City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, welcome everybody. It's good to see everybody here this evening. I'm going to call the Moab City Council meeting to order on February 21st 4th, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. And Tommy, would you lead us? I will. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Tonnie. Um, we've got a few missing folks tonight. Colin is not available and Michael is also not available, but Danny is here. If we have any city manager questions, she's happy to respond if you have questions for city manager. She's number two tonight. Well, number one tonight. All right. Any public comments? All right. Go in once. No public comments. We have no department updates. We have two items on our consent agenda. Approval of the minutes from February 10th, 2026 regular city council meeting and the approval of the bills of the city of Moab in the amount of $325,5624. Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion by Caitlyn. Second. Second by Miles. Discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes 4. All right. Next up is Alexi and we will be considering the uh WOOI is what it's called. It's the Utah Wildland Urban Interface Code. We heard a little bit about this I think at our last meeting. Basically what this is is coming to getting us in compliance with state code.

Yes, exactly. Uh so what I'll do is I'll just walk through what like the context for what the WOOI is, the Wildland urban interface, uh what our requirements are, what our choices are, and then I will leave it up to you for discussion or I'll answer questions.

Okay. Okay. So, this is essentially the where kind of our built environment, our homes and businesses and things interact with the more wild landscape surrounding us is the wildland urban interface. And this is where a wildfire could jump to an urban area. Uh this is just an example of what it would look like. Obviously, that's a little different from us. um and that our greener spaces tend to run through our town instead of surround our town. And that's part of why um we're proposing we handle this the way we are given the kinds of risk that we have in Moab. So, I'll get to that. U starting with House Bill 48. Uh this outlines a number of responsibilities. The ones we're most interested in tonight are the ones that city and city residents have. But in order to explain this, I'm going to include a little bit here about what is not on the table tonight. Uh the Department of Natural Resources uh created a map of high-risk properties. That is something that is at the state level. It is separate and it is not something we make a decision on. Uh but people who are in these high-risk properties will have assessments on those properties and there is a fee associated with that which the county would collect um and can also collect their own costs for implementing this requirement from the state and then they also have residents and would adopt and have already adopted the WOOI code and can adopt a map for where that applies. We are doing that tonight. um we are required to adopt the wildland urban interface code um from 2006 that Utah has designated for us. Uh and that's not something we make a decision on. What we do get to decide is where it applies and then from there where it applies informs where it would be enforced.

uh while we were going through this with planning commission and consulting with uh other stakeholders like the fire department rimtorem and uh the county emergency management or manager. Uh we were looking a lot at where we have fire risk and trying to match that to the level of preparation that we have. Uh so some of this is handled again at the state level for high-risk uh properties. uh where we come in as a city is moderate to lowrisk properties and trying to match our level of preparation to those levels of risk. Uh in order to do that we need to know what's in the code. Uh so new construction must use fire rated construction materials according to the code provide water supply and access establish defensible space prior to the occupancy of the building and manage vegetation. the requirements for existing construction are a little different uh in that it would apply to new things like new additions or construction or if a roof was being 25% replaced within a 12-month period. And then there's some other requirements that could come into play for those properties as well like fire arresters on fireplaces or barbecues to manage sparks defensible space and other potential hazardous conditions. So that's what the code would do. And then we then get to look at where the map locations are. I'm going to go through a few different versions of this to let you understand the thought process uh on the recommendation. Uh this is the Utah high-risk wildland urban interface map. This is the map they are currently using for the Moab area. In our consultation with stakeholders locally, this didn't match where we were seeing risk. Uh so this is not a map that we've decided to build off of but this is that map in a larger context of a structural exposure score which was

the recommended guideline for us uh in developing our own map. But again this doesn't really reflect where we've been seeing risk in our own community. It's identifying rockier areas farther out as higher risk and some of the areas closer to town and next to the Slooh's as lower risk. Uh, and that doesn't match with what Rim to Rim put into our uh, sorry, it's delayed. I might have to stop sharing and try sharing. Oh, I'm kicked out of the meeting now. Yeah. Okay. I was like, why?

I will have you join So we have uh the map that you have seen previously from rimtore rim which was in our community wildfire preparedness plan.

Thanks

technology. Yeah, minor delay. Okay, so this might look familiar. Um, this is what was in our preparedness plan. So, it does not align with what we were seeing in some of the state maps. Again, we're seeing more risk around the slooh and around the the creeks. And that also aligns with what we were seeing in historic fire. Uh so this was a map put together by our GIS specialist Nick of where we have been seeing fires historically. Uh again slooh creeks areas with vegetation that are next to water in particular seem to be at risk and that wasn't matching up with the maps that we were seeing. Uh so uh the state gave us this requirement to adopt the code and um the deadline was at the end of last year. So, we're trying to move this through now. And the recommendation based on consulting with the fire department and rimtore and um our city attorney and county management was that we identif we don't identify properties for the application of this particular code. It doesn't seem to match up with the kinds of risk that we're seeing. And it's possible that we can look at other mitigation measures for what we're seeing. The code itself is designed more towards like a forested area that you might find in like a canyon in the mountains as opposed to the kind of fire risk that we're seeing um running through town on the creeks. Uh that said, there are other options. You know, we talked about um having different tools for different levels of risk. In addition to that, there is possibility that the code from 2006 will be updated. that can change and they even recommend that we update our map every three years and we can do that more often. So if we re-evaluate in further discussions with our stakeholders, we can add properties

to this map. But at this time it felt like that this code would it would be premature to apply it to properties here and it might be excessively burdensome to do it on this timeline. So that's the recommendation from staff and then to run you through where this has been. Uh this started in March with the signing of HB48. From there we went through the process to adopt our uh community wildfire preparedness plan which was part of our preparedness and separate from HB48. From there we started consulting with stakeholders. It went to the planning commission uh earlier this month. They recommended approval of the map with no properties identified and the 2006 code. And tonight it's before you to consider this as well. So, I'd be happy to answer questions.

Questions for Lexi. All right. Motion.

I think um the important point here is, you know, I I I think the state, you know, they they don't know all the communities in town and so they it's just like this is what we think, but I think they really want communities to develop their own maps that match what what we need. So it seems like it's a good way to go at this point so that we can develop a road map down the road. Yeah, I was privy to the planning or the P&Z meetings and it was discussed at length and I think that was kind of the decision was the state want like we we should tailor our wildfire preparedness to our community rather than letting the state apply these sweeping um these sweeping restrictions that could be quite cost prohibitive to some of the home homeowners living in that area. Um, I think it makes a lot of sense. Our our wildfire risk and the type of like wooi and urban interface that we have is very different from something you'd get in like a pine forest. So, it makes a lot of sense to do our own thing.

All right. I'll I'll move to approve city ordinance 2026-03, an ordinance enacting section 15.08.011 under title 15 chapter 15.08 08 that will call to adopt the 2006 edition of the Utah wildland urban interface code. Motion by Jason. Second. Second. Second. Second by Tony. Discussion. Jason. No. Thank you for doing this. Tonnie. No. Anybody else? Oh, go ahead. Sorry. I just said thank you. Oh, anybody else? All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes for Z. Thanks, Alexi.

