HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-02-2017 - 8-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 2, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
April 6, 2017 BOCC Work Session
April 18, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET WORK SESSION
6 April 6, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, April 6, 2017
10 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add
23 an item from Tuesday night meeting: Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and
24 Other Benefits
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 a. Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits-
29 The Board considered approving the Manager's recommendations regarding employee
30 health and dental insurance and other employee benefits effective July 1, 2017 through June
31 30, 2018, which are summarized as follows:
32 • No increase in premium equivalent for medical coverage or increase in dental or vision
33 premiums;
34 • Include in the current plan design trans-inclusive health care coverage effective July 1,
35 2017; and
36 • Carve out pharmacy coverage with a Pharmacy Benefits Manager for July 1, 2017
37 coverage.
38
39 BACKGROUND:
40 The County provides employees with a comprehensive benefits plan, including health, dental
41 and life insurance, an employee assistance program, flexible compensation plan and paid leave
42 for permanent employees. Additionally, the County contributes to the Local Governmental
43 Employee's Retirement System and a supplemental retirement plan.
44
45 The County has been self-funded since January 1, 2014 for medical and pharmacy plans and
46 continues to be self-insured for the dental plan. The County transitioned from a twelve-month
47 calendar plan year to a twelve-month fiscal plan year in 2015 aligning with the County's fiscal
48 year. In February 2015, the Board of County Commissioners approved Gallagher Benefit
49 Services (GBS) as Broker of Record for the administration of the benefit programs, which
50 include health, dental, vision, and other voluntary programs for employees and retirees.
2
1
2 In FY2016/2017, the Board of County Commissions approved the recommendation of the
3 County Manager to continue with UnitedHealth Care (UHC) as the County's Third Party
4 Administrator for health insurance programs and granted authority to the County Manager to
5 renew the Third Party Administrator contract with United Health Care.
6
7 The UHC renewal was negotiated from $41.50 per employee per month to $29.50 per
8 employee per month with a guaranteed fee for 2 years and a 3 percent rate cap for July 1,
9 2018's renewal. UnitedHealth Care will also fund $25,000 for FY 2017/2018 for wellness
10 programs.
11
12 Health Insurance
13 The FY2016/2017 total adopted budget for health coverage for employees is $8,645,863 and
14 $2,189,174 for retirees. The net increase for FY2017/18 is $524,433 based on the current
15 enrollment of employees and participating pre-65 retirees. The net increase assumes that the
16 pharmacy services will be independent of the UnitedHealth Care contract as described below.
17 The increase represents 5.05 percent to the County's health insurance appropriation.
18
19 An addition to the current plan design is trans-inclusive health care coverage effective July 1,
20 2017. Trans-inclusive health coverage includes benefit coverage for the treatment of gender
21 dysphoria, a condition when a person's gender at birth is contrary to the one with which they
22 identify. The coverage for the treatment of gender dysphoria allows member access to medical
23 services based on gender identity and is not restrictive to services associated by a member's
24 gender at birth. More specifically, services will include cross-sex hormone therapy administered
25 by a medical provider, genital surgery, and pharmacy therapy, laboratory testing to monitor the
26 safety of continuous cross-sex hormone therapy, and mental health services including
27 psychotherapy and associated psychiatric diagnoses.
28
29 All other health benefits, co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles will remain the same. The
30 County Manager is recommending no increase in premium equivalent for employees or
31 participating pre-65 retirees for FY2017/2018.
32
33 The County participated in a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Bid Comparison to "carve out"
34 pharmacy coverage with another PBM for July 1, 2017 coverage. The County evaluated the
35 PBM marketplace to accomplish two goals: 1) review the current contract with UHC-Optum Rx
36 and 2) review proposals from other PBM vendors for consideration of changing pharmacy
37 coverage effective July 1, 2017.
38
39 Eights bids were received and two vendors were interviewed, the current vendor UHC-Optum
40 Rx and Envision Rx. Staff provided the analysis for review and recommendation by the County
41 Manager. The County Manager is recommending contracting with Envision Rx for pharmacy
42 benefits. Envision Rx will offer the following:
43 • Expenditure reduction of$141,000 annually is projected compared to the current
44 contract with UHC-Optum Rx.
45 • The County will only be responsible for paying an administrative fee for each
46 prescription.
47 dispensed offering more transparency to actual cost because there is no undisclosed
48 revenue. This is defined as a 100% pass-through offer.
49 • If Envision Rx negotiates deeper rates with network pharmacies during the contract, the
50 County is the beneficiary. It is likely that the network rates will exceed the minimums,
3
1 providing additional savings, which is very common with pass-through models.
2 • Envision Rx will communicate with employees directly during the transition. Employees
3 currently taking non-formulary maintenance medications will be grandfathered into their
4 program for 90 days. Employees not medically respondent to any drug change may be
5 granted continuance because of medical necessity.
6 • Envision Rx will grandfather all members on specialty medications for the life of the
7 contract.
8
9 Dental and Vision Insurance
10 Delta Dental is the County's Dental provider and Community Eye Care provides the County's
11 vision plan. The County will continue to provide coverage with Delta Dental and Community
12 Eye Care. In FY2017/2018 no increases in dental or vision premiums is recommended by the
13 Manager.
14
15 FINANCIAL IMPACT: An increase in the FY2017/2018 Health Insurance appropriation of
16 $524,433 and no increase to the FY2017/2018 Dental Insurance budget.
17
18 Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources Director, made the following PowerPoint
19 presentation:
20
21 Recommendations Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits
22 Action Agenda Abstract
23 Item 6c
24 April 4, 2017 (Moved to April 6, 2017)
25 BOCC Meeting
26
27 Manager's recommendations for the FY2017/2018 budget
28 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018)
29 • No increase in premium equivalent for medical coverage or increase in dental or vision
30 premiums. Total county cost for medical coverage will increase by $524,433
31 • Include in the current plan design trans-inclusive health care coverage
32 • Carve out pharmacy coverage with a Pharmacy Benefits Manager
33
34 RE-CAP of Actions
35 FY2016/2017
36 > County conducted a Third Party Administrator (TPA) marketing analysis for the service
37 of administering and managing claims.
38 > BOCC Approved UnitedHealth Care (UHC) to continue as the Third Party Administrator
39 (TPA)for the County's Medical Plan. The TPA renewal was negotiated from $41.50 per
40 employee per month to $29.50 per employee per month. (Budget savings of $149,000)
41 > UHC funding $25,000 each year for FY2016/2017 through FY2018/2019 for wellness
42 programs.
43 > County participated in a stop-loss marketing comparison and moved the specific stop-
44 loss to a $150,000 deductible from $100,000 deductible and contracted with Symetra
45 (previously UHC). (Budget savings of$120,000)
46 > Dental plan benefits were enhanced by removing diagnostic and preventative services
47 from the annual maximum of$1,200 of covered services to promote preventative oral
48 health care.
49 > No increase in premium equivalent for medical coverage or increase in dental or vision
50 premiums.
4
1
2 Overview of Recommended Actions FY2017/2018
3 Carve Out Pharmacy Coverage — Savings of$141,000
4 0 The County participated in a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Bid Comparison
5 to "carve out" pharmacy coverage with another PBM for July 1, 2017 coverage.
6 Current coverage with UHC-Optum Rx.
7 0 The Manager is recommending contracting with Envision Rx for pharmacy
8 benefits.
9 Add Trans-Inclusive Coverage to Benefit Plan
10 0 Trans-inclusive health coverage includes benefit coverage for the treatment of
11 gender dysphoria, a condition when a person's gender at birth is contrary to the
12 one with which they identify.
13 No increase in premium equivalent for medical coverage or increase in dental or vision
14 premiums
15
16 Request of BOCC Approval
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
19 to:
20 • Approve including in the current plan design trans-inclusive health care coverage
21 effective July 1, 2017
22 • Approve increasing the funding for the FY2017/2018 Health Insurance appropriation
23 $524,433 and maintaining current premium equivalent rates for health insurance, dental
24 and vision coverage for employees and pre-65 retirees.
25 • Approve contracting with Envision Rx as the County's Pharmacy Benefit Manager for
26 pharmacy services for employees and participating pre-65 retirees and approve the
27 County Manager to sign contract following the County Attorney's review.
28
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there were any limitations on which pharmacy
30 employees are able to use.
31 Brenda Bartholomew said no.
32 Commissioner Burroughs asked if these prices could be compared to former years.
33 Brenda Bartholomew said there has been little increase last year with health insurance,
34 and the year prior to that had a minimum increase. She said the increases are not being
35 passed onto employees.
36 Chair Dorosin asked if the coverage for gender dysphoria had not already been
37 approved.
38 Brenda Bartholomew said the actual surgery to change genders had not been approved,
39 and that is being added this year.
40 Commissioner Rich said she will vote against this, as in the past, because of her
41 opposition to UHC. She said it is a protest vote, and she is happy that cost increases are not
42 being passed on to the employees.
43
44 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich)
45
46 1. Discussion of Manager's Recommended FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
47 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
48
49 County Manager's Recommended
50 FY2017-22 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
5
1
2 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
3 • Detention Facility- $622,114: Page 30
4 o Continuation project - design services budgeted for FY2017-18
5 o Construction budget delayed one year to FY2018-19
6 o Alternatives analysis to proceed if State ground lease not amended
7 o Total construction cost estimate of approximately $20 million including
8 construction administration, equipment and furnishings
9 o Cost estimate based on 144 bed facility with expansion capabilities to 250 beds if
10 necessary
11 o Consultant to conduct staffing analysis to recommend most efficient use of staff
12 resources and project operating cost.
13
14 Sheriff Blackwood said there was a plan, but it no longer exists, and the current facility is
15 not reflective of who and what Orange County is. He said he needs the help of the Board of
16 County Commissioners (BOCC).
17 Chair Dorosin said he and Senator Foushee are meeting with the State's Administration
18 Office about this in two weeks, to continue to negotiate a lease.
19 Chair Dorosin asked if the preliminary designs will be worthless if an alternate location is
20 needed.
21 Travis Myren said largely the process would be starting over with a conceptual design
22 from the beginning. He said there is statistical information that can be used again.
23 Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, said the site design elements
24 would change if the location changes. He said a lot of the conceptual, schematic design would
25 still be valid in large part.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if an alternate location would be a similar pod construction.
27 Jeff Thompson said the type of design that has been worked on may be able to be used
28 on the current site.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if the current site is used, what would happen to the residents
30 of the jail.
31 Jeff Thompson said the resident population would be displaced for a time.
32 Commissioner Rich said that would be costly.
33 Jeff Thompson said that cost would be included in the new jail costs.
34 Commissioner Price asked if the negotiation of a new lease is hopeful.
35 Chair Dorosin said there is always hope. He said, as the bill did not go through, the old
36 lease still stands; and in the old lease, construction was suppose to have already started.
37 Sheriff Blackwood said there were inherent questions at the selected site, and he said
38 there was a quasi-plan in place about navigating residents across town, but there are many
39 unknowns. He said Option b proposes staying on the current site, and it would be preferable;
40 however, this is a significantly aging facility now.
41 Bonnie Hammersley echoed the Sheriff's comments, and said staff is looking at other
42 options at the current site. She said there are concerns about both potential options.
43 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
44
45 Capital Investment Plan
46 • Environment and Agriculture Center- $3,384,500: Page 31
47 o Continuation project
48 o Renovation of Revere Road facility— preferred option
49 o $235,000 added to project budget based on current cost estimates
50 o Investigate alternative sites along Cornelius Street corridor
6
1 o Staff to report on alternatives prior to consideration of construction contract
2
3 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if affordable housing options are still being considered.
4 Travis Myren said yes, this will be done when staff receives the Cornelius Street
5 analysis.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to see the narrative to include the
7 recommendations from the 2006 Ag Center Study.
8 Travis Myren said a public— private partnership was also considered for this site, and he
9 and Jeff Thompson are researching this possibility.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if the timeline could be reviewed, and when responses to
11 Commissioner questions would be provided.
12 Travis Myren said the project can move forward when the additional $235,000 is
13 approved. He said if this happens in June, then staff can bring back the Cornelius Street
14 analysis in the fall, and the BOCC can reach some decisions.
15 Commissioner Rich asked if the additional money potentially being added in June would
16 be placeholder funds.
17 Travis Myren said yes, and the Board of County Commissioners would have to approve
18 the price for the construction.
19 Commissioner Price referred to the financial summary of year one - $3.3 million, and
20 asked if it is expected that this amount will be spent in the next fiscal year.
21 Jeff Thompson said the prior year's funding represents the design fees, and the
22 construction is in year one. He said it would appropriate in year one, but the process would not
23 move forward until the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) was approved.
24 Bonnie Hammersley said this is a placeholder, in case there is no option with Cornelius
25 Street, there will be funds in place to move forward with renovation. She said this may be
26 amended in the fall if another opportunity is found, and the current number is the minimum
27 amount needed to do renovations at the current site.
