvement of Grand County
government or stakeholders, OR b) the Kimley-Horn design work shall resume.
6.Transparency and public involvement shall be prioritized in the definition of alternative
projects. A Hotspot alternative development stakeholder committee shall be convened by
Moab City by resolution or ordinance, with clarity as to appointing authority, membership,
organization, purpose, and expiration date. Moab City shall provide noticing and record
keeping in compliance with OPMA. City staff shall consult with Council on other public
engagement tools for this process.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of
the City of Moab this 10th day of March, 2020.
SIGNED:
______________________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: February 25March 10, 2020
Title: Cancelling Suspending Design and Construction of the Downtown Parking
StructureTransportation Hub and Reconsidering Hotspot Project Priorities
Submitted: February 18March 5, 2020
Presenter(sSubmitter): Karen Guzman-Newton and Mike DuncanKalen Jones, Councilmembers
Attachments:
• RESOLUTION NO. 17xx-2020, A RESOLUTION CANCELLING
SUSPENDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURETRANSPORTATION HUB
AND CONSIDERING ALTENATIVE USES OF THE HOTSPOT
FUNDING
Recommended Motion: None at this time. This item is scheduled for public hearing at a regular
City Council meeting March 10, 2020. A vote may be scheduled for that meeting subsequent to
the public hearing. Its presentation at this time is for discussion only.I move to approve
Resolution No. 17xx-2020, A Resolution Suspending Design of the Downtown Transportation
Hub and Considering Alternative Uses of the Hotspot Funding.
Background/Summary:
In 2017, UDOT was tasked with administering the distribution of $100issued $10M of “Hotspot”
(areas impacted by recreation and tourism activity) funding to Moab areas with significant
congestion related to recreation and tourism activity, for transportation improvements which met
the three broad goals set by the Utah Legislature of congestion reduction, improved recreation
access, and economic development, and which would be awarded via a competitive process.
UDOT allocated $150,000 and staff time to support a process in the Moab area to identify capital
projects which would score well in more detailed criteria established by UDOT, be deliverable
within a reasonable time frame, and meet local interests. UDOT hired consultants to assist in
project development, feasibility analysis, and cost estimating, and convened a local stakeholder
group consisting of elected officials and staff from Moab City and Grand County, members of
the public, and UDOT staff and consultants. The stakeholder group identified a range of possible
projects which were scored relative to more granular criteria descending from the broad goals set
by the legislature. The most viable projects for the Hotspot criteria were determined to be one or
more parking structures in downtown Moab, more efficient use of existing surface parking lots
(“dispersed parking”) serving other areas and additional vehicle types, and 191/Main St.
improvements to increase pedestrian safety and calm traffic.In late 2017 a committee of business
people and local government officials proposed a Downtown Parking Structure (DPS).
$10M was awarded to Moab for these projects, the majority for $8.3M was scheduled for its the
design and construction of the downtown parking structure, recently rebranded as the Downtown
Transportation Hub (DTH). On May 14, 2019, the Moab City Council adopted the Moab Parking
Management Study which showed that the downtown block in which the existing City Parking
Lot exists, parking demand often nears and exceeds supply. This lot was determined to be the
most suitable for vertical expansion via a parking structure. On May 28, 2020 In ,________ the
City Council approved a Cooperative Aagreement (specific identifier) with UDOT doing XY and
Z. for the design and construction of the Downtown Transportation HubIn late. In October Oct
__ 2019, the City Council approved entered a $850K contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc, for DPS DTH design. Kimley-Horn has worked through several design iterations to develop
a design which balances raw parking capacity with site constraints, Moab City zoning code
including height limits, non-parking needs such as bathrooms and transit connections, higher
vehicle heights, aesthetics, sustainability, and connections with adjacent properties.with Kimley-
Horn, a design consultant. They have worked closely with city staff , and consulted repeatedly
with a Design Advisory Committee consisting of city officials, staff, business owners and public.
