Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-23-2014 - 6i
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 01-23-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 01-23-2014 - 6i
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/24/2014 2:35:38 PM
Creation date
1/24/2014 2:34:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/23/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6i
Document Relationships
Minutes 01-23-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT 4 <br /> 27 <br /> appropriate. Public involvement is also part of the <br /> Certification F;bview process. <br /> Page5, line 13. NCGeneral Statutes require the Change made <br /> plan to include MTP projects and says that it may <br /> indude other projects not in the fiscally <br /> constrained plan. Delete "as well as" and add <br /> "and may include additional." <br /> Page 5, line 16. NCGeneral Statues requires that Change made <br /> any revisionsto the CTPshall bejointly approved <br /> by the M PO Board and N.0 Board of <br /> Transportation. Change "may be"to "are." <br /> Page 5, line 36. Change "Durham Urbanized Area" Change made. <br /> to "DCHC MPO." <br /> Page6, line2. NCDOT comment: "You're goingto No change. lPAstaff and member jurisdictions <br /> put the management of Durham staff under the have a dear understanding of the term oversight <br /> M PO board. You may need to remove this or use as used in the MOU. <br /> another word." <br /> Page 6, line 36. 9nce you are specifying weighted No change. The MOU at page 6, line 32 statesthat <br /> voting below,you need to be dear about the a majority vote shall be sufficient for approval of <br /> number of votes under a non-weighted voting matters coming before the committee. <br /> scheme. <br /> Page 6, line 14. Why does Oty of Durham have No change. Based on the 2010 census, about 58 <br /> two voting members and no one else does? percent of the M PO population lives in the City of <br /> Durham. <br /> Page 6, line 44. Should there be a BOT member No change. There needs to be on-going <br /> for each Division represented(5,7,and 8)? Is one consultation between the Board of Transportation <br /> board member going to be able to represent the members for Divisions 5, 7,and 8. <br /> other Division counties? <br /> Page 6, line 32. 9mple majority or 2/3rds No change. Asimple majority is sufficient. The <br /> majority? Can one abstain? And how does that bylaws address abstentions(abstentions are not <br /> affect the vote? induded in the tally of the vote). <br /> Page 8, line 17. Need to address votes per[M PO No change. Voting procedures are discussed in the <br /> Technical Committee] member. bylaws. <br /> Page 8, line 14. Why is DENRa voting member No change. DENRwas added to reflect air quality <br /> here? and Merger Process roles. <br /> Page 8, line 20. What isthe purpose of non-voting No change. Non-voting members have various <br /> membership for some agencies?Isthisjust to interests in the transportation planning process <br /> define their role and also state they have no voting and can participate in TCCmeetings but not vote. <br /> capacity? <br /> Page 8, line 17. Need to discuss quorum and No change.Voting procedures are discussed in the <br /> majority vote for TCC 9mple majority or 2/3rds bylaws. <br /> majority? Would 2/3rds be more appropriate? <br /> For example,when the TCCis not sure/split on an <br /> action, probably wouldn't want to forward to TAG <br /> Page 9, Tine 36. There is nothing in the Federal Change to read as follows: "Funding provided by <br /> Panning regulations that address paying of local member agencieswill be used to provide the <br /> sharesor invalidation of PWPor self-certification. required local match to federal funds. Failure by <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.