Yeah. Thanks, Alexi. Thanks. Uh, next we have item 5.2. two, consideration of phase one development agreement for 57 West Cane Creek Boulevard, parcel 010001- 02000 between Amasabac Apartments LLC in the city of Moab. And I see um yeah,

Amanda is here. Thank you. Uh if we have any questions for her. But basically, this is a development agreement for that. We we already have a development agreement and this is your re you uh the the LLC has their own development agreement that we're considering tonight. Correct. And the planning commission did review this and giving it a positive recommendation as well. So go ahead Joanna. Okay, that was a really nice recap. Uh we are looking at 57 West Kang Creek, the Amasa project. Um a little more background. So the uh Omnibus as we've called their first uh development agreement was approved uh January 27th by you all. Um in that agreement uh they can negotiate subsequent DAS. So phase two and phase three will also be likely coming back for their separate DAS. Uh when we negotiate, agree upon um and approve their final plat of each phase and their subsequent DA. Then the lots from that phase will be pulled out of the uh omnibus DA and be housed within their subsequent DA. Um uh as the mayor mentioned, planning commission has forwarded a positive recommendation and uh since we've seen you last, their preliminary and final flat end plans have been approved by planning

commission and administratively through us. Question. Yes. So the DA that we approved in January is that coverage is phase one or all all the phases. That covers all the phases until they are taken out. Okay.

Through their new DA. Um but when we take them out, the negotiation still stays the same. So, our concessions are going to be the same and our benefits are going to be the same as initially agreed upon in the omnibus VA. So, as a reminder, our concessions were front yard setback, um waiver of that active employment household requirement, a custom process, and then a custom uh parking requirement calculation. And then our benefits specific to this phase are 50 units of uh 50% AMI to 25% AMI.

Did you have something to add?

I did really quick. So as a part of this process what this is atypical that to our normal process, but this exercise is for the benefit of the development and their structuring for lending and investment uh interests. So while it's not essential to what our typical process would require, they've elected to negotiate in the global DA for this opportunity that now their investors and uh investors and lending agents can have that um extraction where it is just the phase in which they're a party to that they're approving. I our applicant could probably talk a little bit more about the intent behind that, but I just want to I can see that this is obviously a lot of depth of the negotiation. Um, but this is a fixture that is helping them cure what they need to from a financial perspective.

Thanks. Yeah, absolutely.

Um, so as stated, this was laid out in omnibus DA that this was a possibility uh for them to pursue. The differences between the two agreements are different party names. Our first agreement was with Amasa Holdings. This agreement's with Amasa Apartments. Um the custom process section that was outlined in the omnibus DA has now been moved to the recital section as it's already happened. Um, we've added the section that removes the lots and then we added another section to make sure that the common spaces are accessible and that all the phases are still uh part of one larger uh project. Okay. And then I have a little bit of housing analysis. I'm hoping to bring more of this to you guys. Um so in the projections put forth in the 2023 affordable housing plan uh we'll need 500 new units um by 20 2030 between the below 55% AMI um and then a 159 by 2040. So if all uh the units that are currently vested in the city for people making 55% AMI or below uh then we'll have 194 units which leaves us with 306 that still need to be produced in the city or in the county. We're working right now with the county to get their data so that we can get better data for you to see actually what that gap might be. Um, but that's where

we stand with the information that we have right now. And that's inclusive of everything in the pipeline. Yes. Including this project within the city limits within. Correct. Yes. Right. Okay. Is that it? Yes. Do we have Okay. So, Miles, I think um you were going to recuse yourself from this. Yes, I will recuse myself from this. Yeah. Okay. Usually, we have you um sit in the audience. I can do that. Just so you're not tempted. Sure.

All right. Um questions for staff or Amanda? No, I think so. I'll go back to the parking stall guy. I'll be that. Um, when you go to those concessions, when it said like phase three, one parking stall. So, is it when it when it goes to phase three, is it one parking stall per unit no matter how many bedrooms they are? Correct. Okay. Um and I might with that this particular agreement as it is just uh phase one this agreement will only be specific to that. So when it comes back to phase one, phase two, we can address we can address

phase two and three or phase two and three we can address like the

correct. I mean that uh negotiation of the DA does as my understanding open the platform for what those will be in that this DA will um in all intents and purposes replace the prior global agreement. that negotiating platform I believe is open but our intent is basically the original agreement shall preside until another agreement comes forward. So if on phase three the applicants choose the the global DA is sufficient they don't want to go through another DA that um concession would prevail. So it's only if they were to come and renegotiate a subsequent DA that we would then have a negotiating element at that phase. Can you explain kind of the logic of why you would say 1.5 SS for two bedroom plus but then in following phases take away that concession of one and a half and just say one

that might be better suited to the applicant of what their their negotiation approach was. That was like requested concession but it was to satisfy what will be ultimately the the overall parking requirements how they intend to because again it's not it's preliminary. We don't know what will be phase three. Um but intended to be smaller units as I understand it. So studios one bedroom. Yeah, I remember we kind of talked about that but um but yeah that's kinder to what our variable parking requirement is for our u ae provisions

but those are regard like you're saying right in this instance it was negotiated regardless of bedrooms and our ah it is per bedroom that gives you a variable parking count versus a static. Yeah, and that's kind of I think that's where I'm kind of hung up on it is like there's varied according to bedrooms and then when you go to these following phases, we've kind of thrown that out the window and just said it could be three two-bedroom plus and still only have one parking stall, you know. Mhm. So, um, that's the part that I I'm kind of like, how do how do you intend to accommodate the parking, you know, for that phase three?

Yeah. Yeah. Amanda, do you want to come up?

Thank you for having me, mayor,

and men and women. Um so yeah that's a great question. Um the um the practical reality of phase three is that we can build up to 12 units on phase three. Um so at 1.5 times 12 or excuse me 12 that's 18 parking stalls with the concession that we've requested it would be 12 parking stalls instead of 18. So it's a difference of six parking stalls. Um, right now the way we're setting up the agreement is that basically anyone who um lives on this Amasa Apartments parcel uh can park anywhere. So they're not um precluded from just parking in front of their units. Um so we feel that by building um and actually we we will um so far we're already in design for phase two. We are exceeding the 140 that the omnibus agreement has provided us. are actually around 148. Um, obviously there's still time to flush out permits and things like that in the design, but um, we do think we will exceed that. Um, our goal with, um, designing the site and asking for that concession is that right now the property is zoned for 100 units. if we were going to be constrained by having to make space for six more stalls. Um, and again, we're going to exceed it. So, I don't think there will be an issue, but um, it just felt like by having that ability to go less on parking, we could build more units, which we know um, um, that Moab really desires. So, that was kind of the the thought with asking for that concession of six stalls.

