City Council - Regular Meeting

Are you we ready to go? All right. Um I am going to call the Moab City Council regular meeting to order on November 12th at 6:00 p.m. And Lizzie, I'm going to ask you to lead us in the pledge tonight. busy. You can do it. Sure. You just have to say I Yeah. Wait. Okay. Everybody follows along.

The United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Nice job, Lizzie. Thank you. Should take off my hat.

Great. Uh, next on our agenda is public comments. Do we have anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to our department update with Alexi and she's going to update us on the Utah renewable communities right now. Okay. Uh so the Utah Renewable Communities has been in a consideration process that's taken quite a while. Uh and it's at the planning at the public service commission at the state level at this point and it could be potentially coming back to us in January for another decision point. So, the intent of going through this update now is that if it did come back in early 2026, um we'd be ready to think about the next step. So, the overview includes what Utah Renewable Communities is, uh what our participation has been like, what the timeline is for the program, and next steps. So the Utah renewable communities is a group of communities. There are 19 of them, cities, towns, counties that have the same goal of 100% clean electricity for the homes and businesses in their communities by 2030. This goal is considered a net 100% goal because the idea is to between existing resources and new resources meet 100% of the demand in the participating communities. So that's the net 100%. Uh so some of these sources are already online and then some of them would have to then

come online potentially up to half of it. Um that would be new energy on the grid for the participating communities and that new electricity on the grid um would be exclusively serving these communities. But for any participate, any residents who choose to opt out of it, they would still be a part of the Rocky Mountain service and anybody who's in it would now have renewable electricity, but also through Rocky Mountain Power. So, it doesn't change who our utility is. It doesn't change the reliability of service. It would just change the source of that electricity. So, why are we doing it? Um, it meets Moab's goals. We passed a resolution for 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2040. So it meets our goals. In addition, it also allows uh us to work with another group of communities with a similar goal to be able to purchase electricity at scale, which makes uh more sense and is more accessible to more people. Um, you Utah renewable communities represent about 25% of Rocky Mountain powers electricity sales in Utah. So that puts us part of a bigger block of electricity purchasing. Uh, also it provides an additional choice uh for residents and businesses in Moab. Uh, some people have access to rooftop solar or other things, but not everybody has that ability. Um, they may not own, they may not have a roof that's suitable. This puts another option out there for Moab and the people and our businesses uh to choose from. Uh and in addition, because Rocky Mountain Power is our utility and we don't have a municipal uh utility, again, it gives us an avenue to pursue this. Uh it also provides investment in local communities. Uh we're looking at for the

new purchases to happen more in kind of a regional area. um not specifically in any one location. It's going through an RFP process, but the idea that it can create property taxes and and invest in small communities throughout Utah and also uh supporting our health and environmental goals um avoiding pollution that can be associated with other sources and especially related to cleaner air quality with cleaner electricity. So participation uh hypothetically if all of this moves forward and goes through and uh we as a community continue to participate in the Utah renewable communities for the any customer they would remain Rocky Mountain Power customers uh they would automatically be enrolled and have the choice to opt out. Initially opting out would be free but eventually in order to try to stabilize the participation in the program there would be a termination fee after the launch. And right now they're estimating that electricity costs would increase by three to four dollars per month for a participant. Some of these things will continue to be finalized as this program application goes through. So these are just estimates. Now we also are required by law to have a program for low-income customers. This involves extra outreach and engagement that must be done on a timeline that is part of the legislation. It also involves access to a monthly bill credit up to $7 for those participants. Um, particularly this would apply to people who are in schedule three, the home lifeline uh, electric lifeline uh, plan. And then also people who are low-income customers would have their wave their termination fee waved. Okay. So here's the timeline where we

are in the process. the enabling legislation passed in 2019 and then communities including Moab adopted uh resolutions for net 100% renewable electricity. Then uh communities signed uh an ILA. Uh Moab chose to sign as an anchor and that meant that we were sort of a backs stop uh for some of the costs. So at that point, Moab put in about $8,500 as an anchor, which is based on the percentage of the population of our city in comparison to the program cost. Uh then this came to city council again in November of 2023 uh to sign the utility agreement. All of the communities had to sign that to move forward and now we're at the program application stage. So this uh will be at a public hearing coming up in December. Uh and if that is approved, then we'll move into an implementation timeline that is strictly outlined in the legislation giving the city 90 days um and any participating community those 90 days to adopt an ordinance to continue with the program. So, the key takeaways for today is that this public service commission hearing is coming up. There will also be opportunities for public witnesses to uh be present at 6:00 pm. It's in Salt Lake City. There is a virtual option. I included in the agenda summary, how to participate in that. URC is recommending that all of the communities have some representation in either in person or virtually at the hearing. Then coming up, um the public service commission will consider the unresolved items. Um there's some disagreements on the particulars of how the program would operate between Rocky Mountain Power and

the communities. So the public service commission will make a ruling on those things and it's possible that as early as January 2026, there could be an approval. At that point, that 90-day window opens and then that is the commitment from communities that they do want to participate in this program. We would consider that at that time and um we'd have that those 90 days to make a decision. Uh from there, we would enter into uh reimbursing Rocky Mountain Power for two rounds of required notices. This would cost approximately $5,000 we estimate for Moab. And then after that uh people would have the option to stay opted in or to opt out and the cost of continuing that program would then be managed by the participants in the program. So at that point the participating communities who have been working on launching it would become a a backseat to the actual customers who are participating.

And that's my update. Are there any questions? Um so at the 90 days when they when they approve it at the 90 days will they have more costs nailed down like yeah we should have a firmer estimate um once we get through the public service risk commission some of these things will be decided by them which will determine the final program cost and what we would expect that to cost both for participants and for the city uh continuing. So, we will have some more specifics once we have whatever the public service commission has decided.

Did when when the council approved this in 2021, did did they put like a financial threshold on it of like, you know, um I'm just kind of curious, you know, because things have changed a lot in the last year as far as government subsidies or federal subsidies, right? So, are you talking about how expensive it would be for participants? I just wondering like yeah like four years ago has a different outlook than than right now as far as costs and you know federal um subsidies that went into renewable energy that no one really knows if renewable energy is going to be cheaper or more expensive you know right

yeah to my knowledge there wasn't something in particular that we passed but part of the agreement among the communities is that there has to be an agreement of those communities to raise those program costs So the feeling among the communities is that the cap on how much this could cost is actually from us as the participating communities because a lot of um city council's commissions have the same concerns about getting too expensive. And that's where that three to $4 comes from is the sort of comfortable threshold of how expensive the communities um would let it be before um as the Utah renewable communities we would we no longer support it.

Okay. So we we are sort of uh as a group our own limit. Okay, that's okay. Any other questions for Lexi? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Keep us informed. I'm sure you will.

All right. Next up, we have our consent agenda. We have four items. is a ratification of a merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern Pacific or Southern Norfolk Southern. So, it's a merger of those two railroad um entities. Uh the quarterly finance report which Michael gave to us at our last meeting. You're just accepting that report. Um, approval of the minutes from October 28th, 2025 regular meeting and approval of the bills against the city of the Moab in the amount of 67398,030. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion by Caitlyn. A second.

Second by Tonyie. Any discussion, Caitlyn? Yeah, I was wondering if you could give us a little more information about the railroad merger letter.

Well, it's in your packet. Um, basically I uh uh Nathan Anderson who works with the uh Union Pacific asked the city to support this merger that's going to be happening. Um maybe I guess there needs to be there's a process that goes through. We thought it was a good idea to support this. Um we felt like one of the things we really wanted to encourage the railroads to do is start looking at more transportation options around the state and so we included that in the letter. Um, and that's really all I can tell you about it other than it's something that's probably going to happen and I think it's probably a good a good move. Um, and I thought we would be supportive of it. Should be supportive of it. Pink's not a whole lot to really talk about there other than it seems like a good thing especially if if they can start doing more economic development type transportation. Any any Tonnie from you? Anybody else? All those in favor say I.

I.

Anybody opposed? Motion passes 5. All right. Next, we move on to our general business. And we start with a public hearing for ordinance 2025-16, an ordinance of the city, Moab city council of Moab annexing the Shamrock 25 LLC property at 14 South High 1410 South Highway 191 to the city of Moab and assigning the zone of C4 general commercial to the parcel. So, I'm going to open that public hearing at 6:14 and Corey is just going to give us a brief um update. We This has been moving through the process, you know, over the last eight month, eight months or so, and now we're at the point where we're ready to finalize the annexation. So, this is the final step in the pro process.

Correct. Yes. um without a more extensive presentation we've been through I think most recent with the uh I guess with public hearing how would you like this information organized I kind of popped up with public hearing but it was kind of am I coming up now or would you yes no take your presentation now I just open the public hearing you present and then and then public can come and talk

great thank you so much um so yes this was a property that was uh through resolution approved for a pre-anaxation agreement under conditions to access the sea under the C4. Um with that I would only like to additionally specify that under that pre-anexation agreement where we are establishing the zone we are also establishing the concept of the development. Now within that it's um having not gone through our full development review process unable to with immediate certainty say exactly how that development will look or be organized. But generally it is the uh desire of the council to through the annexation know what that development is going to be. So there is in that language some fluctuation of the number of units that can be housed in the development. Um but essentially that would be upon the developer to prove compliance and density capacities when they go through the site plan process. So, as we exit the annexation process tonight, if the uh council approves the annexation, we'd move into that development review process and go through standard compliance review uh for planning commission approval of site plan and then into the building permit process. I can pause there.

There was a pre-anexation agreement with this as well. Correct. So, could you explain how that works with Sure. Johanna, would you actually mind? has our has our annexation presentation teed up for our other items tonight but maybe it's helpful just to share now I think it is because this is the end of a process

yeah so it might be good to move move the material up for this for this sake but um yeah for a pre-anexation process those are adopted through resolution so in that it is an agreement between the city and the developer under which the conditions of an an uh property may be annexed or shall be annexed into the city so it is not an annexation itself self, but it does profile the explicit conditions that we would be going through. So again, this is uh not where we are tonight. We are at that's okay. This is the this is the presentation. Um so we we are down at our public hearing. city council was at the bottom of that flowchart uh with a council decision, but pre-annexation uh process does not require the council to annex the property, but gives the developer a a sense of security as to not only the zoning, but any additional conditions the city may require upon the development of that project. So it's it's a mutually beneficial tool to advance the particular project versus a broad zoning of we'd like to come to the city and we would like to receive the R3 R3 zone in this case C4, but we're not sure what we want to build. This is a very specific development,

right? And I think um part of the pre-annexation process is we there's certain things that we want. And so for somebody to want to annex the city, there's some negotiation that goes on so that we feel like we're getting what we need. If you're coming into the city, these are the things that we would like. And normally that's been affordable housing. It's housing projects. So that's some of the things that we negotiate as part of the pre-anexation process.

So thank you J. This is our slide. Thanks so much. Um, so yes, through the agreement, we were able to establish the C4 zoning as well as the construction, how those proposed units would factor in with the 50% AE requirement. Um, understandably there's some ability to amend based on the number of uh units that can be accomplished through that density, but because the unit uh excuse me, the project density will be affected by the horizontal development standards, how the parking lays out, how drainage lays out, which cannot be comprehended in advance without a significant amount of engineering, which if they aren't even annexed into the city is a pretty high request. So this is something with Nathan and Michael we've coordinated with developers of we're really threading a needle of enough information the council has a very good concept of what will be approved and what will be developed with some flexibility for the developer to actually accomplish their their major goal. So we say we might see that 54 number increase it may decrease but this is I believe 54 was the minimum amount we believed it really could feasibly be fit. we could see that number rise potentially to 62 units if they were to navigate u buffering drainage all those things that it allowed for more more horizontal development.

What won't change those the 50%. Correct. And yeah, in the pre-exation which again we're we're kind of beyond that. We're into the annexation itself. The pre-exation already being uh approved had a number of provisions that navigated that fluctuation that we we the city would not get the short end of the stick in that case. It's a very even draw based on the development buildout and all the proposed units are allowed in the C4. So the 54 number is allowed. Correct. Yes. This is the Yeah. Not a So there's no

giveaway of here. Nope. No. The only thing I think that is really a concession is we have fairly favorable development standards by right in the C4 which is what the developer was wanting to come into the city to utilize. and for us the AE which for an apartment project like this is actually I think and I won't speak for Ellen uh on behalf of the development but a fairly reasonable requirement because that's the occupancy she'll very likely be having anyway so it's a nice I think it's a really nice compromise and draw right

council do you have any uh questions for Johanna or Corey before I open it up to the public okay all All right. Thank you. Uh, anybody from the public would like to speak? Give everybody a few minutes to decide. All right. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. And now I will ask for the consideration of approval of ordinance 2025-16 or ordinance of the Moab City Council of Moab annexing the Shamrock 25 LLC property at 1410 South Highway 191 to the city of Moab and assigning the zone of C4 general commercial to the parcel. Do I have a motion? Um, I'll move to approve City of Moab ordinance 2025-16, an ordinance of the Moab city council of Moab annexing Shamrock 25 LLC property at 1410 South Highway 191 to the city of Moab and assigning the zone of C4 General Commercial to the parcel.

Motion by Luke. Second. Second. Second by Tony. Discussion, Luke. Connie, anybody else? All right. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion passes 5 Z. Thank you.

All right, Corey, you're up again. And now we are starting at the beginning of this process that we just showed you up on the screen for another property. Um, and so right now we're we are considering accepting the petition for annexation, which means somebody's wanting to annex into the city and we're accepting their petition to start that process. So that's all that means. Um, and so this parcel is located at 486 Riverands Road in Moab, 84532. and we are asking for the petition to annex into the city of Moab following the state municipal annexation code process. So Corey, do you want to talk a little bit about this?

Yes, I would like to slow down on this one. I then thank you for the opportunity with that one. As we're closing it out, it made a lot of sense to really recap. Um, so we're having one item that has just come to the end and now one that is just beginning, right? Um, so I'll think I'll go ahead and let Johanna go through kind of the general standards or excuse me, the general overview of the project and then maybe I'll slow down a little bit to talk about some technicality elements of both the annexation process as well as this site in particular.

