Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emigration Canyon council declines to adopt countywide comprehensive emergency plan, votes 3-2
Summary
After more than an hour of briefing and questions, the Emigration Canyon Municipal Council voted 3–2 against adopting the countywide Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). Council members said they want more time to review annexes and training details; staff were directed to return the item in February.
The Emigration Canyon Municipal Council voted 3–2 against adopting a countywide Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan after a lengthy presentation and discussion on the plan’s scope, training and staffing.
The plan, presented to the council as a replacement and expansion of the district’s existing emergency operations plan (EOP), is meant to move beyond response and recovery to include mitigation, preparedness and hazard-specific annexes. Proponents said the CEMP would fold the EOP into a single “foundation” document and permit faster development of annexes addressing wildland fire, evacuation, alerting and other local risks.
Brian Buckout, municipal emergency management planner for the Metropolitan Service District (MSD), told the council the CEMP “absorbs” the EOP and adds hazard-specific appendices and FEMA-style emergency service functions. “If you do want to adopt the comprehensive emergency management plan, you are free to do so,” Buckout said, while also describing a planned schedule of tabletop exercises and training to follow adoption.
Council members raised questions about timeline, staffing and local control. “How long are we talking about? Is it completed?” asked Jennifer (Council member), pressing for a schedule and training plan. Catherine Harris, who also serves on the Unified Fire Authority board, said she was surprised the council had not been earlier briefed and asked for details on funding and staffing: “I am actually very surprised that this is the first that I’ve learned about this.”
Supporters said the base plan includes the existing National Incident Management System/Incident Command System framework and that annexes could be developed and updated without further council approvals. Buckout said annexes could be worked on after adoption and would not necessarily require repeated council sign-offs; he and MSD staff also described planned exercises, WebEOC templates for situational reports and resource requests, and coordination with Salt Lake County and UFA liaisons.
Opponents cited the current level of staffing at MSD and asked for more time to review how the plan would interact with existing local agreements, fuels mitigation projects and UFA operations. Multiple council members said they supported the idea of more proactive planning but wanted time to read the full packet and consult relevant agencies before committing to adoption.
A motion to adopt the plan was seconded and put to a vote. The council recorded two yes votes and three no votes; the motion failed. Council direction after the vote was to place the CEMP back on the council agenda for a fuller review in February so members could complete their review and seek further briefings from MSD and UFA.
Why it matters: The CEMP would replace the jurisdiction’s older EOP with a single, multi‑phase planning framework tied to FEMA ESF/RSF functions and hazard‑specific annexes. If the council adopts the CEMP later, annexes addressing wildland fire, evacuation routing and alerting could materially change local preparedness and coordination with Salt Lake County and UFA.
What’s next: The council asked staff to return the CEMP for additional consideration in February and requested follow‑up briefings on training, costs, and how the annexes would interact with existing MOUs and mitigation projects.
