Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-02-2022 Budget Public Hearing and Work Session 1 APPROVED 916/22 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION June 2, 2022 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Budget Public Hearing and Work Session on Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Renee Price, Vice Chair Jamezetta Bedford, and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Jean Hamilton, Earl McKee, and Anna Richards COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Price called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Opening Remarks Chair Price welcomed everyone and reviewed the agenda. Chair Price dispensed with reading the public charge. 2. Presentation of the County Manager's Recommended FY 2022-23 Budget (PowerPoint Presentation) Bonnie Hammersley made a presentation on the FY23 recommended budget: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET COMMISSIONER AMENDMENTS June 2,2022 Budget Public Hearing 2 Slide #2 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET BUDGET PRIORITIES Structurally Balanced Budget Maintain funding of the Social Safety net services • Increase Public Safety. and I;ducadon Iw estments • Retain and Recruit Employees Lang-Term Financial Planning ORANGE COUNTY NOFUI I CAROLINA Slide #3 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET REVENUE ApprWalud hv*mmoo,!Fund 9a1ancr D.d% 1.0'd Charge inr S—k- w wummarit,[ lJc—end 4.4rp " r➢ P-1. r,tx 0.1 namirs 0.Uw •Property Taxes •SabsTu -Lrteners ead Per�riu •MlsorLLrrwsr�s i&pr .p dFurlWl— i Iri¢rgcmmnicnhf •Tranuer5 ORANGFCQUNTY M)k I I I I ARt 11.LNA Slide #4 FY 2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET Revenue Recommendations Property Tax Rate Increase $0 0025—cover debt to use of FYM21-22 one-time funds=S553,024 M-0100—allocate towmds education f➢lldnlg=S2,2 F 2,04 rr:ncorpo.aied Osage Co.mty s 28itJ00 _5 35.iR arr6oro 5 l62F00 S a5S& npel Hill '# 51Z1 Unmu $ S .limb Total PropettrTas Collections Increase with 2e/o namrai gtou-dt=S8.5 vtill ki Sales Tax 4%grrnG-th owf FYZ021-Z2 rear cnd projections building=S6.'million ORANGE COUNTY NOFM[CAROLINA 3 Slide #5 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EXPENDITUPES 1. ed5 y„�,.y..n5emow 593 in,luicuOnu Fin, aw •Gene.al Gvremment oi.Tsn TomNnn .Supppfl SfYNCf9 cwmc�me orb �is� - -Ganrtunill Services wrcsar.�n.cm .Numen Serncea 6✓� -RldlC�"T1 -Ed..b.n •DEht Semce-Ediwion Oed SePA -Caurdy -DWu Tech 10—M C-0 Gr PU9] •Trens e.,m Olher Fun* ORANGE COUNTY WORT]E CAROLINA Slide #6 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET Expenditures Recommendations Highlights • Ed,—ti— Public Safiny 11riY5t-3e Employee Recniltnteat aad Retention Outside:Agencies • Fire Districts • rStnericaz3 Aware P1u3 roc[F—d-g ORANGE COUNTY FA T]I CAROLINt Slide #7 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION—STUDENT ENROLLMENT 253 229 27] 1 t:]:�rtrr ]56 2W 49 o[al ADR[ 6m4% 58.1 N. �tvdents W. '�Y9P fJ I Les:C•n o'Oisrrsr I75 11D Cl:u�e 9J9 951 37 ml &A I ohD]I 39.6°o 4I.1, Id". ORANGE COUNTY [.]ORTI I CAROLINA 4 Slide #8 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION-CIIRRIENT EXPENSE FUNDING Ltucenc Expense 593,9Jh.&]'+ 3d2,963,��5 535,00'•,582 51,0'1,06:� Pe.PnPiL ..S±aG'. S3 ilSl 5±.606 S441 CuacntE pcnac 533.41 $41 a54.134 N.PnEvt 55 OPANGE COUNTY T47R71 I CAROLIN. Slide #9 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION , Ba-w Request Manager Clltreni Expenses* S 777JM $ 82U20 $ 809,405 $ 32�313 rPruiliise :1io1nxKllips"8 250,000 % 259,000 % 254,090 $ L. •Nrtflyduu courrhmRrcn ror rncrrss�srn s��ry 8NMl1Ls,amf lnsw�ntx.as wNf asxalNrlrarN opersPlnpretaaed expenses *'fHrrhem Seah Promlae Schofarelr�pe funReebyArLde 86 Setes 1bn;frt�udes art add�[faral f30,000 an FY2�22-2d Mr their Baca to Work frtntaLve OKANGE COUNTY faOWTI I CAROI.IN� Slide #10 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET PUBLIC SAFETY INVESTMENT tiuecg.encs Se[vices j8 FTE ].ux I;',ur•.N L—r. Paramedic Trainee 4 FTE is 27,154 CARD T[eatment Co .11 t.1_ De[ention.Officers 15FPE Is 362,496 Sa&-1rxa1 PuB1fc5 e kuinnI Srrrlcrs r`ttcnna[au 1 FIE 5 134,037 ocial Service=_ Social Serrices rlsst 1 FTE -24,367H— i FTEJ ealtit DftiaJ Assistant 1 ftiE - H&Ath ]1�1t]:\uis:11 0 4L)]=T�EAPR Park Cuurdssia[ur 3 FTETOW Od:Ier Deprs. P.4FT 2N,372 ntal w/Public Safety 34.9 FTE 5 611,018 5 Slide #11 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION County Employee Compensation Package Changes �Cyaae�djt�ennen[ 51,80D,U00 3�o A Health and DentalInstuwce 5•„ 561.Wl' 300,000 • Lir[ngWAVTUtcfeaseli,-[ngls's[gefocpe[manestaud Amu S15.40 pm h—to S13.85 pri 1— • Raebtentent[nmase pceKiLed by Local Govemnteut Reti[entent Sy stem to irmnage n>r[cnt buuuts -_zr— ORANGE COUNTY TORT]I CAROLINA Slide #12 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET OUTSIDE AGENCIES Outside Agencies aFY202:2-23 County Recommended ,5011.c3l) Base Budget Requ�st Manager Increase Agencies Funded 57 58 53 4 Total $1,729,953 $2,238,645$ 1,994,G90 $ 164,737 • An additional S45,000 is pnoridcd to airs-Mated—tsidc age—ics in the Visitors Bureau Fund. • -nu Boa.d of C—ts Com[r[issione[s estalblmlud a t p t of 12-,o of ge,--1 fu d expenses to outside agencies FY2022-23 Recommendation allocates 1.351a to outside agencies. ORANGE COUNTY NOFM I CAROLINA Slide #13 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET FIRE DISTRICTS FiREDISTR[Cr CURRENT REQUESTED RECOMMENDED TAX RATE INCREASE TAX RATE C� G_— 30.0763 $0.00 30.0763 j C 11:11*1 hill 50.1+5- 5000 _ 50.1J8- ]QD—rOd—k n_ 0.1080 _.. $1" S$0.1180 Fl—d $0.0728 $1.00 SO.0828 Eno 0.0898 Wms 39 N—Hope "A012 Gtove $0.9627 o 50.0949 S.;rlt 10.00 Southern Triangle W1080 $1" $08 k%Iute Co 301'31 SUAO 303 ORANGE COUNTY NOWT]I CAROLINA 6 Commissioner McKee asked for clarification of the requested increase. He said that slide #13 showed what appeared to be one dollar as the requested increase for some fire districts. Bonnie Hammersley clarified that it is not a one dollar requested increase but is a one penny increase. Commissioner McKee said he wanted to clarify because Damascus fire district shows a current rate of$0.1080 and a recommended rate of$0.1180, which is one penny. Bonnie Hammersley said that in the future, staff would show the increase differently to make it clearer. Bonnie Hammersley continued the presentation: Slide #14 F 022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET A ERIGAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) Fifc District P25 Phase II Compliant lfidio Replacement 51,-,3,200 FI07-15WS Lrx-itni S,ifi,39i Housing 1`IeIpLie S205,090 L:1rltllu[C3IrlCcrlCi'sc 1}iirLrn�tlt�,�JL��J Sioadband la Cmtrumuc Design and ImplerneutRuon 55,000,000 Housuig(EHA"WkiRAD) 1 $4,797,643 Total $12,372,828 • If Reror�unended&�ulger is�ppio�-ed,� ior�ritfite3s ,8���ou rentauts a;-a�]ab3e + P-mxnnuii&d Budget also includes SS?O,UCU in General Fiuui resotuces to begin the tssnsition troin RPA to sustainer e,ongoing 1'[T[nfle. ORANGE COUNT' ."IFM r CARk A INA Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification on the statement on slide #14 that the "Recommended Budget includes $570,000 in General Fund resources to begin transition from ARPA." She asked if that meant things the county used ARPA for last year are now in the general budget. Bonnie Hammersley said staff identified essential programs and positions that will continue after ARPA funds are expended. She said the county is phasing out reliance on ARPA for those programs and positions. Chair Price asked for clarification of the amount of ARPA funds remaining. Bonnie Hammersley said $4.8 million in ARPA funding remains. 7 Bonnie Hammersley continued the presentation: Slide #15 IFY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET DL}E ATIN G A IE N Dh IENIT 04MP0' Commissioners Price and 63 All-ocate adtlitiorralARPA fundinglor eadio $789,100 McKee replacernerlks for Ordnge(;rave Fire 1)I5trlot,New Hope Flre r}istrict,and Soukh Orange Rescue Squad in th a Fire pi5trkt4 Radio Replacement project tram the u nal latt at"pmiml 22'tho"o Cvmrnlssborier Hamilton fi3 All-ocate additional ARPA funding for the $16,364 Long Time Horneor wrier Assixta nos Program to equal",000 in availdblefun-ding for FY 2022-23Irtrlrt the Una Iloeated Project. 22.2aopw Comrnls6101wGreene 220 Restore-Su nday Afternoon houm(12pm- 96,550 C0rnniiSsiflner Prit* 6proF1t maid Librarylor a tataltoslol W.550 N-230P*w Carnmissior r5rdlord 132 Inuredss two t4hooldistricts'opr:raking 5600.aoil budgetby 550,000.Hand drrrr:asr:OPLI3 Trustfund hudq-�-tbythe samry amount ORANGE COUNTY rJORTI t CAROLINA Slide #16 .FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET OPERATING AMENDMENTS ENT Sponsor isudget Amend rnent m z1a70P9R1 G4mrnlWorier5 132 Increa;e the two school dl€Irlcls'cperw11ng 31,000.000 Bedford and Hampton budgets feducation)by$1.000.00 .00usIng Artl €s46reservslunft CornrniNtibncr 132 Increa$e the twpschaoldistricts'operating S250-00 Hamilivrr budget by$250 Ho(divided byl ADM and dbtrsasetrdvel and(raining for all uuunty departments by WD.000. Commissioner 132 fnerca sit the WoAthvoldistricts'flptxrdtirrg S100,g'tM0 