One PID. One real bill.

What the district can charge

Nordic Village's maximum debt mill levy is 0.0050 per dollar of taxable value — 0.5%. Utah's 45% residential exemption applies to a primary home's taxable value, not its market price, so the same district costs a primary residence roughly half of what it costs a second home or investment property.

Because the assessment is a percentage of value, it rises and falls with the home price — it does not sunset the way many HOA fee schedules eventually do, and it was set by the developer and initial board before any resident existed to vote on it.

A $500K home, 40 years out

Nordic Village's bonds are authorized for up to 31 years — the statutory maximum for a Utah PID. Run the same 0.5% mill levy forward against a $500,000 home at closing, under three appreciation assumptions, and this is what the PID line alone adds up to.

These three tabs model three appreciation scenarios — see the glossary above if you skipped it.

How does Utah's version of this compare to its closest peers? Texas and Florida are the two other large states with a mature, similar-scale development-financing tool built on the same idea — bond infrastructure now, repay it through a charge on the property. Utah's own legislative approach to growth and financing tracks closely with both. Tap each card for what's actually different.

What HOA fees add — and why they vary so much

A PID assessment isn't the only recurring charge a homeowner in a development like this carries. Actual Ogden Valley listings show HOA dues ranging from $25/month to over $750/month — a roughly 20x spread. The difference isn't random: it tracks what's actually being maintained.

Among developments that actually match what's shared at Nordic Village — a clubhouse, pool, and building maintenance, not just a private lot — $368/month at Moose Hollow is the lowest monthly HOA fee found in this search. Every other amenity-comparable development priced higher, up to $752/month. Annualized, that's $368 × 12 = $4,416/year — the figure carried forward into every HOA calculation elsewhere on this page (Exhibit A2, Exhibit A5). This page uses $368 anyway, on purpose, as a deliberately conservative floor: real costs at a brand-new Nordic Village unit are more likely to land above this number than below it, for two reasons this figure does not capture:

• Moose Hollow was built in 1999. Every sourced comparable on this page is from a pre-2006 development — none reflect current construction, insurance, or reserve-fund costs, which have all risen sharply since these HOAs first set their dues.
• Nordic Village's own master plan (428 condos, 159 chalets, 230 hotel units) is a larger, newer, more amenity-dense project than any comparable found here — the kind of development that typically sets initial dues higher, not lower, to fund reserves from day one.

No HOA figure exists yet for Nordic Village itself — units aren't built or marketed. When one is published, it should replace this floor rather than average against it.

Same home, PID vs. no PID

Isolating just the property-tax side of the bill: a $500,000 home outside any PID pays Weber County's countywide effective property tax rate (0.60%, blending county, school, fire, and water levies — U.S. Census / propertytaxbystate.com). The identical home inside Nordic Village pays that same base rate plus the PID assessment — and the PID doesn't get folded into that base number. It shows up as its own separate line on the annual property tax statement, distinct from the county/school/fire/water lines, the same way it's tracked separately in Utah PID practice elsewhere in the state. Everything else — HOA, insurance, the mortgage itself — is deliberately left out of this one so the PID's own contribution is visible on its own.

Same numbers, shown as a share of the total tax bill instead of a dollar amount. These are two genuinely separate line items on the annual statement — not one blended tax number — so this pie is really showing what fraction of the whole bill each printed line accounts for. Because both lines are fixed percentages of the same home value, this split holds at every year on the chart above — the PID isn't a bigger or smaller slice as the home appreciates, it's the same slice, every year.

The percentage add stays constant at 46% every year because both lines are fixed percentages of the same home value — the PID doesn't get proportionally more or less expensive as the home appreciates, it stays a constant premium on top of the ordinary tax bill. Neither line here includes HOA (Exhibit A3) or insurance, and neither is discounted for inflation.

40 years out, honestly: a range, not a number

Everything on this page so far picks one appreciation rate at a time. Real life doesn't hold still for 40 years — so instead of one line, here's the full range this same $500,000 home could land in, non-PID vs. PID, combining base property tax, the PID assessment, and the $368/mo HOA floor from Exhibit A3.

