HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-13-2010 APPROVED 6/1/2010
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
May 13, 2010
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May
13, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice
Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson ( arrived at 8:49 pm) Bernadette
Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant Manager Willie Best
and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers will be
identified appropriately below)
1. Draft Social Justice Goal
Human Rights Commission Chair Joe Nanney thanked the County Commissioners for
listening tonight and for the support in the past. He said that a social justice goal is an attempt
to ensure that all the members of the community have an equal voice in what goes in our
community and in the life of our community. He gave the history of the social justice goal:
February 2004, 2005, 2006 — Feedback was solicited from diverse segments of the County
population including County human services departments, the Orange County Human Services
Management Team (internal), the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and the Human Rights
and Relations (HRR) Department. More feedback was provided by individual citizens as well.
Research was also undertaken to inform the development of these goals.
October 2007 — A draft written Social Justice Goal was presented to the BOCC at a regular
meeting.
February 2008 — The goal was further discussed on February 12, 2008 at a joint work session
with the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and the BOCC. After the work session the HRC
edited the draft goal based on these discussions.
April 2008 —At the request of the BOCC, the HRC presented the environmental justice criteria
from the Social Justice Goal at a Solid Waste Transfer work session on April 15, 2008, and the
BOCC instructed the consultants to incorporate those criteria into all future drafts of the
Community-Specific Criteria for the site search.
November 2008 — The revised version of the draft was presented at the November 6, 2008
BOCC Meeting. Commissioner comments were received and plans were made to consider
this further at the next BOCC Retreat in 2009.
January 2009 — Item was not considered at the 2009 BOCC Retreat due to time constraints.
This goal reflects many hours of discussion over the years. No one in the United
States has a social justice goal except the State of Washington.
He said that there are no specific budget requirements for this goal. How it is
implemented is entirely up to the Board of County Commissioners. In passing this goal, the
Board is only saying that there are values and that everyone in the community is important.
Having a social justice goal will assist the Board of County Commissioners in all decisions that
affect the citizens of the County. He introduced former Chair Bill Hendrickson.
Bill Hendrickson encouraged the Board to read the entire goal document. He
suggested that the Board work through the goal one step at a time over several years. He
said that it would mean a lot if the Board worked through this with the Human Relations
Commission over the years and implement the suggestions in this goal.
Commissioner Gordon thanked all for their good work and persistence.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners always has a
financial impact on all agenda items and he suggested having a social justice impact on all
abstracts to look at all they do to incorporate social justice conscience into their work. He
would like to bring this goal to the forefront.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the part that says, "ensure economic
sufficiency" and said that she does not think that the Board can ensure this and she suggested
saying something like "promote economic sufficiency." Joe Nanney said that he could change
it to "promote."
Commissioner Pelissier asked what the County Commissioners would be asked to
adopt — page 5 or page 6. She said that to directly talk about funding of the goals can be
problematic. Joe Nanney said that it would be up to the Board.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she likes the vision and goals with minor tweaking.
Frank Clifton said that Orange County is involved in a lot of these issues already. He
said that the group did talk about measuring the accomplishments. He said that he would
eventually like to develop some processes that are continued on a regular basis to evaluate
progress in certain areas.
Chair Foushee said that the Manager's comments lead to the next steps of tweaking
language and moving forward towards implementation in the future.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it was appropriate to ask Housing and Community
Development Director Tara Fikes and the HRC to work on this instead of the Manager.
Frank Clifton said that Tara Fikes could deal with the follow-up items.
Tara Fikes said that the Board of County Commissioners is interested in a formal
recognition and adoption of goals that are laid out in the document. The next step would be to
talk about the monitoring of the evaluation and implementation.
Commissioner Pelissier said that there are counties that do have reports on measuring
social justice issues and she would not like to invent the wheel again. She suggested looking
at some of these models.
2. Trianqle Transit Reqional Half-Cent Sales Tax, Vehicle Reqistration Fee, and
County Transit Plans
Frank Clifton said that the County Commissioners will authorize either the referendum
for the half-cent sales tax and/or the vehicle registration fee. He suggested that any of that
action also incorporate discussions of the County's transit system and the cost of operation to
the County's system. Right now the County's operation costs about $800,000+ a year. Of
that, roughly $400,000 is direct County expenses. One of the goals should be that the County
benefits from the action taken.
Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced transit representatives — David King of
Triangle Transit, Jerry Passmore with Orange Public Transportation, and Steve Spade with
Chapel Hill Transit. He said that Jerry Passmore would be retiring and Orange Public
Transportation would be moving to the Planning Department for a time. He said that over the
last few months there has been a presentation to all local governments about what has been
done since a local bill went into effect to provide some revenue sources for the Triangle
counties to come up with funding sources for a long-range regional transit plan that will likely
be a light-rail system. This is the beginning of a long process. By the fall of 2011, there could
be a referendum to talk about a half-cent sales tax, which could generate about $5-6 million
and a vehicle registration fee that could generate $1 million.
Triangle Regional Transit Program
%2 sales tax— could generate $5-6 million
Vehicle registration fee — could generate $1 million
There is a public involvement steering committee called Triangle Regional Transit Program.
Craig Benedict has been appointed to that and has been working with a consultant known as
URS. All of the different facets of the long-range plan are being examined by this committee.
Craig Benedict will be giving regular updates to the County Commissioners regarding actions
that the Board may have to take.
Regional Transit Plans Aspects
•Local revenue projections & financial scenarios;
•Regional Transit Plans (STAC, 2035 LRTP);
•Transit services operating programs; and
•Transit plans for counties within the Triangle Transit service area.
David King from Triangle Transit made the next PowerPoint presentation.
Regional Transit Planning Update
David King, General Manager
Quick Background
- Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAC)
- Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
- Passage of NC House Bill 148 — Congestion Relief & Intermodal 21St Century
Transportation Fund
- Financial forecasts
o What can we afford?
o Analysis of sales and use tax forecasts post
Financial Model: Revenues
Revenue Assumptions
- %2-cent sales tax in Orange County — approximately $5 million annually (annual growth
rate of approx. 2.0% to 2015, 2.5% beyond)
- $10 additional vehicle registration fee in Orange County - $1.2 million annually
- $460,000 per year from Triangle Transit Major Transit Investment Fund
- Orange County Local Government Contributions
o $0 in Year 1
o $560,000 in Year 2 of plan
o $1.12 million in Year 3 of plan and beyond
- $87 million in borrowing
- State and Federal contributions assumed
Financial Model: Expenditures ($YOE)
- Light Rail Construction Leigh Village — UNC Hospital ($347 million)
- Bus Operations & Maintenance ($132 million)
- Debt Service ($87 million)
- Rail Operations & Maintenance ($61 million)
- Enhanced MLK Bus Facilities Construction ($27 million)
- Eleven new bus purchases and their replacements every 12 years ($12 million)
Financial Model: Balances
- Total Revenue: $673 million
- Total Expenditures: $667 million
- Funds balance in 2035: $6 million+
Elements of the Plan
- Expanded bus service
- Light Rail Transit (LRT)
- Express Rail
o Amtrak
o High Speed Rail
o Commuter
Regional Bus Expansion (map)
Orange County Draft(map)
- 9 new buses year 1
- 2 new buses year 2
- 34,000 new bus hours
Possible Regional Transit Vision (map)
Possible LONG range vision (map)
Maximizing Light Rail & Express Rail
- Light rail links neighborhoods for intra-city travel, short trips
- Express rail links commuters with job centers, pulling two sides of region closer
together
Benchmark Tarqet Date
STAC Plan (completed) May 2008
LRTP (completed) May 2009
Intermodal Bill (completed) Summer 2009
Regional transit planning Winter 2009/2010
Alternatives Analysis Summer/Fall 2010
MPO approval vote of Regional Transit Financial Plan TBD
County approval vote of Regional Transit Financial Plan TBD
Referendum authorized by County Commissioners TBD
Referendum Campaign TBD
Successful Referenda Vote Fall of 2011
Bus expansion, engineering, and construction begin TBD
Partnership with NCDOT, NCRR, and Triangle Transit TBD
Opening Day TBD
Creating a transit plan is an iterative process
Step One:
Create a Financial Model that projects how much we can afford
Step Two:
Seek technical analysis of proposed corridors, technologies, and costs
Alternatives Analysis: What it IS
- Process to help define transit technology and general alignment for rail, bus or other
transit projects
- Analysis will be performed by nationally recognized experts
- Analysis will include
o Public involvement
o Refining expected costs and financial plan
o Analysis of transit-supportive land uses and policies (i.e. parking, urban design)
o Conceptual design of major infrastructure elements
Alternatives Analysis: What it is NOT
- Picking exact locations for all stations
- Designing all infrastructure to completion (bridges, parking lots, etc.)
- Setting the timetables for the transit service
- A guarantee of federal funding
- A completed environmental document
Contact: dkinq(c�trianqletransit.orq
David King said that Congressman David Price is in favor of this and this is very helpful.
