HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2022-01-11JANUARY 11, 2022
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. § 54 -2 -
207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written determinations supporting the
decision to convene electronic meetings of the Council without a physical anchor location.
Due to the health and safety risks related to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic, the Moab City
Council will continue to hold meetings by electronic means. The public is invited and
encouraged to view and participate in the Council ’s electronic meetings by viewing the
City ’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/MoabCityGovernment
Written Determination of the Chair of the Public Body
written determination pursuant to hb 5002 - city council (1).pdf
Regular City Council Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Roll Call Attendance
Citizens to Be Heard (Electronic Participation)
Citizens to be heard comments may be made by phone or online through Zoom.
Citizens are limited to two (2) minutes for comments.
To participate by phone or online through Zoom, please use the following links:
Dial: 669 -900 -9128 Meeting ID: 873 4491 9300 Passcode (if needed): 994558
Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87344919300?
pwd=ulbqbxeyngvez3nyy2hfndhiclzfut09
Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in a waiting room and will be
added to the meeting by the moderator. Your comments will be recorded and on
YouTube. To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of
the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here: https://bit.ly/citizenstobeheard .
You must submit your comments by 7:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Please limit your
comments to 400 words.
Consent Agenda
Consulting contract with Red Hill Strategic, Inc.
agenda summary lobbying consultant contract renewal
2022.pdf
renewal consulting agreement city of moab.pdf
Confirmation of reappointment of Kya Marienfeld to the Moab City Planning and
Zoning Commission
planning commission appointment agenda summary - kya
marienfeld.pdf
Confirmation of reappointment of Jessica O'Leary to the Moab City Planning and
Zoning Commission
planning commission appointment agenda summary - jessica
oleary.pdf
Approval of Minutes
December 14, 2021, Regular Meeting
min -cc -2021 -12 -14 draft.pdf
New Business
Community Organization Liaison and Board Assignments
Discussion
Appointment of the 2022 Mayor Pro Tem
Appointment of the Council Member Responsible for Reviewing the City's Bills in
2022
Old Business
Walnut Lane Overview & Options Forward
Briefing and possible action
exhibit b - walnut lane prioritization.pdf
exhibit c - walnut lane pro forma - 01 -05 -22.pdf
as - walnut lane overview and options forward.pdf
exhibit a - master planning documents from architectual
squared.pdf
Executive (Closed) Session
Strategy Session to Discuss Reasonably Imminent and/or Pending Litigation
Strategy Session to Discuss the Purchase, Exchange, or Lease of Real Property
Administrative Reports
Acting City Manager Updates
Communications and Engagement Manager Update - Text My Gov Presentation
Police Department Update - AXON Equipment Lease Presentation
Mayor and Council Reports
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.
Documents:
2.
2.1.
3.
4.
4.1.
Documents:
4.2.
Documents:
4.3.
Documents:
4.4.
4.4.a.
Documents:
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
6.
6.1.
Documents:
7.
7.1.
7.2.
8.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
9.
10.
11.
JANUARY 11, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. § 54 -2 -207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic meetings of the Council without a physical anchor location. Due to the health and safety risks related to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic, the Moab City Council will continue to hold meetings by electronic means. The public is invited and encouraged to view and participate in the Council ’s electronic meetings by viewing the City ’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/MoabCityGovernmentWritten Determination of the Chair of the Public Bodywritten determination pursuant to hb 5002 - city council (1).pdfRegular City Council Meeting - 6:00 p.m. Call to Order and Roll Call AttendanceCitizens to Be Heard (Electronic Participation)Citizens to be heard comments may be made by phone or online through Zoom. Citizens are limited to two (2) minutes for comments.To participate by phone or online through Zoom, please use the following links: Dial: 669 -900 -9128 Meeting ID: 873 4491 9300 Passcode (if needed): 994558 Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87344919300?pwd=ulbqbxeyngvez3nyy2hfndhiclzfut09Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in a waiting room and will be added to the meeting by the moderator. Your comments will be recorded and on YouTube. To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here: https://bit.ly/citizenstobeheard . You must submit your comments by 7:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Please limit your comments to 400 words.Consent AgendaConsulting contract with Red Hill Strategic, Inc.agenda summary lobbying consultant contract renewal
2022.pdf
renewal consulting agreement city of moab.pdf
Confirmation of reappointment of Kya Marienfeld to the Moab City Planning and
Zoning Commission
planning commission appointment agenda summary - kya
marienfeld.pdf
Confirmation of reappointment of Jessica O'Leary to the Moab City Planning and
Zoning Commission
planning commission appointment agenda summary - jessica
oleary.pdf
Approval of Minutes
December 14, 2021, Regular Meeting
min -cc -2021 -12 -14 draft.pdf
New Business
Community Organization Liaison and Board Assignments
Discussion
Appointment of the 2022 Mayor Pro Tem
Appointment of the Council Member Responsible for Reviewing the City's Bills in
2022
Old Business
Walnut Lane Overview & Options Forward
Briefing and possible action
exhibit b - walnut lane prioritization.pdf
exhibit c - walnut lane pro forma - 01 -05 -22.pdf
as - walnut lane overview and options forward.pdf
exhibit a - master planning documents from architectual
squared.pdf
Executive (Closed) Session
Strategy Session to Discuss Reasonably Imminent and/or Pending Litigation
Strategy Session to Discuss the Purchase, Exchange, or Lease of Real Property
Administrative Reports
Acting City Manager Updates
Communications and Engagement Manager Update - Text My Gov Presentation
Police Department Update - AXON Equipment Lease Presentation
Mayor and Council Reports
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.Documents:2.2.1.3.4.4.1.Documents:
4.2.
Documents:
4.3.
Documents:
4.4.
4.4.a.
Documents:
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
6.
6.1.
Documents:
7.
7.1.
7.2.
8.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
9.
10.
11.
JANUARY 11, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.Consistent with provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. § 54 -2 -207(4), the Moab City Council Chair has issued written determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic meetings of the Council without a physical anchor location. Due to the health and safety risks related to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic, the Moab City Council will continue to hold meetings by electronic means. The public is invited and encouraged to view and participate in the Council ’s electronic meetings by viewing the City ’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/MoabCityGovernmentWritten Determination of the Chair of the Public Bodywritten determination pursuant to hb 5002 - city council (1).pdfRegular City Council Meeting - 6:00 p.m. Call to Order and Roll Call AttendanceCitizens to Be Heard (Electronic Participation)Citizens to be heard comments may be made by phone or online through Zoom. Citizens are limited to two (2) minutes for comments.To participate by phone or online through Zoom, please use the following links: Dial: 669 -900 -9128 Meeting ID: 873 4491 9300 Passcode (if needed): 994558 Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87344919300?pwd=ulbqbxeyngvez3nyy2hfndhiclzfut09Please note that when joining the meeting, you will be placed in a waiting room and will be added to the meeting by the moderator. Your comments will be recorded and on YouTube. To have your written comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here: https://bit.ly/citizenstobeheard . You must submit your comments by 7:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Please limit your comments to 400 words.Consent AgendaConsulting contract with Red Hill Strategic, Inc.agenda summary lobbying consultant contract renewal 2022.pdfrenewal consulting agreement city of moab.pdfConfirmation of reappointment of Kya Marienfeld to the Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission planning commission appointment agenda summary - kya marienfeld.pdfConfirmation of reappointment of Jessica O'Leary to the Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission planning commission appointment agenda summary - jessica oleary.pdfApproval of MinutesDecember 14, 2021, Regular Meetingmin-cc -2021 -12 -14 draft.pdfNew BusinessCommunity Organization Liaison and Board AssignmentsDiscussionAppointment of the 2022 Mayor Pro TemAppointment of the Council Member Responsible for Reviewing the City's Bills in 2022Old BusinessWalnut Lane Overview & Options ForwardBriefing and possible actionexhibit b - walnut lane prioritization.pdfexhibit c - walnut lane pro forma - 01 -05 -22.pdfas - walnut lane overview and options forward.pdfexhibit a - master planning documents from architectual squared.pdfExecutive (Closed) SessionStrategy Session to Discuss Reasonably Imminent and/or Pending LitigationStrategy Session to Discuss the Purchase, Exchange, or Lease of Real PropertyAdministrative ReportsActing City Manager UpdatesCommunications and Engagement Manager Update - Text My Gov Presentation
Police Department Update - AXON Equipment Lease Presentation
Mayor and Council Reports
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.Documents:2.2.1.3.4.4.1.Documents:4.2.Documents:4.3.Documents:4.4.4.4.a.Documents:5.5.1.5.2.5.3.6.6.1.Documents:7.7.1.7.2.8.8.1.8.2.
8.3.
9.
10.
11.
1
Written Determination of the Chair of the Public Body
Pursuant to House Bill 5002 and Utah Code Annotated (UCA) §§52-4-207(4)(a) and (b)
WHEREAS, the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act provides that:
A public body may convene and conduct an electronic meeting without an anchor location if
the chair of the public body:
(a) makes a written determination that conducting the meeting with an anchor location
presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the
anchor location;
(b) states in the written determination the facts upon which the determination is based;
and
WHEREAS, Grand County is in a high level of COVID-19 transmission and the Moab City
Council meetings require attendance by individuals at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-
19; and
WHEREAS, the health and safety of those in attendance is best served by holding electronic
meetings of the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has demonstrated the ability to effectively conduct public meetings
electronically, including providing members of the public means to observe the meetings and
provide comments electronically.
NOW THEREFORE, I conclude that conducting Moab City Council meetings with an anchor
location that is physically accessible for members of the public to attend in person presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location.