This is the piece that actually drives the band chart below: since both the base property tax (0.60% of value) and the PID assessment (0.275% of taxable value, primary residence) are percentages of the home's value, a bigger home value produces bigger costs in both bands — that's the whole mechanism, not a separate assumption layered on top. The "low" scenario holds the home at $500,000 for all 40 years on purpose, as the floor case; the "high" scenario is the same 4%/yr pace already used in Exhibits A2 and A4.

Whichever path the next 40 years actually takes, the gap between the two properties grows with it — from roughly $232K at the low end to over $312K at the high end, on top of whatever the home itself is worth. This combines figures already shown individually in Exhibits A2, A3, and A4; nothing new is assumed here except showing the three scenarios together instead of one at a time. HOA is held flat at today's floor rate for all 40 years in every scenario, which understates the PID band further (Exhibit A3).

The home price trend since 2019

Ogden Valley (Eden / Huntsville / Liberty) median single-family sold price, per Mountain Luxury Real Estate's own annual and quarterly reports.

What else got layered on, by entity

The PID assessment is one line on top of several others that have moved independently since 2019 — some up, one flat, one still pending a court decision.

Where the tax-increment money is required to go

The April 2, 2026 interlocal agreement redirects a share of future property tax growth on Nordic Valley land, for 15 years: 75% of Weber County's increment, 50% each from the School District, Fire District, and Water District.

The same document shows Weber County's Transportation Development Fund — a separate, ¼%-sales-tax-funded account — declining by roughly $16 million in a single year (from a $75.7M starting balance), driven by a jump in WACOG project and Corridor Preservation spending.

A second, separate "transportation" charge

Ogden Valley City's proposed 512.6% property tax hike is tied up in a State Tax Commission dispute — a district court ruling found the city missed an incorporation-era filing deadline, and the matter is now before the Utah Supreme Court. If the city loses, its own stated backup plan is a new transportation utility fee charged to every household, restricted to road projects.

This is a separate mechanism from the county's Transportation Development Fund in Exhibit D — a new city-only flat household fee, not the county's ¼% sales tax fund. Same word, different entity, different money.

Already behind its own schedule

The PID is servicing debt on a project that is running later than the developer's own original target.

By April 2026, regional reporting confirmed the original 2025 infrastructure start had slipped: "developers had hoped some infrastructure work could start in 2025, but court challenges and additional local approvals will ultimately dictate the timing" (Hoodline, citing county documents). The court challenge in question is a real, filed case — Weber County resident David Carver and the nonprofit Ogden Valley Smart Growth filed suit in 2nd District Court on Jan. 28, 2025, seeking judicial review of the county's Nordic Village ordinances and the community reinvestment area, arguing the county should have paused major approvals once the incorporation vote passed. As of the most recent reporting found, that suit remains part of what's holding up timing.

Meanwhile, the financing side is already running: $39.38M in Series 2025 bonds issued, a further $25M in Series 2026A/B authorized April 15, 2026, and $1.89M in bond interest already paid — from capitalized interest reserves, not project revenue, since the Property Taxes line on the PID's own 2026 budget still reads $0. The debt clock started before the construction clock did.

One detail worth keeping separate from the delay: the county's own TIF plan allocates increment 85%/10%/5%, and the 10% "housing" share is directed to employee-housing units on the developer's own property rather than a general county housing fund (Stephanie Russell, Weber County economic development director, per public meeting reporting) — not a timeline fact, but relevant to what the diverted revenue in Exhibit D is actually funding.

Where the trend points

Home price appreciation alone, projected forward on the pre- and post-cooling growth rates already in the record:

That range covers home value only. It does not include Ogden Valley City's pending tax fight, the three Nordic Village PIDs' rising assessment as values climb, or any new development's TIF layered on top — those move on separate, non-market timelines and shouldn't be folded into one compounded number.

"Affordable" — by which legal definition?

Nordic Village has been described in press coverage as becoming "an affordable, thriving ski community." Utah law actually has a precise answer for what makes a development "affordable," and it isn't the tool Nordic Village uses.

