Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-18-2017 1 AAPROVED 5/2/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING April 18, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to move the consent agenda up after Board Petitions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ****Chair Dorosin informed the public that the public hearing will be closed at the end of this evening's meeting, and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will recess the meeting until Thursday, April 20th at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon Street in Hillsborough. He said the sole purpose of that reconvened meeting will be Board discussion on the transit issue, and that no public comment will be accepted at the reconvened meeting on the 20th PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner McKee had none. 2 Commissioner Jacobs had none. Commissioner Marcoplos had none. Commissioner Rich had none. Commissioner Burroughs had none. Commissioner Price had none. Chair Dorosin had none. 8. Consent Agenda (moved up) • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from March 21, 28 and April 4, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#8 The Board approved budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17 to the Department of Economic Development; Emergency Services Department; Health Department; Sheriff's Office; and Human Services-Non Departmental. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations NONE 5. Public Hearings a. Presentation and Public Hearing on the Draft Orange County Transit Plan The Board received a presentation on the draft Orange County Transit Plan (formerly the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County) and the draft cost share agreement between Durham and Orange County on the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project; and to conduct a public hearing on the Draft Plan following the presentation. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Travis Myren said the current transit plan contains some assumptions about the cost share agreement between Durham and Orange counties. He said these discussions are continuing, and the Board will have two additional options to review at Thursday night's meeting. He said these options would bring the cost share down from 18/82% to 16.5/83.5%, and the financial advisors will have reviewed all options in advance of the meeting. He said Thursday's meeting will also provide a final draft of the cost share agreement between the two 3 counties; some non-financial changes to the transit plan; and a memo and analysis of the possible expansion bus service that could be afforded, if funds remain. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Transit Plan governs the allocation of transit taxes and fees to various transit services. This Plan updates the original Bus and Rail Investment Plan was adopted in 2012. The Plan allocates funding to bus services, the Durham-Orange Light Rail project, bus capital projects, an intercity Amtrak train station in Hillsborough, and a bus rapid transit project in Chapel Hill. The Plan is funded using four dedicated revenue sources: the Article 43 half cent sales tax, the Article 50 five percent (5%) vehicle rental tax, the Article 51 three dollar ($3) increase to the GoTriangle regional vehicle registration fee, and the Article 52 seven dollar ($7) Orange County vehicle registration fee. The 2017 update to the Orange County Transit Plan integrates changes to funding assumptions based on limitations placed on transit projects by the State and Federal governments. These changes reduced federal funding for bus capital projects, reduced State funding for the North-South Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, and reduced State funding for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project (DO-LRT). The most notable reduction in the Plan is the amount of State funds dedicated to the Durham- Orange Light Rail Project. The 2012 Plan assumed a 25% State share. Based on legislative changes, the 2017 Plan includes a 10% State share. External funding limitations placed on the light rail project resulted in a series of reports to the Board of Orange County Commissioners. In November 2016, GoTriangle reported that the limitations resulted in a revenue shortfall in the light rail project. Based on this report, the Board approved a memorandum of understanding in December to work with GoTriangle to identify alternative funding sources. The Board also directed the County Manager to engage a consultant to conduct an independent review of the financial model for the light rail project. Later in December, GoTriangle reported project financing would be restructured to prevent the need for any additional local funds to support the project in a base case scenario. In February 2017, GoTriangle received direction from the Federal Transit Administration that prescribed an April 30 deadline for updating the Orange County Transit Plan and the Cost Sharing Agreement between Orange and Durham counties. During this time, GoTriangle also created a new financial model that delineates revenue, expenditure, debt service coverage and cash flow by county. The model also allows the counties to evaluate different cost share scenarios between Durham and Orange County for the D-O LRT project. The new financial model revealed that the dedicated Orange County transit revenues could not support the light rail cost share percentages contained in the 2012 Bus and Rail Investment Plan. As a result of the new financial information and changes to the project scope, Durham and Orange counties are in the process of renegotiating the cost share agreement that defines the financial responsibilities of each County. On April 4, 2017 the Board of Orange County Commissioners received a report on the independent financial analysis conducted by Davenport & Company. The presentation clarified the total cost of the project, financing mechanisms, and potential financial risks including credit, cash flow, and any potential budget implications. The presentation also highlighted 4 significant project funding milestones if the project is approved to move forward including approval of State funds in June of 2019 and a Federal full funding grant agreement in early 2020. Since these external funding commitments have not been secured, the draft Cost Share Agreement includes provisions that would trigger discussions about the future of the project if external revenues do not materialize or are reduced in an amount that would require additional local funding. If these external funding reductions were to occur, the Agreement would require the counties to meet to discuss responses which would include modifications to the schedule, reductions in the scope, or discontinuation of the project. The same response would be triggered if the project experiences cost overruns or if transit taxes and fees do not yield the amount of revenues projected in the Plan. John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Development Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN Overview of Draft Plan Orange County Board of County Commissioners Exceptional Transit Can Transform Communities • Provides Access to Jobs and Housing O Mobility for those who don't drive and choice for those who don't want to drive • Provides Capacity in Congested Traffic Corridors O More travel options allow more people to get to and from our downtowns and universities • Spurs Economic Competitiveness O Attracts companies who are recruiting talent • Grows the Economy O Every $1 invested creates $4 in economic returns: new jobs and businesses, expanded tax base • Helps Plan Our Future O Guides how and where we develop, protecting open space, creating walkable places • Active Living and Better Health O Studies show transit users are healthier and happier; air and water are cleaner Regional Transit Vision - graph Regional Transit Vision - map Original Plans • Goals • Promised projects & services Original Adopted Plans • Original Bus & Rail Investment Plans adopted: O Durham: June 2011 O Orange: October 2012 5 • New Transit Taxes Levied: O Pre-existing Vehicle Rental Tax O New Sales Tax in April 2013 O Additional $3 Vehicle Registration Fee O Additional $7 Vehicle Registration Fee Goals of Orange Transit Plan • Improve Overall Mobility and Transportation Options in the Region • Provide Geographic Equity • Support Improved Capital Facilities • Support Transit Supportive Land Use • Provide Positive Impact on Air Quality Goals of Durham Transit Plan • Positively Impact Traffic Congestion and Air Quality • Support Local Land Use Policies • Connect More Residents With Job and Educational Opportunities • Expand Transit Capacity in Corridors with High Current Bus Ridership • Provide Better