[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6693801,"mediaKeyId","2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d","parentId",2366654,"title","Citizens use public comment to press council on agenda procedure and allege misconduct by city officials","audioSeconds",533,"startMs",3257000,"endMs",3790000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d&start=3257&end=3790","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d/thumbnail_3257000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6693801/Utah/Citizens-use-public-comment-to-press-council-on-agenda-procedure-and-allege-misconduct-by-city-officials","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693801-2f043a9844ad1bb9569d0aa38883be77/orig.mp4?Expires=1770967923&Signature=Nwpw8X6N~-6QIM792wZ8xSvxK5IaWKDRlEV5vnkDnjq8o6Mq2n6jlF-tPKd~C2dom~ZzFdpz7wgNojUpeIATFA66E3VAd7je03LVxm52loRRRfqCnP-zkAkhowD~vdziP5MUtIulJpZFXuCriKOT~2tlYkqbCc6M8TcAMoxgUnyzg72XOpTnA-kdaLSiA-c5-mTxBYtjAOx1cjwmuumzcaII0u22LCg67OFJOnE7mSccz-zXFM6uUdqZYHeXOOyuozF3Su9nE14eWRZB~BUYMPx9oKCR34vjYEhGflIai-nnU-ghJQjhJ2G9AgFBMnbgz5HrecWKKN~k2pZQY5htuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hooper City","date","2025-02-21T04:08:04.033Z","article","Several residents used the public‑comment portion of the Hooper City Council meeting to press for procedural changes and to raise allegations about city staff and elected officials.

Jake Kelso, introduced himself during public comment and asked the council to restore citizen comment to the start of the meeting, saying the mayor had removed the item that the council previously agreed to include early in the agenda. Kelso urged the council to pass an ordinance preventing the mayor from removing or blocking items added by council members.

Amber Kelso, who identified herself as the sister of Amanda Prince (a planning commission member), praised Prince’s public service and accused the mayor of using city resources and authority to target political opponents. Amber Kelso said the actions amounted to harassment and called for transparency; she said those were her assertions and that they “can be verified if you are willing to look into it.”

Chantal Murrah said a planning commission member physically assaulted a member of the public and said the Royce City Police had recommended the incident be referred to the prosecutor. Murrah said she felt unsafe and urged the council to allow time for an investigation before taking actions affecting the commission. Murrah attributed the referral to the Royce City Police and criticized the council for not allowing more time for a prosecutor review.

Council response and legal guidance

A councilor and the mayor explained that city legal counsel had recommended putting citizen comment at the end of the agenda to avoid turning every meeting into a public hearing. The mayor and other council members encouraged residents to contact their council representatives directly with questions or concerns; one councilor said the city would consider other venues for community questions and possible additional public forums.

Other public comments

A resident, Blake Severing, asked whether trailers could be parked at a lot east of the city pickleball courts to remove trailers from streets after recent storms; the council said staff would investigate and report back.

What the council did not decide

The council did not take formal action on changes to agenda procedure, ordinance amendments, or disciplinary actions during the meeting. A councilor said she had received information from the city prosecutor during the meeting; no outcome or action was announced on the record.

Ending: Multiple citizens asked for greater transparency and procedural protections; councilors cited attorney guidance about agenda structure and asked staff to follow up on questions raised during public comment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","February 20, 2025 - City Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Multiple residents told the Hooper City Council they want citizen comment restored to the start of agendas and raised allegations against the mayor and a planning commission member; councilors and staff cited attorney guidance about agenda structure and said they will consider options for public engagement.","taxTitle","Hooper City Council, Hooper , Weber County, Utah","taxId",21280,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6693805,"Developer asks Hooper City to allow sewer and water connections for three Roy City homes; council raises annexation and ordinance concerns",862,2497700,3360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d&start=2497&end=3360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d/thumbnail_2497700.jpg","/articles/6693805/Utah/Developer-asks-Hooper-City-to-allow-sewer-and-water-connections-for-three-Roy-City-homes-council-raises-annexation-and-ordinance-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693805-7395642404d3acbada2903581a9a887c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770967923&Signature=PUiTrDj-DJXguOC9wR0Mec8sl59kltC6FPBI8Mmfe7Iw1RW81COzLhX8XRt-qHE-QgDaSq4g6KjK3cn9Q6I~68SttjydAPsepaBAPv1HDdPcQaz8f6FC4xBe1I0zBUCzRcX6gQSJ8EaloGXnGC6ILTJi1dXKVvcptzTw1j8~IqBw~8P3eGhJ7ZHoPRlBYYt4nKo3Ul540Xr0w9fUIfrvR-MFOhaX3VNZko9QoygzBEnqqHpdFsqWHBRV7bLLA0jRHwutc02rs~f6sfB7jjMQcoqhzTpZiKoldgk6UX4c0yiLYg-w~C7JJQFRP21u0XdacGbNCuqEsHF5b6H70vkVFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives of Advanced Homes told the Hooper City Council they seek permission to connect three single‑family homes in Roy City’s Park 43 development to Hooper City water and sewer lines because the closest utility connections lie on Hooper property. Pete Smith, identified as a developer with Advanced Homes, presented plans and floor‑plan examples and said the proposal would keep water connections along the curb line and place the sewer in a public utility easement down a private lane.