The Utah Legislature has created several financing tools specifically conditioned on affordability, each with binding requirements attached:

Put together: the state has already built financing tools that require a project to commit to owner-occupancy and price caps in exchange for tax-increment or bond financing. Nordic Village doesn't use any of them, and its own plan doesn't anticipate the outcome those tools are designed to produce. Whatever the PID mechanism does for the developer's up-front financing costs, nothing in the governing documents obligates any part of it to lower a buyer's price, and the project's own paperwork doesn't expect the units to house local, permanent residents in the first place.

What "bonding again" actually buys, and who pays for it:

The 0.5% mill rate is capped in the governing document and doesn't increase on its own. But as established in Exhibit A2, that cap governs the rate, not how long it can be charged — a new bond series restarts the clock. A later-phase bond issuance partway through that stated 10–15 year build-out — realistically, sometime in roughly the year-10-to-year-20 range, though no specific year is confirmed — is plausible, not exotic. If a second series began around year 20 and ran its own term, the same rate would simply keep applying on a rolling basis rather than ending:

Sized to scale, realistic hold vs. worst case: total cost, non-PID home vs. the same home in Nordic Village — base property tax plus the PID line, combined (methodology from Exhibit A4).

This is the number that actually matters for most buyers: over a realistic 20-year hold, the PID property costs roughly $130,902 more than the same home without one — without needing a single renewal to happen. The 80-year figures below show what the same mechanism produces for the household — or the district — that's still there decades later, or for whoever owns the home by then.

And here's what the same math produces if the district's life does extend past a typical hold — 40, 60, and 80 years out, sized the same way:

The circles are sized by area to the actual dollar totals, not the percentage split — that split (Exhibit A4) stays a constant 69/31 no matter which year you look at, so a same-ratio pie would look identical at year 20 and year 80. What actually changes with time is the size of the whole bill, and — for the 40/60/80 figures — whether the district's life has been extended past what a typical owner would ever personally experience.

This isn't a prediction — it's what the same, already-established rate produces if the district's life is extended the way its own documents allow. Nothing here requires bad faith: refinancing existing debt or borrowing for a later construction phase are ordinary, expected events for a project explicitly planned to take 10–15 years to build. The point is that "the assessment ends at year 31 (or 40)" is not a guarantee anywhere in the record — only the rate is fixed.

What a buyer is actually told at closing

A homeowner who buys in their 30s and stays in the home could carry this assessment for the rest of their life. What Utah law requires a buyer to be told at closing falls well short of that fact.

What that disclosure does not require telling a buyer:

• The total amount the assessment could add up to over the bond's full term
• That the district's mill levy can outlast the original bond term if a new series is issued (Exhibit A2, Exhibit H)
• That nothing in the record guarantees the assessment ends at any specific year

The precise gap: a stated term, not a stated possibility of renewal. Where PID disclosure is more developed — Texas's market, decades older than Utah's — buyers are typically given a specific number of years remaining, pulled from the district's service and assessment plan. What standard disclosure doesn't cover is whether the district can extend past that number. One Texas buyer's guide advises purchasers to separately "check developer rights" and "determine whether the developer can expand the PID or levy additional assessments under the service plan" — advice that exists specifically because the standard disclosure package doesn't already answer it. A remaining-years figure reads like a countdown to zero. Nothing requires anyone to say that the countdown can restart.

A 32-year-old buyer today would be 72 by the time Nordic Village's own reported 40-year bond ceiling arrives — and older still if the district issues a later series. The one figure Utah law requires at closing is this year's number, not even a term. Whether the term itself still applies in year 40, or year 60, or for the rest of that buyer's life, is not something either state's disclosure framework asks anyone to say out loud.

Separately, Utah's standard seller disclosure form does require flagging whether a property carries HOA, special improvement district, or PID assessments that are unpaid, pending, or not yet billed — but that's a yes/no flag on the general disclosure form, not the dollar-amount-and-duration disclosure HB507 specifically created for PIDs.

A shrinking pool of buyers, and a mortgage rule with teeth

If the assessment keeps growing with home value while local income grows more slowly, the pool of people who can both afford and qualify to buy the home narrows over time — for the current owner, not just a future one. The clearest documented source on this isn't a real estate blog. It's Fannie Mae's own underwriting policy.

