Through arguments, debates and disagreements, Wasatch County governments are trying to work their way toward unity about the Utah Department of Transportation’s Heber Valley Corridor project.
After a long consideration about sending a unified letter to the Utah Department of Transportation earlier this month and resolving to go over the document with their separate councils before officially submitting it, the Heber City Council, Midway City Council and Wasatch County Council have all had public meetings where they discussed the prospect.
The letter boasts five main objectives the municipalities are trying to agree on to present to UDOT as shared priorities: preserving the North Fields as much as possible, focusing on quality of life and safety, limiting access points to keep traffic moving, supporting Heber City’s long-term plan for a revitalized downtown, and having minimal environmental impacts.
Heber City councilors were quick to sign off on the document July 16. That same night, Midway officials were far more hesitant, and their reluctance gave the County Council pause the next night.
Midway
Councilor Craig Simons, who helped alongside Councilor Lisa Orme and members of each of the councils who initially compiled the letter, said the document’s stated objectives looked good to him.
“I think it’s a nice show of four entities being able to work together. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen this,” Simons said. “We don’t have the option to ignore this.”
He said no one wants the bypass, but everybody needs it, and said Google Maps is sending people through Midway on their way to Park City if U.S. 40 is backed up.
Councilor Kevin Payne was less optimistic about the letter and the bypass.
“I feel all of the five or whatever alternatives that go through some portion of the North Fields or basically the west side of Heber there. It’s not a silver bullet,” he said. “It’s not going to achieve the goals that they claim that they’re achieving. That’s my perspective.”
He said he was hesitant to support any path in the North Fields.
Councilor Jeff Drury agreed.
He took issue with items two through four of the letter, all of which he felt gave vague support to a route that would intersect River Road.
“I think item number one says protect the North Fields and then two, three, four and somewhat five say put the biggest road there as possible,” he said.
After the concerns were raised, Johnson jumped on the wagon, emphasizing that she was concerned that having the four councils approve the letter by August was unrealistic.
“I share your concern that there’s deliberate vagueness,” she said. “I think that’s a fair read.”
Orme was fast to disagree.
“That is not the discussion,” she said.
She said she was somewhat hesitant on the objective of firmly pushing for UDOT to consider Heber City’s Main Street but believed the other priorities were worded vaguely to leave room for dialogue.
“There’s a sentiment that the community’s not getting along,” she said. “So, they’re going to go around us and do whatever they want.”
The point of the unified letter, she said, is to be unified, even if vaguely, for a seat at the table.
Councilor JC Simonsen also wasn’t fond of the letter.
“It needs more work,” he said. “Let’s at least run it by our open lands folks and make sure they don’t have any major red flags.”
Payne added his doubts that downtown Heber City can even become walkable and said the majority of the problematic traffic is from the city’s growth, which isn’t expected to stop.
“We’re going to look back here in five years, 10 years or whatever it is it takes to get this all done, and go, ‘What on Earth did this do?’ And everyone’s going to be complaining about traffic,” he said.
He thought the letter was good for Heber City, but not the valley as a whole, and he doubted everyone could agree on a set of objectives.
Johnson asked if anyone would want to try to rewrite or edit the letter, and Orme told her it’s likely not worth the time.
“There were a lot of people from county, cities, community that put the effort into this,” Orme said. “Unless you’re getting that whole committee back together, it’s going to implode.”
Johnson said she was under the impression community leaders expected back and forth, and modification is possible.
Orme wasn’t convinced.
“The reason they are pushing the time frame is because we are late to the game,” she said. “We are behind, and the longer we wait, the more chance we have of not having any say.”
As a realtor, she said, she’s already working with clients who have sold their land in the North Fields to UDOT.
Opinions didn’t relent. The council didn’t approve the letter but instead started exploring other route options and weighing them against the pros and cons of the paths UDOT has already presented.
“We’re willing to consider a bypass, but we’re really concerned about the impact to North Fields,” Simonsen said.
“So a modified version of point number one,” Orme said.
Johnson asked the councilors to each try to take a stab at beginning a revised letter.
Wasatch County
The day after Midway declined to approve the letter, Wasatch County councilors had a similar chat about the unified message, though with far less incentive to approve it, given Midway’s desire to edit the document.
“I would propose that just as a point of efficiency that if there is an entity proposing changes that we wait until those changes are submitted and then we continue this by looking at those as well as any changes we may have,” Councilor Erik Rowland said.
County Executive Dustin Grabau asked how much time they wanted to consider revisions.
“I don’t want to rush the process, but when you start inviting changes by different governmental entities, there has to be an opportunity for the others to go through and review those changes if we want a unified document,” Rowland said. “It can’t be done by Aug. 15. That would be surprising.”
Everyone has a right to propose changes, he said, but everyone also needs time to review them.
Councilor Kendall Crittenden also said an email from Johnson indicated Midway’s changes won’t be completed for weeks.
On top of those updates, Grabau said Charleston wanted to be involved and was planning to join the group of governments looking at the letter for approval.
Councilor Luke Searle asked if anyone had issues with the letter itself, and said he wanted to potentially add a call for urgency.
Councilor Mark Nelson had deeper worries.
“I have a big problem with this letter,” he said.
He put his concerns into a fantastical context.
“When Cinderella wanted to go to the ball,” he said, “the wicked stepmother came up to her and said, ‘Sure Cinderella, you can go to the ball, you just have to do this,’ and listed seven impossible things. … That’s what this letter is to me.”
Crittenden agreed with Nelson that UDOT already knows the information in the letter.
Rowland said his understanding of the letter was to show UDOT a unified front, though he wasn’t sure that was adequately presented.
Councilors were stuck between feeling the letter wasn’t needed and seeing it as a unifying tool.
“If there’s even the remotest chance this sends a message to UDOT that we are united in a cause and that helps them in any way, then I am a proponent for a letter,” Rowland said. “I don’t think it will hurt, at least in what we’ve currently presented.”
He said he’s already picked a gown for the ball. He wants to go.
Ultimately, they decided to revisit the document next month.
The Charleston City Council and Wasatch County School Board have not yet addressed the issue among themselves in a public meeting.