HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-16-2017 - 8-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes 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 20, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting (reconvened April 18th
Meeting)
April 27, 2017 BOCC Work Session
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 WORK SESSION
6 April 20, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a reconvened meeting of the April 18,
10 2017 Regular Meeting as a BOCC Work Session tonight on Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:00
11 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
14 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
22
23 Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24 NONE
25
26 1. Discussion Regarding the Draft Durham — Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing
27 Agreement and Draft Orange County Transit Plan
28
29 Ted Cole, Senior Vice President Davenport and Company, referred to the first
30 presentation below:
31
32 D-O Light Rail Discussion Materials
33 Orange County, North Carolina
34 Scenario 23 V8 M -Attachment B in the abstract - page 13
35
36 Ted Cole reviewed the highlights of this scenario.
37 The Board chose not to review this scenario.
38 Chair Dorosin said to go onto the scenarios that have Orange County at 16.5% of the
39 cost share.
40
41 General Assumptions & Major Capital
42 Scenario 36 V3 Z— page 7
2
1.. Scenario Description Under Consideration/
Requested by
Working Group
3 LRT Cost Share Assumptions (Durham / -range / Priivate)
4 Capital Cost 82 / 16/ 2
5 Shared Borrowings 82 / 1.8
6 Operations and Maintenance
7 Through 2036 811 / 1.9
8 After 2.036 81 / 19
9 State o Good Repair
10 Through 2.036 81 / 19
After 2036 81./ 1.9
13 Durham / Wake CRT Scenario P
14
15 -range County Sallies Tax Assumptions
16 FY 2017 -- 2.046 Moody's IRaseline
17 FY 2047 - 2062 371%
18
19 Reserve Assumptions
20 Cash IRalance Maintain Positive
IRalance
21 Operating Reserve 3 Months/ 25 % of
CH/OPT Bus O&M
22 Debt Service Reserve 10% of Debt Ilssued
1
3
1 LlRT Ilrputu zV alpft& Cost
2 HA New Starts Grant.-Capitl.al Costs $ 1,194,284,214 50.00%,__
3 State Funding-Capital Costs 238,8 843 10.00'%'_
Ile Kind C(.1 nt.l ibut:ions
Orange County 3,487,758 0.15%__
6 Durham County 15,888,675 0.67%
7 Joint Development Giants
8 Orange County 11,716,7y47 0.�y19%
9 Durham County 53,31 6,290 2.2.J%
10 Weal Share- Private Capdal Carnpaig ni 18,120,000 076%
11 (Local Share-Orange County 138,652,422 5.80
12 Local Share-(Durham County 114,185, l79 29.90%
13 Total ILRT Initial Capital Coat 2,388,568,428 100.00%
15 Orange County LOT State of Good ReIpaur through 2062 $ 89,9448,360
16
17 Other Orange County Tax IC istruct O undung through 2045
18 Bus O&M 139,669,20
19 DO ILK O&M $ 83,857,130
20 Bus If acilitl.ies and Capitl.al Pro cctl.s((Including (Replacements) $ 8,059, 17f
21 Vehicles(Including Replacements) $ 14,247,696
22 NS If 1RTl rProjed (Construdion Costs) $ _ 6,125,000
23 Hillsborough Train Station Project(Construction Coats) 030,000
1 first.$18.12 million Applied to Orange County
2
3 Commissioner McKee referred to $100 million mentioned by David King on Tuesday
4 night, and asked if the $18.1 million aligns with that.
5 Travis Myren said the goal of private contributions is $100 million, and the $18.1 million
6 is what staff believes to be realistically secured by the time of the Full Funding Grant
7 Agreement (FFGA) is submitted to the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA).
8 Commissioner Price asked if Orange County would have to pay this money back.
9 Ted Cole said he understands that no repayment will be expected.
10 John Talmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Development Director, said GoTriangle
11 staff has been working with the Funding and Community Collaborative (FCC) regarding these
12 funds.
13 Commissioner Marcoplos said this $18 million are right of way grants that have been
14 procured so far.
15 Tammy Bushell, GoTriangle Attorney, said $19 million has been secured in right of way
16 grants with the Universities. She said formal appraisals of these properties have yet to be
17 completed. She said the $18 million reflected here is in addition to the $19 million. She said
18 part of the $18 million is included in the present right of way donations, because of the
19 conservative cost that has been included.
20 Gary Toper, GoTriangle Real Estate Manager, said private and public commitments
21 have been secured, and the $18 milllion represents about 67 parcel commitments to right of
22 ways. He said this is believed to be a conservative amount.
23 Commissioner Price asked if the difference between line 5 and line 10 could be clarified.
24 Ted Cole said line 5 was the original amount for right of ways, and line 10 is a more
25 recent concept that is tied to finding private donations, which may be in the form of more right
26 of ways, or in the form of cash.
27 Ted Cole said the first 2% will be used to offset Orange County's share according to the
28 Cost Share Agreement. He said any funds beyond that will be discussed as they are received.
4
1 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is concerned
2 about Orange County's percentage of contribution. He said a Durham Commissioner spoke to
3 him today about splitting it 0.5% and 1.5%, so that Durham contributors could be told that the
4 support was going to Durham and Orange County. He said he is not sure that this will make
5 any difference to the County's financial position, but the proposal was raised.
6 Ted Cole said 0.5% should be somewhere between $4 and $5 million.
7 Ted Cole said the local shares are on lines 11 and 12, and round out the total initial
8 capital budget of$2.38 billion.
9
10 Financings and Total Cost- page 8
11
1 URI lniifiial CapiitaII and Borrowing Cost
2 F'IA New Starts Grant- Capital and Borrowing Costs 1,23 ,E 27,397 3T53%
3 State Funding Capital and Borrowing Cosh 24 ,026, 98 744%
4 In Kind Contributions
5 Orange County 3,487,758 0.11%
6 Durham County 15,888,67 048%
7 Joint Development Grants
8 Orange County 11,716,747 036%7
9 Durham County 53,376,290 1.62%
10 I.....ocal Share - Private Capital Campai nl 18,120,000 C..) 55%
11 Local Share - Orange County 292,663,252 8.89%
12 I.....ocal Share - Durham County 1,41 ,790,368 4:101%7
13 Total I_RT Initial Capital and Borrowing Cost 3,291,4 7,084 100.00%
14
15 •crane County ITT State of Good Repair through 2062
16 Cash Funding 17,948,360
17 Debt Funding 72,000,000
18 Interest and Borrowing Costs 10,773,118
14.E Total State of Good Repair 100,721,478
20
21 •crane County Financing Assumptions
22 I.....ocally Funded I ORs Initira I.....R1 72,500,000
23 Grant Funded LOBs- Initial I_B°f.., 55,800,000
24 TIF'IA I...oan Initiral I.....R1` 77,400,000
25 Locally Funded LOBs-`Mato of Good Repair 72,000,000
26 Total Orange County Financings 2.7 7,700,000
12 1 First $1&12 million Applied to Orange County
13
14 Commissioner McKee referred to line 26, and asked if this goes out to 2062, plus about
15 $138,562,000 for the capital outlay.
16 Ted Cole said line 26 is the total financings attributable to Orange County, which is just
17 principle and does not include the issuance expense or the interest expense. He said to get a
18 total one must add issuance costs and interest expense.
19 Commissioner Price asked if there is a range of years for the issuance of this debt.
5
1 Ted Cole said lines 22-24 all refer to the initial cost of the system and will all be issued in
2 advance of operations. He said line 25 is debt issued after operations, as the County reinvests
3 in the system for repair and replacement. He said there are specific fiscal years in the model,
4 and he can provide these to the BOCC.
5
6 Key Financial Statistics
7 Cash Reserve —with scale adjustments- PAGE 9
Cash Baran(es-Total
$£400000000
dr00 000000
$600000000
7500000000
7400000000
7;00000000
,200000000
I 0000 0 I I ' Iil . iiIIIIIIiIIIlIIIII I I
8 (4 (4 (4 (4 (44 (41 (41 (4 (4 (4 (4 (41 (41 (41 (4 (4 (4 (41 (41 (41 (41 (4 (4 (4 (4 (41 (41 (41 (41
9
10
1 Funancuill IH'ee lut lh 1Ciritleiri a
2 Munumum re .ate DSCF
3 u-CII (unutuall LRT) 1„.1,8x
4 Grant Funded LOB 1.,27x
5 TIFIA& State of Good Repair 1.08x
r..
