HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-04-2017 1
APPROVED 4/18/2017
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
April 4, 2017
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 4, 2017
at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. He noted Commissioner
Burroughs was running late this evening.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
- White sheets: PowerPoint for item 6-a
- White sheets: PowerPoint for item 6-b
- White sheets: PowerPoint for item 6-c
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
None
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner McKee had none.
Commissioner Jacobs said he and Chair Dorosin have been meeting with Durham
County officials about light rail (LRT), and the meetings are amicable and productive. He said
all the necessary agreements may be reached before the end of the month.
Commissioner Rich said she attended her first Department of Transportation (DOT)
meeting, and thanked Max Bushell, Transportation Planner II, for giving her a tour on the DOT
roads that were discussed in the meeting.
2
Commissioner Price said she appreciated staff for following up on her concerns at the
DOT luncheon.
Commissioner Marcoplos had none.
Chair Dorosin said the Board has received some inquiries about the capacity of the
April 18th meeting at Southern Human Services Center (SHSC). He said it is important to keep
the meeting at that location for several reasons: there have been two public transit meetings
at the Whitted building, the SHSC can live stream the meeting, and everyone that signs up to
speak will be able to speak.
Commissioner Rich followed up with a suggestion that if there are many people wanting
to speak at the April 18th meeting, it may be worth considering reducing public comments from
three minutes to two minutes per person.
Commissioner McKee respectfully objected to limiting the time limit. He said there is an
obligation for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to hear every comment on a project
of this size.
Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner McKee, and suggested when someone
finishes speaking that they go into the hallway, allowing those waiting in the hallway to come in
to speak.
Commissioner Rich said when she served on the Chapel Hill Town Council there was a
policy that reduced the public comment time per person when the total number of speakers hit
a certain threshold. She said it is important to be fair to the public.
Commissioner Jacobs said there was an instance like this in the past concerning the
tethering of dogs and the hearing ran two nights, with the public being asked to express their
agreement with comments made by other members of the public if they were in line with their
own sentiments. He said a limit was set on the total amount of time that would be given to
public comment.
Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with this approach. He said he does not want to limit
the public's chance to speak, but also does not want to hear repeated statements.
Commissioner Burroughs said on a board where she previously served, a two-minute
time limit was set on nights with large crowds, and it was successful.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. 2017 Sunshine Award from North Carolina Open Government Coalition
The Board received the 2017 Sunshine Award from North Carolina Open Government
Coalition recognizing Orange County for its efforts to achieve the transparency goals of the
Board of Commissioners and County administration.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board accept the 2017 Sunshine
Award from North Carolina Open Government Coalition and express appreciation to staff who
Contributed to the County achieving this recognition.
Todd McGee, Community Relations Director, introduced Jonathan Jones, Director,
North Carolina Open Government Coalition, Instructor, Elon University School of
Communications.
Jonathan Jones reviewed the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, noting it was
a non-partisan non-profit promoting citizen access to government information. He reviewed
the award, and presented it to the Orange County Government for its efforts in keeping
citizens informed, particularly through the transparency portal, and the addition to the
transparency portal on line of a great deal of financial data.
3
Chair Dorosin accepted the award on behalf of the BOCC.
b. 2017 Piedmont Laureate Mimi Herman Presentation for National Poetry Month
The Board considered recognizing National Poetry Month with a presentation by the
2017 Piedmont Laureate, poet Mimi Herman.
Tim Hoke, Arts Commission Board Chair, introduced Piedmont Laureate Mimi Herman,
who read a few poems.
c. Proclamation Recognizing the Annual Community Dinner
The Board considered a proclamation recognizing the Annual Community Dinner for
support of community ideals and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Nerys Levy thanked the BOCC for its support over the last 20 years, and said during
this time the dinner has fed over 14,000 people. She said the goal of the dinner is to celebrate
the diverse cultures in Orange County, and it will be held on April 30, 2017.
Commissioner Price read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DINNER
WHEREAS, the Annual Community Dinner is an event to build community spirit, crossing
economic, racial, religious and ethnic barriers; and
WHEREAS, the attendees sit side-by-side to experience and enjoy culturally diverse food and
entertainment from the local community; and
WHEREAS, this is the 20th Annual Community Dinner co-chaired by Mildred Council (Mama
Dip) and Nerys Levy, coordinated with a diverse Community Dinner
Committee; and
WHEREAS, the first fiscal agent was Preservation Chapel Hill and for the past 10-years the
event has been held with the support of the Orange County Department of
Housing, Human Rights and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, the Community Dinner received national recognition in 2014 as a winner of a
National League of Cities Award for Cultural Diversity, as nominated by the
Town of Carrboro;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
hereby recognize the Community Dinner as an exemplary display of
community ideals and a highly appreciated asset for the residents of Orange
County.
This the 4th day of April 2017.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
the Board to approve the Proclamation Recognizing the Annual Community Dinner and
authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
4
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proclamation
The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April 2017 as Sexual Assault
Awareness Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Orange County Rape Crisis Center Board member Adina Safta accepted the
proclamation on behalf of the Crisis Center.
Commissioner Marcoplos read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Proclamation
"Sexual Assault Awareness Month 2017"
WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center assisted over 500 survivors of sexual
violence, their loved ones, and community professionals during 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center works with the county's two school
systems and other groups to provide students with age-appropriate information about violence
prevention, reaching over 15,000 youth and adults each year; and
Donna, I can't get rid of this line!!
WHEREAS, the coordination of the Orange County Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) is
bringing together members of law enforcement, the medical community, the legal system, and
other community advocates to improve services for survivors of sexual assault who come
forward; and
WHEREAS, 1 in 5 American women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010); and
WHEREAS, in the United States rape is the most costly crime to its survivors, totaling $127
billion a year considering factors such as medical cost, lost earnings, pain, suffering, and lost
quality of life (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996); and
WHEREAS, in the United States 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of
sexual or physical violence committed by an intimate partner (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2010); and
WHEREAS, there are more than 16,500 sex offenders registered as living in North Carolina
(Department of Justice, 2015)
WHEREAS, victim-blaming continues to be an enormous problem in instances of rape and
sexual assault; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, a nonprofit agency that has served this
community since 1974, is working to stop sexual violence and its impact through support,
education, and advocacy;
5
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
do hereby proclaim the month of April 2017 as "SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH"
and encourage all residents to speak out against sexual violence and to support their local
community's efforts to prevent and respond to these appalling crimes.
This the 4th day of April, 2017.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to approve the proclamation designating April as "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" in
Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation
The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April 2017 as Child Abuse
Prevention Month and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Prevent Child Abuse - North Carolina's President and CEO Sharon Hirsch represented
this organization, and accepted the proclamation on its behalf.
Commissioner McKee read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2017 AS
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS, children are vital to our state's future success, prosperity and quality of life as well
as being our most vulnerable assets; and
WHEREAS, all children deserve to have the safe, stable, nurturing homes and communities
they need to foster their healthy growth and development; and
WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect is a community responsibility affecting both the current
and future quality of life of a community; and
WHEREAS, communities that provide parents with the social support, knowledge of parenting
and child development and concrete resources they need to cope with stress
and nurture their children ensure all children grow to their full potential; and
WHEREAS, effective child abuse prevention strategies succeed because of partnerships
created among residents, human service agencies, schools, faith
communities, health care providers, civic organizations, law enforcement
agencies, and the business community;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Orange County, North Carolina
and call upon all residents, community agencies, faith groups, medical
facilities, elected leaders and businesses to increase their participation in
efforts to support families, thereby preventing child abuse and strengthening
the communities in which we live.
6
This the 4th day of April 2017.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to approve the Proclamation Recognizing April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month
in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Parkinson's Awareness Month Proclamation
The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April 2017 as Parkinson's
Awareness Month and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Blake Tedder, Community Development Manager - NC Triangle--National Parkinson
Foundation (NPF) accepted the proclamation on behalf of his organization.
Commissioner Burroughs read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2017 AS PARKINSON'S AWARNESS MONTH
WHEREAS, Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive, neurological disease and is the
second most common neurodegenerative disease in the United States; and
WHEREAS, there is inadequate data on the incidence and prevalence of Parkinson's disease,
but it is estimated to affect approximately one million people in the United
States and the prevalence will more than double by 2040; and
WHEREAS, Parkinson's disease is the 14th leading cause of death in the United States
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the economic burden of Parkinson's disease is at least $14.4
billion annually, including indirect costs to patients and family members of$6.3
billion; and
WHEREAS, the symptoms of Parkinson's disease vary from person to person and can include
tremors; slowness of movement and rigidity; difficulty with balance,
swallowing, chewing, and speaking; cognitive impairment and dementia; mood
disorders; and a variety of other non-motor symptoms; and
WHEREAS, increased research, education and community support services are needed to find
more effective treatments and to provide access to quality care to those living
with the disease today;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
April 2017 as Parkinson's Awareness Month in Orange County, North
Carolina.
This the 4th day of April 2017.
7
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price for
the Board to approve the Proclamation Recognizing April 2017 as Parkinson's Awareness
Month and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Dorosin said the new Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) superintendent
Dr. Pam Baldwin is in attendance tonight.
Pam Baldwin thanked the BOCC for its welcome, and introduced herself briefly.
g. Presentation of Manager's Recommended FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan
(CIP)
The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2017-22 Capital Investment
Plan.
Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following background information:
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the County produces a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that establishes a budget-
planning guide related to capital needs for the County as well as Schools. The current CIP
consists of a 5-year plan that is evaluated annually to include year-to-year changes in
priorities, needs, and available resources. Approval of the CIP commits the County to the first
year funding only of the capital projects; all other years are used as a planning tool and serves
as a financial plan.
Capital Investment Plan — Overview
The FY 2017-22 CIP includes County Projects, School Projects, and Proprietary Projects. The
School Projects include Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Orange County Schools, and
Durham Technical Community College — Orange County Campus projects. The Proprietary
Projects include Water and Sewer, Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, and Sportsplex projects. The
CIP has been prepared anticipating slow to moderate economic growth of approximately 1% in
property tax growth and 4% in sales tax growth annually over the next five years. Many of the
projects in the CIP will rely on debt financing to fund the projects.
Recommended capital expenditures for FY 2017-18 total $27.5 million. Of this amount, $16
million is recommended for County capital projects, $3.73 million is recommended for
proprietary fund spending including water and sewer projects, Solid Waste, and Sportsplex,
and $7.78 million is recommended for school capital improvements.
