HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-19-2011 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
BOCC Budget Public Hearing
May 19, 2011
7:00 pm
(DOORS OPEN AT 6:00 PM)
Department of Social Services
Hillsborough Commons
113 Mayo Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
1. Opening Remarks
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board
asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to
observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until
that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will
recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be
turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
2. Presentation of County Manager's Recommended FY 2011-12 Budget (PowerPoint
Presentation)
A copy of the County Manager' Recommended FY 2011-12 Budget can be found at the
following website: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/finance/budget docs.asp
3. Public Comment
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
4. Orange County Transit Plan: Draft Financial Plan for Rail and Bus Investment
5. Adjournment
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
We are glad to have this opportunity to hear from the citizens of Orange County on the
Manager's Recommended FY 2011-12 Budget and we hope that as many as possible will be
able to speak within the time allotted.
• The DSS Building will not be available to the general public until 6:00 p.m.
• Public comment sign up will begin at 6:00 p.m.
• A table near or at the back of the room will have numbered sign-up sheets (please
print legibly).
• Speakers will be called in sign-up order.
• At Public Hearings, Commissioners traditionally do not comment in order to allow
citizens to have the maximum time to express opinions.
• Speakers may only sign-up for themselves, to insure speakers are present.
• The maximum speaking time allotted will be 3-minutes/per speaker.
r '4,
Si jf!
Triangle Regional Transit Program � #t
The Orange County
Bus and Rail n t Plan Investor e
May 19, 2011
M,z
*b 44 .
.i,
`�/ � r
\
- `„� ' i �_
1�IS!.. '.•��f. A
,,_ ���� �•,/�
;#,vf� -: _ •� l►�
Adj
.
tow
1
i 1 ♦. ,
It/4
Ik
4r AM
WWI
�!
is .
.o/ �► .
AVA �� �!►. �
1
I All Col:
re
NI Ar
/it..` ,� 1� i/ �+j* z�v !I/ '
�_.
® 3
rte „ ~ � � 4'. F� ��.t. .'.. . .. 1�� `
r
Ilk
10, -
lost@ else Is$ . . . -
. . do . . . .
'---
�� r►
TARO
'INAIN
WWI
NOW
AA
LIT -�+•NIA , lam- �, C r►
.< 4,/ J
MAJAK
W ►�•, �/ +��i Pty
�1 ,I* Sw
� �\\ � �`•ii���`�.r •� I �t -ham � � � •t�
4,00h- Wr
,VMS/,- loom oe
IL
1 'I. ,fit / �}
M 'A 0.00 to 0.80
0.80 to 1.00
100000 50000 25000
4 .
Miles
Ilk + s ��►L� ��,� t
Lapp L" ✓" �r
AM
mp
VIA-N
- ,
��
�` � �"...-a-."•"- 1G� i�.� �,,. "� ,y.� 1�',
1
rza soft
Or
Vr
JIM-
036 E+C Peak Hour
0.00 to 0.80
0.80 to 1.00
. ►� .�► IL
00001 50000 25000 . • • • - • 1 • - -
0 2 4
Miles
Forbes Raleigh-Durham Named
America's Biggest Gas Guzzler
R
Regular
Gasoline
3 9 2 10 !
Plus
Gasoline
Premium
Gasoline 41610
"The cities and suburbs of `The Triangle' are close enough that people
don't think twice about driving from one to the other. Yet in doing so, the
average household racks up 21 ,800 miles per year. Assuming an average
20.3 miles per gallon, that means burning through 1 ,074 gallons per year,
about $4,200 at current prices."
Christopher Helman — Forbes — May 2011
, r
Quick Background
Triangle Regional Transit Program `9P•
0
➢ Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAG) — 2008
Joint MPO Long Range Transportation Plan — 2009
➢ Passage of HB 148 Congestion Relief and 21St Century
Intermodal Transport Fund - 2009
➢ County Bus Planning — 2010 to 2011
➢ Alternatives Analysis — 2010 to 2011
AMR"
t PA- WU-,V&m
.41
Bus Planning
Triangle nagional Transit Program
• new service
• increased frequency
• park and ride
•
oil
Financial IVIode' l Input
Balance • Bus : Rail -
Settings for variables
Plan
Use of borrowing
Plan must be affordable'
Alternatives
Analysis
• Light Rail
• Commuter Raild � .
• Stations
MW
; .
• Cost Estimates �`
Elements of the
Triangle Regional Transit Program
DRAFT Bus P lan
'g� •
LOCAL - Service Improvement CH, C UNC in the 15/ 501 corridor
REGIONAL — Carrboro- CH- Durham Express (Route 405) By Year 1
REGIONAL — Mebane — Hillsborough — Durham Express
LOCAL — 54 Corridor Improvements (Orange and Durham Counties)
LOCAL — Support existing services
6. LOCAL — Chapel Hill — Carrboro — UNC Sunday Service
7. LOCAL - Hillsborough Circulator By Year 3
8 LOCAL — Chapel Hill — Carrboro — UNC Saturday Service
9, REGIONAL — Route 800 — SW Durham (Southpoint) — Chapel Hill peak
10. RGP- Improve service in unincorporated Orange County
11. LOCAL — Extend evening service in Chapel Hill — Carrboro- UNC
12. REGIONAL — Carrboro — Chapel Hill- Durham Express (Route 405) — Saturday
13. REGIONAL — Chapel Hill — Regional Transit Center via Southpoint (Rte. 800) — Saturday
LOCAL — Hillsborough Circulator
REGIONAL — Hillsborough — Chapel Hill (Route 420) - peak
1 Bus = 3,150 bus hours
t
' f
DRAFT Bus Plan Continued Triangle Regional Transit Program #
16. RGP — Improve service in unincorporated Orange County By 2035
r
17. REGIONAL EXP — Pittsboro — Chapel Hill Express
18. REGIONAL — Route 805 — RTC via SW Durham (Woodcroft) Chapel Hill
19. LOCAL — Improve peak hour bus frequency Chap I Hill Carrboro UNC
t
Durham-Orange (Light Rail)
LRT
u� Duke Duke Duke Medical Station Locations
�r
} LRTAIrtrent and Medical Medical Center (c) 010
Station Location ` Center(a) Center (b) Durham-Orange
r LRT and Location 010 010 Count Corridor
anti Station LocaDon ''1/2Mile Radius a-f .. Ninth < y
Circle or 200 / 4
LRT Station at * a +�
Commuter Rail Station 10-MInUt@ '+
U�fDI$ n Buchanan 010
Pro
Park-and posed
R ids
Spaces LaSalle
Durham
Q15
50416 3001 Existing
Bus Center
Proposed
Proportional Sues Numbers of
orproposed Feeder Dillard O 1 O
Park-and-Ride Bus Bays `
Facilities +
(Surtace
Lot Areas)
r
• Alston
50014
South Square (b)
Patterson South Square (a)
,a Place 30016 `
ti.. MLK 30015
Gateway
50017
(a) Meadowmont (a) "
014
010
UNC Hamilton (b)
(c) 010 .. `
0 /4 Leigh Village March 28. 2011
Hamilton (a) 3
UNC 010 1,000 / 7
(d) .
` V 147
0l4 •' 'IN �...
�.��''`'-�- Woodmont (b) < 200 I 0
• +, Friday Center (a) 0 / 0
Wo 1/2 1�I' Pr°gragementServices
Mason Farm 3001 2 Friday Center (b) 010 �
g trkr it.rrry.
11
!' DRAFT Orange •
w>
Investment Triangle Regional Transit Progran; j t
Plan
................
Bus Investment Rail Investment
• New bus hours by end of • Opening year of Light Rail —
FIRST yea r — 22,050 hrs 2025
• New bus hours by end of • LRT Capital Cost - $330 m
THIRD year - 44,100 hrs • LRT Annual Operating Cost —
• Total number of new bus $3.2 m
hours by 2035 — 50,400 hrs
• MLK Busway Improvements
completed -2017
Sales Tax Growth Rate
• Potential Rail Dividend Bus
3.6 %
Hours — 30,000 to 45,000
z
--
UQUIM"F111
►�► , - ' ,'IIM
t
Financial Resources
Triangle Regional Transit Program
available for Transit
➢ Local revenue in Bus and Rail Transit Investment Plan
%2 sales tax
$7 vehicle registration fee
$3 increase in Triangle Transit vehicle registration
fee
Rental car tax revenue
State participation - 25% assumed
➢
Federal participation – 50% assumed
----------—-------------
k
rs
t
Approval Process Triangle Regional Transit Program j i
DCHC MPO
• Approves Bus and Rail Investment Plan
Triangle Transit Board of Trustees
• Approves Bus and Rail Investment Plan
Orange & Durham County Commissions
• Approves Bus and Rail Investment Plan
• Authorizes referendum
* All municipalities within Durham and
Orange County must receive copy of Bus
and Rail Investment Plan for review
jft
Proposed Schedule
Triangle Regional Transit Program � t
Orange County
• DCHC TAC Bus and Rail Investment Plan Review — May 11
• BOCC Review Bus and Rail Investment Plan — May 19
• Carrboro Board of Aldermen Review B & R Investment Plan — May 24
• Chapel Hill Town Council Review B & R Investment Plan — May 25
• BOCC Review of B & R Investment Plan — June 7
• DCHC TAC consideration of D/O B & R Investment Plan — June 8
• Hillsborough Town Commission Review B & R Investment Plan — June 13
• BOCC Approval of Orange B & R Investment Plan and Authorize Referendum
— June 21
• Triangle Transit Board Approval — June 22
** Potential DCHC TAC Approval of D/O B&R Investment Plan — Third week of June
15
u
y,
All b
s ` pop,, ,fl
tiltr
suoiisanz)
.
pue u
0 i� wei6nod psue j leuae6a y al6anyL
Orange County Bus & Rail Investment Plan
AL,
The DRAFT Orange Bus and Rail Investment Plan consists of new local and regional
bus service and a light rail connection to Durham.
Bus provides urban and regional service with stops Light rail provides urban and regional service with
between 1/10th and 1/4th mile. It operates with auto stops between 1/4th and 2 miles. It operates in a
traffic. fixed guideway or travel lane in the street.
- Expanded bus service could begin _ - Initial planning and
- Expanded bus hours by end of FIRST year engineering begins
- Expanded bus hours by the end of THIRD year - Opening year
-Total expanded bus hours by 2033 - Length of corridor: 17 mi.
-Travel time:34 min.
-Avg.Speed: 29/30 mph.
Why we need transit options?