28 Commissioner Price asked if more funding would be needed if a location were found on
29 Cornelius Street.
30 Jeff Thompson said this is being reviewed currently, and there would be a site
31 acquisition cost for land not owned by the County, and a site prep cost.
32 Commissioner Jacobs referred back the jail, and asked if the court street annex might
33 be removed.
34 Jeff Thompson said yes, any plans for that site include both the existing jail and the
35 court street annex.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said that would change some of the narrative for the Government
37 Services annex and maybe the Link Building.
38 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
39
40 Capital Improvement Plan
41 • Accessibility & Security Improvements - $30,000: Page 32
42 o Policy priority: security improvements recommended through the Space Study
43 Work Group
44 o Access control and video surveillance systems
45 • Visitors' Bureau
46 • Skills Development Center
47 • Animal Services
48 • Courthouse
49 • Social Services
50
7
1 Chair Dorosin asked if there is a reason that this item is part of the CIP, given that it is
2 such a small amount.
3 Travis Myren said this is a series that is packaged together, and in some years up to
4 $100,000 is added.
5 Paul Laughton, Finance and Administrative Services, said these are taken as a whole
6 scope over a five-year period. He said this project totals over $430,000 over the five years.
7 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if identifying the project as part of the CIP clears up the
8 sales tax issue, where capital improvements do not require sales tax, but repairs do.
9 Travis Myren said sales tax would be refunded for both CIP and operational budget
10 projects.
11 Commissioner Price asked if any of the projects slated for the out years, especially for
12 accessibility, should be completed now.
13 Jeff Thompson said the largest need is at Whitted, and staff is working on that now. He
14 said the out years are necessary, and are being worked on with building repair staff.
15 Commissioner Price referred to the $27,500 in year two, and asked if the purpose of
16 these funds could be identified.
17 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed some of the line items for Commissioner Price.
18 Angel Barnes said the $27,500 covers items from the accessibility self-assessment
19 findings, which are at multiple facilities that are not a high enough priority to fall into year one.
20 She said these would be improvements to the existing facilities.
21 Commissioner Price asked if the County is completely ADA accessible.
22 Jeff Thompson said yes. He said none of these items affect life safety.
23 Commissioner Price said this is more than life safety; this is an issue of equity.
24 Chair Dorosin asked if a list of remaining repairs would be helpful.
25 Commissioner Price said she is satisfied, and simply wanted to make sure nothing was
26 being delayed.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason why the steps at the Whitted building
28 cannot be fixed.
29 Jeff Thompson said the Town of Hillsborough must give approval, as parts of the area
30 are in the Town's right of way and historic district restraints. He said these issues are similar
31 with the historic courthouse, as well as the new courthouse. He said these issues are being
32 worked on during the current fiscal year.
33 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
34
35 Capital Investment Plan
36 • Government Services Annex (Board of Elections) - $350,000: Page 34
37 o Critical infrastructure improvement
38 o Facility vulnerable to flooding
39 o Replace heating, ventilation, and air condition system (20 years old; end of life)
40 o Relocate electrical distribution system from basement to the first floor
41
42 Commissioner Price asked if there are any mold problems in this building.
43 Jeff Thompson said no.
44 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
45
46 Capital Investment Plan
47 • Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) - $122,000: Page 36
48 o Critical infrastructure improvement
49 o HVAC system replacements
50 • Visitors Bureau — Chapel Hill — 19 years old; end of life
8
1 • Dickson House — Hillsborough — 19 years old; end of life
2 • Seymour Center— 10 years old; 2 units failing prematurely
3
4 • Lower Link Center Remodel - $15,000: Page 37
5 o Critical infrastructure improvement
6 o Remodel of lower level of Link Government Services Center
7 o Expansion space for Criminal Justice Resource Office
8 o Replacement offices for Public Defender— disposition of 129 East King Street
9 facility for future Board consideration
10 o Remodeling costs - $160,000 including equipment and furnishings in FY2018-19
11
12 • Historic Courthouse Square - $85,000: Page 39
13 o Critical infrastructure improvement
14 o Create master plan for site, create awareness of historic significance
15 o Create plan for improving long term structural stability
16 o Construction funds are recommended for FY2018-19 through FY2020-21 totaling
17 $650,000
18
19 Historic Courthouse Site - photo
20
21 Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:42 p.m.
22
23 Capital Investment Plan
24 • Facility Roofing Projects - $102,244: Page 42 &43
25 o Critical infrastructure improvement
26 o Project priorities determined by Roof Asset Management Program study
27
28 Commissioner McKee said copper gutters were installed previously, and this time
29 around he would suggest being more judicious in funding, as copper cost a lot of money.
30 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
31
32 Capital Investment Plan
33 • Southern Campus Expansion — $4,000,000: Page 45
34 o Critical infrastructure improvement
35 o Combines Seymour Center and Southern Human Services projects
36 o Site improvements in FY2017-18
37 • Straighten entrance; improve safety and navigability
38 • Improve stormwater management
39 • Improve traffic flow around Southern Human Services
40 o Construction funds recommended in FY2019-20 - $5,185,000
41 • Add 13,000 square feet of medical and dental space to Southern Human
42 Services
43 • Add 1,830 square feet of expanded and improved BOCC meeting facility
44 space
45
46 Southern Human Services Center Site Map
47
48 Commissioner Rich asked if access would be interrupted during the straightening of the
49 road, and also asked if an update could be provided on the Veteran's memorial. She thanked
50 staff for bringing dental services back to the Southern Human Services Center (SHSC) campus.
9
1 Jeff Thompson said after design, the storm water retention on the site will be fixed, and
2 the existing road will be left in place until the new road is formed. He said a groundbreaking on
3 Memorial Day will commence the first phase of the Veteran's memorial. He said phase one will
4 involve a flag pole base, flag pole, and a pathway being built to the memorial.
5 Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the slope of the road.
6 Jeff Thompson said one of the critical factors is that the road must have an ADA slope
7 on the drive, to allow pedestrians to get to the walkway. He said the engineers are aware of
8 this requirement.
9 Commissioner Jacobs asked if, in the coming years, the BOCC will see details of how
10 the SHSC is going to change.
11 Jeff Thompson said yes, and when the design phase begins, the BOCC will have
12 significant input.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said the parking area looks much the same.
14 Jeff Thompson said the consultants have said the parking area is adequate.
15 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the dental clinic, and said the Board of County
16 Commissioners made a commitment to bring these services back, and when the commitment
17 has been fulfilled, it should be recognized.
18 Chair Dorosin asked if this space could be described, as it will look a year from now. He
19 said the bike path will be completed, along with the new driveway, and 55 parking spaces. He
20 asked if the lower parking area would be completed.
21 Jeff Thompson said yes to the initial items being completed, and said the lower parking
22 area would be completed in FY2019-20.
23 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
24
25 Capital Investment Plan
26 • Rural Broadband Initiative - $500,000: Page 47
27 o Policy priority
28 o Public-Private partnership to expand broadband access
29 o Focus on area of need — Northern and Western Orange County
30 o Competitive process to identify a provider
31 o Specify minimum levels of service and coverage
32 o Research suggests approximately 730 households could get improved access
33 o Other households benefit from improved infrastructure
34
35 Commissioner McKee referred to page 18 of PowerPoint, and said there is a cluster in
36 Hillsborough that should have service. He asked if there is a reason why this area does not
37 have service.
38 Travis Myren said it could be that service is not affordable.
39 Chair Dorosin asked if there have been any preliminary discussions about these public-
40 private partnerships.
41 Jim Northup said there are two telecommunication providers in the County, and this
42 proposal is to improve those DSL types of connections, with these two providers being the most
43 likely partners.
44 Chair Dorosin asked if there is a timeframe in which staff will know whether this
45 partnership is a go.
46 Jim Northup said yes, staff should know within six months.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC has heard repeatedly that the Buckhorn
48 Economic Development District (EDD)would benefit from competitive wireless service.
49 Jim Northup said if vendors bid on the proposal, they could improve residential service
50 and provide some upgrades in this area.
10
1 Commissioner Jacobs said this area is reportedly not as competitive as other places in
2 the Triangle, due to the lack of high speed Internet.
3 Jim Northup said that comment leads into the next CIP item.
4 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason why Spectrum is forcing people to get
5 new landlines.
6 Jim Northup said he does not know, but can find out.
7 Commissioner Price asked if Orange County could be eligible for United States
8 Department of Agriculture (USDA) broadband grant.
9 Jim Northup said the County is eligible for some of the grants, and the next grant period
10 is in September. He said his staff is following up on this. He said part of the reason the County
11 is ineligible for some grants, is that counties in North Carolina are not allowed to provide
12 Internet service, and many of the grants are for just that purpose.
13 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
14
15 Broadband Service Gaps — map
16 • Areas not served by cable
17 • Northern and Western Orange County
18
19 Broad band Survey Results
20 • 1,179 Households responded
21 • 94% have Internet Access
22 • 76% with access are dissatisfied with current service
23 • Red = no service reported
24 • Yellow = service available but not satisfied
25 • Green = adequate service
26
27 Capital Investment Plan
28 • Fiber Connections for County facilities - $1,160,000: Page 48
29 o Multi-year project to connect County facilities with fiber connections
30 • Improved security, bandwidth, throughput, network services
31 o Phase 1 — Partnership with Town of Hillsborough to create fiber backbone
32 • Whitted Facility
33 • Revere Road — EAC Building
34 • Emergency Services
35 • Hillsborough Commons
36 • AMS North — Motor Pool/Orange Public Transit
37 o Future North-South network— Cedar Grove to Carrboro
38 o Future East-West Network— Buckhorn/Mebane EDD to Eno EDD
39 o Total cost - $3,251,350
40
41 Potential County Fiber Buildout
42
43 Capital Investment Plan
44 • Technology Improvements - $510,000: Page 49
45 o Information Technology Governance Council Recommended
46 • Crisis Damage Assessment Software— Emergency Services
47 • Jail Video Technology— Sheriff's Office
48 • Electronic Medical Records and Billing — Emergency Services
49 • Laserfiche License Upgrade — Social Services
50 • Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System —Animal Services
11
1 • Fleet Maintenance Software—Asset Management Services
2
3 Commissioner Burroughs asked if Animal Services had a large number of lost vehicles.
4 Travis Myren said the AVL would be for Animal Control staff that may go out into the
5 wild to get animals, and cannot be reached by radio.
6 Commissioner Burroughs said she would like to know more about this from Animal
7 Services Director Bob Marotto.
8 Travis Myren said staff can provide project justification for this item.
9
10 • Register of Deeds Automation - $80,000: Page 56 (need project replacement page
11 for this project)
12 o Project funding correction
13 o Funds available from prior years within the Automation Enhancement and
14 Preservation Fund will be used to purchase $400,000 software replacement
15 o Replaces 12 year old software system
16 o Software processes deed transactions, birth, death and marriage certificates
17 o Allows for both online and on premises transactions
18
19 • Information Technology Infrastructure - $750,000: Page 50
20 o Increase of$200,000 over FY2016-17 to replace 135 additional laptops based
21 on five year replacement cycle and 64 printers over ten years old or cannot be
22 repaired
23 o Technology Infrastructure Projects
24 • Server Upgrades
25 • Laptop and Desktop Replacement
26 • Data Storage
27 • Network Equipment
28 • Wireless Replacement and Expansion
29 o Includes $50,000 for Board of Commissioners Technology Initiatives not included
30 in department requests or new, unexpected opportunities during the fiscal year
31
32 • Communication System Improvements - $920,000: Page 51
33 o Two year project to replace Sheriff's Office Radios — multi-band portables and in
34 car systems (800Mhz and VHF)
35 o Replace 166 radios in FY2017-18
36 o Replace remaining radios (109) in FY2018-19 for$805,000
37
38 • Radio & Paging System Upgrade - $1,400,000: Page 52 (project page to be updated
39 in CIP)
40 o Project funding correction needed — reallocate from prior year tower funds for
41 FY2017-18 Engineering Services
42 o First responder radio system to replace VIPER as primary system
43 o Detailed engineering in FY2017-18 — determine specific number of tower sites,
44 locations, existing infrastructure
45 o Tower sites scheduled for years 2 through 5
46 o Share core system with Durham County
47 o Design and construction cost estimated at approximately $13.7 million for first
48 five years of CIP. Project to be evaluated for needs after year five.
49 o Cost share negotiations with partner agencies prior to construction contract
50 o Presentation to the Board of Commissioners scheduled for May
12
1
2 Commissioner McKee said he is happy to partner with Durham, but asked if any thought
3 had been given to whether the County will find itself in the same position with Durham County
4 as it is with the State VIPER system: being the junior member.
