Developers and Hooper City discuss tax‑increment financing, school and fire‑district participation to fund sewer lift station for proposed Smith’s-anchored site

Developers seeking to build a 25‑acre shopping center anchored by a Smith’s grocery store in Hooper discussed using tax‑increment financing derived from property‑tax growth to pay for a sewer lift station that developers say the project requires.

The meeting, held before the Hooper City Council session on June 17, 2025, brought together the project team, city staff and county consultants to walk through the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) / tax‑increment financing (TIF) mechanics in the LRB study and how other taxing entities — notably the local school district and fire district — would have to agree to participate for the CRA to fund the lift station.

Why it matters: The developer and city staff said a large public infrastructure cost — the lift station — is the key barrier to the project. The TIF mechanism would “freeze” the baseline assessed value and divert a portion of the increase in property tax receipts generated by the new development for a set term (examples discussed ran 15–25 years) to repay infrastructure costs; participants said the LRB model shows a present‑value uplift large enough in a worst‑case model to cover the pump station cost.

City planner and consultants described how the CRA/TIF would work. Jason Birmingham, the consultant who prepared the study, told the meeting that the LRB model in its published form only modeled property‑tax diversion and that sales tax participation was not assumed in the study’s baseline model: “We’ve only used property tax,” he said on the record when council members asked whether sales tax was included. Birmingham walked the group through the LRB assumptions, the net present value calculations and the example participation rates the study used, including a conservative 75% participation case and a more likely 50/50 split the team said they expect in negotiations with taxing entities.

Developers and staff emphasized who must approve participation. The project team repeatedly said the school district is the largest property‑taxing authority and will make a final determination on whether it will divert a share of the incremental property tax to the CRA. Project participants described a “chicken and egg” problem: the city needs a nod that a rezone could proceed so the developer can approach taxing entities with a development agreement, but the taxing entities want details that flow from a rezone and development agreement.

The developer described the structure they intend to seek: designate a CRA over the project area, freeze the baseline assessed value, and divert a negotiated portion (they discussed examples of 50% or 75%) of new property‑tax revenue generated by development to pay back lift‑station costs over a term (examples discussed ranged up to 25 years). The group discussed other levers (sales tax participation or municipal energy tax) as optional but repeatedly returned to the property‑tax increment as the primary, modeled funding source.

Participants also discussed the city’s desired land‑use outcomes. The developer said its current submittal is for single‑family lots (half‑acre and one‑third‑acre lots) and a planned commercial edge; the planning commission had recommended a planned‑unit development (PUD) approach combined with commercial at the frontage. City staff and planning commissioners said they want more detailed site plans and clear conditions in a development agreement — including a clause making any rezoning contingent on a development agreement that secures commitments from participating taxing entities.

No formal vote was taken at the meeting. The developer asked for direction to pursue CRA negotiations with Weber County and the school and fire districts and to proceed with more specific site planning; council staff said they would expect a development agreement to define allocation, term and contingencies before a final rezone would be granted.

What remains unclear: The taxing entities’ commitments (school district, fire district, mosquito abatement or other special districts) were not obtained at the meeting. The consultant noted the LRB model’s worst‑case assumptions likely understate sales tax generation but the model’s property‑tax projection alone — in the firm’s view — provides sufficient present value to cover the lift‑station cost in the scenarios shown.

Next steps: The developer will attempt to get written participation commitments from the other taxing entities and will return with a proposed development agreement and more detailed site plans; the city said a rezoning vote could be made contingent on executing an acceptable development agreement.