Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 09-18-2012 - 7b
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:September 18, 2012 Action Agenda Item No . 7-b SUBJECT: Burlington-Graham and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundaries DEPARTMENT:PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Planning and InspectionsNo ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT: 1.Map of Existing DCHC MPO Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Boundary in Orange CountyTom Altieri, 245-2579 2.Maps of PreviousDraft Options 1, 2 Abigaile Pittman, 245-2567 and 3 (for background purposes) 3.Current Draft Option 4with Summary Page 4.Overview of MPOs and RPOs 5. Considerations for MPO Boundary Decisionfor Option 4 PURPOSE: To receiveinformation, provide direction, and/or a recommendationon Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundaries within Orange Countypending the September 20, 2012discussion with the City of Mebane. BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) of theDurham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) was expanded in February 2010 in western Orange County along the I-40/I-85 corridor. Federal legislation requires that an MPO’s MAB contain, at a minimum, the entire Urbanized Area (UZA), as defined by the U.S. Census, and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become urbanized within the twenty year forecast period covered by the transportation plan for the region. The MPO‘s boundary was expanded at that time because the MPO was beginning the process of developing its2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that included the highway, transit, fixed-guideway, bicycle and other transportation services and facilities planned for construction. In January, 2011 the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) discovered that there was an overlap of boundaries between the two MPOs in Orange County. Attachment 1depicts the current Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) and the DCHC MPO boundaries in Orange County, including the areaof overlap. 2 Staff discussions onoptions for adjusting the BG MPO and DCHC MPO boundaries were initiated in the Fall of 2011, which addressed deleting the area of overlapfrom the DCHC MPO as well as expansion of the BG MPO(at that time) pursuant to anticipated 2010 Census revised UZA boundaries. Staff representing all parties were involved in discussions: BG MPO, DCHC MPO, Mebane, Orange County, and NCDOT. Attachment 2provides a history of the various options discussed by staff during the process. None of the first three options considered by staff are being recommended at this time. What is the Current Status of the Boundary Discussions? Based on a careful review of the urbanized areas in Mebane and western Orange County(Efland-Cheeks corridor), andBG MPO limited capabilities for assuming the financial responsibilities of an expanded MAB boundary, the BG MPO, DCHC MPO and Orange County staffshave th proposed a 4Optiondepicted in Attachment 3.This option would: Retain theoverlap area in BG MPO; addtwoareas(Areas 1 and 2) on thenorth and northeast sidesof Mebane to the BG MPOarea; return the southwestern ‘leg’(Area 6)ofthe DCHC MPO boundary to the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO); add a small area(Area 5)near Frazier Rd./US-70to the DCHC MPO area; and retainthe Efland portion of the BG MPO urbanized area in the DCHC MPO boundary(Areas 3 and 4). DCHC would accommodate the portionsof the Burlingtonurbanized areawithin its boundariesthrough a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)between the two MPOs affirmingthat the DCHC MPO will provide transportation planning services for this area (similar agreements exist between DCHC MPO and the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and between BG MPO and the Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (GMPO)).Planning staff wouldprovide a copy of Option 4is mutuallyagreeable bythe this MOA to the BOCC whenit is available. two MPOs staffs, the BG MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Orange County Planning staff. What Information Should be Considered in Supporting MPO Boundaries and Membership?To assist the BOCCwith itsreview of this evolving discussion of MPO boundaries and membership, staff has provided Attachment 4, an Overview of MPOs and RPOs.Attachment 4provides reference material on the governing legislation, administrative structure, rules for boundary development, core duties, funding sources, and standard documents for MPOs and RPOs. Planning staff has also prepared Attachment 5,Considerations for Option 4 MPO Boundary Decision.Attachment 5provides a condensed overview of the advantages and disadvantages for Option 4 (providedinAttachment 3). 