The most recent construction cost estimates project that the DTH can be built in budget. A
preliminary operations and maintenance budget indicates that the DTH can break even, or
generate revenue.At this time, a minority Approximately $250,000 of those contract funds
havehas been spent for on-going on design.
Moab City, Grand County, and UDOT have recently begun a one of several transportation
planning efforts. As currently conceived, a Regional Transportation Planning process which is
underway would be the first, which will support a Joint City-County Transportation Master Plan,
and finally a Transit Study and Design. While planning has begun, the planning sequencing is
not fixed and might be reprioritized. These planning efforts are hoped to support successful grant
applications for other transportation system components, possibly including a FTA grant for
electric buses, other federal grants for transit capital and operating expenses, and a transit tax.
Since that timeRecently, , and despite the many public meetings and decisions that have
occurredfor a variety of reasons, dissatisfaction with, concern that the DTH is not an optimal use
of Hotspot funds has grown. Specifically, building additional vehicle capacity may create short-
term benefits, but supporting the continued use of private vehicles may ultimately result in an
increase in vehicle use and subsequent congestion. Other projects which support a reduction in
downtown vehicle trips may better meet goals. UDOT has indicated that it would consider the
reallocation of the funds originally allocated for the DTH DPS has grown even as its design has
progressed: loss of original motivation (to replace Main St. parking), a reduction in number of
parking stalls provided, an inability to accommodate over-sized vehicles, cost overruns, changes
in structural design which lower construction cost at the expense of higher future maintenance
costs, complaints that it would not help Main St. congestion and complaints that its localized
nature provided singular benefits to a few businesses rather than a broad spectrum of the
community.
For these reasons, and the observation that the great bulk of Hotspot funds remain unspent and
that UDOT is receptive to alternative uses, as long as they alternative project(s) meet the
Hotspot funding criteria. , alternative uses of DPS funds have recently been suggested: namely a
regional shuttle/transit/bus system and/or dispersed surface parking lots (a goal of the original
Hotspot study) located N or S of downtown. While the current design of the DTH has evolved to
address community needs beyond parking, pausing the design to allow other elements of
transportation and transit design and funding to be developed would allow the decision to cancel
the DTH, proceed, or modify its program to better integrate into a broader transportation vision,
to be made with much more knowledge.
This resolution directs staff to cancel suspend the Kimley-Horn contract. It also initiates the
process of creating a viable shuttle/transit/bus system, possibly including dispersed surface
parking lots., and facilitate a process to expediently develop alternative projects, seek from
UDOT clarity on the scoring criteria that would be used for alternative projects, seek Hotspot
funding for alternative projects, evaluate prioritization of transit in current transportation
planning, and improve Hotspot project transparency.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-2020, A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING DESIGN OF THE
DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION HUB AND CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE USES
OF THE HOTSPOT FUNDING
WHEREAS, tsSignificant investments have been made in delivering a Downtown
Transportation Hub (DTH)/parking structure as supported by the Moab Parking Management
Study and state funding,.; andhe primary need for DPS as identified in the 2017 UDOT Region 4
Arches Hotspot Study was to replace on-street parking lost as part of Main Street Improvements,
but that those Improvements were rejected by residents and Council who objected to loss of on-
street parking,
WHEREAS, thebBuilding private vehicle capacity, including parking ,does not always
lead to congestion reduction, and capital projects other than the DTH may result in better
long term satisfaction of Hotspot program goals and community priorities, ; andsolution to
Moab’s congested Main St. can hardly be improved by drawing more vehicles to downtown,
the intent of DPS,
WHEREAS, UDOT is willing to consider the reallocation of Hotspot funding for other
projects which meet the original goals of reduction of congestion, increased economic
development, and increased recreation and tourism opportunities; andal
WHEREAS, tdDeveloping a project proposal which is fundable, and meets the goals of the
State and community, and whose operating expenses are affordable and commensurate with the
benefits delivered will require significant professional support beyond what volunteers and local
government staff can provide; and,he DPS, according to the Downtown Parking Study, primarily
benefits businesses within 600 feet of the structure, that is a limited number of businesses, and thus
is a poorer use of public funds than dispersed parking or a regional shuttle which benefits a
broader number of businesses.