Smith said the homes were approved by Roy City as single‑family on the west side of the SLU and that the developer took over the project after annexation into Roy City. He described the request as “fairly simple,” said the open space and trail connections had been planned to integrate with adjacent Hooper property, and added that the homeowners’ association would handle garbage collection and snow removal.

Council concerns and clarifications

Council members asked whether impact fees would be paid to Roy or Hooper and how long‑term billing for sewer service would be handled. Smith said impact fees for building permits and taxes would go to Roy City, while sewer connection fees and ongoing sewer bills would be payable to Hooper City under a service agreement. He described the anticipated agreement as a shared‑utility arrangement allowing Hooper to bill homeowners and collect connection and permit fees.

Several councilors said they wanted to see a clearer benefit to Hooper before approving a connection. One councilor said the only direct benefit seen was monthly sewer revenue and suggested Roy City be asked about annexation because Roy has previously required annexation for similar connections. Another councilor noted Hooper’s ordinance does not currently allow private roads and that the lane width shown in the developer’s plans would need modification to meet Hooper standards if annexation were to be pursued.

Annexation and ordinance issues

Smith said annexation was “definitely something we consider,” but that the developer’s initial approach—guided by recommendations from city staff—was to request the connection first. Council members said annexation could be part of negotiations; they also noted the existing roadway and easement configuration and pointed to potential conflicts with Hooper’s private‑road rules and road‑width standards.

What the council did not decide

The council treated the item as a discussion; no motion to approve connections, annexation or changes to the plan was recorded at the meeting. A councilor recommended following up with Roy City about annexation and bringing a clearer proposal or agreement back to Hooper City staff and council for review.

Ending: The council asked staff to continue discussions and to clarify permitting, impact fees and any necessary plan modifications if the developer pursues annexation or a formal interlocal agreement.","Advanced Homes asked Hooper City to allow sewer and water connections to serve three single‑family homes in Roy City’s Park 43; the developer said water meters would be placed along Hooper’s curb line and sewer installed in a public utility easement; councilors discussed annexation, private‑road widths and long‑term benefits to Hooper.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6693810,"Hooper City reviews fiscal analysis of proposed Smith’s Marketplace; consultant projects net fiscal benefit",1063,240,1064130,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d&start=0&end=1064","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366654-4f41b4e1c72071a4bd831f516a1aff0d/thumbnail_240.jpg","/articles/6693810/Utah/Hooper-City-reviews-fiscal-analysis-of-proposed-Smiths-Marketplace-consultant-projects-net-fiscal-benefit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693810-add552469f04ad750e275788662ab2ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1770967923&Signature=M8d4E8AuyqpXMvlf5frL8SturaJRj0hlCNlIXB-kV5tiDsIqzG8t3y5Io7N7JSBi5mc7JSRZN3ambkZb8~V7qQm~tvcKm~Et1k-sTC3f6d6s6VEJdlPH~Xz4JSbuSjO28lQZprqde-w19ubisE2MII8mKWzSzTuFEkJH7dBsUHgrY~RHuB5M~usR~I7UCxHd9MFbEbjghtXTDDFLFtkCUnnukVJGAEuQcMtD7m5MDxyqHWMGFcD4WMnW2l8CPyzveIuvLyLfoHWdm8LYhHJciTiIRO4LLwX01stGqHPXX9J8iz5ure8YMVxHcs-AKgNqxfJK5CD7WJs971idhVDHRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Hooper City Council meeting, a consultant presented a fiscal‑impact analysis of the proposed Smith’s Marketplace mixed‑use project, concluding the development would generate a net fiscal benefit of about $21.5 million over the model period (future dollars) and roughly $11.8 million in net present value, with Hooper City’s share estimated at a $7.7 million net benefit over the period (about $4.3 million in present dollars).

The consultant, identified in the meeting as “Mister Birmingham,” told council members the study includes assumptions about 17 residential units, 65,000 square feet of retail anchored by a Smith’s grocery, and a possible community reinvestment area (CRA) using tax‑increment financing (TIF). Birmingham said the analysis assumes 75% of incremental property tax revenue from a defined project boundary would be captured by a CRA for 25 years, producing an estimated nominal $6.0 million or about $3.9 million in net present value for infrastructure funding.

