Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning Commission Removal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hooper council removes two planning commissioners after heated public comments

Hooper City Council · January 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public commenters accused the mayor of retaliation, the Hooper City Council voted to remove planning commissioners Amanda Prince and Sheldon Greener on Jan. 27, 2026; the measure passed after a tie was broken by the mayor's tiebreaking vote.

The Hooper City Council voted Jan. 27 to remove planning commission members Amanda Prince and Sheldon Greener following a contested public-comment period and council debate.

Supporters of the commissioners told the council the removals appeared retaliatory. Amber Kelso, a Hooper resident, said Prince ‘‘has shown an unparalleled level of dedication’’ and called the decision ‘‘sad’’ and possibly directed by the mayor. Brent Odenwalder told the council the action looked like a ‘‘purge’’ and urged the new council to preserve regular opportunities for public comment.

The chair read an action item to remove the two commissioners under ordinance 0202601 and the council moved the removal: a council member moved the motion and council member Hancock seconded. During discussion, residents and several council members questioned the timing and short notice, whether the ordinance altered previous protections requiring cause and a public hearing, and the practical effect of reducing the commission from its prior size.

A roll-call vote produced a tie. The record shows council member Fowers voted "No," council member Hancock voted "Yes," council member Hill voted "No," and the mayor cast the deciding "Yes" vote, resulting in approval of the removals. The council then proceeded to the scheduled budget meeting.

The removal prompted repeated public requests for clearer notice and more transparent process. Several speakers asked the council to postpone similar controversial items so residents could review materials and offer meaningful input. The council did not adopt a postponement during the meeting.

Next steps: the council moved on to the budget presentation; the record does not show in-meeting reconsideration or a subsequent public hearing on these removals.