This determination will expire 30 days after the day upon which I made the determination. It is
possible that circumstances could warrant future determinations and so I may re-issue future
written determinations at that time.
SIGNED:
Joette Langianese, Mayor Date
ATTEST:
Sommar Johnson, Recorder
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Title: Consulting contract with Red Hill Strategic, Inc.
Date Submitted: January 06, 2022
Staff Presenter: Carly Castle, Acting City Manager
Attachment(s):
o Renewal Consulting Agreement City of Moab
Options: Discussion and possible action
Recommended Motion: I move to approve the contract between the City of Moab and Red Hill
Strategic, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $40,000.
Background/Summary:
The City has contracted with Red Hill Strategies, Inc. to provide lobbying services for the
2020 and 2021 legislative sessions, and staff recommends procuring Red Hill’s services
for the 2022 session. Among the tasks that Red Hill will pursue on behalf of the City are
pursuing ARPA and federal infrastructure funds, building relationships with state
representatives, providing training for ongoing and newly elected officials, and
coordinating extensively with the Utah League of Cities ad Towns and other
municipalities regarding shared legislative priorities.
This contract will be paid in two $20,000 installments over approximately six months.
This fee schedule conforms to Moab Municipal Code sections 2.28.040(A), “Purchasing
authority—small purchases;” and 2.28.100(C), “Repeat purchases not to evade
procurement thresholds.”
Consulting Agreement – Page 1
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into
effective as of the __ day of _January_, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between The
City of Moab (the “Client”) and Red Hill Strategic, Inc., (“Red Hill”). Each of the parties is
sometimes referred to herein individually as a “party” or collectively as the “parties.”
Background
Agreement
In consideration of the foregoing, and of the mutual covenants and agreements
set forth in this Agreement, Red Hill and THE CITY OF MOAB hereby mutually agree as
set forth below.
1. Consulting Arrangement. The City of Moab agrees to retain Red Hill as a
consultant, and Red Hill hereby agrees to provide consulting services to THE CITY OF
MOAB on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2. Term. Red Hill shall be engaged by THE CITY OF MOAB as a consultant
beginning January 12, 2022 and renewing annually each year on November 1, or until
THE CITY OF MOAB or Red Hill terminates the engagement in accordance with
Section 8 (the “Term”).
3. Consultant Duties. Red Hill shall perform the following services as
requested by THE CITY OF MOAB:
a. Provide political and regulatory insight and strategy on all projects
where such services are requested. It is expected that this work will
include regular consultation and meetings with the elected leaders and
internal staff of THE CITY OF MOAB.
b. Provide representation on behalf of The City of Moab to rulemakers,
regulators, legislative staff, legislators, governor’s staff, executive
branch directors, governor, lobbyists, business leaders and the general
public regarding the goals and priorities of THE CITY OF MOAB.
c. Under direction of the Mayor and City Council work to achieve
legislative solutions agreeable to THE CITY OF MOAB.
4. Relationship. The parties understand and agree that Red Hill is providing
services under this Agreement as an independent contractor only and not as an
employee, partner, or joint venturer of THE CITY OF MOAB. Neither THE CITY OF
MOAB nor Red Hill shall hold Red Hill out to any third party as a partner, joint venturer,
or employee of THE CITY OF MOAB. The services provided by Red Hill to THE CITY
OF MOAB are not exclusive and the Parties agree that Red Hill may provide the same
or similar consulting services to other individuals, companies, or entities, without
limitation, except as provided for in Section 9, below.
Consulting Agreement – Page 2
5. Cooperation. Red Hill will perform the services under this Agreement in a
professional and workmanlike manner with skill and diligence. Casey Hill will personally
perform the services contemplated in this agreement but may use the assistance of
others in his employ as appropriate. THE CITY OF MOAB will provide access to its
information and property as it determines is reasonably required in order to permit Red
Hill to perform Red Hill’s obligations hereunder.
6. Compensation. In consideration for services rendered to THE CITY OF
MOAB as provided herein, THE CITY OF MOAB will pay Red Hill $40,000.00, payable
in two payments, one payment due in January 2022 for $20,000 upon receipt of an
invoice from Red Hill and one payment due in June 2022 for $20,000. Red Hill’s
compensation will not be subject to withholding for federal income taxes, FICA, FUTA
and other amounts. Red Hill will be responsible for all taxes owed governmental
authorities.
7. Expenses. It is understood that no expense reimbursement will be
available for Red Hill for the duration of this contract.
8. Termination. Red Hill’s services hereunder shall be “at will,” and may be
terminated by THE CITY OF MOAB at any time, with or without cause, upon ninety (90)
days written notice to the other party.
9. Conflicts of Interest. Although the relationship established by this
Agreement is non-exclusive, during the Term, Red Hill will not take on a similar advisory
or consulting project or services that would constitute a “conflict of interest” under Utah
Code Ann. § 36-11-306. If either party believes there is a conflict of interest, they shall
work together in good faith to resolve the matter.
10. Confidential Information. To protect THE CITY OF MOAB’ Confidential
Information and business, Red Hill agrees that it will not, at any time during the term of
this Agreement or for a period of two (2) years after ceasing to provide services under
the Agreement, reveal, disclose, furnish, make accessible, or disseminate any
Confidential Information to any other individual, firm, entity, or organization except as
only may be expressly required in properly performing services for THE CITY OF
MOAB. As used in this Agreement, the term “Confidential Information” means all
tangible and intangible non-public information regarding THE CITY OF MOAB or its
operations and that is specifically identified by THE CITY OF MOAB to Red Hill as
confidential or proprietary.
11. Effect of Termination. In the event Red Hill’s services under this
Agreement are terminated for any reason, all obligations of THE CITY OF MOAB and
Red Hill under this Agreement shall cease, except that the terms of Section 10 and any
other provision which by its terms is so intended shall survive such termination. Upon
such termination, Red Hill shall be entitled to receive any applicable compensation and
reimbursements through the date of termination. Upon termination Red Hill also shall
return to THE CITY OF MOAB all Confidential Information and other property or
equipment belonging to THE CITY OF MOAB.
Consulting Agreement – Page 3
12. Compliance with Laws. Red Hill agrees that it will comply with all
governmental laws and regulations in the performance of his services under this
Agreement.
13. Miscellaneous. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and
understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and
supersedes all prior agreements and understandings with respect thereto.
Notwithstanding any Utah statutory or common law to the contrary, this Agreement can
be amended or modified only in a writing signed by Mr. Hill and THE CITY OF MOAB
Mayor, whether or not a claimed modification is supported by separate consideration.
No waiver by either party at any time of any breach by the other party of, or compliance
with, any condition or provision of this Agreement to be performed by the other party
shall be deemed a waiver of similar or dissimilar provisions or conditions at the same
time or any prior or subsequent time. The rights and obligations of THE CITY OF MOAB
under this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the
successors and assigns of THE CITY OF MOAB.
14. Notice. All notices and approvals required under or by reason of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when sent to each party’s
authorized representative by U.S. Mail or electronic mail as follows:
CITY of MOAB
Mayor Joette Langianese
217 E Center Street
Moab, UT 84532
Mayor@moabcity.org
Red Hill Strategic, Inc.
J. Casey Hill
304 South Maryfield Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah
84108
casey@redhillstrategic.com
15. Governing Law and Mandatory Venue. The validity, interpretation,
construction and performance of this Agreement, and all acts and transactions pursuant
hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be governed,
construed, and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah, United
States, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law. Any and all claims arising
out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the state or federal
courts situated in the State of Utah, each of the parties hereby consenting to the
exclusive jurisdiction and mandatory venue of such courts. If any party violates this
provision and files suit in another forum, the other party shall be entitled to anti-suit
injunctive relief in the state and federal courts situated in Salt Lake County. If a civil
action or other proceeding is brought to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred, in
addition to any other relief which such party may be entitled, whether incurred before or
after the filing of a civil action or the entry of judgment.
16. Assignment. Red Hill may assign the rights and obligations of this
Agreement with the written consent of THE CITY OF MOAB, which will not be
unreasonably withheld.
17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together
will constitute one and the same instrument. Electronically delivered copies of signature
Consulting Agreement – Page 4
pages to this Agreement shall be treated between the parties as original signatures for
all purposes.
DATED: __10/21/2021____ ________________________________
Casey Hill
Red Hill Strategic, Inc.
THE CITY OF MOAB
DATED: _____________________ ________________________________
Joette Langianese, Mayor, City of Moab___
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Title: Confirmation of reappointment of Kya Marienfeld to the Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: N/A
Attachment(s): N/A
Recommended Motion: I move to confirm the reappointment of Kya Marienfeld to the Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission for a full three-year term that ends December 31, 2024
Background/Summary: Kya is an excellent member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and her continued service is greatly appreciated.
Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Title: Confirmation of reappointment of Jessica O’Leary to the Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: N/A
Attachment(s): N/A
Recommended Motion: I move to confirm the reappointment of Jessica O’Leary to the Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission for a full three-year term that ends December 31, 2024
Background/Summary: Jessica is an excellent member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and her continued service is greatly appreciated.
Page 1 of 4
December 14, 2021
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES--DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING
December 14, 2021
Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date. Consistent with provisions of the
Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Annotated § 52-4-207(5)(a), the Moab City
Council Chair issued written determinations supporting the decision to convene electronic
meetings with City Council chambers serving as a physical anchor location. Audio is archived at
www.utah.gov/pmn and video is archived at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Elr9L7xg0g.
Attendance and Call to Order:
Mayor Emily Niehaus called the meeting to order from the Council Chambers at 7:02 p.m.