Why it matters: the city must weigh near‑term infrastructure costs and the timing of revenues against a multi‑decade fiscal benefit. Birmingham warned that the sewer lift station needed to serve the project is an off‑site cost likely to be paid by utility customers or capital financing; the study used a conservative $3.0 million allowance (the city provided a bid tabulation for about $2.2 million) to reflect construction inflation and contingencies.

Key findings and assumptions

- Project components analyzed: 17 residential units, 65,000 square feet of retail (including a grocery anchor), and related employment and sales activity.
- Revenue estimates (future dollars, 25‑year span): total gross revenues to taxing entities roughly $84 million; discounted at 4% the equivalent is about $47.4 million.
- Cost estimates (future dollars): Hooper City costs about $6.8 million; Weber County about $3.3 million; State of Utah about $53.1 million (the state cost estimate reflects additional demand for state services from new residents). After discounting, the consultant reported a total net present‑value fiscal benefit of about $11.8 million across entities.
- Hooper City fiscal outcome: nominal net benefit $7.7 million over the period (discounted to roughly $4.3 million). The consultant illustrated that dividing $7.7 million by 25 years equals roughly $308,000 per year on average, though he said early years could be negative because costs are front‑loaded while property tax and some sales tax growth are realized later.
- Sewer lift station: the packet included a city bid tabulation showing an estimated $2.2 million cost; the consultant increased that to $3.0 million in the model to capture inflation and contingencies and said the agency/C R A could be used to fund part or all of the lift station.
- TIF/CRA assumptions: the analysis modeled 75% of incremental property tax returned to the agency for 25 years. Birmingham emphasized that this presumes consent by other taxing entities (school district, county, fire districts) and that approval is not automatic: “That’s assuming that each of those entities will approve that,” a councilor said; Birmingham replied, “Absolutely a critical point.”

Council questions and caveats

Council members focused on timing, responsibility for utility operations and fees, and the school district’s likely role. A councilor asked whether operational and maintenance costs for the lift station were built into the analysis; Birmingham said they treated the lift station as a utility asset and assumed operational costs would be borne through user rates: “we do anticipate that there would be operational costs associated with that, and ratepayers would be the primary source to repay that.”

Members also asked about the distribution of tax increments. Birmingham explained that while the development pays taxes, the largest portion of property tax revenue typically flows to the school district, followed by the county; therefore, the school district would be the largest participant whose approval could affect how much increment is available for the CRA. He cautioned that the CRA’s revenue mix could also include incremental sales tax or other negotiated arrangements.

State policy risk: a councilor asked whether a state move to exempt food from sales tax would affect local revenues from a grocery anchor. Birmingham said such a change would primarily affect state revenues and noted issues around non‑impairment clauses and bondholders. He said a state elimination of its portion of food tax would “just impact the state revenues” but acknowledged discussion of that policy could create revenue uncertainty for projects that rely on grocery‑driven sales tax.

Net present value and timing

Councilors pressed the difference between total (future) cash flow and net present value. Birmingham explained that while the study reports larger nominal totals over 25 years, discounting at 4% reduces those future receipts to present‑day equivalents: the city’s nominal $7.7 million is about $4.3 million in present value, and the total nominal $21.5 million net benefit becomes about $11.8 million present value.

What the study does not decide

No final council action or CRA creation occurred at the meeting. Birmingham said the analysis shows the project is “economically viable” from the fiscal lens used in the study, but he repeatedly noted that a CRA or TIF would require negotiation and approval by other taxing entities and that some infrastructure costs might be the developer’s responsibility or funded through other tools such as impact fees. He recommended narrowing the capital needs and then structuring any CRA around identified revenue needs.

Next steps and packet availability

Council members discussed presenting the study to the planning commission and holding additional community engagement; Birmingham offered to return to other venues. The city clerk noted the packet and report are on the city agenda packet online. Birmingham then returned to the mayor and the meeting moved to other agenda items.

Ending: The council did not vote on zoning, CRA formation or on any fiscal commitment at the meeting. The consultant’s presentation and the full fiscal‑impact report remain part of the meeting packet for further review and for any follow‑up staff recommendations.","Consultants told the Hooper City Council that the proposed Smith’s Marketplace mixed‑use development would produce a net fiscal benefit across taxing entities despite an estimated $3.0 million off‑site sewer lift station cost; councilors pressed assumptions about tax‑increment financing, timing of revenues and annexation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Citizens use public comment to press council on agenda procedure and allege misconduct by city officials

Developer asks Hooper City to allow sewer and water connections for three Roy City homes; council raises annexation and ordinance concerns

Hooper City reviews fiscal analysis of proposed Smith’s Marketplace; consultant projects net fiscal benefit