He said that the challenge as a region is to balance two sets of priorities — the County
Commissioners have to look at the plan and what makes sense for Orange County and what
makes sense for the region.
Steve Spade, Transit Director for Town of Chapel Hill, made a PowerPoint
presentation.
Draft
Orange County Transit Plan
Background
- STACC process — a long-term look at transit needs in the Triangle
o Recommended light rail and expansion of local/regional bus services
- MPO adoption of STAC recommendations
- Transit local option tax legislation
o New source of funds for transit operating and capital activities in urban areas
■ %2-cent sales tax
■ Vehicle registration fees
- Regional effort begins
o Local jurisdictions asked to develop local plans
o Late 2008 —Transit staff and Triangle Transit collaboration on legislative effort
■ Message for legislators
■ Testing financial model
o Early 2009 — effort expanded to include Orange County and Hillsborough
■ Understand pending legislation
■ Examine assumptions and priorities
■ Identify potential service needs
o Late 2009/2010 — Legislation passed...how do we move forward
■ Discussions with Triangle
■ Begin discussions with policy leaders
■ Discussions with neighboring systems and counties
o Spring 2010 — initial presentation to policy bodies
■ AOG
■ Public Transit Committee
Planning Efforts in the Triangle
- Regional Plan
o Utilizes STAC and adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plans
o Collaborative effort between Triangle Transit and local transit staff
o Identifies costs to build and operate light rail and expanded local bus service in
Triangle
o Regional financial model identifies funds available for construction and
operation of light rail and local bus service
- County Plans
o Meant to identify local bus service improvements within funding limitations
Purpose — Orange County Transit Plan
- Develop a bus service improvement plan that:
o Supports efforts to secure long-term stable transit funding
o Supports light rail in the Triangle
o Advances urban public transit in the Triangle
■ Local Bus
■ Regional Bus
■ Light Rail
o Fits the regional financial model
o Facilitates policy level discussion of transit
Ideas put forth in the plan
- Provide an alternative to property tax
- Support existing operations
o Allocate a portion to support existing CHT (local) operations
- Use sales tax to support local services
o Expansion of local service
o Regional services that connect smaller communities with urban network
- Sales tax support for new bus service would be phased down
- Emphasize operating projects or capital local match
- Fit within the regional financial model
Services Concepts
- Service concepts designed to:
o Test the financial model
o See what 34,000 hours of service means
o Tried to include what we understood as countywide needs
o Placeholder for policy discussion
- Services
o Expanded Chapel Hill-Carrboro-UNC services
o Provision of service in Orange County, Hillsborough, and adjacent counties
o Bus Rapid Transit on Martin Luther King Blvd.
Issues identified for policy discussion
- Cost sharing
o Leigh Village Light Rail Line
o Mebane to Durham bus service
o Alamance to Chapel Hill bus service
- Financial impact of ridership shifts from bus to rail
- Idea of reducing sales tax subsidy for new services
o Potential of local support
Next Steps
- Summer 2010 — Staff discussion of plan
o Local transportation planners
o Coordinate with Triangle Transit
o Coordinate with Durham County
o Direction from managers
- Fall 2010 — engage policy leaders
- Spring 2011 — have plan that has policy leader support
- Fall 2011 — Referendum?
Frank Clifton said that he does not know what role UNC will play in this process. He
said that he has heard that UNC is disappointed that they have not been included in this
process yet.
Steve Spade said that UNC is part of the public transit committee. He said that when
they started working on the planning process, they thought that staff was taking in the needs
of the University. The University's concern is that it is seeing longer trips out of Durham and
Raleigh, and about 30% of their employees live in either Chatham or Alamance Counties. He
said that one of the challenges is to get the UNC policymakers to the table with the elected
officials.
Frank Clifton said that he would like to know UNC's perspective.
Steve Spade said that UNC is the key with 60% of the funding and 80% of the
ridership.
Chair Foushee said that UNC is a critical piece because the University has made it
clear that it would rather spend more money on this plan than on building more parking lots.
She said that this cannot be ignored.
Frank Clifton said that tonight is the first time that he saw Orange County participating
to this depth up to this time.
Craig Benedict said that the University has been missing from the stakeholder
involvement.
