HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-02-2012 APPROVED 11/20/2012
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
October 2, 2012
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
October 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey,
Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
members will be identified appropriately below)
1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda
The Chair went through the additional items at the County Commissioners' places:
- White sheet PowerPoint for item 7-a, Employee Health Insurance and Other
Benefits for 2013
- PowerPoint for item 7-d — Resolution to Submit Comments Regarding Alternatives
for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
- Rose sheet—from Commissioner Gordon regarding item 7-e, Transit Interlocal
Implementation Agreement
- Pink sheet - from Orange County staff for item 7-e, Transit Interlocal
Implementation Agreement
- Orange Sheet from Orange County Manager for item 7-e, Transit Interlocal
Implementation Agreement
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda
Michael Muller read a prepared statement.
Orange County Commissioners and Staff:
As residents of Orange County we wholeheartedly approve of your efforts to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of emergency response agencies through better address
identification.
We are 3 households living off Harmony Church Road on an unnamed driveway that was
established at a time when there were no requirements for naming private roads.
Two of the households are occupied by former firefighters, one a former Chief and one a
former Captain, each with over 20 years of service and experience with the Cedar Grove Fire
Dept. We are well aware of the problems associated with locating a residence in an
emergency both day and night. We know it is much easier to locate an address on a main road
rather than to find a small drive with an additional name.
In our case, our 3 addresses are clearly labeled at the main road with official reflective number
signs acquired from the Hillsborough Fire Dept. In addition, the same official house number
signs are installed along the 3/4 mile driveway at appropriate locations to further direct
emergency personnel.
As former emergency responders we also know that the sequential numbering of addresses
with properly sized, consistent, and reflective numbers along the roads is an important and
effective way to find a house. Enforcing standard number signage on existing roads will better
support your efforts to locate structures than adding many newly named small lanes with
inconsistently located and sized signs for the many driveways throughout the county.
There are many different situations in the county and we do not believe that only one solution
works in every case.
Therefore, instead of demanding compliance to a set of seemingly arbitrary rules we are
appealing to your common sense in finding the best solution to the problems of locating a
house along our many county roads. Why is the number of households set at 3 per drive?
Why not 4? Why not 2?
Also, we are concerned that the tone of your notice, which mentions fines and compliance,
even before explaining the ordinance does not actually encourage people to work towards the
stated goal of making structures more easily located.
As you know, changing an address is no small matter and requires a significant amount of
time, money, effort, and inconvenience. In the absence of moving to a new residence, this is
not something that should be required without the clear and definite benefit of achieving the
goal of such a requirement.
Therefore we ask you to consider our concerns, especially when the stated basis for the
address change, i.e. better emergency response, will not be achieved in cases such as ours.
Attached are photographs of the number signage for our households.
We look forward to a sensible solution to this issue, Thank You,
Sincerely Yours
Michael Muller and Judy Frank
8750 Harmony Church Road
Joe and Ann Chockley
8740 Harmony Church Road>Steve and Joan Levitt
8770 Harmony Church Road
Jeff Charles, OUT Board member and advocate for bicycles, said that he is here for the
Rural Road Safety Coalition. He said that he has noticed a significant increase in hostility and
frustration between motorists and cyclists over the last couple of years. This has led to
dangerous situations on the roads. He said that this group of concerned cyclists and motorists
have come together to prepare some common sense guidelines for motorists and cyclists.
They are asking the County Commissioners to endorse these guidelines.
Jessica Gerry spoke on behalf of Carrboro Planning Board and announced a series of
open dialogues for the public on October 15tn 24tn and 30th on affordable housing.
Don O'Leary read part of the United States Constitution. He said that Woodrow Wilson
agreed to commit high treason and sign the Federal Reserve Act, creating an IRS. He said
that the IRS has been in control of this nation ever since. He said that the IRS deliberately
created the Great Depression. He said that there is a shift of the power to the United Nations.
He said that the last hope is for the local governments to use sovereignty to dismantle out of
the control of the government and start new.
b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to petition and set up an alternative
sentencing work group to plan for a new jail. The judges, District Attorney, Public Defender,
and other members of the criminal justice system should be a part of this work group. He said
that the example of the Emergency Services Work Group is a good model.
Commissioner Yuhasz seconded Commissioner Jacobs' request.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. lan Finley, 2012 Piedmont Laureate — National Arts & Humanities Month
The Board was introduced to dramatist lan Finley, the 2012 Piedmont Laureate, and
heard a brief selection from him for National Arts & Humanities Month (October).
Staff Support for the Arts Commission Martha Shannon said that October is National
Arts and Humanities Month. She introduced lan Finley, a dramatist, as the 2012 Piedmont
Laureate.
lan Finley said that he has had the chance to interact with many arts groups throughout
Orange County. He is writing a new play, Up from the Ground, based on his interactions with
these arts groups and explores the food waste of the piedmont. He said that he has spoken
with Noah Rannells at the Processing Center, which has opened his eyes to the value and
importance of food.
