[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6644020,"mediaKeyId","2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c","parentId",2531419,"title","Hooper council will trial moving public comment to start of meetings, sets 30-minute limit","audioSeconds",5163,"startMs",1326000,"endMs",6489000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c&start=1326&end=6489","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c/thumbnail_1326000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6644020/Utah/Hooper-council-will-trial-moving-public-comment-to-start-of-meetings-sets-30-minute-limit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6644020-97c2f486e724dd999b19f3eb9b525fa5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008197&Signature=c8qgzQh~fSPO596GopUAehPapMMsh1y6uWgSPcAbijyxhUVIkpZGStRNkY3odi-EXyXrFFELtoxW6oayx0P-R3f5S8l4oOdJRawEMP55cyaVMdlPQlVCh3IxFJ-1GQiZmWrDavwroS2Hkfs8gJizgoRBkOu439KcB7QW5kfgpPLiNHxiDmXW9aN0cr93SKTJHAl2Ei7I6FFHFhKA18j-jTc1bOtAMosjkxGHXRQmWjv84ztxc0VtDQ-5vAuBKZT-yEh9aObNYNpbSd0Bjh4Gfr~5rH4gDKcC9Ay4BwTPww7HIij~igOHWNffFsvau~uotMrxMHGBsJisDtn8BcyUBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hooper City","date","2025-03-10T16:39:11.64Z","article","On March 6 the Hooper City Council voted to trial a change to its meeting format that will move general public comments to the start of regular sessions and set an initial limit of 30 minutes (approximately ten speakers at three minutes each).

Council members discussed competing aims: giving residents an accessible forum to speak without making every session a long public hearing, while preserving orderly and efficient meetings. Law enforcement and legal advisors attending the meeting urged clear rules to prevent personal attacks and disruptions.

Council Member Hill made the motion to amend HCC 1-1-4 (the meeting agenda code) to move public comment to the start of the meeting on a trial basis; Council Member Maragoni seconded. The council approved the trial for a 90-day period. Council members said the procedure can be adjusted after the trial if it proves impractical.

During discussion, participants suggested a sign-up system (including the option of an online sign-up), a cap on speaker counts, and explicit rules forbidding personal attacks. Deputy/Sergeant Slater (law enforcement) advised that meetings must honor First Amendment rights while still enforcing meeting decorum and that a 'sergeant-at-arms' procedure can be used in extreme cases. City attorney counsel noted that the council may set reasonable time and place restrictions for public comment without violating free-speech rights.

The council's vote was framed as a trial change rather than an immediate ordinance amendment; members asked staff to draft a simple process and to announce the change in upcoming meeting notices and the city newsletter so residents know how to sign up.

Ending: The trial is intended to balance public access and meeting efficiency. The council asked staff to return with any recommended language for a future ordinance if the trial shows benefits.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 6, 2025 - City Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The council voted to try moving citizen comments to the beginning of meetings, with a 30-minute cap (ten speakers at three minutes each) for a trial period. Staff will test the change and return results to the council.","taxTitle","Hooper City Council, Hooper , Weber County, Utah","taxId",21280,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6644025,"Hooper council retains Richards law firm as city attorneys, waives RFP requirement",5104,997000,6101000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c&start=997&end=6101","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c/thumbnail_997000.jpg","/articles/6644025/Utah/Hooper-council-retains-Richards-law-firm-as-city-attorneys-waives-RFP-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6644025-87c5fc43fc68db126ad4b4d771afa7a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008197&Signature=M0j4MTrXa6Jf0tSL2b9osDgj4p2bcQfhSW12QX7zIepepVLg3krxTUOR4ChNWaqlgwosBhe9KbTcrZnB3MpDrAwtOAauuxhZ8bJWdBSOHW~LpmVvkXi0SVrI0ESHQybKrQ~6~iWuevxO84cMhV9B9PVenCvevMzAh9CtotMGkq0Ip9cb4OILpNrgIeiKWrCFS218Yg8XFePfCEOYNwc83dw3gkqQ6iuCbQMeUrBivV2p4-nbTgKU7PFbrIz-yB3RQtkEVs-ZW0~qE9ycNa5zXaZGOmj2Pz~buFMWA61ok~q5RKZo~5gz25bXdVyk--uzjI184eVhEzmeY5Tz8m3WTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooper City Council voted March 6 to retain Reed and Brandon Richards as Hooper City attorneys and not to issue an RFP for legal services.

Council discussion began in the work meeting and continued into the regular session. Members said they had decided informally that they preferred to continue working with Reed and Brandon Richards rather than launch a formal procurement process. The council directed staff to draft a written contract setting out the scope of services and fee structure, to be reviewed and approved by the council, and to make the contract available to the Utah State Auditor.

Why it matters: The vote formalizes who will serve as the city's legal counsel and ends a short-lived plan to post an RFP. Council members said the intention is to avoid interrupting legal services while the city finalizes a written agreement.

During the work-meeting discussion, Reed (last name referenced in the meeting) described a possible arrangement in which the attorney team would not be required to attend every meeting but would make themselves available at designated times to meet with staff and council members. Reed also suggested a weekly time for legal consultation with city staff to handle land-use and ordinance questions efficiently.

Council members also discussed whether an RFP was legally required for this service and concluded it was not necessary in this circumstance. Council Member Wilcox made the motion to retain Reed and Brandon Richards and to forgo interim RFPs; Council Member Flowers seconded the motion. The council voted in favor and the motion carried.