Steve Spade said that UNC is an active player in the planning and has been active in
the discussions about the Orange County Transit Plan, as well as collaborating with the other
transit systems. Also, he said that they believe it is important for the County to participate in
this process.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he and others were on the Carolina North committee
and at that time they heard that nearly 30% of UNC's employees live in Orange County. He
said that in the long-range vision slide, there is still no robust connection between Hillsborough
and Carolina North. Hillsborough is building a train station to be on the commuter line and
UNC is going to build a hospital if Alamance Regional lets them. There is a four-lane section
of I-40 between Hillsborough and Carolina North. He said that it seems that there should be a
much higher visibility connection than what he saw on the maps tonight.
David King said that he gets a lot of mixed signals about the University railroad. He
has always looked at this railroad corridor as a God-send and within the last several weeks the
Chancellor has said that the University is going to get away from coal. Also, there is a lot of
ambivalence and hostility toward development in all parts of the corridor. If there is to be light
rail, it would have to serve development, and north of Carolina North, none has been
contemplated or discussed.
Commissioner Nelson arrived at 8:49 PM.
Steve Spade said that he has been working with the University, and they are torn as to
which corridor to place the emphasis. The long-term growth will be toward Carolina North.
David King said that the fact that the University and the hospital are so parking
constrained and the way that this is dealt with currently is to build a new deck, then both the
University and the hospital are motivated to see this light rail system put in place.
Commissioner Jacobs said that Triangle J Council of Governments purposely involved
UNC in the Development and Infrastructure Initiative to get them to the table to talk about
transportation and to participate. He said that it seemed that the UNC representative was the
most resistant to talking about collaborating. He said that the next step is to get the University
actively involved.
Frank Clifton said that as customers shift from one transit to another, then one entity is
going to be handicapped. For example, when people shift from buses to light rail, then the bus
system will be handicapped. He thinks that there has to be more discussion about how to
bring people together so that one system's benefit is not another system's demise.
Commissioner Pelissier said that Orange County is going to be responsible for placing
a referendum on the sales tax. She asked who would keep all of the elected officials informed
and updated on all information.
Steve Spade said that the staff agrees about keeping everyone informed. The
University, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill are actively engaged in all of this. Hillsborough and the
County elected officials have not been as involved.
Frank Clifton said that he has tried to keep his elected officials informed but there
needs to be open dialogue at the table when all elected officials are together.
David King said that one way for the local governments to be informed is like Wake
County, where he and the Manager go to every municipality and speak on this topic. He said
that he would be glad to do that here.
Commissioner Gordon agreed that it is critical to include the other partners such as
UNC and Hillsborough. She said that most of the key issues are stated, but the one key issue
she did not see is the mode — light rail transit or express rail/commuter rail. The timing and
financial implications differ for each.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Wake County route was definitely going to go
through Durham and David King said that this has to be tested through the alternatives
analysis process. Light rail has the reputation of serving dense and developing areas.
Commuter rail is faster and cheaper. He said that from Alston Avenue to Cary, there is no
density. This needs to be discussed more.
At this time, there was a short break.
3. Oranqe County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Update
Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln made a PowerPoint presentation. She said that
the Board requested additional information at the February 2, 2010 BOCC meeting regarding
development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Board is being asked to
explicitly endorse a course for proceeding with the Plan.
The Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board, at its meeting on April 21, received
notification from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Planning Division
7 that it was unwilling to support the County's proposal for a phased construction plan for
"unscheduled" improvements to NC 86.
In response to NCDOT's unwillingness to support the County's proposal, the OUT
Board unanimously recommends the Board of Commissioners explicitly:
- Endorse the principle of strategic highway corridors
- Proceed with development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to include NC 86
as a strategic highway corridor; and
- Make a statement to the North Carolina Department of Transportation stressing the
Board is 1) troubled by the Department's use/requirement of a particular design for all
highways designated a strategic highway corridor, as every area is different and a
"cookie cutter" design may not be the best way in every instance to achieve mobility to
meet traffic needs; and 2) concerned also that the Department dictates a design for the
corridor without local input and prior to any contextual planning studies for the corridor
improvements.