The recommended FY 2017-18 CIP represents a decrease of approximately $41 million
compared to the FY2016-17 Approved CIP. The FY2016-17 CIP included the first of three $40
million allocations ($120 million total) of general obligation bond funding for school capital
projects and the first of two $2.5 million allocations ($5 million total) to fund affordable housing
projects. When the bond funds are excluded from this comparison, the total Recommended
FY2017-18 CIP represents a decrease of approximately $1 million compared to last fiscal year.
This memorandum describes projects that are recommended in the first year of the FY2017-22
CIP and other significant changes that are recommended compared to the CIP approved last
fiscal year.
Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation:
8
County Manager's Recommended
FY2017-22 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
April 4, 2017
FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
Document includes:
➢ Transmittal Letter
➢ CIP Summaries
➢ County Projects
➢ Proprietary Projects
➢ School Projects
➢ Appendices
FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN- example page
FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN expenditures- graph
FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN funding sources-graph
FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN DEBT CAPACITY- graph
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the debt capacity graph, and asked if the debt is
more than the debt policy.
Bonnie Hammersley said staff has options for the BOCC to consider.
Commissioner McKee asked if the school bond is the driver for the increased
percentage.
Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
Commissioner McKee asked if this takes into account any possible impact on the
County from the transit plan or the LRT.
Bonnie Hammersley said this is just for the general fund revenues for the CIP.
Continuation Funding:
FY2017-18
➢ Detention Facility— $622,114
➢ Environment & Ag Center— $3.4M
➢ Solid Waste — $990,268
➢ Sportsplex— $465,000
Policy Priorities:
FY2017-18
➢ Community Centers — $75,000
➢ Economic Development— $2.3M
➢ EMS Substation Co-location — $845,000
➢ Facility Accessibility & Security— $30,000
➢ Rural Broadband — $500,000
➢ School Capital Improvements — $7.8M
9
Parks, Open Space, and Trail Development:
FY2017-18
➢ Blackwood Farm Park— $100,000
➢ Fairview Park— $50,000
➢ Hollow Rock Nature Park— $10,000
➢ Park Renovation & Repairs — $191,000
➢ Soccer Center Phase II — $300,000
Information Technology and Communications:
FY2017-18
➢ BOCC Initiatives- $50,000
➢ Fiber Connections — $1.2M
➢ Infrastructure — $700,000
➢ ITGC Initiatives — $510,000
➢ Mobile Radios — $920,000
➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $1.4M
➢ Register of Deeds Automation — $400,000
Critical Infrastructure Improvements:
FY2017-18
➢ Facility Enhancements — $450,000
➢ HVAC Projects — $122,000
➢ SHSC Renovation— $4.0M
➢ Roofing and Facade — $102,444
Future Capital Projects:
FY2018-19
➢ Affordable Housing — $2.5 million
➢ Detention Facility— $12.5 million
➢ Community Centers — $100,000
➢ EMS Substations — $1.5 million
➢ Information Technology— $1.1 million
➢ Mobile Radios — $805,000
➢ Parks Projects — $5.2 million
➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $3.8 million
➢ Renovation and Maintenance — $1.0 million
➢ School Capital Improvements — $48.4 million
➢ Solid Waste — $1.3 million
➢ Southern Branch Library— $5.6 million
➢ SHSC Renovation — $5.2M
Future Capital Projects:
FY2019-20
➢ Community Centers — $1 million
➢ Detention Facility— $7.5 million
➢ EMS Substations — $700,000
➢ Information Technology— $1.1 million
➢ Parks Projects — $17.0 million
➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $3.8 million
10
➢ Renovation and Maintenance — $1.1 million
➢ School Capital Improvements — $8.8 million
➢ Solid Waste — $2.1 million
➢ SHSC Renovation — $5.2 million
Future Capital Projects:
FY2020-21
➢ EMS Substations — $1.5 million
➢ Information Technology— $1.1 million
➢ Parks Projects — $13.6 million
➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $2.4 million
➢ Renovation and Maintenance — $1.2 million
➢ School Capital Improvements — $58.5 million
➢ Solid Waste — $1.3 million
➢ Sportsplex— $1.5 million
FY2021-22
• Economic Development— $2.2 million
• EMS Substations — $600,000
• Information Technology— $1.1 million
• Parks Projects — $2.5 million
• PS Communication Upgrades — $2.4 million
• Renovation and Maintenance — $2.5 million
• Solid Waste — $2.2 million
• School Capital Improvements — $19.5 million
FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
Next Steps:
Budget Work Session Date
Review Capital Investment Plan April 6
Schools, Outside Agency and May 25
Prioritization CIP projects
Budget Amendments and Resolution of June 15
Intent to Adopt
BOCC Regular Meeting
FY2017-18 Operating and CIP Budget June 20
Adoption
Document Availability:
o Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
o County Finance and Administrative Services Office
o Orange County Libraries
o Orange County Website
• www.orangecountync.gov
5. Public Hearings
a. Orange County Consolidated Plan -Annual Action Plan Needs Hearing
The Board received comments from the public during a second public hearing (the first
public hearing occurred at the January 24, 2017 BOCC regular meeting) regarding the housing
11
and non-housing needs to be included in the Annual Action Plan Update of the 2017-2018
Consolidated Housing Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange
County.
Interim Director Annette Moore reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
In May 2015 a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
Programs in Orange County was developed and approved by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). This document details the housing needs of very low income,
low income and moderate-income families and special population groups in addition to
outlining the strategies and plans for addressing those needs.
Each year, local communities are required to reassess the needs of the community. This public
hearing provides an opportunity for the public, public agencies and other interested parties to
provide input into the Annual Action Plan Update. In addition, the public may comment on
proposed uses of an estimated $348,265 in 2017-2018 funds. Orange County is in the third
year of the Five Year Consolidated Plan. Information regarding actual Congressional allocation
is not available at this time. Eligible HOME Program activities include: acquisition; new
construction; housing rehabilitation; and rental assistance.
Since the approval of the Consolidated Housing in May 2015, Orange County residents
approved a bond referendum of$5 million on November 8, 2016 designed to help create up to
1,000 affordable units throughout the County. With the passage of the bond, Orange County
will be able to assist in adding affordable rentals, homeownership opportunities and address
other housing needs to low-to-moderate income residents. The needs assessment, data goals
and strategies provide in the Consolidated Housing Plan were incorporated into the
development of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
The 2017 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD on or before May 15, 2017 after
approval by the HOME Consortium Members — Orange County, the Town of Carrboro, the
Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Hillsborough.
In order to inform the general public of this opportunity and encourage participation, notices
have been placed in The Chapel Hill News and The Herald-Sun, sent to local non-profit
agencies and placed on local websites.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to open
the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
12
a. Support for Local Immigrant and Refugee Population
The Board considered approving funding requests for immigrant and refugee support
services and to approve utilization of the Social Justice Fund as the funding source for
$79,628. Due to the immediate and critical need of the agencies, this request is outside the
annual nonprofit agency funding process. The Social Justice Fund, with a current balance of
$350,000, is a reserve that was established by the BOCC to support social justice needs that
may occur during the fiscal year.
Susan Clifford, Immigrant and Refugee Health Program Manager, introduced her
colleagues from local agencies discussed in the abstract. She thanked the Board of County
Commissioners for the opportunity to speak this evening, and for considering this immediate
need for funding outside the outside agency funding process.
PURPOSE:
To consider approving funding requests for immigrant and refugee support services and to
approve utilization of the Social Justice Fund as the funding source for $79,628.
Due to the immediate and critical need of the agencies, this request is outside the annual
nonprofit agency funding process. The Social Justice Fund, with a current balance of
$350,000, is a reserve that was established by the BOCC to support social justice needs that
may occur during the fiscal year.
BACKGROUND: Orange County is home to an increasingly diverse population:
• 13% foreign-born
• 17% residents speak a language other than English at home
• Refugee arrivals have almost doubled in the last two years, from 54 (FY2014-15) to 91
year-to-date.
The Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) has supported community-based
agencies working to meet the needs of immigrants and refugees through the non-profit agency
process. However, due to the recent changes in federal immigration policies new challenges
and barriers exist that require an immediate response to expand services for immigrant and
refugee residents.
Confusion about new travel policies, changes in deportation policies/practices, harassment
from other residents, and rumors of checkpoints and raids have all spurred fear in the local
community— especially the Latino and Syrian communities. Local agencies — including law
enforcement and County agencies — held forums to educate community members about their
rights and to show support. Nevertheless many families are still concerned about driving, many
want to apply for citizenship, and some are fearful to leave their homes.
The Orange County Health Department and Orange County Social Services staff consulted on
the most efficient and effective way to address immediate needs. The recommendation to the
BOCC is to utilize the Social Justice Fund to provide $79,628 to support the local community
based agencies to expand services immediately to immigrants and refugees.
El Centro Hispano provides critical direct support, legal, employment and education services
to County residents. El Centro requests $54,168 to expand its immigration legal services.
Funding will cover the salary of a part-time Project Coordinator and full-time Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) Accredited Representative, as well as project operating costs. The
13
BIA Rep will assist with intake, conduct screenings, and help clients complete forms to be
submitted to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Project Coordinator will
coordinate the Faith ID program and a new Civics/"No Operator" Education course, as well as
conduct community outreach and manage volunteers. The Faith ID program - in collaboration
with local law enforcement - offers a picture ID to community members who don't otherwise
have access to a form of identification. The Civics/"No Operator" course is an alternative option
- at the discretion of the District Attorney - for those individuals ticketed for driving without a
license.
o El Centro anticipates serving an additional:
o 100 clients through immigrant legal services
o 150 clients through the Faith ID Program
o 100 clients through the Civics/"No Operator" Course
Refugee Community Partnership (RCP), a community-based organization that builds
networks of support to help families address immediate needs, and establish and work toward
long-term goals. RCP is working to address barriers to financial self-sufficiency among diverse
refugee communities. In the wake of the recent executive orders, which slashed funding to
refugee resettlement agencies, economic hardship is undermining refugees' ability to address
financial, social and psychological distress. RCP is partnering with local agencies and
businesses to develop pathways to job improvement for local refugees. RCP seeks $14,120 to
support staff time for the Program Manager and Executive Director to create an employment
support and opportunity service for refugees. Part of their work will include development of a
sales force management system to: 1) efficiently identify and cultivate culturally-appropriate job
opportunities, 2) effectively track progress toward employment goals, and 3) map employment
channels for refugees to measure impact over time.
o Refugee Community Partnership anticipates:
• 20 refugees will be connected to improved employment opportunities and an
additional 10 refugees will be connected to employment support services.
