HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04-26-22; 4-b - Durham & Orange Transit Plan Governance Study – Interim Update 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Action Agenda
Item No. 4-b
SUBJECT: Durham & Orange Transit Plan Governance Study — Interim Update
DEPARTMENT: Manager's Office, Planning & Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Second Stakeholder Workshop Memo Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager,
2. PowerPoint Presentation 919-245-2308
Tom Ten Eyck, Transportation/Land Use
Planner, 919-245-2567
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 919-245-2579
PURPOSE: To receive an update on the progress of the Durham & Orange Transit Plan
Governance Study and next steps.
BACKGROUND: In the early 2010's, Orange County approved a county-wide transit plan, which
included a joint recommendation for the development of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit
(DO LRT) project. In 2013, an interlocal agreement (ILA) was developed and approved by the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Board, and the GoTriangle Board of Trustees. Upon the
discontinuation of the DO LRT project, it was determined that a new governance framework (aka
ILA) was necessary to guide the implementation of future County transit plans.
Project goals include:
• Creation of a clear, operationally efficient governance structure that ensures that Orange
County priorities are funded and implemented with the County transit taxes and fees.
• Formation of new levels of accountability, which includes development of an equitable set
of processes, seeking to gain further community trust.
In the fall of 2021, the study team invited the BOCC, as well as others serving on other transit
plan governing boards (GoTriangle & DCHC MPO) and staff, to participate in initial small-group
interviews. From those interviews, the team learned about overall needs, and the study process
continued to allow for a facilitated workshop with elected officials from each of the transit plan
governing boards (GoTriangle & DCHC MPO). These needs were defined through five overall
elements to be incorporated into a new governance framework: Representative, Equitable,
Collaborative, Transparent, and Accessible.
From these five elements, the elected officials helped to further weigh-in on just how much change
was necessary to primary elements of the existing framework. The feedback provided leadership
and guidance to develop draft alternatives for consideration in a new governance framework. Staff
2
from all three parties to the existing governance framework attended a joint workshop in early
March 2022. This workshop focused on critical elements that informed the foundation of what a
new ILA could offer to all parties. Discussion focused on multiple alternatives of critical elements
that comprise the following four areas: Membership, Voting Structures, Financial Planning, and
Program & Plan Development. Initial outcomes of this workshop indicated:
• Formalizing greater involvement from multiple jurisdictions and entities at the Staff Working
Group (SWG) level and associated representative voting structures (the SWG is the
technical recommending body for plan implementation elements).
• Clearly defining roles & responsibilities for each signatory to the updated interlocal
agreement.
• Solidifying the County's role in annual work program/budget development with the tax
district administrator.
• Defining terminology and language consistently to ensure clarity and transparency for all
parties who will use this updated governance framework for plan implementation in the
future.
• While referencing State Statutes, the updated ILA and supporting documentation will
further define equity as it relates to utilization of tax revenues throughout the county, as
well as accounting for regional transit needs.
During the spring of 2022, staff and agency management reconvened for a second workshop
(See Attachment 1) to discuss outstanding elements and also reviewed draft governance
framework alternatives through an updated ILA between the County, DCHC MPO, and
GoTriangle, as well as draft supportive policies and procedures (updated SWG Bylaws, Financial
Policies, as well as incorporating plan implementation administration/management elements
throughout). County staff working on this study anticipate that draft alternatives can be formed
into a final set of recommendations that may be presented to the BOCC in June 2022.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This study is being conducted in a partnership with Durham County.
Orange County is contributing $52,833.84. This money is being reimbursed from the Article 43
Transit tax revenues.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable
to this item:
• GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND
INEQUITY
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color;
religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic
background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic status.
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
Public Transportation provides opportunity for access to jobs and services and supports these
Goals.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact is applicable to this item:
• CLEAN OR AVOIDED TRANSPORTATION
3
Implement programs that monitor and improve local and regional air quality by: 1)
promoting public transportation options; 2) decreasing dependence on single-occupancy
vehicles, and 3) otherwise minimizing the need for travel.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the update as
information and provide any comments or questions.