5 Dinah Jeffries, Emergency Management Services Director, said this does not have to be
6 a permanent partnership. She said this partnership is being initiated because the cost of the
7 core equipment is astronomical. She said Fayetteville is also on Durham's system, and she has
8 spoken with the staff there, who reports being very happy with the arrangement.
9 Commissioner McKee asked if this will give the County the capacity to handle not only
10 EMS, but the Sheriff and Fire Departments as well.
11 Sheriff Blackwood said if one considers the capacity needed to operate fire, emergency,
12 rescue, and police and quantifies this need as a 5; then this system is at a 50. He said it is the
13 most robust system he has seen.
14 Commissioner McKee said he is glad to hear this information, because there have been
15 ongoing issues with the VIPER system.
16 Sheriff Blackwood said the problems with the VIPER system are not unique to Orange
17 County.
18 Dinah Jeffries said the use of VIPER would not be eliminated, but would no longer be
19 the primary system.
20 Commissioner Rich asked if staff knows the number of towers that will be needed.
21 Travis Myren said there is a current estimate, but this will become more detailed in the
22 next phase.
23 Commissioner Rich asked if the towers can be used for anything else.
24 Travis Myren said yes.
25 Commissioner Rich asked Craig Benedict, Planning Director, if building towers will stir
26 up rural residents.
27 Craig Benedict said the Master Telecommunications Plan has some County owned sites
28 that are being evaluated or earmarked for these towers. He said there is also an annual
29 meeting with the private sector, and there may be rental opportunities available.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said the adopted plan seemed to minimize the impact to the
31 environment, but the BOCC should not belittle residents' concerns about cell towers.
32 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
33
34 Capital Investment Plan
35 • EMS Substations - $845,000: Page 53
36 o Partnership with Orange Rural Fire Department and Hillsborough Police
37 Department
38 o Town owned land in Waterstone development
39 o Replaces EMS station at New Hope Fire Station #2
40 o Interlocal agreement underway for potential construction and maintenance
41 o Sprinkler systems for Revere Road and Eno stations
42 o Future location study based on call volume and response
43
44 Dinah Jeffries said she has talked to the Efland Fire Chief, and he is open to talking
45 about co-locations in the Buckhorn/Efland area. She said there are also discussions with
46 Caldwell and Cedar Grove about merging three departments in the northern corridor.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the colored zones and white spots on the map could
48 be explained.
49 Kevin Medlin, 911 Telecommunications, said these are based on response times from a
50 specific station, and the fingers are where the 12-minute response time runs out.
13
1 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
2
3 Proposed EMS Station Plan — map
4
5 Parks and Open Space Projects FY17-18 — map
6
7 Capital Investment Plan
8 • Blackwood Farm Park - $100,000: Page 58
9 o Purchase mowing equipment for former hay fields; add disc golf course pending
10 amendment to park master plan
11 o Primary entrance and parking design underway
12 o Major park construction scheduled for FY2018-19 ($1,795,000)
13 o Parks Operations Base scheduled for FY2019-20 ($2,572,000)
14 o New operating expenses for personnel and operations of approximately
15 $190,000 on full build out
16
17 Chair Dorosin asked if there is an approximate cost for disc golf and mowers.
18 David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Director,
19 said it would be about $75,000 for mowing equipment, and $25,000 for disc golf.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like an analysis completed to see whether cows or
21 combustion mowers are more environmentally sound.
22 Chair Dorosin asked if the new entrance to Blackwood Farm is in the next year of the
23 CIP.
24 David Stancil said the funding was approved in the current year, and it is hoped that the
25 request for qualifications (RFQ) will go out this summer after the design and engineering firm is
26 selected. He said construction will likely commence in 2018.
27
28 • Soccer.com Soccer Center— Phase I I - $300,000: Page 63
29 o Additional land acquired in 2016 for expansion (37 acres)
30 o FY2017-18 professional design and engineering services
31 o Expansion to include four new soccer fields, additional parking, restrooms,
32 concessions, stormwater controls
33 o Expansion cost estimated at $4,589,000 in FY2019-20
34
35 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is an update about the controversy over grass
36 versus artificial turf.
37 David Stancil said this has not been resolved. He said a new master plan will be
38 required for the newly expanded facility, and one of the big decision points for the BOCC will be
39 whether or not to pursue synthetic turf fields at this complex, which already has five Bermuda
40 fields; or to keep it as it is. He said Millhouse Road Park is related to this project, which is a
41 joint project with the Town of Chapel Hill, and there is great interest in synthetic turf fields at
42 that location.
43 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
44
45 Capital Investment Plan
46 • Hollow Rock Nature Park- $10,000: Page 67
47 o Deconstruct dilapidated house on property
48 o 50% cost share with Durham County
49 o New operating expense of approximately $59,000 as property is improved
50
14
1 • Fairview Park Improvements - $50,000: Page 72
2 o Access entry and parking lot complete
3 o Landfill mitigation required for full use of property
4 o Site assessment in FY2017-18
5 o Mitigation and remediation scheduled for FY2019-20 - $1.5 million
6 o Site assessment and remediation reimbursed by State Division of Environmental
7 Quality
8 o New park construction scheduled for FY2021-22 - $1.5 million
9
10 Commissioner McKee asked if signage could be put up at the old parking lot to direct
11 residents to the new parking area.
12 Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline for the remediation process.
13 David Stancil said he hoped some of these funds will allow for an analysis on this area,
14 to determine how much remediation would be needed.
15 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
16
17 Capital Investment Plan
18 • Cedar Grove Community Center- $75,000: Page 73
19 o Community Center opened in 2016
20 o Shower installation for community members using exercise equipment and
21 gymnasium
22 o Schedule of future Community Center investments (see handout)
23
24 Commissioner Price asked if there is CIP expansion planned for the Rogers Road
25 Community Center.
26 Jeff Thompson said it is a challenging site, but staff will be looking at this.
27 Chair Dorosin said it was unfortunate that the new restroom had to take up storage
28 space. He said looking at storage space in the exterior building is a good idea.
29 Jeff Thompson said the storage space will be increased; however, meeting space will
30 not increase.
31 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
32
33 Capital Investment Plan
34 • Park Facility Renovations and Repairs: Page 76
35 o FY2017-18 Projects
36 • Safety and security improvements
37 • Replacement/renovation of amenities
38 • Stormwater/landscaping
39 • Energy, lighting, and signage
40
41 • Water and Sewer-$2,270,000: Page 78-82
42
43 • Efland Sewer to Mebane - $1,400,000: Page 80
44 o Debt service to be financed with Article 46 funds
45 o City of Mebane will own and operate the infrastructure with no ongoing operating
46 costs for the County.
47 o Improved design and additional cost
48 • Larger service area
49 • Lower cost long term capital upgrades
50 • Better development capacity
15
1 o Original cost estimates are four years old
2
3 Efland Sewer to Mebane Buckhorn EDD - map
4
5 Craig Benedict said four years ago it was determined that the Efland sewer flow would
6 be directed to the Gravelly Hill lift station, which goes out towards Buckhorn Road. He said this
7 would decrease the capacity of that lift station for adjacent economic development areas, and
8 so that plan has changed to bypass this station, and take the sewer by force main all the way
9 down to the new gravity sewer system, which was built to a larger capacity. He said the original
10 estimates were put together in the middle of the recession, and costs have increased due to
11 demand and costs of materials.
12 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
13
14 Capital Investment Plan
15 • Hillsborough EDD - $380,000: Page 81
16 o County CIP includes total project costs.
17 o County and Hillsborough discussing utility interlocal agreement— BOCC
18 consideration this spring
19 o Town of Hillsborough will own and operate the infrastructure with no ongoing
20 operating costs for the County.
21
22 Hillsborough EDD - map
23
24 Commissioner McKee clarified that the agreement with Hillsborough is almost
25 completed.
26 Craig Benedict said yes, and this will likely come before the BOCC at the May 2nd
27 meeting. He said an engineer has also been chosen and will be presented to the BOCC for
28 review.
29 Commissioner McKee asked if there is a timeline for the pipe under the road to be
30 completed.
31 Craig Benedict said this project should be completed by May 2018. He said a specific
32 timeline will be provided when the contract is presented to the BOCC.
33
34 Capital Investment Plan
35 • Eno EDD-$120,000 (FY 16-17): Page 82
36 o Interlocal agreement with City of Durham
37 o Durham will take over operations with no operating cost to the County
38 o Gravity sewer in 100 acres in Northeast corner of the EDD
39 o Potential to serve adjacent areas using private pump stations
40
41 Eno EDD Sewer - map
42
43 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the Eno EDD, and asked if there is a timeline in
44 place for future development in the northeast corner of the EDD.
45 Craig Benedict said an analysis was completed a few years ago to determine what it
46 would take to serve the entire 600-acre area with a centralized lift station, and the estimates
47 were over $6 million. He said this plan is still valid, but too costly at this point. He said the
48 focus is on the 100-acre area, which can use a gravity system into existing system in Durham.
49 He said Durham has requested that the County wait to take action, until it has completed some
50 capacity improvements.
16
1 Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that it may be a few years before the 100-acre area is
2 ready to accept development.
3 Craig Benedict said it will be about 18 months.
4 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff could please distinguish between Durham City and
5 Durham County when speaking about these entities.
6 Craig Benedict said he is referring to Durham City when discussing the Eno EDD.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said the Durham County Commissioners are eager to partner on
8 the Eno EDD, but it does not appear to be in their purview.
9 Chair Dorosin asked if once the 100-acre area has the gravity sewer system, then
10 development could begin.
11 Craig Benedict said yes.
12 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
13
14 Capital Investment Plan
15 • Solid Waste - $990,268: Page 88, 91, 94
16 o Combination of Solid Waste Funds ($297,314) and debt financing ($692,954)
17 o Service truck replacement deferred from FY2016-17
18 o Eight stationary compactors for new Eubanks Road Waste and Recycling Center
19 o Modernization of High Rock Waste & Recycling Center into a Neighborhood
20 Center focusing on smaller bulk items and additional recycling services
21
22 Chair Dorosin asked if the term "Neighborhood Center" could be clarified, as pertains to
23 this project.
24 Gayle Wilson said the BOCC approved a concept several years ago to change the five
25 centers to a mix of district and neighborhood centers. He said the first district center was
26 completed at Walnut Grove Church Road, and the Eubanks Road center is under construction.
27 He said these two centers are large, full service operations. He said the other three centers are
28 neighborhood centers with reduced services, and slightly reduced hours of operation. He said
29 the High Rock Center would be the first neighborhood center to be redeveloped.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the length of the High Rock lease could be identified.
31 Gayle Wilson said it is a 10-year lease until 2022, with an automatic 10-year renewal.
32 He said there is also an option for three consecutive five-year renewals, thereafter. He said he
33 spoke recently with the landowner, and asked if he would be interested in selling. He said the
34 owner does not want to sell, but would consider a change in the lease.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if staff has spoken with neighbors of the High Rock site about
36 the proposed changes.
37 Gayle Wilson said this has not happened, but staff will do so. He said there can be
38 neighborhood meetings about the reduction in services in some areas, and new services in
39 other areas.
40
41 • Sportsplex — $465,000: Page 99
42 Prior Year Funds-All Projects $4,889,000
43 Family Changing Room $100,000
44 IT/Communications Contingency $50,000
45 Kidsplex Equipment $50,000
46 Pool — Boiler and Pumps $75,000
47 Pool — Re-plaster and tile $150,000
48 Pool —water reclamation project $40,000
49 TOTAL $465,000
50
17
1 John Stock, Sportsplex General Manager, said there are two large units that heat, cool
2 and dehumidify the pool. He said these units produce run off water that has been tested to be
3 quite safe, and thus it will be used via a gravity tank to service the cooling tower, which cools
4 the refridgerant that services the ice rink. He said this will save a significant amount of money.
5 Commissioner Rich asked about memberships.
6 John Stock said the opening of Planet Fitness in Hillsborough initially resulted in a loss
7 of members, but numbers are back up to almost 5,800.
