Hooper council debates Smith's-linked development, funding options; no final vote

Hooper City Council spent the bulk of its June 24 work meeting discussing a proposed commercial development anchored by a Smith’s grocery and a related housing plan that would require changes to the city’s general plan, zoning map and a development agreement. Council members aired competing views on whether Hooper should participate in a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) or require the developer and future builders to cover infrastructure through impact fees or pioneering agreements; the council did not take a formal vote on those questions.

The debate centered on infrastructure and financing. Council members and staff said the project as presented would require a new lift (pump) station estimated in the meeting at roughly $1.9 million–$2.0 million. Council members repeatedly asked who would pay early-year costs while construction and buildout were underway, and whether the city would be “fronting” any money or instead require the developer to secure financing or a district that would cover the station’s cost. Councilmembers also discussed using a CRA — a tax-increment financing tool — but several said they opposed the city participating in a CRA and would rather see the developer pursue other funding mechanisms that do not redirect Hooper’s tax revenue.

A fiscal-impact study presented at earlier meetings was discussed again. Council members noted different figures in materials circulated: one figure cited during the meeting was about $172,000 per year of estimated city revenue from the development in steady state; other tables in the study showed different year-by-year results. Several council members said the study’s assumptions and timing (notably the first three construction years) require clarification before the council could agree to any tax-increment financing or to change zoning.

Planning and land-use issues were central as well. Staff and councilors reminded the group that the proposal would require amendments to the future land-use map and conditional rezoning; speakers emphasized that any zoning or plan changes should be conditional on a development agreement that ties construction phasing and infrastructure delivery to enforceable milestones. The planning commission’s earlier recommendation — discussed during the meeting — called for a mix of lot sizes and patio homes, with higher density than the current three-quarter-acre lots behind the commercial front; council members discussed the commission’s recommendation and whether to accept it, modify it, or require different phasing requirements so retail is constructed before or concurrent with housing.

Council members raised additional concerns: potential precedent (whether approving infrastructure support here would obligate similar support for future developments), the distribution of costs among taxing entities (school district, fire, county), the legal and administrative mechanics of a CRA or pioneering agreement, and the political response from affected neighborhoods. Several council members referenced constituent emails and phone messages; one council member said most messages she had received opposed CRA participation and large-scale changes to the neighborhood.

Next steps discussed at the meeting were narrowly focused: staff should ask the developer to pursue financing options (including whether other taxing entities or developers would participate) and return with clearer, written proposals and a draft conditional development agreement. Council members said any map or zoning changes should be conditional and reversible if agreed financing or phasing milestones are not met. The council asked staff to reach out to an absent council member before a future meeting to ensure a majority position could be determined; no formal motion or final action on the Smith’s-related development was made at this session.