Hooper City Council holds Q&A with finalists for city legal services; decision expected Sept. 18

At a Sept. 10 work meeting, the Hooper City Council held a question‑and‑answer session with two finalists for the city—s legal services contract, saying it hopes to name a firm at its next regular meeting on Sept. 18.

The session followed the retirement of the city—s attorney, Reed, and the hiring of Brandon Miles as the city—s prosecutor. The two finalists, attorneys Darren Curtis and Matt Wilson, presented their firms— municipal experience and answered council questions about fees, scope of work and transition arrangements.

Why it matters: The city needs a legal services provider to advise on ordinances, developer agreements, hearings and other municipal matters. The finalists discussed criminal prosecution arrangements tied to Hooper—s justice court, code enforcement authority and training for officials — areas council members flagged as recurring issues.

Curtis and Wilson described their municipal experience and how they would staff Hooper. Curtis said he can "stay and help as much as" necessary during a transition and called out his experience with planning and land‑use work. Wilson, who said he is the Roy City attorney, said the firms would provide in‑house counsel for drafting agreements and ordinances, attend meetings and handle routine civil work. Both named Brody (a Roy City attorney/assistant city manager) as a possible back‑up who would fill in if needed.

The RFP lists a flat fee of $2,500 for the legal services contract; the candidates described that as a flat monthly arrangement in their proposal materials but the transcript did not specify whether the $2,500 figure is a monthly or annual fee. Council members and staff asked the candidates to be prepared to negotiate fee structure and to provide a contract for review. One council member asked staff to compile the last two years of attorney costs and justice‑court revenue to enable an apples‑to‑apples comparison.

Council members also raised related operational questions:

- Justice court and prosecution. The finalists discussed how justice courts are authorized by the state and how revenues are shared: the state takes a portion, the entity that runs the court (in Hooper—s current arrangement Roy) receives half of the remaining revenue, and the city that prosecutes receives the other half. The council discussed whether it should continue to contract prosecution and court services through the county/Roy or move toward a city‑run court; no decision was made.

- Code enforcement and hearings officer duties. Council members described recurring code issues — tall weeds, sidewalk snow removal and signage — and asked whether the new counsel could serve as hearings officer for variances and help rewrite code enforcement ordinances. Curtis said his office has worked on code enforcement and abatement orders in South Salt Lake and offered to review Hooper—s code to provide more enforcement tools.

- Training and ordinances. The candidates said they could provide training on the Open and Public Meetings Act and other compliance topics. Council members also asked for legal guidance on a recently adopted home‑business sign ordinance and whether the city—s broader sign code needs updating.

- Scope limits and litigation. Both candidates said they would handle day‑to‑day civil and municipal matters under a flat fee arrangement but that major litigation typically falls to the city—s insurance trust; the trust handles a threshold of litigation costs and covers defense subject to its terms.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the work meeting. Council members asked staff to pull prior invoices and justice‑court revenue figures and to prepare a short contract and cost comparison so the council can discuss terms during the Sept. 18 meeting. Several council members said they preferred starting with a one‑year contract or a rate review after the first year to confirm the arrangement.

The candidates left having answered council members— questions; the council will review financial comparisons and contract language before any final award is announced.

Ending: The council did not act formally at the Sept. 10 work meeting; its next regular meeting is scheduled for Sept. 18, when members intend to revisit the RFP responses and consider a contract award.