8 Commissioner Price asked if there is an update about the newly purchased properties.
9 Craig Benedict said a plan will be presented to the BOCC in early May.
10 Travis Myren said this was the end of the projects in the first year of the CIP.
11
12 FY2018-19
13 o Affordable Housing — $2.5M
14 o Detention Facility— $12.5M
15 o Community Centers — $100,000
16 o EMS Substations —$1.5M
17 o Information Technology— $1.1M
18 o Mobile Radios — $805,000
19 o Parks Projects —$5.2M
20 o PS Communication Upgrades — $3.8M
21 o Renovation and Maintenance — $1.0M
22 o School Capital Improvements — $48.4M
23 o Solid Waste — $1.3M
24 o Southern Branch Library— $5.6M
25 o SHSC Renovation —$5.2M
26
27 FY2019-20
28 o Community Centers — $1 M
29 o Detention Facility— $7.5M
30 o EMS Substations — $700,000
31 o Information Technology— $1.1M
32 o Parks Projects — $17.0M
33 o PS Communication Upgrades — $3.8M
34 o Renovation and Maintenance — $1.1M
35 o School Capital Improvements — $8.8M
36 o Solid Waste — $2.1M
37 o SHSC Renovation — $5.2M
38
39 FY2020-21
40 o EMS Substations — $1.5M
41 o Information Technology— $1.1M
42 o Parks Projects — $13.6M
43 o PS Communication Upgrades — $2.4M
44 o Renovation and Maintenance — $1.2M
45 o School Capital Improvements — $58.5M
46 o Solid Waste — $1.3M
47 o Sportsplex—$1.5M
48 FY2021-22
49 o Economic Development/Water& Sewer— $2.2M
50 o EMS Substations — $600,000
18
1 o Information Technology— $1.1M
2 o Parks Projects — $2.5M
3 o PS Communication Upgrades — $2.4M
4 o Renovation and Maintenance — $2.5M
5 o Solid Waste — $2.2M
6 o School Capital Improvements — $19.5M
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
9 adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12 Mark Dorosin, Chair
13
14 Donna Baker
15 Clerk to the Board
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 April 18, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 18, 2017
10 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
25 move the consent agenda up after Board Petitions.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 ****Chair Dorosin informed the public that the public hearing will be closed at the end of this
30 evening's meeting, and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will recess the meeting
31 until Thursday, April 20th at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon Street in
32 Hillsborough. He said the sole purpose of that reconvened meeting will be Board discussion on
33 the transit issue, and that no public comment will be accepted at the reconvened meeting on
34 the 20th.
35
36 PUBLIC CHARGE
37
38 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
39
40 2. Public Comments
41
42 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
43 NONE
44
45 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
46 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
47 below.)
48
49 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
50 Commissioner McKee had none.
2
1 Commissioner Jacobs had none.
2 Commissioner Marcoplos had none.
3 Commissioner Rich had none.
4 Commissioner Burroughs had none.
5 Commissioner Price had none.
6 Chair Dorosin had none.
7
8 8. Consent Agenda (moved up)
9 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
10
11 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
14 approve the consent agenda.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
19
20 a. Minutes
21 The Board approved the minutes from March 21, 28 and April 4, 2017 as submitted by the
22 Clerk to the Board.
23 b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#8
24 The Board approved budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17 to the
25 Department of Economic Development; Emergency Services Department; Health
26 Department; Sheriff's Office; and Human Services-Non Departmental.
27
28 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
29 NONE
30
31 5. Public Hearings
32
33 a. Presentation and Public Hearing on the Draft Orange County Transit Plan
34 The Board received a presentation on the draft Orange County Transit Plan (formerly
35 the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County) and the draft cost share agreement
36 between Durham and Orange County on the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project; and to conduct
37 a public hearing on the Draft Plan following the presentation.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to open
40 the public hearing.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 Travis Myren said the current transit plan contains some assumptions about the cost
45 share agreement between Durham and Orange counties. He said these discussions are
46 continuing, and the Board will have two additional options to review at Thursday night's
47 meeting. He said these options would bring the cost share down from 18/82% to 16.5/83.5%,
48 and the financial advisors will have reviewed all options in advance of the meeting. He said
49 Thursday's meeting will also provide a final draft of the cost share agreement between the two
3
1 counties; some non-financial changes to the transit plan; and a memo and analysis of the
2 possible expansion bus service that could be afforded, if funds remain.
3
4
5 BACKGROUND:
6 The Orange County Transit Plan governs the allocation of transit taxes and fees to various
7 transit services. This Plan updates the original Bus and Rail Investment Plan was adopted in
8 2012. The Plan allocates funding to bus services, the Durham-Orange Light Rail project, bus
9 capital projects, an intercity Amtrak train station in Hillsborough, and a bus rapid transit project
10 in Chapel Hill. The Plan is funded using four dedicated revenue sources: the Article 43 half cent
11 sales tax, the Article 50 five percent (5%) vehicle rental tax, the Article 51 three dollar ($3)
12 increase to the GoTriangle regional vehicle registration fee, and the Article 52 seven dollar ($7)
13 Orange County vehicle registration fee.
14
15 The 2017 update to the Orange County Transit Plan integrates changes to funding assumptions
16 based on limitations placed on transit projects by the State and Federal governments. These
17 changes reduced federal funding for bus capital projects, reduced State funding for the North-
18 South Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, and reduced State funding for the Durham-Orange
19 Light Rail Project (DO-LRT).
20
21 The most notable reduction in the Plan is the amount of State funds dedicated to the Durham-
22 Orange Light Rail Project. The 2012 Plan assumed a 25% State share. Based on legislative
23 changes, the 2017 Plan includes a 10% State share.
24
25 External funding limitations placed on the light rail project resulted in a series of reports to the
26 Board of Orange County Commissioners. In November 2016, GoTriangle reported that the
27 limitations resulted in a revenue shortfall in the light rail project. Based on this report, the Board
28 approved a memorandum of understanding in December to work with GoTriangle to identify
29 alternative funding sources. The Board also directed the County Manager to engage a
30 consultant to conduct an independent review of the financial model for the light rail project.
31 Later in December, GoTriangle reported project financing would be restructured to prevent the
32 need for any additional local funds to support the project in a base case scenario.
33
34 In February 2017, GoTriangle received direction from the Federal Transit Administration that
35 prescribed an April 30 deadline for updating the Orange County Transit Plan and the Cost
36 Sharing Agreement between Orange and Durham counties. During this time, GoTriangle also
37 created a new financial model that delineates revenue, expenditure, debt service coverage and
38 cash flow by county. The model also allows the counties to evaluate different cost share
39 scenarios between Durham and Orange County for the D-O LRT project. The new financial
40 model revealed that the dedicated Orange County transit revenues could not support the light
41 rail cost share percentages contained in the 2012 Bus and Rail Investment Plan. As a result of
42 the new financial information and changes to the project scope, Durham and Orange counties
43 are in the process of renegotiating the cost share agreement that defines the financial
44 responsibilities of each County.
45
46 On April 4, 2017 the Board of Orange County Commissioners received a report on the
47 independent financial analysis conducted by Davenport & Company. The presentation clarified
48 the total cost of the project, financing mechanisms, and potential financial risks including credit,
49 cash flow, and any potential budget implications. The presentation also highlighted significant
4
1 project funding milestones if the project is approved to move forward including approval of State
2 funds in June of 2019 and a Federal full funding grant agreement in early 2020.
3
4 Since these external funding commitments have not been secured, the draft Cost Share
5 Agreement includes provisions that would trigger discussions about the future of the project if
6 external revenues do not materialize or are reduced in an amount that would require additional
7 local funding. If these external funding reductions were to occur, the Agreement would require
8 the counties to meet to discuss responses which would include modifications to the schedule,
9 reductions in the scope, or discontinuation of the project. The same response would be
10 triggered if the project experiences cost overruns or if transit taxes and fees do not yield the
11 amount of revenues projected in the Plan.
12 John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Development Director, made the
13 following PowerPoint presentation:
14
15 DRAFT ORANGE
16 COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN
17 Overview of Draft Plan
18 Orange County Board of County Commissioners
19
20 Exceptional Transit Can Transform Communities
21 • Provides Access to Jobs and Housing
22 0 Mobility for those who don't drive and choice for those who don't want to drive
23 • Provides Capacity in Congested Traffic Corridors
24 0 More travel options allow more people to get to and from our downtowns and
25 universities
26 • Spurs Economic Competitiveness
27 0 Attracts companies who are recruiting talent
28 • Grows the Economy
29 0 Every $1 invested creates $4 in economic returns: new jobs and businesses,
30 expanded tax base
31 • Helps Plan Our Future
32 0 Guides how and where we develop, protecting open space, creating walkable
33 places
34 • Active Living and Better Health
35 0 Studies show transit users are healthier and happier; air and water are cleaner
36
37 Regional Transit Vision - graph
38
39 Regional Transit Vision - map
40
41 Original Plans
42 • Goals
43 • Promised projects & services
44
45 Original Adopted Plans
46 • Original Bus & Rail Investment Plans adopted:
47 0 Durham: June 2011
48 0 Orange: October 2012
49 • New Transit Taxes Levied:
50 0 Pre-existing Vehicle Rental Tax
5
1 0 New Sales Tax in April 2013
2 0 Additional $3 Vehicle Registration Fee
3 0 Additional $7 Vehicle Registration Fee
4
5 Goals of Orange Transit Plan
6 • Improve Overall Mobility and Transportation Options in the Region
7 • Provide Geographic Equity
8 • Support Improved Capital Facilities
9 • Support Transit Supportive Land Use
10 • Provide Positive Impact on Air Quality
11
12 Goals of Durham Transit Plan
13 • Positively Impact Traffic Congestion and Air Quality
14 • Support Local Land Use Policies
15 • Connect More Residents With Job and Educational Opportunities
16 • Expand Transit Capacity in Corridors with High Current Bus Ridership
17 • Provide Better Regional Connections to Other Cities and RDU Airport
18
19 2012 Orange County Transit Plan
20 • 35,300 Revenue Hour Expansion of Bus Service & Associated Buses in First 5 Years
21 • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project
22 0 50,000 annual hours of high quality rail transit service
23 • Bus Facility Improvements
24 0 Unspecified bus stop, access, and facility improvements
25 • MLK Bus Lanes / North-South BRT Project in Chapel Hill
26 0 Eubanks Park-and-Ride to UNC
27 • Hillsborough Train Station
28
29 2011 Durham County Transit Plan
30 • 50,000 Annual Revenue Hour Expansion of Bus Service & Associated Buses in First 5
31 Years
32 • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project
33 0 50,000 annual hours of high quality rail transit service
34 • Bus Facility Improvements
35 0 200 Bus Stops
36 0 Walking Access to Bus Stops
37 0 Park-and-Rides
38 0 Neighborhood Transit Centers
39 • Wake-Durham Commuter Rail
40 0 5 AM Commute Trips — 1 Mid-Day Trip —5 PM Commute Trips — 1 Evening Trip
41
42 Implementation Since 2013
43
44 Orange Plan Implementation
45 • Bus Service
46 0 Orange County adopted a 5-Year Transit Plan
47 0 34,400 revenue hours of bus service are funded, with a higher transit tax share
48 of funding compared to 2012 Plan
49 x 12,200 new Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) service hours
50 x 7,600 pre-existing CHT service hours supported with transit taxes
6
1 x 1,100 pre-existing Orange Public Transportation (OPT) service hours
2 (Hillsborough Circulator) supported with transit taxes
3 x 5,100 new OPT service hours
4 x 8,400 new GoTriangle service hours
5 • Bus Facility Projects Defined, Not Implemented
6 • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project
7 0 Completed Project Development phase in February 2016
8 0 Revised Locally Preferred Alternative to include extension to North Carolina
9 Central University in December 2016
10 0 Awaiting permission to enter Engineering phase
11 • North-South BRT Project in Chapel Hill
12 0 Project scope extended south to Southern Village
13 0 Completed Alternatives Analysis phase in April 2016
14 0 Authorized to enter Project Development in Nov 2016
15 • Hillsborough Train Station
16 0 91% funded through State Transportation Improvement Program
17 0 NCDOT Rail Division leading environmental work
18
19 Durham Plan Implementation
20 • Bus Service
21 0 Over 41,000 revenue hours of bus service are funded
22 x 24,350 new annual GoDurham service hours
23 x 9,000+ pre-existing annual GoDurham service hours supported with
24 transit taxes
25 x 7,640 new annual GoTriangle service hours
26 x 7,500+ additional annual County ACCESS demand-response trips
27 • Vehicles
28 0 GoDurham has ordered 5 buses
29 0 GoTriangle has ordered 2 buses
30 0 County ACCESS has received 1 van
31 • Bus Facility Projects Defined, Not Implemented
32 • Durham-Orange Light Rail Project
33 0 Completed Project Development phase in February 2016
34 0 Revised Locally Preferred Alternative to include extension to North Carolina
35 Central University in December 2016
36 0 Awaiting permission to enter Engineering phase
37 • Wake-Durham Commuter Rail
38 0 Delayed from original plan due to delay in Wake County plan adoption
