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

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.