Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables county data-privacy ordinance after questions from commissioner
Summary
The Davis County Commission delayed final action on Ordinance 2025-5, which would add a county data privacy program to the code, after one commissioner requested more time for review and clarification about whether the program should be an ordinance or policy.
Brian McKenzie, Davis County Clerk, presented proposed Ordinance 2025-5 to add chapter 2.38 to the Davis County Code and establish a county data privacy program in response to Utah's government data privacy act.
McKenzie described the ordinance as the county's step toward processes that safeguard personal data, identify collection and retention practices, and prepare for a required December report under state law. After discussion in a prior work session, the ordinance was put on the consent calendar for approval, but Commissioner John Cross asked that the item be tabled "until everybody's had the opportunity to review it." Cross said several directors and others had asked for more time and that he had noticed apparent edits from the work session.
McKenzie told commissioners that tabling the ordinance would delay implementation of a structured data privacy program and the county's ability to organize processes for the December report, but he acknowledged the motion to table was at the commission’s discretion.
Commissioner Cross also asked whether the requirement could be implemented as a policy instead of an ordinance. McKenzie responded that an ordinance assigns a specific responsibility to the clerk’s office and follows a model the county has used previously, but he said the commission could decide a policy approach instead.
Outcome: the commission voted to table Ordinance 2025-5 until the next week's meeting to allow additional review. Commissioners indicated they viewed data privacy as important but agreed one commissioner should have time to review edits and feedback from directors before adoption.
Why this matters: the ordinance would formalize Davis County’s procedures under the state Government Data Privacy Act. Tabling the measure delays compliance steps the county planned to take before the annual report deadline in December, though the clerk said the practical effect is to push the work to the next meeting for further review.
No amendments were adopted at the July 1 meeting; commissioners voted to table the ordinance for additional consideration.