• 10 additional volunteers will be trained as employment navigators
• RCP will establish relationships with 20 additional local employers and train 10+
employers on creative, culturally-appropriate solutions to working through language
barriers with employees.
• RCP will develop a customized management system and construct an employment
map to manage employment resources, support services and outcome measures.
Refugee Support Center provides legal, education, employment, financial and other resource
and referral services. The Refugee Support Center was recently notified that it will need to
leave its current donated office space within 6 weeks. The request entails $11,340 to cover the
cost of renting space for one year in order to continue and expand operations. This includes
space to provide: 1) Pathways to Citizenship classes and immigration legal services provided
by a BIA accredited representative on staff, 2) a confidential space for legal and direct service
consultation, 3) shared space for programming with collaborating agencies, and 4) storage
space for donations.
o Refugee Support Center anticipates:
• Continued operation despite losing current office space
• Improved efficiency and quality of service due to new space
• 203 Refugee clients served through the Pathways to Citizenship Program (20%
increase from 2016)
• Total of 975 refugees served last year
14
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A total of$79,628 is proposed for allocation from the Social Justice
Fund, leaving a Social Justice Fund balance of$270,372.
o El Centro's request of$54,168 will cover the salary of a part-time Project
Coordinator and a full-time BIA Representative, as well as project operating costs.
This will be at the cost of$155/client.
o The Refugee Community Partnership's request of$14,120 will cover the cost to
allocate more staff time and establish employment support resources to help
refugees find better work opportunities for the remainder of FY2016-17, at the cost
of$470.67/client.
o The Refugee Support Center's request of$11,340 will cover the cost of 12 months
of office space, at the cost of$11.63/client.
Commissioner Marcoplos said a resident tweeted the BOCC today, and suggested that
the sales force CRM data management system is free to non-profits.
Mattie Hayes, Refugee Community Partnership, said it is free to non-profits, and once
the license is acquired, it is up to the non-profit to custom code it to be able to be formatted
and organized with features that can house the data it needs to. She said the requested
funding would go towards the custom coding.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Riley Ruske said he is a veteran and taxpayer in Orange County, and he is totally
opposed to this action to use County funds to aid and abet foreign nationals. He said the
populations that will be served are "undocumented immigrants," and he said by their own
actions they are criminals. He said illegal immigrants rob citizens of jobs, education,
healthcare, etc. He said harboring, sheltering and shielding foreign nationals of illegal
presence are a federal crime, and aiding and abetting illegal activities are federal and state
crimes. He said if the Board of County Commissioners approves this item, it is violating laws
and he petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to not provide these funds for illegal
activities.
Riley Ruske referred to the letter of support from the Sheriff, and he said the Sheriff's
primary responsibility is the enforcement of the law. He said it would be a gross dereliction of
duties if the Sheriff is aware of illegal activities and refuses to act.
Carol McCanna said our country is a melting pot, but there must be legal control over
the people who enter this country. She said a country can have and should monitor its
borders. She asked if there could be clarification on the proposals before the BOCC this
evening, especially regarding criminal acts committed by an illegal immigrant on a US citizen.
She said words have meanings, and we do have laws and should not be abetting illegal
immigration. She said immigrants are a part of this country, but they must come here legally.
Maria Palmer said she is here to support these organizations and this expenditure.
She said she has experience working with immigrants and their children. She said these
organizations support many wonderful people, many of whom have never knowingly broken
the law; especially children who were brought here as infants, and have no knowledge of their
home culture.
Heather Brutz said she had family that fled the Nazis, and we should be welcoming to
immigrants.
Ken Rothrock said he has lived in Orange County since 1980, and has practiced law for
36 years. He said this is nutty, and those that commit crime should have consequences. He
said spending taxpayer money to support those who are coming here illegally is not right. He
15
said there are rules, and if the BOCC starts passing these kinds of decisions then they will be
addressed in the elections in two years. He said many are waiting to come to America in the
right way, and these are the people the County should be looking to help.
Commissioner McKee said he is reading this proposal, and it is not addressing
undocumented residents. He said some undocumented may be included, and he asked the
agencies if they could address this question.
Flicka Bateman, Refugee Support Center, said refugees are legal, and they have
papers called I-94s. She said there are about 1,200 refugees in Orange County, and most of
these are from Burma. She said there are also 32 Syrians and about 50 from the Congo.
Commissioner McKee asked if the refugees are documented.
Flicka Bateman said refugees are legal.
Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if this abstract violates any state or federal
law.
John Roberts said the County is prohibited from having a policy, procedure, or
ordinance in place that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Commissioner McKee said he has hired migrants and those from other countries, and
some of their papers are so good it is hard to tell if they are fake. He said he has hired many
good workers, and some have become citizens. He said it is not the BOCC's responsibility to
track down illegals. He said the great majority of the people being helped are here legally. He
said help will likely be given to someone that is here illegally, but he cannot agree with the
notion of only helping legals, or helping no one at all. He said he will support this, though he
has some concerns.
Chair Dorosin said this is an important matter, and it is a critical issue facing our
immigrants. He said there is an increase in discrimination of immigrants, and many of them
are fearful of vigilante violence, as well as police violence.
Chair Dorosin said he sees this item as spending money on the values that Orange
County holds dear: equality, fairness, engagement, and inclusiveness.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for
the Board to approve the funding requests listed below and approve utilization of the Social
Justice Fund as the funding source for $79,628:
o El Centro Hispano's expand immigrant legal services, including new BIA Rep
and Project Coordinator positions - $54,168;
o Refugee Community partnership to allocate more staff time to help refugees
find better work opportunities - $14,120
o Refugee Support Center's rental cost for office space due to loss of current
space - $11,340.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Davenport & Company Independent Financial Review of GoTriangle Durham-
Orange Light Rail Transit Financial Plan
The Board received a presentation by Davenport & Company regarding the GoTriangle
Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Financial Plan. The presentation will clarify the
total costs of the project, the financing mechanisms used to fund the project, and the financial
risks associated with the project including credit, cash flow, and any potential budget
implications. The cost share and transit tax assumptions used in the presentation are
presented for modeling purposes only. They have not been adopted for use in the final Transit
16
Plan. This information is intended to inform the Board's deliberations on the Orange County
Transit Plan (formerly the Bus and Rail Investment Plan) scheduled for consideration on April
27, 2017.
Travis Myren reviewed the upcoming opportunities for public information and comment
on this topic.
Travis Myren introduced Ted Cole, Davenport Senior VP, who presented the findings of
the Davenport analysis.
BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners directed the
County Manager to engage a consultant to conduct an independent financial review of the D-O
LRT Project and the financial plan used to demonstrate project's financial viability in the
context of the Orange County Transit Plan. The County executed an agreement with its
financial advisor, Davenport & Company, to review the financial model.
Since the initial request to independently review the financial plan, GoTriangle created a new
financial model that delineates revenue, expenditure, debt service coverage and cash flow by
county. The model also allows the counties to evaluate different cost share scenarios between
Durham and Orange County for the D-O LRT project. The cost share that was adopted as part
of the 2012 Bus and Rail Investment Plan allocated 77.05% of the capital cost of the project to
Durham County and 22.95% of the capital cost to Orange County. Operating costs were
allocated on a 76.05% share for Durham County and a 23.95% share for Orange County. The
Davenport analysis (attached) uses different cost share assumptions for capital and operating
costs in an effort to model the financial implications of using different cost allocations. Cost
share discussions between the two counties are ongoing and could produce a different
scenario than the one modeled in this analysis.
Ted Cole made the following PowerPoint presentation:
D-O Light Rail Discussion Materials- Draft Based Upon Scenario 3 v9 C:
Topics for Discussion
➢ DO LRT Near Term Schedule of Required Actions
➢ DO LRT Long Term Project Schedule
➢ County Transit Plans —What's Included / Excluded
➢ DO LRT Project Cost/ Funding Sources & Plan of Finance
➢ GoTriangle Financial Model: Major Revenue / Expenditure Assumptions
➢ Projected Results (Scenario 3 v9 C)
➢ Financial Model Observations, Key Drivers, and Risk Factors
➢ Potential Orange County Credit & Cash Flow/ Budget Implications
➢ Wrap-Up & Items for Consideration
DO LRT Near Term Schedule of Required Actions
Cost Share Agreement negotiations
Ongoing
March 27thand 29th Briefing to Orange County Board on DO LRT project, related models, and
schedule
March 29th Briefing to Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO on Draft Plans
March 29th—April 3rd Public Comment Period for Draft Plans
April 3rd Presentation on Draft Durham County Transit Plan, updates on
17
agreements
April 3rd-12th Briefings to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham, and Hillsborough on Draft
County Plans
April 4th Orange County Board Meeting
❑Financial Plan Analysis presented to Orange County Board
April 11th Potential public hearing on Draft Durham County Transit Plan
April 12th
❑Presentation to Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO on Draft Plan, and
project cost-sharing agreement and Public Hearing
April 18th Orange County Board Meeting
❑Presentation on Draft Orange County Transit Plan and update on project
cost-sharing agreement
❑Public hearing on Draft Orange County Transit Plan
April 24th Action on Final Durham County Transit Plan, and project cost-sharing
agreement
April 26th GoTriangle Action on Final County Transit Plans
April27th Orange County Board Meeting
❑Action on Final Orange County Transit Plan, and project cost-sharing
agreement
April 28th Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Action on Final County Transit Plans
(Special Meeting)
Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, said the April 26 meeting is their Board's
meeting for the final plan for adoption.
Commissioner Price clarified that the GoTriangle board will cast its vote prior to the
BOCC vote.
Jeff Mann said yes.
Commissioner Price asked if the vote would be affected should either of the counties
reject the plan.