Um, yes, up on the screen you can see I got arrows pointing to the parcel. It is currently zoned rural residential in the county and they are asking to be um reszoned as they're annexed in as C2 our commercial residential zone and then on the upper three 2/3 um zoned as our three multi- household. Um this also has a pre-anexation agreement. in this agreement. Um there's a an acknowledgment that this is gonna um perhaps look like an island, but um yeah, and then there's a 100% um AE requirement for any residential dwellings that would be built. Um and again that kind of split zone uh the re rationale for that is there's a existing laundry facility on the bottom that they'd like to continue that use. So that's going to fit into the C2 and then on the top uh they have a new plan for what they'd like to do.

A new plan that's not that plan. Yes. Yes, pardon. This plan is the conceptual plan that was attached to the pre-anexation which outlined a 20 unit new to what then is existing now. They want to build so different than what Oh, sorry. I Good catch. Thank you.

Okay. Um so in our uh diagram here we are at the exception phase. Um the petition has been received by the recorder. Now we're to you. Um going forward, we'll go through the noticing um any objections and then come back to you after we see a planning commission. Okay. Um Dan, would you go back to the last slide?

Yeah. Um so yes, moving into the acceptance of this petition, the pre again the pre-exation formulates how this annexation may occur. What we're looking at now, which is to say in no way does a pre-annexation authorize, approve or otherwise guarantee an annexation to the city. That is purely a a negotiated agreement that if the city were to annex, here are the conditions that you would be accepted in on and that we can anticipate receiving you from. So again, that security on both ends and actively pretty pretty helpful tool for both the developer and the city. Now, we're engaging into just accepting the petition that we're willing to go through this process meeting what would be kind of the minimum uh statutory requirements of the state to accept it. That's at this point we would go through the remainder of summer and the the recorders office process. If there are qualifying objections within that process, we would engage with the boundary commission in the county. Um and then it would ultimately come back to city council with a public hearing for final acceptance uh under those terms that we've already negotiated. So with that being said, the second bullet point here, acknowledgements of exceptions in the unincorporated islands given that this property is housed within our annexation policy boundary, which is slightly different. I understand within the community it's it's terribly confusing and even at the state level the legisl legislature has continued to amend how annexations can or can't occur in some of those standards. Um so when we're talking about islands or peninsulas those are very well-defined and large largely uh broad areas. So when we talk about a peninsula it is not a singular property that necessarily would constitute a peninsula of uninccorporated within the city. That's something what we might see is if the city were to have annexed something maybe potentially outside this policy area that does create an enclave of a certain mass acreage that will be

constituting a peninsula because again what we're not I would like us to stay out of the territory of nitpicking off of our own interpretations of those languages um because what it's meant to do is ensure that we're adequately serving these properties. that's why they would not do a peninsula or an island is that we wouldn't be able to adequately service this area is clearly within our service boundaries. Um so when we've been coordinating with county and the annexation including a portion of river sands and maybe if we want to go there Mike can talk more about it that's what is in turn creating some of these exceptions that the county has already agreed to. So there there's nothing here that would be objectable to the statuto requests of the state. Um, so we can circle back to that if there's any questions, but I did want to touch on that really quick because those could be some kind of flag words of islands or peninsulas. So it is nothing that is running a foul of our process or standards, but is something that in this particular instance makes sense. Um, let's maybe go to do we have site plan up this

it's in the one side. Let's go there. Thank you. Um so we'll talk a little bit about the particulars of this um development and how it was coordinated through the pre-auxation because I know the council has received some comments from the public um and just wanted to have that be understood. So both maybe as Joh this up process-wise for the pre-anexation there was concern that well we're just hearing about this in the community where was our input that was again just an agreement to create terms in which it could be annexed. So there is no public hearing or or larger public engagement process at a pre-anexation level. Um what we would see is going through this process like we did tonight the opportunities for public hearings that if the conditions make it through the process and we do come before city council that is the public's opportunity to speak to how it does or doesn't satisfy or advance our general plan for our annexation policies. Um, so don't want the community to feel they've missed the boat on this in any way. All that's been approved so far is the zoning and then the potential development style. So when we're looking at this uh very conceptual site plan, just like I was speaking about with our prior annexation discussion, this is conceptual has not been approved through our uh development review process. There's a number of measurements here that are not observed that we would require. Buffering for instance, separation of structures by building code. None of that's been assessed, but the applicant has to provide something for us to look at. So, it does create this really tricky thing for us to understand and create um u a reasonable level of of both securities on how we how we are to approach this. So regarding the the number of units u that type of element is it within the R3 under that density breakdown that is the number of units

that would be permitted in the R3 by right. So we did not again give away any additional density through the pre-unization agreement that wouldn't have already inherently been in the R3 zone that that 20 is acceptable in R3 or is that with the AHC increase that density?

Uh the byite and ah actually in this um by use parameter format is not a density bonus mechanism. Um, mostly because the R3 and R4 are often so dense. You the density inflating the density calculation doesn't actually do anything because of just like what we're going to see here. Sufficient parking, sufficient spacing is actually going to probably constrain the number of units before you can even achieve your maximum densities. So, a bonus is redundant if if you will.

So, if I can jump in really quick. So, yeah. So, this site plan, we're under no obligation to have to approve this site plan, right? They still have to go forward through a process and prove that they can meet all of the standards of the code which would require public hearings and things like that for site plans and at the planning commission if if required. Okay.

Correct. But for certainly for the annexation and at the end of the day the this this site plan is just to help us to understand what what the intent of the developer is. And then the other thing I was going to bring up really quick is you mentioned there will be opportunities for public hearings and things like that. Can you just go through really quick what processes this has to go through that people will have a com an opportunity to comment at? Perfect. Thank you. Um sorry would you jumpart? Absolutely.

Um so from here on out if the council were to accept this petition we are going to go through the remainder of this flowchart. Much of this flowchart is um through an administrative process in the back end and there are a considerable amount of both steps and noticing periods throughout that. That's why annexations take so long is the state requires the opportunity during each individual steps noticing periods for comment and otherwise. Um so upon acceptance where we have the star it pretty quickly move through a certification process and record aer noticing period and in that time frame that's when qualifying objections could come forward. Now the state is very specific on who is a qualified entity to make an objection. Oftent times it it is not a property owner. they are larger agricultural interests, um, utility interests that it's it's something kind of out of our wheelhouse, you know, something you see much more on maybe the Wasuch front area. Um, that's not to say that Sitler couldn't come in for some reason. I don't see them qualifying here. Maybe the Nature Conservancy. Again, they don't qualify either in this instance. Anyway, so there is that opportunity there to make a qualifying objection. it's going through planning commission whereas at public meeting not necessarily a public hearing but it would be held in a public public meeting there. If there were objections we bump up to a different track which is the boundary commission which I believe would have a public um of the qualifying entities a public meeting of which they would speak. If we don't receive any, we go to our public noticing period for the council. We have our public hearing which we had tonight for another annexation. Uh that completes the annexation process. Okay, stick with me now. Now we're moving into development review. So they would submit their pre-application and development review application much like a site plan as

Johanna mentioned, also probably a minor subdivision um to establish the two new properties of which would align with the zoning uh split and then through that new development just go through the administrative development review process. So, not an additional public hearing per se, but an opportunity for public testimony to be held on from any of the property owners or any qualifying citizen uh during that planning commission meeting for the adoption of that, but it would be at that point administratively approved if the project complies with all standards. Johanna did have a a bullet point. If the property owner finds that during this process the the status quo development standards are insufficient to get what he needs, they potentially could come back for a development agreement which would go before council public hearing planning commission a full public process. So once we zone them in, they can develop by right under the terms of their pre-exation agreement. If there were a need for more density or a need for concession of setbacks or anything else that would have to go through a full another public process including planning commission public hearing and city council approval. So a bit of pick your own path but many other intervals uh before an approval body. So, if I can jump in again really quick, this these last two, this annotation that the council just approved and this one uh when I was in Corey's position, I was I was pretty involved with these before I became the city manager. So, I've got a little bit of background, a little bit more background and more intimate knowledge of both of these, but I wanted to bring up um thanks for doing that, Corey, because it's it's important to show that we're at the beginning of a process, not at the end of a process. But I also want to bring up the significance of why peninsulas matter. This truly is a peninsula and the state encourages cities to annex these peninsulas so that services can pre be

provided in a consistent manner. When you have peninsulas or islands like this, you have different responding agencies. In case of law enforcement, in our case, fires the same. Doesn't matter, but there are uh different public works, different roads crews that are going out there and working on things. And in this situation, trying to move closer to providing um services from the city in this area makes it more convenient um con uh consistent with the area where the police department would spawn respond there instead of the sheriff's department, things like that. There are some other things that had to go into this as well

in addition to the ah and the things that we talked about. the road in that area is a little bit of a problem. It's not developed very well, if it's developed at all, and there are storm drain issues and some other utility issues in there. We had talked to the county about that road when we took um first took on this pre-anexation discussion and decided that with this annexation, if this were to happen, that the city would actually take this entire road all the way down to the birds property so that we could improve the road if if we have the rightway, but but more than anything, work on storm drain and things like that to improve the area. So we'd be taking that road over from the county at that time and then we would also start providing city services to this property that's being annexed but not the other properties down there until they annexed. If I can jump into to piggyback on that there were again the comments from the community about well there's limited capacities of the infrastructure maybe the waters they feel the sewer isn't adequate or the water surfaces are undersized whatever it may be that this development if it were going to move forward would have to improve the utilities up to the municipal services of where it is capacity uh for them to develop. So the community should not be afraid of what within the planning terms is called concurrency of building out our infrastructure as development grows. Usually that's an obligation of the developer that is causing the increased need or demand. So that would be the case here. But as Michael said there are, you know, continuing uh development options or other properties that'll be on that road. they will also be able to be brought up to standard as they develop or further develop and the city will be handinand in that process for sure. Um so yeah, this one of those elements of we're obviously trying to be good stewards and responsible as we want to bring development to the city. So

we're not trying to get out ahead of our skis, if you will, as far as infrastructure to actually support the development sizing. So I guess um is this area served by GISA right now? I I guess I'm I'm I'm curious how that process works of transitioning out GWISA transitioning in city. Would we have like double lines in the road or like I

So Gissa would stay the same because Gissa serves an area larger than the city. So that they would stay the same. If they're being served by GWA, they'd continue until we took over uh water or most likely irrigation or whatever it is. It's the storm drain that's the counties and then it's the um the road that is the counties and those are the two big things. Uh there is a I believe there's a sewer line in the road. And we have water. Yes. Yeah. This rear properties we do have some interiors here. Wow.

So it would be installed with this. So we would be bringing sewer to that area with a new development. But the main things that we'd be taking over is we'd be start providing protective services and we'd also start providing uh road maintenance and storm J maintenance. Correct.

So my my concern with this pro with this whole section is Riverand Road is kind of the land of misfit properties. You know, there's a little bit of everything going on down there. You have rural residential, you have, you know, oneacre lots, 5acre lots, you have commercial operations going on. Um, you have a tiny road, you know, and when you create this peninsula, I I have concerns with that. To me, it seems like if we're gonna annex a property on River Sands Road, maybe we should go to the bird property or go to the Bird Line and annex everything south, you know, um because we are going to be taking on um all this maintenance. You know, that road is super narrow. Um there's no curb and gutter, there's no drainage, there's no anything. the the financial impact for the city, you know, for for this one peninsula would be pretty huge, I think. And then even telling these guys to come in and put in a development or when you guys do this development, um you know, you're going to have to go up to code, you're going to have this, you know, um couple hundred feet of curb and gutter and then nothing after that,

you know, and um and it just it it's incomplete, you know, unless unless we as a city want to go in and say, "We're going to make this road curb and gutter both sides. Um, we're gonna make that road the road's super narrow and you got um commercial businesses operating down there. You have um it gets a lot of use, you know, and I I think that it would be great to have this in the Moab city limits. Um my my concern is is that with this if um is it more that we can fight off and also I have concerns with with the R3 when the majority of the homes down there are R2, you know, does it make sense to plug in an R3 zone in the middle? But but but it's all but it's a bunch of misfits. You know, you got commercial R2, R3, you know, stuff. It's like

Yeah, there's a lot going on on that street

for sure. Um, and that I think if I may from the staff perspective, those are all super valid uh elements of discussion that probably make sense through the rest of this process. So if the council feels that they're willing to engage in those discussions if there could be a solution, we'd have to accept the petition to more fully establish the staff report to give you some of those findings of which then you can make the decision. As far the only thing I would the caveat to that is the zoning through the prestation agreement has already been established through that agreement. So variability of zoning is limited and that we've this this council has already essentially approved if this property is annexed that would be the zoning which they would receive in concession for uh the product that they would and indefinitely build. And then sorry the last thing with that is that I think within our p annexation policy boundary area

we this council may begin to view our annexation process a bit differently in that it is inevitable that we will be annexing all properties within this at some point. So it's not saying I think your comment about how we go about that and the pe if you will a peacemail approach um versus a more blanketed approach that's a a temperature of the council and and where you guys would like to go into the future but inevitably we will be receiving this this road and maybe Michael can speak more about that negotiation with the county roads department of it if I you know I don't want to overstep my bounds it will not be improved by the time we annex it whether that's within in a couple months or that's in many years is my impression.

So we we have the opportunity or the option once we take over the road where if we have CIP funds available, we can we can do whatever we think is appropriate down there. um taking the road over from the county makes a lot of sense because uh it it didn't make a lot of sense for us to just have a small portion of it and for them to have to come through the city to do maintenance on a very short deadend section of road. So, it just seemed like a the right thing for us to do. As far as the peninsula goes, um the idea would be to eventually close this peninsula up so that there would be uh consistency in services and utilities and all those types of things that are being offered down there. But it has been um kind of the policy that we we have not been pulling or proposing anything that's pulling things in and the annexations that we have proposed to the city council so far at least for the past few years. We've done a few have all been at the owner's uh request and so so that's that's why this one has come forward just like the the two that we did with um Ellen and the one that we did with with Tai Shamway before that. Those were all requests of them and I and and the property next door to this I think is R3.

