Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-08-2004-6d
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 06-08-2004
>
Agenda - 06-08-2004-6d
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 7:12:30 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:43:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/8/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6d
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20040608
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2004
RES-2004-043 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Area Boundary
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2004
RES-2004-044 Orange Co Planning Dept Response on Proposed Changes to MPO Boundary
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
6 <br />Orange County Planning Department Response on Proposed <br />Changes to MPO Boundary <br />The May 5, 2004 memorandum from Felix Nwoko to TAC members on expansion of <br />the MPO boundary listed the fallowing eight points as justification, Following each <br />point is the Orange County staff response: <br />1. Entire Orange County is covered in the Triangle Regional Madel, <br />Response: We agree that the entire County is covered in the model and <br />think this makes for a better model. The modeling of peripheral areas <br />makes good planning sense since impacts don't generally begin or end at <br />jurisdictional boundaries. However, we don't agree that inclusion in the <br />model equates to inclusion in the urban area. Much of Orange County is <br />rural and projected to remain rural. The County has a very strong record <br />on rural planning initiatives that is reinforced by our current and upcoming <br />programs. <br />2, Orange County is affected by urban policies and influence. <br />Response: This is very true. Employment, infrastructure, and housing <br />opportunities (or the lack thereof) in the urban areas can have profound <br />impacts on areas in the County's jurisdiction. This is certainly a primary <br />reason for the many joint/cooperative planning initiatives the County has <br />participated in over the last 25 years with the various municipalities. <br />Orange County continues to have a strong commitment to inter- <br />governmental coordination, but doesn't see the issue of urban policies and <br />influence as sufficient justification for including the entire County in the <br />MPO. <br />3, The ability to coordinate planning for land use, transportation, and air quality <br />would be better served by the proposed inclusion of the entire County. <br />Response: It has not been demonstrated how the planning process would <br />be better served by the inclusion of the entire County in the MPO. The <br />County has for many years been an active participant in all of the planning <br />areas listed and our commitment to intergovernmental planning and <br />coordination remains strong. <br />4. Federal transportation dollars for the MPO cannot be spent in areas outside the <br />MAB, Orange County is now designated as non-attainment thus eligible for <br />CMAQ funds, however, the fund allocation to the MPO can only be spent within <br />the MAB. <br />Response: How much Federal funding is Orange County likely to receive <br />for areas under its jurisdiction? Most of the County's jurisdiction within <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.