No, and I Yeah, and and I understand that. I just um I worry about the reality of the situation, you know, like if you have a two or threebedroom unit and you have, you know, um depending on who's living there and you have people with, you know, two cars or or three cars or whatever, you know, which is which is rural living, you know, um a lot of people to get places, you know, have cars, you know, if it was in downtown Salt Lake City or someplace else, they could be like, "Oh, yeah, I get it." And so my my concern is that after your project's going to get built, which I think is a great project, don't get me wrong on that, but then is the city going to be overwhelmed by people parking on the street, you know, people parking everywhere, you know, are we going to start getting lots of concerns about um people who do live there not being able to find a place to park, you know, and then they're parking in other areas that impact um you know, impact the locals, you know, or the or the residents in those areas, you know, because um I know I know a few times that there's been like cars cars that have like especially when old King Creek was there, there was a few cars that just lived on the side of the road, you know, like lived, you know, they never moved, you know, and stuff. So, I I it concerns me that um so that's just a concern of mine. I I think that this is still a good project and if and if you're saying that you are going to be working towards you know having more sparking areas I would encourage I would encourage that because I think that um you know while while a lot of people are like you know a lot of families only have one car you know I think there's a lot of families that have two cars because you have to have two cars in when you live in as remote as we are people getting places and stuff. So that's just I don't know I feel like something that could come back and bite the city if people are probably open get lots of components and stuff. So anyway, but I do think it's a good project if you are working towards that and I

yeah phase two I buy I I will take you on your word that that's starting

well in phase two um I believe you guys will probably see a phase two DA in front of you all maybe in the next coming months. Um and that will show the additional parking that we're going to be adding. um beyond the 140 that has been promised in the omnibus agreement. Um and then phase three um just kind of as a reminder for this project, we initially bought these units because we really wanted to actually um preserve them and you know in 10 years when their land um use restriction expires, turn them into a for sale affordable product. It's been really challenging um to make that happen. So the phase three uh is really a desire to make for sale product on those corners. Um that's going to be tricky just because financing for for sale is very tricky and they're in kind of that one-bedroom studio size. Actually there is um availability in the Moab market right now of units that have been on for longer than a year. So, we're trying to find how to bring the cost down so that these come in at the market below what the product that has been out there um so that they actually can be purchased. And so, it's not to say we're not going to get to phase three, but I think there will be time as well um to negotiate on phase three specifics once the designs are, I think, a little bit clearer.

And I do want to say this is a good project. Thank you for doing it in Moab. Thank you for building these because we definitely we obviously need it and stuff. So I'm not I don't want to like I want to be let support of the project. It's a little concerned. So understandable. Yeah. No, I I completely hear it. Thank you. Other questions, comments? Motion?

I can. Okay. Um, I motion to approve the phase one development agreement for 57 West Can Creek Boulevard, parcel 01-00001-02000 between Amasa Apartments LLC and the city of Moab, Utah with or without modific K. Well, sorry. Period. Period. All right, Caitlyn. Thank you. Second. I'll second. Okay, Tonnie, thank you. Discussion, Caitlyn.

Um, no, I'm excited about this project. I think we've all um seen it. I mean, even just being on staff when we started talking about how the lure was coming up. um I think to see what the product is and how this project is going to be given a major facelift and um better utilization of space. Uh it's going to be really exciting for this community. So thanks Bonnie. No, I I think it's a really good project. It'll it's going to be nice to see that all the empty space that's been there for a long time able to help our housing our housing issues.

Okay. Go ahead. Do do you have a timeline? Um so we're uh working actively to try to close um as soon as Friday or Monday. Um we have building permits which is very exciting. I guess I we don't have building permits. We have approval for building permits. We need to pay some fees and then um and then get building permits, but I think construction could start as early as next week. Sweet. Yeah. Cool. All right. Motion by Caitlyn, second by Tonnie. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion passes 30. Thank you, Amanda. And I too am excited for this project. I remember I don't know maybe 15 years ago that the owners at that time were going they proposed building apartments on that open space and there was a big community uh outcry and they the council at that time voted it down and unfortunately but happy that it's moving forward now. I think having those um affordable homes apartments in downtown close to town is going to be a great asset for our community. Thank you. And um I know I don't want to go over it, but I just really want to thank Corey and Johanna because they have really um been so helpful navigating a very tricky legal process with our investors and our funders on this. So, we really appreciate all of the support that they've provided as well.

Great. Thank you, Amanda. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Next up, consideration of an RFP for proposals for corporate sponsorship opportunities in Moab. and Nathan Brackett, our city attorney, is going to present this to us. And um I think you guys have all had a chance to read through the RFP. Basically, all we're considering tonight is a request for proposals for corporations that are interested in being sponsors uh with Moab. It's kind of like a partnership is what I'm guessing. So, Nathan, are you there? Thank you, mayor. Yeah. Can you guys hear me? We can hear you. Can we see you, too?

I can see you. I have my camera on. I'm not sure if you can see me or not, but um so this was actually Michael's idea. I um obviously Moab's a unique town. Uh it's a special town in that way. And you're in a position where you may have some corporate sponsors that may be willing to work with you. Uh corporate sponsorship is not new. I believe um Colin today actually sent around an article on it that I thought was pretty very well done. Um for instance, I know so Michael asked us to look into at our firm, which we did. We we put together this proposal and Michael's thought was obviously Moab what what one of the things that makes Moab unique is that it's a 4x4 Mecca and so his thinking was well let's do a a two-year pilot program get an RFP out there and then see see what we get and obviously with with this type of RFP we're not obligated to to pick anybody and essentially we're just kind of crafting a broad net and we'll entertain whatever offers people may get And one of the things that our firm looked at when we were investigating this is what other cities have have done things like this. So for instance, Sturgis in South Dakota is obviously a motorcycle mecca. So there I think Harley-Davidson signed a 75-year deal with Sturgis for some similar for some sponsorship opportunities there. So as I was putting this together, that was kind of what was in the back of my mind, recognizing it's a different state with different laws and totally different dynamic, but this sort of thing has been done. Michael thought that it would be worth uh doing an RFP and seeing what happens. Uh in particular, he thought it would be good getting something out in advance of the Easter Jeep Safari, although that's not a I believe a city sponsored event that there would be a sponsors may have some interest in lining something up like that so they could announce it there. But because this is something that we haven't done before, the thought is is this would be a temporary pilot program. and we'd see how it go and then goes and you could reassess and of course it would ultimately be up to the council to

determine whether or not it it wants to proceed based on whatever proposals it gets. It's under no obligation to to actually enter into a contract by by issuing the RFP. One thing I would say is when we were working this I this draft I think the the initial idea was to have this approved at the first meeting of the month and so the deadlines in here probably need to be updated. I think this was the earlier draft that we had prepared and it doesn't look like the So, for instance, that had the RFP being issued on February 13th. Obviously, we're past that. So, if this is something the council would want to entertain consistent with Michael's desire to have something done by the Easter Jeep Safari, I would suggest having the RFP go out tomorrow. um having the respondents submit questions by March 4th, having responses due on say March 6th, and then that way you guys could act on it on March 11th, and that would give us some time to execute a contract before the Easter Jeep Safari. But that being said, uh if the contract takes too much time, I I wouldn't make the Easter Jeep Safari a hard deadline. I'd focus on making sure we get the contract done correctly and legally. So, I'm happy to present more, but that's a quick overview of it, and I don't want to take up more of your time if you've already read it.

Thanks, Nathan. I I do think the timeline is a little tight to to get something in place before the Jeep Safari. Um, you know, I think there's a lot of discussion here. So, I if we modifi if we consider and approve this, we'll have to really think about this timeline because I just don't think it's realistic. Yeah. And we can change the timeline, too. That was just uh the prop that was just Michael's thought is it would be good to get it by then, but if not, we can we can modify the timeline to whatever you want. Okay. I guess go ahead, Kaitlin.