Correct. Yeah. The the lower image it's kind of blocked by our our thumbnail there but you can see behind Yeah,

there's a Yeah. adjacency immediately to the east is R3. Across the street is R2, but then as you said, there's commercial down there. There's R4. It's it's matched with a I believe it's MHRB1 even this. So, I think your hotspot is exactly right. So, maintaining a a continuity of zoning is a bit of a challenge where okay, if if that is the the attempt, I think you can kind of hit the target on multiple approaches. We did do in that essence of well okay the other Jane Stency if it's not R3 maybe if it were R2 um a potential buildout they in theory by right could be looking at 16 units as opposed to 20 so a factor of what your councils get could be um so they would have to go through a different mechanism it wouldn't be a single property owner they' go through a twin home subdivision but essentially they could get up to 16 potentially um just through

in the R2 in the R2 by subdividing versus this is a single singular property developing with this ah context. So again, it it's a it's a great discussion of the council of we I think we've set the stage for if this were to annex, here's how the developer would need it to be annexed as far as um zoning and his approach project. But whether that fits, that's what this annexation process is for. That's exactly what these questions and this period's for. So you're guys are right on point. If they went with like the subdividing route, like would that still be considered like a multi-household like development? No. Okay. So, ah wouldn't apply to it at that time.

Correct. Unless somehow we were to renegotiate the development agreement and they still were willing to concede ah even though they'd be subdivisions which we haven't typically seen. They've usually been reserved for uh multi-ousel projects. So, and and Corey, I'm sorry. I the the whole the process the the steps of the process are a little confusing to me. If if we are challenged by the uh the density that's being proposed is is this the opportunity to restart the conversation to to to stop it? You know, you were saying that the the the zoning that we're talking about carries forward in this process

as it's established. Is is this the point this petition where where council if we are challenged by the density? I I think the answer's I I think the answer is yes to your question in that we have a pre-exation agreement not only establishing the the zone but also it says shall construct 20 multi household units. So we know it will be multi-ousle not individually subdivided. We know it will be the 20 and that if it were say and this was a cons and go ahead mayor.

I was just thinking wouldn't wouldn't that come up with the planning commission when you do this the site plan review? I mean it could change. I mean that's this is what they're requesting but it may not actually fit when it gets to the planning commission. If it gets to that stage, we'd have to probably renegotiate with the council of, hey, 20 really doesn't feasibly fit. I I I think it could. Right now, the style of development they're doing stacked single kind of town home, excuse me, a town tiny home court style development. Well, if they were to smash that density together, all of a sudden you create horizontal space. So, I believe 20 can be accomplished. Maybe not in the format in which was being proposed. We won't know. So, so Colin, to answer your question, if if you are challenged by the density right now, the council has an option to to not move forward with this,

but the agreement that was signed by the council and approved by the council says if the council annexes this property, this is what most likely will happen there. and the and the city has basically agreed that that is that is along the lines of of what we would accept down there. Even though we still have to go through the process, make sure that the density works and all that kind of stuff. Um it may not look exactly the same as it looks there. might look differently, but according to the zone, again, if if it's annexed, that zone will be assigned that according to that zone, you could what's that? They would qualify.

They would qualify for up to that many units and they could they could organize those a number of different ways. And and so then a couple more questions. So then the the R2 zone, you know, one of the my challenges too is and you know, as evidenced by the site plan and the R3 zoning, uh the the setbacks are challenging to me. Um the how does how do the setbacks fall with the R2 zone? Are they the if they were to approach say a to maximize if you will? Yeah,

they would likely have to go through a twin home series development. So I think I'm trying to pull an example that might be close. um maybe the first phase one of the abbey subdivision. I don't expect everyone to have that in their brains, but that's how they essentially approach is they had a a row of homes that were twin homes, but very narrow lots right in series. Okay, they would likely approach something similar to that. And given the densities of 5,000 square feet per uh twin home lot, which has two individual ownerships on them, they could achieve up to, and this is what Johan and I ran, up to 16. We'd still just like this have to see how do the roads work, how the circulation setbacks with this. As far as setbacks go, the peripheral setbacks are not really the problem. It's internal setbacks. The more division you have in homes, you create fire separation issues. And if those aren't attached with the firewall, there's space there. we have what can be a complex and this is where we can't forecast it. We need to see architectural drawings which they're unwilling or really it's not practical for them to do unless they know they're actually moving forward with something.

Okay. Um but yeah, with with um Oh, there you is it kind of so just to finish my thought. Yeah, if the council decides to move forward with annexation and you're not deciding if you're going to annex tonight anyways, but if you move forward with annexation and you do end up annexing, there is an agreement on this property uh with the property owners at R3.

Exactly. Um, but that's only there if you annex the property. The council is under no obligation to annex this property at any time. It's completely discretionary uh to to annex or not. But if we if you do annex, there is an agreement

the and with that number 20 like where did that come from really at the temperature? And if my memory is correct, at the time we were navigating this with I think actually our previous annexation that we just went through was kind of in the same realm of the council needs to know what they're getting signing for because what we could have seen because if it were ah okay okay that's a very helpful um insurance element for us that it would be a a product we like but also if they if we did not put a number factor on there it was just 100% age. Well, he could in theory come in and place a single household on that property, which is not at all what I think the council was looking for at the time. They were looking for a multi- household development. So, if we didn't have a minimum threshold number, they could have come back with a totally different product that could have even through ah a very different occupancy, if you will. um these designed in the way they are with the number of units, it's very likely by design and also with ah we're going to get a workforce housing product which is yeah very upfront with what the owners that's what they want to do. It's it's going to be an employee workforce housing project.

Got it. Um so that was again the number you know seeming large now it was kind of well we needed it to be a large enough number for it to make sense for us to go through this process otherwise say we'll figure it out. county. It's large enough. Oh, that might be a benefit to the city. So,

so something that that I've been having a a challenging time with with this um and and I am certainly not the housing expert on this this panel. Um but you know, we uh but but even you know, there's some statistics in in the report, the staff report in our packet. Um, you know, it's it's really it's really challenging to to go against in any way, shape, or form something that that's presented as workforce housing because we have such a need in this community. But I but I do have a concern that you know we as a council have seen hundreds of units uh either being completed in the last few months and I'm extending that into the county but also come before us that that have this sort of same package their their apartments their one and two and threebedroom units. Um, you know, I I have a concern and and I again I'm not I'm not the expert and so I don't know how the numbers are generated where like you know we have this goal of of achieving 952 units by 2030. Um to me the the hundreds of units that that are coming on that really have this sort of same um presentation to the community. Um I I I I have some concerns with with how that will affect, you know, the the broader market, you know, to Ellen's uh wonderful projects that we're seeing, you know, and I without seeing that I so that that's that's really informing mine, you know, to me, I I'm thinking, do we do we want to put this kind of density on the these neighbors if you know, when when there are some to me some unknowns of of, you know, where we're going in and our trajectory with with the housing that we're building. And I know there are people who are, you know, Caitlyn is one of them who are putting a lot of thought into exactly the product that's going to serve this community the best at this given time with what's coming online and what's in

the pipeline. Um but again, you know, we've even tonight we're looking at, you know, uh what 70some units that, you know, in in addition to, you know, literally hundreds of units, a couple hundred units that have come online or are coming online very very soon. Um it just gives me a little bit of pause of, you know, if we want to do this to to this quiet little neighborhood. um you know and again going against workforce housing is something that you know I think we're all very very hesitant to do. Um so I what what are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, thank you for that's a great kind of almost rhetorical statement but as a question that's really helpful for me as a platform. I think there's two things I'm hearing which is I think perfectly where we're at again looking back to our process is we have in no way entitled this project. we simply said, "We're willing to entertain your project under these conditions. We'll look at that through this process." So, we're asking the right questions at the right time through the rest of this. Um, which is where maybe some of that question is kind of directed to council as this is not a, you know, this is a a property owner petitioned annexation. We did not the staff did not propose this. The property owner said, "I see my current situation with the county and their development standards isn't making sense for us. we would want to come to the city and develop under these standards. So at this point we're we're looking at more feasibility capacities under the terms of the preaxation. So that first section of the question I think is great to the rhetorical element of the council. Is this is this what we want and where we want it um given the pre-annation in form. to the second point of the actual specifics of housing. I would barring a couple conversations that I join have I've had really recently about a couple new product formats. We haven't actually seen something I would say is very similar to this. I think what I I'm referencing and it's very um casual is this tiny home typeesque. It's going to be stick built. it will be. But that's essentially what we're seeing is a a a unit that is stacked of living space with a a parking aside next to it. So, it's not a trailer park by any means, but um when we're talking about the other products, apartment housing or economies or even rental town homes, we're not seeing a project, I think, right now on our books that looks like this. So that's to say, is it a is a, you know, a one-bedroom or studio flat type small square footage space um going to detract from the other

numbers we're seeing? I would I would argue we're in enough of a deficit. No, I don't believe we would be. And I think we have enough of a built-in deficit of our growth pattern, even satisfying our existing deficit, we'll have built-in deficit of our economic expansions. Had a long discussion about that today with some other developers. Um, so short answer is I don't I don't think this detracts from our existing developments or even proposing developments. I think what you're on to is if we're beginning to see a mono crop, if you will, of the same types of units, two-bedroom, oneb in an apartment format over and over and over again. Yes, I would say that's are is that what we want to see here? I don't believe that's the product you're actually getting in this location. I think this is kind of lending itself nicely to almost the best version of a multi-house of development and a quiet street environment because you're going to have individually occupied units with some ownershipesque elements to them, some some space versus if we were to say, "Oh, we're going to put a consolidated apartment block here." that is maybe I think kind of more acute to what you're saying is if we put an apartment building here is that categorically standard with the street and the flow capacities of that that that quality of life down there. So I'm not seeing this in my opinion verging on that quality of life down there. I think it's actually as the one of the most appropriate versions of what you could have seen out of something like this. Um that's it who you know we like I think Michael said it nicely we don't have governance over how those 20 units manifest. That's what this developer is planning to do. He could come back and say it's a block unit. So that is a risk is not rhetorical. That's a good risk

and understand where we're going with this. But um I I think I don't know with Michael how we're looking at River Sands generally we feel you know 20 units versus the commercial intensities how that is really going to tip that property over or not that's up to you guys your your constituencies and your understanding but I from a planning technical perspective don't believe it's putting us into a level of service in that area that is deficient and there's no AMI associated with this so this is all market value so it's not like the affordable like we're talking about out on Bill Creek that we'll be talking about later or what Caitlyn's doing out at Aoyo. So, it is market rate housing.

Yeah. And I guess I compare it to the the cottages, you know, that I think it's a similar product. So, I thought too, but you go.

Yeah. I just just try and we'll maybe close up staff hopefully with this. Um but uh the the council is in a position where you can decide whether or not to continue to evaluate this or not. Um you you wouldn't be adopting this annexation or approving the annexation tonight. But if you do move forward, you're kind of signaling that yeah, we want to put these people through the process, have them go through this whole thing because we think it might be likely. Um so if it's not likely, now's a good time to to really talk about it like you're doing. um after the annexation happens, just like after the annexation happened tonight with Ellen's property, then free market basically takes over. And at that point, uh you really don't have a lot of control over, you know, exactly what happens there. You get to see, we get to designate density, we get to designate lots of health and safety things, we get to designate several other things. But if your concern is that that density isn't right for this property, then the the action that I would suggest is to to not move forward. Um because if you do move forward, that's the density that would be allowed there and that's the density that was agreed to with the property owners previously. So thanks Michael. That's a bad explanation.

Yeah. And I I so as we were I was listening but also just thinking about you know is this actually a quiet area? It it is a quiet area. Um but actually looking at and thinking about what's actually there. Um you know it's really interesting because on one side you have rural residential you have a lot of agriculture that hasn't been developed yet but um you know as mob continues to grow that is the trajectory. um not saying that's going to happen or not, but more so um this area is adjacent to R3. even if you wanted to pull back up that map. um you know there's so not only is there so there's the R3 kind of behind where we are with um Orchard Villa Intrada is right there that's C2 that's high density um cortoilla is right there that's R4 um R4 for a multi household for threelex or greater is 1,800 square feet so that's also a quiet but very dense neighborhood and And then you have Grand Oasis, which is also a very quiet but dense neighborhood. Um, and I think especially with those two, you know, my my bigger challenge with with this is thinking about infrastructure and the road and um kind of connectivity once you start getting back there. Um, but I think that's going to be a challenge regardless. Um, but I think when I'm actually looking at and thinking about density, like this is actually like a very surprisingly quiet but very dense part of Moab City. Um, so and and I think also if we were to go back on zoning, I did all should just double check this. effectively if if we weren't um going with this split zone route, if we said

we just want to do R2, um that would effectively remove the like you couldn't do the laundry facility. Um that use would be eliminated if if we just did residential. So, so it's kind of decision as well to not do the AR the we could leave that parcel, couldn't you?

It's uh currently one parcel. So, as a part of this, they would have to go through a minor subdivision to separate the laundry from the the north section of lot, which would be the residential side. Um, so it's not to say you couldn't, if we were to go back in time and restart, you just changed it from R3 to R2. In theory, you could generate a similar agreement that did that, but that's not what we have. So, it's kind of up to the temperature of of the applicants. So, they'd be willing to do that.

Yeah. No, you're good. But yeah, I mean just kind of like looking at those um you know, we have R3 on the very top and then we have an SLR lot. I mean there there's no even for this to go SLR with how small the parcel is small residential in the county. Um you'd only be able to do four units there if it stayed in the county. If we decided to not move forward and they stayed in the county and reszoned,

might actually say you might not even be able to. Uh, RR is one acre, one lot minimums. So depending on how that organizes, you might I guess the sub subdivision process you'd have to go through. Um and and so I guess so yeah and I can't speculate on that but I think me actually looking at it while we have so much like agriculture and we have those parcels right there that are rural residential I think when I've been reviewing it and I feel like I I also pulled up our my notes from the meeting where we approved pre pre-anexation and um I mean I I think infrastructure aside side looking at the type of housing that's in that area. I I think that this project is actually really in alignment with um manufactured mobile homes and like smaller kind of neighborhoods that are around there. So um so yeah, I see I see both sides as kind of a clashing of quietly high density housing with agricultural like very low density. Um, so it's I do think it's kind of a decision point. Um, if if if this annex is in, it's continuing to um kind of further that that trend that we've seen is kind of my take on it. But

one additional note, it was it was kind of been overlooked and it's a bit of a forecast. If we look actually at our zoning map here, if you look to the north of Riverands, there is actually a property that's addressed or two rather that are addressed off of this that are in the R3. I believe that is correct. Um, so if we're looking at that run of the east side of the street, it it could be in place that that that actually is contiguous upon a future of it's it's not, you know, obviously right now, but filling in the blanks, if you will. Um, do you know do you know when that happened or Okay. No. Um, that's pretty odd. It's obscure. One at the end. Yeah. On the north side. three. Um

I think one was I do remember talking to a property owner there was a petition that their lot was non-conforming that it was I believe a trailer and the county sorry anecdotally the trailer they were needing to replace it because it was in bad condition and the county would not let them replace it because it didn't meet their standards. So they couldn't expand the legal non-performing use even though it was just a replacement of trailer. So, I think that was the narrative around one of those properties coming to the city is to allow them to replace their trailer um without kind of getting away from the non-conforming status that was in the county RR. So, you said one thing that kind of stuck with me, um that if we approve this that eventually gets approved as an R3, um the property owner could scrap um the conceptual idea and put in apartment buildings like

or a a building that has one building effectively wouldn't. So if based is a factor that's something you know that that could be up to 40 feet right I mean in R3 top 40t in height. Yeah. No 35T or 35. Yeah. 35. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So we definitely could push back but but you are you are correct in being uh if I mean if that's concerning to you trying to bring it up because that it is potentially could happen. Yeah. Absolutely is. Um it could happen on the other R3 property there also.

