Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br /> I NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED <br /> 2 <br /> 3 The Public Transit Committee of Chapel Hill Transit has endorsed the Bus and Rail Investment <br /> 4 Plan in Orange County and the allocation of funds recommended in that plan; <br /> 5 <br /> 6 The Public Transit Committee cannot support an Implementation Agreement that unnecessarily <br /> 7 restricts Chapel Hill Transit's ability to operate the transit system in a manner responsive and <br /> 8 responsible to the interests and needs of the riders and citizens of our community. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 The Public Transit Committee encourages the development of an implementation agreement <br /> 11 that is consistent with the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County and includes <br /> 12 appropriate representation from all entities affected by the Bus and Rail Investment Plan and <br /> 13 the associated referendum. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 This the 18th day of September, 2012. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item#1 in the draft implementation plan and <br /> 19 said that he believes the Burlington-Graham MPO is not interested in being a part of this <br /> 20 implementation agreement. <br /> 21 Craig Benedict said that this is correct. <br /> 22 Commissioner Hernminger asked Wib Gulley to come forward and said that she would <br /> 23 be ok with having the MPO as a third party if there were stipulations that two groups could not <br /> 24 outvote the third group. All three have to be in agreement or the process does not go forward <br /> 25 or a change does not happen. She said that it is implied that this is true in Section 11, but not <br /> 26 really. <br /> 27 Wib Gulley said that the intent is that unless each and every party agreed on a change, <br /> 28 then there would be no change. This language can be clarified in item 12 to say that each and <br /> 29 every party would have to approve of a change. <br /> 30 Commissioner McKee said that in section 12, the statement limits this agreement to a <br /> 31 two-party agreement. He thinks that the MPO needs to have an advisory role. <br /> 32 Wib Gulley said that it now reads as a two-party agreement. If the MPO were added, it <br /> 33 would say three entities. <br /> 34 John Roberts said that he is comfortable that, regardless of how many parties there <br /> 35 are, the current language makes it have to be all three parties or both parties to make effective <br /> 36 any material changes. He said that he agrees with Wib Gulley. <br /> 37 Commissioner Gordon said that she had expected that there would be language in this <br /> 38 agreement to specify a role for the MPO, and that the MPO should have an important role. She <br /> 39 said that she had written down some roles that the MPO could play, and also some other <br /> 40 suggestions concerning the Implementation Agreement. The suggestions are given in her <br /> 41 handout shown below: <br /> 42 <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Suggested Changes to the Implementation Agreement <br /> 45 Alice Gordon -September 18, 2012 <br /> 46 <br /> 47 The suggestions given below are the ones that are the most complex. I may also have other <br /> 48 comments which I will state at the meeting. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 1. MPO Role <br />