HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-18-2012 - 7c 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 18, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-c
SUBJECT: Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Draft Interlocal Implementation Agreement John Roberts, Orange Co. Attorney,
2. June 25, 2012 Letter to BOCC Chair from 919-245-2318
DCHC MPO TAC Chair Wib Gulley, General Counsel, TTA, 919-
3. September 12, 2012 Memo from DCHC MPO 485-7418
Lead Planning Agency to DCHC MPO TAC Frank Clifton, Orange Co. Manager,
919-245-2300
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-
245-2575
PURPOSE: To discuss various aspects of the Interlocal Implementation Agreement of the
Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (IIA/OCBRIP) and provide decisions regarding
aspects to be incorporated into the final draft.
BACKGROUND: Orange, Durham and Wake counties were given the authority to impose a
one-half (%) cent sales tax for public transit in July 2009. As a pre-requisite to a referendum
(scheduled in Orange County for November 6, 2012), the local county must approve an `Orange
County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP)' that describes how possible monies would be
spent. Orange County approved the OCBRIP in June of this year.
Triangle Transit staff, specifically General Counsel Wib Gulley, have provided a draft of this
agreement (Attachment 1) that has been reviewed and commented upon by County Attorney
John Roberts, County Manager Frank Clifton, and Planning Director Craig Benedict. Staff has
had several meetings to refine the document and determined this was an appropriate time to
bring a draft forward to the Board. Issues of disagreement/continued discussion are identified to
the side of the document as comments.
As a corollary, the BOCC also requested the development of a more operational and
explanatory agreement to be known as an Interlocal Implementation Agreement (IIA/OCBRIP)
to provide aspects such as:
1. Parties to the Agreement and respective roles,
2. Reference to `Levy of Transit Sales Tax Agreement',
3. Orange County/Durham County Cost Share Agreement related to rail and bus,
4. Progress Reports,
5. Distribution of funds for bus services,
6. Bus service documentation,
7. Non-Supplantation Language
2
8. 4-year review of OCBRIP as it relates to Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
formerly Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
9. a. Creation of a Transit Staff Working Group (SWG) to monitor plan progress,
b. Invitation of other stakeholders as necessary
10. Evaluation of LRT New Starts Application and development of Alternate OCBRIP if
necessary,
11. Amendments to the OCBRIP,
12. Thresholds of material change to the OCBRIP in terms of:
a. Revenues
b. Operating and Capital costs
c. Bus Services
d. Funding levels to transit providers
13. Material changes in writing and approved by managers or other,
14. Term of Agreement.
The substantial parts of the agreement and where guidance could be offered include areas 1, 7,
and 12. Staff is continuing work to use examples to show what various percentages mean in
relation to real numbers specifically used in Section 12. Other sections will be related to the
findings within those sections.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board review the attached Draft
Interlocal Implementation Agreement, provide comments and ask staff to forward those
comments to Triangle Transit, and direct staff to bring the agreement back to the Board for
adoption.
3
Attachment 1
INTERLOCAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
FOR
ORANGE COUNTY BUS AND RAIL INVESTMENT PLAN Comment[)R1]:The primary points of
contention in this agreement are listed as
comments. Should the BOCC determine the
MPO is to be a party to the agreement
appropriate language is set out below.
This Interlocal Agreement("Agreement")dated_ , 2012 is entered into Comment[PS2]:PS reflects comments
by and among Orange County, a political subdivision of the State or North Carolina("Orange") added by Planning Staff.
and the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority,d/b/a Triangle Transit,a -- Comment[]R3]:,the Durham-Chapel Hill-
regional public transportation authority under NCGS 160A(''TTA"). Orange,DCHC,and TTA Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization,the
regional transportation planning agency for the
may be referred to individually as"Party"and collectively as"Parties".This Agreement is made Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area pursuant
pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. to us DOT regulation CFR Part 450 and 49 Part 613
("DCHC"),
Comment[PS4]:Should DCHC MPO be 1
The Parties each desire to provide for the future transportation needs of Orange County added as a Party to the Agreement,staff
Implementation Agreement Work Group to
and the surrounding region, understanding that enhanced mobility options will su pp ort a high
discuss role of Burlington-Graham MPO.
