Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Grant Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper wins $100,000 regional grant for zoning and design standards; council to consider matching funds and impact‑fee studies
Summary
Hooper City received a $100,000 Wasatch Front Regional Council grant to support zoning ordinance and design‑standards updates; the city’s match is $10,000, and staff said the grant could help pay for portions of impact‑fee studies.
Hooper City staff said the city received a $100,000 grant from the Wasatch Front Regional Council to support updates to Hooper’s zoning ordinance and design standards; the city’s required match is $10,000.
The grant is intended to fund consultant work to review and update zoning and design standards; staff said it could also be leveraged to reduce the cost of separate impact‑fee studies for roads, sewer, storm drainage and parks. Taylor Stauffer of JUB (the engineer referenced by staff) is scheduled to present on May 1 and will discuss how parts of the grant can be used to offset larger studies that staff estimated cost roughly $100,000 each.
Why it matters: Updated zoning and design standards and current impact‑fee analyses can change how development bears infrastructure costs and can affect future revenue the city collects for roads, sewer and parks. Staff said the investment in studies could increase the city’s ability to require reasonable developer contributions when new development occurs.
The planning commission requested that LRB (a consulting firm) come to its next meeting to answer questions about the project. Staff said LRB’s original invoice totaled $13,260, with $1,460 billed for the firm’s attendance at a City Council meeting. Stewart (a private party mentioned by staff) has sent a check to reimburse part of the consultant costs, but staff said an additional fee for LRB to attend a separate Planning Commission meeting (about $1,400 as quoted in the discussion) would be an extra charge not covered by the earlier reimbursement. Council members suggested lower‑cost alternatives such as asking planning commissioners to email questions to the consultant or asking staff to request a reduced attendance fee.
No council vote took place. Staff said they will confirm meeting attendance costs with the consultant and decide whether to include the consultant on the Planning Commission agenda, and will present more detailed budget and scope information in the upcoming budget discussions.
