Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit County council accepts Rail Trail Corridor Plan and directs staff to pursue management options
Summary
After two years of outreach the council voted to accept the finalized Rail Trail Corridor Plan covering roughly 24 miles from SR‑248 to Echo Reservoir; staff was directed to meet with State Parks about ownership/management options and return with design, budget and maintenance scenarios.
The Summit County Council voted May 24 to accept the finalized Rail Trail Corridor Plan after a presentation and public comment period that drew residents, advocates and municipal partners.
Planning staff said the corridor study — approximately 24 miles from the SR‑248 crossing to the north end of Echo Reservoir — was developed with extensive public engagement: two phases of outreach, 741 survey responses, open houses, focus groups and student contributions. The plan frames a vision to enhance user experience, protect environmental quality, promote economic vitality and preserve agricultural character.
Staff identified three implementation options for ownership, management and maintenance of the corridor: (1) county ownership/management (directly or delegated to special recreation districts such as Basin Recreation or North Summit Recreation), (2) county ownership with contracted maintenance, or (3) the current arrangement in which Utah State Parks retains ownership and contracts maintenance. Staff said community respondents showed strong interest in local management and more regular maintenance.
Speakers from the public and Park City Municipal (Heinrich Dieters, trails manager) urged continued collaboration and suggested pursuing grants for infrastructure (for example, pedestrian/overpass crossings and targeted paving where appropriate). Public commenters highlighted trade‑offs such as paving sections that might shorten Nordic skiing season versus improved accessibility.
Council directed staff to (a) implement the corridor plan in future planning/reviews, (b) set up a meeting with State Parks to discuss ownership/management roles, (c) develop design guidelines and a management plan based on that discussion, (d) coordinate with Colville and Park City and (e) return with budget proposals for immediate maintenance needs and ongoing costs. Council then voted to accept the plan as presented.
The vote to accept the plan was moved by a councilor and carried by voice vote; staff will return with next steps and budget implications.