Attachment 1
4
Durham-Orange Transit Governance Study
BOCC Interim Update Memo—Spring 2022
Coordination across multiple agencies,jurisdictions, and stakeholders to achieve a specific goal requires clear
direction and guidance. In 2021,through a partnership between Orange and Durham Counties, a need was
identified for new Interlocal Agreements and supporting policies& procedures to be developed that reflected
the priorities of updated transit plans. These sets of documents are to consider new or refined roles and
responsibilities among the partners through a joint process.The primary partners include the County, DCHC-
MPO and GoTriangle.This study kicked off in August 2021 and will align with each County's transit plan update
schedule for adoption of a new ILA and approval of supporting policies and procedures.
Project Goals
Goals were identified early on through a joint conversation between County representatives. Craig Benedict&
Travis Myren participate for Orange County; Ellen Beckmann participates for Durham County. Critical aspects for
this study to accomplish were identified to be:
• To create a clear, operationally efficient governance structure that ensures that Durham and Orange
Counties' priorities are funded and implemented with the County transit taxes and fees.
• To form new levels of accountability,that includes development of an equitable set of processes
which seek to gain community trust.
To achieve the identified needs and goals,the Counties, DCHC-MPO and GoTriangle selected Atkins to conduct
this study. Atkins also partnered with Fountainworks to help facilitate joint stakeholder dialogues throughout
the study process.
State Enabling Legislation
There are key State Statutes that inform the purposes of this governance study:
• N.C.G.S Chapter 160A defines how a government body exists.A portion of this chapter(Article 26—
'Regional Public Transportation Authority Act') defines how such a body functions to support public
transportation services.
• N.C.G.S Chapter 105 defines how a government body is enabled to raise and provide revenue for
necessary uses and purposes. A portion of this chapter(Article 43—'Local Government Public
Transportation Sales Tax Act') defines how such revenues can be raised for the specific purpose of
public transportation services and associated governance oversight.
• N.C.G.S. Chapter 153A defines enumerated powers and responsibilities for County's, but also defines
the County role with levying revenue sources to support public transportation services (property tax
assessment only).
Study Process to date
After the study kickoff,the process included two parallel tracks.The first is to review existing governance
structures with respect to transit plan implementation/administration, both within the counties, as well as
peer organizations (i.e., Wake County).The second is to develop a policies and procedures manual, which will
be a set of support documents to guide detailed elements of each county's transit plan implementation
efforts.The process to date has included the following major actions:
Initial Stakeholder Interviews (Sept-Oct'21)—discussions with nearly 70 individuals from all local jurisdictions
and regional coordinating agencies across Durham & Orange Counties that share an interest in public
5
Durham-Orange Transit Governance Study
BOCC Interim Update Memo—Spring 2022
transportation investment. Goals of the interviews were to capture needs,wants and desires for how a new
governance framework should serve the local and regional communities within and across the two counties.
Joint Elected Officials Workshop (Nov'21)—Facilitated a half-day forum, which included elected officials from
each County and each local municipality within each County,to build on the Initial Stakeholder Interviews and
begin to quantify desired level of change to be made on major elements that support a governance
framework. A majority of elected officials in attendance indicated that there should be some aspect of change
with almost every element highlighted. Such elements included:
• changing the structure to allow for more collaboration between municipalities within each County
(83%indicated more collaboration was needed),
• defining a significant change in voting representation (both for governing board roles&
responsibilities, as well as staff representation on the technical recommending body,the Staff Working
Group; 100%indicated some level of change from existing framework regarding voting
representation), and
• as well as defining how the annual budget development and decision-making process to meet the
desired change for greater representation (67%indicated that some level of change was necessary to
better define/guide the annual budget development and decision-making process).
Wake County Transit Program Peer Interview (Dec'21)—learned from neighboring peer to the east, Wake
County, regarding successes and challenges relative to the governance framework supporting the Wake
County Transit Plan/Program.