- Our region was recently named America's top "gas guzzler" by Forbes (May 2011)
-The 15-501 Corridor is one of the most congested in the region. (DCHC NPO)
• GrO -The region is expected to grow by 1.5 million people by 2025 (U.S. Census)
- Number one area in U.S.where people are relocating (Forbes)
• Maintain High Quality of life- Best Place in America to Live (Money Magazine)
- One of the 10 Best Places in the U.S.to Raise Kids (Business Week)
• Protect the Environment-A single light rail vehicle removes 60 to 125 cars from the road
-The Triangle accounts for 12.7 million gallons of fuel wasted annually because of congestion (Texas
Transportation Institute)
• Remain Economically Competitive- one of the top ten places in U.S.to start a business
(Entrepreneur Magazine) - One of the Best U.S. Metro Areas for Job Creation (Business Journals)
5/19/11
Orange County Light Rail Investment
Legend: - Duke Medical Duke Medical'
LRT Alignment and Center (A) Center (B)
Station Location
FM
LRT Alternate Alignment c d�
and Station Location 112 Mile Radius Ninth Street
LRT Station at C�rcleor Buchanan ��
Commuter Rail Station 10-Minute
Walk istance Boulevard
(%
� Durham
Dillard
Street
x
,-77 Alston
South Square (B) Avenue
t
Patterson ''
Place ;~
South Square .A,
q ( )
Gateway
MLK Jr. Parkws �.a�
Weadowrriont
lane (A) I
UNC
(A) Hamilton
B
Road (
)
UNC '
(C) Hamilton Leigh Village
Road (A)
UNC 0 1h 1 ile�
(D) ,
\\\ �./.• •° Woodmont (B) Durham - Orange County
Mason Farm Friday Center Drive (A) LRT Corridor
Road Friday Center Drive
. 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N.Benedict,AICP,Director
Comprehensive Planning 306F Revere Road
(919) 245-2589 P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us °4,16 Cat u North Carolina,27278
ImmWMINMEJ*"
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 5, 2011
To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Via Frank Clifton, County Manager
CC: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Donna Baker, Clerk to the BOCC
From: Mila Vega, Land Use/Transportation Planner
Subject: Regional and Local Transportation Planning Initiatives Update
PURPOSE: To provide an update on the ongoing regional and local transit development efforts
and decide on a work session date for certain aspects.
BACKGROUND: Planning staffs of various local governments and UNC have been meeting
each month since last summer to work on the Triangle Regional Transit Plan (TRTP) that
includes development of the Orange-Durham light rail line and Orange County bus service plan.
Orange County elected officials and managers that include Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) Chair Bernadette Pelissier, Commissioner Valerie Foushee and County Manager Frank
W. Clifton, Jr., have been meeting to discuss the financial implications of the program. The
elected officials group reviewed numerous financial scenarios to determine the cost-sharing
arrangement associated with the transit project between Orange and Durham Counties. Planning
staffs were charged with providing elected officials with technical information necessary to reach
the decision (attachments 1, 2, 3,4).
A draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan was developed for Orange and Durham Counties
(attachment 5). The plan and approval schedule were presented at the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC)meeting on May 11, 2011. After
receiving and discussing the presentation, TAC members made a motion to release the draft
financial plan for public comments. The public will have 30 days to review and comment on the
plan. DCHC TAC is scheduled to approve the plan on June 8, 2011. Our schedule is tentative but
Orange County BOCC may be expected to review the plan on June 7, 2011, adopt the plan and
decide on 1/2 cent sales tax referendum on June 21, 2011 (attachment 6).
The Board can discuss the plan and schedule details at its May 26 budget work session if it so
2
Page 2 of 2
decides.
Attachment(s):
1. TJ COG Shares LRT Benefits Paper
2. Rail Segments Cost
3. Orange-Durham Revenues/Costs Comparison
4. Financial Scenarios
5. Draft Durham—Orange Bus and Rail Investment Plan
6. Tentative Project Approval Schedule
i
Attachment 1 3
Shared Benefits
Examining Light Rail Transit Investments Near the Durham-Orange County Line
May 9, 2011
Goal
Provide elected officials with objective information about Light Rail Transit (LRT) investment
benefits and costs to inform discussions on how to pay for both bus and rail investments with
any locally-controlled sales tax and vehicle fee revenues.
Sew
The planned Light Rail Transit investment would closely parallel the Durham-Orange County line
as it approaches Chapel hill's Gateway station from the east near 1-40 and US 15-501 until it
heads west-ward toward UIVC-Chapel Hill from the Friday Center station along NC54. Half-mile
"walk access zones" at the Gateway Station, Meadowmont or Hillmont Stations (which lie along
alternative alignments) and the Friday Center would all be partly in both counties.
Discussion Framework
A Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment along the 17-mile corridor in the
Triangle Transit Alternatives Analysis would provide benefits to citizens and enterprises in both
Durham and Orange Counties, especially since the most intense and transit-supportive activities
are located at both ends of the line: UNC-Chapel Hill on the west and Downtown Durham and
Duke University on the east. These benefits are expected to overlap most significantly in the
"area of greatest mutual benefit" along the Durham-Orange County line described above.
Discussions among decision-makers about the investments have centered around three
elements: the different types of new revenues that might be available and their sources by
location; the costs of the investment, and how these costs relate to the amount of bus service
that could be provided in each county, and the benefits of the investments, and the degree to
which these benefits can be attributed to citizens and enterprises in each county.
New Revenues
Revenues for an LRT or BRT investment could come from several new revenue sources (in
addition to the existing Triangle Transit rental car tax, which will also supply funding):
1. Federal "new starts" $: 45 or 50%federal share assumed; federal $ required in finance model
2. State "intermodal bill" $: 25%state share assumed; state$ required in finance model
3. Local % cent sales tax: included in finance model
4. Local $7 vehicle fee increase: included in finance model
5. Triangle Transit$3 increase in vehicle fee: included in finance model
6. Local government value capture: potential source; not currently in finance model
7. Institutional contributions: potential source; not currently in finance model
8. Parking deck or lot charges: potential source; not currently in finance model
9. Rider fares: included in finance model
Page 1 1
4 ,
Figure 1. Area of Greatest Mutual Benefit
The proposed Durham-Orange
LRT line is 17 miles long and
would serve 17 stations. The
�s Patterson
Place map at left shows the area of
greatest mutual benefit near
the Durham-Orange County line
between the Patterson Place
GatE station and Friday Center
station, a distance of 5.3 miles
or about 30%of the total line.
rham City— Station-to-station distances are:
Ch el Hill Future
Municipal Boundary Feet Miles
Patterson Place
—Gateway 5,400 1.0
Gateway—Leigh
Village 10,700 2.0
Leigh Village—
a
Meadowmont 9,800 1.9
Leigh Village—
�°, o Hillmont 8,800 1.7
U
�� igh Meadowmont—
Village Friday Center 2,100 0.4
p Hillmont—
_t' Friday Center 3,000 0.6
Patterson Place-
Friday Center via
Hillmont 27,900 5.3
Patterson Place-
64 Friday Center via
Meadwomont Meadowmont 28,000 5.3
The map shows the Durham-
Orange County line, the
Friday Red dots are station locations in eventual Durham City-Chapel
Center Hillmont
the Triangle J COG GIS alignment Hill municipal boundary, the
Ak layer;actual locations would be two alternative LRT alignments
Mlev
"os defined through the EIS process (one via a Meadowmont station
and the other via a Hillmont
station), station locations, protected greenspace and major roadways in the area.
Revenues in the financial model are summarized on page 3; for more detail on the financial model,
contact Patrick McDonough with Triangle Transit at pmcdonough @triangletransit.org.
Page 12
5
Table 1. Revenue Assumptions and Amounts in the Financial Model($2011)
Revenue Source Durham County Orange County
Federal funding 50%Capital 50% Capital
State funding 25%Capital 25%Capital
Local % cent sales tax $490 million $ 130 million
Local $7 vehicle fee $34 million $18 million
Triangle Transit$3 vehicle fee $15 million $8 million
Local government value capture $0 $0
Institutional contributions $0 $0
Parking deck/lot revenues $0 $0
Rider fares $51 million $11 million
Triangle Transit rental car tax $28 million $14 million
Light Rail Transit Costs
The table below summarizes the capital costs in Year 2011 dollars associated with the stations
and fixed guideway segments between the indicated stations.
Table 2. LRT Capital Costs (in millions of 2011 dollars)
Park& Ride spaces/
Patterson Place—Gateway Segment $ 80 bus parking bays:
Gateway Station $ 5 500 / 7
Gateway—Leigh Village Segment $ 95 --
Leigh Village Station (includes$15 million parking deck) $ 22 1,000 / 7
Leigh Village—Hillmont Segment $118 --
Hillmont Station $ 3 <200 / 0
Hillmont—Friday Center Segment $ 24 --
Leigh Village—Meadowmont Segment $108 --
Meadowmont Station $ 2 0 / 0
Meadowmont—Friday Center Segment $ 27 --
Friday Center Station $ 2/$ 13 0 / 0
Friday Center-Hamilton Segment $ 30/$ 68
--
Alston Avenue- Patterson Place (including stations) $647 1,300 to 1,600; bus
Hamilton—UNC Hospital (including stations &tail track) $183 parking bays vary
Total capital cost via Meadowmont (via South Square East) $ 1,410* --
Total capital cost via Hillmont (via South Square East) $ 1,380* --
Items in RED denote costs for Hillmont route. Items in BLUE denote costs for Meadowmont route
*includes$171 million for maintenance yard and shop not attributed to any particular segment.
Benefits
This document focuses on the third element of the discussion: the benefits that would accrue
to citizens and enterprises, and especially the most direct and quantifiable benefits that can be
linked to specific locations along the corridor.
Page 13
6
Benefits Framework
The most important framing issue is that the entire investment will provide benefits to both
Durham and Orange County residents and enterprises, including businesses and universities.
Assigning benefits to particular places will always involve simplifications, and will depend at
least in part on assumptions that are used. This document is designed to provide a common
foundation of objective information, while acknowledging simplifications and making
assumptions transparent, so that changes or alternatives can be considered and all parties to
the discussions have access to the same information. It is also important to view forecasts of
ridership, property value impacts and other modeling-dependent measures as approximations.
Benefits
A wide range of benefits could result from an LRT investment, only some of which are
quantifiable and only some of which can be reasonably attributed to residents and enterprises
based on their location. A full range of potential benefits is listed at the end of this document.
This document focuses on three specific benefits: Ridership on the light rail system, property
value (and tax) benefits from the investment and congestion relief or delayed need for road
investments based on the investment.
Ridership on the LRT
100%
Each trip has 2 trip g0% Figure 2. Trip
ends: the place 80% ends by location
(traffic analysis zone, 70%
or TAZ) where the 60%
trip begins and the 50% Other Counties
place (TAZ) where the 40% - ■Durham County
trip ends. To better 30% ®Orange County
understand who uses 20%10% -
different segments of 0% -
the investment,the Gateway- Leigh Village- Leigh Village—
accompanying chart Patterson Place Gateway Hillmont
and table show the Ne._. _T_ _
distribution of trip ends(either beginning or end)for the following rail segments in the vicinity of
the Durham County-Orange County line.