Regional Connections to Other Cities and RDU Airport 2012 Orange County Transit Plan • 35,300 Revenue Hour Expansion of Bus Service & Associated Buses in First 5 Years • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project O 50,000 annual hours of high quality rail transit service • Bus Facility Improvements O Unspecified bus stop, access, and facility improvements • MLK Bus Lanes / North-South BRT Project in Chapel Hill O Eubanks Park-and-Ride to UNC • Hillsborough Train Station 2011 Durham County Transit Plan • 50,000 Annual Revenue Hour Expansion of Bus Service & Associated Buses in First 5 Years • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project O 50,000 annual hours of high quality rail transit service • Bus Facility Improvements O 200 Bus Stops O Walking Access to Bus Stops O Park-and-Rides O Neighborhood Transit Centers • Wake-Durham Commuter Rail O 5 AM Commute Trips — 1 Mid-Day Trip — 5 PM Commute Trips — 1 Evening Trip Implementation Since 2013 Orange Plan Implementation • Bus Service O Orange County adopted a 5-Year Transit Plan 6 O 34,400 revenue hours of bus service are funded, with a higher transit tax share of funding compared to 2012 Plan x 12,200 new Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) service hours x 7,600 pre-existing CHT service hours supported with transit taxes x 1,100 pre-existing Orange Public Transportation (OPT) service hours (Hillsborough Circulator) supported with transit taxes x 5,100 new OPT service hours x 8,400 new GoTriangle service hours • Bus Facility Projects Defined, Not Implemented • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project O Completed Project Development phase in February 2016 O Revised Locally Preferred Alternative to include extension to North Carolina Central University in December 2016 O Awaiting permission to enter Engineering phase • North-South BRT Project in Chapel Hill O Project scope extended south to Southern Village O Completed Alternatives Analysis phase in April 2016 O Authorized to enter Project Development in Nov 2016 • Hillsborough Train Station O 91% funded through State Transportation Improvement Program O NCDOT Rail Division leading environmental work Durham Plan Implementation • Bus Service O Over 41,000 revenue hours of bus service are funded x 24,350 new annual GoDurham service hours x 9,000+ pre-existing annual GoDurham service hours supported with transit taxes x 7,640 new annual GoTriangle service hours x 7,500+ additional annual County ACCESS demand-response trips • Vehicles O GoDurham has ordered 5 buses O GoTriangle has ordered 2 buses O County ACCESS has received 1 van • Bus Facility Projects Defined, Not Implemented • Durham-Orange Light Rail Project O Completed Project Development phase in February 2016 O Revised Locally Preferred Alternative to include extension to North Carolina Central University in December 2016 O Awaiting permission to enter Engineering phase • Wake-Durham Commuter Rail O Delayed from original plan due to delay in Wake County plan adoption O North Carolina Railroad conducted Capacity Study to evaluate 8-2-8-2 service O Planning to begin in spring 2017 consistent with Wake Plan Changes to Funding • Federal • State • Local 7 Federal Funding • 2012 Plan Assumptions O 80% Funding for Bus Vehicles and Facilities O 50% Funding for D-O-LRT and North-South BRT in each year that the costs are incurred • FTA Clarified $100 M Annual Reimbursement Cap • Laws Changed in 2012 and 2015 O MAP-21 (2012) ended discretionary grant programs for buses and facilities; retained New Starts/Small Starts grant programs O FAST Act (2015) authorized through 2020 State Funding • 2012 Plan Assumptions O 10% Funding for Bus Vehicles and Facilities O 25% Funding for D-O-LRT and North-South BRT • Laws Changed in 2014, 2015, and 2016 O 2014 Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) law created new project scoring system for funding decisions and capped transit funding at 10% of all funding O 2015 introduced a cap of$500K for light rail projects O 2016 replaced $500K cap with 10% project cap for rail projects Local Funding • Reduced State and Federal Funding Require Additional Commitment of Local Transit Taxes O FY16 tax revenues x $30.27 M in Durham / $8.06 M in Orange O Original Plans' sales tax growth forecasts x Durham Plan assumed 3.6% average x Orange Plan assumed 3.5% average O Moody's Base Case forecasts x 4.33% average in Durham County x 3.71% in Orange County • More Borrowing Against Anticipated Revenues O Grant Anticipation Notes to manage slower federal funds (repaid by grants) O Short-term Limited Obligation Bonds during D-O LRT construction O Long-term TIFIA loan drawn down during D-O LRT construction • D-O LRT Cost-Share Agreement O Current agreement executed in 2012 - 77.05% Durham /22.95% for project costs x Extension to North Carolina Central University in Durham x Change from 5 to 4 stations in Orange County through environmental process decision x Orange does not maintain a positive cash flow for Orange County O Re-negotiation of cost-share is ongoing; draft plan assumptions are starting point for discussion x 82% Durham / 18% Orange for project costs; 80% /20% for operating and maintenance costs Draft 2017 Plans 8 Key draft plan assumptions Preliminary Cost-Share in Draft Plans - chart D-O LRT Project Cost Updates D-O LRT Project Cost Draft 2017 Plans Funding projects & services Funding Orange Projects and Services • Fund original service expansion levels O Additional 7,200 hours of new CHT service O Additional 1,200 hours of new GoTriangle service O Additional 2,200 hours of new OPT service • Increase local funding for Vehicles and Bus Facilities O 2012 Plan had $669 K in local funding for $6.7 M in projects O Draft Plan has $5.4 M in local funding for $10.0 M in projects • Increase local funding for D-O LRT O 2012 Plan had combined local funding of$405.7 M; Orange share of$104.6 M O Draft Plan has combined local funding commitment of$906 M; starting assumption Orange share of$163.1 M • Maintain original funding level for MLK Bus Lanes / North-South BRT O $6.1 M commitment is retained; through Project Development, Chapel Hill will pursue other options for other state and local revenues • Maintain funding level for Hillsborough Train Station Funding Durham Projects and Services • Fund original service expansion levels O Continuation of expanded levels of GoDurham service O Additional 7,700 hours of new GoTriangle service O Continuation of expanded levels of County demand-response service • Increase local funding for Vehicles and Bus Facilities O 2012 Plan had $1.5 M in local funding for $15 M in projects O Draft Plan has $11 M in local funding for $19 M in projects x Funding Durham Projects and Services • Increase local funding for D-O LRT O 2012 Plan had combined local funding of$405.7 M; Durham share of$301.1 M O Draft Plan has combined local funding commitment of$906M; starting assumption Durham share of$742.9 M • Funding for Wake-Durham Commuter Rail planning is included for FY2018 O Future Plan updates will specify Durham's share of commitments to complete the project Draft 2017 Plans Projected cash flow results — graph 9 Cash Balances — graph Cash Balances — graph Cash Balances — graph Cash Balances — graph Revenue vs. Debt Service — graph Net Coverage Ratios — graph Local Share of Capital Cost— graph Draft 2017 Plans Meeting Additional needs Identifying Additional Orange Needs • Growing service levels at rate of job growth O Connecting services to light rail stations in 2029 • Expanding transit fleet with service levels • Continuing to improve or expand facilities • Fully funding North-South BRT Meeting Additional Orange Needs • Short-range transit planning to prioritize services and facilities • 30,000 —45,000 "Rail Dividend" service hours to redeploy in 2029 • $1.05 M minimum cash balance in 2030 Identifying Additional Durham Needs • Growing service levels at rate of job growth O Connecting services to light rail stations in 2029 O Addressing travel demands to intensifying downtown • Expanding transit fleet with service levels • Continuing to improve or expand facilities • Wake-Durham Commuter Rail Meeting Additional Durham Needs • Short-range transit planning to prioritize services and facilities • 12,000 — 35,000 "Rail Dividend" service hours to redeploy in 2029 • $7.1 M minimum cash balance in 2027 Exploring Affordability of CRT— chart Wake-Durham Commuter Rail - graph Draft 2017 Plans 10 Mitigating risks Identified Risks • Cost Overruns • Federal Funding Availability and Schedule • State Funding Availability and Schedule • Sales Tax Growth Assumptions Mitigating Risks • 30% contingency • Modeled impacts of Moody's lower growth forecast • Value engineering and cost-cutting identified • Pursuing land donations and private contributions • Building in process through cost-share agreement of quarterly reports to Parties, and coming together if risks materialize to decide on course of action 2017 Draft Plans Ongoing implementation activities Ongoing Implementation Activities • Regular Meetings of Staff Working Group • Multi-Year Operating and Capital Improvement Programs updated annually • Annual Budgets • D-O LRT Cost Sharing Agreement • Other Project-Specific Agreements • Periodic Updates to County Transit Plan 2017 Draft Plans Public comment period Public Comment Period • Draft Plans to be released on March 30 for 21-Day Period • 2 Public Information Sessions for each Plan • Presentations to all local governments • Public hearings held by each county and DCHC • Staff Working Groups submit final plans to Boards on April 21 for consideration Commissioner McKee said in December he asked when this project would reach $3 billion, and it is now at $3.3 billion. He said he now wonders when the project will reach $4 billion. John Tallmadge said the financial plan will not sustain that amount. Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, said the estimates in December went through 2045, and this current plan is through 2062. Commissioner McKee said he asked the original question after the discussion on Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the holder of the debt could be identified. John Tallmadge said GoTriangle issues all debt, and is responsible for repayment of the debt through the dedicated transit revenues. He said the counties do not incur the debt. 11 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the short-range transit planning, and asked if Orange County will be invited to participate with GoTriangle and Chapel Hill. John Talmadge said discussions are underway, and he did not want to make a commitment of Orange County's participation. He said Orange County staff can be included. Commissioner McKee referred to the question of debt, and said the Davenport staff was clear that counties could choose to pick up more obligations for debt, or be required to do so. Mindy Taylor, GoTriangle Senior Financial Analyst, said all of the debt that is issued is the responsibility of GoTriangle, and there is no requirement for counties to repay the debt unless the counties choose to enter into an agreement. Commissioner McKee said what happens if the assets backing the debt are insufficient. Mindy Taylor said the debt would be a general fund obligation of GoTriangle, and it could be repaid with any revenue that is legally available to GoTriangle. She said one of the benefits of the program that GoTriangle is using for its long-term issuance, the TIFIA program, is that there are lots of options for refinancing. She said there is a lot of flexibility built into the program. Commissioner McKee said that is not the same answer that Davenport told the BOCC a couple of weeks ago. Commissioner Price clarified that GoTriangle incurs the debt and is responsible for paying it. She asked if the counties' taxes pay GoTriangle. Mindy Taylor said those revenues are issued directly to GoTriangle by the State, as the sales tax monies were approved through a referendum. She said the funds are collected in the counties. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ken Larsen provided a summary chart in a hand out, and on the screen, of 74 members of the public speaking on light rail in the last months. He said of these speakers 70% were against the plan, and 30% were for it; but all wanted a comprehensive transit plan for Orange County. He said those who are against the light rail are concerned about the costs, and that it will not solve the traffic issues. He said those who are in favor of light rail are not worried about the costs, see growth as good, and want dense urban development along the route. Maria DeBruyn provided a hand out, which she reviewed. She favors a comprehensive transit plan that will serve all residents in, and all areas of, Orange County. She said she does not see how LRT can achieve this, as it is expensive and limited in its reach. John Hammond thanked the BOCC for their time, and provided a hand out. He said he has lived here for several decades, and he fully supports the DO-LRT. He encouraged the BOCC to be visionaries. Jim Parker said he is a native North Carolinian, an Orange County resident and business owner. He said his business in Hillsborough understands the transportation industry, and is an integral part of improving the transportation infrastructure in the state. He said his business supports the light rail. He said as a resident he has concerns that tax dollars not be wasted on funding initiatives that would not be aligned with the goal of the taxes. He said he would want to make sure that economic dollars are spent on direct economic growth. He said he looks to the BOCC to govern those plans, and as a resident he supports light rail. Sue Hunter thanked the BOCC for its work on this project, and asked it for its continued support for light rail. She said she attended many light rail planning meetings 10 years ago, and voted for the transit tax in 2012. She lives in Chapel Hill and commutes to work at Duke, 12 the largest employer in Durham County. She currently alternates between driving to work and taking the 405 bus, depending on her schedule. She works in clinical research and is required to meet regularly with faculty and students. She said working from home is not an option for her, just as it is not for any of the clinicians working in the two large health systems in Orange and Durham counties. Sue Hunter said the data fully supports the proposed light rail path, connecting people to the largest employers in these two counties, as well as three large local universities. She said Wake County, Durham County, UNC and Duke all support commuter rail, and Orange County is the lone outlier. She said she has supported this project for 10 years, and wants to see the light rail built. She strongly encourages the BOCC to continue to work with Durham County to negotiate down Orange County's portion of the light rail cost, and to develop a cost sharing agreement for cost overruns. She said the majority of the voters approved the transit tax and there is the money to do this. She asked the BOCC to live up to its commitments, as well as the vote of its constituents, and continue to support this project. Matt Fajack said he is Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration at the University of North Carolina (UNC), and a resident of Orange County. He said UNC supports the light rail project, and is a partner in Chapel Hill transit. He said this plan is about the next 30 years and beyond, and they need to keep the vision alive in light of the risks that they will overcome. Karen McCall is the Chief Communications Director at UNC Healthcare, which supports light rail and rapid bus transit. Bernadette Pelissier said she wanted to speak on a shared community value: affordability. She said transportation plays a huge part in affordability, and decreasing the cost of transportation can increase affordability. She said public transportation is significantly cheaper than car ownership. David Neal reviewed the following email statement: I am a resident of Hillsborough and I have no plans to regularly commute from Chapel Hill to Durham. Nevertheless, I support public investments in a multi-modal transit plan that can meet the transportation needs of some our most densely traveled and congested roadways. The Durham-Orange Light Rail is a key facet of that plan and deserves your continued support. Consistent with the County's commitment to sustainability in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Board of Commissioners have long shown support for the transit plan, including the Durham-Orange Light Rail. When I served on the Orange County Commission for the Environment, we voted unanimously in 2012 to support putting the sales tax referendum in support of public transportation on the ballot. Voters likewise endorsed the plan, passing the additional tax to support light rail, more bus service, and a Hillsborough train station by an overwhelming 59-41 margin. The issue of light rail was squarely before the voters, and they endorsed this central component of the plan by a wide margin. The Commission for the Environment reaffirmed the importance of alternative transportation in our 2014 State of the Environment report, listing the following as a top sustainability priority for the County: We need to do more to improve our air quality, chiefly by making changes that result in less reliance on cars. Locally, this can be achieved by: (1) increased availability and use of transit alternatives, including bus, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways; and (2) town and county planning that fosters denser, walkable communities, reduces sprawl, and allows the clustering of development in urban buffers. 