Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper council adopts ordinance creating Chapter 6 on leasing city property after narrowing proposal
Summary
After debate about conflict-of-interest language borrowed from another city, the council amended O-2026-02 to remove proposed Chapter 5 changes and approved a new Chapter 6 governing leasing of city-owned property. Councilors discussed renewals, fairness, and liability concerns.
The Hooper City Council adopted Ordinance O-2026-02, creating Chapter 6 to govern leasing of city-owned property, after an amendment removed proposed additions to Chapter 5 that would have restricted family members, straw purchasers and municipal employees from purchasing city property.
The ordinance was the product of prior work sessions and outside examples; councilors said much of the proposed language was modeled on Clearfield’s code. Council members debated whether a prohibition in Chapter 5 (section 2-5-5) was too broad; several said it would unfairly bar municipal employees and relatives from participating in publicly noticed sales or leases that are fairly bid. “I don't think because you put your hat in the ring to work for our city…you should be out here working on our sewage lines…and you happen to wanna bid on a piece of property…we should restrict that person,” one council member said.
Supporters of the clearer restriction argued the language removes the appearance of conflicts of interest and protects public trust. The city attorney present said the clause is not required by state code but cities sometimes adopt similar rules to avoid appearances of conflict.
Council member Hill moved to approve the ordinance; after discussion Hill amended the motion to exclude the Chapter 5 additions and approve only the new Chapter 6 leasing rules. The amended motion was seconded and passed by roll call; the mayoral authority language and other Chapter 5 changes were removed from the approved ordinance.
During debate councilors also discussed administrative details: whether renewals should automatically come to council, how to determine fair or appropriate value (USDA agland rates, property tax equivalents, or fair market value), and potential liability for leased parcels (signage/no-trespassing and fencing). The council noted many existing trail and land-maintenance leases date to 2014 and are long-term; the ordinance will apply only to leases initiated after adoption and is not retroactive.
The ordinance was approved and the council directed staff to prepare the final code language reflecting the amendment and return the finalized ordinance for any ministerial processing steps required to publish the new chapter.