5. Consent Aqenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
None
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes — None
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to
35 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to
sixty-four (64) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 105-381.
d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for the 2012 tax year.
e. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
Outline/Schedule for UDO Text Amendments Suqqested by MuniCode
The Board approved the process components and schedule for minor "housekeeping"
amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text, currently scheduled for the
November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and directed staff to proceed accordingly.
f. Floodplain Manaqement Planninq Activities within the County
The Board received information on the completion of an annual report to the Community
Rating Service (CRS) regarding the County's Floodplain Management Program, acknowledged
the recertification package has been submitted to CRS for processing, and informed the
general public the recertification package as well as other pertinent floodplain mitigation
documents are available for review.
g_ Amendment to the Oranqe County Personnel Ordinance Reqardinq the Employee
Performance Evaluation Process
The Board approved an amendment to the Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 28 Personnel,
Article VII, §§ 28-82 through 28-84 as provided in Attachment A, which would remove the
operational aspects of the Employee Performance Evaluation Process from the Personnel
Ordinance and to the Administrative Rules and Regulations promulgated by the County
Manager and to allow an employee's performance evaluation date to remain the anniversary of
the original date of appointment or the most recent promotion date, effective July 1, 2012.
h. Return of Funds to the County's Emerqency Telephone Fund (911) for Funds
Transferred to Establish an Emerqency Services Capital Reserve within the General
Fund and Approval of Budqet Amendment# 2-A
The Board authorized staff to make the appropriate transfer from the General Fund to the 911
Fund to resolve the matter with the NC 911 Board, and approved Budget Amendment#2-A.
i. Efland Phase 2/Buckhorn Sanitary Sewer Scope Expansion Chanqe Order Approval
The Board authorized the Manager to execute the attached change order in the amount of
$219,257.78 related to the project scope expansion of the additional gravity sewer outfall
connection between the new Brookhollow Road Lift Station and the end-of-life McGowan
Creek Lift Station; and authorized the Manager to execute any future change orders for this
project up to an amount not to exceed $250,000 in total upon County Attorney review and not
to exceed the overall project budget.
i Board of Commissioners Meetinq Calendar for Year 2013
The Board approved the regular meeting schedule for the Board of County Commissioners for
calendar year 2013.
k. Chanqe in BOCC Reqular Meetinq Schedule for 2012
The Board amended its regular meeting calendar for 2012 by changing the location of the
BOCC meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 8, 2012 FROM the DSS Offices, 113 Mayo
Street, TO the Central Orange Senior Center (Adjoining Triangle Sportsplex), 103
Meadowlands Drive, Hillsborough, N. C.
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
6. Public Hearinqs - NONE
7. Reqular Aqenda
a. Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits for 2013
The Board considered the County Manager's recommendations for employee health
insurance and other benefits for the 2013 calendar year.
Nicole Clark, Human Resources Director, and Mark Browder from Mark III made this
PowerPoint presentation:
pl�y �a Insu�an �ptions and �r��n� for 2013
�a gr�und
� Orange County provides employees with a comprehensive benefits package
� Health, dental, vision, life; flexible benefit compensation; employee assistance
program; paid leave; contributions to the Local Government Employees'
Retirement System and other supplemental retirement plans
� Effective January 1, 2012 UnitedHealthcare became the County's provider of health
insurance
� Point of Service and HDP
� Benefits information provided at previous meetings and work sessions during the month
of June
� FY 2012-13 budget includes funding for a 23% increase
� Medical flexible spending account contribution is $2,500 as of 1/1/13
� No significant changes to other benefits
Ernpl+ay�F�dba�
� Prescriptions:
� Brand names for certain acid reflux medications were not covered
� Limited supplies for migraine and asthma medication
� Members had to change prescriptions to get a lower co-pay
� All generic prescriptions were not included in Tier I
� Tier I co-pays increased from $0 to $8
� Services:
� Office visit co-pays did not include diagnostic tests
� Preventive versus non-preventive services were unclear
� Elimination of the obesity surgery
pi�y s�„��y
� 400 Employees responded
� 73% POS plan participants
� 96.6% of POS participants are very familiar or somewhat
familiar
� 23% HDP plan participants
� 94.2% of HDP participants are very familiar or somewhat
familiar
� 76% participated in the health assessment
� 95% would like to have $0 generic co-pays
� 29% would like to reduce prescription costs
� 22.8% would like plan improvements, if premiums remained the same or
decreased
� 34.3% would require employees to improve or maintain good health through
smoking cessation and setting weight loss goals
Renewal Observations:
o The UHC Renewal is very competitive, based on the County's claims.
o Looking to transition to another carrier will have a nominal financial
impact.
o Self-funding doesn't provide the County with any savings.
o As noted, there are benefits additions that are being recommended.
o Adding the obesity coverage would increase rates by nearly 4%, while
only a few would utilize the benefit.
Tabl�s wid�specfic amountsirates are inco►porated byreference.
Rl�xt St�
nd
� October 2 : BOCC considers and approves the 2013 Employee Benefits
Package
th
� October 9 : HR Staff begins education process for employees and retirees
nd th
� October 22 — November 4 : Online Open Enrollment
th nd
� October 29 — November 2 : Mark III and HR Staff conduct numerous open
enrollment meetings
� December 2012: Educational and Focus Group Meetings Begin
�� UnitedHealthcare
� Self-funded plan design
� 2013: Recommendation to the BOCC on plan design for 2014
Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for being responsive to the concerns of the
staff. He made reference to the letter from Nicole Clark, Attachment C, and that United
Healthcare will attend one focus group. He said that employees are dissatisfied with the
responsiveness of UHC. He asked if UHC could come for an employee town hall meeting so
that it is not so controlled and employees can ask unscripted questions.
Nicole Clark said that she would take this to UHC and ask them.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Board went with Option 1 if there would be an
opportunity at the next renewal to look at obesity coverage and Mark Browder said yes.
Frank Clifton said that the employees he met with as part of the Employee Relations
Committee were concerned about the cost of the obesity benefit. The employees would like
the County to take steps to encourage these people to change their health habits and/or
provide a wellness program before this benefit is implemented.
Commissioner Foushee asked if the personnel ordinance reflects what the law requires
in terms of eligibility for County Commissioners for retiree health insurance. The employees
have to have 20 years of service to be eligible and the County Commissioners only have to
serve for eight years. This is not equitable in her opinion. The law requires a minimum of ten
years of service before the County Commissioners are eligible. The ordinance should reflect
this.