WHEREAS DPS design has changed significantly from its original less-intrusive partially buried
bottom floor and two additional stories, to an imposing and view-shed blocking four story
structure of 42’ including its roof parapets,
WHEREAS DPS, still early in its design phase, has already incurred significant cost
overruns forcing the adoption of structural construction techniques that trade lower construction
cost for increased maintenance cost during its life,
WHEREAS, Moab City is currently partnering with Grand County and UDOT on a series of
comprehensive transportation planning efforts, and is committed to improving transportation
throughout Spanish Valley including Moab City, but as currently sequenced the transit
component will not be complete until well after the Hotspot funding opportunity is past; and;
WHEREAS, Dt; andPS will incur significantly higher maintenance cost than the existing surface
lot, with poor prospects for offsetting revenue whether it charges for parking or not, since
according to the Downtown Parking Study the lot is often under-utilized,
WHEREAS, nNon-Hotspot grant programs exist to support the capital and operational
expenses of transit, and competitive proposals for such must be supported by quality studies; and.
WHEREAS, mDMeetings of UDOT staff ,and local advisory bodies convened by UDOT,
are not subject to the conditions of Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. PS cannot accommodate
over-sized vehicles, a critical parking ; andneed,
WHEREAS, oOn May 1 2018, Grand County formally convened the “Ad Hoc Moab Transit
Authority study committee,”, but in the following twenty-two months has failed to support it via
meeting noticing, minute recordation, publication of such records; and,
WHEREAS, Moab City Officials and residents value government transparency, and Moab
City is committed and capable of providing meeting noticing and record keeping facilitating that, as
well as other public engagement tools; and,
WHEREAS, given athe UDOT project may fall either entirely within or without Moab
City limits, or include both Moab City and Grand County; and,
WHEREAS, Moab City has an interest in cooperating with Grand County to deliver services
to their shared constituents more efficiently, Moab elected officials are accountable first and
foremost to the citizens within their jurisdictional boundariy, and Moab officials desire to cooperate
with the County on projects which include both their areas, and retain the authority over projects
entirely within City limits; and,
,; and.
WHEREAS UDOT is receptive to the redirection of Hotspot funding as long as their goals of
reduction of congestion, economic development and increased tourism opportunity can
reasonably be expected to occur,
WHEREAS, athe Moab City Council believes that, despite the previous investments of
time, money, goodwill, public process, and commitments made, on balance the interests of
Moab and the satisfaction of the Hotspot criteria may be better served by project(s) other than
the Downtown Transportation Hub,n alternate use of DPS funds has been identified that
satisfies the above criteria, namely a regional or valley-wide shuttle system that encourages
visitors to leave their cars at their hotel and residents to leave their cars at home.,
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOAB,
UTAH thatNOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Council of the City of Moab, Utah that:
:
1. City staff negotiate a suspension of work for up to six months with Kimley-Horn with the
intent of minimizing financial liability to the City and UDOT; preserve the funding,
contracts, work product value, and relationships established thus far, while other potential
Hotspot projects are explored.
2. City staff shall seek clarity from UDOT regarding the measures by which alternative
projects will be evaluated to meet Hotspot criteria, and submittal requirements.
3. City Staff shall engage with relevant parties at Grand County and UDOT to determine the
feasibility, cost, and staffing needs to quickly shift the current transportation planning
focus to transit. This information shall be brought to City Council, and County Council
should their leadership so choose, for consideration.
4. City Staff shall procure a consultant to assist the City and stakeholders in developing other
proposals for Hotspot funding, including but not limited to transit, and multi-use path
expansion. Scope of Work may be informed by UDOT alternate project submittal
standards and ranking criteria.
5. City Staff shall negotiate a cost and staff sharing agreement with Grand County for the
resources necessary to sufficiently develop alternatives (including the item 2) consultant.