Yeah, while we're talking about timeline, um I I had kind of a an opposite thought about Jeep Safari. I think actually for us to leave this open through Jeep Safari gives us more opportunity to advertise it specific to

um vendors, businesses, corporations that will be in town. Um which relatedly is like even just another question of um whether or not we can pick more than one corporate sponsor. If so, why? I I I think I I'm I'm really excited about this. I think it presents a lot of opportunity for the city um to become partners with our business community and um be able to advertise um because they advertise about Moab whether it's officially our name or not. Um but I guess that that is one of my questions too is I mean typically RFP you're picking the best proposal but um in thinking about scope and especially with the um city initiatives that it could support um you know do we want to limit ourselves to just one corporate sponsor for all of those things? um do we want to limit or I think all my questions that I would spill out after this is kind of like um along the lines of feeling like a more comprehensive policy um I would love as a next step. I've kind of been waffling on whether that needs to come before or after the RFP. I think running the RFP as a pilot makes a lot of sense because we just don't even know what we're going to get necessarily. But um yeah, thinking about more breadth of sponsors for different things, looking beyond Moab is more is certainly a motorized vehicle community. Um but we are also more than that and I think there are a lot of um outdoor

wreck and corporations that would love to sponsor MOAB outside of this specific category of the RFP. Um, so, uh, so I'll I'll I'll pause there. Those are kind of some of my consideration. I Yeah, go ahead, Miles.

I'll echo a lot of Caitlyn's um, thoughts in that regard. And specifically with the thought of if we are to have a sponsor, I would expect that to be kind of like a larger investment if we were not allowed to, you know, during their period of sponsorship develop other relationships because I could see like there are a lot of projects that we would all love to see happen but are hard to find funding for, such as like a skate park or something like that. And I would love to see somebody step up and sponsor that. And I think that could be really beneficial for our community. Um, I would just I I kind of echo the little bit of caution with this in that like I think there's just a lot of variables involved with it and being able to like, you know, I'm I'm not totally against putting out the RFP, but I would absolutely like to make sure that there are going to be points of review for council after the RFP and making sure that that's not just like an administrative process after that point, Right.

So, yeah, the council would have to approve whatever proposals you you would get and there's some review criteria there and to to answer or to at least address some of those questions. We can absolutely do whatever you want uh here. I mean, the real rubber will hit the road when it comes to what you pick and then making sure that that's legal and we can do it. I I think that the when Michael and I were discussing this uh the the idea of doing a policy first, which is something we could do, but I think as was noted, the challenge with that is we haven't done this before, so we don't exactly know what to draft the policy to do. I mean, we could always see what other cities have done and take their policies, but every city is kind of unique. And so, uh, we we could have this be a broader proposal and for multiple different types of industries to to sponsor Moab for different things. I think that our thought was that gets kind of complicated because the type of RFP that you do for say mountaineering or whitewater rafting would be different than say what you do for what we've done here was 4x4. So I think since the idea was that this would be a pilot program, we'd start off with maybe a limited scope and see how that goes. But we could certainly modify that if the council so desires. And also the other point was something we discussed as well at the staff level was that it getting if if you break up the sponsorship to multiple different things, the chances of getting a big sponsor diminish because it's the exclusivity that the that that costs more for lack of a better term. Go ahead, Jason.

You know, yeah, I think that um I I agree 100% like like what what Nathan said and you know, this RFP that's that's before us now. I don't think there's any harm with changing those dates, you know, and um and throwing this out there because and seeing what comes up because it still has to come back to us and and and we don't have to accept it, you know, even no matter what comes back to us. And when we get something back, we may be able to go, "Oh, this works for us. This doesn't work for us." And we and we can not accept the RP and and tweak it and and put it back out there again and stuff. But I think, you know, um if we try to look at this like like you said, we've never done this before. Um and and the current RP I think acknowledges that and acknowledges that we can um accept a proposal or not accept it and then tweak it and put it back out again. But I think like putting it out there now, we're not we're not at risk of losing anything, you know? We're not at risk of entering into a contract that we don't want to enter into. We still have those safe, you know. So, um, so I don't I I would say let's change the dates that, um, that Nathan, um, recommended. Um, put it out there and see what comes back. Even though it's a short time period, we can see what comes back, you know. And I kind of like like I was talking to, um, um, another council member about it today, you know, stuff. It was kind of like the um, like the sidewalks, you know, we put this initial bit out there and nothing came back. So we brought it back in, changed it, we tweaked it around a little bit and put it back out again, you know, because and I think that this is a very similar process, you know, that we can do like we can do that. So that that's my two cents on it.

Tony, what do you have to say?

I I don't see any any harm in putting this out there. I think I think Jason's right. We need to change the dates on it. U make it a little more realistic. Um, and I would like to see it be a little more broad. Um, just because Moab has so many so many um different types of outdoor recreation and I think this kind of limits us to one particular type and I' I'd like to see that portion be a little bit broader. and um not not just um strictly for motorized recreation. Kaitlin, do you have anything else?

Yeah. Um I I agree with that. Connie, I I I've been I think either I'd want for us to open it up and see what we get across the board across a variety of uses or if we're wanting to especially because I know that we kind of first started talking about this in the context of the mat. Um, so if we keep it to um, vehicle sponsorship, I would want the scope of potential city initiatives to be kind of rolled back. You know, like thinking about uh, car company as a corporate sponsored to a housing project is a little bit too broad of I don't know. I I Yeah. So, I think I'm more in alignment of just putting it out and seeing fully what we get across um all of our kind of desired city initiatives. Um I think one of my other questions um that I think will come up when thinking about evaluating financial benefit to the city is um whether it makes sense to have kind of like a ballpark valuation of what we're expecting. Um, I think I'm just for I think it's going to be hard to evaluate and I guess we don't really even know, but I think even asking like the annual value of sponsorship from applicants might be useful. Um, but I think it's going to be really hard to evaluate like if a corporation that we really like only offers us $10,000, but a corporation that we don't love offers us $500,000 worth of sponsorship, then, you know, how do we how do we weigh that?

Um, so that might be another recommendation of some kind of like loose ballpark of or or question about that. I don't I don't know exactly what that looks like, but

Well, no. I had the same question. Looking at how we evaluate the scoring, it's like I don't know how we would do that. I mean, seems pretty big. Um, so I get I mean I think the way we I think we just change the dates, go for what our attorney and city manager have proposed and see where it goes and go from there. Um, I'd like to con um recommend that we open this up for more than just a week. You know, right now it's just a week. I think that's too short of a period of time to get, you know, to reach out. I mean, we've got to get the information out there. We can't just, you know, just go with one and, you know, that's approached us and, you know, thinking that's going to be it. I think we need to give it a lot more time. And I don't know. I mean, I was thinking at least two weeks. So you guys might have other ideas. Um and then and then the issues in between the other, you know, the evaluation and that kind of thing. I'll leave it up to Nathan and Michael to figure out those dates. But I think the soonest that we could consider any um response would be the 14th of April, which is the first meeting we have in April, which would be after, of course, the Jeep Safari. That's what I'm thinking. And Nathan, what do you think? What what are you hearing here?