John Roberts said that there have been no modifications to the ordinance, but they are
forthcoming. The statute states that it applies to any class of former officers and employees of
the County.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Board should discuss the time requirement for
Board of County Commissioners for eligibility. He thinks that the requirement should also be
20 years for the County Commissioners, just like it is for employees.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve a 20-year requirement for County Commissioners to be eligible for
retiree health coverage.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to approve the renewal of the fully-insured health insurance plans with
UnitedHealthcare, choosing Option 1, with an overall premium increase of 8.51%.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Approval of the Purchase of SunGard-OSSI E911 Computer Aided Dispatch
Svstem and Budqet Amendment# 2-B
The Board considered approval of the purchase of the SunGard-OSSI E911 Computer
Aided Dispatch system as recommended by the Emergency Services Workgroup; and
approval of Budget Amendment#2-B and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Michael Talbert said that the current CAD system is now 20 years old and this
equipment has been reviewed by the Emergency Services work group and the Emergency
Services consultant. The CAD system that has been ordered will take about 12 months to
implement. The initial budget was $640,000, but more money has been moved into the 911
fund, and the appropriation would will $485,478 from the E911 Fund for this equipment.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Peter Hallenbeck read a prepared statement.
I'm wearing three hats tonight: Citizen Pete, 20 years with Efland Fire, Deputy Chief Pete, and
PageTrack Pete.
What is PageTrack? A little over a year ago, I started a software company that has developed
a real time tracking system for fire, EMS, and rescue responders. It's web based and runs on
smart phones, iPads, and desktops.
It is currently being used by many departments in the county. Those departments can use the
system for free forever.
I am submitting a document with my detailed questions and concerns about the OSSI path that
the county is on. There is no easy way to summarize all the points.
The agenda for this meeting says that after the OSSI demonstration, "The system was well-
received by the stakeholders." The problem is that an email was sent out on a Wednesday
that gave Fire just two days to voice any concerns about the system. Many concerns that I
had voice anywhere from 1 to 5 months ago had not been address by Emergency Services.
There's been talk of the strained relationship between ES and the fire departments, and the
CC said that we all need to communicate better. Well, fire should have voiced any concerns
they had, and ES should not have taken silence to be the same as approval. So we are on a
path where this is a good chance there will be friction once again between the groups.
If the fire departments can't use PageTrack with OSSI, and have to switch to the OSSI A.V.L.
system, they will lose capabilities they have now while spending as much as nine times as
much money. So this lack of communications could cost the fire departments .5 million dollars
at start up and $50,000 per year ongoing costs.
The scheduling of this vote is sad, since the CC will meet with the fire departments in just two
days. A communications opportunity lost.
There's a lot of talk about all the stakeholders having a voice in the development of the
system. It seems to me that after the purchase, those options go down substantially.
So please read my concerns. I want to avoid a situation where a year down the road everyone
is yelling at each other because the system is not what they want or cost too much to
implement. And even if you approve the purchase tonight, please work with Fire so that you
can insure their concerns are met. Historically, Fire has not had much success convincing ES
to change how they do things. Deploying this new CAD system is an opportunity to fix that
problem and have better emergency service to people that are in trouble.
Commissioner McKee said that there was an opportunity for a demonstration of this at
the Emergency Services work group. He said that he felt that the intention is to keep an open
dialogue with the fire departments. He does not want to close the door to further dialogue.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the contract could be signed after the meeting with the
fire departments and rescue squad on Thursday.
Michael Talbert said that the County was offered a special deal to sign the contract
before October 5th. He is not sure there is another clear alternative because this system is
also used by the adjoining counties. It is the preferred system across the State.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to sign this contract after the meeting
because there may be further information regarding suggestions or modifications from the fire
departments.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
approve the purchase of the SunGard-OSSI E911 Computer Aided Dispatch system, authorize
the Chair to sign the contract (after the meeting on October 4t"), and approve Budget
Amendment#2-B.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Draft Town of Hillsborouqh Future Land Use Plan
The Board considered authorizing the Chair to submit a letter submitting preliminary
comments to the Town of Hillsborough regarding its draft Future Land Use Plan and receive an
update on the joint planning process that is to occur between the Town and County.
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri made a PowerPoint presentation. He
said that the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County have been coordinating planning
efforts for several years. Current efforts towards joint planning originated in 2005 with a joint
task force completing a report identifying principles of agreement as a guide to future planning
efforts. In 2006, a Strategic Growth Plan report was completed calling for the preparation of
an interlocal agreement, which was also adopted in 2009. The interlocal agreement provides
for the adoption of the joint land use plan, adjustments to the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction,
and adoption of zoning and subdivision regulations for areas to be covered by the Joint Land
Use Plan. The Town of Hillsborough is now taking the first step towards the Joint Land Use
Plan and has prepared a draft for public review. The Town held the first of two outreach
meetings on September 13th. The 2nd outreach meeting will occur tomorrow morning from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., working towards a target public hearing date of October 1 gtn
followed by a Planning Board recommendation in November and subsequent Board
consideration in December.
The County's role is to offer preliminary comments to the Town on the draft Future
Lane Use Plan as it moves into the public hearing process. The County will not be discussing
specifics at this stage, so citizens are encouraged to attend the outreach session and the
public hearing to hear the presentation. Planning staff has prepared a draft letter for the
Board's consideration as preliminary input to the Town. This letter is in Attachment 4 in the
packet on page 5.
Item 7.c.
October 2, 2012
BOCC Meeting
Hillsborouqh-Oranqe Joint Planninq Backqround:
Hillsborough-Orange Urban Transition Area Task Force (2005)
Hillsborough-Orange Strategic Growth Plan, Phase I Report (2006)
Hillsborough-Orange Strategic Growth Plan, Phase II Agreement (2009)
Summary of Town of Hillsborouqh Next Steps:
rd
Second Outreach Session — October 3 , 10:00 AM — 12:00 PM at Town Barn
th
Public Hearing — October 18 , 7:00 P.M. at Town Barn
Planning Board — November
Town Board Consideration — December 2012
Town of Hillsborough Draft Future Land Use Plan
The Manaqer Recommends the Board:
1. Receive the update; and
2. Authorize the Chair to send the attached letter (Attachment 4) submitting preliminary
comments to the Town of Hillsborough.