Jeff Mann said the plan has to be approved by all 4 entities: GoTriangle, Durham
County, Orange County, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
DO LRT LONG TERM PROJECT SCHEDULE
April 2017 Update of D-O Transit Plans and execution of full General Engineering
Consultant (GEC) and Program Management Consultant (PMC) contracts
TBD Engineering Complete
June 2018 Request to be in President's budget—requires 50% of non-New Starts
funds to be committed
December 2018 Inclusion in Draft STIP —State share defined, but not committed
June 2019 Inclusion in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) —State
participation committed
October 2019 Submit request for FFGA with FTA—requires 100% of funding to be
committed
January 2020 FFGA Funding Approved
18
FY 2020 FFGA Funding Begins
Early 2020 Project Construction Bidding Begins(project will be bid in phases)
Mid to Late 2020 TIFIA Funding Approved
2020 Construction Begins
2028 Construction Complete
FY2029 Operations Commence
New Starts Financial Plan —What's Included/Excluded
• GoTriangle has included the following services and projects in the New Starts Financial
Plan:
o GoTriangle's existing and expansion bus services and capital investments
o Local share if transit providers' expansion bus services and capital investments:
➢ GoTriangle
➢ GoDurham
➢ Durham County
➢ Chapel Hill Transit
➢ Orange Public Transportation
o North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (N-S BRT) Project, managed by Chapel
Hill Transit (partial funding)
o D-O LRT Project, managed by GoTriangle
o The implementation period began in 2014 and is expected to conclude in 2028
with construction beginning in 2020
➢ Hillsborough Train Station
➢ GoTriangle has not included the following services and projects in the
New Starts Financial Plan:
➢ GoTriangle's existing, non-Tax District revenues and expenditures
➢ Other transit providers' existing services
➢ Revenues received by other transit providers
➢ Durham-Wake Commuter Rail Transit (D-W CRT) Project
➢ Wake County Transit Plan revenues and expenditures
➢ Full funding of North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (N-S BRT)
Project
Note: While GoTriangle and the local transit providers' existing bus services are not included in
the County Transit Plans, these services are not anticipated to be impacted moving forward
and are not funded through Transit District Revenues.
Commissioner McKee referred to the last item on the list of things that are not included,
and said he remembered that item to be $125 million. He asked if Ted Cole could explain
what would be gained from $6.1 million. He said there is a large disparity between the two.
Commissioner Jacobs said there is federal money that is drawn down that makes it
more than $6 million. He said full funding is not advocated or anticipated by the BOCC on
BRT as far as MLK, and he said one question he will have is what else can the BOCC do with
the $100 million.
DO LRT Project Cost/ Funding Sources
• The DO LRT project engineering, construction, and equipment cost is estimated to be
$2,388,568,428 in year of expenditure dollars.
19
o The project cost will be funded through a combination of:
➢ FTA New Starts Grant: $1,194,284,2141
➢ State Funding Contribution: $238,856,843
➢ TIFIA Debt Funding: $430,000,000
➢ In Kind Contributions: $19,376,433
➢ Transit District Revenues: $506,050,938
o The total cost of the DO LRT construction, including financing cost and interest
payments is estimated to be $3,302,320,4432.
Commissioner Price asked if the in-kind contributions have been committed.
Ted Cole said memorandums of understanding (MOUs) have been committed for $10
million.
Commissioner Burroughs referred to the footnote on page 5 of the PowerPoint, which
states it does not include capital, financing, and interest cost associated with the State of Good
Repair project. She asked if this was taken into account in figures presented later in the
analysis.
Ted Cole said the concept of state of good repair, which is in the outer years, is the
expectation of having to reinvest in the system for repair and maintenance, etc., and is not
captured in the $2.3 billion. He said as the presentation proceeds, the state of good repair will
be pulled in, and where some borrowings may be expected to help fund those future
investments in the system.
Commissioner McKee referred to the state funding contribution on $238 million plus,
and asked if this represents the 10% of the project of which has been spoken previously.
Ted Cole said that is the 10% of the $2.38 billion of the project.
Commissioner McKee said if it scored a little over 8, why is the abstract number of"10"
being used.
Ted Cole said he will get that answer for him.
Commissioner McKee said he is concerned, as a project cost of$2.388 billion is being
shown, but the true cost is $3.3 billion. He asked if there is a reason why the true cost is not
being shown, since that is what will have to be paid.
Ted Cole said both numbers are correct, and show the upfront costs versus the cost of
what must be borrowed to build.
Commissioner McKee asked if$2.388 billion is shown in the Federal Transportation
Administration (FTA) application, and if this is the maximum amount of which the federal
government will pay 50%.
Ted Cole said yes.
Commissioner McKee said that would leave everything over $2.388 billion to be borne
by Orange and Durham Counties, which jacks the percentage that Durham County and
Orange County will have to pay from 40% to at least 52%. He said going with the 52%
estimate, Orange County would pay $394 million.
Ted Cole said yes, when the interest expense is pulled into the numbers.
Commissioner McKee said that does not include the state of good repair borrowing.
Ted Cole said yes.
Mitch Brigulio, from Davenport, said the numbers are moving around a little bit, but
what is included in the Transit Plan and the FTA document is around $2.46 million range. He
said the difference between the $2.388 million and $2.46 million is the financing costs that are
eligible to be reimbursed by FTA. He said that is the financing cost during the construction
period.
20
Mindy Taylor, GoTriangle Senior Financial Analyst, said FTA wants to see not only the
capital costs of the project, but the portion of financing costs that are eligible for federal
reimbursement.
Commissioner McKee asked if the financing cost, covered by FTA, only goes out to
2032 or 2035.
Mindy Taylor said it is until 2032, which is the amount of time it takes to disperse the
federal funding share.
Commissioner McKee asked if the Counties incur every dollar thereafter.
Mindy Taylor said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs said every time the costs are mentioned, the cost to which the
speaker is referring should also be mentioned. He said a lot of people see that the project
costs have jumped, and he said this is because GoTriangle went from present dollars to year
of expenditure dollars, and this should also be restated with frequency; all in the effort for
transparency.
Commissioner Price referred to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) debt funding, and asked if there is limit to the amount for which the
project would be eligible. She said her concern is that the state funding is not guaranteed, and
wonders what will happen if more funds need to be borrowed. She referred to the New Starts
grant, and heard that these will only be available for projects that are shovel ready within 90
days.
Mitch Brigulio said TIFIA funding has to be applied for through the federal government,
and there is no set cap to what can be applied for, but the loan will be awarded based upon
the application and what the government feels is the right number to award. He said part of
this is driven by what the revenues and expenditures are and what can be paid back.
Commissioner McKee said he challenged a number in a bullet point that states
$37,445,121 is spent through the third quarter of 2017. He said in December 2016 or
February 2017, GoTriangle sent him an outline of expenses for each year, and it was at $37
million in February 2016.
• Scenario 3 v9 C implements the following cost share assumptions:
o Operating Cost Share:80% Durham I 20% Orange
o State of Good Repair Cost Share:80% Durham I 20% Orange
o Capital Cost Share:82% Durham I 18% Orange
o Financing Cost Share:82% Durham I 18% Orange
• $37,445,121 has been spent on the DO LRT through the third quarter of FY 2017.
o $28,664,366 was funded through Durham County Revenues and $8,780,755
was funded through Orange County Revenues.
• Through FY 2018, it is estimated that $100,282,782 will be spent on the DO LRT
project.
o $82,231,881 is funded through Durham County revenues and $18,050,901 is
funded through Orange County revenues.
• Through FY 2020, it is estimated that $206,227,131 will be spent on the DO LRT
project.
o $169,106,248 is funded through Durham County revenues and $37,120,884 is
funded through Orange County revenues.
DO LRT Project Plan of Finance
21
• Due to the timing of the receipt of Federal, State, and Local revenues, the Plan of
Finance includes the following potential / planned short term borrowings for DO LRT
construction costs:
o Limited Obligation Bonds ("LOBs") —In Anticipation of Local Revenues:2024
LOBs:$30,000,000
➢ 2024 LOBs: $90,000,000
➢ 2026 LOBs: $60,000,000
➢ 2026 LOBs: $29,000,000
➢ 2027 LOBs: $10,000,000
➢ Subtotal: $219,000,000
o Grant Anticipation Notes ("GANs") —In Anticipation of Federal and State Funding:
• 2025 GANs: $275,000,000
➢ 2027 GANs: $60,000,000
➢ Subtotal: $335,000,000
o Grand Total LOBs / GANs issued:$554,000,0001
o The total financing cost and interest associated with the LOBs and GANs is
estimated to be $642,960,026.
• In addition to the short term borrowings, a $430,000,000 Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act ("TIFIA") is under consideration. It is expected that the
TIFIA loan will be approved in FY 2020 with an initial draw in FY 2023.
o The total financing cost and interest associated with the TIFIA loan is estimated to
be $1,253,991,989.
• The current model identifies the need for future funding for ongoing capital repair and
maintenance costs (State of Good Repair) which are funded in part through future
LOBs currently scheduled for 2040, 2048, 2053, and 2058.
o In the aggregate, future State of Good Repair borrowings have a par amount of
$44,000,000 and a total financing cost of$47,916,026.
o In the current Scenario 3 v9 C, all of these borrowings would be associated with
Orange County expenditures.
Commissioner McKee referred to the interest, and said the information shows $1.2
billion interest and financing costs for TIFIA; $642,960,000 for the LOBs and the GANs; and
$47,916,000 for the state of good repair. He said this is an approximate $1.942 billion in
interest and fees paid on a $1.4 billion project.
Ted Cole said the $642 million of total pay back is for principle plus interest, and the
same is for the other numbers.
Commissioner McKee said then his figures are wrong.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the collateral on the borrowings for the state of the
good repair would be the system itself.
Ted Cole said GoTriangle is expected to issue all of these borrowings through
generically and installment financing, secured by the assets that are being built or bought.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the loan goes through GoTriangle, and asked what
would happen to Orange County's credit if there is a default on the loan.
Ted Cole said what is the credit that will ultimately be developed and used to issue this
debt. He said Go Triangle will be the issuer of all debt, and all is expected to be secured by
the system. He said, at this point, there is no expectation of an explicit support agreement by
the counties; however, in his opinion, it is some time before this will be known definitively. He
said one of GoTriangle's next steps is to embark upon a more detailed discussion with the
rating agencies, which will go a long way to shaping that credit. He said some of that will be
22
determined by the state statutes; the kind of support agreements that Orange and Durham
Counties can provide, if they so choose; and how do the rating agencies look at the project.
He said two investment grade ratings must be secured in order to get the TIFIA loans.
Commissioner Jacobs said it will take a while to resolve all of these borrowing issues
with GoTriangle, and he is concerned about Orange County's fiscal health. He asked if the
County is still on the trunk of the tree, or is it out on a limb.
Ted Cole said the County is still on the trunk, but as the conversation evolves, the key
questions will be what is the County committed to, if it approves that transit plan and the cost
share agreement, and where are opportunities to take a step back and reassess. He said he
does not know the answer to these questions.
Richard Marvin, PFM-Financial Advisor to GoTriangle, said there is a requirement for
investment grade ratings. He said the way to achieve this with the LOB concept is to only
pledge the revenues of the system and the sales taxes. He said this is what will be used to
establish the investment grade rating, and by establishing this rating will lead people to buy the
bonds. He said they are restricted to the value of the system itself, and the revenues coming
in. He said there is no legal backstop from the Counties.