13 Light Rail is a key ingredient in making all of those priorities happen. Unfortunately, some of the organized opposition to the light rail project is using figures that have the effect of misleading the public. There has been a tendency by light rail opponents to conflate different accounting methods with different price tags for the project. The biggest changes in the project cost for Orange County have come from the General Assembly's decision to cap state funding for the project, which have resulted in an increased local share and higher financing costs. The other increases in the actual cost for the project mostly come from joint development projects and the new stop at NC Central University. But the numbers presented recently by GoTriangle account for the project in year of expenditure dollars, not the 2011 dollars that were discussed around the time of the referendum. Much of the opposition believes that it would be easy to find alternatives to the light rail project that would be just as effective and cost a mere fraction of the price of the light rail. As you know, infrastructure projects are complex. The light rail project has cleared significant milestones over the years that place it on track to serve our region in about a decade. Any new alternative would have to start over and would have to undergo engineering, financial, and environmental reviews that the light rail project has completed. Thank you for your thoughtful approach to this complex issue. I hope you will support the transit plan, including the Durham-Orange Light Rail. Tom Farmer provided a hand out. He said he is a Chapel Hill resident and came to live here, in part, for the easy public transportation. He said easy transportation attracts residents and jobs. He said he supports the transit plan and the LRT as it benefits residents, the environment, and the economy. Desiree Goldman said she is against light rail. She said believes in public transit philosophically, but she is a pragmatist and the cost of the LRT is the problem. She said 16.5% cost share may not cover the overruns. She said this light rail is great for Durham, UNC and Duke, but they do not pay taxes. She said there will probably be very little affordable housing on this route, and this plan will continue to increase the rural-urban political divide in the County. She asked if the Board has a contingency plan if Orange County loses all of their impact fees, and the state makes them merge the school districts. She said Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would make the County more adaptable. Josh Mayo said he is a senior at UNC and a lifelong resident of Orange County, and he supports light rail and more buses. Matt Bailey said he is an Orange County resident, and he supports light rail. Jason Baker said he supports light rail, and asked the Board to continue to support the light rail. He said he works in Raleigh, and rides the GoTriangle CRX bus each day. He said transit is an investment. Brenda McCall reviewed the following email comments: I am a volunteer on behalf of SALT/Project Engage and OCRA. In addition to visiting homebound rural seniors, we refer our clients and others to the volunteer driver program operated by Orange County Department on Aging. We have about 15 drivers who help seniors get to medical appointments and errands in Orange and surrounding counties. We cannot meet the demand. It's disheartening for the many volunteers who work tirelessly to support our transit dependent communities, and then see a $3.3 billion transportation plan that offers no help to us. When we noticed that Wake issued a transit plan that included demand services to rural seniors and 14 disabled residents, we were even more disappointed. How could you approve a plan with billions of dollars for light rail without any funds for demand services for seniors? It's not just us. Over the last few months, you've heard from groups all over the county who need better transportation. The Northern Orange NAACP, Fathers on the Move, the Grange, Efland Habitat communities and others told you that we need better bus service — not just between UNC and Durham — but from Northern Orange to Mebane, Durham, RTP and Wake. And not just a couple of buses — but service at night and on weekends- so our many service employees can get to work. We're not asking for a lot— but it's hard to see billions going to light rail when we don't have basic bus service in most of the county. Please do not approve this plan. Peter Calingaert reviewed the following comments: The standard benchmark of interest rates in the United States is the 10-year Treasury note. Its yield this afternoon was 2.18%. Local entities of course have to borrow at a higher rate. From now to 2062 is 45 years. During the most recent 45 years, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen as low as 1.37% and soared as high as 15.84%. I urge the Board to critically evaluate Davenport's interest-rate assumptions and — even more important—to obtain a sensitivity analysis (very easy to perform) that reports for each increase of one percent in their assumed rates, by how much more money the estimated nine hundred million dollar financing cost will further rise. Add interest-rate risk to the list of project risks. I also call the Board's attention to Davenport's use of ten significant figures in stating a total dollar cost of 3 billion, 302 million, 320 thousand. This is greater precision than one part in a billion. Please do not allow this presumptuous display of precision lull you into thinking that the estimate has anywhere near that degree of accuracy. When I moved to Chapel Hill 48 years ago, I came from a job to which I commuted happily by rail. As a 26-year member of the Sierra Club, I have long favored public transportation in general and light rail in particular. I voted for the transportation bond. But I am fully convinced that the paltry contribution that this particular light rail project might make to the citizens of Orange County is not worth its large, growing, and increasingly uncertain cost. Melissa McCullough provided a hand out, and said she is representing herself and the Sierra Club in support of the LRT. Kimberly Brewer said she is an Orange County resident, and respects that people fall on all sides of this issue. She said she does not support light rail because of the costs; its limited scope of service; and due to the fact that things have changed since the referendum. She said the transit plan will either accomplish LRT or BRT, but not both. She said buses will serve more people and employers at a lower cost, and she sees it as the wise decision. Dory McMillan is a senior at UNC, and works at Community Empowerment Fund. She supports light rail, as access to public transportation is a critical need for empowering people out of poverty. Joan Guilkey said she is against light rail. She said she is greatly in favor of a comprehensive transit system. She said she voted for the transit tax in 2012, but cannot support LRT as it will take all available funds for transportation, while serving only a small portion of the community. She said the plan is too risky. Bonnie Hauser said in 2012, 40,000 additional bus hours were promised, but the current plan does not reflect this. She said the current plan is slower and more expensive. She said 15 GoTriangle found over $1 billion to fund LRT, but failed to find $30 million to fund the north- south BRT. She said the new plan adds additional debt, putting the County at risk in many areas, and when the LRT is completed most people will still need cars. She implored the Commissioners to say no to LRT, and to create a better plan. Del Snow said she is against light rail. She said every single developer of dense housing, in the focus areas, built there based on the promise of connectivity through extensive bus service. She said those who moved into these properties on the MLK transit corridor did so based on the promise of comprehensive BRT. She said the BRT corridor provides the spectrum of diversity needed along a transit line, and is within the walk radius of at least six mobile home parks, two subsidized housing developments, middle class neighborhoods, luxury apartments, shopping, student housing, etc. She supports stopping the LRT, and exclusively pursuing the BRT. Julie McClintock said she supported the original light rail project years ago. She said this is a momentous decision before the Board that could tie up significant Country resources for years to come. She reviewed the following comments: I am Julie McClintock and I've lived in Chapel Hill since 1970. I served on the Chapel Hill Town Council for 12 years. I supported this rail