Yeah it could. It could. And I guess um for me there's two two concerns I have is is you know the you know like and one thing I want to ask is when we talked about this last time did we have a conceptual map presented to us with the acres. Okay. Yeah. Um and then um is you know like if if those units don't fit you know um then can the project be reduced you know to 16 units or something like that still and which I think um

you know could make it a better you know pill to swallow you know stuff on this. Um, but for me it kind of something that really concerns me is I don't want the city to own that road, you know. Um, that that's something that's super concerning to me because um, you have and and again this goes back to property taxes and us being able to maintain this with funds coming in. you know, there's not a whole lot of funds coming in to maintain that really long road with all that infrastructure for um residents who um you know, are county residents, you know? Yeah. Yeah, that's

isn't there some sort of formula like as more development occurs and as we like take in more uh like property like within like the city region that like we don't have to go through a true taxation might process like our ability to generate some more like tax revenues increases based on more development. Yeah. Yeah. And you know this that's a good point. We do own part of the road already. The the first two properties there it looks like are incorporated in the road. We would have been taking over the rest of the road.

Yeah. Um and yeah, I think and this I think to to that point of it it being a burden of the city is I think this is the way our city has evolved in its annexation bound or excuse me our city limit boundaries have kind of already set the stage. We're we're bearing the burden of those decisions in the past. I it's my belief at least the way we should be executing our execution policies this will be a city road at some point. Um so that it's not the question of whether there will be a city road or not. is whether it will be sooner or later I think is my personal opinion on how we're going to approach annexation. um for all the reasons Mike said, continuity of services. I mean, that is the premier element, but I I think with I'm kind of looking back to our engineering department who may are not going to be able to speak to this, but the way the funding is, the way our our um uh Bill Jackson with roads in the county when we engaged in those original discussions, it was it was quite a ways back and Michael was pretty hands-on with that is well, you have to improve the road before we annex it. And that this was a whole series of discussions we had, but that's not

that went nowhere. it's going to go nowhere. And so I think the the impression that we'll ever get that up to a standard where we can just inherit it and it works, I think we're not going to see that likely. I don't see the county investing in this road. Yeah.

And I think like I definitely understand the concerns of bringing like more high density into an area that already has a lot of density. like there's a lot of traffic that goes up and down that road, but a lot of it doesn't really move past like the Entrada and like so we're kind of bringing a that a little bit more down. Um because Entrada that's where a lot of like the UTV like renters come in and so I I know a lot of people view that as like one of the last remaining like really quiet spots in Moab. Um and like that's definitely something that I'd like to preserve. Uh my concern is that like it's a little off the map there, but that like kind of purple pink area is industrial zone.

And so like I was looking at the things that are allowed over there. And so we have like asphalt and concrete mixing plants, automobile wrecking and salvage yards, breweries, coal yards, moving equipment. Train depot is on there too. So is water reclamation facility which really stinks but yeah um and there's also like that weird little industrial island there that um but like I think like the fact that it is like a hodge podge like

it makes it that much more challenging where like there is the potential to kind of like expand off of that um bring like heavier equipment. I think ultimately it have uses that would be more disturbing. I can't remember if we had that one. It was the storage units like we end up adding that to industrial. Okay. Yeah. Was it was amended. Uh they ultimately moved away from that product. It's actually going through the process right now for something different. Okay. For that property, but but it's still zoned industrial. Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's still zoned. Yep. Isn't there a kennel? Very odd kennel. No, I believe that one was not amended. Yeah.

So So what would prevent it from being C2? So we're accommodating C2 to um to accommodate the um the laundry mat. Um but so but also if that laundry mat goes away, it's still C2 and anything under C2. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, is there like a way, which I don't think we want a restaurant down there or whatever, anything that goes into C2. Um, is there a way to like zone it all zone it all R3 and put a laundry mat as a non-conforming use in there?

I don't believe at this point. So that if it goes away, you know, we're not stuck with whatever can be in C3. what you can do. I mean, we shouldn't be we shouldn't be creating non-conforming uses, annexing parcels, properties that are non-conforming. I think um just as a practice, but I also think we're not supposed to do that either. No, but Yeah. But one thing you could look at, and this is going way out there, is is to add to amend the the ordinance R3 to to add that use to the R3, but then it's added to the R3 everywhere, right? So, so it's I mean it's a it's a I guess you'd say it's a slippery slope. Yeah.

I think like with it being basically isolated in there, any sort of commercial use like unless it was some sort of like outfitter or something like that, I think like its best use would be to cater to that like small area. um just because it is so like tucked away from like everything else um that I don't necessarily know that it would be some sort of uh use that would be like driving additional traffic into like a very tight pet community already. Um but I mean then again like you never know like is right. Um

isn't there already a laundry there? there there is which is hence hence the C2 um in in theory with the existing structure I think to your point of well it could be something else it could but given the existing structure we'd likely see an infill or transitional use that complements what the existing uh impact on that that site would be you probably would see variabilities of a much lesser impact or much greater impact it's probably housed the way it's going to be housed but that laundry facility is not like a public laundry facility No, I believe it's contract. It's not a public long, not like it's a commercial commercial which is a need in this town. Yeah, actually for the hotels and hospitals.

They the current ownership groups because I believe there's two have have no intent in removing that use. Um that was kind of the whole carve out is they just wanted that to be able to continue and definitely as long as that business is doing well. Um anything could happen, you know, that's something we're throwing out. Well, one thing that um Summer, did they have to make a decision tonight on whether to accept it or could they they have to make a decision tonight? Make a I'm ready to make a motion. Is any other questions for staff?

Um yes. one, and I think we talked about this last time too, but um because we're annexing it and there's no concern about creating like a zoning island with the C2. Um we have more discretion in that or there. Yeah, I mean it's it's an interesting question because yeah, you kind of are, but it's already there. It's already been it's already been created. Um it's already has been created. Uh, so no, there weren't concerns with that when we went through the pre-anexation. Yeah. And there there's other commercial operations on the street that are consistent. Um, but uh, no, it wasn't. Thanks.

Okay, we'll take a stab at this. Uh, I move that the Moab City Council deny the petition for annexation for property located at 486 River Sands Road, Moab, Utah 84532. Motion by Colin, second.

All right, motion dies for the lack of a second. Oh, I have a quick question. How like how long is our agreement like in effect? Is it basically like if we ever annex this into the city? Like we are bound by I believe there's some defaulting standards there.

So the motion has failed at this point. Yeah. I'll I'll look this up. Sorry.

Yeah, I'm sure. Um Nathan, if you want to chime in and answer this quick. I'm I'm pulling it up now. Um, I don't think we had this agreement in the packet.

No, it is. It's in I pulled it up from the agenda. Maybe I'm missing it in the taxation binding upon all successors and signs of property owner in ownership or development of any portion of the property. terms of

maybe while we're waiting there was one additional element that didn't really naturally come up um something when we are looking in these areas mostly on the peripheral of our city boundaries not so much in these peninsula areas but it's even more heightened I think in these areas is I think an again an inevitability of these is it will develop in in a way you know Jurassic Park life will find a way here it it will so when we're seeing that especially in the periphery it's a concern of mine absolutely want to coordinate with the counties that if we're seeing larger this not really hitting my radar is one of those developing in the county under county standards that we are very imminently going to annex we would be annexing in to that point a very likely non-conforming in a variable number of ways. So having the city opportunity to have these areas that will very likely come in city jurisdiction at some point built in our standards is a major benefit to us long term as well as the property owners. But that's not to say that's a determining factor, but it is one of those again um

could you find? So yeah, so Nathan, I'm looking at uh section 13 and I'm speaking with the city attorney case was wondering whose Nathan is. He's on he's on Zoom. Um and it appears to me that the agreement is to run with the land and is binding on all successors which um to me unless there's something else to the contrary says that it's indefinite. No, it it there's the language if if this is we we have language about the decision on the petition

and the city shall make use all reasonable eths to either approve or reject the petition as soon as reasonably practical. So the city will have fulfilled its obligations by if it's going to reject the petition then then the as far as I'm concerned the agreement has terminated because the city's fulfilled its obligation. Okay. It doesn't say that the city has to we we we we agreed to process a a petition and act on it and we have and we when we've done that our obligations under this are are are completed. Was the nature question if it were annexed how long do they have to? Oh, I think the question is if it's not like in three years, will this agreement still be good? It depends on the action you take tonight according to our city attorney.

Okay. Okay. Um, do I have another motion, Caitlyn? I'll motion that the Mo City Council accept the petition for annexation for property located at 486 River Sands Road, Moab, Utah 4532. Motion by Caitlyn. Second. Second. second by Luke. Discussion Kate.

Um, appreciate the conversation. Also really appreciate the comments from the public on this. Um, you know, I think this seems to have been a very important lesson for all of us about the importance of pre-annexation agreements. Um, but yeah, that's all the way to that.

Um, no, not really. I mean I think like we've covered kind of everything and yeah it I don't necessarily like that there is the possibility of the form changing but like that is something that like like we kind of stepped into like when we made that agreement and like I don't know always want to just like leave things up to like the good choices of like others but um this does sound like a really interesting and novel project to build into the community. Um, and there is a part of me that kind of likes the little experiments to see like how things like work out and see what type of units might be possible. So, it'd be great if like as envisioned is something that or similar to it uh is something that moves forward. Uh, but yeah,

anybody else? You know, for me, I I I think this is a good project. Um I just um and I think it could do a housing. It's pretty funny. I I I I'm very very very familiar with this property and um and I used to joke around with the neighbors and be like, "You could have an apartment building here, but you have me, you know, and stuff." And um and it's kind of coming to fruition, you know, that um that this could happen, you know, and stuff. And um and and you know as things progress these are things that kind of come up and I think that um you know the biscos um are are great people and the birds are great people and that they will do a a good project you know with what scares me is if it gets um moved to something else that that and that that's what scares me on this. Um the other part that that I um that that I don't like which I voice my opinion is is that um I think it's it's going to be a burden on tax on taxpayers um to to redo that road. That road is super narrow. Um there's no curb and gutter. It's going to be very expensive and I don't think it's appropriate for um the Moab City General, you know, CIP funds, you know, going to to do this for a few lots, you know, where it is right now. So, I'd like to see a more um broader annexation, you know, for for doing something like this to take care of that road. And so, that's kind of where where I'm at on this on this project in the subs.

Anybody else? All right, we've got a motion to accept the um the petition for annexation for property located at 486 Riverands Road, Moab, Utah 84532. Motion made by Caitlyn, second by Luke. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Roll call. Caitlyn. I. Collins. Nay. Connie. Hi. Luke. Jason. Motion passes 32 with um Colin and Jason in opposition. Thank you. More to Colton.

Thank you.

Okay. Next up, consideration of a change order in the amount of $71,580 for the stabilization of Mil Creek at 500 West project. This project has already completed. This is a change order that's um already happened. We just need to approve the funding. The budget for this will come out of the insurance claim for the flooding and also through our capital improvement project. So Mark Okados, let's get our uh Okay, so just so we all know where we're talking about, uh this project was located at the Fifth Street Bridge over Mil Creek, uh which we're just showing real quick here just for context. Um, and I'll I'll go into a little bit of background here. I think that's probably where we'll go with this. Uh, um, so when we originally, uh, imagined this project, it was, uh, simply an armoring project. We were going to put rip wrap around the bridge. Well, I shouldn't say simply an armoring project. Around the bridge, it was simply an armoring project with some sediment removal. Uh, there was also some additional sediment removal on on some private property and some other improvements uh, to the path nearby. uh those ended up not happening for other reasons. So um actually that's included in this change order as well as removal of those things uh from the project. Um uh and so without getting too much in the weeds though I'd be more than happy to get in the weeds if you all have questions about that. Council has questions about that. Uh there was a portion of the project that was removed off of uh private property and from where the path is. Um the biggest impacts however uh uh to the increase in the contract cost came from uh our discovering a concrete map under the bridge.

Is that what that is? So that's Yeah, exactly. So that's what's shown in that photo. Yeah. They all have them. We've cleaned it out. So

So yeah, so this was installed uh we think around 2000, year 2000 and uh and then just simply forgotten about over the years. it was sedimented over uh and we didn't know that it was there. Uh we don't have these typically under our bridges. So this one was just kind of an odd the odd duck there. Uh so upon discovering it uh a little bit lower than actually the finish grade on the rip wrap that we were going to install that brought the finish grade on everything further down. We didn't want to just put rip wrap over the concrete. We kind of wanted to play with what we had there. Uh and so we had to very quickly redesign the entire project uh which was um I believe successfully done. Uh we brought the finished grade down to the uh to the surface of the existing concrete. Uh that meant that we had to reshape the stream up and downstream mostly upstream uh which is uh where uh our additional costs came from. We ended up just having to remove a whole lot more dirt. Um uh also involved in that was that there was a water pipe that was installed there. I believe after the concrete I think went in is the way that happened. Uh, and I can only speculate here that it was installed after that concrete pad had been sedimented in significantly because they did not run the water line particularly deep, which meant that when we went to regrade out, uh, upstream of the mat, uh, we had to be careful not to expose the water pipe. So, uh, we were very careful to, uh, grade the rip wrap such that it is protecting that water line a little bit. Um, in the future that line will probably have to be replaced uh as shallow as it is, but uh but we think it's it's it's sufficiently protected right now. Um and so uh we did

um I think a total of four change orders. One of those was uh uh actually can we go to the breakdown you have of that? Uh we did one that was initially a small change order which we did not bring to council because this one fell within our limits of uh an administrative change order uh for potholeing for the for the water line that was shallow. We had to locate it so that we weren't going to hit it in our regrading. Um and then uh another change order for some nearby uh we'll call it um relevant sort of improvements. Uh at the time we opted to go in and uh finalize removal of the pedestrian bridge abutments that are along that corridor there. One uh that's the confluence bridge that was there. We had left the abupments when we pulled the bridges, so we thought, okay, let's just get those out. Uh and another one down there. Uh that bridge also came out. Uh so that was just finishing up some old work. We had a contractor out there, so we opted to have them do that while they were mobilized out. Uh at this point we were still under our uh administrative limit for doing that. Uh meanwhile we were going through the process of having to redesign the project on the fly and uh uh get something that worked with the water line and that regraded into the surrounding bank and the upstream u reach of the creek. Um and we didn't actually have a number for what that was going to be as we were going along. Um we did some uh field fitting there uh because of the issues with the water line and and uh and uh and uh fitting in with the uh the creek. We were also there were some complications there with our survey and additional floods and we were kind of in the in the midst of all that. Uh at the end of the day uh we ended up finalizing quantities for that additional sediment removal uh based on survey. So we were pretty confident on that number. We did we did that uh uh

based off of some survey data and uh yeah and so we ended up surpassing our administrative limit for change orders at that point. Uh I think that covers most of it questions for staff

motion. I guess I do have a question just related to pedestrian bridges. Um I've received some um comments from yeah about kind of that section, what happens with pathways, what happens with bridges. Um obviously we've had several conversations about it. I've also had some inquiries about um kind of like pathway connectivity through there. Um, I guess I I don't have a very specific question, but just as as we're looking at that area. I'm always just wondering like kind of what what comes next with with additional longer term.