Table 3. Trip Ends by Light Rail System Segment Gateway- Leigh Village- Leigh Village—
(each trip has 2 trip-ends) Patterson Place Gateway Hillmont
UNC-CH zones 1,110 (9%) 1,120 (12%) 2,040 (20%)
Other Orange County zones 3,390 (28%) 2,480 (26%) 2,610 (26%)
Duke University zones 1,625 (13%) 1,095 (11%) 890 (9%)
Other Durham County zones 5,300 (44%) 4,170 (43%) 3,495 (34%)
Zones outside of Durham and Orange Counties 645 (5%) 755 (8%) 1,135 (11%)
Total trip ends(trips=%:this number): 12,070 9,620 10,170
Page 14
7
KEY POINTS:
1. Ridership numbers indicate that the Gateway station serves as an important boarding station
for Orange County residents destined for Duke University and other Durham locations, while
the Leigh Village station serves as an important boarding station for trips destined to UNC-
Chapel Hill.
2. All of these segments (and likely many others) clearly benefit both counties, with the mutual
benefit most pronounced on the Leigh Village—Hillmont segment, where 46%of trip ends
are associated with Orange County locations, 43%are associated with Durham County
locations and 11%are associated with Chatham and Wake County locations.
IMPORTANT CAVEATS:
1. Ridership is for the Year 2035 and comes from the Regional Transportation Model version being
used by Triangle Transit for the alternatives analysis process, known as Version 4e2. It is a
modified version of the model used to develop the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, and
differs from version 5 which will be used for the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. All
modeling results, especially those for small segments of the transportation system, should be
viewed as approximations.
2. The land use analysis of the on-going NC 54 Study suggests that more development can occur in
the area examined in this analysis than is in Version 4e2 of the model. If so, it might influence the
distribution of trip ends.
3. Significant future changes to parking costs and constraints at UNC-Chapel Hill compared to those
assumed in the transportation model could affect ridership forecasts. More constrained parking
at Duke University could also influence mode choices for residents in the study area who travel to
Duke.
4. In considering benefits (including ridership) and the other components of transit investments:
bus-hours of service, revenues and costs, metrics can be viewed in several ways, including in
aggregate or on a per-capita basis. Currently, Durham County has almost exactly double the
population of Orange County(267,587 vs. 133,801 according to the 2010 Census). According to
the state demographer, by 2030 Orange County is projected to have 42% of the population of
Durham County.
Page 1 5
8
Property Value and Property Tax
Increases in property value (and resultant property tax revenues) associated with LRT
investments have been well-documented. These increases are made up of two components:
1. Additional amounts and types of development that can occur because of the transit
investment. More intense development may be both marketable and able to secure local
government approval because of the greater access and mobility provided by the investment.
2. Greater per-unit value for any given type and amount of development because of the mobility
and access benefits associated with the LRT investment. Several studies of LRT investments
have found per-unit value premiums for properties closest to LRT stations, including single
family home and condominium sales prices, apartment rental rate, office real estate value and
retail real estate value. The nature of these premiums vary widely among the studies.
The Gateway, Leigh Village, Meadowmont and Hillmont stations were examined to identify the
potential for transit-oriented development in each jurisdiction, based on the amount of land
within a half-mile radius of a station location and the amount of this station area in protected
greenspace and land less likely to develop or redevelop because of its current use (for example,
existing single family residential homes). These station areas are mapped and described on the
next page.
KEY POINTS:
1. Property value and tax revenue benefits from station area development and redevelopment
would accrue primarily to:
a. Gateway Station: Chapel Hill, Orange County and Durham County.
b. Leigh Village Station: Durham City and Durham County
c. Hillmont Station: Chapel Hill and Durham County
d. Meadowmont Station: Durham County, Orange County, Chapel Hill
2. In Orange County, virtually all new station area development is anticipated to be nonresidential;
in Durham County, it is anticipated to be a mix of residential and nonresidential development.
3. UNC-Chapel Hill could also see a "redevelopment" benefit if the Friday Center park-ride lot is
displaced by park-ride facilities associated with the Leigh Village Center or other locations.
IMPORTANT CAVEATS:
1. Exact station locations, and more precisely the locations of pedestrian entrances to the stations,
will affect the station walk zones and implied property value benefits associated with easy access.
2. Where stations are close together, pedestrian access zones overlap, and benefits would be
divided among stations depending on ease of access.
3. Parcels "less likely to develop" were identified using the parcels and methods of the NC54
corridor study, focusing on the physical characteristics of land. Actual development and
redevelopment potential involves a more complex set of issues, especially where large insti-
tutional parcels are involved; for example on UNC property or at the Blue Cross Blue Shield site.
Page 16
9
The map to the left
shows the %-mile radius
around the Gateway,
soy
Leigh Village,
Meadowmont and
Hillmont Stations, how
these station areas align
Gate ay with current county
boundaries and planned
municipal boundaries,
; and the amount of land
&Durham City—
apel Hill Future in each station area that
Municipal Boundary is in protected green
space (green) or land less
likely to redevelop (grey).
The areas shown in
white have the highest
? development potential.
U (
E The table on the next
Leigh
0 4 itilke page summarizes the
amount of land most
likely to develop or
redevelop in each station
Meadow r ont area by county, dividing
the Durham County
portion between parcels
�. on the west side of 1-40
accessible to LRT
I r.
(
.� stations) and the east
side of 1-40 (not
accessible unless high
H' rat quality pedestrian
overpasses are built).
a aize a]! Each % mile radius circle
contains 503 total acres.
Figure 3.station area development potential
(areas in Lv r'i that are not streets have the highest potential for development or redevelopment based on physical
characteristics)
Page 17
10
Table 4. Station Area land with highest development or redevelopment potential(acreage)
Station Orange Durham County Durham County Total Amount of land in
County west of 1-40 east of 1-40 % mile radius circle
Gateway 48 63 54 165 503 acres
Leigh Village 0 214 27 241 503 acres
Meadowmont 43 76 0 119 503 acres
Hillmont 0 130 0 130 503 acres
A comparison of assessed property values in Meadowmont to assessed values for an existing single
family residential area north of Meadowmont suggests that land developed as a walkable, mixed-
use development on the scale of Meadowmont would yield almost three times more property
value and property tax revenue on a per-acre basis than land developed as suburban housing.
Congestion Relief
People traveling by car could receive benefits from the LRT if it results in fewer cars on area roads.
Selected highway links on NC54 and US 15-501 were analyzed to show trip ends associated with
the same 5 areas as the LRT ridership analysis: UNC-Chapel Hill, other Orange County zones, Duke
University, other Durham zones and zones outside of Orange and Durham counties. Table 5 shows
roadway users who might benefit due to people using the LRT investment. The version of the
travel demand model used in this analysis (the one used for the 2035 Long Range Transportation
Plan) did not show discernable impacts on roadway congestion from building the LRT.
Table S. Trip Ends by Roadway Segment US 15-501-West of 1-40 NC 54-W of Farrington Rd
(each trip has 2 trip-ends): Number % Number
UNC-CH zones 7,690 6% 27,635 17%
Other zones in Orange County 52,294 39% 40,311 24%
Duke University zones 4,684 3% 533 0%
Other zones in Durham County 50,398 37% 62,737 38%
Zones outside of Durham and Orange
Counties 19,446 134,478 21%
Total trip ends(trips=%this number): 134,513 100% 165,694 100%
KEY POINTS:
1. Like transit riders, roadway users are widely distributed among the two counties; significant
percentages also come from Chatham and Wake Counties, especially along NC54.
2. The traffic modeling results did not show any discernable congestion differences between
building the LRT and the "no-build" alternative, so benefits to road users may be slight.
IMPORTANT CAVEATS:
1. Results are for the Year 2035 and come from the Regional Transportation Model version used to
develop the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, known as v4. Results, especially those for
small segments of the transportation system, should be viewed as approximations.
Page 18
11
Other Benefits
This report focused on three benefits— LRT ridership, property value and tax revenues, and conges-
tion relief on parallel roadways—that are both quantifiable and "place-based," meaning the benefits
can be more readily tied to particular locations. The list below shows a full range of benefits that
have been attributed to Light Rail Transit Investments, including ones difficult to quantify or ascribe
to specific locations. Note that development associated with an LRT investment is unlikely to result
in additional sales tax revenues, although it may affect where people make some purchases.
Table 6. Benefits of Rail Transit Investments
Environmental Benefits
Reduced traffic congestion
® Reduced fuel consumption
Better air quality
o Reduced sprawl and more efficient pattern of development at the regional scale
® Conservation of open space
® Shorter trip lengths due to more compact development
Economic and Fiscal Benefits
• Reduced or deferred road and parking facility costs
• Economic development benefits from agglomeration efficiencies and increased productivity
• Increased property values
• Increased property tax revenues
• Ability to reuse/redevelop property currently used for parking (e.g. Friday Center lot)
Social Benefits
• Improved social cohesion through positive interactions among people in a community
• Improved fitness and health as a result of increased walking and biking to access transit
• Reduced traffic accidents
• Improved transportation options, particularly for non-drivers
• Reduced consumer transportation costs
• Improved access to job opportunities for workers, increased labor market shed for employers;
improved ability to retain workers concerned with transportation costs and reliability
• Neighborhood revitalization and better links between workforce housing and job sites
• Expanded market access for customers and clients (e.g. to UNC clinics)
Note: List generated from discussion among Chapel Hill, Orange County, Durham City,Triangle Transit
and Triangle J COG staff at a meeting on March 25, 2011 and from the following reports: Fogarty,
Nadine et al. Capturing the Value of Transit, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, November 2008;
Cervero, Robert et al. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States:Experiences, Challenges, and
Prospects, Report 102,Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2004; Litman,Todd, Comprehensive
Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits,Victoria Transport Policy Institute,June 2006.
Page 19
12
Additional Technical Materials
The following technical materials are available to provide more detail relative to the area of
greatest mutual benefit and the analysis of LRT ridership, property value and tax revenue,
roadway congestion, LRT system costs and revenue assumptions for transit investment scenarios:
1. Shared benefit area mapping. Large-format map showing parcel level detail of the area
overlaid on aerial photos. Information shown includes parcel boundaries, road rights-of-way,
county line, future municipal boundary, protected green space, LRT alignment alternatives,
approximate station locations, % mile radius around station locations. (contact: John Hodges-
Copple at Triangle J COG)
2. Developable and Redevelopable Land. Large format map and accompanying excel spreadsheet
showing acreage of protected land, land unlikely to further develop or redevelop and land with
the highest potential for development and redevelopment, by county and relationship to 1-40.