quality of life,strengthen economic development,and enhance sustainabilit ;and Comment[PS5]:Staff Implementation
Agreement Work Group to discuss adding
In accord with NCGS 105-508 et seq. Intermodal Ace),TTA developed a financial plan
support of air quality goals and human service
q• (� ) p p needs.
denoted as the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan ("Plan")to set forth certain transit
investments over the next twenty-three years. This Plan has been reviewed and approved by
the Orange County Board of County Commissioners("BOCC")subject to the approval by the
BOCC of a satisfactory Interlocal Implementation Agreement, approved in a similar fashion by
the TTA Board of Trustees,and approved in concept subject to a satisfactory Implementation
Agreement by the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization ("DCHC").
In order to provide for effective implementation of the Plan,the Parties hereby agree to the
following provisions and procedures:
1. The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan is incorporated into this Agreement
in full and as it may be amended from time to time by reference. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement the Plan shall govern the allocation of funding,cost parameters and
timetables for delivery of projects and transit services,and the respective roles of the Parties
and transit agencies in provision of the projects and services called for therein.
2. Pursuant to the Levy of Transit Sales Tax Agreement between Orange and TTA
dated May 29, 2012,TTA reaffirms its commitment not to levy the'%cent transit sales tax until
the Orange BOCC adopts a resolution requesting TTA to take such action.
3. Orange, Durham County("Durham"),and TTA have previously executed an
agreement dated May 15, 2012 which allocates the shares of capital and operating expenses for
the LRT rail project set forth in the Plan,and that Cost Sharing agreement is incorporated into
this Agreement in full and as it may be amended from time to time by reference.
4. TTA agrees to provide reports to Orange and DCHC on the progress achieved
9/10/12
4
toward implementation of the Plan and any substantial developments in revenues received,
project or service cost experienced, or other pertinent factors under the Plan on an annual
basis on or before November 1st of each year and as otherwise reasonably requested.
5. TTA shall work with the Chapel Hill Transit(CHT),Orange Public Transit("OPT"),and
any other Orange County bus transit service provider named in the Plan to develop the process
for distribution of funds for bus services each year on a quarterly basis or as otherwise agreed.
For purposes of this Agreement the term"bus services"shall include both fixed route and
demand response services. As is consistent with the revenues received and the other transit
priorities under the Plan,TTA will provide estimated quarterly payments to the bus service
providers for service provided with a reconciliation based upon actual expenses incurred by
each provider on a subsequent quarterly basis or as otherwise agreed to.
6. Bus service providers will provide recommended new or continuing service
priorities,actual or expected costs and ridership information as reasonably requested to TTA on
an annual basis or as otherwise agreed to. It shall be the responsibility of TTA to provide
oversight of the new, enhanced or sustained bus services under the Plan to insure compliance
with the Intermodal Act requirements. All other legal requirements under federal and state
law shall be the responsibility of the respective bus service provider. TTA shall include a full
descriptive report on bus services delivered under the Plan as a part of its annual reports to
Orange and DCHC.
7. In accordance with the non-supplantation mandate set out in NCGS 105-510,the Comment[7R6]:Chapel Hill Transit objects to
Parties agree that each provider of bus services receiving funds under the Plan,as a this section ne7.gotiated Language for this section still
g p g being negotiated by staff. Disagreements
precondition to receipt of such funds,shall continue to provide funding from other non-Plan ,remain.
sources the amount of annual revenue hours of fixed route bus service that it provided in the
July 1st 2010 through June 30th 2011 fiscal year as verified by NTD or comparable reporting Comment[PS7]:National Transit Database.
data. This precondition shall not apply to the annual grant of$582,000 in the Plan to CHT for Comment[PS8]:Equal to 6,000 bus hours.
support of existing local bus services. Through separate agreement TTA shall require Chapel Hill
Transit and Orange Public Transit to provide an annual financial report which documents the
bus service for this precondition. All such annual reports will be provided to each Party.