Commissioner McKee asked if this means that the County has absolute immunity from
any impact on the County's credit rating or the County's obligations to make sure these get
paid.
Richard Marvin said as far as getting them paid, yes there is immunity. He said there
would only be an adverse action to the County's rating, if the County became unable to raise
ad valorem taxes, or affected the economics of the County.
Commissioner McKee read a statement out of the Davenport report: "if there is a
significant shortfall, Orange County may be required or decide to contribute additional revenue
in order to maintain the viability of the project, regardless of whether there is a contractual
requirement to do something." He said this statement seems to be at odds with what Richard
Marvin is saying.
Ted Cole said the statement read by Commissioner McKee is on page 11 of the
PowerPoint, and "may be required" is a nod to the fact that Davenport does not know what the
credit is ultimately going to be. He said there is an expectation today that there will not be any
need for a formal support agreement between Orange County, Durham County, and
GoTriangle; but if the credit were to evolve to where such an agreement were needed, then
that is where "required" comes into play. He said it anticipates that the credit will be evolved,
and if there is a support agreement required to get the credit for GoTriangle, then Orange
County may be required to support it; and if not, then the County could decide to support.
Commissioner McKee said he would not want them to find themselves in court in 2032
trying to define the word required.
Ted Cole said he understands, and when the time comes to develop the credit of
GoTriangle for the purposes of funding this project, the County will have great clarity on
whether it is required to support it or not. He said at this point the expectation is that there will
be no requirement, but the process has yet to be completed.
Chair Dorosin said should that time come, the County would be able to decide whether
or not to proceed.
Commissioner McKee said yes, but the County will be hundreds of millions of dollars in,
at that point.
GoTriangle Financial Model
Major Revenue and Expenditure Assumptions
23
• The following major revenue and expenditure assumptions have been included in the
financial model. Items listed in the parentheticals represent potential vulnerabilities that
may arise:
o Major Revenue Assumptions
➢ FTA New Starts Federal Funding (approval, timing, and amount)
➢ State Funding —10% of Capital & Operating Costs (approval, timing, and
amount)
➢ TIFIA Funding(approval, timing, and amount)
➢ LOBs / GANs —DO LRT Funding(approval, timing, and amount)
➢ LOBs —State of Good Report (approval, timing, and amount)
➢ Transit District Revenues (realization of projected growth)DO LRT Fare
Revenues(realization of projected growth)
o Major Expenditure Assumptions DO LRT Capital Cost
➢ DO LRT Operating Cost
➢ Existing and Expansion Bus Costs
➢ Bus Rapid Transit
➢ Ongoing DO LRT Capital / Maintenance Costs (State of Good Repair)
Article 43 Sales Tax Assumptions (Orange County)
• There are currently three projection scenarios for the Orange County Article 43 Sales
Tax under consideration: Moody's baseline scenario, Moody's pessimistic scenario,
and Dr. Walden 2014 projections. Scenario 3 v9 C incorporates Moody's baseline
projections.
Projected Results (Scenario 3 v9 C) Orange County, NC 8 Overall Results —Adjusted
Scale for Orange County Graph
Projected Results (Scenario 3 v9 C) April 4, 2017 Orange County, NC 9 Overall Results —
Uniform Scales for All Graphs
Financial Model Observations, Key Drivers, and Risk Factors ( page 10)
• In order to implement this Plan of Finance and access long term capital funding,
GoTriangle will need to receive two investment grade credit ratings. In order to receive
investment grade credit ratings, GoTriangle will need to be able to demonstrate:
o Ability to maintain positive cash flows.
o Ability to demonstrate minimum Debt Service Coverage levels.
o Ability to manage the project.
o Some minimum level of operating / capital reserves.
• As GoTriangle, Durham County, and Orange County continue to evaluate the project
and Plan of Finance, the following key drivers / risk factors may be considered:
o Potential changes (positive or negative) in the DO LRT Capital Cost.
o Approval, timing, and amount of FTA New Starts Federal Funding, State
Funding, and TIFIA Funding.
o Realization of assumed Transit District Revenues and DO LRT Fare Revenues.
o Actual / revised estimates for DO LRT Operating Costs and ongoing DO LRT
capital / maintenance costs.
o Ability to fund existing and expansion bus service and Bus Rapid Transit.
24
Potential Orange County Credit & Cash Flow/ Budget Implications
• Credit Implications.
o All financings will be secured by Light Rail assets and will be subject to annual
appropriations from GoTriangle.
o Beyond the revenues identified on the prior pages, there are no additional
GoTriangle revenues available to fund this project.
o Between the TIFIA loan and market based financing, no other credit details
have been developed or disseminated to the working group.
o In their review, the Rating Agencies may view Orange County as having a
contingent liability to the GoTriangle financial plan, regardless of whether or not
there is an explicit guarantee provided by Orange County.
➢ Davenport would anticipate that the rating agencies will review
Orange County's credit with and without a liability for GoTriangle.
➢ The soundness of the business plan at the time of the review will
help the Rating Agencies determine the level, if any, of the potential
contingent liability.
• Cash Flow/ Budget Implications.
o As discussed previously, there are a number of key assumptions included in the
GoTriangle financial plan.
o Changes, positive or negative, to these assumptions will impact Orange
County's cash flow requirements under this plan.
o If there is a significant shortfall, Orange County may be required or decide to
contribute additional revenue in order to maintain the viability of the project,
regardless of whether there is a contractual requirement to do so.
• As the Plan of Finance continues to develop and key decision points are reached, more
information about the potential credit and financial impacts will be available.
Wrap-Up & Items for Consideration
• The decision to move forward with the General Engineering Consultant and Program
Management Consultant contracts represents a significant capital commitment for
Orange County residents.
o $37,445,121 has been spent on the DO LRT through the third quarter of FY
2017, $8,780,755 of which was funded through Orange County Revenues.
o Through FY 2020, it is estimated that $206,227,131 will be spent on the DO
LRT project, $37,120,884 of which is funded through Orange County revenues.
• Key items for consideration in approving this continued investment:
o Adequacy of the updated Transit Plan.
o Adequacy of the updated Cost Share Agreement.
• Based upon our review of GoTriangle's financial models and related documents, we
offer the following initial observations:
o Based on preliminary modeling and current assumptions, we believe the Project
is financeable in terms of TIFIA requirements.
o The viability of the market-based financings will require additional due diligence,
further refinement of the primary Project assumptions and formalizing the
"credit" as it will be presented to the rating agencies and/or potential investors.
25
o Project feasibility is, in some respects, a subjective concept. While the current
GoTriangle model projects that the Project will cash-flow, the margin for error is
very small and a number of assumptions will need to materialize as modeled to
avoid needing additional financial support in the future.
o Given current projections for Project performance, Orange County cumulative
cash balances are insufficient in certain years to properly insulate the County
from potential future financial support requirements/requests. Of note on this
observation, Durham County cumulative cash balances may be available to
provide additional financial resources for Project underperformance. Clarity on
this point is recommended.
➢ GoTriangle has identified the following mitigation strategies in an effort
to insulate the counties from additional financial support in the event that
the forecast assumptions do not materialize as projected:
• Contingency in the project budget; Design changes to reduce
project cost; Savings from property donations; Cost transfer to
project partners; and new revenue.
o Given the scope of the Project and current financial projections, Davenport is of
the opinion that this Project will be a discussion item and consideration as part
of the County's ongoing rating agency interactions.
• As Local Government Commission ("LGC") approvals will be required for the planned
non-TIFIA financings, a preliminary dialogue with LGC staff in the near future is
recommended.
• If interest and support for the Project are confirmed, the Orange County Board of
County Commissioners should request a clear and concise explanation of its current
commitments, future Project approvals and any opportunities/mechanisms for
multilateral and unilateral Project modification/suspension/termination.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Robert David said he has moved from being a supporter to this plan to becoming an
opponent of it. He said there is a lot of money at stake, and more may be coming with
unknown costs. He asked if there is any benefit to the County from the transit plan, as there
are only three to four stops in all. He asked the BOCC to reject the plan as he now sees it,
and asked that they consider if they want GoTriangle to be the financial manager of this plan.
He encouraged the BOCC to establish a separate line of communication with the FTA. He
thanked the BOCC for its openness.
Paul Rockwell said the light rail is a beautiful dream that becomes a nightmare with the
project costs and financial responsibility. He said these costs will be pushed onto the
taxpayers. He said he is a strong supporter of public transportation, but not a supporter of light
rail, and he asked the BOCC to follow Wake County's lead and to find other solutions that are
more beneficial to Orange County.
Maria Palmer asked the BOCC to support Light Rail, and highlighted some of the
reasons why.
Ken Larson said he came up with a graph to examine the probability of success for this
project: receiving federal money- low; state funding at 10%- low; cost overruns- low; improved
bus service across all of Orange County— low; reduce traffic- low; route will serve most transit
dependent— low; improve environment- low. He said he does not support the project, and
playing the funds on the slot machines in Vegas would give a better return.
John Morris thanked the BOCC for commissioning the Davenport analysis. He said this
plan is based on a lot of assumptions and risks, and all must go perfectly for things to work out
26
for Orange County. He said any one of the risks could derail the financing plan. He said a
great deal of money is being borrowed, resulting in huge amounts of interest. He said
GoTriangle has not earned the trust of the County.
Brenda McCall said she has lived in this area for a long time, and is a strong supporter
of mass transit for Orange County. She said she is here representing organizations that serve
seniors in rural Orange County. She said she voted for the transit tax, but this light rail should
not be built on the backs of Orange County residents. She said the LRT will cannibalize transit
dollars for decades to come. She said Orange County cannot afford LRT, and she does not
support light rail. She encouraged the BOCC to say yes to a comprehensive transit system for
all of Orange County.
Bonnie Hauser said she is speaking on behalf of herself and Dr. Eric Ghysels,
Economics professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC). She said they are pleased to
see Davenport's report, but the scope of the work did not include the economic forecasting or
simulation modeling. She said the Moody numbers were accepted at face value and plugged
into the financial models. She said the veracity of the sales tax forecast was not tested. She
said economists in the area believe that Moody's forecast used in scenario C is overly
aggressive and unrealistic. She said it assumes that Orange County sales tax will grow by
8.5% this year, and by 3-6% annually for the next 45 years. She said numbers from recent
years simply do not show this. She said the sales tax numbers should be evaluated and
publically validated before moving forward in any way.
