Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-08-2011APPROVED 2/21/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL WORK SESSION December 8, 2011 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Transit on Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Earl McKee COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Steve Yuhasz COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Pelissier pointed out that Commissioner Yuhasz was out of town for some training tonight. 1. Trianqle Reaional Transit Proqram - Oranqe Countv Bus and Rail Investment Plan• Alternatives Analvsis and the Locallv Preferred Alternative Chair Pelissier recognized that Planning staff and Triangle Transit staff were present. Craig Benedict reviewed this information, which is shown below. The purpose of this meeting is for the Board to discuss these items. Agenda Outline and Key to Attachments A. Mobility Regional Purpose 1. House Bill 148 (Attachment A1) 2. Local (Att. A2) B. Alternatives Analysis (AA) (Mode of Transit) 1. Bus Plan (Att. B1) 2. BRT (Att. B2) 3. Light Rail (Att. B3) 4. Commuter Rail (Att. B4) 5. UNC - D (Att. 65) C. Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) (Corridor) 1. C-1 - Meadowmont (Att. C1) 2. C-2 - Hillmont 3. Alignment Alternative Comparison (Att. C3) D. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Financial Plan/Model) 1. Cost Sharing Discussion a. Durham/Orange Triangle Regional Transit Program Financial Plan Draft (Att. D1 a) b. Cost Sharing Map (Att. D1 b) c. Revenue Sharing (Att. D1 c) 2. Ridership a. Assumptions (Att. D2a, incl. 4-charts) b. Demographics (Att. D2b) c. Employment and Population (Att. D2c) 3. Plan A; Core Transit --Bus (See Att. B1) Plan B; Enhanced Transit --Light Rail --Bus --B RT `" --BRT (See Att. 62) --Commuter Rail (See Att. B4) E. Intergovernmental Agreeriients or Memorandum of Understanding 1. Municipalities (Att. E1) 2. Triangle Transit (Att. E2) F. Referendum Decisions G. Timeline (Att. G) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX AUTHORIZED SECTION 2.(a) Section 1(a) of S.L. 1997-417 is recodified as G.S. 105-510.1. SECTION 2.(b) Article 43 of Chapter 105 of the` General Statutes, as enacted by S.L. 1997-417 and amended by Section 13(f) of S.L. 2001-427, Section 74 of S.L. 2008-134, and by subsection (a) of this section, reads as rewritten: "Arficle 43. "Local Government Sales and Use Taxes for Public Transportation. "Part 1. General. " "§ 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 bv 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 #or 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 •(i)the identified needs of local public transportation systems in the district, •(ii) human service transportation systems within the district, and •(iii) exqansion of public transportation systems to underserved areas of the district. The financial plan must also be approved by all Metropolitan Planninq 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. „E { r` That is the overview of what the I~gislation says. Next attachment - A2 7 Regional Mobility Purpose: Orange County • Regional Perspective and Connectivity • Enhance Public Transit Options • Reduce Traffic and Air Pollution • Increase Development and Redevelopment Opportunities • (Increase Tax Ba.se/Sales Tax) • Provide access to: • jobs • education • shopping • entertainment Attachment A2 • Serve Orange County Residents and Businesses Chair Pelissier asked Triangle Transit what they were envisioning about cost-sharing agreements. Craig Benedict said that, originally, at a minimum there needs to be an agreement between Orange County and Triangle Transit. If the parameters of that agreement talk about the revenues through the %2-cent sales tax and expenditures within the realm of what the County can pay, then the agreement could be narrow enough to be between Orange County and Triangle Transit. If the moving parts of the rail are more delicate, then the agreement may need to involve others. David King said that the idea is to have an interlocal agreement that commits Triangle Transit to be the implementation:agency. Things will change and they will either have more or less tax revenue than expected. He said that there is interdependence between counties, but he does not see an advantage of having a two-county plan because both counties' financial plans will incorporate the agreement however the cost will be shared. Commissioner McKee said that he remembers that the transit authority as constructed will receive the tax proceeds. He said that anything that is not specifically addressed in the agreement, he is not comfortable that the Board of County Commissioners will have any teeth in the agreement to impose the County Commissioners' will in the benefit of Orange County. David King said that his° ~~nderstanding is that the plan that will be approved specifies deployment of bus service on MLK in Chapel Hill and a connection between UNC Hospital and Durham along the corridor that has not been nailed down yet. This plan, based on the financial assumptions, is what Triangle ~transit 'will be charged to do and it will be exactly what the County told