8. Every four years in a manner that coordinates with DCHC's preparation of a new
Metropolitan Transportation Plan,and more frequently as reasonably requested by a Party,the Comment[PS9]:Staff Implementation
full Plan shall be reviewed in detail and assessed for any significant changes to the estimated
Agreement rwoence to omprehes adding
Y g g additional reference to Comprehensive
revenues,to the estimated project or service delivery costs,to project or service priorities Transportation Plan(CTP).
therein,to state or federal transit programs or regulations,or any other significant change of
circumstance impacting the Plan. This review which shall be conducted as set forth below,and
recommended changes to the Plan may be advanced as deemed necessary.
9. In preparation for the full Plan review set out in paragraph 7 above,TTA will convene
a Staff Working Group("SWG")made up of a voting member and an alternate member from
each of the Parties. The Orange County Manager shall designate the member and alternate
Page 12 9/10/12
5
from Orange and the TTA General Manager shall designate the member and alternate from j Comment[7R1o]:,the Planning Manager of
TTA. These SWG members and alternates shall work collaboratively in developing and from DCHC designate the member and alternate
f D DCH CHC,
preparing the respective report to the Parties. The SWG may also meet from time to time as
they deem useful to discuss developments and status of the various transit projects and
services under the Plan and to give TTA comments and feedback on the draft annual reports
referenced in paragraph 4 above.
10. If any meeting of the SWG has local urban, rural or regional bus service in Orange
County as a part of its agenda,then representatives from CHT,OPT,other bus transit providers
in Orange County,and from the towns of Hillsborough and Mebane shall be invited to
participate in the meeting. The SWG members shall work openly and collaboratively with these
other parties in considering the status and impacts of possible bus service changes to the Plan.
The SWG members and the other parties shall strive to reach consensus recommendations for
any changes in bus services provided under the Plan in light of their shared interest in
maximizing the effective use of scarce transit funding
10. Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement,the Parties agree to
assess if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal pipeline
for New Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding. If not,
the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Investment Plan
which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding for transit projects and services.
11. Recommendations for change to the Plan may be made by a Party to this
Agreement or by any Orange County resident,group or organization. Recommendations for a
change or revision shall be submitted to the General Manager of TTA,who shall forward the
recommendation to the SWG for its review,consideration and advice. The SWG shall fully
consider any recommendation for change in the Plan and report back to the Parties. The report
of the SWG shall include its opinion on the recommended change along with the
recommendation itself. In the event that the SWG voting members cannot agree on a shared Comment[)R11]:three
opinion of any recommended change,then both majority and minority perspectives on the
recommended change may be provided to the Parties. Additionally,any citizen or group may
submit its opinion on the recommended change to the Parties as well.
12.Any proposed material change to the Plan shall be effective only upon its approval
by the Orange BOCC and TTA. All changes to the Plan shall be deemed non-material unless they / Comment[]R1z]:,the DCHC,
involve one of the following: /Comment[7R13]:The manager proposes a
new subsection to be added, which requires
any increase in tax revenues above those
(A) An increase or decrease in total revenues from the Plan revenues(sales tax forecast to be allocated within the sole
discretion of Orange County.
revenues,vehicle registration fee revenues,and rental vehicle tax revenues)
of 5% or more;or
(B) An increase or decrease in the project capital cost(including financing)of the
LRT project in the Plan of 10%or more prior to entering final design and 5%
or more thereafter;or
Page 1 3 9/10/12
6
(C) An increase or decrease in the overall project operating costs of the LRT
project in the Plan of over 5%or more;or
(D) An increase or decrease in the overall funds provided for bus service in the
Plan of 5%or more;or
(E) An increase or decrease in the funds provided to Orange,the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro/UNC Partnership,or TTA for bus service of more than 5°/01 of the / Comment[PS14]:Represents+-$108,310 for
CHT;+-$39,770 for TTA;and+-$19,972 for
amount provided in the Plan or more than $300,000,whichever is greater. OPT.