6 Minimum Cash Ballance Duran Construction
7 Orange (Fiscal!Year) ... $4,9190,825 .(2019) ..,
8 Durham Fusca Year) 3,669,400 (2028)
9 Minimum Cash Ilu&llan 'e After Construction
10 Orange Fuscall Year) $19.578.313 (2030)
11 11, Durham (Fii all Year) ;$3,820,398 (203b)
12
13
6
Cash Balances-Durham
$£00070 000
$700070000
$ff00070 000
$s00070 000
$'100070 000
$'300070000
$'200000000
x10000(000 I� � A w I ! hi
2
Cash Balances-Orange
Scsu000000
ss's0 000 000
5'10000000
a$6706767000 lz I
Y tOit r
Saruaouoo
;g
4
5 Key Financial Statistics
6 Page 10- Cash reserves ( without Scale Adjustments)- Scenario 36 v3 Z
7
8 Cumulative Cash Balance
7
Cash Baran(es-Total
,800 000 000
,./00 000 000
,b00 000 000
,V)0 000 000
,400 000 000
,300 000 000
,200 000 000
,100 000 000
,f) 1 1 1 111111 I 1 1 1111111 111111111111111 1 1
`,9■ `Z■ `a. “..3 7., CA `;'-",, V 9., . , .
cl ,-90 9 9 9 9 ,4399; 99
2
3
1 11Flinancliall Ildleallth Criteria
2 Minimum Aggregate IDSCB
3 ILOIBs (II nitia I LRT) i i8x
4 Grant Funded II OlBs (Ilnitial BT) 1.27x
5 fIFIA & State of Good Repair 1L.08x
6 Minimum Cash Balance During Construction
7 Orange (Fiscal Year) $4,990,825 (2019)
8 Durham (Fiscal Year) $3,669,400 (2028)
9 Mininn Li m Cash Balance After Construction
10 Orange (Fiscal Year) $19,578,313 (2030)
11 Mirhann (Fiscal Year) $3,820398 (2035)
4
5
6 Coundy Cash 113allancos
Cash Balances-Durham
$800 000 000
$/00 000 000
$b0f)000 000
$500 000 000
$400 000 000
MO 000 000
$200 000 000
$100 000 000
III . M MII1JM , ilg111111111111
9 9 4 9; 9 9 A ,,; :s r cy,n rr,r," rrr,, rrr'r g
G
7 , , ,
8
8
1
Cash Balances-Orange
800,000,000
700,000,000
E■00,000,000
s00,000,000
,100,000,000
300,000,000
$x00,000,000
$100,000,000
2
3
4
5 Scenario 40 v9 EE
6 General Assumptions & Major Capital
7 page 12 on ppt
8
9
1 Scenani, ,, Descripti, ,,n Under Consideration
/ Requested by
Work'rig Group
2
3 BRI C, ,,st Share Assumpti, ,,ns (Durham / .•range Prilvate)
4 (-°, pit I Cost / 1..65/ 7.0
5 Shared Borrowings 81,.5 18,.5
6 Operations and M inten3nce
7 Through 2036 80/ 20
8 After 2036 81.. / 1..9
9 State of Good Repair
10 Through 2036 80/ 20
11 After 2036 81/ 19
12
13 Durham / Wake CRT Scenario P
14
15 .•range C, ,,unty Salles Tax Assumpti, ,,ns
16 FY 201..7 -- 2046 Moody's IBaseline
17 FY 204( - 2062 3,.71X
18
19 Reserve Assumpti, ,,ns
20 Cash IBelance Ma intain IPostive
Balarlce
21 Operating Reserve 3 Months/ 25 "A of
C11-11/01PT Bus O&M
22 Debt Service Reserve 1..0"/1 of Debt Ilssued
1
2
3 Major CaftItal
10
1 LIRT (Initial Capital Cost
2 ETA New Starts Grant.-Capital Co st. $ 1,104,284,214 50.00`%>
3 State Funding-Capital Costs 238,856,843 10.00%_
4 On (Kind Contribution
Grange County 3,534,640 0.15%
6 Our ham County 16,701,703 0.66%
7 Joint LDoveloprnont Grants
3 Grange County 12,042,212 0.60/
9 LDurharn County 53,050,325 2.22`/
1G I..ocal Share-(Private Capital Carnpaign' 18 :1.20,000 0.76`%>
:1.1. Local Share-Grange County 143,007,212 5.99%
12 I..ocal Share-II::Durharn County 709,330,690 29.72`%>
13 Total LOT Initial Capital Cost $ 2,333,563,423 100.00%
14
1 Orange County LRI State of Good Repair through 2062 89,948,360
16
17 Other Orange County Tax (District (Funding through 2045
13 lbuS O&M 139,669,259
10 DO LOT O&M 35,651,77
20 Bus(Facilities and Capital(Projects((Including Ifleplacernent.$) $ 3,059,47
-- --- -- -- --- --- -- -- --- -- -- --
2:1. Vehicles(Including Oeplaceiulents) $ 14,247,696
22 .._NS BAT(Project(Const.ructl.ion Co sts,) -._ 6 ,12 000_
23 1lille;horough Crain Station Project(Construction Costs) $ 636,000
1 First$:13.12 million Applied to Grange County
2
3 Financings & Total Cost - page 13
4
11
1 LRT Dn t0a 1 Cap tall and Borrowng Cost
2 1=...II�A New Starts Grant Capital and Borrowing Costs 1„235„126„612 3753`!,
3 State Funding- Capital ar7d Borrowing Costs 244,939,841. ._ T44%
4 I n Kind Contributions
5 Orange County 3,584,640
6 Durham County 15,791,793 0048`!,
7 Joint Development Grants
8 Orange County 12„042„212 037`!,
9 Durham County,. 53,O5O,825 t61%
10 I....cac;�al Share Private Capital CS�aonl,��aign1
18,120,000 0055`!,
11 Local Share - Orange County 3071,256,525 . 9.15%
12 I....oc;al Share Durham County 1,406,983,067 42075`!,
13 Total LRT Initial Capital and Borrowing Cost $ 3,290,895,51.5 1.00.00%
14
15 Orange County LRT State of Good R par through 2062
16 Cash Funding 17,948,360
17 Debt Funding 72.,070707.,070707
18 Interest and Borrowing Costs 10,773,118
19 Total State of Good Repair 1.00,721,47
20
21 Orange County Fnandng Assumptons
22 I....oc;ally Funded I.....CJIsJ Initial I.....F°1W 72,500,000
23 Grant Funded LOBs- Initial LRT. 57,350,0007
24 °1"IFIA I...oan Initial I.....F 1W 79,550,000
25 Locally Funded LOBs-State of Good Repair 72.,000.,0007
26 Total Orange County Financings 281,400,000
1 z. First `x1801.2 million Applied to Orange County
2
3 Key Financial Statistics- page 14
4 Cash Reserves (with Scale Adjustments) — Scenario 40v9EE
5 Cumulladovo Cash I1:3allan
12
Cash Balances-Total
'.£=,00,000,000
'.x00,000,000
'.500,000,000
'.400,000,000
'. 00,000,000
'.200,000,000
'.7.00,000,00: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 111 11 I ' I I I I
1
2 County Cash E3a0ances
Cash Balances-P7urhoarr
5££00,000,000
5700,000,000
5500,000,000
5400,000,000
53oo,0(70,o00
52oo,0(70,o00
51oo,aa(7,0oo I I 1 wl �� I I V U J 1 I 1 1 1
a c,
c,
4;
n d u � c, u � Fc!'
c, <a : <a
3
Cash Balance's..Orange
S45,000,000
540,000,000 1
,35,000,000
550,000,000
,25,000,000 �d. �. 1%
Sza,000,000 o �% o i% J% o
Sis,000,000 o o o 0
510,000,000 II
,5,000,000 0 , o e o e o o
4 �a� �a
4 �a
5
13
:1 Fin Pell I He Ifh Crlf rl
2 Minimum Aggregate IDSC11
3 ILOB (II n ti l IL.II T) 10.108
Ii�
4 Grant u,nded II 0113s (Ilnitial IL....II II) 1.31x
TIIFIIA & State of Good Repair it 10.07
6 Minimum Cash Balance II7urin ;Construrction
r
Orange (Fiscal Year) $4,382,360 (2019)
8 17u,rham (Fiscal Year) $3,42 X3523 (202()
9 Minimum Cash Balance After Construction
1..0 Orange (Fiscal Year) $.1 6,353,3(5 (2029)
1 1.. .. IL urh m (Fiscal Year) $3,410,091(203 )
2
3 Ted Cole said it changed cash balances to the tune of about $83,000.
4 Chair Dorosin said the minimum cash available for Orange County between scenarios z
5 and ee would go down, due to the percentage change from 16.5% to 16%. He asked if there is
6 a reason why Durham's also goes down (page 13 of abstract - last 4 lines). He said it could just
7 be an anomaly and to move on in the discussion.
8 Commissioner McKee referred to attachment B, page 13, line 80, and said previously
9 the minimum cash balance was $210,000 in 2045, and now, under scenario ee, the minimum
10 cash balance is $16 million. He asked if there is a reason for the radical change.
11 Ted Cole said an element of it will be driven by shifts in percentage allocation in capital
12 and operations. He referred to line 68, and said, as one goes across, the amount of debt being
13 issued is going up, and less is being financed with cash and more with debt, which will build the
14 reserves. He said one of the other key drivers is the assumption on how much is funded with
15 debt and when.
16 Commissioner McKee asked if the total sum of money spent by Orange County in 2062
17 could be identified, including interest, financing costs, construction, pay as you go (not principal)
18 tax revenues, in kind, etc.
19 Ted Cole said he may need to get back to Commissioner McKee on this number.
20 Commissioner McKee said he asked this question as he has seen the figures move so
21 much in the last few weeks, and he has had a hard time keeping up and understanding the
22 amounts. He asked if this information could be provided by the end of the meeting.
23 Commissioner Marcoplos requested to know the projected revenues for this period of
24 time, as well.
25 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the development funds, and said a few weeks ago
26 there was $130 million in this fund (page 7, line 7-9), and now there is $65 million in this fund.
27 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the potential uses for these funds could be identified.
