Though The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Heber Valley Temple Project is set to be built on county land, the structure and its supporting infrastructure was discussed by the Heber City Council during its Aug. 1 meeting.

The church submitted a memorandum of understanding to be negotiated and signed by itself, the city and the county, given that the traffic increase and subsequent need for roads the temple will create largely affects Heber City.

While it was ultimately decided to continue the conversation at a later meeting, the discussion encompassed impact fees, lighting concerns and who will be responsible for paying for road developments.

---

---

The staff report on the MOU recommended the council approve the agreement with three conditions — the temple project is approved by Wasatch County, the MOU is approved by Wasatch County and the infrastructure and road plans contained in the agreement are approved by the city’s engineer.

“Yes, I want a temple. I’m also very sensitive to the fact that the area in which it is being built needs to be mindful of those neighbors. We need to be good neighbors.” — Heber City Councilor Yvonne Barney

It explained that according to the MOU, the church will pay for the roadway improvements necessitated by the project and for a roundabout slated to connect a new collector street with Center Street to mitigate traffic concerns. The city will be responsible for the construction of the collector road and the maintenance of the improvements the church makes to the existing streets.

---

---

The MOU also requires the church to build a walking path on its property and necessary streetlights.

Though the project will take place on Wasatch County property, the report specifies, it will impact Heber City through the traffic it is set to create. And even though the city will be responsible for the costs of a development happening on county land, “there is not currently any means or agreement by which impact fees can be collected by the County and passed through to the City.”

Speaking to the council, Heber City Engineering Director Russ Funk mentioned how this situation is not unique to the temple but will occur as large developments happening in the county will affect city streets.

The report recommended Wasatch County and Heber City work together to address the concern.

Regarding the temple project, however, Funk explained the church building the roundabout will likely end up costing it more than impact fees would. Still, if the council wanted to pursue impact fees, Funk suggested the costs be added as one of the conditions on the MOU, though he said he was unsure how the church would respond.

Council Member Ryan Stack had another concern.

Stack said if the church were willing to follow the city’s lighting ordinance for the development, he would be willing to vote for the MOU.

He acknowledged the controversy the church’s lighting plans have caused after the county’s lighting code was altered for this project.

Franco said she wasn’t sure which lighting code was more restrictive, and wanted the two sets of regulations to be compared before the decision was made.

Council Member Yvonne Barney agreed with Stack’s conditions.

“Yes, I want a temple,” she said. “I’m also very sensitive to the fact that the area in which it is being built needs to be mindful of those neighbors. We need to be good neighbors.”

While the city would eventually need to make the updates outlined in the MOU regardless of the church’s project, she added, the temple will accelerate that need, and it was something she said should be considered.

“We are here to protect all the rights of the citizens in Heber City,” she said. “I would like us to be mindful of that.”

Franco expressed her concern that enforcing the county’s lighting code through the MOU could quickly become controversial and problematic.

Council Member Mike Johnston grew concerned that the council was considering using the passage of the MOU as leverage given that the church wasn’t required to work toward the agreement. He also said the individuals using the road will largely be temple-going residents of Heber who are already using city roads traveling to temples.

“We’re asking them to put all this stuff in and pay for it and maintain it,” he said. “I’d be careful.”

Stack again voiced his concerns regarding the temple’s lighting, saying he has heard from several Heber City residents who don’t feel heard by the county.

“If this MOU is the only way that we as a city get to dip our toe in these particular waters, then I feel like I need to, so at least folks in the city feel like they’re being heard by somebody,” he said. “That’s what I continue to hear, is that the county just isn’t listening.”

He anticipated being outvoted in requesting the church to follow the city’s lighting code, he said, but he felt he had to say something.

Trulan Preece, a project manager for the church representing the organization at the meeting, addressed Stack’s concerns, saying “there will not be light that is bled into the sky.”

“This will probably be the most dimly lit temple structure that the church has ever built,” he said. “We value dark skies just like anyone else.”

He added that he also believed the concept of the church paying additional impact fees to be fair, though he referenced Johnston’s earlier comments about the true impact of the project being less than one might expect.

“Residents are already here; they’re already driving to and from,” he said. “Yes, there is an impact but it’s probably not as great as a full impact of a brand-new resident coming in and living there.”

The assessed impact fees, he said, would need to be calculated with that in mind.