Hamllkon bud get by$100.W(d ivided by ADM)and dec rease{Tuts ide Agency f un ding by$100,000. Commissioner 132 Increascthc two 9thooldistrict5'-0p*ra1Fng $35d,*D Hamllton budgek by 5350,000(diwWedby ADM w and use ARP Afundsof$350,00 Frorn the Unallocated Project. ORANGE COUNTY 1'WFM t CAROLINA 8 Slide #17 IFY2022-23 RECOMMENDEDBUDGET IP AMENDMENTS MZIP-041 commmionerprloe %m Add 8144.000io craft minlpar4 for MePerry $1 0,000 MIIIt,roromunity(y oar If 2Y29CIP492 Com�nialonerresne 35 Climate Mitigation funds that are not spent or s0 awarded each yea at the end of each grant "r.W will kni uduarrrisud nnq ma6e awaWakAR t* #ny 4rigiblq ap#Wgne through#supo*m*n4l grant cycle if the tota I balance awagable exceeds WO - Awards made through the supp6ernental grant€ycCe wi[I follow the same competidle*evaluation*no Award prxos3, exoapt chat In Ws cwW tharrV wid b*onry-o pool[s€haul and community appklcants together]. ORANGE COUNTY r,]ORTI I:CARDLINA Bonnie Hammersley clarified that the underlined sections of slide #17 were not intended to emphasize any point and that it was a typographical error. Slide #18 IFY2022-23 RECOMMENDEDBUDGET IP AMENDMENT 22,5�w.ro3 Commissioner 58 Inorea%eOundingfflreleerleilee#vehiclesand $115,000 R[chard5 additlonal chargersfflralectric4eet Yoh lckm 22-nC -D34 Commissioner Greene 55 Remove Southern Orange Campws Ex pan;ion $0 project in years 9 an-d10($5.45.000) 0-21c -mro Comrnl5sionergc" 58 Reduce$388,00inyear51-3forAmbulances, 0388,000) purchased irk.adyancelhrough Budyel Attrendment 11 on May 24.2022 22-23cp-o� STAFF 58 Reduce$45.00 br F IP&M arsh a I Vehi du ($45,000) puvthasad i n Our i ent yraar 22•73M-o7 STAFF NEW Create$M,000 annual FmergencyServlces $200.000 Ren*rral&Repla4ementProjevl ORANGE COUNTY NOFM I CAROLINA 9 Slide #19 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET BUDGET CALENDAR Budges and CapitalfnyesttnetvtP9an(C_ 11Nr lU C Julie 2 Schools aad oxus de heltcies list* f 1rc I]istrict,P.11tlic Saf[ts and i Itunnu ScrciccsI 19 L]tuitam Tech,Support S[n uxs,G[ncral Cmzrvmcltt and lSar �4trll71llLllC�.][rC 1CG5 ...... .............. ... $;iflgptt,�]llfi djim� ts[10f1 Rc=n1Ut1O1;Of I11 Ct]:t Cn.�fln15[ iU]:C 9 FI•_N"- Opemtir_?and CIP$ud�et_kd0VE4JL1 10he 31 ORANGE COUNTY NORT7 L CAROLINA Slide #20 FY2022-23 RECOMMENDED BUDGET MISSION STATEMENT Otange County exists to provide governmental senices neededhy out Residents or mandated by the State of North Catolina. To pro6de these quality semces efficiently we must, ❑ Serve the Residents of Orange County—Our Residents Come First: ❑ Depend on the energy,skills,and dedication of all our employees and volunteers; ❑ Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness,respect,and urldersGlnding. Die CoLnCE Residents Come First ORANGE COUNTY []ORT]L CAROLINA Commissioner Fowler asked for more information on Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). Bonnie Hammersley said OPEB is the accumulation of retirement liabilities that the county has to pay to county government retirees. She said that currently, the county has about a $175 million liability. She said rating agencies ask how the county is doing with funding liabilities. She said that currently, the county has about $7 million in a fund that goes towards that liability. She said staff was working on putting together a plan that would reduce the liability. Commissioner Fowler asked if it is correct that the county has $7 million and that the county is trying to get to $170 million. Bonnie Hammersley said that the county will never get to $170 million. She said Orange County is a "pay as you go" county for liabilities. She said that in the southeast it is not as concerning as it is in places like Michigan. She said there are cities and counties that have gone bankrupt and cannot pay retirements. She said as the county goes to rating agencies, it 10 helps to show that you are you paying attention to the liability. She said this is a new GASB rule that started before 2009, right after the Enron situation. She said governments began thinking "what if that happens in the public sector?" She said the GASB rule said governments had to show liabilities on the balance sheet. Commissioner Fowler clarified that this is not an insurance plan, but money set aside to pay the liability. Bonnie Hammersley said no. She said the issue is that once you put it in the trust, you cannot take it out. She said it is a best practice, but you can only use it when you need it. She said when you need it would be a troublesome time. Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification. Bonnie Hammersley said that it would mean that the county did not have money to pay retirement liabilities, and the trust would be used in that scenario. Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification of what the retirement fund covers. Bonnie Hammersley said that the post-employment benefits are health insurance for county retirees. Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification of the health insurance retirement fund. Bonnie Hammersley said health insurance is budgeted and paid for as "pay as you go." She said the county pays for it every year. She said that there is an actuarial looks at average age and how long until retirement for all employees. She said it is not as big of a concern in the southeast, but in other parts of the country it is more of a concern. Commissioner McKee said he would like to know how much the liability has grown. Bonnie Hammersley said one of the things done during the recession to reduce the liability was to increase the number of years an employee had to work to receive health benefits, from 10 to 20 years. She said staff would bring more information about the issue to the Board. 3. Public Comments The Board held a public hearing to receive comments on the FY23 recommended budget. Chair Price asked the Clerk to the Board if anyone had signed up to speak at the Chapel Hill public comment satellite location. Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board, said no. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee and seconded by Commissioner Fowler to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS: Joe Bumgarner with OE enterprises and the assistant chief at Caldwell Fire Department. He thanked Manager and the outside agency volunteers for including funding for OE Enterprises in the 22/23 FY budget. He said that those funds will be used to help those with disabilities to find outside employment. He said that Orange County is a leader in helping community members with disabilities live, work and thrive in the community. He said that he hopes the commissioners will support the funding. 11 Bryant Hunter said he has been at OE enterprises since 2017. He said that he likes the job he does, and he hopes he can stay with it. He works at a community center in Efland and at Rogers Road and at the visitor's center in Chapel Hill. Katie Harper said she has two children in Orange County Schools. She thanked the commissioners for their work on the budget. She asked the Board to vote in favor of the amendments for increasing funding. She said that it should not be up to local resources to make up for the lack of state funding, but that is the situation. She asked them to fund the schools as well as they can. She said one goal is to retain and recruit employees and that by not fully funding the OCS budget they will make it more difficult to achieve. She said that the amendments would help improve compensation for classified staff or increase the supplement for licensed teachers. She said that a few months ago she heard BOCC members say that increasing teacher compensation did not directly address the learning loss and mental health needs. She said that retaining new talent is the best way to reduce learning loss and address the mental health needs. She said that the teachers have worked for years and know families the best. She said that teachers are at the heart of schools. She said that she has a deep respect for Dr. Felder and her team has wonderful ideas to help the district. She asked the Board to please help Orange County Schools retain dedicated teachers. She said that they value education as a top priority. Meghun Darab spoke in favor of the education amendments. She said that there is a shortfall of $10 million from both districts. She said that while the $2.2 does not cover that shortfall it may be enough to build up the teacher base and retain teachers. She said that it will show teachers that we appreciate them. She asked the Board to please consider approving the amendments at the next meeting. Brian Link, the President of Chapel Hill Carrboro Association of Educators, congratulated the commissioners who won their primaries. He said that he teaches his kids that civics is a relationship, and they are excited to continue the relationship between the association and the commissioners and hopefully into the General Assembly, next year. He asked the commissioners to think about just how much has changed since they last saw one another on May 10. He said that in Raleigh, on both sides of the aisle, they are talking raises