28 Chair Dorosin said on attachment B, lines 23-25, these funds are shown to be the same
29 in scenarios c, m and z, with a slight variation in ee.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos said but it started at $130 million.
31 Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented
32 Development, said last year it was thought that there may be an opportunity to leverage federal
33 funds to achieve goals deemed important by Orange and Durham counties, such as affordable
34 housing. He said the idea here is that, under joint development and the New Starts regulations,
35 if there is development around the stations, as opposed to a parking deck only, then local
36 dollars can be leveraged for federal matches. He said the $65 million would be the potential
37 local dollars, and the other$65 could be matched with federal dollars.
14
1 Patrick McDonough said if these opportunities do not exist, then this portion will come
2 out of the plan.
3 Travis Myren gave a brief overview of the draft cost share agreement found in
4 Attachment A, page 5. He made the following PowerPoint presentation:
5
6 Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement & Orange County Transit Plan
7 April 20, 2017 Work Session
8 Whitted Meeting Facility
9
10 Work Session Topics
11 0 Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement
12 • Discuss the financial scenario to be included in the draft Agreement - Davenport
13 & Company to review three scenarios
14 • Discuss provisions contained in the Draft Cost Share Agreement
15 • Discuss changes to the Orange County Transit Plan
16 • Review approaches to increasing available bus hours
17 • Direct staff to prepare final draft documents for consideration by the Boards of
18 Commissioners, GoTriangle Board of Trustees, and the MPO
19
20 Cost Share Agreement Provisions
21 0 Share of Orange County Capital Cost (#7)
22 • Scenario M — 18%
23 • Scenario Z— 16%
24 • Scenario EE — 16.5%
25 0 Private funds contribution of two percent (#8)
26 • Monetary and in-kind contributions
27 • $18 million applied to Orange County
28 • Must be committed by the time Full Funding Grant Agreement is
29 submitted —estimated in calendar 2019
30 0 Allocation of Operating Cost (#10)
31 • Scenario M — 20%
32 • Scenario Z— 19%
33 • Scenario EE — 20% through 2036; 19% after 2036
34 0 Federal and State Funding Contingency (#13)
35 • Funding not available or reduced in an amount that requires additional
36 local funds, parties must meet within fifteen days.
37 • Responses include delay, suspension, phasing, scope reductions,
38 discontinuation, outside revenue sources
39 • If consensus is not reached, Board of County Commissioners may vote to
40 withdraw from agreement
41 0 Cost Overruns or Funding Shortfall Contingency (#14)
42 • Quarterly reports to monitor costs and revenue
43 • Decrease from projected revenues of 5% or more as set in the 2017 Plan
44 • Increase in project cost included financing of 5% or more
45 • Increase in projected operating costs of 5% or more
46 • Same responses triggered.
47
48 Travis Myren said that GoTriangle has suggested an amendment that if a consensus
49 cannot be reached, then mediation would occur.
15
1 Commissioner Burroughs referred to paragraph #13, on page 8 of attachment A, and
2 asked if this is in response if the federal or state funds are less than expected, and is it just
3 narrowly focused on that.
4 Travis Myren said yes, as it is currently written.
5 Chair Dorosin said paragraph #13 is about state and federal funding, while paragraph
6 #14 is about other cost issues.
7 Commissioner Price asked if the full amount of state and federal funding is not received,
8 will the FTA abort the plan.
9 Travis Myren said, in the absence of federal funding, the project is probably not
10 possible, and the absence of state funding makes the project very difficult.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said this draft document appears to address these concerns
12 adequately. He sees no reason to make the process any more complicated.
13 Katharine Eggleston, Light Rail Engineer, said the current schedule has GoTriangle
14 applying for the full funding grant agreement (FFGA) in mid-2019. She said the local and state
15 funding commitments would need to be in place by that point. She said if local and state funds
16 are not in place by this point, then a reassessment would be necessary. She said the state
17 funds should be determined and known by December 2018, based on the typical schedule of
18 the state funding process.
19 Tammy Bouchelle, GoTriangle Attorney, said both Durham County and GoTriangle
20 raised concerns about the inclusion of the unilateral termination provision, and she is not sure if
21 the FTA will accept this inclusion on #13, as the provision is quite pessimistic. She said
22 GoTriangle and Durham oppose the inclusion of this provision.
23 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that paragraph 2 in provision #13 is not acceptable to
24 GoTriangle.
25 Tammy Bouchelle said not as currently written, given that the FTA would take a very
26 pessimistic view of it. She said GoTriangle has proposed alternative language, which is a
27 dispute resolution process, which she thinks will be more palatable to the FTA.
28 John Roberts said Durham County and GoTriangle object to the unilateral withdrawal
29 language, and he said he has no specific objection to a mediation provision if it is the will of the
30 Board. He said Orange County is better protected by a unilateral withdrawal provision, but it
31 would need more meat on it than how it is currently written. He agreed that the FTA would
32 likely view such a provision pessimistically. He said he has attempted to craft a unilateral
33 withdrawal provision, which Durham County and GoTriangle have not seen. He feels neither
34 will be satisfied with it. He said this proposed language is at the Commissioners' places.
35 Jill Jaworski, PFM Financial Advisor, said FTA requires this grant to have a full
36 commitment, and if there is a withdrawal clause it is unlikely that the FTA will accept it. She
37 said the FFGA grant program is the single largest discretionary grant program that the federal
38 government has. She said there are high standards for this, and the FTA requires a full
39 commitment to stay in the program. She believes that the FTA will not accept the unilateral
40 withdrawal provision.
41 Commissioner Marcoplos said if federal or state funds are withdrawn then no one should
42 be legally bound to stay in this process. He asked if there is a way to allow elected officials to
43 withdraw if the federal or state funds are withdrawn.
44 Tammy Bouchelle said if all federal funds are withdrawn, then it is absolutely acceptable
45 for the County to withdraw. She said if state funding ends up being lower than 10%, there are
46 other mechanisms by which to mitigate the state funding shortfall. She said if this should occur
47 then the parties should come together to determine a reasonable path forward.
48 Jill Jaworski said the federal government can have delays or budgetary cutbacks, and
49 typically full grant agreements have variations on an annual basis but will make it up at some
50 point.
16
1 Tammy Bouchelle said there is a provision for mutual termination should all the federal
2 funding be lost.
3 Chair Dorosin said the scenario that is more concerning, in paragraph #14, is what if the
4 revenues do not come in. He said John Roberts has given the Board two options, and he
5 asked what would happen if two parties required to agree, instead of four. He said he does not
6 want to submit an agreement that will fail, but what if#14 comes to pass and Orange County
7 gets less revenue than projected, and Orange County wants to scale back and the others do
8 not.
9 Jill Jaworski, PFM Financial Advisor, said if one or two parties are able to withdraw, then
10 that introduces a significant risk to the commitment, and the FTA will not look favorably on this.
11 She said some nuance could be added, such as the ability to pull out before the federal grant is
12 awarded. She said there are many other entities who want this money, and if the FTA is unsure
13 of Orange County's commitment then it may award monies elsewhere.
14 Katharine Eggleston said if a trigger occurs, an implementable solution would be
15 needed. She said there would need to be a way to reduce the cost of the project, or secure
16 additional revenue. She said there is FTA oversight of the project, and the FTA must deem any
17 and all solutions viable.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said where in the Cost Share Agreement are the material
19 changes referenced.
20 Travis Myren said it is at the bottom of#14, small letter (i).
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is a structured mechanism to review where the
22 parties find themselves and to come to an agreement. He said he does not want to be in a
23 situation that the other 3 entities want to add 5% more, and Orange County deems it too
24 expensive, but loses by majority vote. He said he wants to protect Orange County, and this
25 was the primary basis for him in all of these negotiations. He said he would like the attorneys to
26 bring something back on the 27th, and if not, he will vote no as he is worried about Orange
27 County's general fund. He said if all are committed to the project, then all will act in good faith
28 to make this work; but sometimes people punish a dog who misbehaves by killing a chicken
29 and tying it the dog's neck. He does not want a dead chicken tied to Orange County's neck.
30 He said he trusts the attorneys to have conversations, and bring a solution to the Board. He
31 said Orange County has to be able to make its own decisions.
32 Commissioner Rich asked if there are provisions to prevent the 5% increase scenario
33 that Commissioner Jacobs referenced.
34 Travis Myren said in provision #15 there is a prohibition requiring the dedication of other
35 revenues, and he said there are other responses, in addition to just contributing money, on
36 which the parties may not agree.
37 Commissioner Rich said she is not fond of a unilateral withdrawal, as it gives future
38 BOCCs the option to pull out simply because it does not like the project.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said #14 describes the process of material changes that must be
40 completed prior to withdrawal, and if they are not completed it would be a violation of the
41 agreement. He said he is unsure if there is a penalty for being in violation of the agreement.
42 Commissioner Rich said she has concerns about this for just those reasons, and she
43 feels more comfortable with mediation than unilateral withdrawal.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said unilateral withdrawal has a connotation that you are not a
45 team player
46 Chair Dorosin referred to provision #15 and Commissioner Jacobs' hypothetical 5%
47 scenario, and asked what would happen if the triggering event is a lack of local transit
48 revenues. He said it seems that the County would have to reach into its general funds to make
49 up the difference.
