Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 121912A AGENDA s °O� o o�� Orange Unified Transportation Board December 19, 2012 7:00 p.m. For those members that would like to go paperless you can bring your laptops /tablets if you would like to use them. Hard copies of agendas will still be sent and available. Conference Room 004 (Lower Floor) Orange County West Campus 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Time Item Page Title 7:00 1. 3 Call to order and roll call 1. Introductions (See Attachment 1, Membership and Contact List) 2. Recognition of service of past OUTBoard members Nancy Cole Baker, Chair and Randy Marshall, Vice - Chair, and Renee Price, Commission for the Environment representative 7:15 3. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda 4. 4 -7 Approval of minutes Minutes from October 17, 2012 (Attachment 2) 7:20 5. 8- Staff Updates 8 -10 a. Resolution of Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) and Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) boundaries in Orange County (Attachment 3) 11 -20 b. Status of Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) including Orange County (Attachment 4) 21 c. North Carolina State Clearinghouse review comments for three proposed railroad private crossing closures in Orange County (Attachment 5) —full document: http: / /orangecountVnc.gov /planning /RRCrossingClosure.asp d. Draft FY2014 -2020 Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) http : / /www.dchcmpo.org /index.php ?option =com content &task = view &id =84& 22 -29 Itemid =35 30 -37 e. Notes from NCDOT luncheon meeting (Attachment 6) f. Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) new project prioritization policies for the purpose of determining regional priorities for transportation 38 funding, as carried out through the NCDOT's "SPOT" Process (Attachment 7) g. Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Division 7 active projects 39 -41 update (Attachment 8) h. New State Ethics Act Requirements for RPO and MPOs members (Attachment 9) i. Orange County Transportation Planning Website http: / /orangecountVnc.gov /planning /transportation.asp OUTBoard Action: Receive updates Time Item Page Title 8:10 6. OUTBoard Input for County Commissioners' Annual Planning Retreat Development of a list of concerns or emerging issues for the upcoming year that the OUTBoard plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners' attention. OUTBoard Action: Receive Updates 8:30 7. Preview of January 2013 Agenda Items: (Staff to provide primers on these upcoming items) a. Public Hearing Draft of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) http: / /www.ncdot.gov/ doh /preconstruct /tpb /planning /orangecounty.html b. Final Draft Safe Routes to School Plan (SRSP) http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning/ documents /CompleteFinalDraftSRTS.pdf OUTBoard Action: Receive as information 8:45 8. 42 2013 Meeting Schedule (Attachment 10) 8:50 9. Board Comments 9:00 10. Adjournment Attachment 1 Orange Unified Transportation Board NAME OF MEMBER HOME ADDRESS /TELEPHONE DATE OF APPOINTMENT REPRESENTATION I BUSINESS TELEPHONE E -MAIL APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION Jeff Miles 101 Rock Haven Road Apt C -301 Carrboro, NC 27510 11/8/2012 Pedestrian Access Advocate Jdmiles312()gmail.com 9/30/2015 (919) 623 -6134 Alex Castro 5915 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 11/8/2012 Bingham Township pickardmountain (o)mindspring.com 9/30/2015 (919) 619 -1510 Day (919) 929 -6368 Night Ted Triebel 6601 Sirladdinn Lane Rougemont, NC 27572 11/8/2012 Little River Township triebel a mindspring.com 9/30/2015 (919) 732 -6691 Annette Jurgelski 3211 Oak Knob Court Hillsborough, NC 27278 11/4/2010 Eno Township jurge00111na gmail.com 9/30/2013 (919) 644 -0280 Jeff Charles 5904 Treetop Ridge Durham, NC 27705 10/3/2005 Bicycle Transportation Advocate imc51 na,ix.netcom.com (919) 489 -7753 9/30/2014 Paul Guthrie 113 Rhododendron Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27517 933 -2931 11/05/07 Chapel Hill Township quthriep ()bellsouth.net 9/30/2015 (919) 933 -2931 Sam Lasris 7020 Caviness Jordan Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 732 -7362 11/8/2012 Cedar Grove Township samlasris @@hotmail.com 9/30/2014 (434) 797 -2357 (919) 732 -7362 Vacant Economic Development Commission 9/30/2014 Alan Campbell 501 Lost Way Hurdle Mills, NC 27541 6/21/2011 O.C. Planning Board alan anjalancampbelllaw.com 9/30/2014 (919) 451 -5441 Day (919) 732 -4292 Night Vacant Commission for the Environment 9/30/2015 Bryant Warren 109 Holt Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 11/8/2012 Hillsborough Township bkwarrenjr @gmail.com (919) 280 -3611 Day (919) 732 -1115 9/30/2014 Susie Enoch 4002 McGowan Creek Road Efland, NC 27243 5/19/2009 Cheeks Township enochtsj( aol.com (336) 260 -7694 9/30/2013 Amy Cole 101 Old Heritage Court Hillsborough, NC 27278 5/19/2009 Transit Advocate acconsulting us ()yahoo.com 9/30/2013 (919) 643 -0507 STAFF: Abigaile Pittman 245 -2567 abpittman anorangecountync.gov Al Terry, OPT 245 -2002 aterry a orangecountync.gov Tina Love 245 -2575 tlove ()orangecountync.gov 12/7/2012 Return to Agenda 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Attachment 2 4 DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD OCTOBER 17, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate; Renee Price, CfE Representative; Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative; Cheeks Township - Vacant; Economic Development Commission - Vacant; Little River Township- Vacant; Hillsborough Township — Vacant; STAFF PRESENT: Darcy Zorio, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM II: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA AGENDA ITEM III: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 The OUTBoard minutes from September 19, 2012 were approved by consensus. AGENDA ITEM IV: MEMBERSHIP DISCUSSION At their work session on October 9, 2012, the BOCC discussed the draft policies and procedures for the OUTBoard presented by the County attorney. OUTBoard Action: Receive information Darcy Zorio: The BOCC has decided to change the membership requirements for the members of this board. Instead of having members that are directly appointed from other boards, the OUTBoard will not have seats that go into that At Large members with expertise in the following areas; bicycle transportation, pedestrian access and safety and public transit. They will include someone who has an interest in the environment and air quality, economic development and planning. The attorney will change the policies and procedures to reflect their comments. The BOCC will review it again and vote on this. Paul Guthrie: Did they discuss the issue of private transportation? Tina Love: The regularly scheduled meeting for the BOCC will be November 6. There was a lengthy discussion about the appointments and the number of seats available. The vacancies are Pedestrian, Bingham, and Cedar Grove, Cheeks, Hillsborough Township and an EDC representative. Paul Guthrie: I think communication should go to someone in authority saying that understanding there is a busy schedule, this committee can't sit stagnate with the membership it has. Return to Agenda 5 DRAFT Randy Marshall: They need to move ahead and fill in the staff positions. Paul Guthrie: Is the group interested in communicating our concerns beginning with Craig? Randy Marshall: If there is an interview committee? If so, I think it is appropriate for an OUTBoard member to set on the committee. Paul Guthrie: I think we should go to Craig with that comment and communication directly with the BOCC. I am thinking of a letter to Bernadette as Chairman of the Commission. Does anyone have any objection? The consensus is yes. Tina, do you think there is someone that would do well on this committee without shaking the bushes. Tina Love: We have a technical oriented pool of applicants. Based on their resume or application, they would be good. There may be reluctance because the BOCC may not know the applicants. Paul Guthrie: I will draft a letter and share that with you. Sam Lasris: What will be the method of relaying information? Darcy Zorio: Memos as far as I am concerned but Alice wanted to make it clear that you may be provided to the planning board she didn't want it going only to the planning board. Frank made the comment that communication would be handled in a lot of ways by staff. Sam Lasris: How do we know the points we want conveyed will be conveyed? Paul Guthrie: I will try to raise that in the spirit of stating it in the letter that essentially reports directly to the BOCC. Sam Lasris: It worries me to have this filtered through a staff member. Paul Guthrie: I think based on this conversation, is a communication that will go directly to the BOCC and send a second letter to Craig with the same information. Darcy Zorio: The last item is the CTP actions and MPO boundary issues which is moving slowly forward. The BOCC has approved the boundary. The Burlington Graham MPO approved it. The Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO should approve it in two weeks. Paul Guthrie: Who will pick that up on staff? Darcy Zorio: I think Abigaile will. Randy Marshall: In your letter, I would say one of the pressing issues for the OUTBoard is this 2'/z year process. AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES OUTBoard Action: Receive updates. 