The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 06-07-2011 - 8cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 7, 2011 Action Agenda Item No. 8 - G SUBJECT: Further Review and Decision Regarding Half-Cent ('/z) Cent Sales Tax for Transit DEPARTMENT: BOCC & Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Orange -Durham Financial Scenario Frank W Clifton, Manager, 245-2300 2. Extract from Session Law 2009-527 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 3. Draft Elements of an Interlocal 245-2575 Agreement Mila Vega, Transportation Planner, 4. Decision Points Chart 245-2582 PURPOSE: To continue discussion and make decisions regarding the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan draft associated with the Triangle Regional Transit Plan ('/2 cent sales tax), receive updates on municipal meetings and develop a schedule for the Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP) implementation. BACKGROUND: Session Law 2009-527 (also known as House Bill 148) adopted in 2009 permits `Triangle' counties (Wake, Durham and Orange) to put forward a referendum to impart a '/2 cent sales tax to pay for development and implementation of the Triangle Regional Transit Plan. Triangle Transit (TT) is the regional transit authority acting as the lead organization for the development of this regional initiative. The regional plan includes different elements; in Orange County it includes the following three elements: • Light Rail • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Bus Services: Urban and Rural The Orange County Transit Plan has evolved over the last eight months with input from local governments and university stakeholders. Input originally started with staff, transportation planners, and managers and then transitioned to the Orange County Transit Plan leadership group of elected officials. Triangle Transit provided a series of financial model scenarios that were guided by a variety of assumptions, some assumptions serving as a baseline to begin discussion. Each assumption, whether it related to revenue, timing of expenditures, or Durham- Orange cost share percentage, affected the bus service component and the associated amount of new bus services hours that could come on-line during early, mid, or long-term time frames. At least four aspects of the Orange County Transit Plan remain: 1. The proposed plan includes a cost share scenario for the light rail between Orange and Durham counties (Attachment 1). According to this yet unadopted scenario, Orange County will be responsible for the portion of light rail within Orange County if approved. The proposal also includes being responsible for segments and stations within Durham County that fall within the Town of Chapel Hill boundaries. The exact additional costs beyond the Orange County boundary are being calculated. 2. The Board review and comments on the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan draft (i.e. Financial Plan); and decision to set a date for a future meeting. 3. Cadence of decision points and/or issues for Orange County related to the Mobility Bill 148 legislation and specifically Article 43 NC105.510.6 which include references to: • FINANCIAL PLAN (this plan is also voted upon by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), TTA); • INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT; and • %Z cent sales tax REFERENDUM aspects (Attachments 2 and 3). 4. Decision timeline by the Board of various stages of the financial plan approval and whether to proceed or not with the '/ sales tax referendum this year to fund the financial plan (Attachment 4). FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving the report. The financial impact associated with the Orange County Transit Plan represents amulti-million dollar investment over the next 20+ years. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Set a timetable for approval of the financial paan subject to Orange County countywide public outreach and input. 2. Proceed with a decision regarding the public transit'/2 cent sales. tax: Option A - To Proceed to a referendum this November 2011 (Vote on Referendum Resolution at June 21, 2011 BOCC Meeting) (Board of Elections Deadline: August 22, 2011) Option B -Vote to not proceed to a November 2011 referendum and set a date later this year for discussion of a new timetable 3. Authorize staff to continue working on elements of an interlocal agreement that would implement the financial plan and bring back a draft later this year. Attachment 1 Durham-Orange Triangle Regional Transit Program Financial Plan Draft ' • County • .~,f ,~, ,. Kin ;.. ~~ ~O ~ ...v ~~; DURHAM S lit oint for Durham-Orange Light Rail Chapel Hill Town Limit Oran e Pays Gateway Area Light Rail Alignment (UNC Hospital to Alston Avenue) UNCD-Hill-SSE Sales Tax Growth Rate (2015 and beyond) ~s-'"~ , ~~`~~~<t__ ~;' ~ ;'` 3.5% Value Capture Revenue? (Annual} ~;~:~`. ~ _µti~Vone~~~~ ~~ None Value Capture Revenue Years ~` ~ _ `4~,~`~`~~s ;~~~ r NA Institutional Revenues? (Annual) y~~ . gs~i~~,.