39 0 North Carolina Railroad conducted Capacity Study to evaluate 8-2-8-2 service
40 0 Planning to begin in spring 2017 consistent with Wake Plan
41
42 Changes to Funding
43 • Federal
44 • State
45 • Local
46
47 Federal Funding
48 • 2012 Plan Assumptions
49 0 80% Funding for Bus Vehicles and Facilities
7
1 0 50% Funding for D-O-LRT and North-South BRT in each year that the costs are
2 incurred
3 • FTA Clarified $100 M Annual Reimbursement Cap
4 • Laws Changed in 2012 and 2015
5 0 MAP-21 (2012) ended discretionary grant programs for buses and facilities;
6 retained New Starts/Small Starts grant programs
7 0 FAST Act (2015) authorized through 2020
8
9 State Funding
10 • 2012 Plan Assumptions
11 0 10% Funding for Bus Vehicles and Facilities
12 0 25% Funding for D-O-LRT and North-South BRT
13 • Laws Changed in 2014, 2015, and 2016
14 0 2014 Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) law created new project scoring
15 system for funding decisions and capped transit funding at 10% of all funding
16 0 2015 introduced a cap of $500K for light rail projects
17 0 2016 replaced $500K cap with 10% project cap for rail projects
18
19 Local Funding
20 • Reduced State and Federal Funding Require Additional Commitment of Local Transit
21 Taxes
22 0 FY16 tax revenues
23 x $30.27 M in Durham / $8.06 M in Orange
24 0 Original Plans' sales tax growth forecasts
25 x Durham Plan assumed 3.6% average
26 x Orange Plan assumed 3.5% average
27 0 Moody's Base Case forecasts
28 x 4.33% average in Durham County
29 x 3.71% in Orange County
30 • More Borrowing Against Anticipated Revenues
31 0 Grant Anticipation Notes to manage slower federal funds (repaid by grants)
32 0 Short-term Limited Obligation Bonds during D-O LRT construction
33 0 Long-term TIFIA loan drawn down during D-O LRT construction
34 • D-O LRT Cost-Share Agreement
35 0 Current agreement executed in 2012 - 77.05% Durham / 22.95% for project
36 costs
37 x Extension to North Carolina Central University in Durham
38 x Change from 5 to 4 stations in Orange County through environmental
39 process decision
40 x Orange does not maintain a positive cash flow for Orange County
41 0 Re-negotiation of cost-share is ongoing; draft plan assumptions are starting point
42 for discussion
43 x 82% Durham / 18% Orange for project costs; 80% / 20% for operating
44 and maintenance costs
45 Draft 2017 Plans
46
47 Key draft plan assumptions
48
49 Preliminary Cost-Share in Draft Plans - chart
50
8
1 D-O LRT Project Cost Updates
2
3 D-O LRT Project Cost
4
5 Draft 2017 Plans
6
7 Funding projects & services
8
9 Funding Orange Projects and Services
10 • Fund original service expansion levels
11 0 Additional 7,200 hours of new CHT service
12 0 Additional 1,200 hours of new GoTriangle service
13 0 Additional 2,200 hours of new OPT service
14 • Increase local funding for Vehicles and Bus Facilities
15 0 2012 Plan had $669 K in local funding for $6.7 M in projects
16 0 Draft Plan has $5.4 M in local funding for$10.0 M in projects
17 • Increase local funding for D-O LRT
18 0 2012 Plan had combined local funding of$405.7 M; Orange share of$104.6 M
19 0 Draft Plan has combined local funding commitment of$906 M; starting
20 assumption Orange share of $163.1 M
21 • Maintain original funding level for MLK Bus Lanes / North-South BRT
22 0 $6.1 M commitment is retained; through Project Development, Chapel Hill will
23 pursue other options for other state and local revenues
24 • Maintain funding level for Hillsborough Train Station
25
26 Funding Durham Projects and Services
27 • Fund original service expansion levels
28 0 Continuation of expanded levels of GoDurham service
29 0 Additional 7,700 hours of new GoTriangle service
30 0 Continuation of expanded levels of County demand-response service
31 • Increase local funding for Vehicles and Bus Facilities
32 0 2012 Plan had $1.5 M in local funding for$15 M in projects
33 0 Draft Plan has $11 M in local funding for$19 M in projects
34 x Funding Durham Projects and Services
35 • Increase local funding for D-O LRT
36 0 2012 Plan had combined local funding of$405.7 M; Durham share of $301.1 M
37 0 Draft Plan has combined local funding commitment of$906M; starting
38 assumption Durham share of$742.9 M
39 • Funding for Wake-Durham Commuter Rail planning is included for FY2018
40 0 Future Plan updates will specify Durham's share of commitments to complete the
41 project
42 Draft 2017 Plans
43
44 Projected cash flow results — graph
45
46 Cash Balances — graph
47
48 Cash Balances — graph
49
50 Cash Balances — graph
9
1
2 Cash Balances — graph
3
4 Revenue vs. Debt Service —graph
5
6 Net Coverage Ratios —graph
7
8 Local Share of Capital Cost—graph
9
10 Draft 2017 Plans
11 Meeting Additional needs
12
13 Identifying Additional Orange Needs
14 • Growing service levels at rate of job growth
15 0 Connecting services to light rail stations in 2029
16 • Expanding transit fleet with service levels
17 • Continuing to improve or expand facilities
18 • Fully funding North-South BRT
19
20 Meeting Additional Orange Needs
21 • Short-range transit planning to prioritize services and facilities
22 • 30,000 —45,000 "Rail Dividend" service hours to redeploy in 2029
23 • $1.05 M minimum cash balance in 2030
24
25 Identifying Additional Durham Needs
26 • Growing service levels at rate of job growth
27 0 Connecting services to light rail stations in 2029
28 0 Addressing travel demands to intensifying downtown
29 • Expanding transit fleet with service levels
30 • Continuing to improve or expand facilities
31 • Wake-Durham Commuter Rail
32
33 Meeting Additional Durham Needs
34 • Short-range transit planning to prioritize services and facilities
35 • 12,000 —35,000 "Rail Dividend" service hours to redeploy in 2029
36 • $7.1 M minimum cash balance in 2027
37
38 Exploring Affordability of CRT— chart
39
40 Wake-Durham Commuter Rail - graph
41
42 Draft 2017 Plans
43 Mitigating risks
44
45 Identified Risks
46 • Cost Overruns
47 • Federal Funding Availability and Schedule
48 • State Funding Availability and Schedule
49 • Sales Tax Growth Assumptions
50
10
1 Mitigating Risks
2 • 30% contingency
3 • Modeled impacts of Moody's lower growth forecast
4 • Value engineering and cost-cutting identified
5 • Pursuing land donations and private contributions
6 • Building in process through cost-share agreement of quarterly reports to Parties, and
7 coming together if risks materialize to decide on course of action
8
9 2017 Draft Plans
10 Ongoing implementation activities
11
12 Ongoing Implementation Activities
13 • Regular Meetings of Staff Working Group
14 • Multi-Year Operating and Capital Improvement Programs updated annually
15 • Annual Budgets
16 • D-O LRT Cost Sharing Agreement
17 • Other Project-Specific Agreements
18 • Periodic Updates to County Transit Plan
19
20 2017 Draft Plans
21 Public comment period
22
23 Public Comment Period
24 • Draft Plans to be released on March 30 for 21-Day Period
25 • 2 Public Information Sessions for each Plan
26 • Presentations to all local governments
27 • Public hearings held by each county and DCHC
28 • Staff Working Groups submit final plans to Boards on April 21 for consideration
29
30 Commissioner McKee said in December he asked when this project would reach $3
31 billion, and it is now at $3.3 billion. He said he now wonders when the project will reach $4
32 billion.
33 John Tallmadge said the financial plan will not sustain that amount.
34 Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, said the estimates in December went through
35 2045, and this current plan is through 2062.
36 Commissioner McKee said he asked the original question after the discussion on
37 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the holder of the debt could be identified.
39 John Tallmadge said GoTriangle issues all debt, and is responsible for repayment of the
40 debt through the dedicated transit revenues. He said the counties do not incur the debt.
41 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the short-range transit planning, and asked if Orange
42 County will be invited to participate with GoTriangle and Chapel Hill.
43 John Talmadge said discussions are underway, and he did not want to make a
44 commitment of Orange County's participation. He said Orange County staff can be included.
45 Commissioner McKee referred to the question of debt, and said the Davenport staff was
46 clear that counties could choose to pick up more obligations for debt, or be required to do so.
47 Mindy Taylor, GoTriangle Senior Financial Analyst, said all of the debt that is issued is
48 the responsibility of GoTriangle, and there is no requirement for counties to repay the debt
49 unless the counties choose to enter into an agreement.
50 Commissioner McKee said what happens if the assets backing the debt are insufficient.
11
1 Mindy Taylor said the debt would be a general fund obligation of GoTriangle, and it
2 could be repaid with any revenue that is legally available to GoTriangle. She said one of the
3 benefits of the program that GoTriangle is using for its long-term issuance, the TIFIA program,
4 is that there are lots of options for refinancing. She said there is a lot of flexibility built into the
5 program.
6 Commissioner McKee said that is not the same answer that Davenport told the BOCC a
7 couple of weeks ago.
8 Commissioner Price clarified that GoTriangle incurs the debt and is responsible for
9 paying it. She asked if the counties' taxes pay GoTriangle.
10 Mindy Taylor said those revenues are issued directly to GoTriangle by the State, as the
11 sales tax monies were approved through a referendum. She said the funds are collected in the
12 counties.
13
14
15 PUBLIC COMMENT:
16 Ken Larsen provided a summary chart in a hand out, and on the screen, of 74 members
17 of the public speaking on light rail in the last months. He said of these speakers 70% were
18 against the plan, and 30% were for it; but all wanted a comprehensive transit plan for Orange
19 County. He said those who are against the light rail are concerned about the costs, and that it
20 will not solve the traffic issues. He said those who are in favor of light rail are not worried about
21 the costs, see growth as good, and want dense urban development along the route.
22 Maria DeBruyn provided a hand out, which she reviewed. She favors a comprehensive
23 transit plan that will serve all residents in, and all areas of, Orange County. She said she does
24 not see how LRT can achieve this, as it is expensive and limited in its reach.
25 John Hammond thanked the BOCC for their time, and provided a hand out. He said he
26 has lived here for several decades, and he fully supports the DO-LRT. He encouraged the
27 BOCC to be visionaries.
28 Jim Parker said he is a native North Carolinian, an Orange County resident and
29 business owner. He said his business in Hillsborough understands the transportation industry,
30 and is an integral part of improving the transportation infrastructure in the state. He said his
31 business supports the light rail. He said as a resident he has concerns that tax dollars not be
32 wasted on funding initiatives that would not be aligned with the goal of the taxes. He said he
33 would want to make sure that economic dollars are spent on direct economic growth. He said
34 he looks to the BOCC to govern those plans, and as a resident he supports light rail.
35 Sue Hunter thanked the BOCC for its work on this project, and asked it for its continued
36 support for light rail. She said she attended many light rail planning meetings 10 years ago,
37 and voted for the transit tax in 2012. She lives in Chapel Hill and commutes to work at Duke,
38 the largest employer in Durham County. She currently alternates between driving to work and
39 taking the 405 bus, depending on her schedule. She works in clinical research and is required
40 to meet regularly with faculty and students. She said working from home is not an option for
41 her, just as it is not for any of the clinicians working in the two large health systems in Orange
42 and Durham counties.
43 Sue Hunter said the data fully supports the proposed light rail path, connecting people to
44 the largest employers in these two counties, as well as three large local universities. She said
45 Wake County, Durham County, UNC and Duke all support commuter rail, and Orange County
46 is the lone outlier. She said she has supported this project for 10 years, and wants to see the
47 light rail built. She strongly encourages the BOCC to continue to work with Durham County to
48 negotiate down Orange County's portion of the light rail cost, and to develop a cost sharing
49 agreement for cost overruns. She said the majority of the voters approved the transit tax and
12
1 there is the money to do this. She asked the BOCC to live up to its commitments, as well as
2 the vote of its constituents, and continue to support this project.
3 Matt Fajack said he is Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration at the University
4 of North Carolina (UNC), and a resident of Orange County. He said UNC supports the light rail
5 project, and is a partner in Chapel Hill transit. He said this plan is about the next 30 years and
6 beyond, and they need to keep the vision alive in light of the risks that they will overcome.
7 Karen McCall is the Chief Communications Director at UNC Healthcare, which supports
8 light rail and rapid bus transit.
9 Bernadette Pelissier said she wanted to speak on a shared community value:
10 affordability. She said transportation plays a huge part in affordability, and decreasing the cost
11 of transportation can increase affordability. She said public transportation is significantly
12 cheaper than car ownership.
13 David Neal reviewed the following email statement:
14 I am a resident of Hillsborough and I have no plans to regularly commute from Chapel Hill to
15 Durham. Nevertheless, I support public investments in a multi-modal transit plan that can meet
16 the transportation needs of some our most densely traveled and congested roadways. The
17 Durham-Orange Light Rail is a key facet of that plan and deserves your continued support.
18
19 Consistent with the County's commitment to sustainability in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the
20 Board of Commissioners have long shown support for the transit plan, including the Durham-
21 Orange Light Rail. When I served on the Orange County Commission for the Environment, we
22 voted unanimously in 2012 to support putting the sales tax referendum in support of public
23 transportation on the ballot. Voters likewise endorsed the plan, passing the additional tax to
24 support light rail, more bus service, and a Hillsborough train station by an overwhelming 59-41
25 margin. The issue of light rail was squarely before the voters, and they endorsed this central
26 component of the plan by a wide margin.