Comment[PS15]:The typical bus used by
A proposed elimination or addition of any fixed guideway capital project shall be considered a CHT and TTA costs approximately$400,000.
Vehicles used by OPT cost approximately
material change to the Plan. $85,000.
Comment[)R16]:Should the MPO not be
13.Any proposed change to the Plan that is deemed non-material shall be effective only added as a party it should still make
recommendations on material changes to the
upon its approval by the Orange County Manager)and the General Manager of TTA. Any change Plan.
whether material or non-material must be evidenced by a written document signed by both Comment[7R17]:,the Planning Manager of
Parties. DCHC,
Comment[]R18]:Should the MPO not be
added as a party the MPO would still have a
14.The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first above recorded to and necessary role such as the following:
including June 30, 2035. Upon its expiration the Agreement may be renewed upon mutual
In addition to proposed material changes to the Plan
agreement of the Parties. The Agreement may be modified as needed upon mutual agreement the Parties shall refer to and seek recommendations
of the Parties and may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the Parties or by either of the from DCHC for any of the following:
- -(A)Goals and objectives for the LRT planning
Parties upon a material breach by the other Party. Any modification must be in the form of a process;and
written agreement signed by both Parties. - -(B)Optimaluse ofexistingtransportation
facilities;and
(C)Consistency of LRT planning with the availability
of Federal,State and Local funding;and
- -(D)Land use and transportation plan interplay;
Understood and agreed to and effective as of the date written above, byl: and
- -(E)Urban and rural route connectivity;and
- -(F)Preservation of Rights of Way for future
transporation needs;and
- -(G)Social,economic,energy,and environmental
Orange County impacts of LRT planning;and
g y - -(H)Congestion mitigation.
Comment[)R19]:Signature line for DCHC if
included as a party
.DCHC
TTA
Page 1 4 9/10/12
Attachment 2 7
DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
UM., METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Member Organizations: Town of Carrboro•Town of Chapel Hill County of Chatham•City of Durham
Durham County Town of Hillsborough NC Department of Transportation Orange County
June 25, 2012
Bernadette Pelissier
Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
4516 Mystic Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear MsWier;
As you know,on June 13, 2012, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
,At L 4-11,
(DCHC MPO)Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) approved the Orange County Bus and Rail
Investment Plan in concept, stating that the MPO must have a role in the Implementation Agreement.
While the TAC is supportive of the Bus and Rail Investment Plan and Orange County's decision to hold
the sales tax referendum this fall, the TAC deferred final approval of the plan until there is clarification
of the MPO's role in the Implementation Agreement. We directed MPO staff to work with Orange
County and Triangle Transit to bring the agreement and final plan back to the TAC as soon as possible.
As the alternate member for Orange County on the TAC, you participated in the TAC's discussion on this
matter. MPO staff and every TAC member who spoke recommended that the MPO be a party to the
agreement. You were supportive of this concern as well. You will recall that the motion that was passed
was a compromise to the opinion expressed by Alice Gordon (Orange County's member on the TAC)that
the MPO not be a party to the agreement. Other than this issue, no TAC members expressed any
objections to adopting the plan.
There are overwhelming, compelling reasons why the MPO should be a party to this agreement. It
should first be noted that the Bus and Rail Investment Plan speaks to this very important issue. It states
that the Implementation Agreement will detail the following areas:
"(a)Annual review presentations of the activities and progress made in implementation of the
Plan by Triangle Transit to the County and the MPO;
(b)The process for review and vote by the County,the MPO and Triangle Transit's Board of
Trustees or the role of the operating agency regarding any significant or substantial revisions to
the Plan required by changes experienced in revenues received, capital costs, operating
expenses, or other substantial issues affecting the Plan;
(c) A recognition and preservation of decision making responsibilities of the operating agencies;
Page 1 of 3
City of Durham• Department of Transportation• 101 City Hall Plaza• Durham, NC 27701 • Phone(919) 560-4366•Facsimile(919) 560-4561
8
(d) Responsibility of Triangle Transit for direct disbursement of funds from the revenues
received per Section V (above)to the public agency responsible for implementing the bus
services set forth in the Plan; and
(e) Other necessary provisions regarding implementation of this Plan as agreed to by the
County, the MPO, and Triangle Tr nsit.^
Items a, b, and e directly affect the MPO and items e and d are critical to the implementation of the plan
and the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The DCHC MPO is clearly affected by the
agreement, and therefore we believe it should be a full party to the agreement.