This is entirely a policy call. I'll do whatever you want. Um I will say though that it I I want to meet make sure I understand. So if if you want to have responses due by the 14th um and my suggestion would be that we get it out as soon as possible if you want people to have as much time to respond. So if we were to have responses due by March 31st. Well, actually what I was thinking, Nathan, was we what I have and you guys tell me if you want it to be longer, is we put it out for two weeks. So RFPs would be due March 10th and then you guys would do whatever you need to do, short list, interviews, however you know that process is. And then it wouldn't come back before us as a council until our first meeting in April. But I don't know. Do you guys want it to be long? Do you want to RP open to be longer than two weeks?

I I do um specifically because Jeep Safari is a a month away. Um I don't think there I I guess I'm I'm curious, Nathan, if you can tell us why there there is a a time pressure to get this done before Jeep. I assume so it's so the city can announce that. But but I'm kind of feeling like it is um going to bring in more applicants and you know kind of an opportunity to market if if this is still open during Jeep Safari so we can

Oh, I see what you're saying. So maybe have the application period go through Jeep Safari. So April 7th would be the closing. Yeah. and then um and then the process would continue for another two weeks and so we would have it on our April 28th meeting if we could get through everything. I think that's what do you guys think about that? I think that's reason then it's not so rushed. I mean, you know, Michael's out. He won't be back till next week. I think I think having it open through I think that idea is a really good one. There might be other sponsors that hear about it that would be interested. So, we're opening it up a little bit more.

Yeah, I think this feels really kind of rushed. So, I would rather have it a little more thought and thought out. So, what what was the original um timeline? The original timeline was it's in there now. Yeah, we were thinking

it didn't get on the calendar for your first meeting in February. So I mean it is an accelerated timeline to answer the question. I think and there is no right or wrong answer to this. Let me let me just be clear. I think the thinking was is that some you the thinking I think was that the sponsors may actually have more of an interest in getting something in place before Easter Jeep Safari so they could announce it at Easter Jeep Safari. But you this was in the context of this being a four-wheel drive specific RFP. And that's another question I would have is if it's going to be broader than that and and I'm not quite sure if the council reached a decision on that. This this this RFP would need to be rewritten because right now it's it's specific to a four-wheel drive corporate sponsor. So if you want to make it broader, I would have to probably reddraft it and then bring back a another RFP for you to consider in at your next meeting.

What what was the date of the the modified date of decision? It would be seven days. So it would be seven days from if they put the RFP out tomorrow. No, it would be it would be a week. No, that's when the RFPs are due in a week. Yeah. But then the decision would be what what was the our next meeting? March 11th. March 11. That way that and the reasoning for that would be that would give us time to then and that would be to be fair that would be a lot of time that wouldn't be a lot of time either for us to put together a contract for this because we've never done one before. So I mean I wouldn't personally wouldn't mind a little bit more time either to get the contract right.

When's the next meeting after March 11th? The 14th or no the um

24th. And keep in mind, we've got two big meetings in March for a budget workshop. So, I really encourage you guys to stretch this out through Jeep Safari. I also encourage that we do keep it to four-wheel drive, the four-wheel drive industry this time and then see what we get and see, you know, kind of develop the policy because I also think we have to have a policy if we're going to continue to do this and use this opportunity to see how that's going to be developed and then um and then have the consideration at our April 28th meeting. And mayor, to add to that, part of the reason why Michael and I thought the four-wheel drive might be a good one to pilot is is it's a smaller number of potential applicants to choose from, which might make it a little bit easier when we don't have a policy. But for instance, if we were to say, I don't know, the the official hiking boot of Moab, I mean, there's so many different manufacturers, it would be harder for us to distinguish. Um whereas with 4x4 vehicle manufacturers, there aren't as many. And we thought it might be easier to pilot something like that where you'd have a potentially a smaller pool of qualified applicants to choose from.

And that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess uh one of my questions that and and we might get that with the question about proposal exceptions, but I'm I'm wondering slash anticipating because this is specific to vehicles how that's going to impact like you know is the city going to have to have some kind of non-compete for all of our city vehicles? um you know

no no no this this wouldn't impact what we buy at all. It would be let's say for instance let's say because one of the criteria we put in here is affordable housing. So let's say that somebody comes in and let me use the Sturgis example. I think Harley-Davidson is part of that built some sort of a plaza um and it's like the Harley-Davidson plaza and there's some municipal events that can happen there. But what if we did some sort of plaza like that with retail on the first floor and affordable housing above? you know, if we find a corporate sponsor that's willing to do that, you know, it could be the X vehicle plaza, but then there's affordable housing above it and in exchange for that, you know, they could use some sort of tagline or they could sponsor that with the city, but that wouldn't impair our ability to go out and get whatever vehicles we need because and and of course, we could also get vehicles from them for for city purposes, but we wouldn't I I do want to be clear about this. What this means is we would not only be doing procurements to buy vehicles with this vehicle manufacturer. We may get some vehicles from them as part of it for free or as part of the sponsorship, but but it wouldn't impair our ability to go out and buy whatever we need.

Okay, that's helpful. Any other questions? I'll ask for a motion. Do you have a question, Jason? I heard you take a breath, which usually means you have a question. Sure. You're breathing.

Um, no. I I think that I I have a feeling that this is a short timeline. Um because there's something that probably wants to get announced at Chief Safari, you know, and um and if it's possible, but I would like to see what that is, you know, and um and so I I would advocate for I mean, I don't know what Michael's feeling was on it, like if he was saying he needed a longer timeline or he wanted if they could make the shorter timeline work

there there was no there's no announcement that I mean it was just the idea I think Michael's thinking was sponsors might be more interested in getting this under contract so they could make an announcement at Easter Jeep Safari that's good to know that it was kind of the opposite thinking of but I think they're both valid ways of looking at it because the thought was if we do it right after Easter Jeep Safari sponsors may say ah you know it's only a two-year pilot program I'll have to wait I I I'll only get one Easter Jeep Safari during that two-year pilot program to to to to really play this up. Okay. So, if we were to do it, do we need to in the motion um state the new um the new dates

and stuff? So, what are the new dates would be issue the RFP still tomorrow. Summer has a comment and she she'll be doing this.

Yeah. Come on up. post the procurement. So on the Utah public notice or on our public procurement portal, I don't know that I can get it posted tomorrow. Michael isn't even back until Monday. And if there are changes that need to happen, like to me, it needs to be posted next week when Michael's back and then go from there. Nathan, I don't know how you feel about that. I feel like I'm coming in from the outside, but I'm the one that posts it. There are some commodity codes that you have to be able to post on our public procurement. So, it goes out to the vendors. I don't know how this looks. It's not it's not the same as a standard procurement. So, I'm I'm just a little concerned that I don't have all the information to get it posted until Michael gets back. So,

yeah, I think we have time. I mean, if if the council's desire is to have this acted upon at the second week meeting in April, right, that gives us almost two months. And so, I think Michael gets back next week. So, we could certainly wait until then to I think the council's direction could be we to table it. No, no, that

I think we vote on it. We I think what I think we could do, Nathan, um is just uh in our motion, the uh recommendation would be to come back to the city council on the second week, second meeting in April, the 28th of April, and then all the processes that are that need to take place before that place that it goes out and then you would have some options to review on that second meeting in April. Okay.