Mapping shows the same layers as in #1 above and is overlaid on aerial photos. (contact: John
Hodges-:,opple at Triangle J COG)
3. Mixed use vs. Single Family value. Large format map and accompanying excel spreadsheet
showing the comparison areas used to compare the value of mixed use (Meadowmont) vs.
single family housing, and the resulting valuations for the comparison areas and on a per-acre
basis. (contact: John Hodges-Copple at Triangle J COG)
4. Cost estimates by segment and station for the LRT investment alternatives. (contact Patrick
McDonough at Triangle Transit)
5. Cost estimates by service type for bus investment priorities by county. (contact Patrick
McDonough at Triangle Transit)
6. Revenue estimates and assumptions by county that can be applied to rail and bus investments.
(contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit)
7. Revenue and cost estimates and assumptions by county for a range of rail and bus investment
scenarios. (contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit)
8. LRT Ridership. Excel spreadsheet of link ridership in production and attraction format for
segments in the area of greatest mutual benefit, summarized for trip ends by 5 aggregations of
Traffic Analysis Zones (UNC-Chapel Hill TAZs, other TAZs in Orange County, Duke University
TAZs, other TAZs in Durham County, TAZs in Chatham and Wake Counties). (contact Patrick
McDonough at Triangle Transit)
9. Roadway travel and congestion. Excel spreadsheet of trips on selected highway links, showing
trip ends for the same 5 aggregated areas as in #8 above for both an alternative with the LRT
investment and a "no-build" investment. Also includes volume/capacity ratios for the
segments. (contact Yanping Zhang with the DCHC MPO).
10. NC 5411-40 Corridor Study reports. Reports include land use recommendations around Leigh
Village, Hillmont and Meadowmont. (contact Leta Huntsinger at DCHC MPO)
Page 1 10
Rail Segments and Stations Costs (May 2011)
Segments/ Cumulative
Facility Stations Costs Costs
UNC Hospital - Hamilton (including stations & rail track) $183.00 $183.00
Hamilton - Friday Center Segment (Hillmont Route) $30.00 $213.00
Friday Center Station $2.00 $215.00
Friday Center- Hillmont Segment $24.00 $239.00
Hillmont Station $3.00 $242.00
Hillmont - Leigh Village Segment $118.40 $360.40
Leigh Village Station (includes $15 million parking deck) $22.00 $382.40
Leigh Village - Gateway Segment $95.00 $477.40
Gateway Station $5.00 $482.40
Gateway - Patterson Place Segment $80.00 $562.40
Patterson Place - Alston Avenue - (including stations & rail track) $647.00 $1,209.40
Maintenance Facility $171.001 $1,380.40
D
n
3
cn
N
W
it
��I�
��
Orange-Durham Revenues and Costs Comparison
Estimated Revenues 2012-2025
Total Durham
Durham County Orange Orange
1/2 cent sales tax $M $490.0 $130.0 $620.0
Percentage of 2 counties total 112 cent sales tax no VRF' 79% 21% 100%
Vehicle Registration Fee $M $49.0 $26.0 $75.0
Total 1/2 cent + VRF $539.0 $156.0 $695.0
Percentage of 2 counties total sales tax + VRF 78% 22% 100%
Rail Capital Costs
LRT Total Cost via Hillmont + Maintenance Facility (MF $1,378.25
Commuter Rail Cost $300.00
f
Total 2 rail lines + MF $1,678.25
Cost-Sharin I Scenarios
270.98
Durham Count 78% of LRT via Hillmont minus MF $936.27
Orange Count 22% of LRT via Hillmont + Commuter Rail minus MF $338.32
Durham Count 78% of LRT via Hillmont + Commuter Rail minus MF $1,168.93
Orange Count 22% of LRT via Hillmont + Commuter Rail + MF $376.70
Durham Count 78% of LRT via Hillmont + Commuter Rail + MF $1,301.55
Total Rail Maintenance Facility Cost $171.00
VRF—vehicle registration fee D
z MF—maintenance facility
n
3
CD
w
to
�II
4'
l'
Durham-®range Triangle Regional Transit Program Financial Plan Draft
Assumptions
County Orange Durham
Split point for D-O LRT CH Town Limit; Orange Pas Gateway Area
Light Rail Alignment* (UNC Hospital to Alston Avenue UNCD-Hill-SSE
Sales Tax Growth Rate 2015 and beyond) 3.6% 3.50%
Value Capture Revenue? annual None None
Value Capture Revenue Years NA NA
Institutional Revenues? annual None None
Institutional Revenues Years NA NA
Opening Year Light Rail 2025 2025
Opening Year MLK Bus Lanes 2017 2018
Local Municipal Contributions Per Year $0
County LRT Capital Cost, Millions$2011 $330 $1,050
County LRT Annual Operating Cost, Millions $2011 $3.2 $11.30
MLK Bus Lanes Capital Cost, Millions$2011 $22
MLK Bus Lanes Operating Cost, Millions$2011 NA
Commuter Rail Capital Cost, Millions$2011 $300
Commuter Rail Operating Cost, Millions$2012 $2.57
First Year New Bus Hours 22,050 25,000
First Three Years New Bus Hours 44,100 50,000
Total New Bus Hours 50,400 77,500
All New Bus Hours Obtained By 2032 2033
Borrowing Millions$2011 $30 $155
Debt Service Coverage Ration Tests Met? YES YES
Cash on Hand Test Met? $10M Durham, $2M Orange) YES YES
Fixed Guideway Dividend Hours" 30,000-45,000 15,000-37,500
Cash Balance in 2035 Millions in$2035 $50 $95 D
Cash Balance in 2035 Millions in$2011 $25 $48 v
n
3
CD
J
18
DRAFT Durham and Rail ,
Investment P Triangle Regional
t
•
Bus Investment Rail Investment
• New bus hours by end of FIRST • Opening year for Commuter Rail —
year— 25,000 hrs 2018
• New bus hours by end of THIRD • Opening year of Light Rail — 2025
year - 50,000 hrs • LRT Capital Cost - $1,050 m
• Total new bus hours by 2033 - • LRT Annual Operating Cost -
77,000 hrs $11.3 m
• Potential Rail Dividend Bus Hours • Commuter Rail Capital Cost -
15,000- 37,500 additional hours $300 m
• Commuter Rail Operating Cost -
$2.57 m
* Sales Tax Growth Rate — 3.5
D
v
0
CD
oil
a .
N�
,. ,.. n
XF 11 W-.e_
o a v
w
:
• CDN
Tt7angl8 Regional Tri-if isit P4)g.
I
Bus Investment Rail Investment
• New bus hours by end of • Opening year of Light Rail —
F I RST yea r — 22,050 h rs 2025
• New bus hours by end of • LRT Capital Cost - $330 m
THIRD year - 44,100 hrs • LRT Annual Operating Cost —
p g
• Total number of new bus $3.2 m
hours by 2035 — 50,400 hrs
• MLK Busway Improvements
completed -2017
Sales Tax Growth Rate —
• Potential Rail Dividend Bus
3.6
Hours — 30 000 to 45 000
m `
100F
J '
r.
v �
4
S�
a
x u rF
T
w
m
Proposed Schedule T,
. . , Coun
• DCHC TAC Financial Plan Review — • ®CHC TAC Financial Plan Review — May 11
May 11 • BOCC Brief— May 17
• BOCC Review Proposed Financial Plan — • Triangle Transit Review of D/O Financial
May 23 Plan — May 25
• Triangle Transit Review of D/0 Financial • ®CHC TCC Approval of D/O Financial Plan
Plan — May 25 — May 25
• ®CHC TCC Financial Plan Approval — May 25 BOCC Review of Financial Plan — June 7
• ®CHC TAC Approval of D/O Financial Plan — • ®CHC TAC Approval of D/O Financial Plan
June 8 — June 8
• BOCC Review of Financial Plan — June 13 • BOCC Approval of Orange Financial Plan
• Triangle Transit Board Approval — June 22 and Authorize Referendum — June 21
• BOCC Vote to Approval of Durham Financial • Triangle Transit Board Approval — June 22
Plan and Authorize Referendum- June 27 * BOCC has General Work Sessions on May 10 and
May 16, optional add'I Financial Plan review W
0
E
CD
_ N
�_
�',
y
F�
P�,
I Cent Levy 2008 BEA Capital
2010-11 Equivalent July 2009 Per Public School Total Debt Reserve or
County 2010-11 Budgeted Assessed Tax Rate Property Tax at 100% Estimated Gen.Exp. Capita 2010-11 1st Current Service for Pay-as-you-go
County Employees Expenditures Valuation Per$100 Revenues Collection Po ulation Per Ca .# Income Month ADM Expense Capital Outlay School Only funding
Alamance 997 130,752,420 $12,131,917,918 $0.5200 $60,713,941 $1,213,192 148,361 $881 $31,501 22,228 $34,520,907 $750,000 $5,978,194 $0
Alexander 300 29,044,630 $2,563,780,151 $0.6050 $14,738,000 $256,378 37,318 $778 $29,292 5,487 $5,000,000 $0 $1,238,000 $295,900
Alleghany 107 1 13,570,153 $1,788,108,269 $0.4300 $7,264,000 $178,8111 11,227 $1,2091 $27,884 1,448 $2,498,675 $0 $907,929 $509,822
Anson-proposed