Councilmembers Karen Guzman-Newton, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Mike Duncan, Rani Derasary
and Kalen Jones attended remotely. City staff participating included Acting City Manager Carly
Castle, Finance Director and Acting Deputy Manager Ben Billingsley, Code Compliance
Specialist Mona Pomplii, Assistant Planner Cory Shurtleff, Sustainability Director Mila Dunbar-
Irwin, Parks, Recreation and Trails Director Annie McVay, Engineer Chuck Williams and
Recorder Sommar Johnson.
Citizens To Be Heard:
Aaron Lindberg presented suggestions to improve affordable replacements for aging residential
sewer pipes in lieu of continuously excavating City streets.
Public Hearing:
Mayor Niehaus opened a public hearing concerning Proposed Resolution 35-2021: A
Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget. Councilmember Jones moved to open
the public hearing. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-
0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton
voting aye. There were no written or spoken comments. Councilmember Jones moved to close
the public hearing. Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye
with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting
aye. Mayor Niehaus closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
Administrative Reports:
Acting City Manager Castle announced a public Ranked Choice Voting survey, the City Hall
holiday closure schedule and noted specific hours the Treasurer’s Office would be open. Castle
noted the retirement of Planning Director Nora Shepard and the hiring of Kelley McInerney as
the new director of the Moab Arts and Recreation Center (MARC). She mentioned several
openings on the staff. She mentioned an open house with Grand County for the unified
transportation plan. Castle bid farewell to outgoing Councilmembers and the Mayor.
Code Compliance Specialist Pomplii reported on code violations regarding accessory dwelling
units and illegal nightly rentals. She noted neighbors should contact her office to report
potential violations. She answered questions from Council regarding compliance enforcement
and mentioned a Good Landlord program proposed to be tied to business licensure.
Parks, Recreation and Trails Director McVay provided an update on the status of the
Pack Creek Foot Bridge. She reported the bridge was last repaired in 2018 and estimated
replacement costs between $300,000 and $1 million. She outlined potential grant funding.
Acting Deputy Manager and Finance Director Billingsley explained funding options for the
bridge as proposed in the pending budget amendment.
Page 2 of 4
December 14, 2021
Mayor and Council Reports:
Mayor Niehaus spoke about her enjoyment of celebrations at which she represented the City.
She noted her appreciation of San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams and staff of the
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
Councilmember Derasary reported on two meetings of the Grand County Emergency Medical
Services Special Service District as well as a meeting of the Systems of Care group.
Councilmember Duncan reported on the Western Water Associates and the scheduled April 1
opening of the new campus of Utah State University (USU).
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd reported she attended the Veterans’ Day ceremony and two
meetings of the Canyonlands Health Care Special Service District. She reported the Housing
Authority’s construction began at Arroyo Crossing, the Museum Board’s pursuit of new
Standards of Excellence, and said she attended a workshop for elected officials in Price.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton reported on the open house of the unified transportation plan
and noted there were as many as 800 vehicles per hour on Main Street. She mentioned that
several City-operated street lamps were out of order on Main Street. She suggested solar-
powered lighting options. She noted she attended a Chamber of Commerce board meeting and
reported on the Airport Board, stating there were record enplanements and that Skydive Moab
logged 25,000 jumps. She noted the parking concession brought in $25,000 in revenues. She
urged Council to advocate for rail service and noted 35 percent of Main Street traffic is
comprised of semi-trucks. She concluded with a mention of the Arches National Park timed
entry open house and thanked staff and colleagues for contributing to her term in office.
Councilmember Jones reported on a meeting of the Travel Council. He noted efforts aimed at
regenerative and sustainable tourism. He mentioned meetings of USU’s Gateway & Natural
Amenity Region (GNAR) Initiative, the Community Renewable Energy board, the Housing
Taskforce and the UDOT transportation plan open house.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2021,
Regular Meeting and the November 16, 2021, Special Meeting. Councilmember Jones seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Jones, Guzman-Newton,
Knuteson-Boyd, and Duncan voting aye.
Old Business:
Water Conservation Plan Update—Approved
Discussion: Councilmember Derasary brought up community sentiment regarding conserving
water for new development and second homes. Discussion ensued regarding setting a goal to
exceed the state’s gallon per capita per day benchmark. Sustainability Director Dunbar-Irwin
explained the Water Conservation Plan Update is a non-binding document. Councilmember
Duncan mentioned there was no clear understanding of why the City’s per capita use decreased
in the last five years but speculated it might be due to the new wastewater treatment facility.
Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd acknowledged her respect for the work that went into the
preparation of the Plan. Councilmember Derasary mentioned the membership of the proposed
water resource coalition. References were made to the proposed amendment to the text of the
Plan, as follows: “When water saved via the easiest conservation measures is simply reallocated
to accommodate increasing population growth, it can make it difficult to achieve further cuts
during a future decrease in supply--whether that decrease is a temporary drought emergency or
Page 3 of 4
December 14, 2021
a longer-term impact to supply. If, for instance, climate change reduces available water more
than predicted, or, further investigations into aquifer supply reveal that we are already over-
drawing, then the impact of additional demand would be much greater than anticipated, and
have unwelcome consequences. Therefore, it is crucial to keep in mind that conservation should
not simply be reallocation of saved water, but also include building excess capacity into the
system now for resiliency in an uncertain future. A thoughtful Drought Emergency Plan is also a
critical component of a sustainable water conservation program. The City intends to continue to
support efforts to refine information about our supply, and to be conscientious conservers--
keeping an awareness of the pitfalls of demand hardening and the benefits of maintaining excess
capacity in building long term system resilience.”
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to approve the Water Conservation Plan
Update 2021 with amendments. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and
Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Water Conservation and Drought Management Board Bylaws Amendments:
Mayor Niehaus removed this item from the agenda.
Development Agreement for 398 Kane Creek Blvd:
Mayor Niehaus removed this item from the agenda.
Proposed Ordinance 2021 -15: Zoning Map Amendment for 398 Kane Creek Blvd:
Mayor Niehaus removed this item from the agenda.
Accessory Dwelling Units Code Amendments—Approved
Discussion: Assistant Planner Shurtleff described the three types of Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) subject to the Proposed Ordinance 2021-16: An Ordinance Amending the Text of the
Moab Municipal Code (MMC) to Revise Section 17.70 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and
Section 17.06.020 Definitions. He also presented information about the active employment
household requirement, and permitting and approval compliance concerns. Shurtleff answered
questions from Council regarding the 90-day minimum lease requirement.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Duncan moved to approve Ordinance 2021-16: An
Ordinance Amending the Text of the Moab Municipal Code (MMC) to Allow ADUs in all
Residential Zone Districts and to Revise Section 17.70 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and
Section 17.06.020 Definitions. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4-1 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-
Newton voting aye and Councilmember Derasary voting nay.
New Business:
Award of Water Department Vacuum Trailer Purchase:
Mayor Niehaus removed this item from the agenda.
Film Commission Transfer to Grand County—Approved
Discussion: Parks, Recreation and Trails Director McVay stated the County would pass its
budget the following week and recommended approval pending the County’s approved budget.
Councilmember Guzman-Newton stated that, in the future, affected staff should be apprised
immediately of pending negotiations.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to terminate the Interlocal Agreement for
the Provision of the Formation of a Film Commission by and Between Grand County and the
City of Moab (Resolution #20-2007) pending approval of Grand County’s 2022 Budget and
Page 4 of 4
December 14, 2021
to approve Resolution #37-2021: A resolution of the Governing Body Declaring City Property
as Surplus. Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Amendment—Approved
Discussion: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd expressed her appreciation for Mr. Billingsley’s
summary of the proposed budget amendment. Councilmember Derasary stated her preference
for funding replacement of the Kane Creek pedestrian bridge over the 400 East bridge, which
had previously-committed City funding.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to approve Resolution 35-2021: A
Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary,
Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Community Vision and Strategic Action Plan Contract—Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to award the Community Vision and
Strategic Action Plan contract to Future iQ, in an amount not to exceed $80,000.
Councilmember Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Canvass of the City of Moab General Election:
Discussion: Councilmember Jones asked whether Utah County would release the cast vote
record. Recorder Johnson stated the Lieutenant Governor’s office prohibits that release.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to accept the election result from
the City of Moab General Election recount held on December 7, 2021. Councilmember Guzman-
Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with Councilmembers Jones,
Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
2022 Meeting Schedule—Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the 2022 City Council
Meeting Schedule. Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye
with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting
aye.
2022 Holiday Schedule—Approved
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the City of Moab 2022
Holiday Schedule. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 aye with
Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan and Guzman-Newton voting aye.
Approval of Bills:
Motion and vote: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the bills against the City
of Moab in the amount of $1,086,658.77. Councilmember Jones seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Duncan, Guzman-Newton, Derasary, and
Knuteson-Boyd voting aye.
Adjournment: Councilmember Jones moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember
Derasary seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and Mayor Niehaus adjourned
the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder
Jul 7, 2020
Walnut Lane Priorities: Site Plan
The goal of this spreadsheet is to identify the Council's priorities regarding how the land is utilized for this project.
Rani Derasary Mike Duncan Karen Guzman-Newton Kalen Jones Tawny Knuteson-Boyd Emily Niehaus Average
Housing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 High Priority = 3
Parking 2 2 2 1 1 2 1.67 Medium Priority = 2
Open Space 1 1 1 2 3 1 1.50 Low Priority = 1
Housing = Prioritizing space for housing units over parking and open space; EITHER: lower density and fewer overall units (less height, larger building footprints) OR higher density and overall more
units (more building footprint, and possibly more height and/or mass)
Parking = Prioritizing adequate parking over housing units and open space; units would likely be lower in density and/or taller in height to accommodate for adequate parking
Open space = Prioritizing open space (and likely community amenities) over housing units and parking; units must either be fewer (requiring less parking) and/or taller in height
Density considerations: Higher density leads to increased affordability and a better pro forma over time, but it also requires more parking spaces. Lower density requires less parking but makes each
unit more expensive to build. As the Council considers proceeding with R-4 vs. PAD, it should consider the tradeoffs between density and parking.