Commissioner Jacobs said that there should be some green space as a buffer around
the urban areas much like there is a rural buffer between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. He made reference to the third bullet— preference for non-residential uses — and
suggested adding, "in an economic development area."
Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought the master plan for Waterstone had a hotel
proposed there. He would hope to have this kind of plan with Mebane in the near future.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to update the letter with suggestions and map attachment and authorize the Chair to send the
attached letter (Attachment 4) submitting input to the Town of Hillsborough regarding its draft
Future Land Use Plan.
The changes include: attach "area 5" to the next to the last bullet, add "in economic
development districts" to the third bullet, and attach the map as suggested.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Resolution to Submit Comments Reqardinq Alternatives for the Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planninq Orqanization's 2040 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Board received a presentation from Lead Planning Agency staff inember Andy
Henry (Attachment 1) and considered a resolution (Attachment 2) submitting comments to the
Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) regarding the Alternatives Analysis of the 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).
Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced this item.
Andy Henry, Planner with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization, made a PowerPoint presentation.
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
Alternatives Analysis
What is DCHC MPO?
Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization
���� Responsible for long range transportation planning in
���� Durham City and County, and
���� Parts of Orange County and Chatham County.
Federal mandate — MPO must plan use of federal transportation funding
���� Policy Board -- Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) composed mostly of
local elected officials.
What is 2040 MTP?
���� Lists hi hwa , transit and other transportation projects to address future
transportation deficiencies through year 2040.
� Assum tions — based on future land use, population and employment.
Fiscal onstraint—Anticipated revenues must cover anticipated project costs.
���� Fundin -- Projects must be in MTP to receive state and federal funding (via
Transportation Improvement Program —TIP)
���� Used for Planninq
���� e.g., In development review, use MTP to reserve right-of-way for
future highway and fixed guideway projects
What is Alternatives Analysis?
���� What—
Proposed sets of projects/services to meet transportation deficiencies -- this is the 1 st
cut.
uu Why_
���� Determine how project types and individual projects meet future
transportation demand.
���� Understand public and local officials preferences.
���� When —
���� Released August 17, 2012
���� Public input
���� Workshop at Hillsborough Town Barn, 9/13, 4-7pm
���� OUTboard
Highway Projects:
Moderate Network
Major Projects:
- I-85 widening
- I-40 widening
- Old NC 86 widening
- US 15-501/NC 54 bypass widening
- NC superstreets
- US 15-501/NC 54 interchange
Transit Services:
Moderate Network
Major Services:
- Light Rail Transit (Durham-CH)
- Bus service improvements
- Bus Rapid Transit in Chapel Hill
Transit Intensive Network
Major Services:
- Light Rail Transit extension
- Commuter Rail extension
2040 MTP
--Next Steps
- Develop the Preferred Option (release in October 2012)
- Get public feedback on the Preferred Option (October through December 2012)
- Approve draft 2040 MTP (December 2012)
- Adopt after Air Quality Conformity (April 2013)
Frank Clifton made reference to the population and employment projections and said
that these projections seem high.
Chair Pelissier asked if these employment models could be modified.
Andy Henry said that they could look at other sources and make adjustments.
Discussion ensued concerning whether the population growth rate was accurate.
Frank Clifton suggested that the Orange County Planning staff and the Towns'
Planning staffs get together and identify available building areas within the County and the
towns, and then check for the accuracy of the projections for population and employment.
Chair Pelissier said that one of the comments should be to ask for a review of the
population and employment projections in coordination with the towns.
Commissioner Gordon said that one of the comments should be to make the maps
clearer by using colors with more contrast. These are the maps on pages 113-124 as well as
maps on pages 19 and 130-135.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to attachment 4 on page 13 and said that she
thought the "Southern Carrboro" area was north of Damascus Church Road and not south.
She asked to flag this.
Commissioner Gordon made suggestions concerning comments to be submitted to the
MPO. She referred to attachment 2 on page 11 and attachment 3 on page 12, which were
attachments showing possible comments. She suggested using the OUTBoard comments
given on page 12, and adding "environmental benefits" to the fifth bullet of the OUTBoard list.
The next bullet would be Chair Pelissier's suggestion to ask about the population and
employment estimates in collaboration with the towns. The last bullet would be the one about
clearer maps, as stated above.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
modify Attachment 2 on page 11 to add the verb "promote" to one of the statements of the
resolution; and that the bullet points should be the ones from the OUTBoard shown on page
12, as amended to add the words "environmental benefits"; and with the additional bullets
suggested above.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The approved motion is as follows:
Resolution # 2012-087
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OF THE
2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, Orange County has participated in regional transportation planning as a member
of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has
released the Alternatives Analysis of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for public comment; and
WHEREAS, Orange County seeks ample opportunities to review and comment on regional
transportation plans and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Orange Unified Transportation Board has submitted comments regarding the
Alternatives Analysis for the CTP and 2040 MTP;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
recommends to the Transportation Advisory Committee that the 2040 Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Metropolitan Transportation Plan and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan give priority to projects that promote alternatives modes of
transportation, minimize impacts on the environment and foster economic development
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends
that the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
include/note/suggest/encourage the following:
■ A focus on building a sustainable, economical and workable system that builds upon
itself with capital investments to lay the groundwork for future innovation.
■ The consideration of the larger effects of this plan and that there will be great economic
benefits to some elements such as the public transportation projects.
■ Inclusion of provisions for staggering implementation of services such that bus ridership
can help build future rail ridership once the rail project is completed.