97 AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD COMMENTS Return to Agenda L DRAFT Paul Guthrie: I would like to talk about how this committee could operate and what we should seek to do in the topic of transportation. Are we planning for the County we were or the County we are likely to be? The dialogue I hear is about the County we are and not looking ahead. The reality is that we don't have a transportation system today that can handle it. You can either leave it alone for 5 -20 years or say what we are going to do or take small, smart steps now. I would like to begin to think about how we should begin to address these types of issues. Sam Lasris: You mean beyond the long term transportation plan we deal with? Paul Guthrie: There is nothing wrong with those but they are a bureaucratic nightmare. In addition, we should think about these things too. I ran a national advisory committee and the first thing I learned was the bosses don't have a clue about how to use an advisory committee well so you have to push the bosses to have a meaningful impact. Annette Jurgelski: We would want to push for the ' /z cent sales tax (i.e. letters to the Editor). We should be coming up with suggestions for our own area. I see needs for the seniors in my community. Jeff Charles: I am concerned about what the special needs for seniors for the last two to four years of driving (better lighting at night). Darcy Zorio: Aging in place. Seniors being able to live in their own house. Paul Guthrie: But there is no transportation system once a day. There are people that are walking there, four or five miles per day. Jeff Charles: I have talked about the advent of new personal vehicle technology (i.e. scooters). Cars don't have room to pass them. How do you integrate those vehicles with those who have posted speed limits of 35 to 45 miles per hour? Paul Guthrie: As far as future development in Orange County, where would you place schools, business or senior centers or other facilities that serve a larger population? I don't think the CTP will do that. There are two key ingredients that I don't see. One is the availability of water and sewer. Randy Marshall: My guess is the rural buffer is going to collapse from all kinds of pressure. The rural buffer is the reason the water and sewer has extended into the county but we don't want to talk about it and it's not on the agenda doesn't mean it won't happen. You need to look at future trends and what we need to plan for to manage the transition. Amy Cole: Looking at the land development and the Orange County. I look to outside sources (i.e. documentary on Portland Oregon). I think about when I retire, I will have to move because if the transportation isn't fixed, I will not be able to go to the places I am going now. I think everyone should take advantage of public transportation. Sam Lasris: I agree with Amy in that we have to look at transportation linked land use planning and 2030 Comprehensive Plan is a guide but it doesn't get us to where we want to be. Jeff Charles: Every time we talk about bicycling issues, it has to do with commuting to work. With respect to concern about healthcare, with the obesity rate of young kids in the United States, we need to think about recreational transportation (bicycle, skateboard, etc.). Return to Agenda 7 DRAFT 145 146 Paul Guthrie: Why aren't we beginning to look at integrating the separate communication and transportation issues? 147 148 Discuss about using buses from schools for seniors and vice versa. 149 150 Darcy Zorio: There is also the issue of travel training. People have to learn ride the bus all the time. 151 152 Sam Lasris: Our Comprehensive Plan does not touch on this at all. 153 154 Darcy Zorio: The annual work plan will be done with your input. These are great things that can go into that. That is 155 one way to get your ideas to the BOCC. 156 157 Paul Guthrie: I would like to challenge everyone to list five to 10 topics that you feel the most passionate about and 158 send them to me on email and that will be a beginning of a discussion we could agree upon and pass on to the BOCC. 159 160 161 AGENDA ITEM VIII: ADJOURNMENT 162 163 Return to Agenda ATTACHMENT 3 8 %..urrent a -v a u%.n%, rrvpubeu iviry wunuanes - vptivn 4 7 1 3 5 ST A I o O U m n C O 7 l4 � Q 6 J Q Cp0 SuS �y i Q Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Urbanized Area within DCHC MPO Overlap Area (Remain in BG MPO) Railroad ® Remove from DCHC MPO Proposed B -G MPO Boundary � B -G MPO DCHC MPO Roads County Boundary L_ —_�= Add to DCHC MPO Add to B -G MPO ® 2000 Census Urban Area City Limits 2010 Census Urban Area and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian C 0 la 0 Z C�ORCH RD �g j %iii ' o N 1 in = 5,000 feet n 0 2,000 mmmff= Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian C Return to Agenda SUMMARY PAGE FOR ATTACHMENT 3 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, & 5 are 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. E Return to Agenda CONSIDERATIONS for MPO BOUNDARY DECISION for OPTION 4 CRITERIA / CONSIDERATIONS MET? Mebane in one MPO Yes Addresses Urbanized Area (UZA) Requirements Yes Consistent with current air quality conformity plans and Yes requirements Requires Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Yes Expands BG MPO Yes (minimally) Reduces BG MPO No Expands DC MPO No, not overall Reduces DC MPO Yes, overall it does Reflects regional community patterns Yes 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 integrity and character of the County's rural areas Respects Orange County's request to join BG MPO Yes Discussed among Staffs Yes Supported by Staffs Yes 10 Return to Agenda ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 8, 2012 Attachment 4 Action Agenda Item No.5- q -BGMPO SUBJECT: Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization Memorandum of Understanding Adding Orange County as a Voting Member DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution to Approve Burlington - Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Adding Orange County as a Voting Member 2. Revised BG MPO MOU Adding Orange County as a Voting Member INFORMATION CONTACT: Abigaile Pittman, 245 -2567 Tom Altieri, 245 -2579 Craig Benedict, 245 -2592 Past agenda material on this item may be found at: http : / /orangecountync.gov /OCCLERKS /12012 48d.pdf PURPOSE: To consider approval of a resolution adding Orange County as a voting member of the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). BACKGROUND: On August 12, 2011, the Chair of the BG MPO Technical Coordinating Committee extended an offer to the County to formally join the MPO. On January 24, 2012 the BOCC passed a resolution requesting representation on the BGMPO Transportation Advisory Committee JAC) and Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The BG MPO has amended its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to include Orange County as a voting member. The amended MOU was approved on August 21, 2012 by its Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Teal Transportation Advisory Committee JAC). The MOU must now be circulated and signed by the Mayors or County Commission Chairs of all member jurisdictions (including Orange County), the NC Secretary of Transportation, the NC Assistant Attorney General, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Division Administrator. MOU execution by all member jurisdictions is occurring simultaneously and should be complete before the end of the year. The MOU establishes membership, bylaws, responsibilities and voting structure for the member jurisdictions of the BG MPO. The only revision to the existing MOU document (Attachment 2) has been the addition of Orange County as a member jurisdiction. 11 Return to Agenda 12 The contents of the MOU are consistent with the following provisions of NC GS 136- 200.2: • Agreement for the participation in a continuing and cooperative comprehensive transportation planning process • Creation of MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) subcommittees, responsibilities, membership, and provisions for open meetings and public records. • Distribution of regular and weighted voting power among the constituent counties, municipal corporations, and other participating organizations. Weighted voting is based on the jurisdictional population within MPO boundaries according to the most recent U.S. Census. The county's estimated population within the BG MPO planning area is 605. Based on this, the County will have 1 regular vote and 1 weighted vote. • Designation of the City of Burlington as the Lead Planning Agency (LPA), and detailing the LPA's administrative responsibilities. • Stipulation that all transportation and related federal aid planning grant funds available to promote the cooperative transportation planning process be expended in accordance with the MPO's Planning Work Program adopted by the TAC. Update on MPO Boundaries: In the past month, the revised BG MPO boundary within the county has been endorsed by the BG TAC and TCC, the County, and the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) MPO TCC. The DCHC MPO TAC is expected to endorse the revised boundary at its November 14th meeting. Following full MPO and County endorsement, the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) will officially receive the revised MPO boundaries and verify that they conform to legal requirements. Final approval of the revised boundaries by NCDOT and the Governor will occur after the execution of a letter of agreement between the BG MPO and the DCHC MPO addressing a couple of Burlington's urbanized areas that will be planned by the DCHC MPO. Final approval should occur by January 2013. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The MOU has no provisions for membership fees. There are no membership fees associated with the County's membership in the BG MPO. MPO staff and planning activities are currently funded by the Federal government. The City of Burlington pays the local matching funds for the Lead Planning Agency (LPA) planning activities. However, this system of the LPA paying for 100% is being reconsidered in the DCHC MPO and matching funds may, in the near future, derive from participating agencies. Orange County Planning staff would dedicate time to BG MPO transportation planning activities, and TCC and TAC meetings. The BG MPO TCC and TAC normally each meet four times a year. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Approve the resolution (Attachment 1) approving the revised MOU adding Orange County as a voting member of the BG MPO, and direct the Chairperson and County Clerk to execute the MOU (Attachment 2). Return to Agenda 13 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COOPERATIVE, COMPREHENSIVE, AND CONTINUING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Between THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, CITY OF GRAHAM, TOWN OF ELON, TOWN OF GIBSONVILLE, CITY OF MEBANE, TOWN OF HAW RIVER, TOWN OF WHITSETT, TOWN OF GREEN LEVEL, VILLAGE OF ALAMANCE, ALAMANCE COUNTY, GUILFORD COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ( NCDOT) in cooperation with THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS, THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, CITY OF GRAHAM, TOWN OF ELON, TOWN OF GMSONVILLE, CITY OF MEBANE, TOWN OF HAW RIVER, TOWN OF WHITSETT, TOWN OF GREEN LEVEL, VILLAGE OF ALAMANCE, ALAMANCE COUNTY, GUILFORD COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, AND THE NCDOT entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperative, Comprehensive, and Continuing Transportation Planning, last amended in August 2003, regarding the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO); WHEREAS, each MPO is required to develop a transportation plan in cooperation with NCDOT and in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134, any subsequent amendments to that statute, and any implementing regulations; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of these parties that all prior Memoranda of Understanding between the parties be superseded and replaced by this Memorandum of Understanding. NOW THEREFORE the following Memorandum of Understanding is made: SECTION 1: It is hereby agreed that the CITY OF BURLINGTON, CITY OF GRAHAM, TOWN OF ELON, TOWN OF GIBSONVILLE, CITY OF MEBANE, TOWN OF HAW RIVER, TOWN OF WHITSETT, TOWN OF GREEN LEVEL, VILLAGE OF ALAMANCE, ALAMANCE COUNTY, GUILFORD COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION in cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, will participate in a continuing transportation planning process with responsibilities and undertakings as related in the following paragraphs: 1. The area involved, the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Area, will be the Burlington- Graham urbanized area as defined by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census plus that area beyond the existing urbanized area boundary that is expected to become urban within a twenty year planning period. This area is hereinafter referred to as the Planning Area. Return to Agenda 14 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) 2. The continuing transportation planning process will be a cooperative one and all planning discussion will be reflective of and responsive to the comprehensive plans for growth and development of the Planning Area. 3. The continuing transportation planning process will be in accordance with the intent, procedures, and programs of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 4. The Planning Area may be periodically reassessed and revised in the light of new developments and data projections. 5. A Burlington- Graham Transportation Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as the TAC, is hereby established with responsibility for serving as a forum for cooperative transportation planning and decision making for the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization. The TAC shall consist of a representative appointed by member Boards of Local Government and a member of the North Carolina Board of Transportation. a. The TAC members shall have the responsibility for keeping their respective 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 local boards they represent; and ensuring meaningful citizen participation in the transportation planning process. The membership and voting structure of the TAC is listed below: b. Weighted votes shall be reevaluated every 10 years based on the results of the most recent decennial U.S. Census. Weighted vote distribution is based on the population within municipal /county /MPO boundaries and extra - territorial jurisdiction areas may be adjusted at the discretion of the TAC depending on population changes. Return to Agenda Weighted Regular Governmental Body Votes Votes Burlington 6 2 Graham 3 1 Elon 1 1 Gibsonville 1 1 Mebane 1 1 Haw River 1 1 Whitsett 1 1 Green Level 1 1 Alamance 1 1 Alamance County 2 1 Guilford County I 1 Orange County 1 1 Department of Transportation 1 1 TOTAL 21 14 b. Weighted votes shall be reevaluated every 10 years based on the results of the most recent decennial U.S. Census. Weighted vote distribution is based on the population within municipal /county /MPO boundaries and extra - territorial jurisdiction areas may be adjusted at the discretion of the TAC depending on population changes. Return to Agenda 15 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) c. Members will vote on matters pursuant to the authority granted by their respective governmental body. If a weighted vote is to be used, it must be called for prior to the vote by a member. Otherwise, each member has regular vote privileges d. Any member who does not attend two consecutive TAC meetings will not be included as part of the membership needed to obtain a quorum after the second meeting. Membership, however, is immediately reinstated by the presence of the most recently appointed member (or his/her alternate) at any future meeting. A quorum is required for the transaction of all business, including conducting meetings or hearings, participating in deliberations, or voting upon or otherwise transacting the public business. A quorum consists of 51% of the members of the TAC, plus as many additional members as may be required to ensure that 51% of possible votes are present, excluding those who have been removed for absenteeism, and applies to regular membership, not weighted vote. The TAC will meet as often as it is deemed necessary, appropriate and advisable. On the basis of majority vote of its membership, the TAC may elect a member of the committee to act as chairperson with the responsibility for coordination of the committee's activities. In addition, representatives from each of the following agencies will serve as non - voting members of the TAC: - Federal Highway Administration - NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, MPO Coordinator - NCDOT Division 7 Engineer - Burlington Graham MPO Coordinator / Secretary - Other Local, State, or Federal agencies impacting transportation in the Planning Area at the invitation of the TAC. 6. A member of any local elected board may serve as an alternate to the designated TAC member for each member. The Burlington- Graham MPO Secretary shall be notified of a TAC alternate member each year and as changes are made. 7. The TAC shall meet as often as it is deemed appropriate and advisable, and shall elect a Chair and Vice -Chair based on a majority vote each January. 8. The duties and responsibilities of the TAC are as follows: a. The TAC, in cooperation with the State, shall be responsible for carrying out the urban transportation planning process specified by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 23 U.S.C. 134. It shall review, develop, and endorse the Planning Work Program (PWP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP); b. Review and approval of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) for multi -modal capital and operating expenditures and to ensure coordination between local and state capital and operating improvement programs; Return to Agenda 16 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) The TAC shall not set policy for the planning area but shall establish goals and objectives for the transportation planning process reflective of and responsive to comprehensive plans for growth and development in the MPO planning area; d. Endorse, review and approval of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). As required by the NCGS 136- 66.2(d), any revision in the CTP must be jointly approved by the MPO and NCDOT; The TAC, as required, shall review, approve, and endorse amendments to the Planning Work Program, the CTP, the LRTP and the Transportation Improvement Program; f. The TAC shall have the responsibility for keeping boards of general purpose local government informed of the status and requirements of the transportation planning process; assisting in the dissemination and clarification of the decisions, inclinations, and policies of these boards; and ensuring meaningful citizen participation in the transportation planning process; g. The TAC shall review, approve and endorse changes to the Federal -Aid Functional Classification System and MPO's Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary (MPA); h. The TAC shall review, approve, and endorse a "Prospectus for Transportation Planning" which defines work tasks and responsibilities for the various agencies participating in the transportation planning process; and i. The TAC shall review and approve related air quality planning in conformance with federal regulations if the Planning Area becomes non - attainment for air quality. The representative from each general purpose local government on the TAC shall be responsible for instructing the clerk of his/ her local government to submit copies of minutes or resolutions to the secretary of the TAC when formal action involving any MPO plan is taken by his/her local government. k. Any other duties identified as necessary to further facilitate the transportation planning process. 9. Municipal councils, boards of alderman and county commissioners represented on the TAC shall serve as the primary means for citizen input in the transportation planning process. This citizen involvement will be obtained through goals and objectives surveys, forums, and public meetings. 10. A Technical Coordinating Committee, hereinafter referred to as the TCC, shall be established with the responsibility of general review, guidance and coordination of the transportation planning process for the planning area, and with the responsibility for making recommendations to the respective local and state governmental agencies and the TAC regarding any necessary actions relating to the continuing transportation planning process. The TCC shall be responsible for development, review, and recommendation for approval Return to Agenda 17 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Prospectus, Transportation Improvement Program, Long Range Transportation Plan, and Federal -Aid Urban System and Urbanized Boundary. The TCC shall also be responsible for promoting citizen participation and preparing documentation reports for transportation studies. Membership of the TCC shall include technical representation from all local and state and federal government agencies directly related to and concerned with the transportation planning process for the BGMPO planning area. The TCC shall be comprised of the following members: a. Alamance County, one representative b. Alamance County Transportation Authority, one representative C. City of Burlington, four representatives d. City of Graham, two representatives e. Burlington - Alamance Airport Authority, one representative f. Town of Elon, one representative g. Town of Gibsonville, one representative h. Town of Haw River, one representative i. City of Mebane, one representative j. Town of Whitsett, one representative k. Town of Green Level, one representative Village of Alamance, one representative m. Guilford County, one representative n. Orange County, one representative o. Burlington Regional Airport Authority, one representative P. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division, one representative q. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch, one representative Return to Agenda 18 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) r. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division Engineer for Division 7 S. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Area Traffic Engineer t. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) North Carolina, one representative Other local agencies, upon filing a request, will be notified and invited to all meetings of the TCC. Such agencies may include Alamance- Burlington Schools and various city and county departments /offices. The TCC shall meet when it is deemed appropriate and advisable, and shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair annually beginning each January based on a majority vote. 11. The City of Burlington shall serve as the Lead Planning Agency. Administrative coordination for the TAC and the TCC will be provided by the City of Burlington as the Lead Planning Agency who shall report to the City of Burlington Planning Director. The Lead Planning Agency will be responsible for the following functions: - Providing a secretary for the TAC and the TCC - Arranging meetings and agendas - Maintaining minutes and records - Preparing a Prospectus and Planning Work Program - Serving as custodian of all WO plans and documents - Collecting from local governments, minutes and resolutions that document transportation plan revisions, and submitting these for mutual adoption by the North Carolina Department of Transportation - Monitoring the transportation planning process to insure its execution is in accordance with the MPO goals and objectives. - Performing other coordinating functions as assigned by the TAC from time to time. - Lead responsibility for structuring public involvement in the transportation planning process. - Preparation of the PL Expenditure Report and other grant management 12. All transportation and related Federal Aid planning grant funds available to promote the cooperative transportation planning process will be expended in accordance with the Planning Work Program adopted by the TAC. Administration of funding in support of the transportation planning process on behalf of the TAC will be conducted by the City of Return to Agenda 19 ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) Burlington which will execute appropriate agreements with funding agencies as provided by the Planning Work Program. 13. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), as well as any established sub - committees are responsible for carrying out the provisions on North Carolina G.S. Chapter 143, Article 33C regarding open meetings, and Chapter 132 regarding public records. A quorum is required for transaction of all business, including conducting meetings or hearings, participating in deliberations, or voting upon or otherwise transacting public business. A quorum consists of 51% of the members of the TAC or TCC, plus as many additional members as may be required to ensure that 51 % of possible votes are present. An alternate may be appointed to attend meetings should the member not be able to attend. Alternates should be identified by name on the meeting attendance log. Vacant seats will not count against the quorum. Electronic meetings and voting ARE allowed as long as proper public notice is given and meeting materials are available to the public upon request. SECTION 2: Subscribing agencies to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate their participation in the Continuing Transportation Planning Process by giving sixty days written notice to other parties prior to the date of termination. It is further agreed that these agencies will assist in the transportation planning process by providing planning assistance, data, and other requested information. Additionally, these agencies shall coordinate zoning and subdivision approval in accordance with the adopted Transportation Plan(s). SECTION 3: This Amended Memorandum of Understanding supersedes and replaces any prior memorandum(s) of understanding between the parties regarding the Burlington- Graham MPO. SECTION 4: In witness whereof, the parties of this Memorandum of Understanding have been authorized by appropriate and proper resolutions to sign the same, the City of Burlington by its Mayor, the City of Graham by its Mayor, the Town of Elon by its Mayor, the Town of Gibsonville by its Mayor, the City of Mebane by its Mayor, the Town of Haw River by its Mayor, the Town of Whitsett by its Mayor, the Town of Green Level by its Mayor, Village of Alamance by its Mayor, Alamance County by its Chair of the Board of Commissioners, Guilford County by its Chair of the Board of Commissioners, Orange County by its Chair of the Board of Commissioners, and the Department of Transportation by the Secretary of Transportation. This day of , 2012. Return to Agenda ATTACHMENT 2 (AS APRROVED BY THE BOCC ON 11 -08 -2012) (SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ORANGE COUNTY) (Seal) County Clerk Orange County Chair, Board of County Commissioners 20 Return to Agenda Attachment 5 l 70 Figure 1 Hillsborough, Id c BUS 70 Byrdsville Road / (P- 4405K) v*, N-N6\' y \"'� U Legend 0 Project Crossing — Interstate Major Road - -- Road —�--�- Railroad _ Streams and Creeks Water Bodies 0 Municipal Boundary Southern - . i r GId State -tr. -. a , 9z 0 Gordon Thomas Drive (P- 4405I) To Durham Greenbriar Drive 4405 �Road/ 1l�s� a � oa�0� oad (SR 1'118) fit, �i,nai R r 0 0.5 1 Miles STATE OF No irri I CAROLINA . F DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION / RAIL DIVISION Project Vicinity Map P-- 440511 J, & I Private Crossing Safely Initiative Crossings ordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar Drive, & Byrdsv a Road Orange County Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. MEETING NOTES INTRODUCTIONS Attachment 6 22 Present: Bernadette Pelissier, Orange County Commissioner's Chair; Frank Clifton, Orange County Manager; Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director; Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Abigaile Pittman, Orange County Land Use & Transportation Planner; Dawn McPherson, NCDOT Division 7 Traffic Engineer; Chuck Edwards, NCDOT Division 7 District Engineer; Mike Mills, NCDOT Division 7 Engineer; Ed Lewis, NCDOT Division 7 Planning Engineer; Pat Wilson, NCDOT Division 7 Operations Engineer; John Howell, NCDOT County Highway Maintenance Engineer; Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough Planning Director; and Montrena Hadley, City of Mebane Planning Director. II. FOLLOW -UP FROM MAY 16, 2012 QUARTERLY MEETING a. Eubanks Road /NC 86 Realignment Notes from May 16, 2012 (Craig Benedict): This project was included in the 2008 secondary road budget, but due to economic constraints was only initiated in the past year. The first attempt to alleviate problems at the intersection of Eubanks Rd and Old 86 was to cut down a hill that limited sight distance, and while this did offer slight improvement, the impact was lessened because the hill could not be reduced significantly because of water, sewer and other utilities in the area. After a series of charettes with residents and the Town of Carrboro, an option was chosen that realigns Eubanks road about 400 feet to the north of its current location. The project is currently in the right -of -way acquisition phase. This realignment will not preclude a future extension of Eubanks Road across Old 86. There will be no interruption to school access during construction, projected to take a couple months and completed by the end of this year. Current Meeting Notes (Craig Benedict and Chuck Edwards): NCDOT is in right -of -way acquisition stage now and is conducting property appraisals. Right - of -way acquisition for this project appears that it can be completed this winter. The primary property owner is cooperating. The project is expected to be constructed spring /summer 2013. Orange County Staff has expressed desire to extend Eubanks farther to the West in the future to provide additional east -west connectivity. The planned realignment will not prevent future westward extension of the road. This project is located in the northwest Carrboro Transition Area, and raises some planning issues with their northern study area, for example, with the 1 Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. 