I think that's a conversation for another time because our motion I mean I think we will have that conversation but what we're talking about today is the change order. Yeah, fair it is. Yeah. And we and we do have a uh that our study that we're doing currently that that will address that yet. Yeah. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay. I'll make comic motion to approve the change order of $71,5.80 for stabilization for Mil Creek at 500 West project. Second. Second. Second by Caitlyn. Any further discussion? Jason? Um no, just the suit jackets. I that's what I

look fant I was like thank you you come in ask for a million ugly but yeah took my comment he does get hey the bar has been raised I know how can you say no now I know whatever you want okay Jason anything else no Caitlyn. No. No. Anybody else? All those in favor say I. I. I. Mot uh anybody opposed? Motion passes 5. All right. Thanks you guys. Thank you council. You look good. Should we take a picture out front under the little Yeah. In the picture frame.

Can I just say that was a really great project that uh was really good using our NRCS and trust money to add capacity to that area. And you can see how good it looks as well. And so really proud of that project. Um there's lots more to do, but definitely they did a really great job with that. And that's a perfect example. I remember we've heard that what we do downstream we need to be careful because it impacts up upstream. And so what they had to do I think was really important. We didn't cause any more problem. Keep water moving through. Yep.

All right. Our last discussion item um I'm looking forward to this conversation is a discussion and consideration of res resolution 112025 establishing the affordable housing partnership policy and impact fee assistance program to support affordable housing development in Moab. As you know, we started this discussion at our last meeting and we uh requested that Michael come up with um a policy for us. She's worked with some developers, got some input from Caitlyn, and now um we're going to have further discussion. Now, keep in that mind. We don't have to make a decision this evening if we're not prepared for if we're not comfortable. And also, if you guys wouldn't mind holding off on your questions until after the presentation because Michael thinks that a lot of questions you might have be will be answered in his presentation. And so

okay. Yeah. But but before but I wasn't sure if you um yeah before Michael starts I will also be recusing myself um from this conversation. So I'll go sit in the audience. Um and yeah recusing myself due to a potential conflict of interest because her my employer is a developer that could benefit from this fund. So thanks Kate. Appreciate that. Although Kaitlin has provided input to Michael so still a partner. Yes. Doesn't doesn't change anything as far as partner um or a a stakeholder.

So just going through this. I want to just go through the policy really quick uh and just tell you how we developed the policy and and what we are trying to to uh to get to with the policy and then also go over some of the comments that I did receive from developers of what they'd like to see and what their their wish list is, which I think we're pretty close to that. But they have some really valuable information of how to make this beneficial and useful, which is what I think we all want. there's no point in doing this unless it's it's going to be useful, I think. Um, and uh, so putting this together, I put together the framework for it, put together a policy, and then I worked with Nathan. Nathan took it and put it into the ordinance format and added some more things to it, giving it more background and uh, the things that he does. So, we will uh go over this and happy to answer questions at the end, but like I said, I think a lot of the questions or like the mayor said, a lot of questions you might have are probably going to come up on the two pages that I have from the developers and what their comments were and then that'll kick us off into I think a really good discussion. So this um this policy just let me go back. So, this policy is the affordable housing partnership policy. And really what it's about is partnering with the people who are building affordable housing within our community and are deeding that affordable housing over uh as affordable housing for a period of time, 50 years plus. and working with them to to help to offset some of the costs of development so that they could be more successful and move forward quicker with developing these muchneeded affordable housing units. This does support the the goals that the city council has for uh creating work

workforce housing or affordable housing. It establishes a format and there's two different things we're going to be talking about here, a policy and a format for waving or reducing impact fees. and we'll put those together as one. Or offering no interest loans to developers who are developing affordable housing to offset impact fees. So those are the two things we're talking about. Uh the um and then also it it we're seeking to balance the need for affordable housing but also not lose track of the fact that we it could be easy to say, "Oh, well, we can make it easier on you by cutting back the impact fees." But that does not change the fact that they will still have impacts on our sewer, water, storm drain, streets, all those different kinds of things. So it it helps to bring all of those things into view when considering uh entering into agreements with developers in partnership. So the legal framework u the state says that we can make codes like this uh within our community. our codes in chapter 13 in the municipal code, which is the impact fee chapter. And we're going to specifically refer to 13.25, which is the water impact fees, and chapter 17, which is the assured workforce housing. Uh those two chapters are what we're we're kind of basing this policy off of and the things that are within those chapters. So, in chapter 13, it does say that you can reduce impact fees for affordable housing units. Although, it doesn't give you any criteria or anything like that. It just has this one criteria and some a few others, but related to affordable housing, this is what it said. You can reduce those impact fees. Um, the housing fund can be a source for those

to put towards the development of affordable housing. So, as we're talking about this and we're offsetting impact fees and we're we're acknowledging that the impacts are still there. What I talked about in the last meeting was using funds that the city has to offset the developers costs which will then help them move forward quicker and will be our partnership effort in in developing affordable housing. And that money can come from the housing fund. There is a requirement within the housing fund or the assured workforce housing where uh developers of hotels need to put money towards uh housing units for the the properties that they develop. And there's also an opportunity to do what's called a fee in lie of construction. And a big part of our housing fund comes from that fee in lie of dis uh construction and otherwise known as the uh the wahoo the workforce assured housing. Just threw an O or a U on it.

Say that with more enthusiasm.

No. So, and the reason why is because I'm tentative about that because it's actually the assured workforce housing. It's in a totally different order in the actual code. So, it's kind of hard to say actually. So, uh, this policy also creates the criteria and the process. And what the criteria and process will do is make it so that it's transparent and uniform. When the city council is reviewing these requests for waiverss, they'll review them on the same playing field for for everyone. And if you meet the criteria, you do. If you don't, you don't. And that it'll make it a lot simpler than just having a section of code that says you can if you want wave impact fees for these types of uses. So getting into the actual meat of it, we are establishing some elig eligibility requirements which means the project needs to be within the city. It needs to be designated as affordable housing indeed for at least 50 years and that follows pretty much LITC which is a 55 year dedication and the units uh need to be between 40 and 80% AMI. Litec says, "I know the one we're dealing with, and I know a lot of people know a lot more about this than I do, but the average for the one that prompted this was at 60% AMI through all the units, but um we can we can definitely mess around with that and get it to the right place where you want, but certainly 40 to 80% area median income is affordable, uh is in the affordable range. And the developers need to be in good standing. We need to be working with people that we trust and that are are currently in good standing. the property be in good standing as well. So the funding tool is we can either do fee waivers, fee reductions, or no interest loans. Now fee wavers would be just that's everything just complete or partial forgiveness. You're you're just wiping it off the books. They're never going to owe it. And proportional adjustments or

fee reductions kind of fit in that too, which is kind of the partial forgiveness or proportional adjustments. pretty much similar things where you can say, "Okay, we're going to wave a 100% of that so you can move forward and take those fees off the books for you uh so you can develop this affordable housing or we're going to do 50% of it to help for you to move forward and and support affordable housing." So, those are those two and I I put those two together because you are you are waving either a portion or all of the fees. And then the other portion which came up in the meeting that we had two weeks ago uh which I thought was great a good discussion about well how do we continue this program moving forward if we give all the money away like right now and that's the revolving loan fund. So, if we were to create a revolving loan, which is mainly what this policy is about, um we are we need to come up with some criteria for that. And so, there'd be a no interest loan. There'd be a period of time. It'd be up to a certain amount. And um and there and there would be a contract that went with that. But the funding tools would either be wiping it off the books or a no interest loan that would be paid back over a period of time. The safeguards would be that there has to be a certain amount of money, and this is my suggestion, there has to be a certain amount of money within the housing fund to even consider this. And so, if somebody came in and said, "We want to apply for 200,000, which is the max according to the policy if it were to get approved that way. Um, can we apply for that? Is there enough money in the housing fund to do that?" Well, a simple calculation would be, well, there has to be plenty of money in there because this housing fund does other things as well. So, what does that mean? $250,000 in there. We're leaving $50,000 in there. I just came up with there has to be twice the loan amount within the within the fund to entertain the

uh the request. So, if they came in and there was only $200,000 in there, you'd say, "Well, no, we can't do that because there's only 200,000. we could entertain a a potential loan for up to $100,000. That would leave a $100,000 within the the housing fund that could be used for other uses and we're not completely depleting that fund. There's probably a million different ways to go about doing this. This is just a simple way that I put out there for consideration. Uh the safe the other safeguards would be the recorded deeds on the property which I said was about 50 years not about it would have to be a minimum of 50 years about 55 with litec is what it ends up being. So as far as review there would be a process that someone would come in and they they'd make their justification to staff. um they'd show proof that they are providing affordable housing, that they have an intent to go through with the LITC project, which requires a 55-year deed restriction, or they're going to do a deed restriction all on their own and just just make it so without having that um financing requirement. So, next step we go to is we would review it as staff. Uh we'd make a recommendation to the city council on the waiverss or reductions. And if the council were to approve the policy that that we've put forward, loans would be reviewed by the city manager and would be approved or denied based on the criteria that already exists. So it would it's one of the things we're going to talk about with what the um developers asked for is don't make it too burdensome for us. Help us move forward through this process quickly and don't put more more processes in our way. So that would be like if you agree with the criteria and someone comes in and meets those, why go through another discretionary process when they meet all the criteria and and that way the city manager could approve the loan based on the criteria and enter into the contract

with them. And of course, if it's I mean the council has to approve the budget allocation and things like that anyway. So the council definitely would be involved regardless. Um the city council action would be step three. In the cases where it was required, you'd either approve or deny the the application and uh make sure it aligns with the goals and that there's enough money in the balance and all those different types of things. So, as far as oversight, we would have contracts that would be required for all loans which were waivers. I don't know exactly what we would get with the waiver except for the contract would be that you're going to do the 55 years, you know, or the 50 years, that kind of stuff. But it wouldn't be for repayment obviously because there would be no repayment for a waiver. Um, each of these contracts could be different and that's one of the challenges with this whole thing is that talking to different developers, different developers have different ideas of what's going to be helpful and useful for repayment. They all agree on one thing which is waivers are much better than having to repay. So just getting rid of the fees alto together is preferable. But we have one developer who says we can't pay it back sooner than five years because we have to have cash flow and all this kind of stuff. Another developer that says well same same story for us but it's 19 years. So there's a little bit of a a gap in there. There's a big range. So that's something we'll be talking about. But it would be different. It could be different or maybe different with each project. It could be there could be a range where it's a minimum of five, no more than 10 or something like that. And um as long as they fit in with that range, uh it would be something that we could just include in the contract. And for some it'd be five and some it might be seven or eight or 10. So administration it would be managed by my

department and we would have standardized form standardized forms applications templates all that kind of stuff so that it would be transparent. It would look the same for every developer and we'd have the same information for every developer that came through and was making the request. And then there would be an annual review or however often you want to do that where we would report on the the success of the policy to the council and make sure that it's still continuing to align with the the goals that you have and the fiscal goals especially because let's say there is no more money left in the housing fund. Do you want to move this to the general fund or do you want to just say until there's money we're not going to do this or we're just going to stop doing this altogether? So, I do think it would be appropriate to review it yearly because things could change quickly on on a policy like this, especially with funds. Okay. So, last couple things to go over is just the feedback from the stakeholders. Like I said, the most beneficial thing for them would be to wave just wave the fees because that would move them forward the fastest and have the highest impact. The next best thing would be no interest loans. Uh, one of them said that they would need at least fiveyear repayment period. The other one says it would need to be three years for construction, 16 for operations to ensure that they continue to have a cash flow. And um, and doing something different would affect them because the cash flow is important for the other loans that they have. LITC being the probably the biggest one that they have. Um, or the credits and then other financing that goes with that. and then um also being able to do maintenance and things like that on the property going forward. Uh so those are the things that they're bringing up. Um they did bring up the possibility of adding forgiveness. Uh for instance, the council could at some point if you wanted to, you could write

into the agreement that they could petition for forgiveness of the of the loan at a certain point where it would then become a waiver. It could be before they started paying it back. It could be like student loans. I have to make 120 payments if you work for nonprofits and stuff. It could be a lot of It could be several different things, not 120 payments. That's just how the student loan thing works, but you could come up with a criteria like that if that's something you wanted to consider. But that was brought up and so I wanted to make sure it was brought up here as well. um they want to make sure that it it it doesn't become so burdensome that it makes it so they have to go through more processes and it takes more time, they have more legal costs, they have more planning to do and different things like that. And the the point is that it can offset the benefits. we'd have unintended consequences to this great program we're trying to do, but it takes so long and it's a little bit more burdensome which puts the developers off from using it and um and we want to make sure this is successful. So bringing that up and the overall goal according to them and I think for us too is it should be efficient, it should be predictable, it should be friendly and it should attract and retain affordable housing projects in Moab. And I think we all can agree on that. I think it's it's a different it's a sliding scale or it's kind of relative what developer friendly means depending on where you're standing or where you're sitting. But I think the last part there um or the the first part process it should be efficient, predictable and attract retain affordable housing projects in Moab. I think those we can all agree with. Um and then these are just the followup to those main things which is let's avoid the added bureaucracy. Um there is another alternative to deed restrictions

which is I think it's Utah Housing Coalition has agreements that they um go through a different process but are still binding and that's something we can look more into and just that's something that they brought up because some of the developers actually use these with some of the other projects that they do and the the groups that they're working with require that uh as opposed to a deed restriction. Um the uh the real world example was from one of the developers and they did they did give a little bit more information but I didn't think it was appropriate to share all of it. So I just narrowed it down to this. the full waiver equals cash flow improvement and they get to use that money going forward for um financial feasibility of the project making it more feasible that the project's going to happen in the first place and then using that money for property maintenance in the first several years of the project the low interest loan they're still interested in it or the no interest loan sorry and we can talk about low interest as well if we're going to go out so far I would recommend that we do look that interest, but the no interest loan they think would still be helpful, but they want the payments to be as long as possible again for the cash flow. And then this is this is a given. This is not even uh debatable or negotiable. We would not be in first place on these loans. If we are recording leans against the property, we would be subordinate to senior financing and all the other things that go before that. So if they ever were to default and they would go through this process, the other creditors would get paid back first and then it would come down to us, but we would probably be one of the smaller creditors uh in considering everything that they're looking at. So that's pretty much the the policy. I'd love to have a discussion with you and

get your um direction, feedback, and how you want to move forward with this or what you'd like to do. So, what happens if they default just on the waiver and not anything else? So, that would be that would be a legal question that um I believe Nathan could answer. Let's

Yeah. So, one of the things that we put in this agreement, we didn't have a whole lot of time, but that you'll see in the the resolve clause is that, you know, the staff will develop agreements. And so one of the things we could potentially do is we include a liquidated damages uh provision in the agreement that if they default or don't comply with their affordable housing obligations that we have some sort of recourse. But my my initial thinking is that we would deal with that through the agreement that we'll have them sign as a condition of getting away with.

