Morgan RPO sets one‑year schedule for county long‑range transportation plan, seeks workshops and public input on projects including Trappers Loop and Old Hwy

Wasatch Front Regional Council staff and local officials from Morgan County and Morgan City outlined a condensed, roughly one‑year schedule to update the Morgan County rural long‑range transportation plan and asked elected officials and staff to review a draft project list and participate in workshops and public outreach.

Shay Mesqueda of the Wasatch Front Regional Council(Long Range Planning Group) said the RPO"main role of the RPO is to work on the long range plan for the county pretty much. It's county and the city," and added the team expects to complete the update this year so it will feed into the state's unified transportation plan. "We think we can do this in the next year," Mesqueda said.

The plan update will be coordinated with the Wasatch Choice vision and UDOT(UDOT's rural long‑range plan and the state's unified transportation plan are the target documents) so local project phasing and evaluation line up with state prioritization and funding cycles. Staff proposed a draft schedule with monthly working sessions and quarterly formal RPO meetings; the next full RPO meeting was set for April 14. WFRC staff also asked the group to consider two workshops: an early session to gather elected‑official and staff input and a final workshop to review the recommended, phased plan before formal adoption.

Why it matters: Projects that the RPO places into a county long‑range plan are more likely to be considered in UDOT and regional funding prioritizations. Mesqueda told the group that projects included and phased appropriately can move into the state's prioritization process and become eligible for transportation investment funds.

Discussion topics and local priorities: Participants reviewed the draft project list that staff compiled from the previous RPO plan and recent local plans. Key projects discussed included Trappers Loop (SR‑167) and Old Highway Road trail connections, plus the Mountain Green interchange on I‑84. Staff described Trappers Loop entries on the draft list as both a potential bike facility and longer‑term climbing lane/widening, with some segments identified as "phase 1 needed but unfunded." The draft also contains an Old Highway Road shared‑use trail entry that participants said has a large estimated cost cited in the meeting materials.

Safety and performance measures: WFRC staff demonstrated safety datasets and tools (US RAP / critical crash rate layers and other crash mapping) and encouraged the committee to combine that data with local knowledge when ranking projects. "The data will help. But I think for the most cases, you guys know where most of the issues are," a staff member said while showing maps of pedestrian and bicycle facility ratings and localized crash hot spots. Committee members discussed which performance measures the RPO should use (examples raised included safety, access to opportunity, congestion reduction and multimodal connectivity) and whether to emphasize simple project scoring over resource‑intensive post‑project performance tracking.

Outreach and public input timing: Staff recommended holding countywide public input in September so comments can be addressed before an October draft phased plan and formal review by city councils and the county commission. Morgan County Manager Kate Becker said elected leaders should be engaged throughout and cautioned against overloading the public with overlapping outreach efforts. "I don't wanna public input people to death," Becker said, noting the county and several cities have ongoing outreach for other plans.

Integration with Utah Trail Network and local active‑transportation plans: Staff asked the committee to ensure the RPO map and project list align with the Utah Trail Network effort and local active transportation/master trail plans. Participants noted discrepancies between some city or county active‑transportation priorities and the RPO draft list and asked to reconcile priorities before finalizing recommendations. Staff said the Utah Trail Network team could be invited to the April meeting to present their mapping and funding process.

Next steps and assignments: The group agreed staff will send the updated schedule, the three‑page draft project list, and the safety maps as a PDF for homework. Committee members were asked to review the list and report "keep/modify/remove" recommendations before the April meeting. Staff also said they would check with UDOT and the Mountain Green interchange project manager for a status update on the environmental document and planned public rollout.

Administrative items: Because the RPO meets in both formal RPO and informal COG working group formats, staff noted the RPO meeting requires formal minutes and public comment while the working group does not. The committee informally agreed to change the regular meeting time from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for subsequent sessions and to circulate calendar invitations and updated contact lists.

A final note: No formal votes or resolutions were recorded in this meeting. The discussion produced a work plan and homework assignments for staff and member jurisdictions to refine the draft project list, plan evaluation criteria, and outreach schedule ahead of the April meeting.