3 What is the Status of Orange County’s Membership in BG MPO?The BG MPO has amended itsMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) to include Orange County. The amended MOU was approved on August 21, 2012 by itsTechnical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The MOU must now be circulated and signedby the Mayors or County CommissionChairs of all member jurisdictions (including Orange County), the NC Secretaryof Transportation, the NC Assistant Attorney General, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Division Administrator. BG MPO staff has requested permission from NCDOT planning staff to allow this process to occur simultaneously rather than consecutively. A simultaneous process could be completed within about two months, while a consecutive process would take substantially longer. NCDOT has not yet given itsfinal word on this matter of process. Summary of Proposed Next Steps: 1.Orange County BOCC feedback at this meetingor recommendation supporting Option 4 (Attachment 3) 2.Orange County and City of Mebane joint meeting on September 20, 2012 3.DCHC MPO TCC/TACrecommendationand approval 4.BG MPO TCC/TAC recommendation and approval If a new option other than Option 4 evolves at this meeting or at the joint meeting withthe City of Mebane, joint staffs would need to meet again and this item would need to return to the BOCC before proceeding to next steps. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1.Provide Planning staff with any feedbackit may have. 2.If the BOCC is in agreement with Option 4(Attachment 3),and contingent on City of Mebane discussion and supporton September 20, 2012authorize the MPOs to proceed with its implementation. 3.If the BOCC is not ready to supportOption 4, direct staff as appropriate, work withall parties, and return to the BOCC at a subsequent meeting. ATTACHMENT 1 4 i - I „ , i i II l �i�x•00, �•i�•�00.O•0♦ij ....•.10+1, 4, �••❖iiiiiiii•C t / i•�i••••i•OOOiOOOiO�i ( —, I0♦•o:::::0.•000.11 4” .11∎4 � W Lebanon Rd ♦♦•►4 ASR 1366 11, 1.. !WWI few.•a - - - 1:1614:40:::::.::+:44. ��•!�•i.:::O•i i i..��..�!•0•.11 �a"' ►pwOOii•ODi•OO4i "y�� z cr. ♦. iiiiii 'I, aw OOO♦•i! 00 . ' ;,14 ��. TI�j ♦•♦•♦• o 44 k "*7:-Vifeirltreril ED Mos --------.---.- - 111111.11111111111111.111111111111111r 4::: °•••••••••■41:4;•:•.:4•.: -4 a — (SR 1146) m re0.1.." I c I. I I e o o�9g91 /�" / 1111 II r �' I I, ,,,, ,,,,_ i ,,,, _. ___ ( itA Burt 0ngtoon°Grah1am & e�erruo9 fI p „„�� Urbanized Area DUrham°Chape0 1 p�vH-Carrboro — Railroad - Overlap Area AA P O B Oo u nd a n e s Roads ©Incorrect Boundary 1 County Boundaries I=1 DCHC MPO Map Date:July 11,2011 Municipal Boundaries Q Burlington-Graham MPO Revised Map Date:July 20,2011 5 ATTACHMENT 2 PREVIOUS DRAFT OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 (for background purposes) BG MPO EXPANSION OPTION 2 + IUnZw apG '''%.1 o} P ., `\.q 1`,N-\1-,- '�k},� !!!- 8 7 ■ I oud C , s \ c '"7"'' no. i BG MPO EXPANSION OPTION 1 °°" .s `y z sw., Air do ,,,„.. , / s `• ,.„ ®Census Y010Urban¢nBArea(UZA) G ft _ mPPmp ropceeO D&G NMC PO MPO Boundary p 1 1 :-' y I 1 m „Mal WII-ValAtitti II .v.Idmir..... , ,..,_ ,_ ,,,o, lip, La ..... __ -N--=,-.4r a Z.i in .o '���r'� , `''�� ' OPTION 3 tok E i Composite Showing Option 2 41:111,111:1111101A4° L , 441 and MPO Areas to Revert to RPO TIMMIll ! 4 1 .. lir o _:. eilL. • k hio - BGMPO Boundary _ r ,_- FE 1 — 7-fl, 11101111111 , a lii a i cwoow.a ocwc Mvo a.�,w.ry `— n./.d lo rnPO r N --7- — .o<HCMPO B-O MPO iil _Alill ...-....... -,- ATTACHMENT 3 Current B-G & DCHC Proposed MPO Boundaries - Option 4 6 ,I,IIjIII,,���I. , ° ,i,I# ��i�i, o ir��j�ii�j# m ♦����I,jj�1.G U HALLS MILL RD AI ,„,... ,..4. ��.�I��.1 Q R� ply 1 �►���i C URCH RD , , A 7.. .i,..• r- > . ..4 Ce 7 �.il�i�io°il�i�io i, '►•2►•'�i�i re Cr Q, �i���p�,I��j;%tee w���. • f ,%'-I�I�o�I��I��I�I��I��I II�I��I�II�I�{ii�����ij���E111 I� l•-e- ..0. / u -'cr I�r/I,�II�I�I,�I�r/I,Q�.i I,�I�I',,� ....... �% ���-j O W �I,01�i�Ii01�i�Ii01�i�Ii01�i�Ii' �� 1 Iii ;, III a • I►I,I�,I,I�,I,I�,I,II�III.,,,,%."-'1,4'%.i.1I �� �► ,�` ��II�I�I�I�I�III�I�I�I�Ij�1.!!'