Of primary concern to the MPO is the process for review and vote by the County, MPO, and Triangle
Transit on any changes to the plan. The Durham-Orange rail transit corridor project is the most costly
single project im the MPO'sLRTP and it cannot be implemented without the local, state, and federal
funding as outlined in the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plain. Further, the Bus and Rail
Investment Plan also includes funding for future local and regional bus services that are commitments in
our LRTP important to the MPO's member agencies, and critical to the success of the rail system. The
MPO has a high degree of interest in making sure that these bus and rail projects are implemented. Any
changes to the Bus and Rail Investment Plan must be approved by the MPO, must be consistent with our
LRTP, and must also be included in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as they are
funded. As such, the MPO must be a part of developing the language in the implementation Agreement
that describes the process for changing the plan and this language must require Orange County and
Triangle Transit to coordinate with the MPO. In short, we believe that the DCHC MPO needs to be a full
party to the Implementation Agreement for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan. This
would best ensure that the MPO's interests are protected.
We understand that Orange County has concerns that if the MPO were a party to the agreement, the
MPO may be able to change the Bus and Rail investment Plan without Orange County's approval. This is
not the case. The Congestion Relief and Intermodal Transport Fund Act(HB 148)requires that the plan
be approved by the County, Triangle Transit, and the MPO. None of the parties can adopt or change the
plan unilaterally. North Carolina House Bill 148 required approval by all three because each has an
important role in transit planning and implementation. We believe that the development of the plan
has benefitted from close collaboration between the three parties and we believe that continuing this
close collaboration will only serve to improve the plan and successfully implement the bus and rail
projects in the plan.
We are competing with other regions across the country for limited federal transit funding. /t is critical
to be able to demonstrate to the federal government that our plan was developed collaboratively and is
supported by local jurisdictions and transit operators, The DCHC MPO TAC is a forum for regional
collaboration between counties, municipaiities,Triangle Transit, and state and federal agencies. We
have had a history of coliegial discussion on issues of regional importance at TAC meetings. Including
the D[H[ MPO as a party to the Implementation Agreement will help continue the successful regional
Page 2 of 3
9
collaboration we have had on transit planning issues and demonstrate to the federal government that
we are unified in our support for the rail and bus projects in the plan.
You mentioned at the TAC meeting on June 13 that perhaps the Orange County Board of Commissioners
needed to have a better understanding of exactly how the MPO operates. In this letter, we have
attempted to explain how very important it is that the MPO be a full party to this agreement. Based on
the discussion at our June meeting and in accordance with the aforementioned comments, a majority of
the TAC members may insist that the MPO be a party to the agreement as a condition of approving the
plan. If you need further explanation from any of us about why we believe this is necessary, please do
not hesitate to ask.
As stated, we have directed MPO staff to work with Orange County and Triangle Transit staff on the
Implementation Agreement and to bring back a recommendation to the TAC later this summer. At that
time, we will also consider final approval of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan. The TAC
will carefully consider how the Implementation Agreement accommodates the MPO's interests when
we consider final approval of the plan. TAC members and MPO staff look forward to working with
Orange County and Triangle Transit on developing an Implementation Agreement that satisfactorily
protects the interests of the County,Triangle Transit, and the mPO. Again, please feel free to contact
me or DCHC MPO staff with any questions you have on the MPO's position.