■ Ongoing coordination between municipalities within the county and with other
jurisdictions in the region on all elements of the regional efforts.
■ Choosing a Preferred Option that provides a comprehensive multi-modal system which
operates efficiently in the long term and provides the most significant economic,
environmental, and societal benefits to the County and the region.
■ Reviewing the population and employment projections in collaboration with the
municipalities within the Metropolitan Planning Area in Orange County, and
■ Clarifying the maps in the Plan by using colors that provide more contrast.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked that the results of the revised estimates be reflected in
the alternative projections.
Andy Henry said that if the projections were changed, then the model would be run
again.
e. Transit Interlocal Implementation Aqreement
The Board considered adopting the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan
(OCBRIP) and associated Interlocal Implementation Agreement.
Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners have had many modifications to
this draft document and it will be on the screen.
John Roberts said that everything in red in the agreement is new from the last meeting.
There are some typographical corrections in numbering. In Section 16, subsection d, the
annual increase was not included and this has been added.
Commissioner Gordon went through her document with suggestions for changes. This
was the rose colored sheet.
Item 7e - Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement - Paragraph 10
PROPOSED CLARIFICATION FROM COMMISSIONER GORDON
Tonight's meeting agenda includes item 7-e concerning the Transit Interlocal Implementation
Agreement.
I will be proposing the addition of some clarifying language to Paragraph 10 which deals with
benchmarks.
I have asked the County Attorney about this clarification and he told me the additional
language was fine with him.
INFORMATION ON PARAGRAPH 10
Paragraph 10 states that benchmarks will be developed for inclusion in the transit plan, and
when that will happen. However, it does not clearly state how and when the benchmarks will
actually be used.
Therefore, tonight I propose that we add the following language to the end of paragraph 10:
"and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the reviews set out in paragraph 9 above and in
paragraph 13 below."
(Paragraph 9 refers to the four year reviews and Paragraph 13 refers to the eight year review.)
PARAGRAPH 10 WOULD THEN READ AS FOLLOWS:
The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline to evaluate progress in
gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the Plan during the four years
following execution of the Agreement, to incorporate these benchmarks and timeline into the
Plan during the first four year review, and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the reviews
set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13 below.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
approve the changes in the agreement as proposed above.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Frank Clifton made reference to paragraph 7 in the light pink handout. He said that
Chapel Hill Transit has some concerns and these are included in the orange handout that he
had prepared. The handout is shown below.
BUS SERVICE REVENUE SHARING PROPOSAL (New Services and Support for Existing
Services)
October 2, 2012
Assumptions for clarification:
1. Prior agreement creates a sharing of revenues allocated for new bus services within
the OC Transit Plan based upon a split = CHT 64%, TTA 24% and OPT 12%
2. Locally generated vehicle registration fees of$7/vehicle for Orange County = $800,000
in 2016
3. Projecting a full year generation of all revenues in 2016 produces a total of$7.1 Million
in revenues of which $3,702,000 is dedicated for bus services
4. By agreement, TTA will forego any direct share of the $7 vehicle registration revenues
for Orange County allowing OPT and CHT to share in those revenues for purposes of
supporting existing services as outlined below
5. The allocation of the $7 vehicle registration fees in Orange County for `optional' use to
support either existing or new services will fall within the 64/24/12% bus revenue
allocation formula as shown below
6. The split of the $7 vehicle registration fees for existing services in Orange County will
be split by CHT and OPT based on the ratio of each system's local funding allocation
from existing sources each fiscal year as a percentage of the total of the two systems
dedicated local revenue allocations. (90 % CHT and 10% OPT (+/-) rounded for
simplicity.)
Estimated Impacts: Total $ 3,702,000 available bus service revenues for 2016 —
• CHT would benefit by 64% of the available revenues = $ 2,369,280 of which up to $
720,000 could be used to support existing services provided by CHT with $ 1,649,280
going to new services initiated after passage of the referendum.
• OPT would benefit by 12% of the available revenues = $ 444,240 of which up to $
80,000 could be used to support existing services provided by OPT with $ 364,240
going to new services initiated after passage of the referendum
• TTA would benefit by 24% of the available revenues = $ 888,480 going to new services
initiated after passage of the referendum.
SUMMARIZING:
CHT's $ 720,000 for existing services = 30% of its 64% share of total bus service revenues
(2016) and 19.5% of the total bus service revenues (2016).
OPT's $ 80,000 for existing services can be allocated for support of existing or new services at
the option of the County Commission.
TTA receives no revenues for existing bus service support for its Orange County operations.
Hand out ends here.
Frank Clifton said that the staff of all the parties concur that this is the best way to
handle this agreement.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to paragraph #7 and asked what would happen
if a different Board of County Commissioners in the future wanted to be more aggressive with
bus service. He asked if it would be considered new and would come under#8 or if it would
still be subject to the 64/24/12 split.
Frank Clifton said that right now it is set up as the 64/24/12 split.
Clarifying questions were answered by John Roberts and Wib Gulley.
Commissioner McKee said that he does not believe that all issues are worked out. He
said that there have been changes all week long, but he is uncomfortable with making a
decision on this tonight when he gets the feeling that everything is not worked out.
Frank Clifton said that he thinks that all parties have come to a reasonable
methodology to produce something that would be acceptable, with the understanding that
these issues will be addressed at a later date.
John Roberts said that the County Commissioners are being asked to accept the
Manager's recommended changes (pink sheet), and once they agree to adopt it, he is going to
ask the Board to authorize staff to get the wording correct and make non-substantive changes.
The substantive parts of this he believes are agreed to.
Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit is comfortable with the wording of services here
versus hours.
Commissioner Hemminger said that everyone seems to like the wording of#7. She
asked if the orange sheet could be an attachment at the end of the document.