~ ` ~~" ri` None Institutional Revenues Years ~~, ~sr~w ~A~, ~v _,,~ .3° NA Opening Year Light Rail "~~ . , ~';~Q25 r~ . , ~'' ~ ; 2025 O enin Year Commuter Rail `'`_~' ~~"~ v '~` 2018 O erring Year MLK Bus Lanes ~>; _07~x~A , a ~ ~ ` - Local Municipal Contributions Per Year • • County LRT Ca ital Cost, Millions $2011 ~` ; ~, ~ ~~~~a~ i a~.'; ~°~~ ~;~1#-;:.~'~ ~zq $0 $1,050 County LRT Annual Operating Cost, Millions $2011 ~~;~~~ `'$3..2~ `'~ a, 4 $1130 MLK Bus Lanes Ca ital Cost, Millions $2011 i:~' ~" 1 ~"~~22;~,;~„ {~ t~ - MLK Bus Lanes Operating Cost, Millions $2011 ,;'~~~ : ~ ~~`."~ Y~%: - Commuter Rail Ca ital Cost, Millions $-2011 ,j r~ ~,~ ,; ~, ~` $300 Commuter Rail Operating Cost, Millions $2012 j~ Y y4f N2 ~ a `~ 5 ~ <~ ~~~ „~ ~rr ~ 4 $2.57 First Year New Bus. Hours ''r,Fnr ,.~r. ~,Il ~`~„~ `'~` 2~ ail.: ~ 25;000 First Three Years New Bus Hours =~~, t,,t"~;4;ii10,~' ' ;~;=' 50,000 Total New Bus Hours .:~=~"rt ~~lr~flti{~~., ~~ `` 77,500 All New Bus Hours Obtained By ~~';~t~~.r ~~~03~~ „ < ~` 2033 Borrowing (Millions $2011) ~ ;~ ,` , $30n~ $155 Debt Service Coverage Ration Tests-Met? 'K ~~YI'S~ f YES Cash on Hand Test Met? ($lOM Durham, $2M Orange} , ~ ~ :~hS ";~-~ .:~~ YES Fixed Guideway Dividend Hours** ~~`3(1,QUt1-4~;t}00' ' ~' 15,000-37,500 Cash Balance in 2035 (Millions in $2035) Y~`N ~ >SOy~~;~, $95 Cash Balance in 2035 (Millions in $2011) ~:~ "x;$25 ~.,'4~<` ~x,:° $48 Attachment 2 4 Extract from Session Law 2009-527 (also known as House Bill 148) "§ 105-510.6. Limitations. A transportation authority may not levy a tax under Part 3A or 3B of this Article unless: 1. It operates a public transportation system. 2. It has developed a financial plan and distributed it to each unit of local government located within its territorial jurisdiction. The plan must be approved by the board of commissioners of each county in the district prior to the levy of the tax. If the board of commissioners of a-county in a multicounty district does not adopt the -plan, the transportation authority may remove that county from the district, and no tax may be levied in that county under this Part. The financial plan must provide for equitable use of the net proceeds within- or to benefit the special district created under Part 3A or Part 3B of this Article and consider is the identified needs of local public transportation systems in the district, ii. human service transportation systems within the district, and iii. expansion of public transportation systems to underserved areas of the district. The financial plan must also be approved by all Metropolitan Planning Organizations -under Article 16 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes whose jurisdiction includes any of the area of the special district. The plan may be revised from time to time. An interlocal agreement between the transportation authority and all the counties in the special district may require periodic review and approval of the financial-plan. 3. The tax is approved by the voters. § 105-510.7. Distribution and use of taxes. (a) Distribution. - The Secretary shall, on a monthly basis, allocate to-each special district the net proceeds of the tax levied under this Part within the special tax district, to be used for the benefit of that district. (b) Use. - A special district must expend the net proceeds distributed to it in accordance with its financial plan adopted pursuant to G.S. 105-510.6 and use the net proceeds only for financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining public transportation systems. The special district shall use the net proceeds to supplement and not to supplant or replace existing funds or other resources for public transportation systems. Attachment 3 5 Draft Elements of an Interlocal Agreement Implementing County Authorized Sales Ta~c Revenues 7. Potential Agreement Parties Possible Options: a. Orange County-Triangle Transit Authority (Durham County-Triangle Transit Authority) b. Orange County-Durham County-Triangle Transit Authority c. Orange County-Triangle Transit Authority-Bus Service Providers (i.e. Chapel F-lill T-ransit, Orange Public Transportation, or other) d. 1. Orange County-Triangle Transit Authority 2. Orange County-County Bus Service Providers and Financial Stakeholders 2. Governance a. The process for review and vote by the County, the MPO and Triangle Transit's- Board of Trustees on any- significant or substantial revisions to the Plan required by changes experienced in revenues received, capital costs, operating expenses, or other substantial issues affecting the Plan. b. Technical advisory group 3. Financial Plan a. Triangle Transit funds disbursement to ser-vice providers b. Modification to revenue stream- s. Plan implementation modification d. References to fare free service e. Annual plan review and reporting guidelines 4. Bus Service a. Route classifications b. Route performance standards 5. General Provisions a. Integrity of the goals of the original `equitable use' of funds relating to service distribution. b. General guidelines for thresholds for level of service to ensure continued `balance'. June 2011 ( 1 ~ November, X011 -2 2~~~ _1 Bocc Mpo Meeting: Representative Refe~~endum Guidance Decision m