Charlotte committee recommends MOU backing for new regional transit authority; members weigh appointments and board qualifications

The Transportation Planning & Development Committee recommended that the full City Council approve a memorandum of understanding (MOU) establishing steps for appointing members to the new regional transit authority if a proposed referendum passes. The committee voted 4–1 to send the MOU forward after lengthy discussion about appointment language, candidate qualifications and timing.

Committee chair Ed Driggs opened the Sept. 2 discussion by noting the MOU aligns local steps with the state law that would create the authority if voters approve the countywide referendum. “What is happening here is the all the members of the MTC have established a timeline for actions that we need to take towards, the implementation of our mobility plan if there, the referendum is successful,” Driggs said.

What was in the MOU and why it matters

The MOU reproduces statutory appointment categories from the PAVE Act (state law cited in committee discussion, noted in the MOU materials) and outlines that the largest municipality’s governing body (the council) will appoint 12 members. Committee members sought clarity about whether the MOU’s language or the underlying statute controlled appointment terms; city legal staff advised the statute (the PAVE Act) governs. City and county attorneys also warned that changing the MOU now would require other municipalities and the county to reapprove the document because most towns had already voted to adopt the same text.

Board composition and qualifications

The PAVE Act, and the MOU’s recital of it, directs that trustees have demonstrated experience in law, finance, engineering, public transportation, urban planning, government, architecture or economic development. Committee members pressed staff about how candidate vetting would work in practice and expressed interest in ensuring the board includes individuals with lived transit experience (for example, long‑time transit operators or riders) as well as technical expertise.

City clerk and legal staff explained the initial screening for statutory minimums (residency, disqualification for lobbyists or elected officials) will be performed by clerks and legal staff; clerks would also identify applicants who meet the statutory categories for “demonstrated experience.” Committee members asked for a simple rubric the council could adopt to provide clarity on how “demonstrated experience” will be judged and to ensure transparency for applicants. Several members also asked that the city attorney prepare a written memorandum explaining how the clerks and legal staff will interpret statutory qualification language.

Timing and process concerns

Committee members reiterated that the MOU does not itself create the authority: “This memorandum of understanding is really just a procedural instrument to get you to the point where the authority will be stood up should the voters approve the referendum,” the city attorney said. The county is scheduled to notice a public hearing Sept. 3 and act Sept. 16; towns had previously approved the MOU. Some members voiced concern that appointments and other transition steps are being scheduled before voters decide the referendum, saying that public outreach and messaging must continue and that the council should be transparent about next steps.

Vote and next steps

The committee vote to recommend the MOU to council passed, 4–1. Councilmember Renee Johnson stated she would vote no in committee, raising broader concerns about public questions and timeline. The committee also asked staff to return with a short legal memo explaining clerks’ and attorneys’ roles in vetting applicants and recommended that the council consider a simple rubric for candidate qualifications at a future meeting.

Ending

With towns and the county largely having approved the MOU, staff said any change now would require reapproval by multiple jurisdictions. Supporters argued that recommending the MOU to full council ensures the city will be coordinated with other jurisdictions should the referendum succeed; opponents urged continuing public conversation and clearer candidate vetting guidance before final council action.