John Roberts clarified that the orange sheet would be worked into Section 7, if the
Commissioners wished to add that.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is not sure it is a good idea to include the orange
sheet as part of the agreement. He thinks that it is an example, but if it is too specific and not
real, then it will be confusing. He thinks that paragraph 7 is fine.
Commissioner McKee said that there is not enough transparency in this process. He
said that this needs to come back and be approved in whole at one more meeting. He said
that the County is asking the taxpayers of Orange County to obligate themselves, their
children, and their grandchildren for a tax that is being put together piece meal in a rush. He
wants to see this in black and white in an organized form.
Commissioner Foushee said that she is not sure where #7 is not clear. She thought
that everything was clear.
Mr. Spade spoke about Chapel Hill Transit's perspective of paragraph #7. He said
that over the past couple of weeks there have been numerous conversations with his staff,
TTA, the MPO, and the County. He said that Chapel Hill Transit does support this. He thinks
that all parties agree that there is a common understanding.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to approve paragraph 7 with the two changes on the pink sheet (take out the words
"in place" since it is written twice and change the date to June 30th instead of June 31St.) The
orange sheet will be an example to be recorded in the record for information only.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
The Board then discussed Paragraph 8.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the rationale for 50% of the bus funding to be
used for existing services.
Frank Clifton said that the plan allocates each year a certain amount for bus services.
This is on page 41 of the packet. The Board has already approved the plan that provides for a
certain level of funding each year for bus services. The rest of the money goes to light rail.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked Wib Gulley about his legal opinion for the $7 vehicle
registration fee and the County's use of this money. Wib Gulley said that his legal opinion is
that the allocation of the funds that are distributed for bus service, a marker that indicates the
$7 could be used for existing service, is permitted because that piece of the legislation has no
restriction on it.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked how what is in paragraph 8 is not already covered in the
other parts of the agreement that allow a party to ask for a change in changing circumstances.
He made reference to paragraph 11 and said that it should say, "as set out in paragraph 9
above," and not "paragraph 7." He said that it seems that what is being said in this section is
already being said in the remaining portions of the agreement.
Wib Gulley said that there were some concerns expressed and the thought was to
explicitly provide for these concerns in a separate paragraph.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would feel more comfortable if this particular
provision was made subject to the approvals that exist later in the agreement.
Frank Clifton said that the statement "agreed to by the parties in the agreement"
should include "all" throughout the agreement. He said that this could be misconstrued to
mean a majority and not all of the parties.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to minimize the amount to which the
County commits itself to challenging the parameters of the law.
John Roberts said that the statute in this case specifically says that the net proceeds
of the '/�-cent sales tax revenue shall not be used to supplant or replace existing funds. There
remains some disagreement. He does not think that this agreement is entirely defensible
under the statute.
Commissioner McKee said that once again there is an issue that is not worked out.
He said that these issues need to be worked out before voting.
Wib Gulley said that the concern about new services addressed in paragraph 7 is a
higher standard than supplantation. Paragraph 7 states that the existing level of services must
be kept in place.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the last sentence in Paragraph 8 is what makes him
comfortable with it. He asked to keep that sentence or just add it to Paragraph 7.
Commissioner Gordon said that Section 8 should be in the agreement.
Discussion ensued on Section 8.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Jacobs to change the wording of the last sentence in Paragraph 8 to read as follows (and to
delete the rest of Paragraph 8): Any change in use of bus service funds in the Plan from
support of new services to support of existing services may be made on a temporary or
permanent basis, must be agreed to by all of the Parties, and must comply with State law.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner
Yuhasz)
Commissioner Gordon voted against it because most of Paragraph 8 was eliminated
without much consideration.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is allowing the opportunity to use all of the money
to support existing services. He is not sure that this was the intent.
Commissioner Hemminger asked that the signatory page spell out all of the group
names instead of using abbreviations.
Commissioner McKee suggested having this brought back as a clean copy at the next
regular meeting to vote on it.
Commissioner Hemminger said that the clean copy will be put forth with the minutes.
Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board that the Bus and Rail Plan also needs to
be approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to approve the amended implementation agreement as discussed in this meeting
including all changes in red, with the exception of paragraph 8, which was greatly modified as
follows: most of paragraph 8 was deleted except for the last sentence which now reads: Any
change in use of bus service funds in the Plan from support of new services to support of
existing services may be made on a temporary or permanent basis, must be agreed to by all of
the Parties, and must comply with State law; add "annual" in the document in 16-D; and
throughout the document add the word "all" to "parties" so it reads "all of the parties", where
appropriate; include changes to paragraph 10, which would now read as follows:
"The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline to evaluate progress in
gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the Plan during the four years
following execution of the Agreement, to incorporate these benchmarks and timeline into the
Plan during the first four year review, and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the reviews
set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13 below";
And authorize staff to make non-substantive changes to the agreement.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz)
The Implementation Agreement, in the form in which it was approved at the meeting, is as
follows:
INTERLOCAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
FOR
ORANGE COUNTY BUS AND RAIL INVESTMENT PLAN
This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") dated , 2012 is entered into
by and among Orange County, a political subdivision of the State or North Carolina ("Orange"),
the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, the regional
transportation planning agency for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area pursuant to US
DOT regulation CFR Part 450 and 49 Part 613 ("DCHC"), and the Research Triangle Regional
Public Transportation Authority, d/b/a Triangle Transit, a regional public transportation
authority under NCGS 160A ("TTA"). Orange, DCHC, and TTA may be referred to individually as
"Party" and collectively as "Parties". This Agreement is made pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter
160A of the North Carolina General Statutes.