It goes further than a disclosure requirement. If a special assessment district runs into financial difficulty severe enough that its effect on a property's value "is not measurable because there is no comparable market data available," Fannie Mae's own rule is explicit: "a mortgage secured by a property in that district will not be eligible for delivery to Fannie Mae until such time that an active market develops that will enable the appraiser to demonstrate the value and marketability of the subject property." That's not a soft buyer preference — it's a hard eligibility rule that can freeze conventional financing for an entire district until enough resale history exists to prove the market will still bear it.

Put that next to what's already documented on this page: the assessment grows every year the home appreciates (Exhibit A), it has no guaranteed end date (Exhibit A2, Exhibit H), and area income has grown at less than a third the rate of home prices since 2019. A rising, open-ended assessment is exactly the kind of fact pattern this Fannie Mae rule was written for — and it means the buyer pool for a PID home isn't just a matter of taste. It's bounded by what a specific federal underwriting policy will and won't finance.

Paying twice: the PID assessment, and a base tax rate pushed up by the same district's own diversion

A Nordic Village homeowner doesn't pay the PID assessment instead of a normal property tax bill — they pay both. And under Utah's own Truth in Taxation mechanics, the ordinary bill isn't insulated from the PID's existence; the same diversion that funds the PID can be part of what pushes that ordinary bill up too. Six pieces make up this argument — tap each one for the full case, not just the headline.

What's actually exposed to the cut — and what isn't

Exhibit K established the choice Truth in Taxation forces on a taxing entity once its growth revenue is walled off: cut services, or raise rates on everyone else. Here's what "cut services" means in real dollars, from Weber County's own 2025 budget — and, for comparison, what happens to the PID's own debt service under the same financial pressure. Tap each card.

Six figures, one pattern: the services actually on the table when a taxing entity's growth revenue is diverted are the ones ordinary residents use every day — jail, sheriff, library, parks, the county's basic administrative functions. The PID's own debt service isn't part of that conversation at all; it was built with its own reserve funding precisely so it wouldn't be. Dollar figures: Weber County 2025 Tentative Budget; Nordic Village PID debt service: Nordic Village PID No. 1, 2026 Final Budget.

Nordic Village isn't the only one — here's what the county's own numbers show

Every exhibit above is about one project. Utah Code §17C-1-606 requires Weber County's own Auditor to publish an annual accounting of every dollar diverted to every CRA project area, countywide — the "CRA 700 Report." Four years of it (2021–2024) are now on file. Nordic Village doesn't even appear in these reports yet — its own diversion (Exhibit K: $5.05M county share, $16.57M combined, over its own 15-year window) hasn't started. Everything below is already happening, from other projects, before Nordic Village adds a single dollar.

Project-area counts vary slightly by year in the underlying report format (22–28 rows depending on how each year's workbook lists zero-value and inactive entries) — "~21" reflects the consistently active core, not a precise headcount claimed to the digit. None of these 21+ project areas is Nordic Village.

What this means for "how much, over 20 years":

Two honest ways to answer it. Holding the county general fund's 2024 rate flat for 20 years: ~$35.7M diverted from the county's general fund alone, from existing projects, before Nordic Village adds anything. Using the 4-year average rate instead: roughly $34.2M over 20 years, or ~$262M across all entities combined. Neither of these is a prediction — they're the same already-observed rate held constant, the same honest-extrapolation method used in Exhibit A5. The real number could run higher: this list doesn't yet include Nordic Village's own $16.57M (Exhibit K), doesn't include Snowbasin, Promontory Commerce Center, or Mount Ogden's PIDs (Exhibit C), and doesn't include whatever the county approves next.

And the open question that started this exhibit: how many more will be approved? Nothing in Utah Code requires a county to disclose a running total or a cap before creating the next one — each new CRA or PID is evaluated on its own, not against the cumulative diversion already committed. The county's own CRA 700 Report is the only place this adds up in one document, and it only exists because state law requires it to be filed after the fact, once a year — not before a new one is approved.