Julie McClintock thanked the BOCC for delving into the details and commissioning the
analysis. She said there are two bottom line questions: does the GoTriangle plan deliver the
best transit plan for Orange County, and can the County afford it. She said the only way this
plan will work is if there are no complications, and every assumption works as anticipated. She
said she sees the potential for economic growth for Durham County, but not for Orange.
She requested that all the work papers of Moody's and Davenport be released to the public,
including all the risk scenarios; Moody staff be available to answer question by local
economists; staff to arrange with an open discussion with Moody and Davenport.
Tom Farmer said he is a GoTriangle commuter who wants to age in place, which
requires a good transit system. He reviewed experiences living in other regions that installed
light rail, noting that these areas understood the investment. He said this region is failing to
understand the potential of this LRT plan. He said he is supportive of the light rail plan, and
the benefits it will bring to the community.
Sam Gharbo said the shiny rails of the LRT are attracting our attention. He said fiscal
responsibility is important, and the BOCC should not go after the new and shiny rails. He said
there is so much more that can be done with this money.
Charles Humble said the Davenport report shows Durham County can afford this
project, but it is very risky for Orange County. He said LRT is a big win for Durham County, but
he sees very few benefits for Orange County, as the stations will be located on tax exempt
UNC property. He said taxpayers will be asked to assume a long term financial risk if the
BOCC approves this.
Ramona McGee said she works with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC),
who is supportive of the light rail project. She urged the BOCC to support the project.
Commissioner Burroughs referred to pages 8 and 9 of PowerPoint that discusses cash
flow balances, and said these balances are for the light rail system, but asked if this includes
the Bus Rapid Transit Plan (BRIP)
Mitch Brigulio said the cash flow balances include everything in the program, everything
at the top of page 4 of the PowerPoint presentation.
27
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the roughly $200,000 that would be in the cash
balance in 2048 is in 2048 dollars.
Ted Cole said the model itself is projecting the capital and operating costs associated
with these things. He said these are being grown out to dollars in the future, based on some
growth factor. He said the tax district revenues are growing based on the projection. He said
he would consider those dollars as being the net cash flow of those projected dollars. He said
it will be a small amount of money.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if margin of error is specifically very small for Orange
County, and that there is more cushion for Durham County.
Ted Cole said yes, based on all that has been reviewed, Orange County has a very
small margin of error.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if one way to deal with the low cash flow is to change
the cost sharing percentages.
Ted Cole said yes, that is one input in the model, which if adjusted, will shift the costs.
He said this has evolved over the past few weeks, along with restructuring the debt, and
adding in the state of good repair borrowings in the latter years.
Commissioner Burroughs said there seems to be difference of opinion about the
potential impact on the County's credit rating, and asked if there is more of a risk for Orange
County than Durham County.
Ted Cole said this is a very significant project, and impact on the credit rating does not
necessarily mean it is all negative. He said a big part of local government credit analysis is the
local economy, its strength and vibrancy. He said a project like this could improve the
economy. He said the potentially negative side is that it is reasonable for the BOCC to expect
that this project will be a part of the conversation of Orange County's credit rating moving
forward. He said as the financial plan gets firmed up, and as the credit gets better defined, the
affect on the County's credit rating will become clear.
Commissioner Burroughs said the Moody's forecast was discussed in the public
comments, as well as the expected increase in local sales tax, and asked if he had comments
on these items.
Ted Cole said Moody's data on this, on page 7, picks up with 2017 as a baseline year,
and it is growing off of that. He said the first year under the baseline there is 4.7% growth,
which evolves every year until 2045. He said what this model requires is that the County has
those dollars (tax district revenue dollars) every year. He said when considering percentage
growth over a long period of time, one can determine a growth rate that takes the plan from
year one to year 40. He said there is some vulnerability with this model, because a temporary
period of no growth, or reduced growth, would greatly impact this model.
Mitch Brigulio said what year it happens and to what extent such a change may occur is
very important. He said cumulative dollars needed is what is being considered. He said there
may be years with flat or negative growth, but if there have been years prior with greater than
predicted growth, there may be surplus to cover the lower years.
Commissioner Rich referred to page 10, which talks about capital reserves, and said
she looked at a GoTriangle flow chart, which discussed debt service reserves, and an
operating reserve. She asked if the difference between these two reserves could be explained
and their relationship to the cash flow.
Ted Cole said the debt service reserve is specific to those borrowings that are
anticipated to take place, and as part of those individual borrowings, part of what is funded is a
reserve that is set aside in order to make a year's worth of payments if there is a problem. He
said the amount that is set aside is one year's debt service, and if the money is never needed,
it is used at the end of the loan to make the last payment. He said these dollars cannot be
28
used for any other purpose.
Ted Cole said in the model there is also an operating reserve.
Mitch Brigulio said there is an operating reserve set up in the model, which is
essentially three months worth of Orange County and GoTriangle operations for the system.
He said it does not include the LRT.
Mindy Taylor said the operating reserve is for the system operations and is modeled in
three separate places; a portion is allocated to Durham, Orange, and GoTriangle's own agency
operations, outside of the county plans.
Commissioner Rich asked if the source of the operating reserve could be identified.
Mindy Taylor said it comes from the sales tax. She said the reserve is 25% of the
annual operating expenses, and if there were a shortfall for three months, there would be
funds to cover it.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the graphs on page 8 and 9, and said it appears
to show the disappearing orange bars, which could not be seen because of the size of the
graph. He said this is a problem because there is the 82/18 split, which is a part of this
thought process. He said the cash balance for Durham is in relation to their 82%, and the
cash balance for Orange is in relation to its 18%.
Commissioner Marcoplos said there needs to be a way to make this clear on the
website so that the public does not get the wrong impression.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the sales tax assumptions table, column b, on
page 7, and said he does not see business cycles there.
Ted Cole said there may well be, and some expectation of business cycles. He said
the process to derive these growth rates was very involved.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the line item that notes 30% contingency funds,
which seems to be based on an FTA requirement; but to him this contingency number should
be based on actual estimates on the actual project.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the answer that he originally got back from GoTriangle
was that 20% of the total base cost is allocated contingency, which seems to be saying to him
that excavation, stations, rail installation, etc. are going to have a certain amount of
contingency. He said there is then 10% that is unallocated. He said he is a builder and builds
contingency into his projects as well, and there seems to be no way of dealing with the fact
that if this is a true contingency it may indicate that 5-10% is not needed. He said a 5%
contingency amount would be $120 million, plus any finance costs. He said he is curious to
gain a more in depth understanding of the contingency, as 30% of the project is a lot of
money, and a contingency fund is not a contingency fund if every penny is spent.
Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project Director, said the allocated contingency is identified
with each of the pieces of the project; track, system, facilities, etc. He said the contingencies
are adjusted as the design process continues. He said the level of contingencies are fairly
common, as well as being consistent with expectations from FTA. He said there is an initially
high level of contingency, because at a certain level of design there are some unknowns, as
the design is not final. He said as the design is finalized, the contingency level will reduce. He
said the unallocated contingency is an amount for the unknown unknowns.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any chance that the contingency fund will not
be spent, given that it is 5% over the required FTA amount.
Danny Rogers said he does not expect to spend the entire amount, and the New Starts
program has a track record of coming in under budget since the FTA has established some
new guidelines.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BOCC could receive information about these
other projects that have come in under budget.
Danny Rogers said the information is on the FTA website.
29
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the development funds line item, and asked if the
value of these funds could be clarified, and what would be the ramifications if these funds
were not allocated.
Danny Rogers said about $130 million is associated with the joint development
opportunity, which is an opportunity that the FTA has put into the process as something with
which it will participate in funding. He said this could result in affordable housing, joint
development near stations, etc. He said if this investment is not obtained and spent, then the
cost of the project would go down.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any debt cost associated with this line item.
Mindy Taylor said the financing for the project is based on the total cash flow need,
which includes the joint development costs. She said if those costs were not in the project
cost, then the finance needs would reduce.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it is in the project, and there are financing costs
associated with it, would those financial costs need to be calculated against whatever gain is
received from the government with that money. He said a closer look at that may reveal how
valuable it is to keep it in to begin with.
Mindy Taylor said this could be looked into, and a 50% federal match and 10% state
match is anticipated.
Commissioner Marcoplos said some examples of how others have utilized it would be
helpful.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if Davenport could do more analysis in the next few
weeks, or is their involvement complete.
Ted Cole said Davenport can continue to work with the County.
Commissioner Jacobs said an analysis that he would like to see is what happens if the
project is delayed. He said he would like to understand this better: the pros and cons, the
fiscal impact, etc.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the sales tax, and said both counties use the article
39 history, Moody's base line sales tax. He said Orange County bleeds sales tax to its
neighbors, and Durham has a much larger commercial, retail, industrial tax base, as compared
to Orange County's primarily residential one. He asked if there is a reason not to run the
pessimistic view for Orange County, and let Durham run the view it so chooses.
Commissioner Jacobs said it looks like when the LRT is funded that there is no room
for buses. He asked if this is correct.
Ted Cole said what is in there now is the dollar value for expanded bus service that
was consistent with the 2012 BRIP.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if this runs through 2062. He asked if there are annual
funds, or if it is one lump spent down over time.
Mindy Taylor said it is an annual amount of expenditures.
Ted Cole said it is accounted for up top as an expense.
Commissioner Jacobs clarified that there is bus money all the way through scenario.
Ted Cole said that is his understanding.
Mindy Taylor said there is funding for bus service and bus capital all the way through
the cash flow. She said the amount that is programmed in the plan is consistent with the
investments that were in the original adopted Orange Transit Plan. She said that plan also
identified funded and unfunded needs. She said there is also increased funding from the tax
district for capital investments, for bus facilities, bus shelters, maintenance, etc. She said there
is limited capacity to expand bus service beyond what was originally promised, but if revenues
are higher than expected, they can be reallocated.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if this could be quantified by saying how many bus hours
are projected.
30
Mindy Taylor said that information is in the draft plans, and she can send that to the
BOCC.
Chair Dorosin moved item 6c: Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and
Other Benefits to the BOCC work session on April 6.
Commissioner Price asked if clarification can be provided about fares, and how they
will be determined.
Mindy Taylor said the fare revenue assumption was determined based on analysis of
several different peer transit systems with similar types of projects, and this information can be
provided to the BOCC.
Commissioner Price clarified that the fare is not based on ridership, but rather an
average of other projects.
Mindy Taylor said that is correct.