budget detail 242 25,904,876 $1,717,000,000 $0.7670 $12,441,492 $171,700 25,193 $1,028 j$27,072 3,758 $3,620,880 $90,000 $1,034,346
Ashe 190 30,266,322 $3,738,908,900 $0.4250 $15,011,626 $373,891 26,498 $1,142 93 3,176 $3,635,520 $300,000 $1,663,925 $274,732
Ave 205 24 544,740 $4,574,591,139 $0.3700 $14,813,500 $457,459 18,301 $1,341 33 2,124 $4,024,000 $747,000 $1,596,798
Beaufort 298 52,516,285 $5,503,961,852 $0.5000 $27,280,961 $550,396 47,401 $1,108 99 6,966 $12,435,150 $1,503,066 $2,705,725 $0
Bertie 139 18,813,021 $1,094,097,672 $0.7800 $7,205,560 $109,410 20,104 $936 89 2,722 $2,887,500 $375,000 $860,232 $0
Bladen 480 37,240,232 $2,521,036,232 $0.7400 $17,373,152 $252,104 32,046 $1,162 59 5,093 $6,032,245 $337,194 $900,000
Brunswick 963 146,068,119 $33,259,342,060 $0.3050 $96,811,000 $3,325,934 107,135 $1,3631 $30,996 12,052 $29,515,717 $0 $10,455,046 $1,224,528
Buncombe 1,475 252,882,435 $29304,349,299 $0.5250 $150,278,615 $2,930,435 230,450 $1,0971 $34,969 29,323 $53,333,340 $8,735,275 $13,850,946
Burke 508 70,376,291 $6,790,865,385 $0.5200 $33,550,000 $679,087 89,669 $785 $29,684 13,378 $14,864,127 $2,235,000 $4,594,320
Cabarrus 921 194,613,599 $21,329,688,137 $0.6300 $120,697,232 $2,132,969 174,294 $1,117 $35,280 32,459 $52,447,330 $1,070,000 $28,801,458 $0
Caldwell 504 67,673,096 $5,376,766,127 $0.6599 $31,384,709 $537,677 60,141 $844 $28,127 12,709 $14,350,000 $634,076 $2,065,922
Camden 79 11,433,317 $1,078,797,124 $0.5900 $6,575,342 $107,880 9,655 $1,184 $33,881 1,927 $1,749,000 $150,000 $1,255,864 $300,000
Carteret 405 72,833,950 $19,936,917,248 $0.2300 $43,285,000 $1,993,692 64,724 $1,125 $37,796 8,446 $18,750,000 $1,464,234 $6,955,940 $0
Caswell 222 22,398,811 $1,441,000,000 $0.6590 $9,117,292 $144,100 23,464 $955 $29,314 2,945 $2,490,085 $450,401 $771,098 $623,293
Catawba 1,118 161,100,845 $15,159,367,657 $0.5350 $79,853,682 $1,515,937 157,034 $1,026 $31,823 24,405 $35,185,882 $4,029,476 $15,206,965 $0
Chatham 456 84,401,967 $8,656,924,708 $0.6219 $53,152,163 $865,692 62,492 $1,351 $43,894 7,776 $24,834,697 $1,081,276 $5,882,218
Cherokee 288 32,401,130 $4,109,040,409 $0.3850 $14,794,965 $410,904 26,798 $1,209 $24,804 3,402 $4,924,400 $143,514 $1,529,537 $0
Chowan 142 15,999,277 $1,339,331,039 $0.6850 $9,888,592 $133,933 14,818 $1,080 $31,635 2,310 $3,335,660 $0 $906,873 $0
Clay 157 15,194,799 $2,025,900,626 $0.3250 $6,397,506 $202,590 10,370 $1,465 $27,360 1,353 $1,236,062 $0 $235,730 $0
Cleveland 843 81,594,032 $6,550,000,000 $0.7200 $45,745,200 $655,000 98,638 $827 $29,609 15,862 $10,408,213 $2,000,000 $1,752,400 $1,400,000
Columbus 662 49,806,416 $3,250,688,369 $0.8150 $24,313,522 $325,069 56,299 $885 $29,688 8,750 $6,382,246 $1,962,268 $219,643
Craven 609 92,408,974 $9,400,000,000 $0.4728 $44,202,741 $940,000 100,271 $922 $36,121 14,836 $17,937,352 $700,000 $3,002,175 $0
Cumberland 2,486 313,389461 $20,890,467,149 $0.7400 $150,194,570 $2,089,047 321,121 $9761 $40,791 51,638 1 $76,220,676 $9,663,913 $9,834,550 $0
Currituck 361 45,172,654 $8,230,000,000 $0.3200 $24,936,800 $823,000 23,502 $1,922 $34,939 3,913 $8,720,781 $990,000 $2,341,517 $1,000,000
Dare 744 92,598,959 $17,615,000,000 $0.2800 $48,644,878 $1,761,500 34,253 $2,703 $37,934 4,838 $19,649,333 $100,000 $11,557,969
Davidson 971 119,981,684 $12,351,180,017 $0.5400 $64,528,740 $1,235,118 159,987 $750 $31,742 25,780 $28,115,317 $1,718,071 $9,081,356 $2,678,244
Davie 301 46,069,422 $4,261,190,795 $0.6200 $28,153,503 $426,119 41,760 $1,103 $36,438 6,566 $9,407,445 $1,650,000 $2,715,317 $100,000
Du lin 559 47,383,016 $3,692,656,240 $0.6900 $25,238,147 $369,266 53,672 $883 $28,088 9,027 $7,727,528 $1,223,000 $1,240,452
Durham 1,888 364,036,713 $29,466,359,766 $0.7459 $214,844,312 $2,946,636 266,189 $1,368 $38,795 31,709 $107,032,189 $1,370,000 $23,765,106
Ed ecombe 480 58,400,441 $3,100,000,000 $0.8600 $24,556,526 $310,000 51,339 $1,138 $29,052 9,624 $9,124,833 $540,000 $1,437,255 $0
Forsyth 2,208 395,336,978 $33,885,900,000 $0.6740 $222,772,548 $3,386,590 355,640 $1,112 $37,2781 52,059 $109,873,583 $2,460,805 $21,005,258 $0
Franklin 505 68,492,343 $4,025,000,000 $0.8725 $33,678,282 $402,500 59,199 $1,157 $29,040 8,478 $11,749,053 $1,175,780 $8,168,437 $3,914,000
Gaston 1,461 217,480,334 $14,570,011,481 $0.8350 $117,867,016 $1,457,001 207,270 $1,049 $32,727 31,256 $42,900,026 $797,550 $17,290,441
Gates 87 10,150,149 $921,720,548 $0.6400 $5,604,060 $92,172 11,623 $873 $25,525 1,823 $2,567,079 $100,000 $1,198,710
Graham 173 11,957,079 $1,153,649,901 $0.4050 $4,530,712 1 $115,365 8,327 $1,436 $26,794 1,194 $570,000 $0 $388,612
Granville 312 46,897,521 $3,984,806,022 $0.7950 $30,453,233 $398,481 57,439 $816 $27,761 8,596 $12,385,287 $301,707 $4,584,889 $675,486
Greene 186 16,730,298 $1,028,838,051 $0.7560 $7,434,612 $102,684 21,389 $782 $26,931 3,233 $2,247,000 $451,202 $130,666 $0
Guilford 2,497 569,740,000 $44,820,000,000 $0.7374 $323,400,000 $4,482,000 476,038 $1,197 $38,534 71,033 $175,165,521 $3,200,000 $48,810,940
Halifax 538 62,720,038 $3,411,472,224 $0.6800 $23,385,000 $341,147 55,179 $1,137 $27,658 7,725 $5,094,392 $713,792 $939,500 $0
Harnett 916 103,392,169 $7,032,004,531 $0.7250 $50,982,033 $703,200 112,864 $9161 $28,015 19,349 $20,288,004 $965,181 $9,381,561
Haywood 535 65,934,562 $7,169,688,651 $0.5140 $35,309,397 $716,969 58,043 $1,136 $31,336 7,667 $14,416,807 $200,000 $2,363,078
Henderson 751 111,189,176 $13,065,000,000 $0.4620 $58,549,491 $1,306,500 105,246 $1,056 $35,901 13,349 $20,698,218 $449,889 $9,801,596
Hertford 192 22,721,947 $1,210,180,760 $0.9100 $10,776,161 $121,018 23,960 $948 $26,985 3,086 $4,173,524 $400,000 $835,000
Hoke 430 35,479,198 $2,291,500,500 $0.7000 $16,587,955 $229,150 46,141 $769 $26,686 7,932 $4,095,000 $1,416,799 $1,776,166 $0
Hyde 150 11,879,671 $1,091,345,837 $0.5200 $5,250000 $109,135 5,388 $2,205 $28,251 560 1 $1,324,568 $174,000 $55,695
Iredell 917 150,307,275 $20,639,300,000 $0.4450 $88,988,510 $2,063,930 157,039 $957 $32,888 N32,121 $36,617,760 $1,187,005 $24,407,388
Jackson 393 50,122,125 $11,597,784,345 $0.2800 $29,695,163 $1,159,778 37,999 $1,319 $29,477 $6,779,482 $412,301 $3,210,981
Johnston 1,100 164,111,704 $11,884,075,000 $0.7800 $93,455,989 $1,188,408 168,253 $975 $32,316 $51,400,000 $0 $32,805,839 $0
Jones 113 13,472,610 $720,615,258 $0.7000 $5,047,215 $72,062 10,153 $1,327 $31,750 $1,278,000 $546,948 $50,413 $0
Lee 350 61,922,285 $4,655,000,000 $0.7500 $34,214,250 $465,500 58,574 $1,057 $30,983 $15,178,050 $603831 $6,773,834
Lenoir 449 60,689,375 $3,655,000,000 $0.8000 $27,608516 $365,500 57,232 $1,060 $32,309 $9,900,000 $0 $6,224,975 $1,724,000
Lincoln 757 87,164,001 $8,633,727,007 $0.5700 $47,502,118 $863,373 75,718 $1,151 $32,912 $17,172,729 $1,109,711 $12,339,875
Macon 386 42,021,521 $9,243,000,000 $0.2790 $24,891,000 $924,300 34,480 $1,219 $30,066 4,303 1 $7,175,648 $0 $4,981,102 $1,321,675
Madison 245 21,200,346 $1,885,542,179 $0.5600 $9,717,477 $188,554 20,846 $1,017 $27,460 2,562 $2,300,000 $95,000
Martin 198 27,045,486 $1,857,596,181 $0.6700 $12,561,514 $185,760 23,859 $1,1341 $30,617 3,757 $5,526,401 $825,000 $0 $0
McDowell 307 33,301,223 $3,093,924,571 $0.5500 $16,349,876 $309,392 44,749 $744 $25,410 6,360 $7,027,103 $331,000 $1,089,171 $520,629
Mecklenburg 4,397 1,349,491,014 $100,300,000,000 $0.8387 $820,185,697 $10,030000 894,445 $1,509 $45,264 134,489 $302,250,000 $4,960,000 $116,118,593 $12,073,493
Mitchell 135 16,945,493 $1,698,674,250 $0.4000 $6,794,697 $169,867 15,974 $1,061 $25,919 2,082 $2,104,963 $523,975 $142,585 $0
Montgomery 215 25,889,352 $2,256,096,0701 $0.6700 $13,164,724 $225,610 27,988 $925 $26,386 4,080 $5,000000 $0 $1,331,618 $0
Moore 632 85,012,422 $11,696,000,000 $0.4650 53,383,260 $1,169,600 86,958 $978 $38,919 12,450 $25,540,140 $711,932 $5,744,000
Nash 672 84,785,091 $6,814,000,000 $0.6700 $45,653,800 $681,400 95,814 $885 $33,067 14,433 1 $19,566,593 $1,499,036 $1,198,508 $0
