TITLE: Title
Proposed Revisions to the DCHC-MPO Memorandum of Understanding
PURPOSE: This agenda item is a continuation of the Board of Aldermen's discussion on February 4, 2014, regarding proposed revisions to the DCHC-MPO MOU. The Board adopted a resolution with two follow-up topics, which are addressed below.
body
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CONTACT INFORMATION: Jeff Brubaker - 918-7329
INFORMATION: The two follow up items requested by the Board are summarized below.
1. Quorum language should be clearer.
The existing language on when a quorum is established at a Transportation Advisory Committee meeting is:
"A quorum of the MPO Board shall consist of a majority of the voting members whose votes together represent a majority of the possible weighted votes identified in the weighted vote schedule below." (p. 6)
Questions have arisen as to the logical interpretation of this sentence. Staff believe that the logical interpretation of this sentence is that both "a majority of voting members [present]" and "a majority of the possible weighted votes [represented by the members who are present]" are necessary, not individually sufficient, conditions for a quorum. Nonetheless, a possible revised version that would more clearly state the two conditions contained in that sentence is:
"A quorum of the MPO Board shall exist when both of the following two conditions are met:
1. A majority of the voting members are present.
2. The voting members who are present represent a majority of the possible weighted votes identified in the weighted vote schedule below."
The draft resolution in Attachment A approves the MOU and authorizes the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the Town. The draft resolution also includes a sentence that authorizes the Mayor to execute the MOU with the quorum language modified as above - or modified by language that has the same meaning as the above language. The purpose of this is to allow flexibility:
· The Mayor may execute the MOU with the existing quorum language, which is less clear, but its logical interpretation is that it nonetheless establishes two necessary conditions for a quorum.
· The Mayor may execute the MOU with the suggested revised language (or language that has the same meaning) to more clearly establish the two necessary conditions.
It is noted that then-Mayor Kinnaird executed the existing MOU in 1994.
2. More information should be provided on the potential for the MOU to establish Triangle Transit's participation in the local match for MPO planning activities.
The Board expressed interest in further discussing the potential addition of language to the MOU requiring Triangle Transit's financial participation in the local match. This was based on communication from Town of Chapel Hill staff that the Chapel Hill Town Council would be considering a draft resolution at its February 10 meeting that, among other things, requested such participation. The resolution ended up being adopted by the Town Council and included the following recommended MOU modifications:
1. The process of developing and monitoring the development of the annual work program for the Metropolitan Planning Organization should be included in the MOU.
2. Triangle Transit, as a full member of the MPO, should participate in funding the local match to support MPO activities.
3. The role of the MPO in oversight of the Durham County and Orange County Transit Plans should be included in the MOU.
In regard to #1, the Town of Carrboro TAC representatives made a similar comment when reviewing the draft MOU this summer, but MPO staff did not wish to make the change at the time, stating that oversight and monitoring language is more appropriately addressed in each Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) document, rather than in the MOU. (Reference Feb. 4 item, Attachment G, for the full list of comments and MPO staff responses.)
The TAC discussed point #2 on February 12. The question relates to the fact that the current federal transportation bill, MAP-21, requires that transit agencies be represented on MPO boards. However, the proposed revised MOU language does not mention Triangle Transit as one of the parties required to participate in the local match:
"The municipalities and the counties will participate in funding the portion of the costs of 26 the MPO's work program not covered by federal or state funding as reflected in the annual Planning Work Program approved by the MPO Board." (p. 9)
Questions at the Feb. 12 TAC meeting included how to calculate the level of Triangle Transit's contribution, if required, and whether that amount be sufficient to provide notable savings for other member jurisdictions. It is possible that, if not required by the MOU, the MPO could nonetheless ask Triangle Transit for a contribution to the local match in subsequent UPWPs and that Triangle Transit could voluntarily provide it.
Regarding #3, it is noted that the MPO is a party to the interlocal implementation agreement for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan. The MPO (along with Orange County and Triangle Transit) must therefore approve any material changes to the plan, and the MPO has a membership on the "Staff Working Group" that reviews and proposes changes to the plan. The agreement also states that transit providers such as Chapel Hill Transit and Orange Public Transit, plus representatives of the Towns of Hillsborough and Mebane, be invited to meetings of the SWG involving bus service.
In summary, staff believe that the quorum language question can be resolved without by itself delaying the overall approval of the revised MOU. The Triangle Transit financial participation requirement question, however, may warrant further discussion as the Board considers approval of the MOU.
FISCAL & STAFF IMPACT: Approving the revisions to the MOU as proposed would not have a fiscal impact at this time. Staff will include the required share of the local match for MPO planning activities in departmental budget submittals for the upcoming fiscal year and anticipates doing the same in subsequent years.
RECOMMENDATION:r Staff recommend that the Board of Aldermen consider the draft resolution provided in Attachment A.