We would just carry we would continue to have a lean against the property. So if they ever were to refinance or sell or anything like that, it would cloud up title, right? Yeah, we could do that too. Um, but I sometimes I like to have liquidated damages too. It's like, hey, you took money out of this fund and you don't comply with your terms of the deal. Now, of course, the problem you have there is if the project goes belly up and that's where the lead would come into play, right? So, a couple of options there. I mean, it it is something to consider. It could happen for sure. At at what point in the development process does do deed restrictions come into play or when when are they established?

Well, you're not going to you're not going to do any deed restrictions until you get whatever it is you're giving away for the deed restrictions. So, they wouldn't come into play until say like the credits or the loans or whatever it is, whatever we're doing here comes into play and they're actually moving forward. If they deed the property, record the deed, it's the project's moving forward. Okay? You know, it's not going to happen at the beginning of the process. It's going to happen when they're got everything together, ready to move forward, closing on loans, things like that, and moving forward with construction. Got it.

And that would be covered under section seven of the policy as part of the contracts and form section that I was just discussing. and and that's so each one of these contracts as a condition is going to have a deed restriction there and we already have a deed restriction form that we use. You've probably seen some of them in the annexation agreements that were uh discussed earlier. Most likely it's happening at closing as you're closing on all these loans these you're signing these deed restrictions at the same time and they're being recorded at the same time that the loan is the project's being funded basically. Got it. And that's what I mean by you're not going to do it until you're getting what you're getting in return. So happens at closing. Got it.

Luke, what is this? Or how do we account for like uh like mixed income projects? Like if there was a project that was going to be part affordable and part like market rate, like does this account for that? Like would we potentially It does. My suggestion is that it only applies to the impact fees related to the affordable units. So proportional. Yeah, it's proportional.

And then I guess kind of following up on that, um we currently have the uh affordable housing like defined as between 40 to 80%. Um like I guess kind of with that logic, if there were units that were 30% AMI, they wouldn't qualify for that. And that's a that's a flaw. we'd have to make just be like 80% it should be 80% or below that that's that is something that we did discuss and then as we're going through kind of missed that but yes we don't want to leave out 30% by any means right

what would what would the policy be or what would the process be if you had two projects come to you at the same time um and they were asking for a combined for combined amount that was more than the allowable more than is in the fund. Yeah. How would we determine who gets priority? Okay. Probably that probably who who came in first and who qualified first or or whoseever's application was first. But that could be written into this.

Yeah. most likely, and this is just my opinion, but you know, based on in the developer world, you're not going to deed over 50 years of your project and and that controls your property for 50 years unless um unless you're really serious about doing this. And that wasn't my point. I actually lost track of what I was going to say, but but um it's not going to happen very often. That was my point. So, you're not going to find it's not going to happen with every other developer, and it's not going to be worth most developers to to save $200,000 or save interest by getting a no interest loan um to to deed their properties over. It's not going to be worth it for that much money. They're deeding it for other reasons. They're deeding it because it's part of their financing. It's part of the credits they're getting, or it's just part of who they are, who the how they operate, their nonprofit, whatever it is. So, I don't see us using this like really often uh because the the threshold is so high. 50 years is so long to tie up your property. You really have to be dedicated or you have to be getting some other incentives that make it worth it. So, I I do think there's a possibility that we could see two applications at the same time in the next little while to be honest with you or within close succession with each other. Um, but we could write something into the ordinance that says that I mean it should to be fair it has probably needs to be something along the lines of whoever applies first and is qualified first, but Nathan has a has his hand raised.

Yeah. So this is a policy. It is not a new code. And so currently your code in 176910 says um any waiver shall be vested in the discretion of the city council based on the merits of the application in attaining the affordability goals of this chapter. So that is the overriding requirement. And so I think we we could certainly have a a practice that look we'll we'll take them on a first come first basis. But if you have two competing ones that come in at the same time, I think you could also honestly probably are required to say which one of these satisfies the goals of chapter 1769 with respect to workforce housing or affordable housing more. So would it potentially make sense to have like like quarterly applications or something or like bannual applications and then that way the council could review like if there were multiple projects to come in they can kind of review which one does align more with like the councils or cities like priorities and I think that potentially might give some more flexibility in terms of like the way that we structure things like is are we going to give all of the loan money just to one project? Do we split it apart and potentially do waiverss or reductions?

Yeah. So, I think again getting to the point that it's efficient and that it it doesn't add more burden to the project. I think holding um holding applications for a certain amount of time and only review them a couple of times a year might be more burdensome on on the developers and might turn them off from participating in this. Um, what would be more advantageous I think is if this is something you could qualify for. It's easy to or you could apply for. It's very straightforward. You can apply for it and it'll be re reviewed at the time that you apply for it based on the criteria. I think it's just incumbent upon us to come up with the right criteria so that we don't end up with zero dollars in the fund so the next person can't can't get any of it. Um, so my the numbers that I put in here are suggestions only. You could you could go with what other whatever numbers you like. Right now the fund balance is is around $400,000 uh not counting what is being budgeted to be spent this year. Uh so so $200,000 would be half of that. You don't need to do $200,000 if you don't want to. It could be half of that. It could be it could be whatever you'd like it to be. Um we're not going to see a lot more money coming in from Wahoo funds. the fee in lie of construction because there's only there's only two possible projects I think that could come in. Is that right, Corey? One of them is has been imminent for longer than the definition allows you to use that word for. So it I don't know what's going to happen with that one, but it seems like they've been saying, "Oh, no. We're coming in. We're coming in. We're coming in." and they've actually already negotiated a price and that would add to the Wahoo and it's somewhere in the $300,000 range, 380, something like that that could come in, but until it does, we don't have it. And so we don't see a lot more money coming

into this this fund. Yeah. And this is probably like a completely different discussion, but like would it make sense to have a discussion about some sort of mechanism that would feed us some money in? Because like if we I don't know to a certain point it just becomes uh I'm blanking on the word for it like a half-life thing where it just like the amount that is accessible is just like reduced by half by half by half. Yes. Yes. Like um to a point where it's probably just not even going to be like worth even applying like

the thing. And so at that point, like if we have multi-year long uh like repayments, like they're very likely, assuming this is used like pretty like consistently, there'll be multi-year periods where like there just won't be money available. Yeah, you could you could go away from what I was suggesting. Like I said, it's just a suggestion and come up with a a uh like a floor of where you'll go to with that fund. Say, and just throwing out numbers. Say it's $250,000. You won't go below that or 400,000, whatever you want to make it. And that's one of the criteria is the funding has to be available. Uh which means that um after giving what they're requesting, there still has to be that much money left in the fund. you can't go below that amount by granting anybody any funds. And and when you're granting these funds, again, they're not being given to the the developers. They're actually being transferred from the housing fund to the water fund or to the sewer fund or to to whatever fund it's paying the impact fees for.

What about developers that I mean, how does maybe this is in here, but you know, we have a lot of developments where they come in and then nothing happens for five years. would we, you know, how would we deal with that if somebody comes in and asks for this waiver because they're doing this affordable housing, but then we don't see the project, but we've already committed the money.

Good, great question. Because if if if they were to get approved, um, we would have to do something along the lines of a closing, uh, like you do with loans and stuff. So, we don't obligate the money until you close. Um, and that's when the deeds are recorded as well. So, they wouldn't have the assurance. They wouldn't have that until they closed on the property and then it would be recorded against the property and then they would just owe us. But I could see where you're coming from, which is that if we come in and we give, say someone, you're qualified, you were the first one in, um, you're on you're on the hook for this money, all you got to do is schedule a time to close, you know, go through this process with us and record the deeds and it's all yours. How long do you give them to do that? And we could we could give them a time frame, you know, like a year or six months or something like that.

Yeah, I would think that we would want to do something like that because then we would tie up the money and potentially people that are ready to go. Yeah. Won't have that potentially incorporate like a ability to petition for an extension because if like there is some sort of crazy market, right?

Yeah. If we had a 2008 happen again, and we did that with a lot of developments in 2008 through 2012, we just let them continue to to extend and extend and extend. And I'm sure this city did it, too. I wasn't here, but I'm sure this city did it as well. So, yeah, we could build something like that in where for where the city council has to approve that request. They, you know, it's not administrative approval. We're going to continue to uh extend. The council would have to get involved. Uh, I I really like Luke's thought. Um, is there a way that we could use the uh the duplex that the city owns to generate revenue to work with to reach out to like the hospital or the school district or somebody and offer up, you know, a place that's that's empty right now? And could that uh could that rent revenue go into the housing fund?

Sure. You could also sell that property. That would be my other thought. That's the thing I keeping is It is an asset. Let's put that money. It's an asset. So, you could use it through rentals. You could you could um activate the asset a number of different ways. Yeah. Okay. Definitely can be put into that fund. What great just for point of reference and I can't remember the project that we talked about last time. Did they give us a Did they give us a a number for their w their waiver? The one that the amount that they want 190,000ish somewhere in that range

that Well, that would be the full waiver. The full Yeah. I'm just trying to kind of find a baseline. And I was for the waiver when I made the recommendation to you guys, I was recommending only 50%. Right. But if we go to no interest loan, my thought process was um that you know for it to for it to be beneficial to them and to help with the cash flow, it would make more sense to for it to be a little bit larger. Um but that's that's really up to you guys how you want to do that.

And and just so I get the the logistics of this right, uh so a developer comes and they say, "Hey, we want a waiver." Uh you write up a recommendation. It comes to the council. the council says yes, no, we can adjust that amount. If we say no, that the developer has the opportunity then to go back to you and say, "Hey, then I'm just looking for a no interest loan." And you can do that administrative based on the criteria that council has adopted.

Absolutely. Okay. I love I I really I appreciate that system. I That's very well thought out. And I don't know that $200,000 is like the amount that we're like settling on, but like should we tie that to something like relative to what AMI is just because like if we just keep it at $200,000 like eventually like that's going to be worth less and less like to the developer. Um Right. It could go up by CPI. Yeah. You know, like construction cost.

Yeah. It it could go up three to 5% per year or something like that. Yeah. No, I mean I I I like all of that. Um, in terms of like the council discretion, I noticed that there like wasn't really any sort of like formal scoring or priority framework or anything like that. And so I think we potentially run the risk of having two very similar projects being treated very differently. Yeah.

Um, is that something that would potentially like open us up to the whole like arbitrary and capricious? We would, it wouldn't be part of the policy, but we would create uh some kind of mechanism for applications. You could make scoring part of the policy if you if you'd like. Uh but I think for these it just really comes down to whether or not you meet the criteria

and are you going to do it for 50 years? Does it fall into the AMI guidelines that we deem the the range that we want? And is there money available? Um is it in the city? And does it qualify? what whatever other um means or ways and and if it meets all of those then it should be it should be worthy on the face just to move forward.

No, I mean like I inherently agree with that. I think partly is just like looking at it from like the political perspective of just like not having the community argue that like this thing that was made available to everybody is being like selectively like doled out like there's some sort of preferential treatment or like that. Um, and so I think having some sort of like framework that we can point to, uh, but but I mean I guess that is like you're meeting kind of like these base level criteria once like you check those off like

um and like those are like set in stone for like like a 50 year or 55 year and again that's a really high threshold for entry and uh they're likely they're getting a lot more for that than our our fee waivers or our no interest loan. So, um I don't see, you know, just a typical uh developer saying this this works for me. I'll I'll dedicate this for 50 years without having that be part of my business model already. So, what about the no interest? Why wouldn't we charge interest?

Okay, so that's a good question. Um, Salt Lake City actually does charge interest and they do something similar to this and they do. Now, granted, and if and Jake, if you're listening, I'm sorry, no offense, but this is coming from the developer. I'd have to double check this, but he says that they're charging somewhere like 2 to 4%. I don't know if anybody knows whether that's true or not. Um, but 2 to 4% interest on some long-term loans for something like this. Um, we can do some research into that. I'd say when we originally thought about this, first of all, when I originally thought of this, I thought, you know, this makes a lot of sense. We've partnered with these guys and some other things as well. This is an affordable housing project that that's actually moving forward within our boundaries. Um, so I was ready, I did make the recommendation to just do a waiver. Um, but the uh where was I going with that? I lost it again.