Alternatives Development (Jan-Feb'22)—alternative concepts for consideration in a new governance
framework were reviewed and developed. While peer examples were used as models to inform initial
direction,the concept of a comprehensive governance framework was deconstructed to focus on the critical
elements that were necessary for collaborative dialogue during joint stakeholder workshops by all
stakeholders before moving forward.
Joint Staff Workshop#1 (Mar'22)—Facilitated a half-day workshop with staff from each of the four
coordinating organizations (Durham &Orange Counties, DCHC-MPO and GoTriangle), as well as staff from City
of Durham/GoDurham,Town of Chapel Hill/Chapel Hill Transit and Orange Public Transit.This workshop
focused on 17 proposed alternatives (each with a proposed recommendation)for consideration across 5 major
elements that should comprise a transit plan governance framework.These 5 major elements are:
• Membership
• Voting Structures
• Financial Planning
• Multi-Year Plan Development
• Annual Work Program Development
Workshop participants were asked to provide feedback on each proposed alternative and the indicated
recommendation. Upon conclusion of each topic's discussion, a 'pulse-check' confirmation was sought to
provide direction on how to best incorporate language in draft governance documents. Many proposed
recommended alternatives were met with consensus by all participants. Where a consensus was not met, one
or more parties offered an alternative perspective for further consideration by all parties.
6
Durham-Orange Transit Governance Study
BOCC Interim Update Memo—Spring 2022
Joint Staff Workshop#2 (Apr'22)—Facilitated a two-hour workshop with same staff representation as the
Joint Staff Workshop#1.This workshop focused on 6 proposed alternatives (each with a proposed
recommendation)for consideration across the 5 major elements from the first workshop. All topics discussed
were items that were either tabled to allow for further research OR were highlighted as related elements
during the first Joint Staff Workshop.
Major Outcomes from Joint Staff Workshops#1
The table on the following page highlights the topics discussed.The colors indicate action taken by the
participants:
7
Durham-Orange Transit Governance Study
BOCC Interim Update Memo—Spring 2022
Joint Stakeholder Workshop#1 (Mar'22) Joint Stakeholder Workshop#2(Apr'22)
Durham County Primary Agreement
°- (ILA)
r
L Orange County Primary Agreement
(ILA) Orange County SWG (SWG Bylaws)
E
Durham County SWG (SWG Bylaws)
Orange County SWG (SWG Bylaws)
Durham SWG (ILA Defined)
Orange SWG (ILA Defined)
SWG Quorum (SWG Bylaws)
3 SWG Chair&Assignment Role (SWGOrange County SWG (ILA defined;
L
V) Bylaws) SWG Bylaws)
oc
4+
Voting on Annual Work Program (&
Budget) Approval (ILA)
Conflict Mediation (ILA)
Critical Definitions—Revenue (ILA)
c Critical Definitions—Model & Equitable Use of Net Proceeds
c Financial Plan (ILA)
�a
H: Equitable Use of Net Proceeds (ILA)
7i Process Definitions—Financial Model
U & Plan Development ILA Supporting Increased Cost of Existing
LL Financial Policy Needs (supporting Services
policy outline)
4,
E
E Multi-Year Vision Plan Update— Multi-Year Plan Development
o Amendment Process &Thresholds
@ Elements & Process (ILA)
4' > for Initiation/Approval
3 �
41
Y �
30
m Q. Annual Work Program Elements Annual Work Program Amendment
To tw o Process &Thresholds for Initiation
o @ Defined (ILA)
C L.