#A.1 • /�/ .4:, 4�.? ° Y � j� �� �� �� ��. .. ,/��V I��I,� . z O 1 II�Ir/I�I�II�IIII,I�Ii �Ij-•',,, t,' 0, - I III/I��II� • O II�II�IIII�II�IIII�II�IIII�II�IIII�II�II�."4,.►� ► i- I ILj11�►jcc .I.IIIiIII.III.II1 iI �iF, 4 I.��'04�v- �f S m i 1��1��,I,l� ♦ / I, �� �/� �II�I�II�I�II�Ir/I�I�I I�Ir/1,1// %�I�� -���� ,: I,I 1,.,I I 'I 'I.'I.'I?!�'�-4.,'�/ •I •/I�%//► 4 /0• i ,,I ,I , , .!,!.i0 /iii V/.//Ai ,°��0°l�0�l�0°l�0° �4 4! , er ;i,�004'r �/��i �' 40 �%/•��" ► .� �I■ ,p!r �o : �,, ►i,Iii,Ii!i� � ' �,I�i�i,Ir � .4 , ' / It F, NO RD WEST TEN RS) ,/ o 4- c O COO.al i O 7 Cry Ca M N P- 6 v n ERG C O .O 0 111. Q RD ��� 4o ■ 1. � i I � AP. \)0 P G o , 4r ����4 6 ♦��'���� ��������������rI �����.►����j� o o / ♦�.� 0 e li 92 o I 0•z• • I , O QMemorandum of Agreement(MOA)for Overlap Area I Railroad +Urbanized Area within DCHC MPO (Remain in BG MPO) Roads bt x ' Remove from DCHC MPO B-G MPO Cr r " County Boundary m N 1 in=5,000 feet Proposed B-G MPO Boundary EL DCHC MPO I-- g`o' f■ Add to DCHC MPO ���� City Limits Feet � 2000 Census ,. k L ■∎■ an Area 2010 Census Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Add to B-G MPO ��� Urban Area \. GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.8/30/2012 7 SUMMARY PAGE FOR OPTION 4 MAP AREAS 1 & 2 – 2010 Census Urbanized Areas (UZAs) that the BG MPO will expand into. These areas include properties within Mebane’s jurisdiction. AREA 3 – 2010 Census Urbanized Area (UZA) that the DCHC MPO will retain. This area does not include properties within Mebane’s jurisdiction. AREA 4 – 2010 Census Urbanized Area (UZA) in Efland and along Hwy. 70 that the DCHC MPO will retain. AREA 5 – 2010 Census Urbanized Area (UZA) along Hwy. 70 that the DCHC will expand into so that the MPO designation along the east side of Frazier Road will be consistent. AREAS 3, 4, & 5are areas the DCHC will oversee by virtue of an Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the BG MPO AREA 6 – Deletion of an area from the DCHC MPO boundary. This area will return to TARPO. 8 ATTACHMENT 4 OVERVIEW OF Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), MPOs, and RPOs have an established framework for collaboration, the purpose of which is to achieve a seamless transportation system for North Carolina.The general responsibilities of the NCDOT in this partnership are to: Administer Planning Funds to RPOs and MPOs Review annual work programs and performance reports to ensure tasks are being performed Provide guidance on State and Federal policies to the RPOs and MPOs Assist RPOs and MPOs with special studies and project review Develop and coordinate the development of travel demand models for appropriate areas Perform air quality analysis and review conformity reports Assist with project prioritization andTransportation Improvement Plan (TIP) development Provide and/or assist with theplanning process, including assisting withLong Range Transportation Plan (LRTP,for MPOs) Communicate consistently with MPOs and RPOs Coordinate with other branches and divisions within NCDOT (Highway, Public Transportation, Rail Division, PDEA, Construction) Coordinate on the Statewide Transportation Plan Orange County’s MPO and RPO Memberships Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)(Since 2004) Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) (pending final agreement endorsement by all member jurisdictions, NCDOT, Atty. General, and FHWA) Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (RPO) (Since 2002) What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? MPOs were formed in 1962 when Congress enacted the Federal aid highway act that initiated a requirement that a continuing cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) transportation planning process be established for all urban areas over 50,000 in populationin order to qualify for Federal transportation funds. Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by Federal law (23 USC 134 and 135). Applicable State and local laws are required if Federal highway or transit funds are used for transportation investments. Federal planning regulations are codified in 23 CFR 450. NC General Statute 136-66 provides additional transportation planning requirements and is consistent with Federal law. Subsequent Federal Aid 9 reauthorizations have added tothe planning requirements of the MPOs. There are 17 MPOs in North Carolina. The MPO administrative structure has three main components: 1.Lead Planning Agency (LPA) – provides staff support to the MPO. The LPA develops the draft documents, prepares TCC and TAC meeting materials, schedules meetings, administers the distribution of federal transportation planning funds to member governments, and carries out the directives of the TCC and TAC. The City of Durham Transportation Division serves as the LPA for the DCHC MPO. The City of Burlington Transportation Division serves as the LPA for the BG MPO. 2.Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) – is comprised of staff representatives of the various member governments, NC DOT, FHWA (non-voting), and other agencies such as Triangle Transit (TTA), local universities, etc. The TCC has the responsibility of supervising and coordinating the comprehensive transportation planning process, and for making recommendations to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and respective local and State agencies pertaining to that process. 3.Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) – is the governing policy board for an MPO. The TAC’s membership includes elected officials representing )and appointed by) each local government, the area’s representative on the NC Board of Transportation, advisory non-voting member representing FHWA and TTA, and other members as may be authorized in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The TAC provides policy direction for the planning process, facilitates communication and coordination between the member jurisdictions, and guides the development of a coordinated, multimodal transportation program for the planning areas. The TAC directs the planning process through its annual review and approval of an MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and through review and approval of changes to the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). How is the Boundary of a MPO Developed? Pursuant to Federal law (C.F.R. Title 23 PART 450.308) the metropolitan planning area boundary shall, as a minimum, cover the urban areas (UZAs) defined by the most recent Census and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become urbanized within the twenty year forecast period covered by the transportation plan for the region. C.F.R. Title 23 PART 450.308(e) states that, to the extent possible, only one MPO shall be designated for each UZA or group of UZAs. More than one MPO may be designated within anUZA only if the Governor and the existing MPO determines that the size and complexity of the UZA makes designation of more than one MPO appropriate. In those cases where two or more MPOs serve the same urbanized area, the MPOs shall establish official, written agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination and the division of transportation planning responsibilities among the MPOs. An MPO may 10 utilize the staff resources of other agencies, non-profit organizations, or contractors to carry out selected elements of the metropolitan transportation planning process. For geographic areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas (as created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) for transportation related pollutants under the CAA, the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area encourages including at least the boundaries of the nonattainment or maintenance areas, except as otherwise provided by agreement between the MPO and the Governor under specified procedures. However, in the case of the Triangle area, the State does not require having a single MPO serve all of the non-attainment area, or that the MPOs and RPOs combine. The State sub-allocates a portion of CMAQ fund to both MPOs and RPOs on a per-capita basis and based on non-attainment severity. Therefore, there is no difference in the amount of CMAQfunds coming to the region based on where an MPOs Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) is established. Metropolitan planning area boundaries are reviewed after each Census. An existing MPO may be redesignated only by agreement between the Governor and units of general purpose local government (i.e., elected officials) that together represent at least 75 percent of the existing metropolitan planning area population (including the largest incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the Census). The DCHC MPO MAB was expanded in February, 2010 in western Orange County along the I-40/I-85 