ADVANTAGES
NC 86 adopted as Future Expressway
- Orange County moves forward with establishing a framework for planning multi-modal
transportation improvements
- TIP projects can be programmed from the CTP (NCDOT may require in the future)
- The CTP is not a static document and is to be reviewed and amended periodically
- The ultimate design for expressway will not be considered until traffic conditions
warrant it because of scarce transportation dollars and more urgent projects
- Changes in NCDOT organization
- Traffic is increasing on NC 86 and is not going to use another route, it is better to plan
for the future now
Request Change of Facility Type for NC 86
- The six-month delay to request an amendment to the State Strategic Highway Corridors
Vision Plan will not change NCDOT's priority for developing the County's CTP but there
is no guarantee of State Transportation Planning staff immediate availability to proceed
afterward
- Current 2035 traffic projections for NC 86 north of NC 57 do not warrant an expressway
- The County may be successful in downgrading the future facility type for NC 86 and be
more confident in adopting the CTP
DISADVANTAGES
NC 86 adopted as Future Expressway
- NC 86 is adopted by the County as a strategic highway corridor with a future
expressway design
- If the County does not adopt the CTP, the new CTP prioritization process would give
Orange County a low priority for NCDOT coordination in developing a CTP
(prioritization considers the last attempt of developing a CTP)
- There is no guarantee that the NC Board of Transportation will approve a future
request to amend the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan for NC 86
Request Change of Facility Type for NC 86
- A request to first amend the State Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan will delay
the CTP process for approximately six months; the County may have to wait until
NCDOT Transportation Planning staff is available to resume the study.
- There is no guarantee that the NC Board of Transportation will approve a request to
amend the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan for NC 86
- If the Board of Transportation does not approve the County's request for NC 86 design
and the County does not adopt the CTP, the new CTP prioritization process would give
Orange County a low priority for NCDOT coordination in developing a CTP
(prioritization considers the last attempt of developing a CTP)
Level of Service (LOS) — in everyday terms, Level of Service is how well traffic is moving on a
particular road.
There were various maps and charts
EXPRESSWAYS BOULEVARDS
Functional Purpose High mobility, low to moderate Moderate mobility, low to
access moderate access
AASHTO Design Arterial Arterial or Collector
Classification:
Posted Speed Limit: 45 mph to 60 mph 30 mph to 55 mph
Control of Access: Limited or partial Limited, partial, or none
Traffic Signals: Not allowed Allowed
Driveways:
Limited Control: Not allowed Not allowed
Partial Control: Right in/right out Right in/right out
Cross-Section: Min. 4 lanes with median Min. 2 lanes with median
Connections: Interchanges at major cross At-grade intersections at
streets major and minor cross streets
At-grade at minor cross
streets
Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
Opportunities for Public Involvement
Develop CTP vision:
Adopted goals and objectives of the Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan
Conduct Goals & Objectives Survey—
Goa/s and objectives were established in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, a survey for citizen input regarding transportation needs has been completed.
Develop alternatives (highway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian)
- Public workshop (presentation of data and projections and deficiency analysis)
- Public comment period
- OUTBoard coordinates with pertinent advisory boards
Develop Recommended Orange County CTP
CTP Committee develops Recommended Alternative based on data, comments from
public workshop, comments from advisory boards
- Public workshop to present recommended alternative
- Present to advisory boards for comment
- Present to BOCC for comment
Develop Final Orange County CTP
CTP Committee develops final recommended plan considering comments from public
workshop, advisory boards, and BOCC
- BOCC holds public workshop on final plan
Adoption of Final Plan:
- Orange County
- NCDOT
Commissioner Gordon asked staff to state what happens if the County does not have a
comprehensive transportation plan and why it needs one. Karen Lincoln said that the portion
in the MPO will be developed by the staff and the adjacent jurisdictions. There will be a plan
there and it should be concurrent with the County's. If the County does not have one, then
things will go on as they are now. In the future, if it is required and there is not one, it will be
hard to get projects in the TIP. Craig Benedict said that it will be a requirement for the TIP.
Commissioner Pelissier said that this presentation helped her understand more about
this issue and she is gathering that if the County adopted this plan, then she knows DOT is not
going to adopt an expressway unless there is more volume. Since the County is not endorsing
development, then it cannot be an expressway.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if other priorities could be added to the CTP after Orange
County adopts this CTP. Karen Lincoln said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs asked why they were only discussing NC 86 if there are other
priorities and Karen Lincoln said that NC 86 is the sticking point.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 3, attachment 1 and suggested saying
"public hearing" instead of "public workshop" on these slides.
Craig Benedict said that the recommendation is to proceed with the CTP with a
phased-in component for intersection improvements.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the OUT Board made recommendations based on not
doing a phased plan, but the third bullet has some issues with the design. He asked how this
would be addressed.
Karen Lincoln said that this is just a statement and the County would be endorsing the
concept.
Commissioner Gordon noted again that the OUT Board had endorsed this.
The Board agreed to have staff draft a proposal for the CTP and bring it back to the
Board on a consent agenda.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to reconvene the closed session at 9:53 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
reconvene into open session at 10:25 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn
the meeting at 10:25 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board