Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Property Transaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Herriman City Council recesses to closed session to discuss releasing city interest in property
Summary
At a Sept. 16 special meeting the Herriman City Council voted to temporarily recess into a closed session to discuss releasing the city's interest in a parcel described in the agenda; the council cited Utah Code §52-4-205 as authority for the closed meeting.
At a special meeting Sept. 16, the Herriman City Council recessed into a closed session to consider a resolution to release the city’s interest in a property described on the agenda as approximately 12225 South Herriman, Maine. The council cited Utah Code §52-4-205 as the legal basis for the closed meeting.
The move to recess was made by the meeting chair (unnamed) who said, “I would like to make a motion to go into close, temporarily recess city council meeting to go into closed meeting for the following purposes as provided at Utah State 52-4-205.” The motion was seconded by Council Member Sherry. Council Members Jared, Teddy, Sherry and Tara each voted yes and the council recessed to closed session.
The agenda item listed “discussion and consideration of a resolution releasing city interest in a property approximately located at 12225 South Herriman, Maine.” The public record in the transcript contains no substantive debate about the property in open session; the council’s action was to move into the closed meeting where staff and council intended to discuss land transaction strategy, proposals or financial terms as permitted by the cited statute.
Before entering closed session the chair said the city would need staff presence and named Nathan, Todd and Blake as required attendees. The transcript does not record further public deliberations on the parcel, any proposed terms of a release, or a final decision on the resolution; those matters, if discussed, occurred in the closed session and are not reflected in the public transcript.
Because the action was a procedural move to a closed meeting, the council did not take a publicly recorded substantive vote on releasing the city’s interest during the open portion of the meeting. Additional public actions or votes on a resolution to release city interest in the parcel would need to be reflected in later open-session minutes or documents if and when the council returns to that agenda item.