27
28 The Commission for the Environment reaffirmed the importance of alternative transportation in
29 our 2014 State of the Environment report, listing the following as a top sustainability priority for
30 the County:
31
32 We need to do more to improve our air quality, chiefly by making changes that result in less
33 reliance on cars. Locally, this can be achieved by: (1) increased availability and use of transit
34 alternatives, including bus, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways; and (2) town and county
35 planning that fosters denser, walkable communities, reduces sprawl, and allows the clustering
36 of development in urban buffers.
37
38 Light Rail is a key ingredient in making all of those priorities happen.
39
40 Unfortunately, some of the organized opposition to the light rail project is using figures that
41 have the effect of misleading the public. There has been a tendency by light rail opponents to
42 conflate different accounting methods with different price tags for the project. The biggest
43 changes in the project cost for Orange County have come from the General Assembly's
44 decision to cap state funding for the project, which have resulted in an increased local share
45 and higher financing costs. The other increases in the actual cost for the project mostly come
46 from joint development projects and the new stop at NC Central University. But the numbers
47 presented recently by GoTriangle account for the project in year of expenditure dollars, not the
48 2011 dollars that were discussed around the time of the referendum. Much of the opposition
49 believes that it would be easy to find alternatives to the light rail project that would be just as
50 effective and cost a mere fraction of the price of the light rail. As you know, infrastructure
13
1 projects are complex. The light rail project has cleared significant milestones over the years that
2 place it on track to serve our region in about a decade. Any new alternative would have to start
3 over and would have to undergo engineering, financial, and environmental reviews that the light
4 rail project has completed.
5
6 Thank you for your thoughtful approach to this complex issue. I hope you will support the transit
7 plan, including the Durham-Orange Light Rail.
8
9 Tom Farmer provided a hand out. He said he is a Chapel Hill resident and came to live
10 here, in part, for the easy public transportation. He said easy transportation attracts residents
11 and jobs. He said he supports the transit plan and the LRT as it benefits residents, the
12 environment, and the economy.
13 Desiree Goldman said she is against light rail. She said believes in public transit
14 philosophically, but she is a pragmatist and the cost of the LRT is the problem. She said 16.5%
15 cost share may not cover the overruns. She said this light rail is great for Durham, UNC and
16 Duke, but they do not pay taxes. She said there will probably be very little affordable housing
17 on this route, and this plan will continue to increase the rural-urban political divide in the County.
18 She asked if the Board has a contingency plan if Orange County loses all of their impact fees,
19 and the state makes them merge the school districts. She said Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would
20 make the County more adaptable.
21 Josh Mayo said he is a senior at UNC and a lifelong resident of Orange County, and he
22 supports light rail and more buses.
23 Matt Bailey said he is an Orange County resident, and he supports light rail.
24 Jason Baker said he supports light rail, and asked the Board to continue to support the
25 light rail. He said he works in Raleigh, and rides the GoTriangle CRX bus each day. He said
26 transit is an investment.
27 Brenda McCall reviewed the following email comments:
28 I am a volunteer on behalf of SALT/Project Engage and OCRA. In addition to visiting
29 homebound rural seniors, we refer our clients and others to the volunteer driver program
30 operated by Orange County Department on Aging. We have about 15 drivers who help seniors
31 get to medical appointments and errands in Orange and surrounding counties. We cannot meet
32 the demand.
33
34 It's disheartening for the many volunteers who work tirelessly to support our transit dependent
35 communities, and then see a $3.3 billion transportation plan that offers no help to us. When we
36 noticed that Wake issued a transit plan that included demand services to rural seniors and
37 disabled residents, we were even more disappointed. How could you approve a plan with
38 billions of dollars for light rail without any funds for demand services for seniors? It's not just
39 us. Over the last few months, you've heard from groups all over the county who need better
40 transportation. The Northern Orange NAACP, Fathers on the Move, the Grange, Efland Habitat
41 communities and others told you that we need better bus service — not just between UNC and
42 Durham — but from Northern Orange to Mebane, Durham, RTP and Wake. And not just a
43 couple of buses — but service at night and on weekends- so our many service employees can
44 get to work.
45
46 We're not asking for a lot— but it's hard to see billions going to light rail when we don't have
47 basic bus service in most of the county. Please do not approve this plan.
48
49 Peter Calingaert reviewed the following comments:
50 The standard benchmark of interest rates in the United States is the 10-year Treasury note. Its
14
1 yield this afternoon was 2.18%. Local entities of course have to borrow at a higher rate.
2 From now to 2062 is 45 years. During the most recent 45 years, the 10-year Treasury yield has
3 fallen as low as 1.37% and soared as high as 15.84%. I urge the Board to critically evaluate
4 Davenport's interest-rate assumptions and — even more important—to obtain a sensitivity
5 analysis (very easy to perform) that reports for each increase of one percent in their assumed
6 rates, by how much more money the estimated nine hundred million dollar financing cost will
7 further rise. Add interest-rate risk to the list of project risks.
8
9 I also call the Board's attention to Davenport's use of ten significant figures in stating a total
10 dollar cost of 3 billion, 302 million, 320 thousand. This is greater precision than one part in a
11 billion. Please do not allow this presumptuous display of precision lull you into thinking that the
12 estimate has anywhere near that degree of accuracy.
13
14 When I moved to Chapel Hill 48 years ago, I came from a job to which I commuted happily by
15 rail. As a 26-year member of the Sierra Club, I have long favored public transportation in
16 general and light rail in particular. I voted for the transportation bond. But I am fully convinced
17 that the paltry contribution that this particular light rail project might make to the citizens of
18 Orange County is not worth its large, growing, and increasingly uncertain cost.
19
20 Melissa McCullough provided a hand out, and said she is representing herself and the
21 Sierra Club in support of the LRT.
22 Kimberly Brewer said she is an Orange County resident, and respects that people fall on
23 all sides of this issue. She said she does not support light rail because of the costs; its limited
24 scope of service; and due to the fact that things have changed since the referendum. She said
25 the transit plan will either accomplish LRT or BRT, but not both. She said buses will serve more
26 people and employers at a lower cost, and she sees it as the wise decision.
27 Dory McMillan is a senior at UNC, and works at Community Empowerment Fund. She
28 supports light rail, as access to public transportation is a critical need for empowering people
29 out of poverty.
30 Joan Guilkey said she is against light rail. She said she is greatly in favor of a
31 comprehensive transit system. She said she voted for the transit tax in 2012, but cannot
32 support LRT as it will take all available funds for transportation, while serving only a small
33 portion of the community. She said the plan is too risky.
34 Bonnie Hauser said in 2012, 40,000 additional bus hours were promised, but the current
35 plan does not reflect this. She said the current plan is slower and more expensive. She said
36 GoTriangle found over$1 billion to fund LRT, but failed to find $30 million to fund the north-
37 south BRT. She said the new plan adds additional debt, putting the County at risk in many
38 areas, and when the LRT is completed most people will still need cars. She implored the
39 Commissioners to say no to LRT, and to create a better plan.
40 Del Snow said she is against light rail. She said every single developer of dense
41 housing, in the focus areas, built there based on the promise of connectivity through extensive
42 bus service. She said those who moved into these properties on the MLK transit corridor did so
43 based on the promise of comprehensive BRT. She said the BRT corridor provides the
44 spectrum of diversity needed along a transit line, and is within the walk radius of at least six
45 mobile home parks, two subsidized housing developments, middle class neighborhoods, luxury
46 apartments, shopping, student housing, etc. She supports stopping the LRT, and exclusively
47 pursuing the BRT.
48 Julie McClintock said she supported the original light rail project years ago. She said
49 this is a momentous decision before the Board that could tie up significant Country resources
50 for years to come. She reviewed the following comments:
15
1
2 I am Julie McClintock and I've lived in Chapel Hill since 1970. I served on the Chapel Hill Town
3 Council for 12 years. I supported this rail project when it ran between Raleigh, RTP, Durham
4 and Chapel Hill. The plan made sense then!
5
6 The burden is on this body to ask questions and understand the consequences of the proposed
7 plan. Orange County did not prepare the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or the GoTriangle
8 Plan, therefore you need to test the conclusions.
9
10 We've heard many claims and counter claims about the light rail benefits and detriments. What
11 does the very substantial GoTriangle EIS conclude about the issues now debated? I've based
12 my summary on a detailed review by John Morris, which I've entered into the record.
13
14 • Energy Use: The EIS concludes there is less than a one tenth of one percent
15 reduction, a meaningless number. So if the EIS is correct, it will take 37 years for the
16 tiny annual energy savings to total the energy used for construction of the project.
17
18 • Air Quality: The EIS provides no basis to claim that light rail will improve air quality.
19 There are no data, calculations, or modeling related to significant air quality parameters
20 in the region or in the rail corridor. Note: there is nothing about this plan that promotes
21 smart growth; the proposal encourages linear growth line strung out over forests,
22 wetlands near a water supply watershed.
23
24 • Traffic Congestion: The EIS does not present any evidence that light rail will reduce
25 traffic congestion on major regional roads including 15-501 or any other thoroughfare.
26
27 • Affordable Housing: Light rail will create a powerful economic force that threatens
28 affordable housing near the project route.
29
30 "Gentrification, and more specifically a reduction in affordable housing, is a potential effect of
31 the project because of likely upward pressure on land values and commercial rents that may
32 occur in station areas." Quote from EIS
33
34 When GoTriangle's consultant met with the Chapel Hill Town Council, a council member asked
35 about affordable housing around the Orange County stations. The Consultant replied that land
36 values would rise, and it would take substantial town and county investment to bring affordable
37 housing near the rail line.
38
39 Other speakers have demonstrated that light rail does not serve our transit needs, and that the
40 huge cost puts our county at financial risk. In conclusion this EIS credits no environmental
41 benefits to this project.
42
43 Why are we spending all this money on light rail when we could be funding a fantastic
44 system of electric buses and BRT up and down our major corridors for a fraction of the
45 cost?
46
47 She asked if the following document could be placed into the public record:
48 What does the Durham-Orange Light Rail Environmental Impact Study Say?
49 John Morris
50
16
1 Many claims and counter claims about the DOLRT benefits and detriments are flying about.
2 What does the very substantial GoTriangle Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conclude about
3 the issues that are being debated?
4
5 Enemy Use
6 The EIS estimates annual transportation energy use in the Triangle region, including cars and
7 all forms of public transit, both for the no build alternative (no light rail) and with light rail in
8 operation. Light rail is estimated to reduce annual transportation energy consumption by 83
9 billion British Thermal Units. This sounds like a lot, but it is less than a one tenth of one percent
10 reduction. For such a long range and complex estimate, this is insignificant and meaningless.
11 The EIS also estimated indirect energy consumption, the amount of energy used to
12 manufacture materials and construct the light rail system. This indirect use amounts to 37 times
13 the estimated annual energy conservation. So if the EIS is correct, it will take 37 years for the
14 tiny annual energy savings to total the energy used for construction of the project.
15
16 Air Quality
17 The light rail project will have over 40 at grade street crossings, which will leave cars stopped
18 and idling while the trains pass. There is a special federal requirement to estimate any increase
19 in carbon emissions, which could contribute to climate change. The EIS studied several
20 intersections and determined that carbon monoxide concentrations would not change at these
21 locations.
22
23 Other than this one issue specific to several intersections, the EIS contains no data,
24 calculations, or modeling related to significant air quality parameters in the region or in the rail
25 corridor. The EIS provides no basis to claim that light rail will improve air quality.
26
27 Traffic Congestion
28 The many at grade crossings will hold up traffic many times a day. The EIS studied a number of
29 intersections near the track to see how the level of service ratings would be affected. In a
30 number of cases the LOS goes down a grade or so, say from C to D.
31
32 Beyond the limited issue of the effects of at grade crossings, however, the EIS does not
33 address what quantitative effect light rail will have on major regional roads. Would the light rail
34 project reduce congestion on 15-501 between Chapel Hill and Durham? This road would
35 presumably be the most likely to benefit. But the EIS provides no information to support
36 congestion relief on 15-501 or any other thoroughfare.
37
38 Affordable Housing
39 The EIS addresses affordable housing under the topic of environmental justice. The conclusion
40 is:
41
42 "Gentrification, and more specifically a reduction in affordable housing, is a potential effect of
43 the project because of likely upward pressure on land values and commercial rents that may
44 occur in station areas."
45
46 Light rail will create a powerful economic force that threatens affordable housing near the
47 project route. To even partially overcome this force and assure some availability of affordable
48 housing will take strong, sustained, and expensive local government action.