Comments:
Mayor Niehaus - Because we are so close to a park, I've weighted parking over open space. I think Wlnut Lane is a narrow street and parking will be needed. Perhaps we can do a parking lot instead of a line of
parking with the hope that the lot becomes a garden once we eliminate the use of personal vehicles??
CM KJ
Regarding parking, but possibly other elements of PAD. If there are requirements of PAD that just don't make sense now that the team has looked critically at applying it, perhaps common
sense amendments could get prioritized?
Jul 7, 2020
CM KJ
Hotspot Downtown focus group, in considering parking stalls, have discussed that having some provision for compact car stalls may help utilize streets, as well as private lots, more efficiently.
Might help here too?
Rani Derasary - I'm just going to recap on those things I mentioned at our June 23 meeting that I'd hoped to have more time to get insight on/discuss come Thursday. I'm gonna put them all on this page
regardless of whether they technically fall on the planning or funding end for simplicity's sake. I realize they are more than we will likely have time for Thursday and that others will have items too, so I'm sending
them in advance last that help pick what seems most important; perhaps there are some question here that are more interesting to Karen, Kalen and to touch on. I'll list one question per cell below in case that
makes it easier to read:
- when it comes to the 6 priority items in planning & funding, do we have any insight from what's most important to current residents?
- just curious - if those of you on the Team could choose your ideal funding and planning priority ranking, what would it be and why? (this exercise helps me tap into your insight)
- help me think through what ranking might produce the best deal over time for the City and residents in terms of operations and maintenance? (I ask because it seems the City for years has been trying to
mitigate escalating O&M costs from projects started years ago and I'm just trying to get out ahead of that to make the best choices now that prepare us to plan for those costs on this project over time/minimize
those costs as much as possible - and understand if minimizing later means more $ up front now.)
- any way to get the best of everything you presented us? Ha ha, I'm guessing that would mean we need 3x our budget, but thought it wouldn't hurt to ask :). Like Karen I loved everything your Team brought to
us as options, so choosing is hard!
- outside of funding unknowns that it may contribute to, what other impacts do we expect COVID-19 to have on this project? I take it it will morph some of the creative public engagement methods we were
hoping for - or? Are there certain amenities/open space options or even other design/layout issues you think need to be prioritized differntly given physical distancing and handwashing will likey have greater
importance for everyone in years to come? I don't know what if any research is being done on HVAC and COVID. Are there any better choices there that minimize air transfer/aerosols etc between housing
units? (I know little about HVAC, so didn't know if individual units, eg, had any danger of circulating the same air back and forth.) I'm assuming access to fresh air is key and if balconies maybe some thinking
goes into how close they are and how they're buffered?
Karen
There were many elements presented by Dan that seemed feasible economically. Not sure the cert.process is necessary. Parking in higher density housing to date, appears to be used to
capacity and then some.
I would prefer to have residential input on what type of public spaces they would feel ownership using/taking care of. If it was up to me it would be Low-maintance particapatory spaces where
you could sit (or play) on natural features in the shade.
Tawny
First please thank your team for the presentation the other night. I'm a visual learner and it really helped me be able to envision some of the options we have. I really appreciated the visuals for
the outdoor portion of the development and would like in a perfect world to say let's do them all. I know we need to stay in some budgetary and physical space limitations. I especially liked the
community gardens and the open yet covered parking and bike storage areas.
I liked also the sustainable ideas that were presented, to my untrained eye some of them are different construction methods and don't add much to the cost, while some will add to the initial cost
but over time will pay for themselves. I do trust your team has the expertise to determine what is feasible in our budget.
I ranked parking as a 1 and 3 on both open space and housing. Let me explain, (I was under the impression it was acceptable to rank 2 of those items equally, if not open space is a 2). I'm
looking at the quality of life and community feel when I rank those, no one regardless of income wants to feel like they are stacked on top of one another or smashed together so tightly that they
have no breathing room or privacy. Having said that, people have different interpretations of how close is too close, it's pretty much common sense apartments or multi household dwellings are
more dense than single household dwellings.
I did notice in some of the images in the presentation the other night that there were some buildings that had parking under the actual apartments. I like the idea and realize it will add to the
construction costs on the front end. Other than that I don't have the expertise to decide if it's feasible in this instance or not. I do question if it may make it easier to get to the PAD parking
minimum without losing housing density and still providing open or community space. At least for some of the units it may not work for each one. I lived in a couple of apartments with parking
under the units. It didn't really increase the footprint of the structure and they were really nice in both winter and summer. No snow to clean and the cars stay cooler in summer.
There is an emerging way of thinking and I'm seeing it with Arroyo Crossing folks too, that building storage for vehicles is not what we are trying to achieve in "affordable housing"......I get it,
someone has to lead the way. I have a practical side also, some of the folks who will ultimately live in these units do NEED a vehicle to do their jobs. Construction workers often are expected to
supply their own tools and vehicles,maintenance workers, landscapers, so I don't want to go so far that people who need vehicles are pushed out of the option of Walnut Lane if they otherwise
qualify.As central and as convenient as this development is, not everyone works within walking distance. I feel like it's easy sometimes to stereotype folks and decide what's best for them
without full understanding of their situation.
I hope some of this is helpful and gives you an idea of how I look at this. I'm really excited to see this happen, it's been a long road so far and I know there still is some uphill trudging left to do.
Thanks again for the work you've put in and please don't hesitate to reach out if you need anything from me. I will support you in any way you need me to.
Mike D - if there is likely inadequate on-site parking, ensure parking on the street can be made available and sill permit through traffic, even if narrow lanes.
Of course housing takes priority, it's a housing project
Open space - a nice amenity perhaps devoted to the market rate section
Jul 7, 2020
Walnut Lane Priorities: Funding
The goal of this spreadsheet is to identify the Council's priorities regarding how funding is prioritized for this project.
Rani Derasary Mike Duncan Karen Guzman-Newton Kalen Jones Tawny Knuteson-Boyd Emily Niehaus Average
Affordability 2 3 2.5 2 3 3 2.58 High Priority = 3
Sustainability 3 1.5 2.5 3 2 2 2.33 Medium Priority = 2
Amenities 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.08 Low Priority = 1
Affordability = Prioritizing maintaining the highest level of affordability for units over paying more for sustainability or community amenities
Sustainability = Prioritizing sustainable design, construction, and O&M of project over affordable development or providing amenities
Amenities = Prioritizing providing high quality indoor (communal kitchen, remote workspace, fitness equipment, etc.) and/or outdoor (playground equipment, gardens, rec equipment, etc.) amenities
over affordability and sustainability
Sustainability considerations: The design team is already planning on emphasizing sustainability in this project, as highlighted in the presentation to Council. This category represents support from
Council for the design team to, if necessary, spend more on sustainable elements (and potentially sacrifice some overall affordability) in exchange for achieving Net Zero, Living Building Challenge,
etc. However, it is also noted that increased investment in sustainable systems over time passes energy savings to tenants and property owner, as long as sustainable systems implemented are not
complicated for O&M.
More detailed city council comment here?
Mayor Niehaus - In lieu of amenitites, we could offer a family pool pass at a geatly reduced rate (something like $40 per family per year)
Mayor Niehaus - I strongly do NOT think we should go for any kind of building certification (LEED, HERS, or LBC). Instead, I hope to have the team build to LEED/LBC certification standards but not seek out
certification.
Jul 7, 2020
Council
Member Jones I tend to agree on not pursuing certification, unless the costs are outweighed by the communication or scoring benefits with funders
Council
Member Jones
The city is getting into the affordable housing business. I am hoping that someone, Kaitlin, Shik, ?, can sooner than later articulate the business decisions we need to make. Specifically, what is
our target market? Since the city acquired Walnut Lane Arroyo Crossing has become much more real and will presumeably eventually provide many income restricted units, and the county
passed the HDHO and granted entitlements thereunder to most of the alloted 300 lots with primary residency limits. But, buildout of all these will likely take years. I'm disinclined to make the
decision of what mix of affordabiltiy based on the informed hunches of the council. A few years ago housing dialogue frequently mentioned essential workers as a possible market, who despite
city spending on competitive wages and ostensibly moderate income, sometimes not enough for market rate housing. Given that the city is also an employer, if it is investing in housing will
some of it be prioritized for some combination of city/county/education/EMS/health care?
Council
Member Jones I'm curious about the economics of one or more shared guest rooms available at low cost
Rani Derasary - I am filling in numbers on this sheet and next but may take you up on opportunity to change them after our workshop.
Mike D - affordable of course - it's intended to be housing for the town's poorest residents.
Sustainable only where simple and highly reliable. Eg I don't think most residents will maintain individual greywater systems. PV is nice, but the payback period is many years,
Amenties suited for families with kids are great - particularly playgrounds. Maybe horseshoe or volleyball or basketball court. Not fitness center.