City Staff shall negotiate an MOU with Grand County outlining allocation of operational
expenses and revenues for new programs proposed for Hotspot funding which span
jurisdictional boundaries. If such agreements are not ratified by both Councils by May 10,
at the discretion of the City Council either a) the City shall pursue development of
alternative Hotspot projects within city limits without involvement of Grand County
government or stakeholders, OR b) the Kimley-Horn design work shall resume.
6. Transparency and public involvement shall be prioritized in the definition of alternative
projects. A Hotspot alternative development stakeholder committee shall be convened by
Moab City by resolution or ordinance, with clarity as to appointing authority, membership,
organization, purpose, and expiration date. Moab City shall provide noticing and record
keeping in compliance with OPMA. City staff shall consult with Council on other public
engagement tools for this process.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of
the City of Moab this 10th day of March, 2020.
SIGNED:
______________________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
1) City staff direct negotiate a suspension of work for up to six months with Kimley-Horn to
cancel the Downtown Parking Structure design contract with the intent of minimizing financial
liability to the City and UDOT; preserve the funding, contracts, work product value, and
relationships established thus far, while other potential Hotspot projects are explored.
22a) City staff shall seek clarity from UDOT regarding the measures by which alternative
projects will be evaluated to meet Hotspot criteria, and submittal requirements. City Staff shall
procure a consultant to assist the City and stakeholders in developing other proposals for
Hotspot funding, including but not limited to transit, and multi-use path expansion. Scope of
Work may be informed by UDOT alternate project submittal standards and ranking criteria.
3) City Staff negotiate a cost and staff sharing agreement with Grand County for the resources
necessary to sufficiently develop alternatives (including the item 2) consultant). City Staff shall
negotiate an MOU with Grand County outlining allocation of operational expenses and revenues
for new programs proposed for Hotspot funding which span jurisdictional boundaries. If such
agreements are not ratified by both Councils by May 10, at the discretion of the City Council
either a) the City shall pursue development of alternative Hotspot projects within city limits
without involvement of Grand County government or stakeholders, OR b) the Kimley-Horn
design work shall resume, Moab City Council coordinate with Grand County Council to form
the “Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee,” with two council members from each
governing body. This committee shall determine staff assistance on an as-needed basis as well
as assistance from existing city or county committees. The Committee will serve as the point
contact with UDOT for purposes of the Hotspot Funding Program and any subsequent
applications for future project funding.
4) Transparency and public involvement shall be prioritized in the definition of alternative
projects. A Hotspot alternative development stakeholder committee shall be convened by Moab
City by resolution or ordinance, with clarity as to appointing authority, membership,
organization, purpose, and expiration date. Moab City shall provide noticing and record keeping
in compliance with OPMA. City staff shall consult with Council on other public engagement
tools for this process.
2b) The Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee enlist the Grand County Public Transit
Committee shall initially pursue the feasibility of a public transit system project in addition to
dispersed parking projects that may or may not complement a public transit system.
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: March 10, 2020
Title: Improvements to City Communication and Outreach based on Observed
Discussions Around Highway Widening and Hotspot Funded Projects.
Presenter: Rani Derasary
Attachment(s):
Suggested Motion: No Motion as this is not an action item.
Background/Summary: (As drafted by Councilmember Derasary)
Since I came on the Council in 2016, we've been working as a local government and Council to
improve communications and transparency with the community. Sometimes this involves the
Council mainly, sometimes the staff, or a combo. Some of our work has gone well, and
other parts could use improvement. I appreciate, for example, staff's recent push to get out
weekly updates on the highway widening project, even if all they can say is: "we have no new
info from UDOT this week." These updates are helpful.
Hopefully in our March 6 strategic planning workshop the Council will be able to discuss how
communication fits into our values. I sense we all want to foster a local government that is as
much as possible a helpful ally to residents, as opposed to an irksome adversary. My
observations of simple things we could do to immediately makes things better include the
following and I'm interested in gauging colleague and staff support:
• Adopting a policy whereby private property parcels do not get put in our meeting packets for
theoretical discussion of things that might ideally happen on them (eg housing, parking etc),
unless the property owner has first been notified, and agrees to such discussion. I'm not talking
about large-scale urban planning that eg looks at whole zones here, but rather what appears to be
dreamy visioning about certain parcels without alerting the property owner.