corridor. In January, 2011 the NC DOT discovered that therewas an overlap of boundaries between the two MPOs in Orange County.Staff discussions for options for adjusting the two MPO boundaries were initiated in the Fall of 2011 and have yet to be finally resolved. These discussions have addressedthe area of overlap, as well as expandingthe BG MPO (at that time) pursuant to anticipated 2010 Census revised UZA boundaries. Staff representing all parties wasinvolvedin these discussions: BG MPO, DCHC MPO, Mebane, Orange County, and NCDOT. Multiple expansion options for the BG MPO have been considered – from the Alamance County line to the Eno River. Many of these options have lackedagreementfrom staffof the involved parties; were found to not satisfy the intent of governing legislation; split the Mebane between two MPOs; or the responsibilities of a greatly increased MAB placed too great a financial burden on the BG MPO. Although the retreat of BG MPO to the Alamance County line would result in some efficiencies for Orange County staff, it is a less preferredoption and is anoption that has not been discussed by all parties. Only the current Option 4 has the full support of the staff of all parties. What are the Core Duties of a MPO? Conduct a continuing cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process Meet Federal transportation planning requirements for MPOs, with additional requirements and responsibilities for Transportation Management Areas (TMAs are >200,000) Develop and prioritize projects the organization believes should be included in the State’s Transportation Improvement Program Represent communities and regions in transportation planning and project delivery 11 Coordinate regional issues between contiguous MPOs, RPOs and other regional organizations Provide the primary forum for public participation Facilitate integration of local plans, priorities, and community involvement into the area-wide transportation planning process Develop and approve long range and comprehensive transportation plans (LCTPs and CTPs) Develop and approve metropolitan transportation improvement programs (MTIPs) Direct resources as available to MPO priority projects Coordinate local project development and funding capabilities and State and Federal resource opportunities as appropriate Funding for MPOs MPOstaff and planning activities are currently funded by the Federal government. Orange County currently paysno fees as a MPOmember government. In the case of the DCHCMPO and BGMPO, Durham and Burlington, respectively, pay the local matching funds for the Lead Planning Agency (LPA) planning activities. Some MPOs charge member governments fees. DCHCMPO’s LPAstaff recently developed a proposal to require that their member governments share in providing matching funds for LPA planning activities, based on population. Based on 2010 Census data, Orange County’s .09% match would be approximately $21,260. Linked tothis match, the proposal provides that Surface Transportation Program Direct Allocation (STP-DA) funds would be allocated to the MPO agencies. The Surface Transportation Program is a Federal-aid highway funding program that supports a broad range of surface transportation capital needs, including many roads, transit, vanpool, bike, and pedestrian facilities. Orange County’s allocation under thisshare of the Surface Transportation Planning Direct Allocation (STP-DA) funds under this proposal would be approximately $25,735. DCHC MPO would use these funds to perform Work Program activities such as data inventories, GIS mapping, geo-spatial analysis, TIP, UPWP, LRTP, etc. DCHCMPO’s intent is for this proposal to be considered for the FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Many of the Federal funding sources used for MPO activities require20% local matches for use of their funds. The localmatches are typically provided by the member government that requested the project. Currently, Federal law apportions Federal funds to MPOs for transportation planning and transportation improvements based on the MPOs’ current Urbanized Area (UZA) population. If the UZA has not changed, then expanding the coverage of the MPO does not result in increased Federal funding. The current NCDOT policy for distributing Federal transportation planning funds to MPOs is also partially based on the latest Census defined UZA population. Thus, MPO expansion does result in increased funding from the state unless the UZA has increased in population. 