Total Project Cost Estimate
PAD - Phasing Estimate Building Site
Phase Type Count SqFt Total Sq Ft Parking Cost Sq Ft Cost Sq Ft $$ Cost
1 Duplex, 2BR 8 672 5,376 16 215.11$ 97.27$ 1,679,337.60$
2 Apt, 1 12 500 6,000 12 160.00$ 58.36$ 1,310,170.98$
Apt, 2 12 750 9,000 18 160.00$ 58.36$ 1,965,256.47$
Storage Units 10 80 800 20.00$ -$ 16,000.00$
3 Apt, 1 16 500 8,000 16 160.00$ 58.36$ 1,746,894.64$
Apt, 2 14 750 10,500 21 160.00$ 58.36$ 2,292,799.22$
Duplex, 2 8 675 5,400 16 170.00$ 58.36$ 1,233,153.88$
Townhome, 3 10 1,200 12,000 20 170.00$ 58.36$ 2,740,341.96$
Storage Units 40 80 3,200 20.00$ -$ 64,000.00$
Total 80 60,276 119 13,047,954.77$
Soft Costs 5%652,397.74$
Contingency 3%391,438.64$
Walnut Ln Upgrade 300,000.00$
Infrastructure Upgrades (Phase 2)*1,200,000.00$
Land 1,815,000.00$
Total 17,406,791.15$
217,584.89$ Per Unit
288.78$ Per Sqft
* The majority of major infrastructure upgrades will take place during phase 2, including water, sewer, and electrical upgrades
for phases 2-3. This cost is an estimate only based on anticipated upgrades from utility providers. Site per sqft costs in phases 2-
3 are estimates that include infrastructure upgrades for the units, including foundations, parking, water and sewer connections,
Walnut Lane Pro Forma - 01-05-22
Projected Revenue
PAD Development - 15 Yr Bond and Construction Loan (Phased Income)
Phase Two Phase Three
2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%2.75%
Current Market HUD FMR Rent/MTH # Units Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
$825.00 $615 417$ 2 Apartments, 1 Bed -$ -$ 10,008$ 10,283$ 10,566$ 10,857$ 11,155$ 11,462$ 11,777$ 12,101$ 12,434$ 12,776$ 13,127$ 13,488$ 13,859$ 14,240$ 14,632$ 15,034$ 15,447$ 15,872$
$1,418.75 $810 543$ 8 Modular, 2 Bed -$ 52,128$ 53,562$ 55,034$ 56,548$ 58,103$ 59,701$ 61,343$ 63,030$ 64,763$ 66,544$ 68,374$ 70,254$ 72,186$ 74,171$ 76,211$ 78,307$ 80,460$ 82,673$ 84,946$
695$ 5 Apartments, 1 Bed -$ -$ 41,700$ 42,847$ 44,025$ 45,236$ 46,480$ 47,758$ 49,071$ 50,421$ 51,807$ 53,232$ 54,696$ 56,200$ 57,745$ 59,333$ 60,965$ 62,642$ 64,364$ 66,134$
833$ 5 Apartments, 2 Bed -$ -$ 49,980$ 51,354$ 52,767$ 54,218$ 55,709$ 57,241$ 58,815$ 60,432$ 62,094$ 63,802$ 65,556$ 67,359$ 69,211$ 71,115$ 73,070$ 75,080$ 77,145$ 79,266$
825$ 5 Apartments, 1 Bed -$ -$ 49,500$ 50,861$ 52,260$ 53,697$ 55,174$ 56,691$ 58,250$ 59,852$ 61,498$ 63,189$ 64,927$ 66,712$ 68,547$ 70,432$ 72,369$ 74,359$ 76,404$ 78,505$
1,135$ 3 Apartments, 2 Bed -$ -$ 40,860$ 41,984$ 43,138$ 44,325$ 45,543$ 46,796$ 48,083$ 49,405$ 50,764$ 52,160$ 53,594$ 55,068$ 56,582$ 58,138$ 59,737$ 61,380$ 63,068$ 64,802$
1,135$ 0 Modular, 2 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
825$ 13 Apartments, 1 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ 128,700$ 132,239$ 135,876$ 139,612$ 143,452$ 147,397$ 151,450$ 155,615$ 159,894$ 164,291$ 168,809$ 173,452$ 178,222$ 183,123$ 188,159$ 193,333$
1,200$ 15 Apartments, 2 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ 216,000$ 221,940$ 228,043$ 234,315$ 240,758$ 247,379$ 254,182$ 261,172$ 268,354$ 275,734$ 283,317$ 291,108$ 299,113$ 307,339$ 315,791$ 324,475$
1,408$ 0 Modular, 2 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
1,627$ 0 Modular, 3 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
900$ 3 Apartments, 1 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ 32,400$ 33,291$ 34,207$ 35,147$ 36,114$ 37,107$ 38,127$ 39,176$ 40,253$ 41,360$ 42,497$ 43,666$ 44,867$ 46,101$ 47,369$ 48,671$
1,400$ 3 Apartments, 2 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,400$ 51,786$ 53,210$ 54,673$ 56,177$ 57,722$ 59,309$ 60,940$ 62,616$ 64,338$ 66,107$ 67,925$ 69,793$ 71,712$ 73,685$ 75,711$
1,600$ 8 Modular, 2 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ 153,600$ 157,824$ 162,164$ 166,624$ 171,206$ 175,914$ 180,752$ 185,722$ 190,830$ 196,077$ 201,470$ 207,010$ 212,703$ 218,552$ 224,562$ 230,738$
2,100$ 10 Modular, 3 Bed -$ -$ -$ -$ 252,000$ 258,930$ 266,051$ 273,367$ 280,885$ 288,609$ 296,546$ 304,701$ 313,080$ 321,690$ 330,536$ 339,626$ 348,966$ 358,562$ 368,423$ 378,554$
80 130,800$ 93,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Gross Income 130,800$ 145,788$ 245,610$ 252,364$ 1,092,404$ 1,122,445$ 1,153,312$ 1,185,028$ 1,217,616$ 1,251,101$ 1,285,506$ 1,320,858$ 1,357,181$ 1,394,504$ 1,432,853$ 1,472,256$ 1,512,743$ 1,554,343$ 1,597,088$ 1,641,008$
7.00%Vacancy 9,156$ 10,205$ 17,193$ 17,665$ 76,468$ 78,571$ 80,732$ 82,952$ 85,233$ 87,577$ 89,985$ 92,460$ 95,003$ 97,615$ 100,300$ 103,058$ 105,892$ 108,804$ 111,796$ 114,871$
Effective Gross Rent 121,644$ 135,583$ 228,417$ 234,698$ 1,015,936$ 1,043,874$ 1,072,580$ 1,102,076$ 1,132,383$ 1,163,524$ 1,195,521$ 1,228,398$ 1,262,179$ 1,296,888$ 1,332,553$ 1,369,198$ 1,406,851$ 1,445,539$ 1,485,292$ 1,526,137$
10.00%Operating Expense 13,080$ 13,440$ 13,809$ 14,189$ 14,579$ 14,980$ 15,392$ 15,815$ 16,250$ 16,697$ 17,156$ 17,628$ 18,113$ 18,611$ 19,123$ 19,649$ 20,189$ 20,744$ 21,315$ 21,901$
3.00%Cap Reserve 3,924$ 4,374$ 7,368$ 7,571$ 32,772$ 33,673$ 34,599$ 35,551$ 36,528$ 37,533$ 38,565$ 39,626$ 40,715$ 41,835$ 42,986$ 44,168$ 45,382$ 46,630$ 47,913$ 49,230$
10.00%Management 13,080$ 14,579$ 24,561$ 25,236$ 109,240$ 112,244$ 115,331$ 118,503$ 121,762$ 125,110$ 128,551$ 132,086$ 135,718$ 139,450$ 143,285$ 147,226$ 151,274$ 155,434$ 159,709$ 164,101$
Net Operating Income 91,560$ 103,191$ 182,678$ 187,702$ 859,344$ 882,976$ 907,258$ 932,207$ 957,843$ 984,184$ 1,011,249$ 1,039,058$ 1,067,632$ 1,096,992$ 1,127,159$ 1,158,156$ 1,190,005$ 1,222,730$ 1,256,356$ 1,290,905$
75%76%80%80%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%85%
5 Yr (968,574)$ Debt Service (412,245)$ (412,245)$ (412,245)$ (412,245)$ (744,070)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$ (871,637)$
10 Yr (662,290)$ Debt Coverage Ratio 0.22 0.25 0.44 0.46 1.15 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.26 1.29 1.33 1.37 1.40 1.44 1.48
20 Yr 2,081,585$ Cash Flow (320,685)$ (309,054)$ (229,566)$ (224,543)$ 115,274$ 11,339$ 35,621$ 60,571$ 86,206$ 112,547$ 139,612$ 167,421$ 195,995$ 225,355$ 255,523$ 286,519$ 318,369$ 351,094$ 384,719$ 419,269$
STRB + CL Refinanced, Total Debt Service
Total Units 80
PAD Units 56 70%TRUE
1BR 2BR 3BR
Extremely Low-Income*10 417$ 543$ 711$
Very Low-Income (50% AMI)10 695$ 833$ 963$ COST TO COMPLETION 17,406,791$
Low-Income (80% AMI)8 1,112$ 1,135$ 1,541$
Moderate-Income (100% AMI)28 1,173$ 1,408$ 1,627$ REAL PROPERTY LEASE AMOUNT 1,815,000$
Market Rate 24 850$ $1300-1500 1,950$ LOAN TO COST 10%
80 AMORTIZATION YEARS:20
AVG COUPON:3.25%
DEBT Service 124,834$
Unit Typologies Proposed Modeled
Apartments, 1 Bed 28 28 SALES TAX REVENUE BOND AMOUNT 6,500,000$
Apartments, 2 Bed 26 26 LOAN TO COST 37%
Modular, 2 Bed 16 16 AMORTIZATION YEARS:20
Modular, 3 Bed 10 10 AVG COUPON:2.38%
80 80 DEBT Service 412,245$
CONSTRUCTION LOAN AMOUNT *8,295,639$
LOAN TO COST 48%
AMORTIZATION YEARS:35
INTEREST RATE ON CONSTRUCTION LOAN:3.01%
DEBT Service 383,665$
PERMANENT LOAN AMOUNT *4,977,383$
LOAN TO COST 60%
AMORTIZATION YEARS:20
INTEREST RATE ON CONSTRUCTION LOAN:3.00%
DEBT Service 334,558$
TOTAL ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (RPL, STRB, PL)871,637$
WAHO FUND**796,152$
Cash Equity Need*0$
* Construction Loan and final cash equity need are subject to change and are included for estimate purposes only.
