Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-21-2011 - 8gORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 21, 2011 Action Agengda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Information Regarding One-Half ('/2) Cent Sales Tax for Orange County Transit DEPARTMENT: BOCC, Manager's Office & Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO ATTACHMENT(S): 1. June 7 Motion 2. Outline 3. Assumptions 4. Questions 5. Transit Booklet (Under Separate Cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank W Clifton, Manager-245-2300 Craig Benedict, Planning Director- 245-2575 Mila Vega, Transportation Planner- 245-2582 PURPOSE: To receive information and gather comment regarding the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan draft associated with the Triangle Regional Transit Plan ('h cent sales tax). BACKGROUND: On May 19 and June 7, 2011, the BOCC held a work session and regular meeting regarding the Triangle Regional Transit Program (TRTP) and the localized Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP). Decisions were made as an outcome of the June 7 meeting (see Attachment 1). In order to organize the compendium of transit information, an outline is attached. A 3-ring binder will be created on this topic so new material can be updated with the associated chronology. This will be sent under separate cover since the collection of information to populate is ongoing from various sources. The Planning Director will briefly highlight one of the sections of the transit booklet that includes explanation about the overall transit program in the region and our local area. Board members may add to that list which will be subject of further research by transit agencies and stakeholders over the summer. A timeline is also within the notebook that provides an outlook of coming months and comment may also be received on the formation of a new timeline. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive the information and offer any additional comment for research over the next few months. 2 ATTACHMENT 1 June 7, 2011 BOCC Agenda Item 8.c. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs based on Option B in the abstract packet which states; • that the BOCC vote not to proceed to a November 2011 referendum on the half cent sales tax; • that we set a date later this year for discussion of a new timetable and to receive further information related to Orange County components of the local and regional transit plans; and • indicate to Durham, Carrboro, Chape!-Hill, UNC and the public our continued interest in pursuing participation in an enhanced regional public transportation system. 3 TRIANGLE REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN (OCTP) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction i. Executive Summary 11. Background i. Legislation ii. Attorney Opinion III. Plan Elements i. Durham-Orange Plan Summary Matrix ii. Bus Service Plan .iii. Light Rail iv. Commuter Rail IV. Assumptions V. Revenues ~ Expenditures VI. Financial Plans i. Orange County Financial Plan Draft ii. Durham County Financial Plan Draft VII. Approval Processes/Timetable VI11. Questions/Explanations IX. Interlocal Agreement X. Appendix i. Intergovernmental Resolutions • Carrboro • Chapel Hill • Hillsborough • UNC • Mebane ii. Common Definitions ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 4 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN (OCTP) LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS Orange County will pay for the cost of light rail- railway (x miles) and 2 light rail stations in Durham County (i.e. Hillmont and Gateway) and the light rail miles with Orange County. 2. There is no `value capture' program in the financial model whereby increased property values near rail stations are apportioned to help create a future revenue stream to help pay for the cost of light rail capital and operations. 3. There is no local government independent contribution to fund the new light rail or bus program other than citizen/business sales -tax receipts and vehicle registration. 4. There is no institutional contribution to the revenue side of the model (i.e. major employees or university). 5. New'/ cent sales tax revenues will be apportioned for new service. New service is considered any service not in existence when the Mobility Bill legislation went into effect (i.e. June 2009). 6. The vehicle registration-tax can be used for existing or new bus service. 7. The financial model uses.'/z cent sales, vehicle registration and Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) rental. car tax to fund the overall bus and rail program. 8. Chapel Hill Transit's (CHT) bus system is presently fare-free (see definition in Appendix) and any expansion to routes provided by CHT are being- assumed to also be fare-free. 9. Any routes provided by TTA presently have user fees and new routes would also have user fees. These routes are typically inter-county or between local transit systems. 10. New bus routes that travel between two counties are assumed to be funded 50% each, irrespective of ridership, miles within jurisdiction, etc. 11. Orange County would pay a share of the rail maintenance facilities based on linear miles of rail paid for by County to be located in Durham County ($34 million - Orange County and $137 million -Durham County). 12. Park and ride lots or parking garages funded by the financial plan are assumed to be without a user fee. 5 ATTACHMENT 4 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN (OCTP) QUESTIONS/EXPLANATIONS QUESTIONS TO BE RESEARCHED AND ANSWERED SUMMER 2011 1. How the model is fiscally conservative on both revenue and expense side as verbally presented at our last meeting. 2. Assumptions about which bus routes are fare free and- which are not. Provide list (see also assumptions 8 & 9). 3. More detailed description of the bus rapid transit-- length of line, exact start and end point. Would BRT be viable and economical options for the high volume corridors of Hwy 54, 15-501 and MLK to be part of a regional public transit network? 4. Description of the limitations on use of the sales tax (e.g., cannot be used to supplant existing service) (see also assumptions 5 & 6). 5. Explanation of how the model assumes the light rail cost to include the most expensive alignment (Meadowmont) and how much lower the rail investment cost would be if the Hillmont alignment were chosen. 6. Spreadsheet showing Durham's bus plan and how it lines up with the regional bus plan on the Orange County plan. 7. What permits and righ#s of way will need to be obtained to implement the light rail and bus rapid transit. 8. Explanation of how and when state and federal monies will be requested. 9. How the operational- costs per hour of bus service are being estimated across time and how are rates controlled when using different providers. 10. List all the light rail stations within Orange County and within the limits of Chapel Hill but in Durham County. List where park and ride lots will be 11. Describe how the LPA will be selected. 12. Background rationale for the eastern route from UNC towards Hwy 54 and then NNE along I-40 to 15-501 instead of a more direct UNC to 15-501 route. In combination has a BRT line been examined in the Hwy 54 corridor or similar alternative analysis scenarios. 6 13. Please provide the various financial scenarios with reference to 2011 tax dollars or 2035 dollars or some other clearly explained footnote so the financial plan can be monitored accordingly. 14. Ensure how no financial liability would befall the county beyond stated revenue sources including debt capacity. 15. Develop what the potential of a no rail scenario (i.e. bus and ART) if funding is lost from federal and state sources or other decision. 16. Would commuter rail extended from Durham to Hillsborough be an effective means to connect central Orange County to the Triangle (including airport) since the proposed program to accomplish would be to drive to Gateway park and ride, light rail to transfer Durham commuter line, commuter to TTA regional hub to transfer to airport shuttle? 17. Statutes refer to an interlocal agreement (ILA) between the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) and counties (or county) to evaluate and amend the financial plan from time to time. The elements of a potential ILA are noted in attachment . As the attorney's opinion noted,. after the BOCC vote to -add the '/ cent sales tax to a referendum, absent a prior ILA, there is no formal binding ability to amend the initial financial plan to accommodate changing conditions of revenue, expenditures, timing, or new conditions whether interrelated to roads, new development or technology. Therein, the financial plan should be part of an implementing ILA and precede the vote for transit referendum.