1 of 5n7n011
1 Cent Levy 2008 BEA Capital
2010-11 Equivalent July 2009 Per Public School Total Debt Reserve or
County 2010.11 Budgeted Assessed Tax Rate Property Tax at`100% Estimated Gen.Exp. Capita 2010-11 1st Current Service for Pay-as-you-go
County Employees Ex enditures Valuation Per$100 Revenues Collection Population Per Ca .# Income Month ADM Expense Capital Outlay School Only funding
New Hanover 1,623 253,919,849 $34,220,520,000 $0.4655 $156,454,224 $3,422,052 194,099 $1,308 $36,629 24,231 $61,808,440 $0 $22,722,331 $0
Northampton 304 28,979,689 $1,870,010,634 $0.8700 $15,391,417 $187,001 21,000 $1,380 $30,694 2,319 $3,500,000 $345,000 $0 $0
Onslow 1 1,077 163,799,5391 $12,300,562.6911 $0.5850 $68,700,000 $1,230,056 179,447 $913 $39,9321 23,477 $34,508,442 $1,500,0001 $12,468,632 $54,262
Orange 856 175,313,920 $15,534,915,748 $0.8580 $132,047,738 $1,553,4921 132,306 $1,325 $47,063 18,748 $59,371,992 $3,000,000 $18,182,682 $2,590,117
Pamlico 158 16,145,115 $1,364,606,979 $0.6525 $8,527,000 $136,461 12,842 $1,257 $35,257 1,411 $2,875,946 $125,000 $896,544 $0
Pas uotank 322 34,682,064 $3,320,006,455 $0.6050 $19,701,500 $332,001 41,713 $831 $26,701 6,019 $9,403,851 $415,986 $2,909,359
Fender 331 47,949,148 $4,736,435,222 $0.6500 $30,786,829 $473,644 53,107 $903 $29,253 8,128 $12,921,614 $1,110,000 $6,084,440 $0
Per uimans 97 11,870,503 $1,629,789,964 $0.4200 $6,601,808 $162,979 12,951 $917 $28,664 1,753 $2,137,040 $200,000 $742,940 $0
Person 444 49,859,325 $3,880,000,000 $0.7000 $26,209,400 $388,000 38,274 $1,303 $30,098 4,982 $8,877,567 $268,400 $2,938,818 $0
Pitt 977 1 138,140.6761 $11,574,179139 $0.6650 $73,441,784 $1,157,418 158,575 $871 $32,874 23,122 $34,639,841 $750,000 $11,307,658 $750,000
Polk 172 1 20.995.4621 $2,744,874,8561 $0.5200 $13,857,245 $274,487 19,345 $1,085 $40,129 2,355 $4,385,054 $162,000 $1,165,778 $0
Randol h 737 110,193,510 $10,100,000,000 $0.5860 $57,528,792 $1,010,000 142,495 $773 $28,510 23,244 $21,664,017 $2,795,024 $13,034,566 $250,000
Richmond 400 44,552,6671 $2,881,884,4901 $0.8100 $22,254,894 $288,188 46,858 $951 $26,960 7,619 $6,925,000 $336,200 $2,226,075 $1000,000
Robeson 1,228 114,705,951 $5,500,000,000 $0.7900 $39,105,000 $550,000 131,102 $875 $24,935 23,268 $12,375,000 $4,699,194 $154,747
Rockin ham 650 1 79.770,7451 $6,071,000,0001 $0.7150 $42,063,110 $607,100 91,873 $868 $29,850 13,692 $15,834,840 $1,151,525 $3,705,557 $826,291
Rowan 890 128,157,0941 $11.782,307,2481 $0.5950 $66,016,992 $1,178,231 140,518 $912 $30,620 21,325 $35,283,697 $1,474,000 $8,346,380 $0
Rutherford 412 49.608,6971 $5,877,028,001 $0.5300 1 329,248,209 $587,703 63,835 $777 $27,667 8,849 $11,995,014 $105,000 $5,253,302
Sam son 646 64,124,2181 $3,396,000,0001 $0.8450 $27,261,390 $339,600 65,417 $980 $28,559 11,431 $9,440,435 $848,907 $8,200,591
Scotland 307 1.616,0521 $1,961,762,800 $1.0200 $21,035,858 $196,176 36,937 $1,127 $26,901 6,221 $10,688,920 $579,500 $1,371,080 $825,000
Stanl 440 53,671,168 $4,236,777,000 $0.6700 $27,250,000 $423,678 60,093 $893 $29,836 9,053 $10,076,268 $1,800,000 $2125,896
Stokes 296 42.537,8311 $3,592,123,717 $0,6000 $20,744,514 $359,212 46,798 $909 $29,155 6,918 $10,194,063 $1,643,000 $2,522,815 $0
Surr 597 71,331,8571 $5,233,000,000 $0.5820 $29,288,102 $523,300 73,889 $965 $29,802 11,384 $12,967,875 $553,500 $5,383,084 $1,273,889
Swain 231 11.200,9621 $1,329,941,848 $0.3300 $4,140,385 $132,994 13,854 $809 $26,799 1,921 $750,000 $125,000 $785,000
Trans Ivania 331 39,635,284 $5,970,000,000 $0.3949 $23,339,775 $597,000 31,095 $1,275 $33,771 3,554 $9,306,383 $1,046,963 $2,625,262
T rretl 60 7,567,7331 $458,465,008 $0.6700 $2,862,169 $45,847 4,247 $1,782 $25,288 567 $537,321 $87,675
Union 973 220,723,5321 $23,261,280,447 $0.6650 $149,665,000 $2,326,128 196,359 $1,124 $33,673 39,085 $79,504,155 $1,303,552 $44,374,157
Vance 327 38,370,1341 $2,575,000,000 $0.7820 $18,793,415 $257,500 43,620 $880 $29,373 6,953 $8,380,000 $425,000 $549,351 $1,779,800
Wake 3,700 951,220,0001 $119,158,250,199 $0.5340 $632,638,000 $11,915,825 892,607 $1,066 $41,691 141,638 $312,059,879 $1,443,345 $167,607,977 $7,000,000
Warren 282 27.651,1141 $2,498,000,000 $0.6000 $15,296,140 $249,800 19,933 $1,387 $24,457 2,469 $3,160,000 $230,000 $565,758
Washington 171 14,790,251 $780,745,034 $0.7900 $5,779,400 $78,075 13,004 $1,137 $29,735 1,746 $1,525,000 $300,000 $150,220 $0
Watauga 302 44,314,699 $8,563,162,300 $0.3130 $26,444,685 $856,316 45,384 $976 $32,049 4,327 $10,815,679 $576,909 $6,348,105 $0
Wayne 800 89,297,122 $6,530,061,780 $0.7640 $46,438,855 $653,006 116,572 1 $766 $31,364 19,067 $19,247,994 $2,000,000 $172,957 $1,633,455
Wilkes 550 63,903,433 $5,478,446,736 $0.6500 $33,420,299 $547,845 67,533 $946 $31,552 9,955 $10,413,397 $600,000 $4,678,660
Wilson 778 87,050,770 $5,500,000,000 $0.7300 $44,210,229 $550,000 80,022 $1,088 $32,683 12,107 $16,241,122 $5,434,737
Yadkin 257 36,963,666 $2,496,483,763 $0.7400 $17,365,545 $249,648 38,001 $973 $29,327 5,832 $6,487,000 $1,005,000
Yancey--2010 budget
data 177 20,797,4771 $2,589,178,066 $0.4500 $258,918 18,554 $1,121 $23,887 2,362 $3,167,307 $750,000 $0 $0
Avera a 642 $102,398,661 $9,855,374,886 $57,619,273 $985,537 93,826 $1,090 $31,255 14,151 $24,482,322 $1,064,453 $9,291,162 $782,067
Minimum 60 $7,567,733 $458,465,008 $0 $45,847 4,247 $744 $24,457 560 $537,321 $0 $0 An
Maximum 4,397 $1,349,491,014 $119,158,250,199 $820,185,697 $11,915,825 894,445 $2,7031 $47,0631 141,638 1 $312 05q 8791 $9,663,913 $167,607,9.. $12,073,493
100
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Budget and Tax Survey Information Summary FY 2010-2011
2 of 4 5/1712011
Total Debt
2010-11 2009-10 Misc.Revs. Total School Current Current Exp. Capital Service
Total County Total County Distr.Ad Total School Resources/ Expense/ &Supplement Expense/ Expense/
County SchoolAppr SchoolAppr Sec.Tax Levy Valorem Allocation ADM ADM /ADM ADM ADM
Alamance $41,249,101 $41,582,344 $41,249,101 $1,856 $1,553 $1,553 $303 $269
Alexander $6,533,900 $6,739,100 $6,533,900 $1,191 $911 $911 $280 $226
Allegheny $3,916,4261 $4,048,818 $3,916,426 $2,705 $1,726 $1,726 $979 $627
Anson-proposed
budget detall $4,745,226 $4,105,112 $4,745,226 $1,263 $964 $964 $299 $0
Ashe $5,874,177 $5,689,332 $5,874,177 $1,850 $1,145 $1,145 $705 $524
Avery $6,367,798 $9,171,741 $6,367,798 $2,998 $1,895 $1,895 $1,103 $752
Beaufort $16,643,941 $16,130,041 $16,643,941 $2,389 $1,785 $1,785 $604 $388
Bertie $4,122,732 $4,136,252 $4,122,732 $1,515 $1,061 $1,061 $454 $316
Bladen $7,269,439 $8.099.901 37,269,439 $1,427 $1,184 $1,184 $243 $177
Brunswick $41,195,291 $43,483,156 $41,195291 $3,418 $2,449 $2,449 $969 $867
Buncombe $75,919,561 $76,054,667 $7,840,362 $2,091,908 $85,851,831 $2,928 $1,819 $2,158 $770 $472
Burke $21,693,447 $20,639,335 $21,693,447 $1,622 $1,111 $1,111 $510 $343
Cabarrus $82,318,788 $79,959,071 $82,318,788 $2,536 $1,616 $1,616 $920 $887
Caldwell $17,049,998 $17,300,000 $17,049,998 $1,342 $1,129 $1,129 $212 $163
Camden $3,454,864 $3,162,089 $3,454,864 $1,793 $908 $908 $885 $652
Carteret $27,170,174 $27,914,535 $27,170,174 $3,217 $2,2201 $2,220 $997 $824
Caswell $4,334,877 $4,732,525 $4,334,877 $1,472 $846 $846 $626 $262
Catawba $54,422,323 $52,706,184 $54,422,323 $2,230 $1,442 $1,442 $788 $623
Chatham $31,798,191 $31,389,955 $31,798,191 $4,089 $3,194 $3,194 $896 $756
Cherokee $6,597,451 $6,775,449 $6,597,451 $1,939 $1,448 $1,448 $492 $450
Chowan $4,242,533 $4,078,326 $4,242,533 $1,837 $1,444 $1,444 $393 $393
Clay $1,471,792 $1,111,062 $0 $0 $1,471,792 $1,088 $914 $914 $174 $174
Cleveland $15,560,613 $14,644,727 $10,325,000 $2,440,500 $28,326,113 $1,786 $6561 $1,461 $325 $110
Columbus $8,564,157 $8,547,154 $6,564,157 $979 $729 $729 $249 $25
Craven $21,639,527 $21,897,669 $21,639,527 $1,459 $1,209 $1,209 $250 $202
Cumberland $95,719,139 $95,080,598 $95,719,139 $1,854 $1,476 $1,476 $378 $190