project when it ran between Raleigh, RTP, Durham and Chapel Hill. The plan made sense then! The burden is on this body to ask questions and understand the consequences of the proposed plan. Orange County did not prepare the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or the GoTriangle Plan, therefore you need to test the conclusions. We've heard many claims and counter claims about the light rail benefits and detriments. What does the very substantial GoTriangle EIS conclude about the issues now debated? I've based my summary on a detailed review by John Morris, which I've entered into the record. • Energy Use: The EIS concludes there is less than a one tenth of one percent reduction, a meaningless number. So if the EIS is correct, it will take 37 years for the tiny annual energy savings to total the energy used for construction of the project. • Air Quality: The EIS provides no basis to claim that light rail will improve air quality. There are no data, calculations, or modeling related to significant air quality parameters in the region or in the rail corridor. Note: there is nothing about this plan that promotes smart growth; the proposal encourages linear growth line strung out over forests, wetlands near a water supply watershed. • Traffic Congestion: The EIS does not present any evidence that light rail will reduce traffic congestion on major regional roads including 15-501 or any other thoroughfare. • Affordable Housing: Light rail will create a powerful economic force that threatens affordable housing near the project route. "Gentrification, and more specifically a reduction in affordable housing, is a potential effect of the project because of likely upward pressure on land values and commercial rents that may occur in station areas." Quote from EIS 16 When GoTriangle's consultant met with the Chapel Hill Town Council, a council member asked about affordable housing around the Orange County stations. The Consultant replied that land values would rise, and it would take substantial town and county investment to bring affordable housing near the rail line. Other speakers have demonstrated that light rail does not serve our transit needs, and that the huge cost puts our county at financial risk. In conclusion this EIS credits no environmental benefits to this project. Why are we spending all this money on light rail when we could be funding a fantastic system of electric buses and BRT up and down our major corridors for a fraction of the cost? She asked if the following document could be placed into the public record: What does the Durham-Orange Light Rail Environmental Impact Study Say? John Morris Many claims and counter claims about the DOLRT benefits and detriments are flying about. What does the very substantial GoTriangle Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conclude about the issues that are being debated? Energy Use The EIS estimates annual transportation energy use in the Triangle region, including cars and all forms of public transit, both for the no build alternative (no light rail) and with light rail in operation. Light rail is estimated to reduce annual transportation energy consumption by 83 billion British Thermal Units. This sounds like a lot, but it is less than a one tenth of one percent reduction. For such a long range and complex estimate, this is insignificant and meaningless. The EIS also estimated indirect energy consumption, the amount of energy used to manufacture materials and construct the light rail system. This indirect use amounts to 37 times the estimated annual energy conservation. So if the EIS is correct, it will take 37 years for the tiny annual energy savings to total the energy used for construction of the project. Air Quality The light rail project will have over 40 at grade street crossings, which will leave cars stopped and idling while the trains pass. There is a special federal requirement to estimate any increase in carbon emissions, which could contribute to climate change. The EIS studied several intersections and determined that carbon monoxide concentrations would not change at these locations. Other than this one issue specific to several intersections, the EIS contains no data, calculations, or modeling related to significant air quality parameters in the region or in the rail corridor. The EIS provides no basis to claim that light rail will improve air quality. Traffic Congestion The many at grade crossings will hold up traffic many times a day. The EIS studied a number of intersections near the track to see how the level of service ratings would be affected. In a number of cases the LOS goes down a grade or so, say from C to D. 17 Beyond the limited issue of the effects of at grade crossings, however, the EIS does not address what quantitative effect light rail will have on major regional roads. Would the light rail project reduce congestion on 15-501 between Chapel Hill and Durham? This road would presumably be the most likely to benefit. But the EIS provides no information to support congestion relief on 15-501 or any other thoroughfare. Affordable Housing The EIS addresses affordable housing under the topic of environmental justice. The conclusion is: "Gentrification, and more specifically a reduction in affordable housing, is a potential effect of the project because of likely upward pressure on land values and commercial rents that may occur in station areas." Light rail will create a powerful economic force that threatens affordable housing near the project route. To even partially overcome this force and assure some availability of affordable housing will take strong, sustained, and expensive local government action. Alternatives Evaluated The EIS evaluates only two alternatives, the recommended DOLRT plan and a "no build" alternative. The no build alternative includes existing and planned transit services proposed to exist in 2040 and included in the Metropolitan Transit Plan, but not the DOLRT. The no build alternative does not include any major transit investment in the Durham-Orange corridor. Regrettably, projects such as bus rapid transit with dedicated travel lanes and expanded bus service were eliminated from this evaluation. Bus rapid transit with dedicated travel lanes can be built for a median cost of about one third the cost of light rail, according to the EIS. GoTriangle should have compared the light rail plan with a plan using BRT and buses to serve many more Orange County residents than the light rail line. Such a plan could be built more quickly and at less cost, with more flexibility to respond to emerging needs and growth patterns. Sheila Creth said this plan is not finished, and she is concerned that they are not being given enough time for public input. She said she voted for the transit tax for transit, but not for light rail. She said three of the stations are on the UNC property, and no one pays taxes on this property. She said she is against light rail. Katy Lang said she is a car-free resident of Orange County and has lived without a car since 2010. She said she walks and takes the bus (GoTriangle routes 400, 405, 800, and Chapel Hill Transit routes J, D, NU/NS) almost everywhere she needs to go: work, social activities, community meetings, exercise classes, and errands. She said she supports the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project. She said she is grateful that Orange County voted yes for transit in 2012, and that they are already seeing the bus service improvements provided for in the Bus and Rail Investment Plans — especially nighttime and Sunday service. She said one of the misunderstandings about the DO-LRT project is that it will "take all the transit money" away from bus to light rail, and that is not only untrue but misconstrues the benefits residents are already experiencing and will continue to experience as bus improvements are made. She said an integrated mass transit system must incorporate multiple modes — including bus and light rail —for the greatest connectivity and mobility. She said doing nothing/the status quo is not a viable solution for our growing region, and right now, our bus systems are adequate but not sustainable for our future growth. She said a fixed-route 18 transit line like the light rail has the unique opportunity to position and direct development investment along its length, mitigating sprawl and providing denser land uses where they are most needed: job centers, schools, hospitals, and denser residential. She said this enables transit riders like herself to get around more efficiently. Molly DeMarco said she is in support of light rail and BRT, and this plan will help people move around the County better. She said the light rail location is in the right spot as it serves people, not the land. She said it is a benefit for so