Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate public representation, structure in proposed amendment to Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority agreement
Summary
Board members questioned whether the proposed interlocal agreement amendment for the Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority removes direct user representation and discussed options including reopening the interlocal agreement, creating an advisory group, and the authority's recent route and ridership changes.
The board discussed a proposed amendment to the interlocal agreement governing the Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority (CFPTA), also known as Wave Transit, and heard questions about whether the revised agreement reduces direct representation of regular transit riders.
A staff member summarized the proposed change as formalizing appointments so that each governing body is represented by an elected official and professional administrators. A commissioner raised concern that the amendment removes or has removed an official seat for a Wave user and asked where public riders would have a formal voice on the authority.
"It's one thing to have your 2 to 3 minutes in front, another thing to be at the table," said Commissioner Scalise, urging the board to consider how regular riders could participate beyond public comment. Commissioners and staff reviewed the interlocal agreement's history: county officials previously withdrew from CFPTA when the authority was in poor financial condition; on reengagement the membership structure was changed to prioritize elected officials and professional administrators to manage the authority's financial and strategic decisions.
A staff member said reopening the interlocal agreement to add a rider representative would require negotiation with the City of Wilmington and could not be done unilaterally by the county. The staff member explained, "If the board chooses to open it up, you can, but the way board does not have the authority to itself appoint a member that's not otherwise allowed for in the interlocal agreement."
Commissioners suggested alternatives to changing the interlocal agreement, including creating an advisory committee or an ex officio slot for a rider, to provide regular riders more direct input without altering the current voting composition. Board members also discussed risks of changing board composition; one commissioner noted that adding a seat could create an even number of voting members and risk split votes.
Separately, county and Wave Transit appointees described recent operational changes. Staff said the authority recently reconfigured routes to increase frequency on higher‑use corridors (shifting some routes from 60‑minute headways to 30‑minute headways) and that ridership trends show promising increases in some months. The board noted the county has increased Wave funding in recent years and credited administrative changes for stabilizing the authority's finances.
No formal board vote on reopening the interlocal agreement was recorded during the discussion; staff said the board could direct staff to reopen negotiations with the city if commissioners wished to pursue a change.