49
50 Alternatives Evaluated
17
1 The EIS evaluates only two alternatives, the recommended DOLRT plan and a "no build"
2 alternative. The no build alternative includes existing and planned transit services proposed to
3 exist in 2040 and included in the Metropolitan Transit Plan, but not the DOLRT. The no build
4 alternative does not include any major transit investment in the Durham-Orange corridor.
5
6 Regrettably, projects such as bus rapid transit with dedicated travel lanes and expanded bus
7 service were eliminated from this evaluation. Bus rapid transit with dedicated travel lanes can
8 be built for a median cost of about one third the cost of light rail, according to the EIS.
9 GoTriangle should have compared the light rail plan with a plan using BRT and buses to serve
10 many more Orange County residents than the light rail line. Such a plan could be built more
11 quickly and at less cost, with more flexibility to respond to emerging needs and growth patterns.
12
13 Sheila Creth said this plan is not finished, and she is concerned that they are not being
14 given enough time for public input. She said she voted for the transit tax for transit, but not for
15 light rail. She said three of the stations are on the UNC property, and no one pays taxes on this
16 property. She said she is against light rail.
17 Katy Lang said she is a car-free resident of Orange County and has lived without a car
18 since 2010. She said she walks and takes the bus (GoTriangle routes 400, 405, 800, and
19 Chapel Hill Transit routes J, D, NU/NS) almost everywhere she needs to go: work, social
20 activities, community meetings, exercise classes, and errands. She said she supports the
21 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project. She said she is grateful that Orange County voted
22 yes for transit in 2012, and that they are already seeing the bus service improvements provided
23 for in the Bus and Rail Investment Plans — especially nighttime and Sunday service. She said
24 one of the misunderstandings about the DO-LRT project is that it will "take all the transit money"
25 away from bus to light rail, and that is not only untrue but misconstrues the benefits residents
26 are already experiencing and will continue to experience as bus improvements are made. She
27 said an integrated mass transit system must incorporate multiple modes — including bus and
28 light rail —for the greatest connectivity and mobility. She said doing nothing/the status quo is
29 not a viable solution for our growing region, and right now, our bus systems are adequate but
30 not sustainable for our future growth. She said a fixed-route transit line like the light rail has the
31 unique opportunity to position and direct development investment along its length, mitigating
32 sprawl and providing denser land uses where they are most needed: job centers, schools,
33 hospitals, and denser residential. She said this enables transit riders like herself to get around
34 more efficiently.
35 Molly DeMarco said she is in support of light rail and BRT, and this plan will help
36 people move around the County better. She said the light rail location is in the right spot as it
37 serves people, not the land. She said it is a benefit for so many, and if the BOCC walks away
38 from this plan, the federal money will go away, and starting from scratch will take years. She
39 urged the BOCC to vote in favor of this plan.
40 John Morris said the idea of light rail has drawn support, but it is important to understand
41 how drastically the plan has changed, and how the costs have increased. He said GoTriangle
42 has had to perform financial acrobats to make this plan feasible. He said the Davenport
43 analysis has told them that this will put the County's credit rating and general fund budget at
44 risk. He said the President has proposed a cease in additional funding for new starts, like the
45 LRT. He said cities all over the country are concerned about this, and the BOCC should be
46 worried too. He said the State continues to reduce or restrict funding for projects like the LRT,
47 and he doubts the State will provide the 10% that is currently promised. He encouraged the
48 BOCC to say no to LRT, and to create a better transit plan for the County.
49 Matt Clark is from Durham, and he got in a traffic jam on his way to tonight's meeting.
50 He said he was able to think about the roads while sitting in traffic. He said this area has world-
18
1 class universities, healthcare at its best, and communities working at their best. He said this
2 project is more than their transit future, but a foundation for the future of education, affordable
3 housing, etc. He said these are values that everyone shares. He said barriers and fears do not
4 need to separate them from the shared responsibility to build the best future possible.
5 Alison Stuebe read the following comments:
6 Good evening. I would like to thank the commissioners for their patience and stamina in hearing
7 from our community tonight.
8
9 My name is Alison Stuebe, and I am a physician living in Meadowmont. I am speaking tonight to
10 support the Durham-Orange Light Rail. I've been a regular bus-rider for the past 5 years,
11 loading my bike on the front of Chapel Hill Transit Buses and, when the weather is fair, riding
12 home on the downhill side of Raleigh Road.
13
14 I support light rail because it will improve my commute, offering shorter headways and
15 bypassing the traffic that snarls buses and cars Eastbound on 54 at rush hour.
16
17 I also support light rail on behalf of my neighbor, who commutes from Meadowmont to Duke
18 every day by bus. She could not be here tonight because she does not have a car.
19
20 I support light rail as a mother- I have three boys, and my eldest just got his learner's permit.
21 will breathe easier when my sons can navigate the Triangle via a backbone of light rail
22 supporting a vibrant bus network.
23
24 I support light rail as a physician. I care for low income pregnant women, who rely on infrequent
25 midday bus service to access care at UNC Hospital. Regular, efficient light rail, intersecting with
26 bus routes, will connect my patients with specialty care.
27
28 I support light rail for the future of development in Durham and Orange Countries. We moved to
29 Chapel Hill from the streetcar suburb of Brookline, Massachusetts, a testament to the power of
30 light rail to foster walkable neighborhoods and business districts, while protecting open spaces
31 from sprawl. Light rail will concentrate development along the rail corridor, while preserving the
32 rural buffers that we know and love.
33
34 Lastly, I support light rail for the health and wellbeing of all Orange County residents. According
35 to a 2013 MIT study, automobile exhaust causes 58,000 premature deaths each year in the
36 United States. Air pollution worsens asthma and cardiovascular disease, and these conditions
37 disproportionately affect rural residents: 10% of rural residents in the Piedmont have asthma,
38 compared with 6.6% of suburban residents. More travel by light rail means fewer vehicles on
39 the road and less pollution in the air, improving health for every resident of Orange County.
40
41 Commissioners, this month we face a crossroads. We can move forward on a visionary plan
42 that has emerged out of nearly a decade of analysis and public hearings, or we can turn down a
43 billion dollars in federal funding and start from scratch.
44
45 I urge you to vote yes on Durham Orange Light Rail. Thank you.
46
47 Harold Gordon said he is a retired registered engineer, with 54 years of experience. He
48 said he received and reviewed two documents last week from GoTriangle. He said the project
49 costs come from utility relocation, hazardous materials identification and removal, etc. He sent
50 questions to GoTriangle, but has yet to receive a response. He said there are a lot of areas in
19
1 the plan where the dollars are insufficient, and he is worried about start-up costs and safety.
2 He said he is in complete opposition to the LRT project.
3 Commissioner McKee said he would like to request that GoTriangle copy the BOCC on
4 its answers to Mr. Gordon's questions.
5 Molly McConnell said she has lived in Orange County for 47 years, is a public servant,
6 and a child advocate. She said the current transit plan does not serve the whole community,
7 and she does not support light rail. She said there are too many other greater needs in Orange
8 County.
9 Phil Earnhardt said Denver was in the same place as Orange County 20 years ago. He
10 said Denver's plan was analyzed in 2013, and he urged the BOCC to look at this analysis. He
11 said this plan has had huge expansions, and this is likely to continue. He urged the BOCC to
12 see the failures from Denver and Dallas, and noted that facts are stubborn things. He said he
13 cannot see a way for Orange County to avoid similar failures. He advocated that the BOCC
14 stop this project now.
15 Vijay Sivaraman said he is a Carrboro resident, a parent, and a professor at NCCU. For
16 these reasons, he fully supports the Transit plan and believes the County should forward their
17 commitment as well. As an academic, he appreciates data. As a result, he stands behind
18 TTA's data acquisition and reporting, that demonstrates that 58% are minorities, 70% are ages
19 44 or below and 95% are employed or students within our community, training to soon
20 contribute to our growing economy. The transit plan (yes with Light Rail) has been a constant
21 discussion point for many years and is the closest to implementation as it has ever been. He
22 sees this as something students can use to efficiently take courses between our hallowed
23 Academic institutions; residents can safely attend sporting events and go to work in a regular
24 and dependable manner not depending on whims of car congestion. He said he is a biologist:
25 he said he sees our cities as connected veins of narrow roadways that can barely support the
26 flow rate of our automotive traffic. Increases will likely lead to occlusion that stop access to
27 work and negatively impact our economy and lifestyle. The population growth within Orange
28 and Durham counties are staggering, and this must be supported by systems to move people
29 around efficiently. The Transit plan will provide a major step towards improving this. Finally: it is
30 well known that properties around transit stations will be increase and value and will prosper for
31 small businesses. Both Chapel Hill and Durham will enjoy these increases, which we can all
32 get behind. Let us please not be bullied by bogymen like unknown increasing costs and or
33 irrational fears of one city benefiting more than the other. Let's move forward with this plan.
34 Thank you!
35 Aaron Nelson said he is the president of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of
36 Commerce. He said their Board of Directors (BOD) voted to support the transit tax in 2012 and
37 has continued to do so. He said in this past year, the BOD has been concerned about the
38 costs, and did some research. He said after conducting this research, the BOD is still in full
39 support of the plan and the north-south corridor, contingent on the fact that Orange County's
40 portion of capital costs does not exceed 18%. He said there are risks, but they are worth it.
41 Kristen Smith is a chamber employee, and they support the plan. She reviewed a
42 summary of their Board's comments.
43 Kenneth Parker said he is a transit ambassador working in Carrboro. He spoke to the
44 importance of public transit in everyone's life. He said he supports public transit in any and all
45 forms.
46 Allen Spalt said he and his wife are here to support the light rail and BRT. He said
47 congestion is here, and it will only get worse. He said if the BOCC waits, the costs will escalate.
48 He said this is the start of a regional plan.
49 William Charles said Orange County has been a victim of hippie thinking. He said this
50 light rail plan is an abuse of all Orange County taxpayers for the next 45 years, starving the
20
1 County of funds for all other services. He said the solution will be to raise people's taxes. He
2 said he will raise funds to support people who run against those Commissioners who vote for
3 this plan. He encouraged the BOCC to support a more effective plan.
4 Lisa Kaylie said she agreed with the comments made by Desiree Goldman, and she is
5 against light rail. She said she also agreed with Bonnie Hauser, and said her main concern is
6 the costs. She said $3.3 billion will be spent, and most residents will still be stuck in their cars
7 lacking affordable transportation.
8 Keagan Sacripanti is a grad student at UNC, and said he is in support of the light rail.
9 Jamezetta Bedford said she sent the Board an article from the Journal of Accountancy
10 yesterday, called The Importance of Killing Projects. She said it is important that government
11 pays attention to exit strategies, and when too much is too much. She said Davenport referred
12 to the importance of exit points throughout their presentation a few weeks ago. She said if the
13 Board moves forward with the LRT, it must start thinking of exit strategies based on a dollar
14 maximum for cost overruns, not a percent. She said as a Certified Public Accountant she
15 believes the County can no longer afford the current plan for light rail. She said UNC Hospitals
16 are a very important resource to this state, and the state needs to fund options to get their
17 employees to and from work there. She suggested waiting four years to see if the Democrats
18 can take back the house and the federal government, thus leading to increased state funding.
19 She said, in the mean time, to use the sales tax to acquire land and develop transit that benefits
20 all of Orange County.
21
22 Chair Dorosin said to take a 3-minute break at 9:55 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:59
23 p.m.
24
25 James Bondurant said he is a student at UNC-Chapel Hill, and he is in support of light
26 rail.
27 David King said he is representing a group, convened six months ago by GoTriangle,
28 called The Funding and Community Collaborative. He said this group was made up of both the
29 public and private sector, representing medicine, the universities, businesses, etc. He gave a
30 letter to the Board from the private sector members of the group, expressing complete support
31 for the LRT. He said this group met on April 7th, and made a commitment to raise $100 million
32 for light rail project from the private sector, if the project gets into the engineering phase. He
33 said he hopes this commitment inspires confidence. He said since the vote in 2012, nothing
34 has really happened to change the equation of funding for the 15-501 corridor. He said these
35 projects take a long time to complete, and he commended the BOCC for its stamina.
36 Linda Haac said she was a proponent of light rail 33 years ago, but finds that this route
37 fails to serve most of Orange County. She has seen data as a member of the Carrboro
38 transportation board, and public transportation may slow the amount of cars, but it will not stop
39 them. She said the plan does mainly benefit the UNC Medical Center, Duke, etc. She said the
40 main concern is the fiduciary responsibilities of the BOCC as the elected body of Orange
41 County. She said the business plan from GoTriangle makes her question them as a partner.
42 David Carpenter said he is against light rail, and the debt that will be incurred. He said
43 to imagine what could be accomplished by investing $3.3 billion into other elements of the
44 County.
45 Heather Brutz reviewed the following email:
46 Public transportation has always been important in my life. When I was a child living in
47 Cleveland, OH, my mom and I were supported by my father's minimum wage income. The cars
48 we owned were unreliable and I often had to take the bus with my mom to do errands. I started
49 working when I was 14 and only applied to jobs that I could walk, bike, or take the bus to.
