Hooper City adopts county pre-disaster mitigation plan; council debates who must serve as emergency manager

Hooper City Council voted to adopt resolution R-2026-04 approving the Weber County/Utah pre-disaster mitigation plan, a step officials said is required for the city to be eligible for certain FEMA recovery and mitigation grants.

The motion to adopt the standardized county resolution was made by Council Member Craig and seconded by Council Member Hancock; the roll-call vote passed with Council Members Hill, Rapalto, Hancock, Craig and Fowers voting in favor.

The measure places Hooper on the county's mitigation roster, which presenters said is a precondition for some federal funding after natural disasters. Weber County Emergency Management representative Lisa Schwarz Goslin told the council that in federally declared disasters FEMA can reimburse up to 75 percent of eligible public infrastructure costs, but jurisdictions must document expenditures and incident decisions carefully to qualify: "FEMA says that if you didn't write it down, it didn't happen," she said.

Council members used the discussion to press for clarity about the practical consequences of joining the county plan. Lisa said joining the county mitigation plan and adopting the standard resolution does not automatically commit the city to specific projects; it makes Hooper eligible to apply for grants designed to fund hazard-mitigation or recovery work. She also described training and program requirements for an emergency manager, listing FEMA ICS courses (100/200/700/800) and more advanced professional coursework.

A central point of debate was a recent state change that requires a municipality to designate a paid employee as its emergency manager rather than a volunteer. Dave Harris, who drafted Hooper's mitigation text and has been serving in an emergency-management volunteer capacity, told council members he is not a city employee and asked whether that disqualifies the city from participation. "I'm identified as the EM but I'm not an employee," he said; later he quipped, "Make me employee and pay me $1 a year," underscoring the volunteer nature of his work.

Lisa and other staff said the state code requires an employee designation (for indemnity and liability reasons) and that lacking a paid employee could make the jurisdiction ineligible for some grants until the condition is met. Lisa described the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) as available but subject to requirements, including a 50 percent local match and evidence of an established program before full eligibility. She recommended that the city explore whether a current staff member could be designated as the EM or whether the city could hire or contract part-time help to serve as a liaison while the volunteer network continues doing much of the operational work.

Council members expressed concern about capacity and costs. Several said they would review the mitigation document (Lisa noted the full plan is large and that council members can search the PDF for references to Hooper) and asked legal counsel to research whether the EM must be a full-time employee, whether a part-time or contract arrangement is legally sufficient, and what the payroll/benefits implications would be.

Council also requested additional briefings: Lisa said a state or county representative could return to explain NFIP mapping and city participation in the National Flood Insurance Program; she recommended consulting the county engineer to determine which parts of the city fall inside flood-prone areas.

The council recorded that adopting the mitigation plan meets a June 25 submission deadline for county mitigation participation; members agreed to follow up about assigning an employee and pursuing grant opportunities once city staff and legal clarified the staffing options.

The council concluded the item by approving the resolution and noting that staff and legal counsel would return with more information about designating or hiring an emergency manager.