a > for Initiation/Approval
a o
Consensus by all Appropriate Majority/Minority
Parties on Proposed Perspectives Tabled for Further
Recommendation Discussion
*Topics were either tabled or highlighted during the 1St Joint Stakeholder Workshop; All became points of
discussion during the 2nd Joint Stakeholder Workshop
8
Durham-Orange Transit Governance Study
BOCC Interim Update Memo—Spring 2022
Topics Resulting in both a Majority& Minority Perspective
Membership to the Orange County SWG &Associated Voting Structures (both workshops)
Confirmed Alternative GoTriangle Preferred Alternative
From March 111 workshop
Voting Members: Voting Members:
• orange County Orange County
Administration&Planning /may ��/,.� -.,q Administration&OPT Legend
OCNC-MPO ti L L ) DCHC-MPO
GoTriangle �.•.r° '�...r` GoTriangle PAS=Primary Agreement
Town of Chapel Hill + Chapel Hill Transit Signatory with voteN
2 2 • Administration&CHT 2 1
• Tawn of Carrboro PAS 2 Votes each
• Town of Hillshorough Non-PAS=1 vote each Non-PAS with vote(5)
1 City of Mebane Nan-Voting Members:
TJCOG
PAS=2 Votes each UNC-Chapel Hill Nan-Voting Members
N—PAS=1 vote each Town of Chapel Hill
• Town of Carrb
Non-Voting Members: Town of ttulsoro
borough
• TJCDG City of Mebane
• UNC Chapel Hill
• Confirmed alternative from March 15Y Workshop was confirmed by Orange County& DCHC-MPO.
o Justification aligned with the Joint Elected Officials Workshop to allow for greater coordination
with municipalities in the county.
• GoTriangle's alternative still invites municipalities to the table, but with no formal voting representation.
o GoTriangle expressed that transit operators (outside of the three Primary Agreement
Signatories) should be only entities to have a formal vote on plan implementation efforts.
Voting on Annual Work Program & Budget Approval Process
Proposed language to include in a new ILA:
Upon receipt of the documents of the County Transit Work Program from the SWG's
recommendation,the Board of Commissioners should have first review, hold a public hearing and
vote.The BOCC would have the opportunity to:
1. Approve the County Transit Work Program
2. Deny and Develop a list of Significant Concerns and/or technical issues with the work program
and seek revision from staff, allowing for a subsequent review/approval process with the
BOCC.
Upon approval by the County BOCC, GoTriangle should continue in practice to approve each
County Transit Work Program, which includes annual budgets administered by GoTriangle on
behalf of each County. GoTriangle should not be able to make changes once received from the
County BOCC approval but can choose to approve or deny and develop list of Significant Concerns.
This language was confirmed by both Orange and Durham Counties, as well as DCHC-MPO to be incorporated in
draft governance frameworks.This would allow the County BOCC first opportunity to review and have more
direct involvement in annual work program development.
GoTriangle raised concerns over schedule related to how annual work program and budget should reach the
GoTriangle BOT with the BOCC now being recommended to review first.
Attachment 2
9
w
a =�
Durham & Orange Counties Transit Plan Governance Study
Orange BOCC Interim Update
April 26, 2022
Update Outline
> Project Need & Overview
> Project Goals
> Study Process to Date
> Major Outcomes from Joint Staff workshops #1 & #2
> Topics Resulting in both Majority & Minority Perspective
ATKINS
10
Project Need & Overview
1 1
• D-O Transit • D-O LRT Updated
Plans&$ Discontinued] - Governance
• Transit ILAs Transit Plan Updates Framework
1 1 1 •
ATKINS
Primary State Enabling Legislation
> N.C.G.S. Chapter 160A— defines how a government body exists
> Article 26— Regional Public Transportation Authority Act
> N.C.G.S. Chapter 105 — defines how a government body is enabled to
raise and provide revenue for necessary uses and purposes.
> Article 43 — Local Government Public Transportation Sales Tax Act
> N.C.G.S. Chapter 153A— defines enumerated powers and responsibilities
for Counties, but also defines the County role with levying revenue sources
to support public transportation services (property tax assessment)
ATKINS
4
11
Project Goals
> Creating a clear, operationally efficient governance structure
that ensures that Durham & Orange Counties' priorities are
funded and implemented with the County transit taxes and
fees
> Forming new levels of accountability, that includes
development of an equitable set of processes which seek to
gain community trust.