them to do. As thfiir~gs change the County Commissioners can communicate to Triangle Transit and talk througki'~thi`ngs. He said that Triangle Transit's job is to implement and not to play games with the plan: '' Commissioner McKee said that he is concerned about the citizens paying transit taxes and there should be some mechanism if the will of the Board should diverge. He does not see a mechanism in place. He has a r~agging feeling that there should be a mechanism in place. Chair Pelissier said that she sees some of Commissioner McKee's concerns being addressed in an agreement. She said that Commissioner Gordon as the representative would be the one to address the conc~rns of the Board to Triangle Transit. Craig Benedict said that -k~t the coming months the staff will take the elements of the bus and rail plan and try to reduce them to a threshold. Craig Benedict went through Section B. He spoke about the diff~rent proposed routes from Alamance to Durham and Chapel Hill. Frank Clifton said that t~troughout the terms of phasing of the development of bus service, Orange County will hav~~`to have continuous discussions with Chapel Hill, Carrboro and UNC. - Commissioner McKee said ~that this plan assumes that both of these components of the plan are in place - the bus service and the rail. If the rail does not work out, then the plan would not work out. He asked if there was any indication about the number of hours needed if the rail component did not work out. Chair Pelissier said that there has not been a discussion on that issue yet and everything has been premised on having the light rail. She said that there can be a plan that is not dependent on light rail. '"~ Commissioner McKee said that he would like to have a fall-back plan where the rail is not the focus. ~~''` Chair Pelissier agreed. Commissioner Gordon m~de reference to page 8, which says how much bus service is recommended. It is about 70-80,000 hours which is more than the 50,000 hours that would be provided in the plan with light cail. She said that it is a good idea to do a core plan and an enhanced plan. She asked how there could be more bus hours sooner if there were a need. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the year 2035. Patrick McDonough said that this was a benchmark for the Long-Range Transportation Plan when it was developed. Craig Benedict went thraugh the chart on page 8. The mobility tax cannot be used to support existing services or supplant existing services. There are other sources of revenue such as the vehicle registration tax. Chair Pelissier said that she does not see this as set in stone and the County Commissioners will be asking for public comment. Craig Benedict said that this is a draft and they would expect public outreach in January 2012. Chair Pelissier asked if the costs include what would be needed for the four park and ride lots. Patrick McDonough said that this was heavily discussed last spring. If there is any capital funding, it is $3 million or •less in the first three years. Commissioner Gordon 'rai'ade reference to the chart on page 8 and asked for an explanation of BRT; and also for-c~arification of the total new hours and Orange County's share; and the operating costs. i~Y .~ Craig Benedict said that~,~e first bold BRT is the caption and the two BRT's underneath are the MLK corridor where tt~ere are monies in the financial plan ($22 million) and the 54 corridor (unfunded). Even with light rail being in the 54 corridor, there have been some presentations on 54 corridor ent~~ncements for transportation. Regarding the total hours for a bus route, any route that spans~twb~counties, if it is 6,000 hours total and it goes to Durham, the assumption is that Orange Count~r takes 50% and Durham takes 50%. Orange County has only added 3,000 hours. ~' Patrick McDonough made:reference to operating costs and said that this process started in 2007. The cost per hour is Wi'dely based on circumstances. The current average is $86-87 per hour. Craig Benedict went through the attachments in Section B, which were maps. In Durham County's plan~ and Wake County's plan, there is a commuter rail corridor that goes from downtown Durham, tt~rough the Triangle area, past the airport, and over to Cary and beyond where other light rail wo~tl~i'be picked up. That corridor is within the financial plan. Commissioner McKee as#ced about the expansion of commuter rail in Orange County and why is the potential of exp~n'sion out of Durham not figured into these costs. David King said that ther~~'is not enough money to do it through the 2035 timeframe. He said that this is a plan only and~Veryone should be humble about what might happen. There will need to be continuous conv~rsation with all entities to keep this plan fresh and current. He hopes that the partners in AlartiYtance County will be cooperative so that the light rail could be extended into Burlington. Chair Pelissier said that a#`this point in the meeting, the County Commissioners need to give direction to Commissioner Gordon about the preferred route that she will communicate to the MPO. ; t~r~ : Chair Pelissier asked the Board if A3(d) would be the preferred route, since it could go on to Carrboro and Carolina Nortfi. The Board agreed by cdn~ensus. Craig Benedict went t~r.flugh Attachment C1, which shows Meadowmont with two different routes. Commissioner McKee m~de reference to the emails that the County Commissioners have received and asked Craig Benedict to point out the sensitive areas. Craig Benedict said th~t a lot of the emails that have been received were from the Meadowmont area, and they were concerned that the rail corridor through Meadowmont bisects uses on either side of the tracks =~senior care facilities on one side and health care facilities on another. Commissioner McKee asked about the environmentally sensitive areas. Craig Benedict pointed these out. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the discussions of cost-sharing. Chair Pelissier said that this has not been discussed yet. David King said that the difference in the cost between C1 and C2 is small and he would hope that both alternatives go fotward for more discussion and research. Commissioner McKee said that it was his understanding that Meadowmont was built with mass-transit in mind. Craig Benedict agreed. Commissioner McKee said that to walk away from C1 would be to walk away from an objective that seems to have been fairly clear in the developer's intent and planning and permitting process. Chair Pelissier said that the°major problem with C1 is that there is no park and ride. Frank Clifton said that firiangle Transit would prefer to keep both routes and move forward. - ' Commissioner Foushee suggested keeping both alternatives on the table in order to do due diligence. David King said that, in this case, he agreed with Commissioner Foushee to keep both on the table for the next stage of analysis. Commissioner McKee said that he would not have a problem keeping both alternatives on the table, if at the end point, both routes were more or less equal. Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners have been given the letter from Mr. Wilson, and they need te note that they got this letter. Chair Pelissier said that th~e decision will be formalized at the December 13th meeting. Craig Benedict went thraugh Attachment D1a, which was Assumptions (revenue, costs, timing), and the information is incorporated by reference. David King reminded the Board that 50% of the total cost will come from the federal government and 25% from the state government. The total capital cost will be part of the sales tax revenue that is generated in ~range County. Commissioner Gordon made reference to pages 1-3 and said that the Gateway Station is really very expensive. She asked why this was. Craig Benedict said that if was because of the fly over that went above I-40. Craig Benedict went through Attachment D2a, page 24. He said that the biggest ridership number for light rail would be in the UNC area. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 87, Summary of Evaluation Results for LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low Alternatives. She asked Craig Benedict to describe the significant findings in this chart. ' Craig Benedict went thro~tgh this chart and noted that ridership was higher for the BRT options when compared with LRT. Patrick McDonough went through the different sets of BRT ridership numbers and stated that the BRT numbers were probably too high. Commissioner Gordon asked what we should do with this ridership information. Since ridership is critical, we need to know if the numbers are accurate, and whether ridership is higher for the BRT options compared with LRT. David King said that he agreed that it does require additional discussion, and the clear recommendation from Triangle Transit is light rail. Commissioner McKee said that he wanted to talk about the total costs of $330 million, of which one-quarter would be Orange County's responsibility. This is $82.5 million. If the County uses 2025 as the end point of construction, that gives an 11-year timeframe. This is about $7.5 million per year. Frank Clifton pointed out that Orange County's sales tax numbers are the lowest in the region and when retail begins in Orange County, there will be substantial retail growth. Commissioner Foushee said that before the entities talk about cost-sharing, they need to determine what the technology is going to be. She wants to identify what is keeping them from moving forward. This timeline is very aggressive. Chair Pelissier said that there are two items that the Board has not covered and those are the agreements and the timelPr~e. The timeline is on page 38. Commissioner McKee said that he would like to discuss BRT. Chair Pelissier said that ~here is a meeting later this month with the towns and UNC about this and this will be discussed. Frank Clifton suggested that one of the key components is the discussion with Durham County. The County Commissioners may want to discuss how to initiate this with Durham County. He suggested not waitirrg~ until March to discuss. ,~ With no further items to, discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemr~tinger to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board +. :. ~~ .,.