Hooper council gives developer conditional direction on Terra Strada rezone; residents sharply divided over Smith’s marketplace and a proposed CRA

Hooper — The Hooper City Council on June 5 told Terra Strada LLC it could pursue a rezone and a development agreement for the property along 5500 South, but the council declined to approve a rezone tonight and said any final approval would require changes to the general plan and a development agreement that addresses financing of a sewage lift station.

The council’s direction reflected recommendations from the planning commission while explicitly ruling out a community reinvestment area (CRA) or other tax-increment financing at this stage. Council members emphasized they were willing to consider a “conceptual” approval — meaning support for moving forward with studies and a development agreement — but not a final rezone or map change at the June 5 meeting.

Why it matters: The Terra Strada proposal would add commercial frontage along SR‑177/5500 South and new residential parcels behind it; developers say both pieces are needed for the project’s infrastructure and economics. The central unresolved issue for council and residents is who would pay for a new sewer lift station the development requires and how much of the city’s tax streams, if any, would be pledged to pay it back.

What council said and required - Council members repeatedly stressed that a final rezone cannot be granted without amendments to the city’s general plan and land‑use map. As one council member summarized, the rezone “cannot be approved tonight” because it “requires a rezone and a change in the map.” - The developer’s representative recommended a development agreement as the next step. “We think a development agreement would be appropriate,” the representative told the council, and asked the council to state whether it was “conceptually okay” with the planning commission recommendation so staff and the developer would not undertake wasted work. - Council member-led motion language given to the developer included: no CRA or tax‑increment financing as part of the city’s contribution; an emphasis that a substantial portion of commercial build‑out occur before residential build‑out; and that any final approval be subject to a development agreement that lays out financing and buildout milestones.

Public comment: strong opposition and some support - Public comment was dominated by discussion of a potential Smith’s Marketplace anchor tenant. Several residents urged the council to reject any plan that would obligate the city to finance the lift station or otherwise divert city revenue. “If he wants to put this in, he should fund the whole thing,” said Bruce Taylor, who urged the council to deny the proposal and “let Stewart move on.” - Other commenters said a full‑service grocery store could generate substantial sales tax and reduce resident trips to neighboring cities. Bob Dandoy, who identified himself as a Roy resident, told the council that a Smith’s “is a wonderful opportunity” and predicted it would make a “significant difference” in local revenue. - Speakers raised concerns about scale and character (density, parking and 25 acres of commercial), the length of any revenue‑sharing period, and the risk that a long tax‑increment period would leave other taxing entities (schools, fire district) shortchanged.

Financing and CRA questions - Developers and staff repeatedly said a CRA/TIF is not a city tax increase but a way to capture increased future tax receipts (the “increment”) to fund infrastructure; council members and residents said they needed more detailed assurances before consenting to any use of incremental tax revenue. - The LRB economic study cited during the meeting estimated about $172,000 per year in new tax revenues to Hooper in a modeled buildout scenario; council members said that figure would yield only a modest per‑household amount if spread across future homes and that the city would still be the lowest‑benefit taxing entity compared with county and state.

Next steps - Council and the developer agreed to schedule additional work meetings and to draft a development agreement. Staff and the developer will return with the specific changes needed to the general plan, a draft development agreement, and more detailed cost estimates for the lift station and phasing options. - Council made a nonbinding direction (motion) that the planning commission recommendation could move forward subject to the development‑agreement process and the specific financing and map changes noted above. That direction was not a final rezoning or approval of financing.

Ending: The council voted on a motion to provide guidance to the developer rather than to approve a rezone; the body will consider any map amendments, rezone, or developer agreement at subsequent meetings after staff and the developer bring back detailed proposals and financing options.