17
1 Travis Myren said that is right in terms of financial exposure, but there are other
2 responses listed in #14 that would not require the application of additional local funds.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked what would happen if the three parties decide that they
4 want to start cutting the line in Orange County, and it is a 3-1 vote. He asked if the BOCC
5 would want to continue funding a system that is not beneficial to Orange County. He said there
6 should be opportunity for recourse, and a process that is more amenable to their relationships.
7 Commissioner Rich said mediation could help with this.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said mediation should have a time limit in place.
9 Commissioner McKee said once Orange County has spent over$100 million, even he
10 would not walk away though he has opposed this plan from the beginning. He said he would
11 still walk away at this point, but not at some future point when so much money has been
12 invested. He said this sentiment would likely effect future boards as well.
13 Commissioner McKee referred to #14 and said the language calls for meetings and
14 good faith efforts, which gives him comfort. He said the Board has a fiduciary responsibility to
15 the people of Orange County. He asked if the County could be required to put in additional
16 resources.
17 John Roberts said he understood Davenport's presentation to say that the County could
18 be required to do that if it had agreed to be a backstop for GoTriangle, or for the project in
19 some other way.
20 Ted Cole said Davenport was trying to convey that Orange County may be required to
21 contribute additional revenue in order to maintain the viability of the project, regardless of
22 whether there is a contractual requirement to do so. He said the Board may decide to
23 contribute even if there is not a contractual obligation.
24 Commissioner McKee referred to page 11 of the April 4th presentation, and said he does
25 not read the language the same way.
26 Ted Cole said the intent of the language is that Orange County may be required to
27 spend additional funds, based on a previous commitment to do so; or the BOCC may decided
28 to commit funds, even without the requirement to do so.
29 Commissioner McKee said if the withdrawal language is included, he hears GoTriangle
30 saying that the FTA will not commit funds; but without the withdrawal language, he feels Orange
31 County has no teeth.
32 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a way to contact someone at the FTA to find
33 a way to protect the County's financial health.
34 Katharine Eggleston said the FTA will not review a draft and provide feedback. She
35 said it is GoTriangle's experience that the FTA will not provide help at this point, and she said
36 without a full commitment agreement the FTA is unlikely to provide funding.
37 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any way to read the FTA's denials of other
38 projects.
39 Katharine Eggleston said FTA shared this information verbally on the phone.
40 Commissioner Burroughs said she is a grant writer, and this feedback from the FTA
41 does not surprise her at all. She referred to provision #15, and asked if GoTriangle has
42 concerns about this point and the potential reaction of the FTA.
43 Travis Myren said no one has expressed concerns about that provision.
44 Commissioner Burroughs said that is good, because this provision gives her comfort.
45 She said she does not expect, or want to see a situation, where part of the line is cut. She said
46 she is interested to see what the attorneys can create.
47 Commissioner Price said she concurred with Commissioners Jacobs and McKee, and
48 the Board needs to be able to control Orange County's funds. She said a provision for
49 unilateral withdrawal may not sit well with the FTA, but she thinks the County needs to have
50 some control. She said she is also concerned about another recession, and lost revenues.
18
1 Chair Dorosin referred to page 8 and said there are only three signatories: Durham
2 County, Orange County and Go Triangle.
3 Travis Myren said that is correct, there are only three parties.
4 Chair Dorosin gave a status review: the Board will pick one of the four scenarios; the
5 Board will come to some consensus on language in Cost Sharing Agreement, with concerns
6 having been raised on provisions #13 and #14; and the Board must still review attachment C:
7 recommended changes to the Orange County Transit Plan.
8 Commissioner Price asked if there are any concerns about provision #16.
9 Travis Myren said this provision addresses the scenario of additional transit funds being
10 authorized by the legislature.
11 Commissioner Price asked if Durham decides to raise taxes, would Orange County have
12 to do so as well.
13 Travis Myren said no, there is no obligation for Orange County to do so.
14 Commissioner Price asked if there is a process in place to determine the fares.
15 Travis Myren said GoTriangle will do this.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said John Roberts had previously written language with which the
17 other two entities were not comfortable, and he would like John Roberts to address what he
18 believes to be in the County's best interests.
19 John Roberts said Durham County's Attorney has composed some language as well,
20 but is not yet authorized to share it. He said he would like to talk with Durham's Attorney prior
21 to making a final recommendation.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said the alternative would be to get the attorneys together and
23 the chairs to participate in this discussion to work out this language.
24 Chair Dorosin said he would like to hear from all the Commissioners regarding their
25 opinions on the inclusion of a provision for a unilateral withdrawal.
26
27 If, after having meetings in good faith, the Parties do not reach consensus as to reasonable
28 steps to address the significant cost overrun or unmitigated funding shortfall, a County Board of
29 Commissioners may, by majority-vote,to withdraw from this Agreement and amend its county
30 transit plan accordingly.
31
32 New paragraph
33 IPirmpm2.J... tyniill ttr...J vraiithdlir vra, 11 upm,,p dle,teirnrniin tiimn Iby „Cmunt r IF3o ,irdl mf
34 Cminninniissooneirs that the DO Il,,,.IR"'1 its no fiin ncii llll lust iin lblle„
35 A unlillaterall wlithdirawall pursuant to this paragraph may onlly occur as herein Iprovlided.
36 A. The IP'artiies have met lin good faith as Iprovlided lin Paragraphs 13 and 14.
37 B. The IP'artiies are unablle to reach consensus on a course of action durling the
38 meetings Iprovlided by Paragraphs 13 and 14.
39 C. The County Board of Commlisslioners conslideirliing wlithdrawall makes a determination
40 that:
41 a. The County's continued Ipariiclilpatlion lin the Dod.....R...I wlillll cause substantiall
42 flinancliall harm to the County Iinclludling but not Illiimlited to negative, limpacts to
43 its credit ratting, borrowling ablilllity, or ; and
44 b. The County's continued Ipariiclilpatlion tin the DO.II.....R...I lid> not fliscalllly sustainablle,
45 for the County.
46 D. The County IBoaird of Coimimlisslioners votes to Withdraw from the Agreement.
47 Should a County IBoaird of Coimimlisslbneirs exeirclise the authorlity granted by thus paragraph and
48 unlillateiralllly Withdraw from this Agreement that County Baird of Commlisslioners shal111 have no
49 further obllligatlion or Illiablilllity (pursuant to thus Agreement. "The wlithdirawling (party shal111 remain
19
1 Ihiablle, solledly through lit.> share of the 1DLR, for lit.> portion of any debt or obllligatlion lincurred up to
2 the date of wlithdrawall.
3 IP Iroi oealll 2...........d ui iiilllate�rm 111 wliitlll durawalll onIll wliitlll�miiiI a deflflill ed tliiuim e euriiiod
II g d
4 A uu ulladerall wlid:ll drawall pursuant to thlle paragraph 11 may not occur after the dale our vvlbllch the
5 C: artlieo have executed and entered Onto the IC ull11 a dlll g Grant Agreement contemplllated
6 Isereliu .
7 SIhaulld a County Board of Cornmllsslloners e; erellse the ant orllty granted by thllo paragraph 11 and
8 un011ateralllly wlllt draw Ifurvou thllo Agreement that County Board of Cornmllsslloners shall l° have no
9 further oblIllgatllon or pursuant to thlle greerneu d "The wlit drawlO g party shall l° rer alll
10 011ablle, oollelly through lidos are of the II::;tII....II , Ifoury lido portllon of any delbd: or oblIllgatllon 111 curred up to
11 the date of wlid.:ll drawall.
12
13 Chair Dorosin said he wants the BOCC to give some guidance to John Roberts.
14 Commissioner Marcoplos said paragraph 15 protects the County in a lot of ways, and on
15 a lot of issues. He said there is room for a more expanded view of this, and he would like to
16 see what the attorneys come up. He is concerned about the unpredictability of the FTA.
17 Commissioner Burroughs said she takes comfort in paragraph 15, and she is happy with
18 the attorneys meeting and coming back with a proposed solution. She said the potential for
19 withdrawal would not be the topic for which she would vote against this project.
20 Chair Dorosin said he thinks that mediation or arbitration would work, and would not
21 want to include language that would torpedo the project.
22 Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with Chair Dorosin.
23 Commissioner McKee said GoTriangle mentioned mitigation avenues to use if the
24 revenues were not there, and he said one area that would not trigger provision #15, but could
25 trigger concern for the BOCC, is a continuing escalation of local costs. He asked what would
26 happen if the state funding goes to 5%, and the County is still able to pay for escalated
27 expenses out of tax revenues. He sees the County being the only option to bear the cost
28 burden.
29 Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project Manager, said that scenario would be a trigger, and
30 the agreement has a cap on the County's participation level. He said if the state lowers its
31 funds to 5%, the BOCC would be approached to determine a plan to move forward. He said
32 there is no requirement for additional local revenue from Orange or Durham County.
33 Commissioner McKee said cutting costs has never been presented as an option, but
34 rather only an increase in local funding.
35 Katharine Eggleston said within the next two years leading up to the FFGA, GoTriangle
36 will be pursuing other funding sources. She said the Funding and Community Collaborative
37 (FCC) is private monetary and in-kind contributions. She said the goal of this group is $100
38 million.
39 Commissioner McKee asked if the FCC will be added as a signatory to this agreement.
40 Katharine Eggleston said no.
41 Commissioner McKee asked if the FCC is under any contractual agreement to raise
42 $100 million.