50 Access to transit was literally the difference between employment and unemployment for me.
21
1
2 When I moved to Chapel Hill for grad school, my boyfriend (now husband) moved here with me.
3 He had recently gotten his undergrad degree and was looking for work. As often happens
4 when you don't have experience, he had trouble finding work in his field and ended up working
5 part-time jobs to help make ends meet. This was tough but manageable until our only car
6 broke down. With neither one of us employed full-time, we could not afford to buy a new car. So
7 he had to search for new part-time work in areas that was transit-accessible to Chapel Hill until
8 he found full-time employment and could afford a car. This was very limiting. One of the part-
9 time jobs he found was in downtown Durham, where the proposed light rail will eventually go. It
10 takes well over an hour to get there by bus and if my husband worked a late shift and missed
11 the last bus, it was an expensive cab ride home. Eventually, he was able to find a full-time job
12 but that was a stressful time in our lives.
13
14 Lack of access to transportation is a major barrier to getting out of poverty. The proposed light
15 rail and improvements in bus service in the transit plan will help connect people to jobs.
16
17 Rachel Willis said she supports light rail.
18 Ally Clonch said she is a grad student at UNC, and is in support of light rail.
19 Edmund Tiryakian said he comes to praise light rail, not to bury it, and said this
20 concept's wisdom may shine eventually, but its many shortcomings confront us now. He said
21 the LRT will not serve the entire County. He said he does not trust the word of GoTriangle, and
22 he is not in support of this light rail plan.
23 Gary Saunders said he won the Golden Ticket award for riding buses. He said he
24 brings 40 years of experience with environmental engineering, and has been a transit user
25 since 2005. He said he grew up in northern Virginia, and watched the building of metro system,
26 which faced as many critics as the LRT project. He asked if the financial plan is a reasonable
27 approach for the future, and he said yes it is. He encouraged the BOCC to vote in favor of
28 LRT.
29 Alex Cabanes reviewed the following comments:
30 In November 2016, Jeff Mann was asking Orange and Durham County Commissioners for
31 more funding to close the DOLRT gap before the end of 2016. In Orange County, specifically
32 for- $40 million over 10 years. Then in January 2017, GoTriangle came back with the
33 "Christmas Surprise" and said GoTriangle was able to fund the now $2.5 BILLION DOLRT
34 project Then we discovered that there was an additional $1 BILLION in interest payments that
35 GoTriangle had failed to disclose earlier.... and that 'omission' was only discovered by the
36 independent Davenport consultants retained by the Orange County Commissioners.
37 Thank you for doing some additional due diligence on the financials (but it does raise the
38 question as to what other 'omissions' or assumptions on ridership, etc we are not seeing).
39
40 That is $1 BILLION that would go to bankers to finance this project (not for actual public
41 transit). So here we sit, staring at a project cost of$3.3 BILLION (including interest payments
42 out to 2062) ... and GoTriangle has yet to break ground!
43
44 Let's put that in perspective: Orange County will pay approximately $325 million what was
45 expected from the state of North Carolina in 2011 ... and that assumes all goes according to
46 'plan' (which the last 5 years have demonstrated that the costs seem to only go in one direction,
47 UP).
48
49 Unfortunately the DO-LRT math just doesn't add up, despite what many last night may wish.
50 Never has, never will.
22
1
2 The cash flow analysis by Davenport under the Moody's 'pessimistic' scenario @ 3.59% shows
3 negative cash flows for Orange County starting in 2027 in perpetuity (even with the
4 renegotiated 18/82 cost sharing split between Orange & Durham).
5
6 And that Moody's 'pessimistic' scenario is projecting growth faster than the national 2% GDP.
7
8 And that Moody's 'pessimistic' scenario has no recession for the next 45 years. Recessions
9 typically happen - 7 years on average where the growth actually goes NEGATIVE for multiple
10 quarters (and we are long overdue).
11
12 You remember Moody's Investment, right? The same Wall Street firm that rated junk
13 mortgages as 'investment grade' that precipitated the whole financial crisis. The same firm that
14 predicted Hillary Clinton's landslide Presidential win. Yeah, those guys!
15
16 So, let's PLEASE move beyond the DO-LRT propaganda.
17
18 The issue before you is NOT about the LRT technology. It's about the emerging fiscal realities
19 and unsustainable finances of the ever increasing costs of this project ... and all of the other
20 options that we will be sacrificed by committing to this single, multi-decade project.
21
22 We need cost-effective and affordable public transit suitable for our region.
23 We need an Affordable Transit Plan for ALL.
24 Thank you for your patience, stamina and continued service
25
26 Bob Reeber said he is a retired engineer, and he said there are existing train tracks that
27 could be used to connect towns. He said he is against LRT, and said the cost estimates are
28 only going to increase.
29 Robert David thanked the BOCC for its stamina and commitment to hearing the public
30 on this issue. He said he has spoken on this topic before, and continues to believe that the
31 costs of the LRT are too high; the LRT will serve too few; the LRT will take funds from other
32 County needs; the LRT will put the County in financial risk; and GoTriangle is not fit to manage
33 this project. He said the BOCC should look at the problems incurred in other cities that have
34 installed LRT. He said the LRT stops are all on UNC property, and does not benefit enough of
35 the County. He said he questions whether ridership will be high enough to displace traffic. He
36 is not in support of LRT
37 Cheryl Hardman said she is against light rail.
38 Rosemarie Wenzel said she is against light rail, and a major increase in property taxes.
39 David Schwartz said he is against the light rail project. He said all transportation options
40 need to be considered, and weighed carefully against each other. He said there is a lot of
41 money at stake, and that it was wise to hire Davenport to do an independent financial analysis.
42 He encouraged the BOCC to do an independent cost benefit analysis of the various public
43 transit systems, which Orange County might pursue. He said decisions should not be rushed,
44 even by the lure of federal dollars. He said the entire local business community is not behind
45 this project, and there are many people who are typically on opposite sides of arguments that
46 are standing together against the LRT.
47 Michael Wandroup said the LRT is not going to serve all of Orange County, but it is part
48 of an integrated system, which can ultimately be expanded in multiple directions. He said the
49 BOCC has the opportunity to tie land with major employment centers, and he encouraged the
50 BOCC to proceed with LRT.
23
1 Terry Vance said she is against the LRT project. She said it is important to look at this
2 project realistically. She said the costs have skyrocketed, and the project will serve very few.
3 She said the debt will not be paid off until 2062, and the average cost overruns on light rail
4 worldwide are 45%. She said it is unrealistic to think that affordable housing will increase near
5 LRT stations, and it is unrealistic to think that there can be LRT and BRT. She said the LRT will
6 take all the available funds for transportation. She said there are so many environmentally
7 sound ways to have bus transit: solar, electric, etc.
8 Diane Robertson said she is against light rail. She highlighted several examples where
9 cost estimates were higher than expected.
10 Maria Palmer said she is in support of light rail. She said leadership involves risks, and
11 LRT is worth the risk.
12 Joe Phelps said he is against this light rail plan. He said this area has limited growth,
13 due to water availability. He suggested that job security may be one of GoTriangle's motivating
14 factors.
15 Sam Gharbo said he is against light rail. He reviewed the significant costs of the
16 projects for each citizen of Orange County, and said the County is simply not growing at a
17 significant rate. He said Orange County growth is far behind Durham, and significantly behind
18 Wake County. He said to proceed with the LRT would be stupid, and the County knows better.
19 Ramona McGee said she is speaking as a citizen, and she is for the light rail. She has
20 used transit, and she wants more transit. She said the greatest concern seems to be the cost
21 of the LRT, but she said these plans include a 30% contingency to address cost overruns. She
22 said bus service will be freed up by the LRT. She said GoTriangle has completed a mitigation
23 risk appendix, which highlights various ways to continue to mitigate risks.
24 Kim Hunter said she is for light rail. She said she represents the Southern
25 Environmental Law Center, where she works on transportation projects throughout the State.
26 She said their primary aim in supporting this project is about land use. She said the LRT will
27 not put an end to congestion, but it is essential in guiding land use, and how the region grows.
28 She said guiding land use provides benefits to greenhouse gas emissions, to air quality, to
29 water quality, etc.
30 Tana Hartman Thorn is a resident of rural Orange County, and an outspoken
31 progressive. She encouraged the BOCC to behave wisely and conservatively on this project.
32 She asked the Board if it is comfortable bequeathing the LRT costs to their grandchildren in this
33 economy. She said, if not, then the Board should vote against this.
34 Charles Humble read the following comments:
35 Commissioners,
36 The hour is late; I will be brief. We have heard many descriptions of the escalating costs and
37 minimal benefits for Orange County residents from the proposed Light Rail line.
38
39 We have heard how escalating costs have reduced funding for the N-S Bus Rapid Transit
40 system that promised to serve areas of rapid growth in Chapel Hill. We have heard how those
41 costs threaten funding of other modes that serve communities elsewhere in Orange County with
42 far fewer transportation options and higher levels of need. And as for affordable housing: that
43 problem will be increased along the Rail line, not decreased.
44
45 In 2012 we voted for a flexible — if vaguely defined —transit plan that could address needs
46 throughout the county and be fully funded through the transportation tax and related fees.
47 doubt even proponents voted to tie our collective hands for 45 years as technologies and
48 options change all around us. Yet that is what they want you to do in the next 2 weeks —vote to
49 limit the options for our residents for the next 45 years.
50
24
1 Before I became a member of the Sierra Club in the 80s and a sustaining donor to SELC,
2 indeed, before I became an environmentalist, I was raised a preacher's kid in The South.
3 know deeply held religious views when I see them. And that is what I am seeing from LR
4 proponents. They are preaching the Old Time Religion of the environmental benefits of this
5 Rail system. As described by Julie McClintock, the EIS for the project says those benefits are
6 few and almost all will be seen in Durham County at the cost of the transportation needs of so
7 many of our citizens. Further, Durham's gains put at risk moneys for our schools and other
8 services. Proponents don't care. To true believers in this Rail line (and the folks who stand to
9 profit from it) the depth of the financial hole that Davenport says we will fall into is not
10 important. Commissioners: "Is the depth of that financial hole important to you?
11
12 Thank you.
13
14 Tony Blake provided and reviewed a hand out. He said he is against the LRT. He said
15 it will not promote affordable housing, and will only exacerbate sprawl. He said there needs to
16 be a more comprehensive transit plan that serves the entire County.
17 Lee Storrow said this is a passionate community that agrees on a great deal. He said
18 this community supports the environment, sustainability, and access for residents to good
19 transit. He said he supports light rail as a component of a broader transportation plan for this
20 region. He said the community cannot be scared of making big investments.
21 Ann Loftin said there is one thing that all could agree on: a trolley that could run from
22 Durham throughout Orange County, and a train that went to the airport, and a train to Raleigh;
23 but that is not going to happen. She said all that is being offered is a train that links the
24 universities' hospitals, and she does not understand why the universities are not paying for it.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
27 close the public hearing.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 Chair Dorosin thanked the public for its thoughtful and respectful participation this
32 evening. He said emails can be sent to the BOCC until the final vote takes place.
33 Chair Dorosin said the Board has asked for more information on the amount of
34 additional expansion bus hours included in the OPT service plan, and how much funding would
35 need to be available to fund those hours, given the current formula with Chapel Hill and
36 GoTriangle. He said staff intends to open negotiations with those parties on realigning the
37 allocation and thinking through the rail dividend. He said there will also be an updated analysis
38 from Davenport given the reduction of the Orange County share to 16.5 %. He said the BOCC
39 will discuss all details, including the scenario that should be in the final cost share agreement at
40 Thursday's meeting.
41
42 6. Regular Agenda
43 NONE
44
45 7. Reports
46 NONE
47
48 9. County Manager's Report
49 NONE
50
25
1 10. County Attorney's Report
2 NONE
3
4 11. *Appointments
5 NONE
6
7 12. Information Items
8 • April 4, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
9
10 13. Closed Session
11 NONE
12
13 14. Adjournment
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs at
16 11:23 p.m. to recess the meeting to Thursday, April 20th at 7:00 pm at the Whitted Building, 300
17 West Tryon St, in Hillsborough solely for the purpose of board discussion on the transit issue
18 and that no public comment will be accepted at the reconvened meeting on the 20th (and the
19 scheduled closed session will be canceled and re-scheduled).
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22 Mark Dorosin, Chair
23
24 Donna Baker
25 Clerk to the Board
26
27