So, if if I may, what what it sounds like you're asking for would be a motion along the lines of um a motion to approve the RFP as drafted subject to changing the uh the council action date to the second meeting in April and then the due date to April 7th and then simultaneously authorizing staff to fill in the remaining dates in the RFP after consulting with the city manager. And I guess um one final thought with that with vendors being in town, I I don't know if we want to consider doing um respondent interviews or questions or something like uh during Gary before we finalized the April 7. I think that the April 7th after Jeeps furry makes sense, but also while potential applicants are here, would we want to have some kind of uh I'm not sure does this Nathan does this say who would be involved in the decision, you know, in the reviewing the applicants and interviewing them?

Well, I it would be the city manager. Um and then he would make a proposal to the council and the council would make the final say. If you want to appoint a uh a council member or two, so we don't have a quorum to be part of a a interviewing or selection committee. We could certainly do that. Does that have to be in this or it doesn't have to be in this RFP though.

Well, I I mean it couldn't hurt. I mean, we could just say that the, you know, in the evaluation section, we could just add that that the pulling that up. I think it's on page 20. We could just say, well, it's page five of the RFP, but I think it would say um the city has appointed a an evaluation committee consisting of the city manager and whoever else you appoint uh who will evaluate proposals based on the following weighted factors and make a recommendation to the council.

Yeah, I mean I I certainly think I think there'd be value in having a council member on there. um potentially folks from um parks and wreck or community development or entities through which this partner would be sponsoring. I don't I don't know. It does say on page three on number four, it says proposals will be reviewed by the city elected officials and staff members. I think that's Yeah. And what I'm proposing is if if that's too general, we could provide more detail.

I don't think we need the detail. I think we need to wait for Michael to come back and just say this is what you know, this is how we would like the um committee to look like and go from there. Thanks. Okay. So, motion Jason, just want to get this right. Um, I'll make a motion to approve the RFP as drafted subject to um to the change of application and finalization dates of turning in the applications by city staff and city manager. Um,

and our considerate and council consideration at the second meeting in April. And council consideration at the second meeting in April. Does that Does that sound good, Nathan? Sounds great. Thank you. Motion by Jason. Thanks, Jason. Second. I'll second. Second by Miles. Discussion. Jason. Miles.

Uh, no. I'm fairly happy with this. I'm uh pleased by the idea of extending the application deadline. I think if this really is a pilot program, we might as well give a few more people the opportunity to be part of it and that way we can get a real understanding of what this may be able to do for our community.

Great. Anybody else? All those in favor? Oh, go ahead, Caitlyn. Well, I just say I there's a lot of I I still have a lot of trepidation about um the specifics and the scope with this and so I'm just I am going to trust the process and be discerning and um evaluating things once once we get them back. But um I think this is a a huge opportunity for our community. So excited to try. All right. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes 4. Thank you, Nathan. You're going to stay on though, right? Yeah. No, I'm I'm gonna stay on for the rest of the meeting. Okay, good.

I will work on those edits now so I can get them off to summer.

Okay. Thanks, Nathan. Great. All right. Um All right, that is the end of our general business today. We next have city manager updates. The only thing that I have from the city manager is if you are wanting to put shields on the new Rocky Mountain lights, you need to fill out go to the city website and fill out the form. You have to include the the number of the poll and what where you would like the shield. So that is due, I believe, on March 7th. sixth. I can count. So, yeah. Thank you, Alexi. So, anyway, if you want a shield on our light, please make sure that you get, you know, go in and get that done because after the sixth, it's going to be Rocky Mountain has to come out and do all the shields for us. We don't have the authority to do this. So, please, if you're interested in get your application in or your request in by the 6th of March because otherwise it's going to it could be a lot longer before the shields go in. And then we have applications for the RAP uh funding that's um that's open and that uh those applications are due by the 27th. And then new garbage cans are out there. Have you guys seen them? Aren't they awesome?

They look good. Awesome. So I know they're really really cool. Thank you to the um streets team and the arts department, the parks and recck department for getting those taken care of. It's Are they all done? No, I think yeah, this first one installed. Yeah, even even from that side at the same time. So, they're in That's great. They look really good. So, thank you to the teams that that got those in place. It was a lot of work. I think Lisa's put out a um video. Yeah. So, look at that video to see, you know, it's kind of fast forward of how they did it and how they got it done, but they look really, really good. A real video.

Is that what it's called or real? Did I say it wrong? Yeah, it's not just a video. Oh, sorry. I didn't know if it was Tik Tok. I don't know what. Anyway, we don't know anything. Look, it's on social media. Please take an opportunity to look at it. It's really awesome. Our team did a great job. Um, and hopefully we're going to get more garbage cans. We'll talk about that at budget because they are expensive. Um, and so that's all I have from city manager and then we'll go to um mayor or council report. So, we'll start with you, Tonnie.

Okay. Um, let's see. Um, I have been to two meetings for the Canyon Lands Healthc Care Special Service District. Um, I had a meeting at the first of the month with the mayor and Miles. Miles instructed us on what 20somes call their clothes drip. And I can't remember. Drips and width. dripping in the whip. I said, "We don't know anything." Um, that's what I remember from that meeting.

That's good. Um, I went to a museum Moab museum board meeting and I just want to put out there that the annual gayla is March 27th at the Hudoo and it's going um it's going to be a 1800 Seline theme. Oh, wow. So, oh, there'll be alcohol there. It sounds like D or dress appropriately. That's it. All right. Thanks, Tonnie. Caitlyn.

Oh. Um, what did I do in the last two week? Um, I'm putting my calendar. I I attended uh several LPC meeting. Well, by several, I mean two uh last week and this week. Um, and there's a million bills. yesterday. Over 900 bills. I think yesterday they said 979 bills to date. As of yesterday, they only passed 124. Um, so two weeks

marathon. Two weeks. Um, even today got two emails of bill SOS um action calls. Um, so that's interesting. They reported that budget revenues are slightly ahead, which I think is a positive. Thankfully, we're seeing some RFAS, at least in the housing world, but across appropriations that are coming back again a little bit after the initial 5% request reduction. Um, I don't know. There's I'll let you talk about the bills. Okay. Um, yeah, there's several I don't know. I I can I can or I I don't have to talk about those. Um, but several bills. Um, outside of that, um, on the 11th, I attended an LA uh, local homeless council meeting um, as a few updates on that. Um the pit point in time count from January came back. They reported 25 individuals for Grant County um which is a little lower than what they received last year but is much better than previous numbers um in several years back. Um it seems like with a lot of major changes potentially happening with OS, they don't know exactly what homelessness and OS and how housing is going to fit into DWS. So a lot of people are waiting for that. Um the free health clinic is hosting a women's clinic uh with in partnership

with BYU April 20th to the 21st. Um they are looking for volunteers for that. Um and yeah, that's probably about it. uh we received a presentation about vocational rehab services through DWS. Um and then a week later on the 17th I attended a quarterly balance of state meeting um which is statewide and they kind of ran through there's presentation from the youth action board. just kind of general check-in on pit count and winter response planning. Um both at kind of state level and at federal level, there's a lot of language and policy changes shifting um from this concept of permanent supportive housing to more just supportive housing or transitional housing. And that could come with caps on existing funds that are going towards uh permanent supportive housing programs. Um which might have a significant impact on um homelessness programs throughout the state because 91% of funding that is going towards a lot of projects in the state are permanent supportive housing probably mostly in the urban areas. Um and otherwise they're just watching uh legislative impacts to structures of homeless services in the state. And I feel like I probably have more thing. Oh, I I I did get coffee with um the applicant for cooperative 1581 impact fee waiver. Um it's an interesting conversation

um which will help to further inform conversations when that comes back to council. Um and yeah, finally the housing task force city subcommittee is meeting tomorrow afternoon. Um and it's kind of a future consideration. and the task force would like to do presentations to city and county to update them on what the task force has been doing and plans to do and etc. So Kaitlin um when they come is it possible to get the information that Johanna is looking for from the county on the housing?