43 Katharine Eggleston said no. She said if state funding decreased, the parties would
44 meet to see if there are alternative funds that can fill the gap, and the FCC funds may fill such a
45 need.
46 Commissioner McKee asked how the BOCC would remove itself from the project, if the
47 unilateral withdrawal language is removed, and the state funding drops to 5% and the BOCC no
48 does not want to absorb the additional 5%.
49 Katharine Eggleston said there may be funds from the FCC, and there may be cost
50 cutting strategies.
20
1 Commissioner McKee asked what options there would be if the BOCC does not agree
2 with the cost cutting measures, such as removing a stop in Orange County.
3 Tammy Bouchelle said the BOCC is not obligated to submit any additional funds under
4 this agreement. She said any substantial change to the project, such as removing a stop,
5 would have to be approved by the FTA prior to proceeding. She said the Counties would also
6 have to approve such a change in the County transit plans. She said GoTriangle has no ability
7 to act unilaterally.
8 Commissioner McKee said he does not understand what happens if a scenario arises
9 that Orange County cannot accommodate; when it has signed an agreement to the plan, FTA
10 has approved the project, and the state says it will only give 5%. He says without a unilateral
11 withdrawal provision, he feels Orange County is bound to commit funds.
12 Katharine Eggleston said should such a scenario arise, the three parties would make
13 good faith efforts to find strategies that would be amendable to three parties.
14 Commissioner McKee said there may be no such strategies.
15 Chair Dorosin proposed the hypothetical of cutting one of the Orange County stations,
16 and asked if staff could walk the Board through the steps of what would happen.
17 Tammy Bouchelle said if there are significant changes in the scope of the project, the
18 FTA would have to approve them. She said the removal of a station would be an example of
19 such a change.
20 Chair Dorosin proposed the hypothetical of all parties approving of the station removal,
21 and asked if the steps thereafter could be identified.
22 Tammy Bouchelle said the FTA would be informed of this decision, and additional
23 studies would be needed to show there were no negative social justice, environmental or
24 ridership impacts. She said after receiving approval from the FTA, GoTriangle would need the
25 approvals of Orange and Durham counties, with the change being reflected in the County
26 transit plans.
27 Chair Dorosin proposed the scenario where the BOCC does not want to remove a
28 station from the line, and does not want to amend its transit plan. He asked if the steps
29 thereafter could be described. He asked what would happen if Durham and Orange counties
30 disagree on the cost cutting measure.
31 Commissioner McKee said his concern is what happens if there is an impasse, and the
32 parties do not agree.
33 Chair Dorosin said if an agreement and transit plan amendment are required to proceed,
34 but do not happen, then how does the project proceed.
35 Patrick McDonough said in the draft plan, there is an appendix B of mitigation
36 measures. He said the removal of a station is an unlikely scenario of a cost cutting measure.
37 He said there are items in the plan that can be cut down in price without the customer being
38 affected; for example, a bridge can be made more ugly. He said, conversely, there are areas
39 that can be cut that do affect the customer, such as the capacity for the speed of the trains. He
40 said GoTriangle's goal, if cutting costs were necessary, would be to minimize the impact to
41 either County or its residents.
42 John Talmadge said in the next item, which refers to proposed language changes to the
43 transit plan, includes that any deletion of stops or addition of stops requires Commissioner
44 approval.
45 Commissioner McKee said his concern is if the parties cannot agree.
46 Travis Myren said one mechanism is dispute resolution, like mediation or arbitration.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos said the financial shortfalls would be the more likely scenario
48 to occur. He said if the state gives 7% instead of 10%, and Durham is fine with this change, but
49 Orange County is not, then provision #15 gives Orange County permission to say it cannot pay
50 the difference and would be allowed to step back.
21
1 John Roberts said the County would still be in the agreement, but there would need to
2 be a meeting to determine how to proceed, with Orange County unable to provide additional
3 funds.
4 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if, in that case, Orange County is protected by
5 paragraph 15.
6 John Roberts said Orange County is not automatically in the agreement to find
7 additional funds.
8 Commissioner Marcoplos said this would allow Orange County to be out of it without
9 even voting.
10 John Roberts said the County is not automatically out of the agreement, and is still a
11 party to the agreement, but it could exercise its right under paragraph 15. He said the County
12 could state that the dedicated local revenues are its only contribution. He said, at this point, the
13 parties would have to work out a plan on how to proceed.
14 Commissioner Marcoplos said he wonders what the County's vulnerability would be at
15 that point, as it seems the County may be fairly well protected.
16 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 6, and said it specifically speaks to material
17 changes. He said material changes would be part of the basis for reviewing the status of the
18 project. He said he thought there was a place where material changes were defined.
19 Travis Myren said this information has been recast to be called significant cost overruns,
20 or unmitigated funding shortfalls in provision #14. He said this mirrors the material changes in
21 previous document.
22 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a reason the language was changed.
23 Tammy Bouchelle said GoTriangle understood the request to be to link the definition of
24 unmitigated funding shortfall or cost overrun to the definition of material change that is in the
25 existing implementation agreements. She said this is what was done. She said the existing
26 implementation agreements are still in play and are valid documents.
27 Commissioner McKee said the process was in material change for a year, and yet it was
28 never triggered.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said quarterly and annual reports will be received, so that parties
30 can keep track of any material changes. He asked what will happen if the FTA receives a
31 document and takes issue with something within in it.
32 Katharine Eggleston said in this case the FTA has indicated in writing that GoTriangle
33 must provide documentation of the commitment by end of April and if not, FTA will withdraw the
34 project from the New Starts pipeline and project development.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that relates back to what the FTA told GoTriangle verbally in
36 February.
37 Katharine Eggleston said yes.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this process is standard in FTA's operating procedures.
39 Katharine Eggleston said there are specific requirements for four things that must be
40 completed within the two-year time frame of project development, and if these requirements are
41 not met, the project is withdrawn. She said this is very typical.
42 Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
43
44 Cost Share Agreement Provisions
45 0 Prohibition on Other Local Revenues
46 • County is not obligated to use any revenue other than dedicated transit
47 revenue to pay its share
48 • Annual Reports
49 • Annual reports to Board of Commissioners on collection, allocation, and
50 expenditure of transit revenues
22
1
2 Commissioner McKee referred to page 6, and asked if there is a reason why the figure
3 of $2.4 billion is still being used as the total cost of the project. He said all interest out to 2062
4 should also be included.
5 Travis Myren said this agreement is only intended to reflect the part of the cost that is
6 covered by the FFGA. He said there are costs beyond that, but they are not required for FTA
7 purposes.
8 Jill Jaworski said the way the project costs are measured is by standard FTA
9 procedures, and they have outlined all of the costs that are included in that: design,
10 engineering, land acquisition, construction, etc. She said the interest, during the construction
11 period, can be included as one is allowed to up the project cost by that amount, and get the
12 federal reimbursement.
13 Commissioner McKee asked if the FTA is picking up part of the Transportation
14 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans interest.
15 Jill Jaworski said the TIFIA loan is a low cost financing vehicle offered by the federal
16 government, not paid for by the government.
17 Commissioner McKee said the FTA requires that 30% of the $2.3 billion be committed at
18 this time.
19 Jill Jaworski said yes, 30% of the projects costs as defined by the FTA; 30% of the local
20 share of the project cost.
21 Chair Dorosin referred to page 7, and said the Board needs to fill in the dates as well as
22 the cost share.
23 Travis Myren said staff will insert the appropriate numbers into provisions 6, 7 and 10 if
24 the Board of County Commissioners picks a scenario.
25 Chair Dorosin said the Board has a spreadsheet that lays out all the scenario options.
26 Commissioner Burroughs referred to the ee option, and noted that staff mentioned there
27 have been some minor changes. She asked if the version before the Board is slightly different
28 than the most recent update.
29 Travis Myren said scenario ee10 is the most recent update, and was created at the
30 request of Durham County to bolster some of their cash flow, and would not impact Orange
31 County other than to have an $83,000 positive impact starting in 2032. He said the ee in the
32 Davenport Analysis is almost exactly the same as ee10.
33 Commissioner Burroughs said early scenarios were not good for Orange County, but
34 she believes scenario ee10, which has minimum cash reserves at $4.4 million and the County's
35 local split at 16.5%, is one that she can support. She thanked the negotiators, as she now sees
36 cash reserves that work.
37 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 8, provision #10, and noted that the
38 responsibility for 0 and M costs would be changed.
39 Travis Myren said these were placeholders, and staff will put in correct information when
40 the Board chooses a scenario.
41 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Burroughs, and he thinks Durham
42 County is a very accommodating partner.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said he is sure that the funds are not sufficient to do all that the
44 County would like to regarding bus service. He said there will be further discussions in which
45 the County can partake with GoTriangle and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to
46 talk about bus cost sharing. He said any concerns he has about the project have nothing to do
47 with Durham.
48 Chair Dorosin said scenario ee10 that the Board is discussing splits the cost share at
49 81.5% to Durham County, and 16.5% to Orange County, and 2% to the FCC. He said the
23
1 operating and maintenance and the state of good repair costs are split 80% Durham, 20%
2 Orange through 2036, and then 81% Durham and 19% Orange thereafter.
3 Chair Dorosin said the negotiation process with Durham County has been very
4 collaborative. He said one thing to remember is that this project only succeeds if all are working
5 together. He said all parties have an interest in making this work.