Rationale: It is stressful and I'd argue maddening even to have local government make
assumptions about your private property without consulting you. It can also mislead folks
reading our packets into thinking we already have permissions to take actions on certain
properties when the property owner has no interest in such ideas. This wastes time and energy
for everyone and I'd argue it runs counter to the respect for residents we strive to embody as a
City.
• I think it's fair to say we've all either observed or participated in frustrating communication
over the past few years about the downtown plan, parking, highway widening etc. I am now 4
years into discussions and attempts to improve the City's communication with our residents and I
understand why some of them have reached the point of frustration of giving up on us. I'm not
ready to give up. But I am done patiently waiting for things I'm told are going to change/improve
to change for the better. We owe it to this community to put our money where our mouths have
been, and actually improve communication. It shouldn't be this hard to assess a project, figure
out whom it impacts, and attempt to inform them - on a regular basis. Yes, vocal residents who
just complain online but never actually read a paper or visit a web site or participate in meetings
need to meet us half way, but there is more we can do too. One suggestion I have made and still
maintain is key is: to have meetings on projects involving multiple stakeholders happen on the
record, recorded, so staff and stakeholders alike can review recordings if there are no minutes
should any misunderstanding occurs.
Rationale: We have been dealing with heated issues of late, and I would argue that this format
not only makes it easier to consult the record in planning follow-up, and in reviewing what was
said if disagreements or misunderstandings occur, but also encourages all parties involved to
remain professional.
• Establish a clear process for allowing or denying last minute handouts at Council meetings
having to do with agenda items. I understand that at times additional materials are generated last
minute, or corrections are made to materials, but I would request that we clarify the grounds
under which this is acceptable / a best practice. There was eg confusion about the two maps of
Emma and Maxine at our February 11 meeting, and frustration about a handout at the joint City-
County meeting about the parking structure.
Rationale: Clearly there are times we can only get something last minute, but having an
agreement that strives to minimize this can spare misunderstanding, stress, mistrust, a sense
Council, staff or the public are being denied adequate time to review materials, or that the packet
narrative is being changed last minute.
• If possible, establish a clearer mechanism for stakeholders to sign up for updates on specific
projects. This has the capacity to help both Council and staff remember and quickly capture a list
of individuals who wants updates on a specific issue. I do email searches on my own as a
Council member, when I eg want to respond to a lot of people interested in the same issue at
once, but I'm wondering if there is any more efficient mechanism available to us Citywide for
this.
Rationale: I sense that something like this could help with more inclusive outreach. For
example, assumptions have at times been made around the North Highway 191 widening that
only 2-3 parties need to be consulted, which has left out other parties that requested inclusion (eg
HMK). With re-striping the back-in parking on 100S to front-in parking, it can help remind one
it's not just Desert West, Zax and the Hogan who might benefit from a heads up that crews will
be on the street on a potentially busy spring day, but other neighbors such as the Triangle House
and Moab Backyard Theater as well.
• Invite Utah League of Cities and Towns General Counsel David Church for an annual
workshop with the Council and Planning Commission.
Rationale: Church is known across the State for his presentations on the Open and Public
Meetings Act, and trains most of us every year on the same. That said, such trainings seldom
leave time to delve into the more nuanced questions Council members, staff and Planning
Commission members may face in their day to day work. Extended time with Church to address
such questions could allow us valuable time to learn from him about approaches other
communities are taking and best practices that we might not be on top of.
