Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluffdale council rescinds Station 92 naming after former chief amid plea-in-abeyance
Summary
The Bluffdale City Council voted to rescind the resolution naming Fire Station 92 after former Chief John C. Roberts after staff summarized a prosecutor27s investigation and a plea-in-abeyance for altered payroll logs and restitution. Councilmembers debated waiting until the probationary period ended; the resolution passed.
Get email alerts on the Ethics Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Bluffdale City Council voted Sept. 11 to rescind the earlier resolution that named Fire Station 92 after former Fire Chief John C. Roberts.
City staff summarized an investigation that found handwritten alterations to payroll documents covering March 1, 2018, through March 31, 2020, which the city says resulted in an estimated $128,609.51 in overpayments. According to the staff presentation, Roberts entered a plea-in-abeyance to attempted misuse of public money on June 18, 2024; the agreement places a guilty plea on hold for 36 months provided he complies with conditions. The agreement required $10,000 in restitution, which the record shows was paid by July 30, 2024. The presentation referenced case number 221908416, State v. John Calvin Roberts.
Councilmembers discussed the legal meaning of a plea-in-abeyance and whether the council should delay action until the probationary period ends. Councilmember [name recorded in the transcript as] Steve (Councilmember who asked) asked for clarification; the city attorney cited Utah Code 77-2a-1 to explain that a plea in abeyance holds judgment and sentence pending compliance. Several councilmembers said the courts had already acted and that the council27s role is limited to policy decisions about city honors and names.
A motion to approve the resolution to rescind the prior naming was moved and seconded and passed on a roll-call vote. At least one councilmember voted against the resolution; the motion nevertheless carried.
The council record shows multiple public speakers opposed to renaming or argued the station should keep its name; the council27s action restores the station to the prior designation and removes the honorific naming.
The council said the matter could be revisited if the underlying court judgment is entered during the abeyance period.