**WAHO fund currently has approx. $1.4MM total, which could be used as additional equity to the project.
Walnut Lane - Moab UT - Phasing Estimate
MR
Phase One
PAD RENT
ELI
VLI
LI
MI
STRB Only
Walnut Lane Pro Forma - 01-05-22
Moab City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Title: Walnut Lane Overview & Options Forward
Disposition: Discussion and possible action
Staff Presenter: Kaitlin Myers, Senior Projects Manager
Attachments:
• Exhibit A: Walnut Lane Master Planning Documents from Architectural Squared
• Exhibit B: Council Prioritization for Walnut Lane Apartments
• Exhibit C: Walnut Lane Pro Forma
Possible Motion(s):
“I motion to return the Sales Tax Revenue Bond in the amount of $6,500,000 back to Zions Public Finance.”
“I motion to recommend staff to proceed with Option [1 or 2] to continue with the Walnut Lane Apartments
redevelopment project.”
Background/Summary:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council an overview of the Walnut Lane Apartments
redevelopment, including the project’s history, current status, and options to proceed forward. Much of the
project background is provided to give additional context to the new Councilmembers and Mayor to aid
their decision-making process.
Project Background
Project Information
• Location: 250 & 280 Walnut Lane; the property is divided into two parcels
• Size: 2.91 acres
• Zoning: R-4, with PAD approval
• Use: Manufactured home park
o 37 trailers on site at time of purchase
o 26 occupied trailers currently; 8 demolished, 3 vacant and slated for demolition
• Proposed use: 80 units, composed of apartments, duplexes, and townhomes
Project Timeline
The following project timeline primarily focuses on redevelopment efforts. Staff will provide additional
information about property management, financing, and indieDwell later in the document.
• October 2018: City purchases Walnut Lane trailer park.
• September 2019: Kaitlin Myers was hired to replace Tracy Dutson as Senior Projects Manager.
• January 2020: Property was rezoned from split zone R-2 and R-4 to a contiguous R-4 zoning; the
property was previously zoned R-2 in the northern half of the property.
• March 2020: The City hired Architectural Squared (A^2) to provide master planning services. A^2
worked with City staff to develop a cohesive redevelopment plan for the project, including developing
a master plan, phasing plan, economic pro forma, proposed redevelopment timeline, schematic
renderings, and public engagement materials. We hosted a neighborhood meeting with current
tenants and neighbors to discuss architectural style and materials and site amenity preferences.
Materials created with A^2 are provided in Exhibit A.
• May 2020: The City terminated its contract with Moab Property Management to provide property
management services to the site. Since this date, City staff has managed the property internally. Staff
will provide further commentary on property management later in this document and is grateful for the
immense amount of work and collaboration provided by others on staff to manage the property.
• July 2020: Council participated in a prioritization exercise for the redevelopment, which staff has
referenced over time to ensure actions are meeting Council goals (Exhibit B). In general, the Council
prioritized housing over open space and parking for site plan composition, indicating the desire to
maximize density as much as possible to provide ample units to current tenants and future Moab
residents and to ensure financial feasibility. Council also indicated the funding priorities for the project
should be focused on maintaining affordability and sustainability over providing site amenities.
• November 2020: The City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) for manufactured/modular home units.
Initially, the IFB was issued because A^2 and staff projected it would take at least two years to
redevelop the site, and staff had a better understanding of the extremely poor living conditions at the
site. The Council approved issuance of the IFB with the intention to evaluate opportunities to either
purchase manufactured units as a temporary, emergency measure to provide safe units or to
purchase modular units to initiate the first phase of the redevelopment.
• December 2020: Council approves a contract with indieDwell in the amount of $1,080,300 to develop
four duplex buildings, as proposed for phase one of the redevelopment.
• Dec 2020 – Feb 2021: Staff signs contracts with SET Engineering, Rocky Mountain Power, Trautner,
and DHM Design to begin final plan documents for phase one. SET Engineering and DHM Design
were on the A^2 master planning project team.
• February 2021: Council approved the preliminary PAD site plan application for the Walnut Lane
Apartments, which will provide 80 units of affordable, sustainable multifamily housing, including 66
income-restricted units.
• April 2021: The City acquires a $6.5MM Sales Tax Revenue Bond (STRB) from Zions Public Finance
to fund the first two phases of redevelopment.
• May 2021: indieDwell notifies the City they cannot meet the Performance Bond requirement in the
Contract for Services.
• July 1, 2021: City sends Notice to Cure to indieDwell.
• September 2, 2021: The City determines indieDwell did not cure, and the Contract for Services
agreement is terminated.
• November 2021: The City receives pre-award notification to receive $613,061 in ARPA Local
Assistance Matching Grant funding to provide gap financing for phase one of the project.
Property Management
As stated above, the City has handled property management services internally since May 2020. This
effort was deemed as necessary, but it has required a significant time and financial commitment from City
staff, including numerous representatives from Planning, Public Works, Engineering, and Finance
Departments. Staff is grateful to this team because they have gone above and beyond their job
descriptions to perform “other work as necessary” to ensure Walnut Lane tenants are served adequately.
All the manufactured units at Walnut Lane were built before 1976, meaning they are not built to a HUD-
approved standard and must eventually be demolished. Staff reasonably believes most of the units have
been located at the site since the park was developed in the 1950s, and they have weathered decades of
deferred maintenance.
Staff has had to renovate two vacant trailers onsite to relocate two households living in inadequate units
elsewhere at the park. Public Works staff is working at the site each week, and their most common tasks
include fixing leaking roofs and plumbing systems, electrical systems, and floors; weatherizing swamp
coolers and furnaces; and cleaning up debris around the site. Additionally, staff has coordinated the
removal of numerous sickly trees on site, the demolition of seven vacant and unsafe units, and the
relocation of two trailers to other spaces in the site in preparation of phase one. Staff has a contract in
place to demolish an additional three vacant trailers.
On the tenant relations side, staff has signed new lease agreements with tenants and has continuously
worked through the pandemic to ensure tenants are current on their rent, but this has been a struggle for
a few households. Approximately half of the tenants received some form of rent relief funding early in the
pandemic.
Though there is still a significant amount of work to continue to improve the site, but the City has made
significant progress to stabilize units and build trust with tenants.
indieDwell Contract
As stated in the Project Timeline, the City signed a Contract for Services with indieDwell, a modular
developer based out of Pueblo, Colorado, on December 22, 2020. indieDwell was the bid selected from
the IFB process because they were the highest ranked bidder by the IFB Selection Committee, the
Committee and Council agreed proceeding with modular units was a more fiscally and ethically
responsible decision than temporary manufactured units, and indieDwell expressed multiple times their
confident ability to maintain the proposed price and timeline throughout the bid review process.
On January 15, 2021, Sommar Johnson asked indieDwell representatives to send their Proof of
Insurance and Performance Bond (per the contract, they were technically required to submit an
Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILOC) to comply with the Performance Bond clause), as required upon
signing the contract; this request was made in response to indieDwell submitting their first invoice for
payment, which was due after contract signing. indieDwell promptly sent Proof of Insurance but said they
needed time to acquire the ILOC.
Over the next four months, indieDwell attempted and failed to meet the Performance Bond requirement,
telling staff they were exploring avenues, and when said avenues fell through, they were on to the next
attempt. In the second week of May, indieDwell’s Project Manager notified Myers and Carly Castle that
indieDwell could not meet the Performance Bond requirement and needed help researching alternatives
to move forward. They were also behind their contractual Schedule of Performance and expressed to
staff they could no longer do the project at the agreed upon price. In fact, General Manager Ron Francis
told staff, even if they could bond, he could not recommend to his board to proceed at the Agreement
Sum price because it was not financially feasible for the company. Concurrently, indieDwell staff formally
submitted a building permit application on May 19, 2021.
After several discussions with indieDwell, internal staff, and Council, the City determined indieDwell was
out of compliance with the contract and needed to issue a Notice to Cure. Attorney Laurie Simonson
issued the Notice on July 1, 2021, giving indieDwell thirty (30) days to cure the following items:
1. They did not provide the Irrevocable Letter of Credit
2. They did not comply with the Schedule of Performance
3. They indicated they cannot perform the Agreement for the Agreement Sum
To cure, indieDwell was required to perform the following within the established timeframe:
1. Deliver the Irrevocable Letter of Credit
2. Provide an updated Schedule of Performance for the remaining Scope of Work
3. Provide written assurance they could perform the Agreement for the Agreement Sum
indieDwell’s counsel responded on July 29, 2021. The City Attorney, City Staff, and Council determined
they did not cure, and Simonson told indieDwell’s counsel on September 2, 2021, per Section 7.2 of the
contract between the City and indieDwell, the contract had expired due to default of the contractor.