Commissioner Price referred to a section called credit implications, and said it indicates
that all financings will be secured by light rail assets and will be subject to annual
appropriations from GoTriangle. She asked if the source of the appropriations could be
identified.
Ted Cole said the tax district revenues.
Commissioner Price said this information should be included in the PowerPoint, in the
interest of transparency.
Commissioner Price said the scenarios do not take into consideration any type of
recessions. She said if time allows, she would like to know the implications of delaying the
project, as well as the implications of a recession.
Ted Cole said the model has the ability to input a change in the tax revenues, and it is
a question of when would this occur, and to what extent.
Commissioner Price said perhaps to consider inputting a change prior to the completion
of the construction, and perhaps one afterwards.
Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Ted Cole correcting him about the figures he
had about the interest. He said earlier in the week he expressed agreement that the Orange
and Durham counties were liable for 40% of the approximately $2.4 million in the plan. He
said he also mentioned the interest that falls entirely on the County, and recalled Ted Cole
calculating the County's percentage to about 52%. He asked if Ted Cole recalled this
conversation.
Ted Cole said yes, and his team revisited that more formally.
Mitch Brigulio said the counties, and local partners' share, is at about 55%; factoring in
the total cost of the project, the total interest and financing costs, the amount of the financing
that FTA will reimburse, etc.
Commissioner McKee asked if this information could be forwarded to the
Commissioners, with the details broken down.
Commissioner McKee referred to the packet, and said everything is financeable if you
are willing to mortgage to a certain point. He said the very next line discusses feasibility, and
that it is subjective, with which he agrees. He said the packet further reads: "given current
projections for project performance, Orange County's cumulative cash balances are not
sufficient in certain years to properly insulate the County from potential future financial support
requirements." He asked if Davenport stands by that statement.
Ted Cole said yes.
Commissioner McKee asked if, given these low cash balances, the likelihood of things
going perfectly for 40 plus years could be identified.
Ted Cole said he supposed it is as equally likely as unlikely, but there is a very thin
margin given the size of the project. He said 40-year projections are extremely difficult to do in
an accurate fashion. He re-emphasized that with the sales tax, it is one thing to get from year
31
one to year 40, on a 4% track over the long term; but it is another thing to hit every single year
with dollars growing. He said this model requires the dollars growing every year, and a delay
in the dollars made up in later years, does not necessarily work.
Commissioner McKee asked Jeff Mann where one could go to find information on the
resale value of used locomotives for light rail.
Jeff Mann said he could research this question, but typically these vehicles have a long
life, and he is unaware of an active resale market.
Commissioner McKee said the assets back the loans, and the only sellable asset he
sees are the carriages and locomotives, the land, and the buildings, with the rest being scrap.
He said he does not see $2.4 billion worth of assets.
Commissioner McKee said he submitted a list of questions to GoTriangle on Monday
through Travis Myren. He said these questions were from Dr. Ghysels. He said it is his
understanding that Dr. Ghysles tried to speak to Moody's, and Moody's would not speak to
him, as GoTriangle was the owner of the report. He asked if GoTriangle will answer the list of
questions in a timely fashion, and authorize Moody's to speak with Dr. Ghysels.
Mindy Taylor said GoTriangle did receive this request, and spoke with Moody's, who is
in the process of preparing a memorandum to address as many of the questions as possible.
She said some of the requested information is proprietary, and GoTriangle will need to review
its contract with Moody's. She said it is not typical to give this type of information away without
a non-disclosure agreement.
Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if he could research whether the ownership
of that information belongs to GoTriangle, Moody's or the taxpayers.
Chair Dorosin said it is time to wrap up this conversation.
Commissioner Jacobs said he does not want to wrap this up, as this is one of the only
opportunities that the BOCC has to ask questions with both Davenport and GoTriangle in
attendance. He said the BOCC must get their questions answered.
Commissioner Rich referred to contingent liability, and she wanted to understand how
the County is being protected. She asked if this information could please be forwarded to her.
John Roberts said he will go back and look at comments and research this for the
BOCC.
Commissioner Burroughs said the cost-sharing agreement with Durham County at
82/18 does not work for her. She asked for all involved to talk to Durham about reducing the
cost sharing for Orange County. She said she sees great value in having LRT, but the split will
need to be significantly different for her to vote favorably.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to buses, and whether there will be any revenue left
to expand the buses for new routes. He asked if the remaining funds are for new bus routes.
He also asked if the current buses can be deployed elsewhere, once the LRT is in place, and if
that is in addition to the projected bus expansion that is in the BRIP.
Mindy Taylor said whether the additional dollars will go to new routes, or to additional
hours on existing routes, is a question for the individual transit providers. She said this
information is laid out in the draft Orange transit plan.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if that plan utilizes these buses that will be re-located
and re-routed, or are those buses gravy on top of the existing buses.
Danny Rogers said this is referred to as dividend hours, some of which is GoTriangle,
but majority of which is Chapel Hill Public Transit. He said there are agreements with
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and UNC, and most of that is provided by UNC. He said the way in
which these dividend hours are divided would be up to those entities. He said this is fully
expected to happen, and would allow for a fairly significant amount of buses to provide
connections to the LRT, and other parts of the area.
32
Commissioner Marcoplos said he does not think the Board has seen that on the same
page as the other bus expansion.
Danny Rogers said John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Department
Director, will include this information in his presentation on the draft plan
Commissioner Jacobs said the dividend hours go to Chapel Hill Transit, and one of the
issues is that the LRT is in Chapel Hill; the dividend hours are in Chapel Hill; everything is in
Chapel Hill, despite the plan being promised to the whole County. He said it is important to
consider whether the Board is fulfilling the commitment made to the residents that there will be
a robust bus system in Orange County when the Board asked them to vote for the transit tax.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the state of good repair, and that this was going to be
contributed to down the years. He said he thought this contribution was going to come out of
the cash balances, and asked if this is correct, as the cash balances are so small.
Ted Cole said part of the reason the cash balances fall to where they are is because
some state of good repair improvements will be funded out of the cash balances. He said a
borrowing would be inserted, when the cash balances are no longer sufficient to fund the state
of good repair improvements.
Commissioner Jacobs said this is the same predicament that exists with schools. He
said there is not enough funding to repair the old, pay operations, and build new schools.
Ted Cole said they try to do what they can on a pay as you go basis, and when that
does not work money is borrowed.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the BRT, and asked where is the $100 million
coming.
Mindy Taylor said GoTriangle is not the project sponsor on the BRT, and said to contact
the Town of Chapel Hill about this. She said funding options are being considered outside of
the tax district share, and currently no state funds are being considered, and the federal share
could be higher.
Brian Litchfield, Transit Director for Town of Chapel Hill, said the current estimate is
$125 million year of expenditure, which assumes a 70% from a federal grant, and a 30% local
match. He said the current draft plan includes $6.1 million of that 30%. He said as the next
phase of the project continues, the Town will have to look at the costs for the project and
whether there are ways to minimize them.
Commissioner Jacobs said there is a difference of about $28 million, and asked if this
is included in the BRIP at this point, or is the County expected to contribute.
Brian Litchfield said that difference is currently unfunded, and as they move into the
engineering phase, the Town can consider a variety of adjustments, including delaying
elements of the project, changing the cost share with the federal government, etc. He said
design and environmental work have yet to begin.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a reason that the BRT is even in this basket of
conversation about LRT.
Brian Litchfield said the BRT was originally included in the investment plan, as it was
considered a regional project, and both projects work better together than they do separately.
Commissioner McKee asked if staff could gather actual sales tax growth data since the
inception of this project, and to forward it to Davenport. He asked if Davenport could factor
that data into the chart found on page 7. He said, as he understands, the sales tax growth
since inception of this project, started above projections in year one, but then flat lined
thereafter.
Commissioner McKee referenced the state of good repair loans, and said he does not
remember seeing these before. He said in December the Board was sold a bill of goods.
Commissioner Marcoplos referenced the Hillsborough train station, and asked if this
can be built on time regardless of any other part of the plan.
33
Jeff Mann said it is the goal to build it, and NCDOT rail division is working on this, and
nothing in this plan is stopping the progress of that station.
Commissioner McKee said a question and answer session was held for the Mountains
to Sea Trail about a month ago, and asked if there is any way to set up that style of interactive
conversation on this topic as it may quell some concerns.
Commissioner McKee said maybe a delay would be the best thing to do.
Jeff Mann said there are a number of public workshops set up where any questions can
be asked.
Commissioner McKee said he was referring to a question and answer session between
the community and Orange County staff.
Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciated that there will be a meeting in Hillsborough,
as all areas of the County need to have an opportunity to ask questions and be heard. He
thanked GoTriangle for indulging his questions, and the Chair for indulging the Board's
questions despite the hour.
c. Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits
DEFERRED UNTIL April 6th
d. Petition Requesting Adjustment to Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of
Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes
The Board considered a petition submitted at the February 21, 2017 Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) meeting regarding grandfathering of projects for school impact fee
collection purposes.
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, reviewed the following information:
BACKGROUND:
On December 13, 2016, the BOCC adopted a Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of
Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes (Attachment 1). The resolution was in
response to concerns raised during deliberations that occurred in the fall of 2016 which
resulted in updated school impact fees being adopted on November 15, 2016.
On February 21, 2017 representatives of"Townhouse Apartments" located in Chapel Hill
attended the BOCC meeting to submit a petition to adjust language in the grandfathering
resolution to accommodate their ongoing plans to renovate/expand their existing apartment
complex (see Attachment 2). The Townhouse Apartments petition includes suggested
language to be added to the grandfathering resolution. The suggested additional language
essentially would allow projects of 90-units in size or greater to be subject to 2016 impact fee
levels if the project:
• Had obtained a specific lesser level of permitting than the currently required Zoning
Compliance Permit (ZCP) by January 1, 2017, and
• Submits a building permit application prior to January 31, 2019 (current date for this
milestone is January 1, 2018).
Additionally, the suggested language would require payment of the fee prior to December 31,
2020 (the current language requires the fee be paid by June 30, 2019). The suggested
language keeps the current "outer limit" of December 31, 2020 for issuance of a Certificate of
Compliance (formerly known as a Certificate of Occupancy).
The petition was referred to staff to gather further information on the project. Staff
worked on the petition and tentatively scheduled the grandfathering request for hearing
at the April 18, 2017 regular meeting of the BOCC. Before the BOCC could consider the
34
petition, two bills were filed in the North Carolina House of Representatives (House) that
potentially severely impact Orange County's ability to fund school capital needs.