ATKINS
Study Process to Date
Oct • Initial Stakeholder Interivew
•21
Joint Elected Officials
Workshop
M • Peer Interview
ATanS
12
Study Process to Date
Feb
• Alternatives Development
• Joint Staff Workshop
#1
A• • Joint Staff Workshop #2
nTKiNs
Major Outcomes from Joint Staff Workshops #1 & #2
Joint Stakeholder Workshop#1(Mar'22) Joint Stakeholder Workshop#2(Apr'22)
a Durham County Primary Agreement(ILA)
Orange County Primary Agreement(ILA)
v Orange County SWG(SWG Bylaws)
M Durham County SWG(SWG Bylaws)
E
2 Orange County SWG(SWG Bylaws)
Durham SWG(ILA Defined)
v
Orange SWG(ILA Defined)
SWG Quorum(SWG Bylaws)
SWG Chair&Assignment Role(SWG Bylaws) Orange County SWG(ILA defined;SWG Bylaws)
vi Voting on Annual Work Program(&Budget)Approval
S (ILA)
S
Conflict Mediation(ILA)
Consensus by all Appropriate Parties
Tabled for Further Discussion
on Proposed Recommendation
ATKINS
13
Major Outcomes from Joint Staff Workshops #1 & #2
Joint Stakeholder Workshop#1(Mar'22) Joint Stakeholder Workshop#2(Apr'22)
Critical Definitions—Revenue(ILA)
tm Critical Definitions—Model&Financial Plan Equitable Use of Net Proceeds
c
c (ILA)
c
a Equitable Use of Net Proceeds(ILA)
Process Definitions—Financial Model&Plan
c
Development(ILA) Supporting Increased Cost of Existing Services
LL Financial Policy Needs(supporting policy
outline)
Multi-Year Plan Development Amendment Process&Thresholds for
a v Initiation/Approval
v E Multi-Year Vision Plan Update—Elements&
} a Process(ILA)
� o
Y Annual Work Program Amendment Process&Thresholds for Initiation
c
£ E for Initiation/Approval
w m o Annual Work Program Elements Defined(ILA)
° w
a` m
Q
Consensus by all Appropriate ity Perspectives
Parties on Proposed Documented Tabled for Further Discussion`
Recommendation
Topics Resulting in both Majority & Minority Perspective
Orange County SWIG Membership &Associated Voting Structure
Confirmed Alternative GoTriangle Preferred Alternative
From March 1n Workshop
Voting Members: Voting Members:
• orang l w, Orange County
Administration&Pfanning Administration&oPT Legend
Z n{HC-ngle Z 2 PCNC-MPO
PAS=Primary Agreement
GaTtiangle GoTriarrgltr
Tof Chapel Hill ►,�-�'�� • Chapel still Transit Srgutpry vnth wte(sJ
2 • Administration&CHT 1 / 1 PAS=2 Votes each
Tuem of Carrboro �'•� Nan-PAS=1 vM.e h
• Town of Hillsborough Non-PAS with vote(sl
1 rityafMebane Non-Voting Members:
• TJCOG Non•Voting Members
PAS a 2 Votes each UNC•Chapel Hill
Nan-PAS=2 vote each Town orchapel Hill
• Townol Carrboro
Non-Voting Members: Tmun of Hillsbcroagh
• TJCOG • Gtyef Niebane
• UNCChapel Hill
ATRINS
1Y.E..nYllClwi�
14
Topics Resulting in both Majority & Minority Perspective
Voting on Annual Work Program & Budget Approval Process
Recommended language would provide:
The County first opportunity to consider approval of the Annual Work Program as
recommended by the Staff Working Group.
> County would have oversight to `Approve,' or`Deny.'
> Upon Approval, GoTriangle BOT would receive County Work Program (which includes
budgets).
> GoTriangle would not be able to make any changes, but could approve or deny while
producing a list of Significant Concerns or technical issues
This language/process was confirmed by both Counties, as well as DCHC-MPO.
GoTriangle raised concerns over schedule related to how the annual work program and
budget should reach GoTriangle BOT with the BOCC now being recommended to review first.
ATKIN$
r-
r
Y
• r
J!
Durham & Orange Counties Transit Plan Governance Study
Orange County Travis Myren Atkins Project Manager
Staff Contacts Tom Altieri,AICP • Adam Howell,AICP
• Tom Ten Eyck