The Moab City Planning and Zoning Commission has
recommended that the Moab City Council approve a pre-annexation
agreement between the city and the owner of the stalled north end
scenic tram.
If approved, the pre-annexation agreement will set
the stage for the city to appropriate the 24-acre parcel of land that
includes the Moab Scenic Tramway located at the junction of U.S. 191
and State Route 128 into the city’s boundaries perhaps as early as next
year, said Moab City Manager Donna Metzler.
City officials have been negotiating with north end
property owners for the past two years to reach annexation agreements
that will enable the city to extend water and sewer services to
businesses and private property within the north end corridor. But some
property owners objected to the plan, arguing that it would cost them
thousands in hook-up fees if they were required to connect to city
services.
The $3 million tram was completed in 2001, but never
opened because Grand County refused to grant tram owner William “Rick”
Jewett a business license, citing his failure to post a reclamation
bond that was required under the ordinance passed by the Grand County
Council approving the project.
In 2003, Jewett sued Grand County in federal court,
saying the county initially refused to confirm an amount for a
reclamation bond to cover the cost of removing buildings and restoring
vegetation if the business failed. His lawsuit contends that the county
then refused to accept the agreed-upon bond amount of $66,500.
Grand County required the revegetation and removal
of all upper structures because the upper section of land was zoned for
range and grazing – a zone that typically does not allow commercial
development. The council allowed construction of the structures on the
upper portion of the property as a conditional use, but required that
those structures be removed should the tram become inoperative.
The lawsuit seeks $5 million in actual damages and
up to $15 million in punitive damages, as well as an injunction against
the county to allow the business to open. In January, U.S. District
Judge Bruce Jenkins denied a motion by Grand County to dismiss the
case.
At that hearing, Jewett’s attorney said the county’s
failure to resolve the dispute and grant him a business license led to
the loss of Jewett’s home.
Under the terms of the city’s pre-annexation
agreement, Jewett would be required to post a $10,000 reclamation bond
for removal of the tram towers and gondola cars should the business
fail. The reclamation clause of the agreement will be enforced if the
business fails to begin operations within one year of annexation, or if
the tram ceases operations for any one-year period after the annexation.
The city based its requirements for a reclamation
bond on the costs of removing only the towers and gondola cars,
allowing the buildings, which include a mining museum and a restaurant
to remain on the property. If the annexation is completed, the
buildings would be an allowable use under the city’s proposed resort
commercial zone for the north corridor, Metzler explained.
Attorneys for tram owner William “Rick” Jewett did
not return phone calls seeking comment on the proposed annexation
agreement.
Metzler said the city’s pre-annexation agreement
with Jewett is “completely separate” from any legal issues he is
pursuing with Grand County.
“We don’t want to be involved in that dispute,” she
said. “We’re just proceeding as if that doesn’t exist. We don’t want to
take sides on that particular issue.”
In order to move forward with annexing north end
properties, the city must enter into annexation agreements that
encompass the majority of the total acreage in the area. Currently, six
of 22 property owners have agreed to annex, and the city is negotiating
with others, Metzler said.
The pre-annexation agreement with Jewett states that
if the annexation is not completed by May 31, 2006, the agreement
becomes void.
© 2005 Lisa J. Church