Currituck $13,052,298 $11,830,554 $13,052,298 $3,336 $2,229 $2,229 $1,107 $598
Dare $31,307,302 $31,815,287 $31,307,302 $6,471 $4,061 $4,061 $2,410 $2,389
Davidson $41,592,988 $41,468,679 $2,824,924 $44,417912 $1,723 $1,091 $1,200 $523 $352
Davie $13,872,762 $13,963,558 $13,872,762 $2,113 $1,433 $1,433 $680 $414
Du lin $10,190,980 $10,189,951 $10,190,980 $1,129 $856 $856 $273 $137
Durham $132,167,295 $126,422,752 $132,167,295 $4,168 $3,3751 $3,375 $793 $749
Ed ecombe $11,102,088 $10,625,995 $11,102,088 $1,154 $948 $948 $205 $149
Forsyth $133,339,646 $134,716,339 $133,339,646 $2,561 $2.1111 $2,111 $451 $403
Franklin $25,007,270 $19,610,428 $25,007,270 $2,950 $1,3861 $1,386 $1,564 $963
Gaston $60,986,017 $57,711,834 $60,988,017 $1,951 $1,373 $1,373 $579 $553
Gates $3,865,789 $3,833,034 $3,865,789 $2,121 $1,408 $1,408 $712 $658
Graham $958,612 $984,262 $958,612 $603 $477 $477 $325 $325
Granville $17,947,369 $19,606,464 $17,947,369 $2,088 $1,441 $1,441 $647 $533
Greene $2,828,868 $3,000,173 $2,828,868 $875 $695 $695 $180 $40
Guilford $227,176,461 $231,108,951 $227,176,461 $3,198 $2,466 $2,466 $732 $687
Halifax $6,747,684 $8,944,670 $453,330 $7,201,014 $932 $659 $718 $214 $122
Harnett $30,634,746 $28,353,965 $207,066 $30,841,812 $1,594 $1,0491 $1,059 $535 $485
Haywood $16,979,885 $17,178,181 $16,979,885 $2,215 $1,880 $1,880 $334 $308
Henderson $30,949,703 $30,279,951 $30,949,703 $2,319 $1,551 $1,551 $768 $734
Hertford $5,408,524 $6,185,531 $5,408,524 $1,753 $1,352 $1,352 $400 $0
Hoke $7,287,965 $7,176,496 $7,287,965 $919 $516 $516 $403 $224
Hyde $1,554,263 $1,735,533 $1,554,263 $2,775 $2,365 $2,365 $410 $99
Iredell $62,212,153 $64,736,241 $4,250,000 $66,462,153 $2,494 $1,374 $1,533 $960 $916
Jackson $10,402,764 $10,584,803 $10,402,764 $2,891 $1,884 $1,884 $1,007 $892
Johnston $84,205,839 $88,438,009 $84,205,839 $2,622 $1,600 $1,600 $1,021 $1,021
Jones $1,875,361 $1,864,378 $1,875,3611 $1,619 $1,104 $1,104 $516 $44
Lee $22,555,715 $22,325,042 $22,555,715 $2,346 $1,579 $1,579 $767 $705
Lenoir $17,848,975 $17,512,475 $17,848,975 $1,949 $1,081 $1,081 $868 $680
Lincoln $30,622,315 $30,103,428 $30,622,315 $2,605 $1,461 $1461 $1,144 $1,050
Macon $13,478,425 $12,707,129 $13,478,425 $3,132 $1,668 $1,668 $1,4651 $1,158
Madison $2,395,000 $2,729,189 $2,395,000 $935 . $898 $898 $37 $0
Martin $6,351,401 $6,871,401 $6,351,401 $1,691 $1,4711 $1,471 $220 $0
McDowell $8,968,103 $9,469,381 $8,968,103 $1,410 $1,105 $1,105 $305 $171
Mecklenburg $435,402,086 $434,101,081 $435,402,086 $3,237 $2247 $2,247 $990 $863
Mitchell $2,771,523 $2,826,168 $2,771,523 $1,331 $1,011 $1,011 $320 $68
Montgomery $6,331,618 $7,482,489 $6,331,618 $1,552 $1,225 $1,225 $326 $326
Moore $31,996,072 132,726,322 $31,996,072 $2,570 $2,051 $2,051 $519 $461
Nash $22,264,137 $22,830,182 $22,264,137 $1,543 $1,356 $1,356 $187 $83
3 of4
5I1712011 ,
Total Debt
2010-11 2009-10 Misc.Revs. Total School Current Current Exp. Capital Service
Total County Total County Distr.Ad Total School Resources/ Expense/ &Supplement Expense/ Expense/
County SchoolAppr SchoolAppr Sec.Tax Levy Valorem Allocation ADM ADM /ADM ADM ADM
New Hanover $84,530,771 $84,306,978 $84,530,771 $3,489 $2,551 $2,551 $938 $938
,Northampton $3,845,000 $3,880,000 $3,845,000 $1,658 $1,509 $1,509 $149 $0
Onslow $48,531,336 $44,535,511 $48,531,336 $2,067 $1,470 $1,470 $597 $531
Oran a $83,144,791 $84,436,868 $18,599,595 $101,744,386 $5,427 $3,167 $4,159 $1,268 $970
Pamlico $3,897,490 $3,822,008 $3,897,490 $2,762 $2,038 $2,038 $724 $635
Pas uotank $12,729,196 $12,819,201 $12,729,196 $2,115 $1,562 $1,562 $552 $483
Pander $20,116,054 $20,811,615 $20,116,054 $2,475 $1,590 $1,590 $885 $749
Per uimans $3,079,980 $3,409,480 $3,079,980 $1,757 $1,219 $1,219 $538 $424
Person $12,084,785 $12,149,537 $12,084,785 $2,426 $1,782 $1,782 $644 $590
Pitt $47,447,499 $44,313,182 $47,447,499 $2,052 1 $1,498 $1,498 $554 $489
Polk $5,712,832 $6,502,355 $83,885 $5,796,717 $2,461 $1,862 $1,898 $564 $495
Randol h $37,743,607 $39,559,214 $5,044,858 $42,788,465 $1,841 $932 $1,149 $692 $561
Richmond $10,487,275 $8,847,513 $10,487,275 $1,376 $909 $909 $468 $292
Robeson $17,228,941 $18,248,569 $17,228,941 $740 $532 $532 $209 $7
Rockin ham $21,518,213 $22,135,920 $21,518,213 $1,572 $1,157 $1,157 $415 $271
Rowan $45,104,077 $44,413,018 $45,104,077 $2,115 $1,655 $1655 $461 $391
Rutherford $17,353,316 $17,138,6501 $17,353,316 $1,961 $1,3561 $1,356 $606 $594
Sam son $18,489,933 $17,326,587 $1,564,435 $20,054,368 $1,754 $826 $963 $792 $717
Scotland $13,464,500 $12,722,172 $400,000 $13,864,500 $2,229 $1,718 $1,782 $446 $220
Stan/ $14,002,164 $14,461,206 $14,002,164 $1,547 $1,113 $1,113 $434 $235
Stokes $14,359,878 $13,102,688 $14,359,878 $2,076 $1,474 $1,474 $602 $365
Sur $20,178,348 $20,320,140 $1,643,029 $21,821,377 $1,917 $1,139 $1,283 $633 $473
Swain $1,660,000 $1,584,000 $1,660,000 $864 $390 $390 $474 $409
Trans Ivania $12,978,608 $12,312,217 $12,978,608 $3,652 $2,619 $2,619 $1,033 $739
T rrell $624,996 $624,995 $624,996 $1,102 $948 $948 $155 $0
Union $125,181.8641 $126,663,1281 1 $125,181,864 $3,2031 $2,034 $2,034 $1,1691 $1,135
Vance $11,134,1511 $12.368,1871 $11,134,151 $1,6011 $1,205 $1,205 $396 $79
Wake $488,111,201 $478,735,4601 $488,111,201 $3,446 $2,203 $2,203 $1,243 $1,183
Warren $3,955,758 $4,052,251 $3,955,758 $1,602 $1,280 $1,280 $322 $229
Washington $1,975,220 $2,209,8121 $1,975,220 $1,131 $873 $873 $258 $86
Watauga $17,740,693 $17.906,7661 $17,740,693 $4,100 $2,500 $2,500 $1,600 $1,467
Wayne $23,054,406 $22,776,0951 $23,054,406 $1,209 $1,009 $1,009 $200 $9
Wilkes $15,692,057 $18,282,646 $15,692,057 $1,576 $1,046 1 $1,046 $530 $470
Wilson $21,675,859 $22,272,442 $21,675,859 $1,790 $1,341 $1,341 $449 $449
Yadkin $7,492,000 $10,045,378 $7,492,000 $1,285 $1,112 $1,112 $172 $0
Yancey--2010 budget
data $3,917,307 $3,917,307 $1,658 $1,341 $1,341 $318 $0
Average $34,847,616 $45,985,298 $4,762,105 $1,077,148 $35,425,305
Minimum $624,996 $624,995 $0 $0 $624,996
Maximum $488,111,201 $478,735,4601 $18,599,5951 $2,440,500 $488,111,201
North Carolina Associatior
4 of 4 5/1712011
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 1. Generally speaking, Right direction 66.3% 68.1% 59.3% 64.5%
would you say that your Wrong track o ° o °
community is going in the g 15.8/0 13.3/0 18.2/0 15.8/o
right direction,or has it MixedBoth 5.3% 5.3% 4.5% 5.0%
gotten off onto the wrong
track? DK/NA 12.6% 13.2% 18.0% 14.6%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100=%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.2.What Improving the quality of 40.2% 37.8% 44.6% 40.8%
do you think public education
should be Attracting more
the top , businesses and jobs to 32.9% 31.5% 27.7% 30.7%
priority for the area
local elected Reducing traffic ° ° 0 0
officials to congestion 1.7% 2.1% 2.5% 2.1/o
work on right
now? Preventing home 4.5% 2.1% 3.7% 3.4%
foreclosures
Expanding public 5.9% 7.4% 2.4% 5.2%
transportation systems
Lowering taxes 8.8% 14.3% 12.8% 12.0%
Other 3.4% 2.2% 3.3% 3.0%
DK/NA 2.5% 2.6% 3.1% 2.7%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%
2011 TRIANG'- TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www•FallonResearch.com
E
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 1
3/6-3/9/2011
N=904;+1-3.25%
Registered Voters
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.3. How often do Very 6.4% 8.5% 2.2% 5.7%
you use local public Somewhat 3.5% 11.3% 2.3% 5.7%
transportation, such Not very 8.1% 12.3% 4.1% 8.2%
as bus services,that Not at all 67.7% 47.8% 77.4% 64.3%
are available in your
area? Only on special 13.9% 18.3% 13.4% 15.2%
occasions
DK/NA .4% 1.8% .6% .9%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.4.Do you agree or Agree
disagree with people 69.4% 67.9% 68.2% 68.5%
who say that more
public transportation Disagree
choices will improve 24.1% .23.4% 25.0% 24.1%
the quality of life in DK/NA
(Durham/Orange/ 6.5% 8.7% 6.8% 7.3%
Wake)County?