many, and if the BOCC walks away from this plan, the federal money will go away, and starting from scratch will take years. She urged the BOCC to vote in favor of this plan. John Morris said the idea of light rail has drawn support, but it is important to understand how drastically the plan has changed, and how the costs have increased. He said GoTriangle has had to perform financial acrobats to make this plan feasible. He said the Davenport analysis has told them that this will put the County's credit rating and general fund budget at risk. He said the President has proposed a cease in additional funding for new starts, like the LRT. He said cities all over the country are concerned about this, and the BOCC should be worried too. He said the State continues to reduce or restrict funding for projects like the LRT, and he doubts the State will provide the 10% that is currently promised. He encouraged the BOCC to say no to LRT, and to create a better transit plan for the County. Matt Clark is from Durham, and he got in a traffic jam on his way to tonight's meeting. He said he was able to think about the roads while sitting in traffic. He said this area has world-class universities, healthcare at its best, and communities working at their best. He said this project is more than their transit future, but a foundation for the future of education, affordable housing, etc. He said these are values that everyone shares. He said barriers and fears do not need to separate them from the shared responsibility to build the best future possible. Alison Stuebe read the following comments: Good evening. I would like to thank the commissioners for their patience and stamina in hearing from our community tonight. My name is Alison Stuebe, and I am a physician living in Meadowmont. I am speaking tonight to support the Durham-Orange Light Rail. I've been a regular bus-rider for the past 5 years, loading my bike on the front of Chapel Hill Transit Buses and, when the weather is fair, riding home on the downhill side of Raleigh Road. I support light rail because it will improve my commute, offering shorter headways and bypassing the traffic that snarls buses and cars Eastbound on 54 at rush hour. I also support light rail on behalf of my neighbor, who commutes from Meadowmont to Duke every day by bus. She could not be here tonight because she does not have a car. I support light rail as a mother - I have three boys, and my eldest just got his learner's permit. I will breathe easier when my sons can navigate the Triangle via a backbone of light rail supporting a vibrant bus network. I support light rail as a physician. I care for low income pregnant women, who rely on infrequent midday bus service to access care at UNC Hospital. Regular, efficient light rail, intersecting with bus routes, will connect my patients with specialty care. I support light rail for the future of development in Durham and Orange Countries. We moved to Chapel Hill from the streetcar suburb of Brookline, Massachusetts, a testament to the power 19 of light rail to foster walkable neighborhoods and business districts, while protecting open spaces from sprawl. Light rail will concentrate development along the rail corridor, while preserving the rural buffers that we know and love. Lastly, I support light rail for the health and wellbeing of all Orange County residents. According to a 2013 MIT study, automobile exhaust causes 58,000 premature deaths each year in the United States. Air pollution worsens asthma and cardiovascular disease, and these conditions disproportionately affect rural residents: 10% of rural residents in the Piedmont have asthma, compared with 6.6% of suburban residents. More travel by light rail means fewer vehicles on the road and less pollution in the air, improving health for every resident of Orange County. Commissioners, this month we face a crossroads. We can move forward on a visionary plan that has emerged out of nearly a decade of analysis and public hearings, or we can turn down a billion dollars in federal funding and start from scratch. I urge you to vote yes on Durham Orange Light Rail. Thank you. Harold Gordon said he is a retired registered engineer, with 54 years of experience. He said he received and reviewed two documents last week from GoTriangle. He said the project costs come from utility relocation, hazardous materials identification and removal, etc. He sent questions to GoTriangle, but has yet to receive a response. He said there are a lot of areas in the plan where the dollars are insufficient, and he is worried about start-up costs and safety. He said he is in complete opposition to the LRT project. Commissioner McKee said he would like to request that GoTriangle copy the BOCC on its answers to Mr. Gordon's questions. Molly McConnell said she has lived in Orange County for 47 years, is a public servant, and a child advocate. She said the current transit plan does not serve the whole community, and she does not support light rail. She said there are too many other greater needs in Orange County. Phil Earnhardt said Denver was in the same place as Orange County 20 years ago. He said Denver's plan was analyzed in 2013, and he urged the BOCC to look at this analysis. He said this plan has had huge expansions, and this is likely to continue. He urged the BOCC to see the failures from Denver and Dallas, and noted that facts are stubborn things. He said he cannot see a way for Orange County to avoid similar failures. He advocated that the BOCC stop this project now. Vijay Sivaraman said he is a Carrboro resident, a parent, and a professor at NCCU. For these reasons, he fully supports the Transit plan and believes the County should forward their commitment as well. As an academic, he appreciates data. As a result, he stands behind TTA's data acquisition and reporting, that demonstrates that 58% are minorities, 70% are ages 44 or below and 95% are employed or students within our community, training to soon contribute to our growing economy. The transit plan (yes with Light Rail) has been a constant discussion point for many years and is the closest to implementation as it has ever been. He sees this as something students can use to efficiently take courses between our hallowed Academic institutions; residents can safely attend sporting events and go to work in a regular and dependable manner not depending on whims of car congestion. He said he is a biologist: he said he sees our cities as connected veins of narrow roadways that can barely support the flow rate of our automotive traffic. Increases will likely lead to occlusion that stop access to work and negatively impact our economy and lifestyle. The population growth within Orange and Durham counties are staggering, and this must be supported by systems to move 20 people around efficiently. The Transit plan will provide a major step towards improving this. Finally: it is well known that properties around transit stations will be increase and value and will prosper for small businesses. Both Chapel Hill and Durham will enjoy these increases, which we can all get behind. Let us please not be bullied by bogymen like unknown increasing costs and or irrational fears of one city benefiting more than the other. Let's move forward with this plan. Thank you! Aaron Nelson said he is the president of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. He said their Board of Directors (BOD) voted to support the transit tax in 2012 and has continued to do so. He said in this past year, the BOD has been concerned about the costs, and did some research. He said after conducting this research, the BOD is still in full support of the plan and the north-south corridor, contingent on the fact that Orange County's portion of capital costs does not exceed 18%. He said there are risks, but they are worth it. Kristen Smith is a chamber employee, and they support the plan. She reviewed a summary of their Board's comments. Kenneth Parker said he is a transit ambassador working in Carrboro. He spoke to the importance of public transit in everyone's life. He said he supports public transit in any and all forms. Allen Spalt said he and his wife are here to support the light rail and BRT. He said congestion is here, and it will only get worse. He said if the BOCC waits, the costs will escalate. He said this is the start of a regional plan. William Charles said Orange County has been a victim of hippie thinking. He said this light rail plan is an abuse of all Orange County taxpayers for the next 45 years, starving the County of funds for all other services. He said the solution will be to raise people's taxes. He said he will raise funds to support people who run against those Commissioners who vote for this plan. He encouraged the BOCC to support a more effective plan. Lisa Kaylie said