Sincerely,
Lydia Laveile, Chair
Transportation Advisory Committee
CC: D[HCK4POTAC
Orange County Commissioners
Frank Clifton, Orange County
John Roberts, Orange County
Craig Benedict, Orange County
David King, Triangle Transit
VVilb Gulley, Triangle Transit
Damien Graham, Triangle Transit
Patrick McDonough, Triangle Transit
Mark Ahrendsen, City of Durham/TCC Chair
Page 3 of 3
10
Attachment 3
MEMORANDUM
To: Transportation Advisory Committee
DCHC MPO
From: DCHC MPO Lead Planning Agency
Date: September 12, 2012
Subject: Orange County Implementation Agreement
The Orange County Transit Plan must be adopted by the county, DCHC MPO, Burlington-Graham MPO,
and Triangle Transit. The BG MPO approved the plan at their August 21, 2012 meeting. At the June TAC
meeting,the TAC's action was to approve the plan in concept and state that the MPO must have a role
in the Implementation Agreement. The TAC Chair sent a letter describing the TAC's position after the
meeting (Attachment 7). LPA, Orange County, and Triangle Transit staffs have met several times to
discuss the Implementation Agreement over the past few months. A summary of the Implementation
Agreement and an outline of the three outstanding issues to be resolved are below. The TAC action is to
receive this update and provide feedback as needed on the agreement.
Summary
The working draft of the Implementation Agreement puts forth a process for providing annual updates
to the TTA Board, Orange Board of County Commissioners, and DCHC MPO TAC on progress towards
implementing the Orange County Transit Plan, a process for reviewing the full plan in detail every four
years in coordination with the development of the DCHC MPO's MTP, a process for reviewing the plan if
the New Starts application is not successful, and a process for receiving recommendations for changes
or revisions to the plan. The agreement distinguishes between material changes that require approval
by the executive boards of the parties to the agreement and non-material changes that will require
approval by a staff working group made up of staff representatives of the parties to the agreement.
Outstanding Issues
The three outstanding issues that are still being discussed by staff are: defining who is a party to the
agreement; defining the amount of funding from the plan that can be used to support existing transit
services; and defining which board will have the authority to decide how sales tax revenue that exceeds
projections by more than five percent will be spent.
As described in the letter the TAC Chair sent,the MPO has many reasons why it should be a party to the
agreement. Orange County staff has continued to advocate for a two party agreement, excluding the
MPO, to be consistent with the Orange County board's previous action. If the agreement is a two party
agreement, the TAC would not be required to approve any material changes to the plan. MPO staff
would also not be included in the staff working group to approve any non-material changes. Instead, it
has been suggested that the MPO could be asked to review changes and provide advice to the other two
boards.
Page 1 of 2
11
The draft Orange County Transit Plan includes the allocation of 6,000 annual bus hours, or$582,000, to
Chapel Hill Transit to support existing transit service. Chapel Hill Transit is concerned about the
potentially escalating cost to run the current system and would like to have flexibility to use revenue
from the Plan to respond to decreases in federal or state funding for transit or unanticipated increases
in cost to run the current bus system. Understandably, Chapel Hill Transit wants to avoid a situation
where increasing costs or decreasing revenues forces them to cut back on bus service while revenues
from the Plan are only allowed to be spent on new services (which may not serve as many people or be
as effective as services that are simultaneously being cut). However, others believe that the intention of
the Congestion Relief Intermodal Transit legislation was to expand transit services, and,while it may be
legally defensible, supporting existing services is not in the spirit of the legislation. In addition there is
concern that the inflation of costs to run the current Chapel Hill Transit system could potentially affect
the funding available to other transit operators and the funding available for the Durham-Orange light
rail project if revenue is used to support existing services
Orange County staff has suggested that if sales tax revenues exceed expectations by more than five
percent that the Orange Board of County Commissioners would alone have the authority to decide what
to do with the additional revenues. It would be solely their decision regardless if the agreement is a two
party or three party agreement.
TAC Action: Receive update and provide feedback as needed.
Page 2 of 2