On March 20, 2017 House Bill 406 was filed in the House. If it passes, House Bill 406,
which specifically targets Orange County, will strip the County of its authority to levy
impact fees. On March 22, 2017 House Bill 436 was filed in the House. House Bill 436 is
similar to House Bill 406 in that it would strip the County of its impact fee levying
authority. Unlike House Bill 406, House Bill 436 targets numerous jurisdictions
throughout the state and eliminates all regulatory fees on new construction unless the
fee is specifically authorized by general law. Should either bill pass Orange County will
lose millions of dollars annually that is used to assist in school capital projects. This will
leave a deficit that ultimately must be filled with a tax increase that requires all property
owners in Orange County to pay for the costs of new development.
Staff has analyzed the submitted petition and suggests revising the dates in the current
resolution to allow for a longer grandfathering period for projects 90-units or greater in size
rather than adopting the language suggested by the petitioner, which is tailored for a specific
project. Other projects that are currently in various planning phases could potentially take
advantage of the longer grandfathering period if submittal deadlines are met.
Staff shared the staff recommendation with the petitioner. The petitioner provided the following
suggestions:
• Move the staff-recommended Zoning Compliance Permit (ZCP) issuance date of July
31, 2017 out to December 31, 2017; alternatively, require only submission of the ZCP
application by May 15, 2017.
o Staff notes an alternative exists where the ZCP submission is in May and the
issuance is in December. Petitioner's position on this alternative was unclear at the
time of publication.
• Move the Building Permit application date from January 1, 2019 to January 31, 2019.
• Move the fee paid-by date from June 30, 2019 to June 30, 2020 (to be more in-line with
the Certificate of Compliance date of December 31, 2020). In accord with the attached
resolution, the BOCC intends that any additional grandfathering requests for projects
90-units in size or greater must be submitted prior to July 31, 2017.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Allowing for a longer grandfathering period is likely to result in a lesser
amount of school impact fee collections than might otherwise be collected.
Commissioner McKee asked if this applicant came before the Board in February.
Craig Benedict said yes.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Wayne Hadler said he was before the BOCC on February 21St. He said they are
hoping to submit their ZCP tomorrow. He said the way the resolution is written now, on page 2
of the agenda, calls for an issuance of a ZCP by July 31, 2017. He said when the ZCP is
submitted it will likely be reviewed by Chapel Hill, come back to him, and be resubmitted with
corrections. He said due to this slow timeline, it is likely that he will be unable to meet the
proposed deadlines for the County. He said his proposed solution is to change the language
to read that the ZCP will be submitted by May 2017, and the issuance will occur by December
31, 2017.
Wayne Hadler said this is a project that will build out an estimated $625,000 per year of
tax revenue, and one that has a wonderful affordable housing component to it, providing $4
35
million of value to the Town of Chapel Hill over 25 years. He said this will include six
apartment units, of mixed bedroom size, that will be leased to the Town for $12/year for 25
years.
Commissioner Rich asked if these apartments are for UNC Students, with the exception
of the affordable housing.
Wayne Hadler said yes. He said the affordable units will be on the Hillsborough side of
the project, closer to the houses.
Craig Benedict said the amendments being requested to the resolution in Attachment 3
states the Applicant wishes to have a submittal by May 15, and an issuance prior to December
31, 2017.
John Roberts said he has typed out the petitioner's request in the form of two new
paragraphs at the end that he can read into the record, if the Board votes to adopt the
changes requested by the Petitioner.
Chair Dorosin said the Applicant made a petition, which the Board referred to staff. He
said staff and the Petitioner have worked together in good faith, and in the interim, legislation
was introduced that would eliminate the County from being able to collect impact fees. He said
the Board's willingness to work with this issue existed in advance of the legislative bills being
filed, and by no means is the Board acting with a gun to its head.
Wayne Hadler said that Chair Dorosin sent a personal email to him after the February
21st meeting to let him know that his request had been referred to staff.
John Roberts read the proposed amendments to the resolution:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT projects of 90-units in size or greater for which a Zoning
Compliance Permit application has been has been submitted prior to May 15, 2017 and for
which a building permit application has been submitted prior to January 31, 2019 may choose
to pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the housing type(s)
proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee schedule in
section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, provided the
fee is paid prior to June 30, 2020 and a Certificate of Compliance is issued prior to December
31, 2020.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT applicants for additional grandfathering of projects of 90-
units in size or greater that submit a zoning compliance permit application prior to May 15,
2017 may submit requests and supporting information no later than July 31, 2017 to Orange
County Planning Staff who, in conjunction with the Orange County Attorney, will prepare
agenda items for Orange County Board of Commissioners consideration at the next available
regular meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Wayne Hadler agreed to this amended language.
John Roberts said the second paragraph is needed so that this is not seen as an
individual benefit to one developer.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
to approve the amended resolution in Attachment 3 (deleting two paragraphs, and replacing
them with two new paragraphs above).
Chair Dorosin clarified that the motion contains that the ZCP must be submitted by May
15, 2017, and issued by December 31, 2017.
John Roberts said the language says it has to be submitted by May 15, 2017, and a
building permit application must be submitted by January 31, 2019, and does not address what
Chair Dorosin just asked.
36
Chair Dorosin said the motion contains no language about the ZCP being issued by
December 31, 2017. He asked if this additional language, about the issuance, should be
added.
John Roberts said this was the alternative requested by the Petitioner, and it makes it
easier for any petitioner who meets the May 15, 2017 application deadline, because they are
not sitting around waiting for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or County approval. He said petitioners will
still have to meet the later deadlines of building permit application, so it takes out a step, but is
unlikely to expand greatly the number of developers that qualify.
Commissioner Rich said it may be wise for the Board to consider impact fees when
housing is exclusively for students, and she asked if John Roberts and staff would look at this.
John Roberts said, in an earlier meeting with developers, he explained that the Board
of County Commissioners cannot treat student housing as it does senior housing, but the
authorizing legislation for impact fees does authorize the Board to look at fairness and equity
in setting the impact fees.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested taking the gist of the resolution, putting it in the form
of a public hearing announcement, and publishing it in the local newspapers.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
direct staff to look at options when a project comes forward with student housing, and what the
Board's response to that would be.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Marcoplos said to send a notice to the Homeowners Associations, and
to Representative Sara Stephens.
REVISED RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION REGARDING GRANDFATHERING OF PROJECTS FOR SCHOOL IMPACT
FEE COLLECTION PURPOSES
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted
amendments to Chapter 30, Article II — Educational Facilities Impact Fee of the Orange County
Code of Ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby
provides technical guidance on "grandfathering," for school impact fee purposes, of projects
that are currently in later stages of project development.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT persons submitting a building permit application prior to January 1,
2017 may choose to pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the
housing type(s) proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee
schedule in section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances,
provided the building permit is issued no more than 180 calendar days after the application
submittal date and a Certificate of Compliance (aka, Certificate of Occupancy) is issued no
later than 365 calendar days after issuance of a building permit. If a building permit is not
issued within 180 calendar days after the application submittal date or if a Certificate of
Compliance is not issued within 365 calendar days of building permit issuance, the fee shall be
the fee listed in section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of
Ordinances.
37
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT projects for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been
issued prior to January 1, 2017 and for which a building permit application has been submitted
prior to January 1, 2018 may choose to pay either the public school impact fee that was in
effect for 2016 for the housing type(s) proposed in the application or the fee required by the
public school impact fee schedule in section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange
County Code of Ordinances, provided the building permit is issued no more than 180 calendar
days after the application submittal date and a Certificate of Compliance (aka, Certificate of
Occupancy) is issued within 365 calendar days of building permit issuance. If a building permit
is not issued within 180 calendar days after the application submittal date or if a Certificate of
Compliance is not issued within 365 calendar days of building permit issuance, the fee shall be
the fee listed in section of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT projects of 90-units in size or greater for which a Zoning
Compliance Permit application has been has been submitted prior to May 15, 2017 and for
which a building permit application has been submitted prior to January 31, 2019 may choose
to pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the housing type(s)
proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee schedule in
section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, provided the
fee is paid prior to June 30, 2020 and a Certificate of Compliance is issued prior to December
31, 2020.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT applicants for additional grandfathering of projects of 90-
units in size or greater that submit a zoning compliance permit application prior to May 15,
2017 may submit requests and supporting information no later than July 31, 2017 to Orange
County Planning Staff who, in conjunction with the Orange County Attorney, will prepare
agenda items for Orange County Board of Commissioners consideration at the next available
regular meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
7. Reports
NONE
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
NONE
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the Consent Agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from March 7 and 27, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the
Board.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
38
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
property tax values for five (5) taxpayers with a total of five (5) bills that will result in a reduction
of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
values for four (4) taxpayers with a total of thirteen (13) bills that will result in a reduction of
revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
d. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#7-A Related
to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
(NCDPI) to release proceeds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2016-17
debt service payments for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), and to approve
Budget Amendment#7-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the
NCDPI's approval of the application and authorized the Chair to sign.
e. Public Safety Telecommunications Week Proclamation
The Board adopted a proclamation designating the week of April 9 through 15, 2017 as Public
Safety Telecommunications Week in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
f. National Public Health Week Proclamation
The Board adopted a proclamation to officially recognize April 3 through 9, 2017 as National
Public Health Week in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
g. Fair Housing Month Proclamation
The Board approved a proclamation designating April 2017 as Fair Housing Month in Orange
County and authorized the Chair to sign.
h. North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) —2017 Essential Single-Family
Rehabilitation Loan Pool (ESFRLPI7) Award
The Board approved the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Essential Single-Family
Rehabilitation Loan Pool Funding and Written Agreement for Sub-recipients and adopted the
Assistance, Procurement and Disbursement Policies for the 2017 Essential Single
Rehabilitation Loan Pool award and authorized the Chair to sign.
i. Approval of Revised Resolutions for the Orange County FY 2015-2016 and FY 2016-
2017 HOME Program Design for Habitat for Humanity Homeownership Assisted
Projects
The Board approved a revision to the HOME Program Design Resolutions for FY 2015-16 and
2016-17 and authorized the Chair to sign.
9. County Manager's Report
Projected April 6, 2017 Budget Work Session Items
Capital Investment Plan — Project by Project Discussion (except Schools)
10. County Attorney's Report
NONE
11. Appointments
NONE
12. Information Items
• March 21, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
39
• Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
13. Closed Session
NONE
14. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
adjourn the meeting at 12:01 a.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Mark Dorosin, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board