Interest rates. So they but they wanted it to be like, "Okay, so we're going to transition over to no interest loans." And they're like, "Okay, cool." We wanted it to be three years, like two to three years. They're like, "Okay, no interest loans. We don't want you to tie up our money for more than three years." But when I presented that to the developers, they're like, "There's no way that would even work because it would just it would work against us through our loan processes. It would count against us because it was due so soon. It would I don't totally understand this. It'd be a cash flow issue. Say, you know, we have to have cash flow to pay that loan back and it would go against the qualification for all these other loans. So they said, well, what about doing like 13 years and we'd be happy to pay interest in that situation. So I think if we're my point is that we're already kind of beyond what we originally thought of and that might have just been our naivity that we were just naive to the to what would actually work. But I would say if we go to five years and more I think we should charge interest. I think that's something we should consider.

So kind of like tiered options where if you pay within this then it's like zero interest. Yep. Because because it is tying up money for for quite a period of time. So, and and we also know and I'll do the research, but we also know that it's not uncommon. It's happened. They charge interest with other programs like this as well. We just have to find what the right interest rate is. But the longer we have someone tying up our money, more interest they should pay. And that's just that's just the way it works.

What else, Jason? You haven't said a word, which is unmutable for you. Um, I have a couple different thoughts on this. Um, first, I think that these properties have have paid money into this account, you know, and stuff for for housing and stuff and um and a lot of these developers are coming in and they're they're creating houses. I don't think that this money was ever intended to um to be carried forward in perpetuity, you know, forever. it was it was meant to be set aside to help create housing. And um and so I I don't necessarily um I'm not opposed to the idea of a loan. I just if I was a developer and I have this, you know, $12 million project and impact fees are 190,000 or $200,000 and and I go to city and say, "Hey, could you guys wave this?" To me, I think it's um it's also that developer saying, "I'm doing I'm creating this which falls under criteria of what you guys are trying to provide. You know, you guys need um you know, I'm bringing you in kind of as a as a partner for, you know, um something you put your stamp on for a hundred whatever thousand, $200,000, whatever. Um I think that that's and we can look at it and go, "Yeah, that's what this money was set aside for. That's what this money was put into this pot. It's not our money necessarily. ates money that was given to us so that we can then reallocate it out for these for these projects and stuff. And a developer that has a $1,200 project, you know, $200,000, you know, in a loan, there's going to be like it's probably a bigger pain in the butt just to do the paperwork than it is just to absorb it over the over the cost of of the $12 million loan or whatever it is. Um, so I think that like couple things. I I don't

I'm I'm not in the mindset that you know this money needs to last forever. But this money also um you know for instance you know that we're faced with or we're being brought forth this project that has 144 units that checks all these boxes you know and it's like hey we can do this which comes out to you know $1,200 a unit you know or something like that which is um or whatever I can't remember what the math was on it and stuff um but um you know it's like it's us working through someone else to do what we were tasked with with you know helping to provide affordable housing you know and so so I think that um I and I and I do think that um like Colin great point you know and stuff we have money we have this wahoo money that's tied up in other things you know maybe the city should be paying a loan to ourselves for money that we have on these other projects you know maybe we should be paying interest into it you know because we're using that money for these other things and we're not, you know, um and so I think that um I don't like the idea of alone. I I like the idea of partnering with these people and and these people that have boots on the ground, you know, they're they're things are getting done. You know, they're not these pipe dreams. They're getting done and this is us helping to move it along or say giving them just even that stamp of approval, you know, using these funds for good things. So, that's that's my two cents on it. I I understand the loan thing and I understand trying to carry it through, but I also understand that um um I don't I don't feel like it needs to it wasn't meant to go in perpetuity.

Jason, I I definitely agree with that. Um, I do I like the the structure that Michael set up because I I'm trying to imagine a a project where, you know, maybe we have some hesitation of just giving the full waiver, but then they still have that opportunity. You know, we can see some merit, right? then they still have the opportunity to come back and say, "Okay, well, you know, maybe a loan is the recip." And maybe it just the wording allows the city council to consider full or partial impact fee waiverss only in exceptional cases when a loan is not feasible.

Exceptional and we can certainly change. Yeah. you know, maybe um and I like what like like Luke said a great like, hey, someone comes to us first and and then we can say yay or nay, you know, like yeah, we're gonna give you a waiver or no, we're going to put you forth to a loan might be a better option. I like I like that, you know, and I think that um yeah, maybe cleaning up that wording is the maybe Yeah, but I think that but I but I also don't I feel like um we banked this money to do exactly what this purpose is. Yeah.

You know, and it's like, you know, you got one in the hand and two in the bush type, you know, thing. You know, it's like these projects are happening. You know, these projects is are being built and and they're asking for us to um to be a part of it in in in some sense. So, I Oh, can I respond to that really quick? I came across one policy, I think it was the city of Portland, Oregon, where they had they had set aside the council had set aside enough money to cover the impact fees for 5,000 units. Of course, that's not us,

but a number of units. And the first 5,000 units that come through the door, get their permitting, get their building permits, and move forward get and they have to they have to meet other criteria, obviously, deed restrictions, affordable, all that kind of stuff. they they get their fees completely waved and the council is paying for those impact fees through another fund. I mean that I I'm kind of throwing a wrench in my own policy here by by bringing that up. But that is I mean you could if you went down that road you could and I'm just giving you options because it's what I do. But you could say, "Okay, we're going to spend $500,000 on this and um that equals this many units." And the first

I I think that's a great idea because maybe you got some other developers who are watching this meeting or something going like, "Hey, we can get in on this, you know, if we let's stop dragging our feet. Let's let's start moving some dirt."

Yeah. And I guess I guess ultimately it's like do we want to incentivize things or do we want to like help like projects get over the finish line because potentially like we might have a developer that like received their LITC credits and like ultimately are fine financially but there's this thing that hey like we can get like an extra 200 grand kicked off of our project. Like why not? Like whereas there might be a circumstance like this project has encountered where like there was some like insecurity with their financing and like now they could really benefit from having this uh like waiver or like supplement or fund supplemented to like really help them kind of get over that finish line. Um I don't know. I think either way we're meeting kind of like the intention of the wahoo of trying to provide u yeah like I don't I don't know I feel like both of them have value um I think like the one thing that I liked about the loan is that we basically do have a cap as to how much is going to enter the wahoo and so like the loan really does allow it to kind of stretch things out

um as yeah, searching out was ultimately a limited resource that we have. Um have we um reached out to Ben Riley from HASU? I I have not reached out to Ben because it' be great to get his feedback. I I'd love to get his feedback. I reached out to the ones who have applications that are moving through right now with us. Yeah, because Ben has done this, you know, not these this uh impact fee waiver, but he might have some good advice and opinion on this should include,

you know, but I I think like this um I know it's called called the Jake property, you know. Um Jake, what's Jake? Barn, it's the it's the cooperative 1481 cooperative, I think. the one on Mil Creek, not Jasper. I mean, they they have 144 units. Um, you know, um, they're to me this this is it checks every box of of why we should be

working with them and and giving them a waiver. And I understand the waiver like we're just taking money and putting it into, you know, water, sewer, whatever accounts need to go into and stuff, but this is um this is the first substantial project that we've had forward and I think it's pretty important to support it, you know, and um and so I mean that's that's kind of where I'm at on this is I I I feel like just this this project is doing everything we want. And there's another one coming up real soon.

Well, and I agree with you, Jason. This this really does kind of tick all the boxes. Um, and you're you're also right that that money wasn't supposed to last forever and ever. But I really do like the idea of leveraging our assets, the duplex, and we don't have to put all that money into that fund, but um then we could we could fund our own fund and have control over where that money goes. um while still giving um other developers a chance either at a waiver or um a no interest loan. It seems it seems to me that if we've only got $400,000 or about that, tying half of that up for 10 or 13 years, that's that's not a wife's choice. I think we invest in what's here now and then we work at other ways to increase our own wahoo.

Well, I think um getting late and we have more discussion to have. We need you to take this back and do a little more work on it. do that. Do you understand all the questions that we raised? And yeah, I think but I I do think there's kind of a diverging path here that I'm I'm hearing council members kind of saying, well, maybe maybe and maybe you can do that without even changing this policy where you you're you look more favorable at uh waiverss in the beginning and and um and maybe we don't do 100% waiver. There's always that option too. There's that

which is what was recommended last meeting is we just do 50%. Um, and as it's written in here, we have that option. We have we have that option. Yeah. And I'll I'll I'll put some more blanks in there as far as dollar figures go and so so you can um think more about that. But but yeah, I guess the this path that you guys are talking about still works under this. Yeah, it does. It does. I think I think it just needed to kind of move, you know, some things and stuff. Maybe get rid of the extraordinary circumstances and stuff like that. And I

and if nothing else, this spurred this discussion. We didn't have we just had that money sitting there. I mean, what shall we do with it? At least this has given us a chance to have this discussion and begin to start to work to where we want to be in a efficient and transparent manner. Sure. Yeah. So, oh, sorry. Sounds like we all are very supportive of this project that came before us at our last meeting. Is this still work with their timing?

They they want to move as quickly as they can. Obviously, they're they asked today if they could have their request on the on the meeting next week, next week, next month, the next meeting. Not sure if they know yet, but we don't have a second meeting in in November. So, could we could we approve this um with with with some changes as I think it'd be hard to approve with the number of changes. If you want to hold shouldn't I don't think we all feel really comfortable. It'd be really hard to track everything and get it all in there. I I think I'd have to come back.

Yeah. Well, and I think ultimately like if we want to wave the fees, we can do that without the policy. Yes, you can. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. So, they can still come to this next meeting. So, we could put them on the meeting next meeting and you could either review it under the existing ordinance or I could have this finished and you could adopt it and you could review it under this, you know. And I know that they're um planning on speaking with the commission as well and asking for the commission to help with it. So I think that this also is an opportunity for us to you know work in you know companionship or something to some extent you know how would the how would the county does the county want to give us money?

No the county would give the county would give them money towards I think the county already talked about it. Yeah. So, um um so anyway, I I think they'd still be on the agenda, right, for the next meeting. So, yeah, we can that's my problem. Yeah, both of these on the agenda. Well, and there's like talk of potentially doing like a special meeting. Yeah, we needed to. So, I'll work with the mayor on this and I'll make sure and Nathan and we'll get everything um together. Summer's going to have to help with that, too. Make sure I got everything together. Um because I didn't write everything down. Um there's a lot. Yeah.

One thing for me that's the biggest concern is providing a a waiver or agreeing to a waiver and the developer doesn't isn't like ready to break ground. And I don't know how we do that. But what I don't want to see is these guys come in and they're ready to go and then something happens and they're like, "Well, we're going to have to wait." You know, and I don't know if that's going to be the case or not, but it could. I mean, we've seen projects get it's development. It's a development world and it's financing and it happens all the time, right? And so then tie up that money and then, you know, and then give comes in and they want it and we don't have the money to do that and they're ready to go tomorrow. I think we can I think we can work with that. Yeah,

that's the one thing that I have biggest issue. Well, and I mean like there is always the and I think it'd still be like at the discretion of the council of like having a waiver be a waiver where we're not shuffling funds from one pot to another. We're just like severely like like restricting funds from like a department. Um and so like I think like that's worst case scenario like if there are no funds available like you can just legitimately like wave the fees. Um, but good, but it'll be coming right out of the general fund. And the purpose of this is to pay back our general fund.

Well, and it speaks to the sophistication of the council, I think, to look at it this way because many councils would just say just don't make them pay it and not acknowledge that those impacts still exist and that those master plans are real and they do have projects that need to be finished. So, so I give you kudos for that. I mean, it's it seems like just a given to council. So, that's awesome. That's the other thing with this project, too, though. It's 144 units. Is it in phases or is it just the they're going to phase one is 144 units. Okay. So, that would be Okay, gotcha. That I wanted to make sure

because that's the other thing. If somebody has like a three frames project that has 250 units and then we're giving the full impact fee waiver. Yeah, it would have to be tied to like I said closing. You gota you gota you got to show you're moving forward and then we have to have a time frame for that for that. Say you got to do it within this time frame or else you'd be reconsidered. You're on the list for reconsideration first. Yeah. All right. Could I have a motion to um table this? Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Just one like little So in the definitions we have affordable housing project and housing project with the exact same definition. Oh, I'll look. We'll look.

We'll make try to get it consistent. We I we put it together kind of quickly, but then I really pushed on Nathan to get it back to me quickly. So, um so having a little bit more time is going to be awesome. So, we can go through that. So, yeah, the sooner you can have the draft before the meeting on the 9th of December, which you know is a month away, you got a good amount of time. Then these guys can really kind of get into it. There's no holidays between now and then either. So, Yeah, I I mean I don't mean to push it, but still the sooner that these guys have their eye. My last meeting, we can go crazy. Yeah.

I I move that this uh Moab City Council tables resolution. What number is this? 11-2025. 11-2025. The affordable housing partnership policy as presented. As presented. Okay. I'll second that. Yeah. And I think Oh, if you can just You don't even have to use the number. Just say the change that ordinance and the same policy and it's all good. I move that the Moab City Council approve the ordinance. Not table or table the ordinance, the affordable housing partnership policy as presented. Second.

Motion by Colin, second by Luke. Discussion Colin. I think we've done. Yeah. All right. All right. All those in favor those are no cage fight. No, that's the policy. That's what the special Yeah, that's right. Exactly. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed. All right, Michael. Motion passes. All right, Caitlyn. Thank you so much. And the collective will be on the agenda regardless the next meeting for their waiver request. So, good work, Michael. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, it was uh thanks to Nathan, too. He did a lot of work really quickly on this. Thanks, Nathan.

All right, that's the end of our general business and city manager updates. I did have a really long one, but I'll just go through really quickly. Um, there was a I just wanted to mention that there's a notice that I mean our cameras aren't great here, so I'm there's no point of even holding it up, but a notice is going out to um people who own homes that were constructed before 1990.

If your home was constructed before 1990, you've got one of these. And if we haven't already done re or some work in or research or tests to to to make sure that you don't have a certain kind of water line at your property, you're getting you're going to get these every year until we do that. Uh so we have to the EPA says that we have to go in and we have to confirm that um private these private lines on these houses that were built before 1990 do not have any lead in them. And this is just something that every community has to do now. And we have to give these people notice that there potentially could be lead in their private lines until we go in and confirm that there isn't. And the way we confirm that is you have to go a certain distance away from the the meter on their property, dig a hole, and inspect the pipe and see what kind of pipe there is, what kind of fittings and things like that. So, it's not something that can be done very quickly, but it's something we're shooting to do about 150 uh inspections per year, and we have about 1500 to do. So, it's about a decade that it's going to take to to do this. Now, this is um

I'm just looking at Kaitlyn because I know she her house is older, too. Oh, okay. Did you get Well, I got one and my house was not built before 1990. Okay. Well, there could be some mistakes in there, too. Uh, we we don't usually don't make mistakes, but but they read it. They went, "What is this?"