The Parties each desire to provide for the future transportation needs of Orange County
and the surrounding region, understanding that enhanced mobility options will support a high
quality of life, strengthen economic development, strengthen human services transportation,
support air quality goals, and enhance sustainability; and
In accord with NCGS 105-508 et seq. ("Intermodal Act"),TTA developed a financial plan
denoted as the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan ("Plan") to set forth certain transit
investments over the next twenty-three years. This Plan has been reviewed and approved by
the Orange County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") subject to the approval by the
BOCC of a satisfactory Interlocal Implementation Agreement, approved in a similar fashion by
the TTA Board of Trustees, and approved in concept subject to a satisfactory Implementation
Agreement by the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization ("DCHC").
In order to provide for effective implementation of the Plan, the Parties hereby agree to the
following provisions and procedures:
1. The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan is incorporated into this Agreement
in full and as it may be amended from time to time by reference. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement the Plan shall govern the allocation of funding, cost parameters and
timetables for delivery of projects and transit services, and the respective roles of the Parties
and transit agencies in provision of the projects and services called for therein.
2. Pursuant to the Levy of Transit Sales Tax Agreement between Orange and TTA
dated May 29, 2012,TTA reaffirms its commitment not to levy the %z cent transit sales tax until
the Orange BOCC adopts a resolution requesting TTA to take such action.
3. Orange, Durham County ("Durham"), and TTA have previously executed an
agreement dated May 15, 2012 which allocates the shares of capital and operating expenses for
the LRT rail project set forth in the Plan, and that Cost Sharing agreement is incorporated into
this Agreement in full and as it may be amended from time to time by reference.
4. TTA agrees to provide reports to Orange and DCHC on the progress achieved
toward implementation of the Plan and any substantial developments in revenues received,
project or service cost experienced, or other pertinent factors under the Plan on an annual basis
on or before November 15Y of each year and as otherwise reasonably requested.
5. TTA shall work with the Chapel Hill Transit (CHT), Orange Public Transit ("OPT"), and
any other Orange County bus transit service provider named in the Plan to develop the process
for distribution of funds for bus services each year on a quarterly basis or as otherwise agreed.
For purposes of this Agreement the term "bus services" shall include both fixed route and
demand response services. As is consistent with the revenues received and the other transit
priorities under the Plan,TTA will provide estimated quarterly payments to the bus service
providers for service provided with a reconciliation based upon actual expenses incurred by
each provider on a subsequent quarterly basis or as otherwise agreed to.
6. All bus service providers receiving funding under the Plan will provide an annual
financial report on existing bus services, their recommendations for new or continuing service
priorities, their actual or expected costs and ridership information as reasonably requested to
TTA on an annual basis or as otherwise agreed to. It shall be the responsibility of TTA to provide
oversight of the new, enhanced or sustained bus services under the Plan to insure compliance
with the Intermodal Act requirements. All other legal requirements under federal and state law
shall be the responsibility of the respective bus service provider. TTA shall include a full
descriptive report on bus services delivered under the Plan as a part of its annual reports to
Orange and DCHC.
7. The Plan provides that all funding for bus services will be appropriated on the basis
of the following percentages: 64% of such funds to CHT, 24% of such funds to TTA, and 12% of
such funds to OPT. The use of these bus service funds shall be limited to support of new bus
services above and beyond the existing transit system services in place at the time of the
adoption of the local option %z cent sales tax in November, 2012. However, CHT and OPT may
use a portion of the bus service funds provided in the Plan to pay for the increased cost of
existing bus services during the duration of this Agreement in the manner described below.
The "CHT Share" shall be a percentage derived by dividing the CHT local expenditures for bus
services each year by the total of local expenditures for bus services by both CHT and OPT in
that year. The "OPT Share" shall be a percentage derived by dividing the OPT local expenditures
for bus services each year by the total of local expenditures for bus services by both CHT and
OPT in that year. The respective CHT and OPT local expenditures for bus services in any year
shall be based initially upon the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2011. Local bus services expenditures shall include assigned overhead without any
consideration of federal or state financial assistance. The determination of the CHT Share and
OPT Share will be made each year thereafter based upon the most recent audited annual local
expenditures for bus service by both.
CHT may use a portion of the bus services funds provided in the Plan up to a maximum amount
that equals the CHT Share percentage of the prior year total receipts from the Orange County
local vehicle registration fee of$7.00 permitted by Article 52 of NCGS 105. OPT may use a
portion of the bus services funds provided in the Plan up to a maximum amount that equals the
OPT Share percentage of the prior year total receipts from the Orange County local vehicle
registration fee of$7.00 permitted by Article 52 of NCGS 105.
8. Any change in use of bus service funds in the Plan from support of new services to
support of existing services may be made on a temporary or permanent basis and must be
agreed to by all the Parties and comply with state law.
9. Every four years in a manner that coordinates with DCHC's preparation of a new
Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and more frequently as reasonably requested by a Party, the
full Plan shall be reviewed in detail and assessed for any significant changes to the estimated
revenues, to the estimated project or service delivery costs, to project or service priorities
therein, to state or federal transit programs or regulations, to success in securing state and
federal financial support for the rail and bus projects in the Plan, or any other significant change
of circumstance impacting the Plan. This review which shall be conducted as set forth below,
and recommended changes to the Plan may be advanced as deemed necessary.
10. The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline to evaluate
progress in gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the Plan during the
four years following execution of this Agreement, to incorporate these benchmarks and timeline
into the Plan during the first four year review, and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the
reviews set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13 below.
11. In preparation for the full Plan review set out in paragraph 9 above,TTA will
convene a Staff Working Group ("SWG") made up of a voting member and an alternate member
from each of the three Parties. The Orange County Manager shall designate the member and
alternate from Orange, the Planning Manager of DCHC shall designate the member and
alternate from DCHC, and the TTA General Manager shall designate the member and alternate
from TTA. These SWG members and alternates shall work collaboratively in developing and
preparing the respective report to the Parties. The SWG may also meet from time to time as
they deem useful to discuss developments and status of the various transit projects and
services under the Plan and to give TTA comments and feedback on the draft annual reports
referenced in paragraph 4 above.