12 Standard Documents Produced by or Involving an MPO Who Who Time Content Update Develops? Approves? Horizon Requirements Memorandum of Establishes Understanding MPO MPO and all Valid Until Membership, Upon Changes (MOU) Member Revised Bylaws, in Membership Governments Responsibilities, or Terms of and Voting Agreement Structure Unified Planning Planning Work Progam MPO MPO 1 or 2 Studies Annually (UPWP) Years and Tasks Comprehensive Future Goals, With Adoption Transportation MPO MPO & NC 20-30+ Strategies, and by MPO & NC Plan (CTP) or DOT Years Projects (not DOT Long-range fiscally Comprehensive constrained) Transportation Plan (LCTP) Metropolitan Official Every 5 Years; Transportation MPO, NC MPO 20 Years+ Multimodal 4 Years for Plan (MTP) DOT, and Transportation Nonattainment Public Plan with Future and Transit Goals, Maintenance Operators Strategies, Areas Projects, and Financial Plan Collector Street MPO MPO 20-30+ Existing and Not Specified Plan (CSP) Years Planned Facilities Metropolitan MPO or MTIP created Transportation local MPO/ 4 Years Transportation biennially Improvement jurisdiction Governor Investments simultaneous Program (MTIP) in consistent with with the State cooperation Long Range TIP (STIP) ▪ with the NC Transportation process. ▪ DOT Plans Long-Range III NC DOT, in NC DOT 20 Years Official Not Specified Statewide cooperation Statewide Transportation with the Multimodal Plan (LRSTP) MPO Transportation Plan with Future Goals, Strategies, and Projects Statewide Transportation NC DOT, in US DOT 4 Years Transportation Every 4 Years Improvement cooperation Investments Program (STIP)_,1 with MPO 13 What is a Rural Planning Organization (RPO)? RPOs are a counterpart to the MPOs. In July, 2000, Senate Bill 1195 became part of Article 17 General Statute 136-210 through 213, which instructed the NCDOT to develop a plan to establish RPOs. The purpose of these organizations is to work cooperatively with NCDOT to develop Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTP) in non-metropolitan areasand assist the Department in carrying out other transportation planning activities. RPOs consist of groups of counties, between 3-15 counties, and must have at least 50,000 in population. MPOs cannot be a member of RPOs. Not all municipalities in an RPO must be a member, but the county must be a member. There are currently 20 RPOs in North Carolina. The RPO administrative structure has threemain components: 1.Lead Planning Agency (LPA) – The LPA serves as the administrative entity for an RPO. Eligible administrative entities include a regional council of governments, regional economic development agencies, chambers of commerce and local governments. The LPA receives and expends funds on behalf of the RPO. The LPA provides at least one full time equivalent professional staff member to carry out the duties of the RPO within the context of an adopted plan of work. The LPA is defined within the adopted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and may be changed based on the agreement of the RPO member governments and NC DOT. The LPA for the Triangle Area RPO (TARPO) is the Triangle J Council of Governments(TCOG). 2.Rural Technical Coordinating Committee (RTCC) – The RTCC is responsible for the general review, guidance and coordination of the transportation planning process for the RPO and for making recommendations to the respective local, state, and federal governmental agencies and the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) regarding any necessary actions relating to the continuing transportation planning process. RTCC responsibilities include developing, reviewing and recommending the Transportation Planning Work Program for the RPO; developing reviewing and recommending the RPO Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP); and revisions to the RPO TIP. 3.Rural Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC) – The RTAC is responsible for keeping the policy boards informed of the status and requirements of the transportation planning process; assisting in the dissemination and clarification of the decisions, inclinations, and policies of the policy boards; and helping to ensure meaningful public participation in the transportation planning process. RTAC responsibilities include establishing goals and objectives for the transportation planning process; review and recommending