23 location of commercial nodes. The project presents an opportunity for revisiting the plan. III. DISCUSSIONS a. Proposed rail crossing closures with the NC Railroad /Norfolk Southern Railway (Abigaile Pittman) Notes: As part of the North Carolina State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review process, the Planning and Inspections Department received a solicitation for scoping comments from the NCDOT with regard to the proposed private crossing closures with the North Carolina (NCRR) /Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway crossings at Gordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar Drive, and Byrdsville Road in Orange County. Abigaile Pittman and Craig Benedict gave a brief overview of the issues associated with the proposed crossing closures. Orange County's comment letter was mailed to the NCDOT Rail Division on November 5, 2012. Chuck Edwards stated that he had seen a copy of the County's comment letter and that his office concurred with the County's primary concerns. Chuck Edwards, Craig Benedict and Bernadette Pelissier mutually agreed that the proposed Byrdsville Road crossing closure was the most problematic of the three. Margaret Hauth explained that the three proposed closing were not in Hillsborough's jurisdiction so they did not comment. Craig Benedict, Tom Altieri and Abigaile Pittman all spoke about the need to consider the larger economic development impacts of the proposed Greenbriar Drive closing as it was located in the Eno EDD. Craig Benedict stated that it would also be best to consider all (future) proposed crossing closures to address planning concerns in a comprehensive manner. Craig Benedict queried NCDOT officials present about the best way to make the County's concerns known and interact to find alternative solutions. Mike Mills stated that they have been notified internally that there would be a public meeting on January 7th from 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. at Murphy School regarding the proposed Byrdsville closing. Bernadette Pelissier asked NCDOT officials about the notice that they would provide to impacted property owners. Mike Mills responded that he believed that it would be 30 days' notice both by mail and with an ad in the newspaper. Comments were made around the table that many of the people living in the impacted Byrdsville area may not be property owners and therefore might not be notified of the meeting or proposed project. Mike Mills said that they could see if NCDOT could hang notices on each individual door. 2 Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. b. Mattress Factory Interchange Study (Craig Benedict) 24 Notes: Orange County Planning Staff has submitted comments to the BG -MPO and consulting firm, Ramey Kemp and Associates on the Mattress Factory Interchange Study. Craig Benedict outlined the County's economic development goals and plans for the area surrounding the proposed interchange, and noted that the study noted that the Buckhorn Road interchange would be over capacity in the next 8 to 10 years. Mike Mills, NCDOT stressed the need for Federal support of a new Interchange at Mattress Factory Road before a lot more time and effort is expended. If there is no Federal support, then Orange County is going to need to plan differently for access to properties identified for economic development purposes. Mike Mills suggested that this issue of Federal support be mentioned at the next B -G MPO meeting. NCDOT is not sure how long it will take to receive a response from the FHWA. Bernadette Pelissier asked about the Federal criteria for evaluating a proposed interchange, and if they looked at the local Land Use Plan and economic development efforts. Steve Brantley supported this comment by adding that the water and sewer extensions alone would attract significant growth. Craig Benedict noted that the Ramey Kemp study initially had not accurately considered the County's EDD land use designations and noted that the County needs to work with the City of Mebane to make sure that both our EDD areas and Mebane's ETJ areas are considered in the evaluation of this proposed interchange. c. Future frontage road (South of 1- 85/1 -40) between Collington Farms and Mattress Factory Road (Craig Benedict) Notes: Orange County staff continues its efforts working with property owners near Collington Farms and Industrial Drive to acquire right -of -way for road extensions to access properties for economic development purposes. The property owner west of Collington Farms has agreed to dedicate right -of -way for the frontage road. Chuck Edwards agreed to work with County staff and the land owner regarding possible roadway design and right -of -way acquisition at the appropriate time. NCDOT is working with staff to provide the appropriate paperwork. Craig Benedict stressed that the County needs to continue their good planning efforts and be in a position to pull the trigger on an economic development prospect when it occurs. d. Possible expedited replacement or pedestrian- adaptation for the bridge near US 70 on Pleasant Green Road (Craig Benedict) Notes: A crossing of the Eno River is needed to complete a portion of the Mountains -to -Sea trail through Orange County. Options may include the construction of a new bridge over the Eno or utilize the existing motor vehicle bridge where Pleasant Green Road crosses the Eno. NCDOT was asked if the 3 Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. existing bridge could be retrofitted with a pedestrian walkway or if bridge replacement (this bridge is scheduled for replacement) could be expedited and include a pedestrian component. Mike Mills, NCDOT responded that it doesn't typically attach pedestrian walkways to existing bridges and will research viable options that could help to expedite the MST. There was a brief discussion of the possibility of taking the trail under the bridge for the short term and Bernadette Pelissier stated that based on her memory of prior discussions she did not believe that this was a viable solution. Mike Mills was not certain what the schedule was for the replacement of this bridge but would look into it. Chuck Edwards stated that it was not on the current TIP list. Craig Benedict noted that the schedule for the trail construction was still 5 to 8 years out. Bernadette Pelissier noted that this river crossing is a key component to this 150 mile segment of the Mountains -to -Sea trail. a. TIP and other project updates from Chuck Edwards, NCDOT District 7 Engineer Notes: Chuck Edwards, NCDOT District 7 Engineer, provided a brief update on the following projects: • Bike Lanes and curb and gutter are being added to Smith Level Road. The project is scheduled for construction in early 2013. • Work on Weaver Dairy Road is approximately 80% complete with an expected completion date mid -2013. • Bridge resurfacing on NC 86/1 -85 and Churton /Eno River is nearing completion. • 1 -85 widening is in the STIP for "post- year ", placing the project at least 10 years out. • Paved shoulders and rumble strips are to be added to NC 86N from NC57 to the Chatham County line beginning in February 2013. • There are a number of low- impact bridge replacements on secondary roads scheduled throughout the County (Sawyer, Sneed, Mebane Oaks, etc.) over the next few years. Additional project information will be provided as the program is developed. • Buckhorn Road South of Arthur Minnis has been paved and the hill cut down to improve safety. • The Riverwalk trail project in Hillsborough's jurisdiction. 4 25 Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. V. UPDATES a. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Tom Altieri) Additional progress has been made since the last luncheon on the County's CTP, which covers the County's rural areas outside of MPO boundaries. Orange County staff received a draft last week and has been reviewing. Based on cursory review, staff has questions that it would like to have answered before scheduling and legal advertisement is done for a public hearing. In addition to a few environmental maps that will need to be completed, staff is concerned over the highlighting of the NC 86 Expressway in the Executive Summary and elsewhere without mention of local concerns related to the preservation of rural character and development consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Although the County is accepting that the CTP must move forward with this designation, some notation and description of process (i.e. construction phasing, timetable, environmental assessment, etc.) was requested by the BOCC for inclusion in the document. OC Staff would like to see some language added that is acceptable to NCDOT but establishes some "middle- ground" in response to BOCC requests before scheduling a public hearing. Mike Mills, NCDOT, took notes on the issue and offered to follow up with Statewide Planning to discuss a potential solution. Link to draft CTP: http: / /www.ncdot.gov /doh /preconstruct /tpb /plan ning /orangecounty.html b. Implementation of downtown Hillsborough access study improvements (crosswalks, parking, sidewalk work) (Margaret Hauth); and c. Sidewalk from County parking deck to courthouse; Churton Street /Nash and Kollock Street crosswalk; and sidewalk on east side of Churton Street (Craig Benedict) Combined Notes for Vb. And Vc.: Hillsborough Staff has been working to facilitate the extension of a sidewalk adjacent to the courthouse across from Weaver Street Market and Nash and Kollock Street. This would also include a new crosswalk from the courthouse to the public parking deck. Margaret Hauth noted that there will be a trial re- striping of the center lane on Churton Street between Tryon and King to provide for a center two -way left turn lane in order to reduce congestion in this block. There were general discussions about the right - of -way and topography issues associated with this section of sidewalk. Orange County staff could send a sketch to NCDOT to help determine how to handle the sidewalk construction adjacent to the courthouse. Ed Lewis stated that DOT needs to determine what is actually out there in the field. Chuck Edwards stated that his office had already evaluated the field conditions and done a design for 5 Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. 