The council asked staff to prepare a contract similar to other retained-service agreements used by neighboring entities and to include flexibility to end the contract should the parties decide to do so in the future. Council members said the contract will specify the scope of legal services, fee arrangements and reporting procedures and will be made available to the state auditor as required.

Ending: The council's action preserves continuity of legal services while staff prepares a formal contract for council review.

","The Hooper City Council voted on March 6 to retain Reed and Brandon Richards as the city's attorneys and to forego issuing a request for proposals for legal services. Council instructed staff to draft a contract and said the agreement would be provided to the Utah State Auditor.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6644028,"Hooper council tables request to open general plan for large subdivision, asks developer to return with refined concepts",2043,3953000,5996000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c&start=3953&end=5996","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531419-94fb971125ed7dc4878e28b427de3f4c/thumbnail_3953000.jpg","/articles/6644028/Utah/Hooper-council-tables-request-to-open-general-plan-for-large-subdivision-asks-developer-to-return-with-refined-concepts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6644028-111693b826fe914917c4f65c695b84d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771008197&Signature=nweOit9zvGR~bm6UWctR9DIHouT6uecgzCePgspGztdveFRYYKo~PxVAyQQseHZN1trFC2YvBs~8LWrtyueYPMkdHOI8DaOPPgT1LRyXcpJr7h7kduNvhtLZmBLj7F7ler1NgtYP~lJMVe3a9mgwCgQ4Xx8dXs1hl0zwVdO9EjrIvNXqZNrILnat7XA6DJqqI1rYv6ugSz~WgV7u89tcFqzKLyrTp1544xiPS~FffIMK9P45R1~aQrQ0uouCle-~98j7zObwyfbMTHV2xPsdHFTHO1C0zGilhAU6HqRW9pvuW3Ab7JWKzT5IH6U23s4qAptk95McU~shbY5JcIPH0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooper City Council on March 6 declined to open the city's general plan for a proposed development on a 90-acre parcel, voting to table the request until the developer brings more detailed concepts.

The matter came before the council as a public hearing. Developer representatives described two alternative plans: one with minimum half-acre lots and a simpler layout, and another that would include smaller (roughly one-third-acre) lots in exchange for a large public amenity maintained by the homeowners association. The developer said the amenity concept would be 'a 20-acre park with pickleball, disc golf and other features' and that it would be maintained by the HOA at no cost to the city.

Why it matters: Opening the general plan is the first step required under the city's process before a rezone can be considered. Council members and residents raised concerns about infrastructure costs, long-term maintenance and the limited property-tax revenue the city receives from new homes. Several speakers said the city should not amend the future land-use map without a clearer plan that demonstrates tangible benefits to Hooper.

At the hearing, a reporter, Michelle Barry Loney, said she believed planning commission procedure may have skipped a step and pointed to a requirement that planning commission hold public hearings for some map changes. Resident Dylan Raulkerson told the council he opposed opening the general plan, saying the developer 'has shown little interest in what's best for Hooper and big interest in what's best for his pocketbook.' Resident Travis Bates and others said the proposed scale of housing would add traffic and place additional demands on police and fire services. Resident Clint Hancock described returning to Hooper to raise a family and said he favors housing but not a placement of a rehab facility on the site.

Blake Maragoni, representing the developer, said one option would be to keep half-acre minimum lots; the alternative with smaller lots would be paired with the park amenity that would be '100% open to the public' and maintained by the HOA. Maragoni also said a drug- and alcohol-treatment facility had been discussed in earlier versions of the plan but that he had 'pivoted' away from that option after resistance and because he felt certain approval conditions would make that use untenable.

Council members responded with a range of suggestions and concerns. Several members said one-acre zoning 'doesn't pencil' for modern development and that some change in density could be necessary for the site to be built. Others cautioned that Hooper collects only a small share of property tax revenue (one council member estimated roughly $100 per home per year) and that the city would inherit road, drainage and maintenance costs. One council member suggested the developer explore alternatives that use the site's lower-value ground for amenities (for example, a small golf option) while placing higher-density housing where infrastructure is more efficient.

After discussion the council voted to table the request. Council Member Northrup made the motion to table the developer's request to open the general plan 'until further concepts can be presented to the city,' and Council Member Hill seconded. The motion passed and the application will not move forward until the developer presents revised, more detailed concept proposals.

The council's action does not rezone the property and does not prohibit the developer from consulting further with city staff, commissioners or council members; it does mean the council will not take the procedural step of opening the general plan map for this application at this time.

Residents and the developer were told they could pursue concept meetings with staff, planning commissioners and council members to refine any proposal before the council would reconsider amending the future land-use map.

Ending: Council members said they are open to discussions on alternatives that show clear benefits to Hooper's residents and finances. The developer indicated willingness to meet with staff and return with revised plans if the parties can find a concept that addresses the council's infrastructure and community-amenity concerns.","After a public hearing on March 6, the Hooper City Council voted to table a developer\u0000s request to open the city's general plan for a proposed subdivision. Council members said they want more detailed concepts showing community benefits before considering an amendment to the future land-use map.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hooper council will trial moving public comment to start of meetings, sets 30-minute limit

Hooper council retains Richards law firm as city attorneys, waives RFP requirement

Hooper council tables request to open general plan for large subdivision, asks developer to return with refined concepts