6 Commissioner Rich said it sounds like the Board is comfortable with eel 0, and she is as
7 well. She said this is a regional transportation system, and all are in it together. She thanked
8 all those involved in the negotiation process. She said she would like to see some bus hours
9 added, and revenues around development at the stations.
10 Commissioner Marcoplos said he agonized over the costs and their risks, but he
11 commended Chair Dorosin and Commissioner Jacobs on a remarkable job of bringing the cost
12 share down so low. He commended Durham as well. He said he is comfortable with Scenario
13 ee10.
14 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Travis Myren, Orange County staff, Durham County
15 staff, and GoTriangle staff.
16 Travis Myren referred to Attachment C, and said there are some suggested changes to
17 the Transit Plan at the Commissioners' places with track changes:
18
19 Recommended Transit Plan Changes
20 0 Station Locations
21 • Patterson Place Station — no increase in environmental impact to the New
22 Hope Creek Watershed
23 • Gateway Station — move closer to Orange County to increase economic
24 development potential
25 • Approval of additions or deletions by Board of Commissioners
26 • Location changes presented to Board of Commissioners for input prior to
27 GoTriangle Board of Trustees approval
28 0 Administrative Support
29 • Administrative position to administer the Transit Plan located at the MPO
30 0 Annual Work Plans
31 • Describe program of capital and operating improvements using transit tax
32 funds
33 • Presented to Board of Commissioners each Spring
34
35 0 Economic Development Partnership
36 • Engage with Durham County on economic development around the
37 Woodmont and Gateway Stations
38 0 Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement
39 • Review every four years with the update of each County's Transit Plan
40 0 Annual Work Plans
41 • Describe program of capital and operating improvements using transit tax
42 funds
43 • Presented to Board of Commissioners each Spring
44
45 Chair Dorosin said the version at the Commissioners' places is redlined, and asked who
46 made these edits.
47 Travis Myren said GoTriangle led these changes at the request of the Commissioners
48 involved in the negotiations.
24
1 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the position in #4, and said it was not recommended
2 to go to the MPO, but rather merited further discussion.
3 John Talmadge said this was a mistake, and it will be discussed further.
4 Commissioner Jacobs referred to#7, and asked if there is a reason for the change in
5 language. He said the commissioners specifically wanted it to read that every four years the
6 County Commissioners would review the cost split.
7 John Talmadge said the red line version is the latest working document.
8 Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and said she would like to see
9 this position work with the Council of Governments (COG), as opposed to the MPO.
10 Chair Dorosin asked if there is a reason for the deletion in bullet point 1 referring to
11 environmental impacts.
12 Katharine Eggleston said it was duplicative, and the same language appears in the
13 paragraph above.
14 Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
15
16 Bus Service Expansion
17 0 Financial model may support some additional bus expansion
18 0 Allocation of bus hours governed by Implementation Agreement
19 • 64% Chapel Hill Transit
20 • 24% GoTriangle
21 • 12% Orange Public Transit
22 0 Potential Renegotiation of Agreement
23 • Bus hours allocation
24 • Bus service planning
25 • Disposition of the potential rail dividend
26
27 Commissioner Jacobs said he is supportive of this. He said when this agreement was
28 negotiated there was not a transportation department, plan or funding. He said the County was
29 usually just a pass through, and Chapel Hill had more funding. He asked if, going forward,
30 GoTriangle wants to commit its staff to the same process that the County is committing its staff.
31 John Talmadge said yes GoTriangle is willing to enter into a renegotiation, and he has
32 reached out to the MPO and the Town of Chapel Hill.
33 Commissioner Jacobs suggested putting some time parameters on a start date, and
34 said it should start in this calendar year or fiscal year.
35 Travis Myren said yes.
36 Bonnie Hammersley said after the meeting on April 27th staff will start the next steps with
37 a timeline.
38 Chair Dorosin said there is an anticipated rail dividend that will free up bus hours now
39 covered by light rail. He said this will be a boost mostly to Chapel Hill bus services. He said
40 this could be added into the ultimate percentage that is resolved, so that other resources could
41 be directed to Orange Public Transportation or GoTriangle.
42 Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
43
44 Next Steps
45 0 Discuss the Draft Cost Share Agreement and Changes to the Orange County Transit
46 Plan
47 0 Direct staff to prepare final documents for consideration
48
49 Ted Cole said he has the answer to Commissioner McKee's question about costs. He
50 said the entire pro forma out to 2062, all of the Orange County Tax district revenues that are
25
1 collected are $1,020,000,000. He said at the end of 2062 there will be about $40 million in the
2 reserve, which means about $980 will be spent over that term.
3
4 2. Adjournment
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
7 adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 Mark Dorosin, Chair
12
13 Donna Baker
14 Clerk to the Board
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 April 27, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on April 27, 2017 at the
10 Whitted Building in Hillsborough, 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 7:02 p.m.
21
22 1. Consideration of the Final Draft Durham — Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing
23 Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan
24
25 BACKGROUND: On April 20, 2017 the Board of Commissioners participated in a work session
26 to discuss the Draft Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and the Draft Orange
27 County Transit Plan. Based on feedback received during that meeting, final draft documents
28 were prepared for the Board's consideration.
29
30 Cost Share Agreement
31 The Final Draft Cost Share Agreement (Attachment A) specifies the amount of funding each
32 County will contribute to the project. Paragraph #7 specifies Orange County's share of the
33 project that is eligible for federal reimbursement at $149.5 million. This is consistent with
34 financial Scenario EE-10 which distributes eighty-one and one half percent capital cost of the
35 light rail project to Durham County, sixteen and one half percent (16.5%) to Orange County,
36 and two percent (2%) to outside funding. This outside revenue is used to offset Orange
37 County's contribution to the project.
38
39 For operating costs, it distributes eighty percent (80%) to Durham County and twenty percent
40 (20%) of the operating cost to Orange County through 2036 and eighty-one percent (81%) to
41 Durham County and nineteen percent (19%) of the operating cost to Orange County through
42 theend of the debt repayment.
43
44 The Cost Share Agreement has been modified to codify the cost shares described above. The
45 final agreement also reorders paragraphs eight through twelve for readability. Finally, the final
46 draft removes the provisions that would allow an individual County Board of Commissioners to
47 withdraw from the agreement. As an alternative, the Agreement adds a new paragraph fifteen
48 (15) which describes a mediation and arbitration process to settle disputes that cannot be
49 resolved voluntarily.
50
2
1 Financial Analysis
2 Based on the final cost share agreement, Davenport & Company has updated its financial
3 analysis to represent the precise provisions of Scenario EE10-3 (Attachment B).
4 The attached memo from Go Triangle (Attachment C) details the changes in this version of the
5 financial model. This version adds the cost of an administrative position to administer the
6 Transit Plans, the cost of a short range Bus Planning Study for Orange Public Transportation
7 (OPT) and GoTriangle for services in Orange County, and corrects the amount for Bus
8 Operations and Maintenance to reflect actual service increases next year. As a result of these
9 changes, the minimum cash balance during construction is $3.77 million in 2019, and the
10 minimum cash balance after construction is $15.39 million in 2030.
11
12 Transit Plan
13 The Final Draft Transit Plan (Attachment D) has been updated to include the final cost share
14 percentages for the light rail project as well as a summary of assumptions in the financial plan
15 (page 45). The Transit Plan was also updated to explicitly include an administrative position to
16 administer the Transit Plans.
17
18 Interlocal Implementation Agreement
19 The allocation of funding for expansion bus service is governed by an Interlocal Implementation
20 Agreement between Orange County, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
21 Organization, and Go Triangle. The original Agreement was approved in October of 2012 and
22 specified a funding formula for new bus services. The formula allocates sixty-four percent
23 (64%) of expansion funding to Chapel Hill Transit, twenty-four percent (24%) to Go Triangle for
24 regional bus services provided in Orange County, and twelve percent (12%) to Orange Public
25 Transportation.
26
27 Several changes have occurred since the original Interlocal Agreement was adopted, and the
28 Board discussed the possibility of renegotiating the provisions of the Implementation
29 Agreement. GoTriangle has provided a letter to the Board of Commissioners expressing its
30 intent to participate in those negotiations (Attachment E). The timeline for the discussions would
31 include an initial meeting prior June 30, 2017 and completion of negotiations before November
32 2017.
33
34 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Final Draft Cost Share Agreement allocates $149.5 million in
35 Orange County transit taxes and fees to the capital cost of the light rail project. The total
36 amount of transit taxes and fees allocated by the Transit Plan through 2062 is $981.7 million.