27 the sidewalk and efforts could be now be made to get it on the DOT list. Ed Lewis stated that there still might be a cultural review process to be done. Margaret Hauth gave an update on the proposed bus pull -out on Churton Street. She stated that Triangle Transit does not support pull -outs on Churton Street, as bus stop boardings do not meet its threshold criteria and even if built, TTA will not use them. TTA stated that if they pulled off the road into a bus pull -out that they would have a very difficult time getting back into the traffic lane, and their schedule would be delayed. DOT staff concurred that the addition of bus pull- outs to the project would add to project costs and impacts to the adjacent County property. Chair Pelissier offered to inquire further with TTA about their opposition to the bus pull -outs. Mike Mills stated that he felt that the bus pull -outs should be pursued, and if the project was delayed for the completion of a cultural review process that DOT could still get the striping done sooner. Pat Wilson noted that the absence of the bus pull -outs would likely contribute to significant traffic delay on Churton Street, particularly during peak hours. d. Access management plans /policies and regulations for Economic Development Districts (Buckhorn Road, US 70 to West 10 Focus Area) (Craig Benedict) Notes: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, briefly stressed the importance of improved access planning; designated intersections, frontage roads, limited curb cuts, and adequate right -of -way. Craig Benedict also stressed the impacts a development similar to Tanger Outlets can place on an interchange and surrounding transportation network at an interchange such as Buckhorn Road. e. 2012/13 Work Plan: Economic Development and Buckhorn — Mebane Phase 2 District Water and Sewer Agreement and Construction (Future Phases) (Craig Benedict) Notes: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, briefly reviewed water and sewer plans in the Buckhorn area and recent BOCC approval of 4- million in infrastructure. The new construction will include three miles of water and three miles of gravity sewer. f. Eno Water and Sewer Project near 1- 85/US70 (Craig Benedict) Notes: Durham and Orange County are conducting a feasibility study of how to serve the Eno EDD with public water and sewer infrastructure. Upon completion of the study, the design may be 6 -7 months out. County Manager, Frank Clifton, stated that Durham staff engineers are taking the lead. We are working directly with NCDOT about the design of 1 -85 /US 70 redesign interchange. 0 Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. g. Burlington- Graham MPO boundary resolution and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU with Orange County (Abigaile Pittman) Notes regarding MPO boundary resolution: Over the past couple of months there was a coordinated revision of the Metropolitan Area Boundaries of both the Burlington- Graham and Durham - Chapel Hill Carrboro MPOs that has been approved by the OC BOCC, the MPOs, and the City of Mebane. The approved revised boundary: 1) retained one area over MPO boundary overlay in BGMPO; 2) added two area on the north and northeast ides of Mebane to the BGMPO area; 3) returned the southwestern `leg' of the DCHC MPO boundary to TARPO; 4) added a small area near Frazier Road /US -70 to the MCHC MPO area; and 5) retained the Efland portion of the BGMPO urbanized area within the DCHC MPO boundary. The next step is for the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) to officially receive the revised MPO boundaries and verify that they conform to legal requirements. Final approval of the revised boundaries by NCDOT and the Governor will occur after the execution of a letter of agreement between the BG MPO and the DCHC MPO addressing a couple of Burlington's urbanized areas that will be planned by the DCHC MPO. Final approval should occur by January 2013 if BGMPO is able to approve the proposed DCHC MPO agreement that will be on their January 15, 2013 agenda. Notes regarding BGMPO Memorandum of Understanding: On January 24, 2012 the BOCC passed a resolution requesting representation on the BGMPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The BG MPO amended its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to include Orange County as a voting member. The amended MOU was approved on August 21, 2012 by its Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), and the OC BOCC approved the MOU at their November 8th meeting. The MOU was also circulated and in the process of being approved and signed by the Mayors or County Commission Chairs of all of the other member jurisdictions, and was expected to be complete before the end of the year. The Mebane City Council reviewed the MOU on November 5th. Last week Planning staff received an email from Mike Nunn with BGMPO advising us that during the discussion the Mebane Council requested that the BGMPO also revise the weighted voting structure to reflect the 2010 Census population. The new population totals would place Mebane at a similar population as the City of Graham. Mike Nunn said that this would not impact the number of representatives or other non - weighted voting actions of TCC or TAC. He added that there may also be the need to adjust other related items based on the 2010 Census should TCC or TAC desire. Return to Agenda Orange County & NCDOT Highway Division 7 and District 1 Meeting November 19, 2012 12:00 p.m. 29 Due to this request — Mike Nunn of BGMPO requested that no additional action be taken on the Revised MOU until the TCC and TAC can discuss this request at the January 15, 2013 meetings. Abigaile Pittman said that she had told Mike Nunn that she have the final executed revised MOU on her desk and was getting ready to send it to him and he asked that I hold onto it until the January 15th BGMPO meeting. Abigaile Pittman recounted that Mike Nunn had previously told her that Orange County's estimated population in the BGMPO area was 605. Craig Benedict stated that the 2010 population data was not used and he expected the County's population number to be higher also. h. NC Safe Routes to School Plan (Tom Altieri) Notes: Nothing new to report, Greene Consulting assisted with the preparation of several SRTS Action Plans across the State and submitted them to NCDOT, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, for its review. Orange County's Plan is one that is awaiting review. The SRTS Coordinator with NCDOT has been contacted for an update. L Future County Jail Site (Frank Clifton) County Manager Frank Clifton closed the meeting by thanking the NCDOT for their assistance in evaluating possible access options and mitigation of impacts related to future widening of 1 -85 adjacent to the future County Jail site. 0 Return to Agenda Attachment 7 0 T R I A N G L Z ] C G It N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization �����, RTAC Meeting Agenda TT, R �f DECEMBER 61 2012 Tdangte'A!b Aural Planning prganlxatloA at Lee County Government Center, Wicker Room • 106 Fiilicrest Drive • Sanford, NC 27330 Agenda Item 11 a: Adoption of Project Prioritization Policy Background: Session Law 2012 -84 (Senate Bill 890) requires that MPOs and RPOs use a data- driven process for determining local prioritization of projects to feed into the NCDOT SPOT process. At the October TARPO meetings, Option B was selected as the preferred method out of a range of potential methods. Attached to this agenda is a draft policy for adoption consideration based on Option B. At the beginning of the RTAC meeting this afternoon there will be a public hearing on this proposal. Additionally, the proposal has been posted on the TARPO website to allow public viewing and comment. Action Requested. Adoption of Project Prioritization Policy Chatham County • Lee County 0 Moore County * Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning organization P 0 Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27749 Voice {919) 558 -9397 Fax (919) 549.93901 Return to Agenda Project Prioritization Policy Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization ik I„. DRAFT — December b, 2012 The following methodology has been developed by the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization for the purpose of determining regional priorities for transportation funding, as carried out through the NCDOT's "SPOT" Process. This methodology is intended to incorporate both measurable, objective data and information about priorities from local jurisdictions, to ensure a process that is both data - driven and responsive to local needs. This methodology has been developed to meet the requirements of Session Law 2012 -$4 (Senate Bill 890), which requires that MPOs and RPOs have a data - driven process for determining project prioritization. The local prioritization process would consist of three parts: (1) selection and ranking of projects at the countywide level; (2) quantitative scoring of submitted projects; and (3) ranking of scored projects and assignment of SPOT points. Each of these is discussed in more detail below. Countywide Selection and Ranking of Projects Within each TARPO county, all the local jurisdictions (including the county and any municipalities within the county) must work together to develop a single list of ten (10) highway projects and fine (5) bicycle or pedestrian projects to submit to TARPO for consideration in the SPOT process. These should be ranked in order from highest priority ( #1) to lowest ( #10 for highways, #5 for bicycle/pedestrian). It is up to the local jurisdictions to determine the best method for achieving this within each county; however, as a general rule all jurisdictions should be given a chance to participate in the development of their county's list if they choose and the process should allow for public comment. These local priority lists must be developed and submitted to TARPO in advance of NCDOT's deadline for submitting new SPOT projects. Once submitted to TARPO, the local priority lists will be posted online and made available for additional public comment. A sample countywide project list is provided on the following page. Draft Project Prioritization Policy — December 6, 2012 31 Return to Agenda 32 HYPOTHETICAL COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PRIORITIES APRIL 2013 Highway Ranked from highest priority ( #1) to lowest ( #10) 1. Widen NC 500 from Main Street to Market Street from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with median 2. Provide shoulders for bicycles on Turnpike Road from US 20 to County Park 3. Widen lanes on NC 340 from NC 500 to US 20 to 12 -foot lanes 4. New interchange at US 20 and Hometown Road 5. New route connecting High Road to Low Road, including new bridge over railroad tracks 6. Upgrade NC 500 and NC 340 intersection to superstreet i. Median and access management improvements on Main Street in Sprawltown 8. Extension of Fifth Street to connect to school complex 9. Widen and straighten Twining Road between 1011 Street and 301h Street, including bicycle lanes 10. Construct US 20 Bypass around Sprawltown Bicycle and Pedestrian Ranked from highest priority ( #1) to lowest ( #5) 1. Sidewalks on both sides of Church Street in Hometown from Court Street to Bank Street 2. Extension of Riverside Greenway from County Parr to Hometown High School 3. Restripe existing pavement on 4t1 Street in Sprawltown