But there I mean, there is a chance. I don't want to I don't want to diminish the chance that there could be lead. And I don't also don't want to make it sound like it's an emergency either. Um, this is just something that is possible because the types of materials that were used on houses before 1990. It's just a matter of fact. Uh we we do have to go through and confirm all of those. We're going to move as quickly as we can to do that, but it's not going to happen within a year. Um people can read this this notice if you get one of these. What we're suggesting is to do what the the notice says and contact our staff. They can help you do a quick test and and some other kind of research and find out if you have a threat just by testing your water and things like that. So, there are things that you can do quickly to put your mind at ease. And then um we'll still have to come in and do the the uh inspection of the line and things like that. But we would uh ask that everybody who is receiving one of these, please call our utility staff. That's the best way to get the best information and to get um to get good information for everybody who's getting these. So,

what happens if there's you got lead? What if your pipes are lead? Well, so if if there's a test that's done, my understanding is if there's a test that is done and it shows that you have a you have an amount of lead within your water, um you can the health department would make a determination and say, "Well, you can't operate this or something like that." Um again, I it's hard to get into these what ifs because I don't want to scare anybody. It's just something we're required to do. We don't have any evidence that anybody has any massive amounts of lead. We do lead testing at general um intervals at different locations throughout the city and we've never our service lines have never shown uh an amount of lead that um that would cause any concern at all, which is basically there's no lead in our lines. So, uh, so I don't want to cause a lot of concern, but we will guide you through if something if you do a test and you find that there might be a little bit more lead in your line than your neighbors, um, we'll guide you through on how to manage that and and put you in contact with the people to help resolve that. Remember, we are talking about private lines here. These are not the city's lines. Um, we have tested and looked at our lines and we continually do evaluations on our lines. we were talking about private lines and we're doing everything that we can to assist private property owners in navigating this and again the EPA and state um departments of environmental quality also required us to put these letters out every year until this is done so it went out last year for the first time 1500 homes

yeah it's twothirds of our of our customers so Yeah, that it. No, that was one thing. Uh, I'll do the arrest really, really quick. The holiday lights are going up. If you've seen them, they're pretty much up in the front. Yeah. Uh, there's You did? Yeah.

Work going on in the city hall rooftop. Uh, we have the liner going on the top, which is basically our roof that was destroyed in the hail storm being paid for by insurance money. We also have the uh solar panels going up. We're we're putting some of the solar panels back that are still useful and replacing some of the solar panels which is a project approved by the city council. Uh the structural evaluation is happening or or is they did a site visit for the MRAC the aquatic center last week and so we are moving forward on that structural evaluation and that is our plan this year is to get all the stuff together so that next year we can put together some projects to make some serious fixes to the damrack. Uh, Walnut Lane is continuing. Uh, the cleanup is continuing. They've done a lot of really good work there over a really short period of time. If you read the article in the newspaper today, you know they have other jobs to do as well. And we are also looking at um, hiring. We are going to get a contractor one way or another to come in and get rid of the asbestous because that's the only way we're going to get rid of it. So, we are working towards that as well. Uh, in January, all of the Rocky Mountain power lights are going to start getting replaced. the the luminires are going to start getting replaced and in the neighborhoods they're going to do that soft light or whatever it was that that we all talked about and that I don't remember the the name of but and Alexi's not here so

comfort comfort comfort lighting um and then waste recycling receptacles are going up uh soon in the downtown area. We're not going to be able to replace all of them, but we are replacing 32 cans, which is 16 waste and 16 recycling in the downtown area. And they will also have messaging on them, which we're working on right now. And we're al also going to work with our partners like the chamber and stuff like that, so they can put messaging on them since UD won't let us put messaging on their utility stuff. What is What does mean?

Um, they're in stock. They're here in the city today. Alexi and Savannah went out and they made a made a plan for which ones are getting replaced um based on information that we already had and then site inspections today and I I wish I could tell you it's going to be week or two weeks but I know it's going to be soon and I could send an email out to council let you know when are they going to get installed and then wrapped or wrapped and then installed? I think installed and then wrapped because the the wrapping is not I mean it's just the accuchment to the to the uh trash can and that has nothing to do with the function of the can itself. So could they be a Christmas present for us? Sure. Consider it done.

Thanks. Was that it'll okay they'll be in before Christmas. So, um, last thing, uh, we had an election recently. I want to congratulate everybody who was elected and reelected, uh, participated. Looking forward to working with with you guys for another four years, for four years, and for Summer, for all the work she did. There's a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes and everything went off without a hitch. Even though it was a stressful couple of hours waiting for results, but that's not us. So, thanks everybody. That was it. I wasn't stressed at all.

It's just it's just waiting for the numbers regardless of what they say. Just waiting for. All right. In the works, right? And we'll talk about that later. Summer and I and Michael, any word on the house? Yeah. Um, there is just one hangup which is liquidated damages. We have to have a contract with this person to come in and do this work and we got a great price on it and everything, but there's only one thing left to uh finalize with them and that's liquidated damages. And what that means is if this person starts the project and then tights it um there will be liquidated damages against him for that we can go after him for. They have

they have signed it. Okay. So that is not an issue anymore. So they have signed it and we're working on getting a date to start. So we're moving forward on unless we need to amend it. Okay. He either knows what he's doing or he doesn't know what he's doing. So we'll figure it out. Price is right. Yeah. Yeah. We got to get it done though. We got to get it done. All right. Are you done? Closer than it's ever been. Just last thing I want to say. So, yes, I'm done. All right. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Um, council reports and we will start with Luke. All of my meetings have been getting cancelled.

So, you have a little baby Arthur. Yes, we did have another surgery, but everything's going well. So kind of appreciate that the universe provided a bunch of canceled meetings. Yeah. But yeah, great. Thanks, Tony. I don't have anything either because my meetings have all one conflicted with this meeting and then I have to be in two places at weather tomorrow and two places at once on Friday. All right. Mine are all in the future. Colin, I've got a couple pages of stuff. That's good. Uh, readers.com.

Where do you want me to start? Um, I went to the uh the community open house um on Monday. That was uh really interesting at the the Hudoo, like I said, Chosy Wyatts. Um, and then watch the the MTAB meeting the following day. Um, seems like there's some really good promotional work happening. Uh it'll be really exciting to see uh what kind of fruits that bears. Um today I had a a trail mix meeting. Uh there's a volunteer appreciation party on Friday. The spring spruce update for this uh coming spring is April 11th. And then we did have a couple of comments. Uh one about the crossing at the by the bark park. Um kids going to and from school. Uh it sounds like maybe some signage or something else could help that situation. Um and then also as always the crossing at at uh Williams Way and First West came up again. And then I uh with Jason's proddding, I went by Walnut Lane today and there was a flurry of city staff activity. A couple of dump trucks, an excavator, all kinds of stuff happening there. So it was really great to see. That's it.

Okay, Caitlyn.

Um, well, on the 29th, I attended another League of Cities and Towns Legislative Policy Committee housing subgroup meeting. Um, talked about annexation plan, amendments. Um, I don't think a lot of it really pertains to us. it seems like it's more of urban boundary urban areas saying we're full. Um so but kind of distinction of when to adopt a new annexation plan versus amending it. Um there was some brief discussion and I think all of us are pretty not in favor of but potentially a bill to um rather than the state taking a preemption approach. Uh there's a bill to propose a preferred land use regulation. So the state would say here's the rules that you have to follow. Um, and with this policy, a municipality can say, "No, we're not going to do that. We're going to keep to our own." But it gives applicants the ability to apply to the council to say, "Well, but state code says this, so will you allow us?" And so just like a weird way of saying like, "No, the state wants to work with people um instead of just cramping everything." I I so I don't know where it's going to go. Apparently, it was maybe going to go before um some other state bodies. Um stay tuned on that. Um and then there's also some conversation about reasonable diligence. Um, I would need to double check my notes on really specific language on that, but but it seems like conversations we've had about people holding permits for a really long time

is a statewide issue. And so they're looking at language about um what a reasonable diligence period means, how many extensions you can grant, kind of like trying to relook at some of that language. So interesting. Um I also had a couple of meetings cancelled this week. Namely, uh I canled the housing task force meeting and then yeah the LHD meeting was canceled today. Um in lie of that um the two bodies wrote a joint letter regarding um proposed general session legislation and that will cause some pretty significant impacts to homelessness. Um, so several of you responded and signed on to that. Thank you so much. Um, we will be wrapping that up. That will be sent to Utah Homeless Services Board for their meeting on the 20th. Um, and there's a lot of kind of coalition building on that across the state, mostly in urban. I think we'll probably be the only rural that's submitting comments, but still important. Um, and then last week I was in DC for the housing assistant council's national rural housing conference. I was there not specifically on behalf of the city, but when I was there did meet with our federal lobbyists and it's nice to finally sit down and actually meet them in person and um find out more about what they're working on, how they can um continue to support the city. So, it's interesting. came and also went to the um office of tourism open house and yeah had conversation talked to Trish also today briefly about how the city wants to be involved and we want to support our downtown especially downtown businesses and tourism. So that's it for

me. Thank you Jason. Um okay 31st I um been to trunk or treat um ended up being right by Miles. We had a super fun time. Um it was a lot of kids. So many kids. The candy.

So much candy. Um it was also good to see Moab City there. Um and um they had Yeah. Lots of kids giving out candy. November 5th I had a Grand County EMS um um budget meeting. That was the morning after Prop 13 passed. And so um leading up to that, we had three different budgets, you know, that we were kind of planning on. if it doesn't pass, you know, if it does pass and um if it doesn't pass, how are we gonna, you know, make it work? So, it was really a um we we had to get that budget passed. So, we met the next morning at 9:00 a.m. to start working on that and um kind of, you know, um figured out, you know, that money was just a real lifeline that those taxes coming in. So, appreciate that passing. Um, November 8th I attended the chamber banquet which was a ton of fun. Um, it was very well attended. Um, and um, I was some lip palm and so there you go. And um, and um, and then November 10th um, I also attended the community tourism um, open house which was which was really good. November 11th I attended the travel council meeting um, which was yesterday. They had it on Veterans Day um because they had all the agencies here that they're working with to help promote Moab and it was it was really good. They've been here for like three or four days and just it was interesting hearing all of them how they're going to work together to um to promote Moab and and kind of things that they're working on. So that was really good. And um also in there I had a airport board meeting um that I attended last week and um and things are progressing at the airport really well and they're they just laid some new asphalt to help so they can start building more hangers or at least more area for hangers. So um so it that's

that's it. Thank you. I um was here for the preschool Halloween uh event which is all the preschool kids come and get all dressed up and we give them we don't give them candy. We give them books and bracelets and things like that. So they it's no fun at all. No fun for those kids like hey we have to go to city hall.

It's so much fun though. The kids are so darn cute. Anyway, I love I love that. Uh had a meeting with Ryan and Tim also. And just in case everybody hasn't heard, the government is now open. Um the house passed the budget this evening or the CR. Basically, it sounds like they are doing a continuing resolution. Um the federal workers will receive all their back pay. Anybody who received a reduction of force notice will be re rehired. Um air traffic controllers are going to be receiving their back pay. and um the SNAP program and the WIC program uh will continue and they also passed some funding so that even if this current CR which is planning to uh expire in January those benefits will not be affected. So that's great news and thanks to everybody who is contributing to the food bank we here at have at city hall and just because the SNAP program and the wick program are back in effect does not mean that we shouldn't be helping those folks that need some food. So think about um contributing here at city hall. Attended the office of tourism event on Monday. Also yesterday was the veterans day event here uh out at the county. um was able to give a nice talk and recognize our um resident Jim Jones who passed away who was a World War II veteran, a neighbor of mine. Very good man and will be missed today. Was it today? Um today's Wednesday. Yes. Went to Synergy for an award for their safety and that they're doing a really good job out there at Synergy. And then um tomorrow we have a Canyon Lands Healthcare Special Service District where we'll be it's a special meeting for us. We'll be talking about Prop 13 which passed. Yay. Um and how that money is going to be allocated to all the entities that are

going to be a part of that. And then next week, oh tomorrow, Friday, we have the Utah Transportation Commission here at city hall. Encourage you guys to come if you're available. um I'll be in um welcoming them and talking about some of the great things that we've accomplished with UD do and our relationship with UD do some of the things that we'd like to see them thinking about for the future. And then next week I will be in Salt Lake City for the National League of Cities conference and be serving I believe I told you on a on a panel that Alexis helping me with on cooler Moab, hot MOAB, um how we deal with changing climate. Yeah. extreme weather. Yeah, I'm pretty excited.

Always been hot here.

Yeah, that's I had a meeting to kind of prepare for that and it's like, well, I'm in the desert. It's always hot, you know, because I'm people on the panel are Salt Lake City Mayor Aaron Mendenhal, the U mayor from a Thousand Oaks, California, and then a city council member from Portland. So, a lot of different environments that are dealing with different issues in regards to a hotter climate. So, that should be fun. Looking forward to that. But I'm sure I'm going to need some prep because I have no idea what to say about it. Um, and then just so you all know, our next meeting is not until December 9th. Um, so we've got, you know, we don't have a meeting here in November. Our strategic plan meeting in January is going to be Thursday, January 8th and Friday, January 9th. So get that in your calendars. We're going to be doing it at the Fairfield in

Sounds like it. Yeah. Um, so we'll be closer to town. Um, and that is it from me. January 5th is the swearing in. January 5th is the swearing in, isn't it? It's the first Tuesday summer Monday. First Monday. Yep. Right here. Yep. We'll be doing it again. Nice. Yep. But we won't. Yeah. But we won't be wearing masks this time. I know. That'll be nice. All right, that's it. We do need to go into a close. What's that? When is it? Time is the swearing in. Noon. When is it? Okay.

Um, so we need to go in close session. So, if I could have a motion to go into close session to discuss reasonably imminent or pending litigation. I'll make a motion to go into close session to discuss imminent and pending litigation. Jason makes a motion seconded by Luke. All those in favor say I. I. Motion passes 50. Thank you.