DN
DN
BI
K
E
B
A
R
N
2 STORY
APARTMENT
BUILDING
(16) UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
(1
0
)
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
3 STORY APARTMENT
BUILDING
(2) MARKET RATE
UNITS + (12) UNITS +
COMMUNITY LAUNDRY (1
0
)
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
(2) MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK
DUPLEX
(2)MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK
DUPLEX
(1) MARKET
RATE UNIT+
(1) UNIT
STACK
DUPLEX
(2) UNITS
STACK
3 BED
(1) MARKET
RATE UNIT +
(1) UNIT
STACK 3 BED
(2) MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK 3
BED
(2) UNITS
STACK
DUPLEX
(2) UNITS
STACK
3 BED
(2) MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK 3
BED
COMMUNITY
OUTDOOR SPACE
COMMUNITY
OUTDOOR SPACE
(28) NEW
PARKING
SPACES3 STORY
APARTMENT
BUILDING
(24) UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
(20) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
STACK
DUPLEX
STACK
DUPLEX
STACK
DUPLEX
STACK
DUPLEX
11' ACCESS EASEMENT
ADJACENT
ZONING -R-4
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
Z
O
N
I
N
G
-
R-4
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
Z
O
N
I
N
G
-
R-4
ADJACENT ZONING -R-2
(13) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
(17) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
(27) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
(15) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
(12) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
REVISIONS:
PO BOX 1153
MOAB, UTAH 84532
p 512-656-1745
courtneykizer@gmail.com
c
c
m
k
SHEET NUMBER
2
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
1/
1
8
/
2
0
2
1
1
:
2
1
:
5
1
P
M
A002
SITE PLAN
WA
L
N
U
T
L
A
N
E
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
W
A
L
N
U
T
L
A
N
E
MO
A
B
,
U
T
8
4
5
3
2
2021 01 18 PHASING PLAN
TRUE
1" = 20'-0"2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
DN DN DN
(20) PARKING
SPACES
STACK
DUPLEX
STACK
DUPLEX
STACK
DUPLEX
STACK
DUPLEX
14
S
P
A
C
E
S
11' ACCESS EASEMENT
6
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
S
P
A
C
E
S
ADJACENT
ZONING -R-4
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
Z
O
N
I
N
G
-
R-4
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
Z
O
N
I
N
G
-
R-4
ADJACENT ZONING -R-2
14
S
P
A
C
E
S
14
S
P
A
C
E
S
(28) NEW
PARKING
SPACES
3 STORY
APARTMENT
BUILDING
(24) UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
BI
K
E
B
A
R
N
2 STORY
APARTMENT
BUILDING
(16) UNITS
10 STORAGE UNITS
TRASH
10 STORAGE UNITS
(1
0
)
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
3 STORY APARTMENT
BUILDING
(2) MARKET RATE
UNITS + (12) UNITS +
COMMUNITY LAUNDRY
(1
0
)
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
6
S
P
A
C
E
S
7
S
P
A
C
E
S
7
S
P
A
C
E
S
(82) PARKING
SPACES
(2) MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK
DUPLEX
(2)MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK
DUPLEX
(1) MARKET
RATE UNIT+
(1) UNIT
STACK
DUPLEX
5
S
P
A
C
E
S
7
S
P
A
C
E
S
5
S
P
A
C
E
S
8
S
P
A
C
E
S
8 SPACES
9 SPACES 9 SPACES
11
S
P
A
C
E
S
(2) UNITS
STACK
3 BED
(1) MARKET
RATE UNIT +
(1) UNIT
STACK 3 BED
(2) MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK 3
BED
(2) UNITS
STACK
DUPLEX
(2) UNITS
STACK
3 BED
(2) MARKET
RATE UNITS
STACK 3
BED
COMMUNITY
OUTDOOR SPACE
COMMUNITY
OUTDOOR
SPACE
REVISIONS:
PO BOX 1153
MOAB, UTAH 84532
p 512-656-1745
courtneykizer@gmail.com
c
c
m
k
SHEET NUMBER
2
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
1/
1
8
/
2
0
2
1
1
:
2
1
:
5
3
P
M
A100
PHASING
PLAN
WA
L
N
U
T
L
A
N
E
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
W
A
L
N
U
T
L
A
N
E
MO
A
B
,
U
T
8
4
5
3
2
2021 01 18 PHASING PLAN
1" = 40'-0"1 Phase 1
1" = 40'-0"2 Phase 2
1" = 40'-0"3 Phase 3
USE BREAKDOWN
Use Name Area Acres
Area
Percent Phase
BUILDINGS APARTMENT 6822 SF 0.16 SF 5% 2
BUILDINGS APARTMENT 6835 SF 0.16 SF 5% 3
BUILDINGS APARTMENT 5522 SF 0.13 SF 4% 3
BUILDINGS MODULAR 2 BED 10827 SF 0.25 SF 8% 1 & 3
BUILDINGS MODULAR 3 BED 7561 SF 0.17 SF 6% 3
BUILDINGS 37567 SF 0.86 SF 29%
CIRCULATION VEHICULAR CIRCULATION 54757 SF 1.26 SF 43% 1, 2 & 3
CIRCULATION 54757 SF 1.26 SF 43%
OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 4851 SF 0.11 SF 4% 3
OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 6135 SF 0.14 SF 5% 3
OPEN SPACE PERIMETER OPEN SPACE
AND DRAINAGE
25319 SF 0.58 SF 20% 1, 2 & 3
OPEN SPACE 36305 SF 0.83 SF 28%
Grand total: 9 128629 SF 2.95 SF 100%
4
_ 6 � �
610;ai'r `-
•
•
1116,
t./. "rt,
•
•
to
-
•
`Y,.. a,)G�a' ..0
41/4
•
....-,^ r, 7.-":!-c.�
•
•
s
L I
•
•
rkt
r
w
1
• 111111
' [ ,A gli -1 a1
S' ' 1+IYA il7:1i3 111 1
Estimated Project Schedule 2020
SFWSSFWSSFWSSFWSSFWSSFWSSF
ENTITLEMENTS & DESIGN
Master Planning
Site Plan
Building Permit
Site Plan Phase 1
CONSTRUCTION** Phase A
Phase 1 - Mod 8 6 Months
Phase 2 - Apartments - 24 21 Months
Phase 3 - Mods 18 13 Months
Phase 3 - Apartments - 30 24 Months
Project Completion
* All dates listed below are intended for estimation purposes only.
20262021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Walnut Lane Preference Survey Results
Overall, the City received positive feedback on the survey and at the in-person public outreach event on
February 4, 2021. Current tenants, neighbors, and community members were engaged in the process, were glad
to see the City was making progress, and supported the general direction the site plan and specific preference
options are going.
This report outlines a summary of the results and comments from respondents and concludes with general
takeaways to move the project forward.
Online Survey
The online survey received 100 responses, with an 81% completion rate. On average, it took respondents
approximately five minutes to complete the survey, and most responses were from residents living in the Moab
community. Specific preferences for Walnut Lane residents are noted throughout this section.
Style and Exterior Materiality of Buildings
Walnut Lane Resident-Specific Feedback
Generally, current tenants preferred more transitional and traditional styles, which is similar to the feedback
provided by residents at the in-person public outreach event.
Architectural Style
• I do not refer any of them it was not an option
• It’s more space am hoping [referring to modern]
• More apartment house and it open for resistance to have a little more storage place and hopefully they
have a yard for kids to play and familys to have cook outs [transitional]
• More home like [traditional]
Materials
• Looks more like something anyone can live in not just snobs [traditional]
• Cause it eye catching it blend with the moab area more updated for the location here its need more
nicer design to stand out more
Community Amenities
The following chart presents overall preferences for amenities at Walnut Lane, with the associated scores
indicating the highest scoring, not the average point value, for each amenity. Open space was the highest
priority, and fitness/sports equipment was the lowest priority.
The average score for each amenity is outlined below, with 1 being the highest and 5 being the lowest.
1. Open space (green space for soccer, gathering, etc.) – 1.99
2. Outdoor dining areas (grills, picnic tables, covered sitting areas) – 2.56
3. Community garden space (raised beds) – 2.97
4. Playground equipment – 3.15
5. Fitness and sports equipment – 4.24
Walnut Lane residents provided various responses to this question; there was not a clear preference here.
Walnut Lane residents generally prioritized picnic tables and picnic shelters in question seven. One resident
preferred a tot lot, two preferred a playground for older children, and one preferred fitness equipment.
February 4, 2021 Public Outreach Event
City staff held an outdoor, socially distanced public outreach event for Walnut Lane residents and neighbors,
who were notified of the event by flyer from 8:00-10:00am and 3:00-5:00pm on Thursday, February 4, 2021.
Approximately ten people attended in the morning and twenty-five people attended in the afternoon (not
including City staff); most attendees were residents, but neighbors from the Park Drive and 200N neighborhood
and several City staff members attended as well. The City collected feedback using a dot preference activity
(green for things they liked, red for things they did not like), which was more qualitative than the online survey.
Many participants noted they did not need very many, if any, red dots and used a lot of green dots on the
various boards, and participants communicated general approval of the direction the City is taking with this
project. Neighbors from the 200N neighborhood were appreciative the City is not going to connect the road to
the project and are instead going to put in a pedestrian connection.
Architectural Preferences
Generally, current tenants seemed most interested in more traditional architectural styles and materials. Several
attendees used dots to indicate specific elements of pictures they did or did not like, including garages (red and
green on this), building colors, windows, and other specific features. Some attendees noted the longevity of
certain materials, disliking wood because it would require more maintenance over time and liking stucco and
stone because they are more of a “Moab style” and would last longer.