she agreed with the comments made by Desiree Goldman, and she is against light rail. She said she also agreed with Bonnie Hauser, and said her main concern is the costs. She said $3.3 billion will be spent, and most residents will still be stuck in their cars lacking affordable transportation. Keagan Sacripanti is a grad student at UNC, and said he is in support of the light rail. Jamezetta Bedford said she sent the Board an article from the Journal of Accountancy yesterday, called The Importance of Killing Projects. She said it is important that government pays attention to exit strategies, and when too much is too much. She said Davenport referred to the importance of exit points throughout their presentation a few weeks ago. She said if the Board moves forward with the LRT, it must start thinking of exit strategies based on a dollar maximum for cost overruns, not a percent. She said as a Certified Public Accountant she believes the County can no longer afford the current plan for light rail. She said UNC Hospitals are a very important resource to this state, and the state needs to fund options to get their employees to and from work there. She suggested waiting four years to see if the Democrats can take back the house and the federal government, thus leading to increased state funding. She said, in the mean time, to use the sales tax to acquire land and develop transit that benefits all of Orange County. Chair Dorosin said to take a 3-minute break at 9:55 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:59 p.m. James Bondurant said he is a student at UNC-Chapel Hill, and he is in support of light rail. 21 David King said he is representing a group, convened six months ago by GoTriangle, called The Funding and Community Collaborative. He said this group was made up of both the public and private sector, representing medicine, the universities, businesses, etc. He gave a letter to the Board from the private sector members of the group, expressing complete support for the LRT. He said this group met on April 7th, and made a commitment to raise $100 million for light rail project from the private sector, if the project gets into the engineering phase. He said he hopes this commitment inspires confidence. He said since the vote in 2012, nothing has really happened to change the equation of funding for the 15-501 corridor. He said these projects take a long time to complete, and he commended the BOCC for its stamina. Linda Haac said she was a proponent of light rail 33 years ago, but finds that this route fails to serve most of Orange County. She has seen data as a member of the Carrboro transportation board, and public transportation may slow the amount of cars, but it will not stop them. She said the plan does mainly benefit the UNC Medical Center, Duke, etc. She said the main concern is the fiduciary responsibilities of the BOCC as the elected body of Orange County. She said the business plan from GoTriangle makes her question them as a partner. David Carpenter said he is against light rail, and the debt that will be incurred. He said to imagine what could be accomplished by investing $3.3 billion into other elements of the County. Heather Brutz reviewed the following email: Public transportation has always been important in my life. When I was a child living in Cleveland, OH, my mom and I were supported by my father's minimum wage income. The cars we owned were unreliable and I often had to take the bus with my mom to do errands. I started working when I was 14 and only applied to jobs that I could walk, bike, or take the bus to. Access to transit was literally the difference between employment and unemployment for me. When I moved to Chapel Hill for grad school, my boyfriend (now husband) moved here with me. He had recently gotten his undergrad degree and was looking for work. As often happens when you don't have experience, he had trouble finding work in his field and ended up working part-time jobs to help make ends meet. This was tough but manageable until our only car broke down. With neither one of us employed full-time, we could not afford to buy a new car. So he had to search for new part-time work in areas that was transit-accessible to Chapel Hill until he found full-time employment and could afford a car. This was very limiting. One of the part-time jobs he found was in downtown Durham, where the proposed light rail will eventually go. It takes well over an hour to get there by bus and if my husband worked a late shift and missed the last bus, it was an expensive cab ride home. Eventually, he was able to find a full- time job but that was a stressful time in our lives. Lack of access to transportation is a major barrier to getting out of poverty. The proposed light rail and improvements in bus service in the transit plan will help connect people to jobs. Rachel Willis said she supports light rail. Ally Clonch said she is a grad student at UNC, and is in support of light rail. Edmund Tiryakian said he comes to praise light rail, not to bury it, and said this concept's wisdom may shine eventually, but its many shortcomings confront us now. He said the LRT will not serve the entire County. He said he does not trust the word of GoTriangle, and he is not in support of this light rail plan. Gary Saunders said he won the Golden Ticket award for riding buses. He said he brings 40 years of experience with environmental engineering, and has been a transit user 22 since 2005. He said he grew up in northern Virginia, and watched the building of metro system, which faced as many critics as the LRT project. He asked if the financial plan is a reasonable approach for the future, and he said yes it is. He encouraged the BOCC to vote in favor of LRT. Alex Cabanes reviewed the following comments: In November 2016, Jeff Mann was asking Orange and Durham County Commissioners for more funding to close the DOLRT gap before the end of 2016. In Orange County, specifically for - $40 million over 10 years. Then in January 2017, GoTriangle came back with the "Christmas Surprise" and said GoTriangle was able to fund the now $2.5 BILLION DOLRT project Then we discovered that there was an additional $1 BILLION in interest payments that GoTriangle had failed to disclose earlier.... and that 'omission' was only discovered by the independent Davenport consultants retained by the Orange County Commissioners. Thank you for doing some additional due diligence on the financials (but it does raise the question as to what other 'omissions' or assumptions on ridership, etc we are not seeing). That is $1 BILLION that would go to bankers to finance this project (not for actual public transit). So here we sit, staring at a project cost of$3.3 BILLION (including interest payments out to 2062) ... and GoTriangle has yet to break ground! Let's put that in perspective: Orange County will pay approximately $325 million what was expected from the state of North Carolina in 2011 ... and that assumes all goes according to 'plan' (which the last 5 years have demonstrated that the costs seem to only go in one direction, UP). Unfortunately the DO-LRT math just doesn't add up, despite what many last night may wish. Never has, never will. The cash flow analysis by Davenport under the Moody's 'pessimistic' scenario @ 3.59% shows negative cash flows for Orange County starting in 2027 in perpetuity (even with the renegotiated 18/82 cost sharing split between Orange & Durham). And that Moody's 'pessimistic' scenario is projecting growth faster than the national 2% GDP. And that Moody's 'pessimistic' scenario has no recession for the next 45 years. Recessions typically happen - 7 years on average where the growth actually goes NEGATIVE for multiple quarters (and we are long overdue). You remember Moody's Investment, right? The same Wall Street firm that rated junk mortgages as 'investment grade' that precipitated the whole financial crisis. The same firm that predicted Hillary Clinton's landslide Presidential win. Yeah, those guys! So, let's PLEASE move beyond the DO-LRT propaganda. The issue before you is NOT about the LRT technology. It's about the emerging fiscal realities and unsustainable finances of the ever increasing costs of this project ... and all of the other options that we will be sacrificed by committing to this single, multi-decade project. We need cost-effective and affordable public transit suitable for our region. We need an Affordable Transit Plan for ALL. Thank you for your patience, stamina and continued service 23 Bob Reeber said he is a retired engineer, and he said there are existing train tracks that could be used to connect towns. He said he is against LRT, and said the cost estimates are only going to increase. Robert David thanked the BOCC for its stamina and commitment to hearing the public on this issue. He