Absolutely. It'd be great if we could include that kind of put, you know, little fire under the county to give us the data that we need. Absolutely. That's great. I think that that's an important piece of what you guys are doing. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Thank you. Is that it? Um, yes. If you think of something else, just let us know before we adjourn. That's enough for me, Miles.

Okay. Um, so I attended planning and zoning on the 14th. Um, aside from them forwarding that positive recommendation for the new development agreement phase one of the AMAsa project, um, there's a lot of discussion going on in the code rewrite right right now about um, uses and definitions and how to build our definitions around like impact. And that way when we create uses and zones, we're able to essentially allow as much like allow as much like business to move in and really facilitate that as long as the impact remains the same so it's not affecting neighborhoods in big ways but kind of like taking some of the roadblocks out there. Um, so the code update is still ongoing and uh right now we're working on like trying to organize different uses and what we think of them and what impacts they have on the the surrounding area.

Um, and then I went to Guissa and there's several interesting things that went down with Gwissa. So they're still working on the or they're going into the second phase of the 191 sewer improvement project. Uh, going down the highway, upsizing the sewer. Um, some of the ones that seem to apply to us, uh, that last big snowstorm was drone cloudseated. Um, so it's really difficult to quantify how much snow would have

like how much precipitation we would have received had it not been cloud seated, but we did get a nice storm out of it. Um, and I learned a little bit more about their procedure in general with cloud seating and the way that it's done very intentionally so that they're not seating storms that may rain on our snowpack and cause it to melt prematurely and in the summer they're not seating storms that already come with a flash flood warning or that may be more precipitation than we need. Um, but it's a really interesting prospect to think of them flying drones with these AGI flares into the storm and using those to hopefully encourage more precipitation. Um, but anyways, interesting project and it was interesting to know that that last big storm was seated. Um they for people who use them, they're adopting a fire hydrant meter fee and they're providing meters so that if people need to use fire hydrants for projects, they're able to go to Gwissa and receive those. Um snow report, we're doing a little bit better than last year. We're at 871 acre feet in um in Ken's Lake. Um it's a little bit better than last year. is still well below average and well below what we need. Um so it's uh it's still going to be a rough year. It's still going to be pretty dry. Um but hopefully that last storm did good things. Um and Miles, just to piggy piggyback on that is we are will be doing some outreach to the community on conservation this spring and summer. So I've talked to Alexi and and Lisa about that. We need to really make sure that people know that they shouldn't be watering their lawns at two o'clock in the afternoon.

Yes. So anyway, I Yeah, I think wanted you guys to be aware that we will be doing some outreach to the community on how to save water this year.

Yeah, I think that's super important. There's also uh Gwiss is kind of preparing for it. There's some stuff coming down from the state, but essentially there will slowly be more um monitoring of private wells and how much they take out of our aquifer because right now that's essentially not monitored whatsoever. Um and they also issued a letter of support for the uh water tower project that we're all doing jointly um to to the CIB. So that's all going forward on that end. And that's the highlights. Great. Thanks, Miles. Jason,

um I don't have a whole lot. Um February 9th, I attended an airport board meeting. Um and also part of the airport board um last week and this week we had um there was three companies that are kind of um applying I think for the the contract as contract that's coming up in the fall. And um Contour, Sky West, and Denver Air Connection. Um I've heard that all three of them went really well. And um I went to I was able to attend the Denver Air Connection yesterday and um and it was great. It was it they they did an excellent job. Um and I heard that Contour and Sky West all did excellent jobs as well with their presentation. So um it sounds like we have some really good options coming up um in the future for um for central air service. Um, and then I also attended a travel council meeting. Um, you know, we're kind of talking about more about, you know, working with our ad agencies to for marketing coming up for this summer. And, um, and that was was about it. So, that's all I have.

Thanks. Um, for me, I had a boundary commission meeting which basically called to order, approve the minutes, adjourn the meeting. Uh uh so you know boundary commission is to hear any protests for annexations and as you all know we had a recent annexation pre-anexation issue and there really wasn't any any legitimate protests so the meeting was quick but uh we did meet um with Tonnie attended a coupleand healthcare special service district meetings. the regular meeting that we attended or the last meeting we attended, we um voted to go ahead and start moving forward with the maps master planning. So, Melissa Jeff from the county and Michael Black from the city and Mel and myself and Karen Fury and I believe Dan might be involved in that, Dan Cook, our chair are um meeting next month to um start moving forward with that RFP to get the master planning going. excited about that and um be in Washington next week. Uh Jason will be there with outfitter guides group and we'll be meeting with all of our delegation, the park service and the department of energy and uh LPC Nathan if you're on um you can help me out here with some of this stuff. Uh summer you need to be aware of the I you may already be aware of it. It's the web content accessibility guidelines. You're aware of that. That came up. It's something that we needed to implement and get in place. Senate Bill 284. Is this the bill um Nathan that we were worried about?

Let me get my list. Um the bill that we were worried there are a couple bills that we're worried about. Which which issue are you thinking of? The that's the checklist. That one is land use applications on the website. It requires Yeah, that's from Representative Tusher. So, that one would require online application forms, I believe. Correct. Yes. I don't know if that's a I mean, that's just more work. Uh but right but that's

um and I don't know if that where that bill will go but the bills that we were concerned there was a bill called HB184 that that had some uh provisions that would allow people to propose their own lot by lot uh land use regulations that that one I think is stalled out. the there's a a bill called HB501 that's still in the works

that that would potentially require us to charge a essentially a a water rate fee that would be based on the median income or or uh in in Moab and then multiply that by a percentage which would be in talk I never got I don't know what Moab's numbers will be but in talking with some of my other water clients it would be anywhere from $2,400 to 1,400 more per year. Um that bill has changed a little bit. The the issue there is and this is a valid concern is the state's concerned that a lot of water providers and sewer providers aren't charging adequate rates. They're they're keeping their rates artificially low and therefore they're not setting aside the necessary capital reserve funds. And then when when it is time does come due to upgrade their infrastructure, they're asking for state money rather than charging the appropriate fees. So that bill is initially drafted would have required them to uh everyone to adopt these higher fees. Now it's just saying if you want to be eligible for state funding, you have to adopt fees in accordance with this percentage. Rumor is there's another substitute coming out. I don't know what that says.