changes to adopted transportation plans within the RPO planning area; reviewing and recommending a work program for transportation planning which defines work tasks and responsibilities for the various agencies participating in the RPO; and reviewing and recommending transportation improvementprojects which support and enhance transportation within the RPO planning area. 14 What are the Core Duties of an RPO? Develop in cooperation with NCDOT, Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) Provide a forum for public participation in the transportation planning process Develop and prioritize suggestions for projects to be included into the State TIP Provide transportation related information to local governments and other interested organizations and persons How is the Boundary of an RPO Developed? RPO areas consist of the areas not already included in a MPO, and include representatives from contiguous areas in three to fifteen counties, with a total population of the entire area being at least 50,000 persons according to the latest population estimate of the Office of State Planning. The TARPO Planning Area includes the Orange County area outside the boundaries of the DCHC BGMPOs. Funding for RPOs Planning funds for RPOs currently comes from State funds, not Federal funds for which they are currently ineligible. The RPO program is currently funded on a reimbursement basis usingFederal State Planning and Research Funds (SPR), with a 20% local match required. Allocations vary based on population and number of counties in the RPO. An RPO’s allocation is based on the non-urban population in the counties that it governs, as defined by the Census every 10 years. So, regardless of where the MPOs establish their boundaries, an RPO’s funding will be based on the population outside the Census- definedUZA boundaries. Each year, the four counties that are members of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO), including Orange County, each contribute $7,500toward the organization, for a total annual local amount of $30,000. The County’s contribution amount was not impacted by the loss in area to DCHC MPO in 2009. This amount is greater than the minimum 20% local match funding required to receive RPO funding from the State. TARPO maintains these additional funds separately from their General Fund, and has the ability to carry balances from year to year and reprogram unused funds from previous years. For the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year, TARPO will use these additional funds to cover additional expenses not eligible to be paid using State RPO fundingand/or the 20% local match, including equipment or suppliesfor use on TARPO projects, foodfor TARPO meetings, Work Program Tasks requiring additional funding, and special work tasks requested by TARPO members. For the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year, NCDOT will reimburse TARPO for eligible expenses up to $89,951. The required local match for this State funding will be $22,488. The difference between this and the $30,000 provided by the TARPO member counties will be $7,512. The total budget for TARPO, including that which isprogrammed within the standardPlanning Work Programand these additional funds will be $119,951. 15 The following information was obtained from Matthew Day, Senior Planner with TARPO. TARPOstaff provided RPO funding information in arecent emailto Planning staff. He stated that over the years, the amount of RPO funding went up and down based on the total amount NC DOT had available to spend per RPOs that year, peaking at around $96,000 in 2007 (currently it is $89,951). The amount added or cut each year for each RPO was proportional to its total funding, so the relative change for each RPO stays proportional. So, as long as NC DOT keeps itssame procedure for calculating funding and just updates the population figures, it really shouldn’t matter where the MPOs place their boundaries because the RPOs’ funding will be based on the Census-designated boundary, not the MPO-designated boundary. The only thing that appears like it would make a major difference in TARPO’s funding would be if Orange County chose to withdraw from TARPO and go all-in with one of the MPOs. Regarding CMAQ funds, TARPO staffreported that with the most recent round of project submittalsNCDOT did not give TARPOan actual funding allocation but told itto assume that funding would