12. If any meeting of the SWG has local urban, rural or regional bus service in Orange
County as a part of its agenda, then representatives from CHT, OPT, other bus transit providers
in Orange County, and from the towns of Hillsborough and Mebane shall be invited to
participate in the meeting. The SWG members shall work openly and collaboratively with these
other parties in considering the status and impacts of possible bus service changes to the Plan.
The SWG members and the other parties shall strive to reach consensus recommendations for
any changes in bus services provided under the Plan in light of their shared interest in
maximizing the effective use of scarce transit funding
13. Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Parties agree to assess
if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal pipeline for New
Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding and whether the
LRT project remains under consideration for state funding. If either funding opportunity is no
longer available the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail
Investment Plan which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding for transit projects and
services.
14. Recommendations for change to the Plan may be made by a Party to this
Agreement or by any Orange County resident, group or organization. Recommendations for a
change or revision shall be submitted to the General Manager of TTA, who shall forward the
recommendation to the SWG for its review, consideration and advice. The SWG shall fully
consider any recommendation for change in the Plan and report back to the Parties. The report
of the SWG shall include its opinion on the recommended change along with the
recommendation itself. In the event that the three SWG voting members cannot agree on a
shared opinion of any recommended change, then both majority and minority perspectives on
the recommended change may be provided to the Parties. Additionally, any citizen or group
may submit its opinion on the recommended change to the Parties as well.
15. Any proposed material change to the Plan shall be effective only upon its approval
by each and every Party to this Agreement, namely the Orange BOCC, the DCHC, and TTA.
16. Any proposed change to the Plan shall be deemed non-material unless it involves
one of the following:
(A) An annual increase or decrease in total revenues from the Plan revenues
(sales tax revenues, vehicle registration fee revenues, and rental vehicle tax
revenues) of 5% or more; or
(B) An annual increase or decrease in the project capital cost (including financing)
of the LRT project in the Plan of 10% or more prior to entering final design
and 5% or more thereafter; or
(C) An annual increase or decrease in the overall project operating costs of the
LRT project in the Plan of over 5% or more; or
(D) An annual increase or decrease in the overall funds provided for bus service in
the Plan of 5% or more; or
(E) An annual increase or decrease in the funds provided to Orange, the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro/UNC Partnership, or TTA for bus service of more than 5% of the
amount provided in the Plan or more than $300,000, whichever is greater.
A proposed elimination or addition of any fixed guideway capital project shall be considered a
material change to the Plan.
17. Any proposed change to the Plan that is deemed non-material shall be effective only
upon its approval by the Orange County Manager, the Planning Manager of DCHC, and the
General Manager of TTA. Any change whether material or non-material must be evidenced by a
written document signed by all Parties.
18. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first above recorded to and
including June 30, 2035. Upon its expiration the Agreement may be renewed upon mutual
agreement of the Parties. The Agreement may be modified as needed upon mutual agreement
of the Parties and may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the Parties or by either of the
Parties upon a material breach by the other Party. Any modification must be in the form of a
written agreement signed by all Parties.
Understood and agreed to and effective as of the date written above, by:
Orange County
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority,
By:
Bus and Rail Investment Plan
Craig Benedict said that the changes were addressed from the June 5th motion and
the latest version from last week.
Commissioner Gordon said that on page 21 of the agenda materials, there is
something wrong with the map and it should be changed.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 27 of the agenda materials. To verify
the dollar amounts for the financial data in the Plan, she read the following amounts and totals
into the record. The dollar amounts are in "year of expenditure dollars".
The Light Rail Capital costs are $418.3 million and the Light Rail Operations costs are $59.1
million. The total for light rail is $477.4 million.
The cost for MLK Bus Lanes is $24.5 million.
Miscellaneous Bus Capital Projects will cost $6.7 million, the cost for Buses purchased is $17.6
million, and Bus Operations will cost $106.8 million. The total for these three bus investments
is $131.1 million.
The Hillsborough Intercity Rail Station will cost $8.9 million.
Finally, the amount of debt service payments through 2035 will be $19.2 million, and most if
not all of these payments will be used for light rail.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he thinks that the investment in light rail is a mistake.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Jacobs to approve the bus and rail investment plan with the changes suggested in the latest
document included with the agenda materials, and to authorize staff to make non-substantive
changes.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz)
8. Reports- NONE
9. County Manaqer's Report
Frank Clifton said that the Council of State for N.C. approved the authorization between
Orange County and the State of North Carolina's Department of Public Safety for the siting of
a future jail along Old NC 86 next to the State prison. The legislative delegation and others
assisted with this.
10. County Attorney's Report
NONE
11. Appointments-NONE
12. Board Comments
Commissioner Gordon — none
Commissioner Yuhasz— none
Commissioner McKee — none
Commissioner Hemminger said that Community Home Trust had the Open Doors event
and raised $33,000. This is an increase from last year. Also, Triangle J Council of
Governments is changing the way it does business to allow for more social interaction and
exchanging of information and ideas.
Commissioner Foushee — none
Commissioner Jacobs pointed out to the public that the County is currently conducting
three different surveys for citizens: library services, parks and recreation, and smoking. These
surveys can be accessed on the County website.
Chair Pelissier asked for two volunteers to be on the Retreat Planning Committee.
Commissioner McKee volunteered. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon also
volunteered but since the committee only needs one more it was decided that these two
commissioners would discuss/decide which one would serve and send that information to the
Clerk by the end of the week. ( BOCC Candidate Mark Dorosin has also volunteered to serve
on this committee and Commissioner Jacobs was chosen to be the other Commissioner
volunteer).
13. Information Items
• September 18, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
14. Closed Session -NONE
15. Adiournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
adjourn the meeting at 10:27 PM.
VOTE UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board