Agreement could pave way to annex north tram
by Lisa Church, contributing writer
4 years ago | 157 views | 0 0 comments | 3 3 recommendations | email to a friend | print
    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.

&#169 2005 Lisa J. Church
comments (0)
no comments yet
report abuse...

Express yourself:
We're glad to give you a forum to air your point of view on issues important to this community. We just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or assail anyone's personal or religious beliefs. For anyone who can't be civil, we reserve the right to remove your material. We also reserve the right to ban users who violate our visitor's agreement.