Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> Attachment 3 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> To: Transportation Advisory Committee <br /> DCHC MPO <br /> From: DCHC MPO Lead Planning Agency <br /> Date: September 12, 2012 <br /> Subject: Orange County Implementation Agreement <br /> The Orange County Transit Plan must be adopted by the county, DCHC MPO, Burlington-Graham MPO, <br /> and Triangle Transit. The BG MPO approved the plan at their August 21, 2012 meeting. At the June TAC <br /> meeting,the TAC's action was to approve the plan in concept and state that the MPO must have a role <br /> in the Implementation Agreement. The TAC Chair sent a letter describing the TAC's position after the <br /> meeting (Attachment 7). LPA, Orange County, and Triangle Transit staffs have met several times to <br /> discuss the Implementation Agreement over the past few months. A summary of the Implementation <br /> Agreement and an outline of the three outstanding issues to be resolved are below. The TAC action is to <br /> receive this update and provide feedback as needed on the agreement. <br /> Summary <br /> The working draft of the Implementation Agreement puts forth a process for providing annual updates <br /> to the TTA Board, Orange Board of County Commissioners, and DCHC MPO TAC on progress towards <br /> implementing the Orange County Transit Plan, a process for reviewing the full plan in detail every four <br /> years in coordination with the development of the DCHC MPO's MTP, a process for reviewing the plan if <br /> the New Starts application is not successful, and a process for receiving recommendations for changes <br /> or revisions to the plan. The agreement distinguishes between material changes that require approval <br /> by the executive boards of the parties to the agreement and non-material changes that will require <br /> approval by a staff working group made up of staff representatives of the parties to the agreement. <br /> Outstanding Issues <br /> The three outstanding issues that are still being discussed by staff are: defining who is a party to the <br /> agreement; defining the amount of funding from the plan that can be used to support existing transit <br /> services; and defining which board will have the authority to decide how sales tax revenue that exceeds <br /> projections by more than five percent will be spent. <br /> As described in the letter the TAC Chair sent,the MPO has many reasons why it should be a party to the <br /> agreement. Orange County staff has continued to advocate for a two party agreement, excluding the <br /> MPO, to be consistent with the Orange County board's previous action. If the agreement is a two party <br /> agreement, the TAC would not be required to approve any material changes to the plan. MPO staff <br /> would also not be included in the staff working group to approve any non-material changes. Instead, it <br /> has been suggested that the MPO could be asked to review changes and provide advice to the other two <br /> boards. <br /> Page 1 of 2 <br />