37
38 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
39
40 Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement & Orange County Transit Plan
41 Board of Orange County Commissioners
42 April 27, 2017
43 Whitted Meeting Facility
44
45 Work Session Topics
46 0 Final Draft Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement
47 0 Financial Analysis of Final Draft Cost Share
48 0 Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan
49 0 Offer to Renegotiate the Interlocal Implementation Agreement
3
1 0 Consider and act on Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Share Agreement and Orange
2 County Transit Plan
3
4 Cost Share Agreement Changes
5 0 Cost Shares (#7 & #12)
6 • Cost shares memorialized in Cost Share Agreement and Transit Plan
7 (page 45)
8 • Capital Cost - $149.5 Million = 16.5% of Local Share
9 • Operating Cost & State of Good Repair— 20% through 2036 and 19%
10 thereafter
11 0 Mediation and Arbitration (#15)
12 • Discussions regarding loss of State or Federal Funds, Private funds,
13 funding shortfall or cost overrun reach impasse
14 • Any party may request mediation
15 • If mediation fails, arbitration used to reach final decision
16
17 Financial Analysis Update
18 0 Financial Model Updated and Corrected
19 • Adds the cost of administrative position to administer the Transit Plan
20 ($24,500)
21 • Adds short range bus planning study for Orange Public Transit and
22 GoTriangle for Orange County Services ($100,000)
23 • Corrects amount for bus operations and maintenance to reflect services
24 next year- $450,000
25 • Minimum cash balance during construction: $3.77 million
26 • Minimum cash balance after construction: $15.39 million
27
28 Transit Plan Updates
29 0 Added Cost Share Percentages and Financial Assumptions on Page 45
30
31 Interlocal Implementation Agreement
32 0 Allocation of bus hours governed by Implementation Agreement
33 • 64% Chapel Hill Transit
34 • 24% GoTriangle
35 • 12% Orange Public Transit
36 0 Letter from GoTriangle
37 • Implementation Agreement Renegotiation
38 o Bus hours allocation
39 o Bus service planning
40 o Disposition of the potential rail dividend
41 o Potentially add Chapel Hill Transit as party
42
43 Next Steps
44 0 Consider and Act on Two Documents
45 • Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Share Agreement
46 Attachment A
47 • Orange County Transit Plan
48 Attachment D
49
4
1 Commissioner McKee referred to slide 2, and he asked if there is a reason why this
2 does not show up on item number 9, on page 7. He asked if this means that the percentages
3 of the debt will be paid at 81.5% and 18.5%.
4 Travis Myren said yes.
5 Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason that this information was not
6 memorialized in the slide.
7 Travis Myren said it was not in the slide, but it is in the agreement.
8 Commissioner McKee asked if this is the debt up to 2035 or 2062.
9 Travis Myren said it is the debt until 2035.
10 John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Development Director, said it is the
11 shared borrowings out to 2062.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked Travis Myren if he could provide an update on bus hours
13 and services.
14 Travis Myren said some analysis of what is affordable has been completed, and he said
15 part of this looks at the desired amount of cash balance for potential revenue short falls or cost
16 overruns. He said if$3 million was chosen as a minimum, 4,000 hours of additional bus service
17 was the yield, spread across all transit providers. He said there will be discussions about how
18 existing and future funds may be divided among the bus service providers in the County.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if County staff is recommending a cash balance of$3
20 million.
21 Travis Myren said that is a figure that he chose as a place to start, and the Board did not
22 make a policy.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said parties that have no financial stake in the funding may
24 advocate for a lower balance.
25 Chair Dorosin opened the floor for discussion.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board appreciated all the emails received from the
27 public, which were often thoughtful and rarely derogatory. He said it was a good example that
28 people in the Community are willing to educate themselves and be involved. He highlighted
29 three misconceptions that he noted:
30 • the 1/2 cent transit tax is a separate funding mechanism unto itself, and cannot be
31 applied to anything other than transit.
32 • year of expenditure: the cost of the project did not jump dramatically from 2012 to 2016,
33 but rather the way the dollars were defined changed.
34 • Borrowing money: the State was expected to make a 25% contribution, and it was
35 dropped to 10%. The funds that were to be used for bus are now going to make up the
36 money that the State cut.
37
38 Commissioner Rich said the Board heard from a lot residents slamming the University of
39 North Carolina (UNC) because it does not pay taxes. She said the County has a good
40 relationship with the University, and the students spend a lot of money in the County. She said
41 it is not true that UNC does not spend money, and it is important to continue building this
42 relationship. She said all need to be at the table having discussions, the University and the
43 Towns.
44 Commissioner Rich said the County will be at the table with the Town of Chapel Hill
45 when it builds the station at Gateway to make sure transit oriented development is pushed
46 forward, including: affordable housing, economic development, mixed use, form based code,
47 etc.
48 Commissioner Burroughs said the starting point to her decision process was the funding
49 changes made by the State, and the resulting shortfalls. She said she was not on the Board
50 until 2014, and she has learned a lot about the details in the last few months. She said the
5
1 corridor that the rail will serve is heavily traveled. She said the extensive work of trained
2 professionals has produced a great design. She said she focused heavily on finances in this
3 process, and she is grateful to her peers that asked for an independent analysis by Davenport
4 and Company. She said Commissioner Jacobs and Chair Dorosin negotiated in good faith with
5 Durham County, and there are now manageable financial splits, with adequate reserves for
6 Orange County.
7 Commissioner Burroughs said she has read all of the emails submitted to the Board,
8 and noted that some emails referred to the 2% committed funding raised by GoTriangle through
9 private fundraising. She said this 2% funding has to be contractually committed by the time the
10 final application is submitted to the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) in summer 2019, and
11 without it, the FTA will reject the application. She said GoTriangle has the right people at the
12 table to be able to raise these funds.
13 Commissioner Burroughs said one of the key factors is cost overruns, but 10 years ago
14 the FTA instituted strong risk management processes, and the majority of projects come in at
15 budget. She said people need to know this information, and the County does know what it is
16 getting into with this project.
17 Commissioner Burroughs said ultimately transit is something that requires the long view.
18 She said this is a vote for the future. She and her family have lived in many places and have
19 benefitted from the vision of those who came before. She said all of these places continue to
20 expand their transit services.
21 Commissioner Burroughs said the decision comes down to making the decision for the
22 long run. She said she will vote in favor of this plan. She said she appreciates the tone of the
23 conversation in the community, admires the advocacy skills of residents, and welcomes the
24 tone of this plan.
25 Commissioner Marcoplos said Commissioner Burroughs summed up a lot of his thought
26 processes. He said when he first came on the Board in December 2016 he attended a 5-hour
27 meeting about this issue. He said he began to appreciate the information and the feedback
28 from the community, and he explored and digested it so that he could communicate his thought
29 processes about why he supported this project. He said one item that has not been greatly
30 discussed is the 500 developable acres around this project, which is a sizable amount. He said
31 he looks upon this project as a great economic development tool, and he said what has been
32 missing in the discussion is the economic development opportunities around this project. He
33 added that this project promotes walkability and environmental benefits.
34 Commissioner Marcoplos said he was in favor of the project, but was very concerned
35 that the financial model was not working, and was afraid the project would be unviable. He
36 said Commissioner Jacobs suggested hiring an outside consultant to look at the financials, and
37 he appreciated the negotiations of Chair Dorosin and Commissioner Jacobs with Durham
38 County. He said he will support this project.
39 Commissioner Price said her constituency wanted the transit tax to be used for bus
40 service rather than light rail.
41 Commissioner Price thanked the Orange County community for its involvement in this
42 process, and said she is very much in favor of mass transit and its benefits, but not for this
43 project. She said the current light rail (LRT) project is economically unviable, environmentally
44 unsound, and socially unjust. She said she is personally and professionally devoted to social
45 and environmental justice, as well as civil rights. She said she maintains these values as a
46 Commissioner, and cannot vote for this current project for the following reasons:
47 • Funding scheme puts Orange County at risk with its bond rating
48 • Proposed route goes through green spaces as opposed to using existing thoroughfares
49 and right of ways; and there is no firm data that this light rail will divert cars
6
1 • She said every township will pay the transit tax but the proposed financial scheme
2 disproportionally allots more funding to serve a small percentage of area residents who
3 may use the LRT, and thus disproportionately allots less funding for buses to serve the
4 residents of Cedar Grove, Little River and Bingham.
5 • This project fails to serve transient dependent communities, and the proposed route fails
6 to provide direct service to communities of low to moderate wealth, and/or communities
7 of color, including Northside, Rogers Road, Efland, West Hillsborough and Fairview,
8 and therefore continues to marginalize these constituents.
9 Commissioner Price said, as a Commissioner, she is accountable to the Orange County
10 constituents, and development planning should be long term, comprehensive and flexible, but
11 she likened the newest plan proposals to shifting sand, without firm foundation and without
12 confidence. She said County government needs to maintain control and oversight of its
13 revenues and expenditures, and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) must wisely
14 steward the County resources.
15 Commissioner Price referred to the emails received from the community, and noted
16 hundreds of residents voted no to the LRT, and her vote will be no as well.
17 Commissioner McKee said he has had people tell him to stand down, or burn the place
18 down. He said he will do neither.
19 Commissioner McKee said he has been opposed to the LRT since 2012. He said he
20 stood down from opposition when the residents voted in favor of the transit tax. He said he
21 started raising objections back in the fall of 2016, when he saw numerous financial models that
22 did not make sense. He said the original proposal had this project being paid off by 2036, but
23 this was no longer the case. He said the long-term nature of loan repayment will use up any
24 additional funds that may have been available for bus transit.
25 Commissioner McKee said once Orange County has spent $50 to $100 million he will be
26 quiet, because the County will be too invested at that point to walk away and waste the money.
27 Commissioner McKee said the Board has received emails that have an approximate
28 ratio of 3-1 being against this plan, and, interestingly, many of these emails are from the
29 southern part of the County. He said he is not sure anyone on the Board fully understands
30 every aspect of this issue, and no one knows what will happen if the BOCC approves this.