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 2
316-3/9/2011 9
N=904,+/-3.25%
Registered Voters
i
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.5.Which of the Less traffic congestion 25.1% 26.9% 37.3% 29.8%
following would you Better air quality and
say is the biggest environmental 17.5% 33.3% 17.0% 22.6%
benefit from new or preservation
expanded public Lower commuting costs 14.5% 8.8% 9.2% 10.8%
transportation? Greater convenience and
24.3% 12.0% 17.0% 17.8%
more travel options
More efficient land-use 9.4% 10.0% 10.0% 9.8%
planning for future growth
Other .8% .5% 2.0% 1.1%
No benefit 3.0% 1.4% 2.7% 2.3%
DK/NA 5.5% 7.0% 5.0% 5.8%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County Count
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.6.Which of the Traveling to and from the
following routes do Research Triangle Park 22.3% 15.7% 33.8% 24.0%
you think should be area
the highest priority Traveling to and from the ° ° o 0
for a new or Raleigh Durham Airport 15.0/0 13.9/° 8.4/0 12.4/o
expanded public Traveling to and from the ° ° o °
transportation Raleigh downtown area 4.7% 7.3% 15.5% 9.1/o
system? Traveling between
Durham,Orange and 38.2% 38.9% 20.6% 32.6%
Wake Counties
Traveling within the 13.6% 16.4% 12.5% 14.2%
county where you live
Other .5% .9% 1.0% .8%
No priority 2.7% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%
DK/NA 3.1% 5.3% 6.4% 4.9%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 3
316-3/9/2011
y_904; /-3.25%
Regis'(_: Vn'.ers
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 7.Do you favor or Strongly favor 31.3% 40.9% 28.2% 33.5%
oppose more buses Somewhat favor 37.3% 34.5% 40.9% 37.6%
and bus routes for Somewhat oppose 12.2% 11.2% 13.8% 12.4%
commuting and travel?
Strongly oppose 12.0% 7.3% 8.6% 9.3%
DK/NA 7.2% 6.1% 8.5% 7.3%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
Countv County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.8. How often Very frequently 9.1% 15.9% 5.9% 10.3%
do you think you Somewhat frequently 24.0% 31.6% 21.8% 25.8%
might use an Not very frequently 12.3% 12.7% 14.3% 13.1%
expanded bus
system for t at No all 29.5% 18.0% 36.9% 28.2%
commuting and Only on special 23.2% 19.8% 20.4% 21.1%
travel? occasions
DK/NA 1.9% 2.1% .7% 1.5%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q.9. Do you favor or Strongly favor 49.6% 44.9% 47.7% 47.4%
oppose a train system Somewhat favor 30.5% 33.2% 25.4% 29.7%
for commuting and Somewhat oppose 4.8% 7.9% 9.1% 7.3%
travel?
Strongly oppose 10.5% 8.9% 10.3% 9.9%
DK/NA 4.6% 5.0% 7.6% 5.7%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www•FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 4
3/6-3/9/2011 g
N=904,+/-3.25`/*
Registered Voters
I
I
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv Count
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 10. How Very frequently 16.9% 14.0% 12.2% 14.4%
often do you Somewhat frequently 32.4% 32.6% 29.9% 31.6%
think you might Not very frequently 9.9% 13.2% 9.8% 11.0%
use a train Not at all 13.9% 16.1% 18.0% 16.0%
system for
commuting and Only on special 24.7% 20.1% 26.2% 23.7%
travel? occasions
DK/NA 2.3% 4.0% 3.9% 3.4%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 11. Do you favor or Strongly favor 42.4% 47.2% 40.9% 415%
oppose a combined Somewhat favor 34.9% 29.1% 34.5% 32.9%
system of trains for
major destinations and Somewhat oppose 7.1% 7.4% 9.1% 7.8%
connector buses to Strongly oppose 10.5% 11.5% 9.8% 10.6%
individual
neighborhoods? DK/NA 5.1% 4.8% 5.7% 5.2%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
www.FallonResearch.com
201', TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 5
316-31912011
N=904, i-3.25%
Registered Voters
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 12.Thinking more More bus routes
about the choice and areas that are 50.2% 52.0% 42.4% 48.2%
between trains and more served by them
buses, if you had to
choose between the More train routes
two,would say that it is and areas that are 41.9% 35.7% 46.8% 41.5%
more important to served by them
have...(rotated)...more
bus routes and areas Both/Mixed
that are served by 1.1% 2.5% 2.5% 2.0%
them...or...more train DK/NA
routes... 6.7% 9.8% 8.2% 8.2%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 13.Would you vote For
for or against a sales 59.7% 59.2% 51.0% 56.6%
tax increase of one-half
of a percent to pay for Against
new or expanded public 33.6% 37.6% 45.1% 38.8%
transportation,if one DK/NA
was on the ballot in your 6,7% 3.2% 3.9% 4.6%
county?
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina
3/6-3/9/2011 Page 6
N=904,+/-3.25%
Registered Voters
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
Countv Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 14.Would you vote For
for or against sales tax 54.2% 55.1% 45.1% 51.5%
increases totaling
three-quarters of a Against
percent to pay for new 40.3% 35.9% 49.4% 41.9%
or expanded public
transportation and new
school construction, if DK/NA
they were on the ballot 5.5% 9.0% 5.6% 6.7%
in your county?
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 1002%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 15. If the funding was More likely
used just for more bus 11.4% 16.5% 8.4% 12.1%
routes and services,and Less likely
did not include any rail 38.0% 27.6% 32.7% 32.8%
systems,would you be
more likely or less likely No difference
to vote for a sales tax 48.7% 52.9% 56.5% 52.7%
increase of one-half of a
percent to pay for new DK/NA ° o ° °
or expanded public... 1.9/0 3.0/0 2.4/0 2.4
/°
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
. I
201 i R!ANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 7
316-3/9!20'!'1
N=904,-H-3.25%
Registered Voters
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County Count
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 16a. If the price of More likely
gasoline increases to$4 23.6% 23.4% 21.4% 22.8%
per gallon,would you be
more likely or less likely Less likely
to vote for a sales tax 15.1% 10.6% 9.7% 11.7%
increase of one-half of a
percent to pay for new No difference o ° 0 0
or expanded public 58.5/0 63.6/0 68.9/0 63.8/°
transportation, or would
DK/NA
it make no difference in o 0 0 0
your...
2.8/0 2.4/o .0/0 1.7
/o
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County Count
COI% COI% Col% COI
Q. 16b. If the price of More likely
gasoline increases to$5 32.1% 34.4% 24.5% 30.5%
per gallon,would you be
more likely or less likely Less likely
to vote for a sales tax 12.5% 9.9% 13.4% 11.9%
increase of one-half of a
percent to pay for new No difference o 0 0 0
or expanded public 53.7/0 54.2/0 59.5/0 55.7/o
transportation,or would DK/NA
it make no difference in 1.6% 1.5% 2.6% 1.9%
your...
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 8
3/6-3/9/2011
N=904,+/-3.25%
Registered Voters
4
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
Countv Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 17. Do you agree or Agree
disagree that you might, 77.6% 82.3% 80.0% 80.0%
in some way, benefit from
having expanded and Disagree
improved public ° c ° °
transportation systems in 18.6/0 13.3/° 16.2/0 16.0/o
your community,even if
you never personally use DK/NA
them for your own travel 3.8% 4.4% 3.8% 4.0%
and commuting needs?
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
Q. 18. If a county More likely
commissioner voted to 19.0% 20.1% 12.3% 17.1%
place a sales tax
increase of one-half of a Less likely
percent on the ballot for 21.7% 22.5% 27.3% 23.9%
new or expanded public
transportation,would you No difference o 0 0 0
be more likely or less 57.6/0 54.7/0 60.1/0 57. /o
5
likely to re-elect him or DK/NA
her,or would it make no 1.7% 2.6% 3% 1.6%
difference in your...
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
I
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 9
3/6-31912011
N=904,+/-3.25`/`
Registered Voters
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col
Q. 19. If a county More likely
commissioner voted 9.4% 21.1% 8.7% 13.1%
to increase vehicle
registration fees by Less likely
$10 dollars for new or 37.3% 27.8% 31.9% 32.3%
expanded public
transportation,would No difference
you be more likely or 50.7% 48.8% 58.3% 52.6%
less likely to re-elect
him or her,or would it DK/NA
make no difference in 2.6% 2.3% 1.2% 2.0%
your decision?
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County County County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
AGE 18 to 29 15.5% 20.0% 14.1% 16.6%
GROUP: 30 to 44 26.6% 25.5% 28.5% 26.9%
45 to 59 30.0% 28.2% 32.2% 30.1%
60 and older 26.9% 25.1% 23.9% 25.3%
Refused 1.0% 1.2% .4% .9%
DK/NA .0% .0% .9% .3%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 10
3/6-3/9/2011 a g
N=904,+/-3.25%
Registered Voters
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
Countv Countv County
Col% Col% Col% Col%
RACE: White 49.6% 76.6% 69.8% 65.3%
African-American 38.4% 12.2% 18.9% 23.2%
Hispanic 1.2% .9% 2.2% 1.4%
Something else 6.3% 5.9% 5.7% 6.0%
Mixed race .3% .2% .5% .3%
Refused 3.8% 3.5% 1.9% 3.1%
DK .3% .8% 1.0% .7%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
Countv Countv County
Col% Col% Col% COI%
OCCUPATIONAL Yes 66.3% 60.1% 60.0% 62.1%
STATUS: No 32.0% 38.5% 38.4% 36.3%
DK/NA 1.7% 1.4% 1.7% 1.6%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table
COUNTY: Total
Durham Orange Wake
County Countv Coun
Col% Col% Col% Col%
GENDER: Men 43.5% 44.0% 45.40/6 44.3%
Women 56.5% 56.0% 54.6% 55.7%
Table Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2011 TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY www.FallonResearch.com
Durham,Orange and Wake Counties,North Carolina Page 11
31C-3/9/2011
N=904,+1-3.25%
Registered Voters