be “aroundthe same levels” as it had been in the most recent previous round (which was around$215,000 to $220,000 per year for the years 2013-2015). So TARPO staff believes that the change in population due to DCHC’s boundary change probably did not havean impacton CMAQ funding – as yet. However, he felt that it is pretty safe to assume that since all the MPOs and RPOs around the state are in the process of reviewing and changing their boundaries right now (due to the new Census urbanized area boundaries) that the State will probably give everyone allocations based on those new population numbers for the next round of CMAQ). Between the changes in MPO/RPO boundaries statewide and the changes in the way CMAQ funding will be handled through the new federal legislation, a lot is currently up in the air. The non-MPO portion of Orange (based on the current DCHC and BG boundaries) has a 2010 population of 14,910, and the non-MPO portion of Chatham that is in the non- attainment area has a 2010 population of 14,936 - so it’s about a 50/50 split between the population in Orange and the population in Chatham. So with the current boundary, OrangeCountywould potentially be eligiblefor about half of whatever CMAQ funding TARPO does receive (assuming TARPO chooses to maintain a county-population- based split in terms of where that money gets spent). Right now, aside from CMAQ, the only other TARPO money that would be affected by the population within the RPO is the money TARPOreceivesfor conducting planning and administering the RPO. The population-based part of that formula is a relatively minor element, and the difference in population in Orange County is unlikely to have a major impact (if any). In the future, there is the potential that “transportation alternatives” funding (for things like bike/pedestrian) may end up being sub-allocated to MPOs and RPOs as a result of the new federal legislation, but it’s way too early to tell how (or if/when) that would end up happening. 16 Standard Documents Produced by or Involving an RPO Who Who Time Content Update Develops? Approves? Horizon Requirements Memorandum Establishes of RPO RPO and all Valid Until Membership, Upon Changes Understanding Member Revised Bylaws, in Membership (MOU) Governments Responsibilities, or Terms of and Voting Agreement Structure Planning Work Planning Progam (PWP) RPO RPO 1 or 2 Studies Annually Years and Tasks Funding RPO RPO & N 1 Year Rules for Annually Agreement CDOT Disbursement Between RPO and Accounting and NC DOT of RPO Grant Funds Prospectus RPO RPO 1 Year Detailed Not Specified Description of (TARPO's was Planning Work done in 2003, Program NC DOT's was Elements done in 2002) Five Year RPO RPO 1 Year Document Annually Planning Connecting Calendar Short-term Goals of the PWP to the Long-term RPO Goals and Priorities Comprehensive Future Goals, With Adoption Transportation MPO MPO & NC 20+ Years Strategies, and by MPO & NC Plan (CTP) DOT Projects (not DOT fiscally constrained) Transportation Improvement RPO, in RPO/ 4 Years Transportation Every 2 Years Program (TIP) cooperation Governor Investments Project with the NC Proposals & DOT and Prioritization local jurisdictions Statewide Transportation NC DOT, in US DOT 4 Years Transportation Every 4 Years Improvement cooperation Investments Program (STIP) with the RPO 17 ATTACHMENT 5 CONSIDERATIONS for MPOBOUNDARY DECISIONfor OPTION 4 CRITERIA/ CONSIDERATIONS MET? Mebane in one MPOYes Addresses Urbanized Area (UZA) RequirementsYes Consistent with current air quality conformity plans and Yes requirements Requires Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)Yes Expands BG MPOYes (minimally) Reduces BG MPONo Expands DC MPONo, not overall Reduces DC MPOYes, overall it does Reflects regional community patternsYes Orange County connected to DCHC via Triangle air quality conformity, employment, economic development, & transit Yes plans, although coordinated planning is clearly due to bi- directional commuter patterns DCHC has adequate staff to assume responsibility for transportation planning and programming projects in western Yes Orange County Option 4 maintains TARPO membership and transportation planning for the rural areas of the County, where an RPO Yes perspective is more attuned to maintaining the integrityand character of the County’s ruralareas Respects Orange County’s request to join BG MPOYes Discussed among StaffsYes Supported by StaffsYes