to provide bike lanes 4. Sidewalk on east side of NC 500 from NC 340 to Old NC 340, with crosswalk to provide access to Hometown High School 5. L &N Greenway on abandoned rail corridor from Hometown to Sprawltown These priorities have been agreed upon by representatives of Hypothetical County, the Town of Hometown, and the Village of Sprawltown. Hypothetical County Sign Name: Date: Print Name: Town of Hometown Sian Name: Date: Print Name: Village of Sprowltown Sign Name. Print Name. Draft Project Prioritization Policy — December 6, 2012 2 Return to Agenda Quantitative Project Scoring After projects are submitted by local jurisdictions at the county level, the projects will be scored by TARPQ staff based on the quantitative criteria described below. There are separate scoring methodologies for highway projects and bicycle/pedestrian projects. Highway Each county will have submitted a list of u12 to 10 highway projects in ranked order. As an initial basis for determining the quantitative score, each project will receive points based on its rank within the county - level project lists as follows: # 1 Priority in Count 100 points # 2 Priority in County # 6 Priority in County 50 points # 2 Priority in County 90 points 20 points # 7 Priority in County 40 points # 3 Priority in County 80 points # 8 Priority in County 30 points # 4 Priority in County 70 points # 9 Priority in County 20 points # 5 Priority in County 60 points # 10 Priority in County 10 points In addition to this rank -based score, projects will also receive points based on a range of data- driven criteria, including congestion, crash history, economic development, multimodal elements, jurisdictional collaboration, and plan consistency. The specific criteria and point amounts are explained in the worksheet on the next two pages. Bicycle and Pedestrian Each county will have submitted a list of up to 5 bicycle or pedestrian projects in ranked order. As an initial basis for determining the quantitative score, each project will receive points based on its rank within the county -level project lists as follows: # 1 Priority in County 50 points # 2 Priority in County 40 points # 3 Priority in County 30 points # 4 Priority in County 20 points # 5 Priority in County 10 points In addition to this rank -based score, projects will also receive points based on an range of data - driven criteria, including safety, connectivity, plan consistency, and jurisdictional collaboration. The specific criteria and point amounts are explained in the worksheet on the next two pages. Project Scoring Worksheet The following worksheet details the points associated with the quantitative criteria, and will be used to score each project. The first page is for highway projects and the second page is for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Draft Project Prioritization Policy — December 6, 2012 33 Return to Agenda 34 Highway Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX Countywide Ranking (choose one of the following — 100 points maximum) *#1 *#2 0#3 *#A 4111"#5 *#6 0#7 048 *_4'9 0#10 *unranked 60 Congestion (choose one of the following — 10 paints maximum) * Existing volume /capacity ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 (10 points) 0 Existing volume /capacity ratio greater than or equal to 0.8 but less than 1.0 (7 points) 0 Future projected volume /capacity ratio greater than or equal to 1 .0 (5 points) 5 * Future projected volume/capacity ratio greater than or equal to 0.$ but less than 1.0 (3 points) 0 * All other projects (0 points) 0 Crash History (choose one of the following — 8 points maximum) Location with a high crash severity score (SPOT crash severity score of 100) (8 points) 0 * Location with a moderate crash severity score (SPOT crash severity score of 66) (5 points) 0 * Crash rate that is more than 1.4 times higher than the state average for similar roadways (equivalent to SPOT crash density score of 100 ) (5 points) 0 *i Crash rate that is near or slightly over the state average for similar roadways (equivalent to SPOT crash density score of 66 ) (3 points) 3 All other projects (0 points) 0 Economic Development (choose one of the following — 5 points maximum) Project that provides direct access to an active industrial/business park development site OR proposed new employment location with more than 200 employees 5 points) 0 Project that provides direct access to an existing employment center (one or more employers in close proximity) with more than 200 employees (3 points) 0 All other projects (0 points) 0 Multimodal Elements (choose one of the following -- 7 points maximum) * Includes facilities/features for all 3 of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (7 points) 0 * Includes facilities/features for 2 of the following. bicycles, pedestrians, and /or transit (5 points) 0 Includes facilities/features for i of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, or transit (3 points) 3 * All other projects (0 points) 0 Jurisdictional Collaboration (choose one of the following — 5 points maximum) * Project involves collaboration between two or more jurisdictions (5 points) 0 All other projects (0 points) 0 Consistency with Plan (choose one of the following — 15 points maximum) Project comes from an adopted CTP (15 points) 15 Project comes from a current draft of a CTP that is in development but not yet adopted (10 points) 0 Project comes from an adopted plan other than a CTP (such as a comprehensive plan, land use plan, capital improvement plan, or other locally- adopted document) — THIS ONLY APPLIES IN AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE A CTP (10 points) 0 * GRAND All other projects (0 points) TOTAL 0 • Calculate Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project's TARPO Quantitative Score Ranking within County: Project's TARPO Quantitative Score Ranking within Region: SPOT Points Assigned to this Project by TARPO: Return to Agenda 35 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX Countywide Ranking (choose one of the following — 50 points maximum) 0#1 0#2 *# 3 * #d 0#5 unranked 30 Safety (choose one of the following — 20 points maximum) Pedestrian project (sidewalks, crosswalks) on roadway with a reported pedestrian- related crash in 0 last five years (20 points) Project adds sidewalks on road with 75000 AADT that does not currently have any sidewalks OR project adds sidewalks on road with 710000 AADT that only currently has sidewalk on one side 0 OR project adds crosswalks on road with 710000 AADT (20 points) Project adds sidewalks on road with 72500 AADT that does not currently have any sidewalks 10 OR project adds sidewalks on road with 75000 AADT that only currently has sidewalk on one side OR project adds crosswalks on road with 75000 AADT (10 points 0 On -road bicycle project (bike lanes, wide outside lanes, shared lane markings) on roadway with a 0 reported bicycle- related crash in the last five years 20 points) 0 On -road bicycle project on road with 720000 AADT 0 OR on -road bicycle project that provides parallel route to a road with 720000 AADT (20 points) 0 On -road bicycle project on road with 710000 AADT 0 OR on -road bicycle project that provides parallel route to a road with 710000 AADT 10 points) Off -road greenway that is available to pedestrians and bicycles and is physically separated from 0 roadways (20 points) All other projects (0 points) 0 Connectivity (choose one of the following — 10 points maximum) Projects that connect two previously disconnected (or inconveniently connected) sections of bicycle or 0 pedestrian infrastructure missin links) 10 points) Projects that connect neighborhoods with schools and /or colleges (10 points) 10 * Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a central business district, shopping center, 0 ark, hospital, or major employment center (5 points All other projects (0 points) 0 Plan Consistency (choose one of the following — 15 points maximum) ■ Project is identified in an adopted bicycle or pedestrian plan, or in a CTP (15 points) 0 Project is identified in some other type of local plan or document (such as a capital improvement 0 !an) (5 mints All other projects (0 points) 0 Jurisdictional Collaboration (choose one of the following — 5 points maximum) Project involves collaboration between two or more jurisdictions (5 points) 5 All other projects (0 points) 0 GRAND TOTAL Calculate Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project's TARPO Quantitative Score Ranking within County: Project's TARPO Quantitative Score Ranking within Region: SPOT Points Assigned to this Project by TARPO: Return to Agenda 36 SPOT Point Assignment Once all projects have been scored according to the quantitative criteria, TARPO staff will develop a ranked list of projects within each county and within the region as a whole based on the outcome of the scoring. This ranked list will be used to develop the recommended point assignments that are presented to the public for comment and to the RTCC and RTAC for approval. For highway projects, the recommendation will call for the three top - scoring projects within each county to be allocated 100 points each. Additionally, the next - highest scoring project within the region will also be allocated 100 points, to reach TARPO's total point allocation of 1300 points. In the event that there are less than 3 highway projects submitted or desired within a given county, additional remaining projects will be drawn rased on the regionwide rankings to reach the full 1300 point total. Example. The highway projects within each county were ranked as follows. County A County B CountxC County Q Project A I — 130 pts Project 81 — 145 pts Project C 7 — 123 pts Project D I — 137 pts Project A2 — 726 pts Project 82 — 98 pts Project C2 — 7 7 0 pts Project D2 — 135 pts Project A3 — 7 13 pts no more projects Project C3 -- 7 10 pts Project D3 — 7 28 pts Project A4 — 100 pts Project C4 — 105 pts Project D4 — 117 pts Project A5 — 87 pts Project C5 — 96 pts Project D5 — 105 pts Projects AI, A2, A3, 81, 82, Cl, C2, C3, DI, D2, and D3 would each receive 100 SPOT points for being within the top 3 projects in their counties. Since County B only had two projects, two additional projects will receive points from the remaining pool. Project D4 would receive points as the next- highesf- scoring