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: March 10, 2020
Title: Reconsideration of Approval for City Staff to Request UDOT Approval to Use Dispersed Parking Hotspot Funding to Construct the Emma Blvd Dispersed Parking Facilities
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: N/A
Attachment(s): - Attachment 1 - Emma Blvd Dispersed Parking Exhibit
Recommended Motion: None
Background/Summary: In 2019 City Council approved the final plat of the Amended Lot 14, Block “E”, Plat “B” Utex Subdivision. This plat records the exchange of a longitudinal portion of Emma Blvd for 38-feet of street right-of-way across lot 14, thereafter named Minnie Lee Avenue. Council directed that access to MiVida Dr from Emma Blvd shall be closed upon installation of Minnie Lee Ave, in order to discourage highway traffic from circulating near Helen M. Knight Elementary School. Staff has attempted to negotiate with landowners in the north area of town to obtain space for dispersed parking, but at present all offers have been rejected. As an alternative to acquiring new space, staff propose utilizing existing street right-of-way on Maxine Ave and Emma Blvd. See attachment 1, which shows the proposed parking on Emma Blvd. This proposal will put to beneficial public use the future northern dead-end of Emma Blvd at MiVida Dr. Funds will be provided from the UDOT-administered Dispersed Parking Hotspot funding. However, UDOT will not fund construction of Minnie Lee Ave. That would have to be funded and built concurrent with the Emma Blvd Dispersed Parking Lot using City funds. Staff request City Council permission to seek UDOT approval for the proposed use of Hotspot funding if Council concurs with funding construction of Minnie Lee Ave.
UDOT FUNDS
$250,000
CITY FUNDS
$325,000
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: March 10, 2020
Title: Parking Layout Options for 100 South between 100 West and Main Street
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Attachment(s): - Attachment 1 – Parking Layout Options 1 and 2
Recommended Motion: N/A
Background/Summary: In May 2019, the City converted existing front-in angle parking on 100 South between 100 West and Main Street to back-in angle parking. This was done as a pilot program, with the intention that its efficacy and appropriateness would be reevaluated. At the February 11, 2020 City Council meeting, council directed staff to return the parking to the previous front-in parking configuration. The City has an obligation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide accessible pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. In an effort to improve accessibility of parking on 100 South, staff have prepared two parking layout options for discussion with City Council. The first layout (Option 1) replaces the spaces exactly as they were before May 2019. The second layout (Option 2) is similar, but adds an access aisle and curb ramp adjacent to the accessible parking space, at an estimated additional cost of $5,000. In order to fit the access aisle without reducing the overall number of spaces, all spaces will be reduced from 14-feet wide to 13-feet. This width still exceeds the minimum parking space width provided in the city code. The addition of the access aisle and curb ramp would bring the parking on this block into compliance with the ADA. Both layouts will result in ten front-in diagonal parking spaces.
PARKING STRIPE DETAIL
9 Standard,
1 Handicap Parking Stalls
PARKING STRIPE DETAIL ~�
9 Standard,
1 Handicap Parking Stalls
OPTION 2
ADA COMPLIANT
PARKING KII STRIPING
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: March 10, 2020
Title: Main Street 2-hr Parking Restriction
Disposition: Discussion
Staff Presenter: Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Attachment(s): - Attachment 1- 2-hr Parking Restriction Concept
Recommended Motion: N/A
Background/Summary: Per City Council direction, staff are investigating implementation of 2-hr time restriction parking signs along Main Street. Additionally, the Moab Parking Management Study recommends restricting parking times in order to encourage higher turnover in busier parking areas. Single arrow signs mark the ends of the restricted parking zone, with as many double arrow signs in between as needed (See attachment 1). Staff have identified four existing signs, delimiting a total of fifteen 1-hr restricted public parking spaces in downtown Moab. Consultation and coordination with UDOT will be required before installation of signs on Main Street is possible. There are two options being presented: Option A, comprising Main Street between 400 North and 300 South; and Option B, which would extend from Option A south to the southern terminus of 400 East. Concurrent with the planned North US-191 highway widening, no parking will be provided north of 400 North. Option A would require approximately 90 signs and posts to be installed at an estimated cost of $20,000; option B would likely double the required signs for a total of 180, and an estimated cost of $40,000. Actual quantity of signs required will depend on the particular grouping of existing parking spaces, desired frequency of signage, and availability of sign post locations on the sidewalk or park strip.
"
1
1 1 '