Architectural Style
• Traditional – 18 green dots, 4 red dots; red dots were concentrated on one image because people did
not like the color of the building (blue), and a lot of green dots were placed on an image of a house at
Mulberry Grove
• Transitional – 12 green dots, 3 red dots; attendees liked an images with garages and generally stated
they liked transitional because it was similar to traditional
• Modern – 5 green dots, 3 red dots; attendees liked larger modern apartment-style image
Materiality
• Traditional – 26 green dots, 6 red dots; several current tenants gravitated toward one image because it
was larger and included garages, which was more related to architectural style; attendees liked stucco
and manufactured stone materials
• Transitional – 3 green dots, 2 red dots; general dislike for wood siding
• Modern – 6 green dots, 3 red dots; corrugated metal siding received both green and red dots
Community Amenities
Residents were very excited about various community amenity options. Picnic shelters likely got dots over picnic
tables alone because this image included picnic tables, indicating a desire for both. Notably, with the online
survey and in-person feedback, current tenants were not interested in a natural playground, they were more
interested in other playground types. They were interested in the variety of outdoor dining amenities. In a
conversation with some residents, they noted interest in fitness equipment because several of them have high
blood pressure and other health concerns, and many wanted to see a playground for their children.
• Community grill – 9 green dots
• Raised garden beds – 8 dots
• Fitness/sports equipment – 7 dots
• Playground – 7 dots
• Tot lot – 6 dots
• Picnic shelter – 6 dots
• Picnic tables, natural playground, spinner, and freestanding shade shelter - 0 dots
Concluding Thoughts
Online respondents preferred transitional architectural styles and exterior materials and prioritized open space,
community outdoor dining spaces, and a playground. Current tenants and attendees of the in-person event
leaned more toward traditional architectural preferences and materials and all supported an array of amenities.
From these results, staff believes the project should integrate both traditional and transitional styles for the
project and will plan to use more traditional materials that are suitable to Moab’s climate and design palate.
Staff has been working on the designs for the first phase of the redevelopment, which will be more transitional
in design with south-facing shed roofs, and in future phases, the City will plan for the apartments and remaining
duplexes to follow the angular style of traditional and transitional styles.
Staff is incorporating waterwise landscape features around the buildings and parking areas of phase one. The
survey results will help to inform the amenities provided in the two large open spaces in later phases, which will
likely be a combination of community dining amenities and playgrounds for older children.
Generally, staff found the results of the preference survey to be helpful to inform the look and feel of the
Walnut Lane Apartments redevelopment project. The City received feedback from a significant number of
current residents, and generally, respondents expressed support for the direction in which the City is taking the
project. The City will provide more opportunities for feedback as the project progresses and plans to keep
current residents, neighbors, and interested community members involved over time. This survey provided
valuable feedback to the City to inform direction and budget priorities for Walnut Lane.
Architectural Style
Modern Transitional Traditional No Selection
It looks cleaner, neater and seems that it wouldn't
require as much maintenance and it would be easier to
maintain.
flat roofs are dumb, especially when they start to leak. the high
pitched roof are reminiscent of ski communities where snow loads
are a concern. i'm going with the Goldilocks solutions
Because the other two just look like Denver or Portland and
won’t be aesthetically pleasing in 20 years
Not flat and not Gable
It looks clean and nice Looks good! Potentially easier to maintain and more exterior and roofing
material options
none. I don't think the city should try to be
a developer.
Looks nice still feels homey but keeps up with modern trends It's more visually appealing. Transitional
Looks like it will cost the least. The city should not be
involved with building affordable housing because after
all its the tax payers that pay for it and the tax payers
who will pay for upkeep/management from now on.
Would have been better to have a private entity take this
Looks modern without being too square and allows for more
creative shapes/angles.
personal astetic No preference
Idk just fun It seems to represent Moab, not too modern, not too traditional They look better
We want Moab architectural to look alike It has an appealing look To my eye, it calls less attention to itself and blends in better
it fits with a lot of other architecture in town, though I
wish there had been a way to choose Modern AND
transitional, which I think is just as appropriate.
Looks cool! Looks like a home.
Fits Moab's funky style Mix of shapes Arbitrary aesthetic taste, the modern and transitional seem to be
the least in accord with existing housing in Moab. The modern
gives off Hoodoo hilton vibes that already don't seem to
resonate with the nature of the neighborhood well
It's different from so many of the transitional style
(newer) buildings in town, but similar enough that it
won't look out of place.
I think it's a great balance between traditional and modern and
looks the best between the three options
Won’t get dated with time
nice styling, environmentally friendly, looks good Blends manmade and natural materials well, looks great in other
communities I've seen.
Classier
It's more space am hoping. Looks modern and stylish and an opportunity to reuse materials. It is timeless, less likely to look dated.
aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, fits well in the
neighborhood next to senior housing.
This fits best with the neighborhood and new construction
elsewhere in Moab. HOWEVER ‐ whatever is least expensive to
construct would be the #1 choice.
I do not prefer any of them it was not an option
Different I think it fits in with other architecture and the surrounding
landscape best. I also think it makes the most sense in our climate.
Appeals to all ages. Timeless.
Clean lines, new and refreshing More stylish than modern, yet not as stale as traditional Accessibility
Clean looking simple It is a mix of the boxy style and the traditional so it will
compliment the architecture which Moab has now.
It looks better
Trendy Roof slopes are closer to the 40 degrees recommended for solar
panels.
Homey
It's the most pleasing to my eye. More home like
Modern is too stark and Traditional is too busy, so I guess the
Transitional shed roofs are the best as long as the snow or rain
dumps the correct way.
I think these look the funkiest (in a good way) and also might
complement other buildings around town that have this style. Not
a box, and not a cookie‐cutter gable thing. But something a little
different, like Moab!
Modern feel but not too dissimilar to older architecture in
downtown; roof pitches still should work for solar.
Page 1 of 4
Architectural Style
For me it looks a bit like what I call “Moab Funk” which is a
combination of traditional building styles that were typical of
Moab settlers first homes as well as all the weird add ones that
came with the boom and bust of uranium time and is being
I want the people living here to feel proud of the place they call
home. I feel the boxy look is too overused in large high density
housing. The traditional is nice only if done with a lot of craft and
detail, so that is doesn't look like a caricature of a traditional white
american home. The transitional is an interesting and appealing
look that fits in with the style of home being built in Moab lately.
It needs to fit into the aesthetic of the area. Since it is a fairly loud
stye, please use color tones taken from the surrounding land; the
rim, the mountains, the dirt color on the site. Also, consider
incorporating style influenced and with respect to the many living
cultures that the residents belong to. There are people are vast
and rich backgrounds here. Give them something to love.
Casual, clean lines, a little less boxy looking and NOT traditional
It's interesting without being too loud. :) Traditional is boooooring,
modern seems a little loud for Moab's aesthetic (despite what
commercial developers seem to think)
I like the style of using different shapes.
Modern makes it feel as if we are in New York. Traditaional makes
it feel as if we are in a small town in the south. Transitional feels
like a good combination of the two and is what I most commonly
see in tourist towns.
More apartment house and it open for resistance to have a little
more storage place and hopefully they have a yard for kids to play
and familys to have cook outs
I think it fits into the community the best and is the most pleasing
to look at.
Is modern but also has a homie feel.
Page 2 of 4
Exterior Materials
Modern Transitional Traditional No Selection
Looks good! It's welcoming and inviting, without being overly ornate and
cluttered.
No preference just something that holds up and needs little to
no maintenance
less stucco
Less upkeep They all look fine. Emphasis on choosing material should lie in
longevity and sustainability of chosen exteriors. we all seen the
hardi panel just fall off at the MRAC. what's up with that? :/
Can’t beat traditional Whatever is least expensive ‐ both for
initial construction, and especially for long‐
term maintenance ‐ is the best choice.
Visually appealing. Would be nice to see the use of
repurposed / up cycled materials.
warm palate, like the wood Durability and style Transitional
Same answer as before. Needs to be as inexpensive and
easily maintained as possible because the tax payer is
footing the bill.
To match the architectural style More visually appealing. If taxpayer dollars are used (and of course
they will) the cost should be the primary
consideration.
Will match community feel works with transitional houses it looks like a house not an office building Homey
Durable, no maintenance I like the blend of materials I love this style! It's timeless
More maintenance free Like the texture Definitely looks like Moab’s existing home exterior materials.
Reminds me of the hay bale homes.
sustainability Blends well into Moab, Bonita street development uses this style
and I think it looks awesome.
I like incorporating stone (even synthetic stone!) because it
echoes the environment.
I feel like this style will require less upkeep. Same as previous answer. [Looks modern and stylish and an
opportunity to reuse materials.]
Looks more like something anyone can live in not just snobs
It is a sharp, clean look Just picked one; seems like any of these styles could be done in a
low‐profile and tasteful manner, or in a sloppy or tacky manner‐‐if
it's well done and not flashy, I don't have a preference on
Fits the area ‐ stucco
Looks clean and sleek and has good colors. Again, either this or Modern will fit with the town and the
landscape.
I honestly prefer a mix of modern a and traditional that is not
what you show as transitional. Whatever is chosen it should be
extremely durable in our climate. No bare wood
Looks the best Most appropriate for our environment and best suited for
blending to our natural environment.
It looks nicer
Long lasting and modern. :‐)It feels more homey
The mix of fresh new ideas and some rustic materials
that connect to Moab's history with mining and
I think the buildings shoul blend in as much as possible to the
landscape.
Modern, but still feels like a home.
Stucco and wood seem more appropriate for our desert
environment
I feel it will fit with the surrounding new structures best.
Honestly, all of them seem like they could work here!
Simple and easier maintenance
warm, inviting
More eco friendly
Warm wood, cool compliments.
Cause it eye catching it blend with the moab area more updated
for the location here its need more nicer design to stand out more
Lots of options
Beautiful
Page 3 of 4