said he has spoken on this topic before, and continues to believe that the costs of the LRT are too high; the LRT will serve too few; the LRT will take funds from other County needs; the LRT will put the County in financial risk; and GoTriangle is not fit to manage this project. He said the BOCC should look at the problems incurred in other cities that have installed LRT. He said the LRT stops are all on UNC property, and does not benefit enough of the County. He said he questions whether ridership will be high enough to displace traffic. He is not in support of LRT Cheryl Hardman said she is against light rail. Rosemarie Wenzel said she is against light rail, and a major increase in property taxes. David Schwartz said he is against the light rail project. He said all transportation options need to be considered, and weighed carefully against each other. He said there is a lot of money at stake, and that it was wise to hire Davenport to do an independent financial analysis. He encouraged the BOCC to do an independent cost benefit analysis of the various public transit systems, which Orange County might pursue. He said decisions should not be rushed, even by the lure of federal dollars. He said the entire local business community is not behind this project, and there are many people who are typically on opposite sides of arguments that are standing together against the LRT. Michael Wandroup said the LRT is not going to serve all of Orange County, but it is part of an integrated system, which can ultimately be expanded in multiple directions. He said the BOCC has the opportunity to tie land with major employment centers, and he encouraged the BOCC to proceed with LRT. Terry Vance said she is against the LRT project. She said it is important to look at this project realistically. She said the costs have skyrocketed, and the project will serve very few. She said the debt will not be paid off until 2062, and the average cost overruns on light rail worldwide are 45%. She said it is unrealistic to think that affordable housing will increase near LRT stations, and it is unrealistic to think that there can be LRT and BRT. She said the LRT will take all the available funds for transportation. She said there are so many environmentally sound ways to have bus transit: solar, electric, etc. Diane Robertson said she is against light rail. She highlighted several examples where cost estimates were higher than expected. Maria Palmer said she is in support of light rail. She said leadership involves risks, and LRT is worth the risk. Joe Phelps said he is against this light rail plan. He said this area has limited growth, due to water availability. He suggested that job security may be one of GoTriangle's motivating factors. Sam Gharbo said he is against light rail. He reviewed the significant costs of the projects for each citizen of Orange County, and said the County is simply not growing at a significant rate. He said Orange County growth is far behind Durham, and significantly behind Wake County. He said to proceed with the LRT would be stupid, and the County knows better. Ramona McGee said she is speaking as a citizen, and she is for the light rail. She has used transit, and she wants more transit. She said the greatest concern seems to be the cost of the LRT, but she said these plans include a 30% contingency to address cost overruns. She said bus service will be freed up by the LRT. She said GoTriangle has completed a mitigation 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 Environmental Law Center, where she works on transportation projects throughout the State. She said their primary aim in supporting this project is about land use. She said the LRT will not put an end to congestion, but it is essential in guiding land use, and how the region grows. She said guiding land use provides benefits to greenhouse gas emissions, to air quality, to water quality, etc. Tana Hartman Thorn is a resident of rural Orange County, and an outspoken progressive. She encouraged the BOCC to behave wisely and conservatively on this project. She asked the Board if it is comfortable bequeathing the LRT costs to their grandchildren in this economy. She said, if not, then the Board should vote against this. Charles Humble read the following comments: Commissioners, The hour is late; I will be brief. We have heard many descriptions of the escalating costs and minimal benefits for Orange County residents from the proposed Light Rail line. We have heard how escalating costs have reduced funding for the N-S Bus Rapid Transit system that promised to serve areas of rapid growth in Chapel Hill. We have heard how those costs threaten funding of other modes that serve communities elsewhere in Orange County with far fewer transportation options and higher levels of need. And as for affordable housing: that problem will be increased along the Rail line, not decreased. In 2012 we voted for a flexible — if vaguely defined —transit plan that could address needs throughout the county and be fully funded through the transportation tax and related fees. I doubt even proponents voted to tie our collective hands for 45 years as technologies and options change all around us. Yet that is what they want you to do in the next 2 weeks —vote to limit the options for our residents for the next 45 years. Before I became a member of the Sierra Club in the 80s and a sustaining donor to SELC, indeed, before I became an environmentalist, I was raised a preacher's kid in The South. I know deeply held religious views when I see them. And that is what I am seeing from LR proponents. They are preaching the Old Time Religion of the environmental benefits of this Rail system. As described by Julie McClintock, the EIS for the project says those benefits are few and almost all will be seen in Durham County at the cost of the transportation needs of so many of our citizens. Further, Durham's gains put at risk moneys for our schools and other services. Proponents don't care. To true believers in this Rail line (and the folks who stand to profit from it) the depth of the financial hole that Davenport says we will fall into is not important. Commissioners: "Is the depth of that financial hole important to you? Thank you. Tony Blake provided and reviewed a hand out. He said he is against the LRT. He said it will not promote affordable housing, and will only exacerbate sprawl. He said there needs to be a more comprehensive transit plan that serves the entire County. Lee Storrow said this is a passionate community that agrees on a great deal. He said this community supports the environment, sustainability, and access for residents to good transit. He said he supports light rail as a component of a broader transportation plan for this region. He said the community cannot be scared of making big investments. Ann Loftin said there is one thing that all could agree on: a trolley that could run from Durham throughout Orange County, and a train that went to the airport, and a train to Raleigh; 25 but that is not going to happen. She said all that is being offered is a train that links the universities' hospitals, and she does not understand why the universities are not paying for it. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Dorosin thanked the public for its thoughtful and respectful participation this evening. He said emails can be sent to the BOCC until the final vote takes place. Chair Dorosin said the Board has asked for more information on the amount of additional expansion bus hours included in the OPT service plan, and how much funding would need to be available to fund those hours, given the current formula with Chapel Hill and GoTriangle. He said staff intends to open negotiations with those parties on realigning the allocation and thinking through the rail dividend. He said there will also be an updated analysis from Davenport given the reduction of the Orange County share to 16.5 %. He said the BOCC will discuss all details, including the scenario that should be in the final cost share agreement at Thursday's meeting. 6. Regular Agenda NONE 7. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. *Appointments NONE 12. Information Items • April 4, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 13. Closed Session NONE 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs at 11:23 p.m. to recess the meeting to Thursday, April 20th at 7:00 pm at the Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon St, in Hillsborough solely for the purpose of board discussion on the transit issue and that no public comment will be accepted at the reconvened meeting on the 20th (and the scheduled closed session will be canceled and re-scheduled). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 26 Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board