remaining project. Either Project C4 or Project D5 would receive the final points, with the RTAC determining the tie- breaker. For bicycle and pedestrian projects, SPOT requires TARPO to identify and rank its top Uwe regional priorities. The recommendation from staff will call for the top - scoring bicycle/pedestrian project within each county to be identified as one of the I• Wregional priorities, with any remaining slots taken by the next - highest scoring projects in the region. The %ri selected projects will be submitted to SPOT in the order of their quantitative score. Any tie- breakers will be settled by the RTAC. Example. The bicycle/pedes trio n projects within each county were ranked as follows; County A County B County C County Q Project A I — 70 pfs Project B I — 100 pts Project CI —90 pts no projects Project A2 — 55 pfs Project B2 — 90 pfs Project C2 — 65 pfs Project A3 — 50 pfs Project B3 — 65 pts Project C3 -- 45 pts Projects A 1, 8 7, and C7 would be selected as the top projects within their counties. Project B2 would be selected as the next - highest- scoring project in the region. Either Project 83 or C2 would be selected as the fifth project, with the RTAC determining the winner of the tie. TARPO would rank B 1 as its # 7 project, with B2 and C I filling #2 and #3 (with the RTAC to determine the final order due to the tied score), A 7 as #4, and either 83 or C2 as ##5. These recommended point assignments will be presented to the RTCC and RTAC for their review and approval. The RTCC retains the discretion to make recommendations to the RTAC regarding changes to list. The RTAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local points, and retains the flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it believes there is a justifiable reason to do so. Draft Project Prioritization Policy — December 6, 2012 6 Return to Agenda Public Participation in Proiect Scorina Process As part of this project scoring process, TARPO will post the county -level priority lists, the results of the quantitative analysis, the recommended SPOT point assignments, and the final adopted SPOT point assignments on its website. The public is invited to submit comments via the website, email, phone, or mail, as well as in person at RTCC and RTAC meetings. Additionally, the RTAC will hold a public hearing at the start of the meeting in which it plans to approve the SPOT point assignments. Amendments to Polic This policy may be amended by a majority vote of the members of the RTAC. Prior to adopting an amendment, the proposed amended policy should be made available for public comment and a public hearing should be announced. Following adoption of an amendment, a copy of the new policy should be provided to NCDOT to ensure compliance with SL 2012 -84. Adoption A motion was made by and seconded by for the adoption of this policy, and upon being put to a vote it was duty adopted on December 6, 2012. Randolph Voller Chair, Triangle Area RPO RTAC Matthew Day Secretary, Triangle Area RPO RTAC Version Date: December 6, 2012 Previous Versions: note Draft Project Prioritization Policy — December 6, 2012 37 Return to Agenda ze C N E L V (9 Q O Z W C) LLA ti 4 U W V R C 97 Q O C 7 d d' -o -R Q d CD @ D p t1f t[) l[i Ln N i0 It N co t- �1 4F} 7+ t� BY Q p E *t4 G y G la Q •.JI Q to M ca ra "Ci [�F N r LU H ry N r (� N r N F'3 @ N @ CV O N 4 N m lu C4 Ill 7 C7 Z C C_ 4 G 7 M ;:F. 'P`' C 7 C7 0 a 49 7 6U N AL LC a7 U7 [} U CL c 0 0 CD o w � =; Attachment 9 T R t A N 0 L E .1 C 0 lJ N C I L O F 0 0 V E R N M E N T S_ Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization �T►► Meeting Agenda T Q' DECEMBER b, 2012 76a oral Planning QrgioUlon at Lee County Government Center, Wicker Room • 106 Hillcrest Drive • Sanford, NC 27330 Agenda Item 12a: State Ethics Act Requirements for RPOs Background: Session Law 2012 -142 was passed by the General Assembly in 2012 and requires that MPQs and RPOs will be treated as boards for the purposes of the State Government Ethics Act (Chapter 138A of the General Statutes). This will be effective on January 1, 2013. The two main requirements of this act (in addition to conducting business in an ethical manner) are the completion of an annual statement of economic interest and an annual training course. This requirement will apply to all members and alternates of both the RTCC and RTAC, as indicated on the attached membership roster. Action Requested; For information/discussion only Chatham County • Lee County • Moore County ■ Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Pox 122761 (4307 Emperor 81vd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919) 558 -9397 Fax (919) 549.9390 Return to Agenda .1 MPOS, RPOS & THE STATE GOVERNMENT ETHICS ACT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHAT IT IS &WHO IS INCLUDED. I. What is the State Government Ethics Act & why does it apply to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Planning Organizatioos (RPOs)? The State Government Ethics Act establishes a code of conduct for certain public officials and employees. In 2012, the General Assembly passed legislation designating NWOs and RPOs as "boards" under the eth ,act. 2. Are both the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) & the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) covered by the ethics act? Yes. Since both the TCC and TAC make up the MPO or RPO, both committees are covered. 3. Since both the TCC and the TAC are covered by the State Government Ethics Act, does that mean that all members of the TCC and TAC ate subject to the ethics act? Yes. All votive members, including alternates, of both the TCC and TAC of each MPO or RPO are covered by the ethics act. 4. When does the law become effective? January 1, 2013, DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL & OTHER. INTEREST 5_(STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST OR "SEI" ). 1. What is an SEI and what do I have to disclose? An SEI is a 22 question disclosure about your and your immediate family members' financial, business and professional relationships. 2. How do I file my SEI? Under the law passed by the General Assembly, you must file your SEI electronically. There is information on the Commission's website about obtaining a user ID and password (NCID) and filing the form. Instructions on obtaining an NCID & how to electronically file an SEI are on the Commission's website. 3. Should I file my SE1 prior to January 1, 2013? No! Your SEI will be based on responses to the questions as ofI]ecember31, 2012. 4. What is the SEI filing deadline? April 15, 2013. 5. Is there a penalty for not filing, late filing, or filing an incomplete SEI? Yes. The State Ethics Commission may impose a $250 fine for late filing or failure to file, and you may be removed from your board. membership. There are also criminal penalties for Irnowingly failing to disclose information or providing false information. f. Am I required to list the amount of my, or my immediate family member(s)', income? No! Question 10 on the SEI requires you to list "sources" of income, but not specific amounts, of more than $5000. Return to Agenda EDUCATION. 1. Am I required to attend ethics education? 41 Yes. You must attend an Ethics & Lobbying Education Presentation no later than June 30, 2013 and at least every 2 years thereafter. 2. Does the ethics education for LQcaA government officials meet the ethics act education requirement? No. The ethics education presentations for local government officials and the ethics act are based on different laws. Tbexefore, one cannot satisfy the requirement for the other, 3. If I have previously attended ethics education sponsored by the $torte Ethics Cornniission, do I have to attend again? Flo. If you have attended an ethics education presentation sponsored by the State Ethics +Conurissioa within the last 2 years, you do not have to attend again. However, you are still subject to the 2 -year refresher requirement. 4. What are the options for fulfilling the ethics education requirement? You may attend a live presentation either in Raleigh or at a distance location. You may also fulfill the requirement by completing the Commission's online ethics education presentation. 5. Where can I get information about ethics education options? A schedule of dates and locations for live presentations as well as access to the online presentation are available on the Commission's website. PROHIBITIONS & RESTRICTIONS. L Are there conflict of interest standard? Yes. In your xole as ' an MPO or RPO member, you are prohibited froze taking certain actions where you or certain other individuals or entities associated with you may receive a benefit. There are some exceptions to the conflict of interest rules. 2. Does the ethics act prohibit accepting "gifts"? Yes, from certain individuals, including registered lobbyists, lobbyist principals, and individuals or entities which have certain relationships with your MPO or RPO. There are also exceptions to the gift ban. 3. Is using my title as an MPO or RPO member restricted? Yes, in certain circumstances primarily dealing with non - governmental advertising. What do I do if I have a question ?! Contact the .State Ethics Commission! Phone: (919) 715 -2071 E- Mail.: SEI Questions: lei @doa.nc.gov Education Questions: Education.EsEics at d {)a.nc. cav All Other Questions. ethics.commmission a doa.nc, rov .State Ethics Coivxinion 2012 Return to Agenda Attachment 10 Orange Unified Transportation Board KIMC] Calendar '11 DATE TIME LOCATION January 16, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough February 20, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough March 20, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough April 17, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough May 15, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough June 19, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough July 18, 2013 7:00 P.M. No meeting August 21, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough September 18, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough October 16, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough November 20, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough December 18, 2013 7:00 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Return to Agenda