Yeah, that did come out today. Um I looked it over. I think um we're looking into what our fee is because my understanding is if we're already at that one and a half percent, we don't have to increase it at all. And I don't know where we're at. Danny's going to check with Marcy and see where we're at with that. But it will um it could have some impacts on us because we are going to the CIB to with an application next month on the 24th on a the water tank project. U we're asking for I think somewhere around $3 million for that project and so this would apply to us. So be and I specifically asked that question at LPC on Monday and they said yes if you're going to CIB that does count as a state funded program. So um if the one thing about 501 though is it doesn't go into effect until next year to 127. So if we get our application in this year and we get it all approved I think we'll be okay. it won't apply to us, but it's something that I think we need to be paying attention to, Nathan. Um,

yeah, and it everyone's paying attention to it. It's facing a fair amount of opposition. I I think the the intent is is a good one, and that is the state has a a large uh infrastructure bill for water. That's about $1.7 billion a year. And that's the the attempt to deal with it. I think the the legislature is is moving away from um increases in income tax or other taxes. and focusing more on on fees is is what they're focusing on. And they had a similar legislation last year that requires Moab and every other retail water supplier to pay a fee uh to to help fund the division of drinking waters regulation program that's based on how much water you use. It's like a per 10,000 gallon uh fee. So that that's definitely the approach that the legislature is is taking. I I don't know whether there's a I don't know whether this bill will pass or not, but um we we'll find out in two weeks.

Yeah, we will. Chance it may end up in interim too,

right? Um let's see what else do we have. There is one a tax notification house bill 365 which is um notifications for um for property tax increase. I don't think any of us will be considering any property tax increases. Um, but if we do that, there there's a lot of property tax bills going on right now. Um, and so I kind of just gloss over those because I think we're we're okay. One good bill, House Bill 492, the transportation infrastructure and housing bill, um, uh, has a hundred has they've increased it to $100 million available for involving loans, I think, for housing purchases. Um, so that's that's great. Um, and we'll just see where it goes. Things are going to be moving really fast and so if we see things that we need to call our legislators, we need to jump on it right right away. And I think I'm going to be out next week, so I'm not going to be paying attention. And so is Jason. So Caitlyn, we're going to rely on you this, you know, to u alert us if there's something that and and you too, Nathan. I know you've been really good about keeping us in the loop if we need to if we need to jump on our legislators about an issue. So

Well, I was getting ready to send you an email today. If you want, I can hit on a couple other bills or I can just send you the email. Yeah. Yeah. Why don't Well, why don't you go ahead and tell us about them now and send an email also. So, I I'm sorry. It's HB147 is the one that would require local governments to provide an electronic option for completing and submitting forms and records. I I I don't know if we do that or not, but you know, I don't I think we probably could.

There's another bill called HB304 that would require government entities to accept cash payments. Uh I know for some smaller entities that that are all electronic only that they have some concerns about that. Um, here's a bill that I like, HB3119, that would allow for electronic notary notoriization, uh, which I think would make things a lot easier. Uh, there's some several bills that would make changes to grammar, uh, that that I don't necessarily think would be too problematic. one though, particularly if you have a small staff, uh HB325 would say that for instance, if someone were to submit a grammar request about summer, summer wouldn't be able to fill out that res that response or be involved. And so if if you have a short if you don't have a big staff, you don't have someone else who knows how to do grammar and your records officers at issue, that could be potentially a challenge. Um there's another issue. HB363 is a bill that would basically give municipalities a first right of refusal if a prescriptive water right easement holder decides to abandon their easement. So for instance, if you have an irrigation company that has a prescriptive easement and they go through the statutory process to abandon it, the city would then have the ability to essentially file a notice and claim that easement if you were to need it for your own infrastructure. That bill also however um requires I think municipalities to record a notice of any prescriptive easements that the city holds. So if the city has any prescriptive easements for its water infrastructure, we would need to file a notice which is probably good practice anyway. Um several bills on water efficient landscaping. A lot of those are focused on uh supporting the Great Salt Lake. There's another bill, HB410, also by Representative Tusher, that would allow someone to alter or repair an existing structure without complying with current code requirements, so long as the changes don't make the structure less safe than they were before. Um, and then let's see,

uh, some additional requirements to the new conflict of interest form that that, uh, cities are required to file. Um, let's see. There there would be another bill, HB511, that would require local procurement units to change their procurement procedures to give a preference to local suppliers uh over non-resident suppliers. Uh, there would also, you know, changes to your small purchasing policies, your pro vendor lists. Um, there's another bill called HB533 that would require land use authorities to consider groundwater issues when uh approving land use applications and issuing land use permits. Uh, that bill I think needs some work. I I don't know how Moab not having a hydraologist on staff would uh be able to do that. I don't my sense is that bill will probably go to intram or I think it's potentially stalled right now. Um, let's see. And I think that's that's about it on the list of thing. If you've been following the league's meetings, those are the the other bills that I'm tracking that may be of interest to Moab.

There's one bill um HB477 um land use regulation revisions by Kofford and it requires planning commissions to have biased training and are you familiar with that one? Yeah, I think the league has talked about that in their LPC meetings, but uh as you know, we already well, you guys have been exempt from this because you haven't been you're you're a smaller city, but other cities have an annual requirement with their their planning uh commission where they need to have four hours of training each year. It's something we've talked about just doing voluntarily anyway. our firm does it for a number of other entities, but um yeah, there's quite a few other changes in HP477. That's and I expect we'll see additional amendments to that bill before it gets passed.

Okay, great. Any questions? Go ahead, Caitlyn. Well, and then one of the I think most notorious is the HB88 um which uh doesn't allow for public funds to go to services that serve undocumented people. Um municipal, state, or local funds. Um I think it's on what it's like fifth or sixth sub. It's Trevor Lee's bill. It's on its sixth sixth sub, I think. And if I'm not mistaken, I I wondered I thought I heard that that got circled, but I might be wrong.

I haven't checked on it today. Um, so I know there's been I' I've been hearing about this bill since the session started. I'll be really interested, probably pretty sad to see what happens. It was circled. Um, and so I I think I I that that could it could pop up, but I I I know in one of the legislative meetings I was in today, the thinking was is that that that bill is likely dead for now. There was an article on the trip about it too has some more insight on what some of the other legislators are thinking. And 501 was circled also. That's the we got from LPC today.

But I think that was circled because the rumor is there's a a substitute coming. But it could also mean that it's just going to end up an interim. Yeah. Um and then finally, the the good news bill that I've been tracking is HP68, which moves um a lot of housing into Goyo. Um that is in the Senate. Looks like as of today, it's on the second reading calendar. So, it just needs to move through the Senate. So, that one hopefully will this week. Yep. Anything else from anybody? Thanks, Nathan. Appreciate your update. If you wouldn't mind, if you have an email to send us um the bills we need to be paying attention to, that'd be great.

Yeah, it I I don't want to repeat what you guys are already aware of, I'll I'll just send um these other bills along. Okay. Yeah, Sen, I guess since I'll be on on duty 247, right? Okay. U motion to adjurnn or make a motion to adjurnn. Motion by Tonnie, second by Jason. All those in favor?