31 Commissioner McKee said he would like to make a motion after comments have been
32 received.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said he actually did not make up his mind until yesterday. He
34 said he came at this issue with a set of values that he includes in all of his decision-making: a
35 sense of environmental responsibility and social justice. He said he has had moments of
36 disquieting and reassurance during this entire process. He said he has been involved in
37 Orange County planning for 30 years, and he believes in channeling growth where it should be,
38 which is why the rural buffer is important, and two and five acre zoning to protect watersheds.
39 He said he had to consider whether the LRT was a tool to channel growth. He said the Board
40 has seen where the LRT line will run, and it is misleading to think that it will only serve a very
41 small area as the universities at either end of the LRT provide immense opportunities and
42 employment in Orange County.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said he was not challenging the route or the mode, but whether
44 Orange County would be at risk financially. He said he does not want the BOCC to be
45 compelled to spend money that could be used for schools, land protection, affordable housing,
46 etc. He said he and Chair Dorosin worked diligently with Durham on the Cost Share Agreement
47 to avoid such a scenario, and the Durham County Commissioners listened. He said this is a
48 university rail line, and adding North Carolina Central University (NCCU) changed the
49 percentage of what Durham was getting, and Orange County has the fewest miles, the least
7
1 number of stations and the least economic advantage. He said this plan had to work for both
2 counties and GoTriangle.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said he thinks the plan is now in a good place, and the BOCC
4 has tried to protect Orange County's financial interest. He said two other items were promised
5 to the voters in 2012, with the first being the Hillsborough train station, which is still intact and
6 will be the first thing that Orange County will see as part of this project.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said the County must fund buses as much as possible, as bus
8 service was the second item promised in 2012. He said there is some indication that other
9 monies can be found within the new executive transportation administration of the state.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a basic principle here, that this community is larger
11 than just Orange County, and there is something to be said in being able to work with one's
12 neighbors towards the greater common good, and this project is a way to do that. He said not
13 all decisions are clear-cut, but the world requires little leaps of faith at certain times. He said if
14 Orange County is fiscally protected, he is willing to take a leap of faith.
15 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Chair Dorosin for his work on the negotiations, as well
16 as Commissioner Wendy Jacobs and Ellen Reckhow from Durham County. He said he trusts
17 that if concerns arise, the County's partners will work through them, and he hoped the County
18 could build the same level of trust with GoTriangle. He thanked Orange County staff, especially
19 Travis Myren, GoTriangle staff, and John Roberts.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
22 delay a decision until further negotiations can occur between Orange County, Durham County
23 and GoTriangle; to replace the language contained in item #15 of the current Cost Share
24 Agreement pertaining to mediation and arbitration, and replace it with language used in the
25 Cost Share Agreement seen on April 20th
26
27 Commissioner McKee said GoTriangle needed a decision by April 30th not April 27th. He
28 said he is convinced, that without this language change in Item 15, the BOCC will be severely
29 limited in controlling its own destiny. He said the language contained in item #15 speaks to
30 arbitration, which leads to a panel making the decisions, not the BOCC. He said the language
31 from the April 20th iteration of the Cost Sharing Agreement allows for good faith efforts to reach
32 an agreement about cost overruns, or undesignated funding shortfalls, and allows either BOCC
33 to vote to withdraw from the agreement, and amend its transit plan accordingly.
34 Commissioner McKee said he prefers this language as it does not allow for easy or
35 immediate withdrawal, but allows an option for withdrawal. He said the language proposed this
36 evening does not allow for consensus, because Durham County and GoTriangle refuse to
37 discuss making this linguistic change. He said item #15 may be used in business or other
38 scenarios, but he feels that Orange County must have a way to maintain control over its own
39 destiny.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said he had some of the same concerns as Commissioner
41 McKee about protecting Orange County's interest, and he called Durham County out on it
42 yesterday. He said Orange County's concerns about protecting its own interests were
43 mischaracterized as unilateral withdrawal, which was never the intent. He said he spoke with
44 GoTriangle staff and two Durham County Commissioners, and he feels confident that if all
45 partners are acting in good faith, then progress can continue. He said Durham County has
46 acted this way thus far, and he decided to stand down on opposing the language. He said he
47 never expects to get to the point of the situation described in #15.
48 Chair Dorosin said the language in #15 needs to be taken in context with the previous
49 paragraphs, which he read. He said the important parts are the meetings and conferring
50 meetings, which insure there is a process in place, with many opportunities for discussion and
8
1 consideration of options. He said the way this has been structured and discussed has been
2 misleading. He said this plan has to work for both counties, and it has been implied that all are
3 muscling for position, but that is wrong. He said it has been a collective effort by both counties,
4 and they were able to build consensus around this as a collaborative effort.
5 Commissioner Marcoplos said this is a good time to read paragraph 16, and he said he
6 could not see there being any type of issue with Durham County or GoTriangle other than a
7 financial one. He read paragraph #16 and said this offers is a lot of protection. He said if the
8 federal or state governments decide to pull its funding, then the project is done regardless.
9 Commissioner McKee said this agreement is between human beings, who have a
10 tendency to disagree. He said he sees a lot of things that he cannot identify, which may cause
11 disagreement, and one is that the parties did not want to negotiate the clause from the April 20th
12 meeting. He said the BOCC has a fiduciary responsibility to every resident of Orange County.
13 He said he does not have a clue as to what may or may not cause a disagreement, but without
14 the language that he read before the County is at a disadvantage. He said he is open to
15 mediation, but not arbitration, as arbitration does not allow for an exit strategy.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said the agreement calls for mediation before arbitration.
17 Commissioner Rich called the question.
18
19 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Dorosin,
20 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner
21 Burroughs)
22
23 Motion failed.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded to Commissioner Price to
26 reject the cost share agreement and the plan associated with it.
27
28 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Dorosin,
29 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner
30 Burroughs)
31
32 Motion failed.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
35 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Share Agreement
36 (Attachment A).
37
38 Chair Dorosin said there is a meeting and confer clause in the agreement, as well as the
39 creation of an administrative position that will provide oversight and regular updates of the plan,
40 which will allow the BOCC to know before a material change is triggered. He said all involved
41 have worked very hard on this plan, and the best interest of the County has been at the
42 forefront. He commended the Durham BOCC, and said this is a good agreement. He said this
43 is a big project, and as such it was right to scrutinize it carefully. He said the County is at a
44 juncture of regional growth, and bold action is required.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the administrative position is funded by Orange County and
46 Durham County, and as such, is responsible to both counties. He said there will be quarterly
47 updates, an annual update, and every four years there will be a review of the Cost Share
48 Agreement, to insure it is working properly for the two counties.
49
50 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner
9
1 Marcoplos, Commissioner Burroughs); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner
2 Price)
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
5 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Orange County Transit Plan (Attachment D).
6
7 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 104, the second bullet under further cost cutting,
8 and made a friendly amendment to remove the option of cutting half the stations in Orange
9 County as a cost cutting measure.
10 Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented
11 Development, said the stations that were listed as cost cutting measures have the lowest
12 ridership, and he said one station is in Durham County and one is in Orange County.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to remove that reference and to delete the
14 second bullet, which reads "Removing the Hamilton Road and Woodmont stations. This
15 strategy would negatively affect customers in these station areas, and could affect the New
16 Starts rating for the DO LRT Project. However, these two stations were selected because they
17 are among the lowest-ridership stations in current projections, and are both relatively closely
18 spaced with the Friday Center station." He said including this language infers that the County
19 would support this as a cost cutting option. He said it may be necessary at some point, but that
20 would require discussion rather than an upfront inclusion.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if this change would have to go back to Durham County.
22 John Talmadge said the language in this plan does not have to go back to Durham, but
23 the same language is in the appendices of the Durham County Transit Plan. He said the
24 change could be managed.
25 Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Burroughs accepted the friendly amendment.
26 Commissioner McKee said the BOCC has yet to approve the document, and it has
27 already found a point of disagreement with Durham. He said he will vote to take this language
28 out, as he has a serious objection to these stations being proposed for removal.
29 Chair Dorosin clarified that the motion is to approve the plan, with the deletion of the
30 second bullet point on page 104.
31 Commissioner McKee said he will vote for the amendment first, and then the plan.
32 Chair Dorosin said the two items are in the same motion.
33 Commissioner McKee said he has shared his sentiments.
34
35 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner
36 Marcoplos, Commissioner Burroughs); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner
37 Price)
38
39 Chair Dorosin echoed everyone else about the process. He said it has been an
40 incredible experience with local government and local democracy. He said it is important to
41 investigate, educate, advocate, and agitate; and all involved have done just this. He thanked
42 the staff for its diligent efforts, and the BOCC for its commitment to transparency and trust.
43 Commissioner McKee said this is merely a skirmish and not a battle or the war. He said
44 the issue moves forward, and he encourages all to stay involved in the discussions.
45 Commissioner Rich thanked Chair Dorosin and Commissioner Jacobs for their time and
46 dedication to the negotiations.
47 Commissioner Price addressed those residents that came out and spoke in opposition
48 to the plan, and said that these residents were heard.
49 Chair Dorosin said all voices were heard.
50
10
1 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
2 adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Mark Dorosin, Chair
7
8 Donna Baker
9 Clerk to the Board
10
11
12