that neither school district has budgeted for but would have to be accounted for if enacted. He said that their chief financial officer said that will mean a million extra dollars just in the Carrboro city schools alone. He said then the reminder that the teachers literally must decide if the work they are not getting paid enough to do is worth dying for. He said that the survey results show that the teachers in their districts are willing to say that they are leaving the county or state is almost double the amount since the last survey two years ago. He said they listen closely, and it is clear the Board has been listening too. He said that the amendments are creative and will help both school districts. He said that he hopes they adopt all of the amendments rather than pick and choose. He said they also heard them about fund balance and for the first time in over a decade, the district is having a fund balance 101 meeting to talk about how they can do their part. He said that the are going to need $3.5 million just to keep the lights on. He said that he is presenting a petition signed by over five hundred community members that urge the Board to do more. He asked the Board to pass the amendments and try to find more money for the schools. Chair Price read a letter from Pamela Winstead, the President of the Perry Hills Community Association: To Whom It May Concern: The Perry Hills Community Association is requesting the funding and installation of a community park at the county owned lot located at the corner of Frazier Rd and Lancaster Rd in Mebane (PIN# 9835416142). The lot is currently undeveloped and has become an area where trash and other debris accumulates. By purposing the 12 lot as community park, it will create a space for community members to congregate and kids to play safely. Since our streets do not have sidewalks, the park will provide a safe place for physical activity and other recreational activities for our community members. Our hope is that in converting the undeveloped lot into a county-maintained community park, it will contribute to community identity, appeal and unite members of all ages, and contribute to the health and wellness of the community. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee and seconded by Commissioner Greene to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Price thanked everyone who made comments at the public hearing. The Board transitioned to a Work Session. 4. Additional Discussion on Regulation of Large Gatherings The Board discussed the regulation of large gatherings in Orange County. BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners requested information on how the County may regulate protests or large gatherings in Orange County. The Board initially received information on this subject at its February 1, 2022 Business Meeting. At that meeting the Board discussed many aspects of this type of regulation including prohibiting large gatherings on certain public school properties. The Board further discussed this topic at its May 10, 2022 Work Session. At that work session the Board determined parades would not be regulated and provided further direction to the County Attorney to be brought back to the Board for future consideration. The agenda materials for each prior discussion may be viewed at the links above. Pursuant to the Board's prior discussions and input, the County Attorney revised the draft ordinance which generally provides as follows: • Only covers Picketing conducted by groups of 10 or more people; • Establishes standards of conduct for participants and organizers of Pickets; • Defines the locations at and upon which Picketing may occur. Not all County property is what is known as a public forum and so the draft ordinance would limit access to only certain locations on specific County properties; • Prohibits Picketing on or within an unspecified distance of school property and playgrounds; and • Declares violations to be subject to a monetary fine, equitable relief, or trespass depending on the facts and circumstances. At the May 10tn work session, the Board instructed the attorney to invite the school superintendents and the Sheriff to comment on this proposed ordinance and to invite them to nd tn attend the June 2 work session. These invitations were extended on May 18 13 John Roberts, County Attorney, introduced the item and reviewed the background material in the agenda abstract. He said the draft ordinance would not cover meetings of public bodies. He said he spoke with Sheriff Blackwood and he said he would enforce whatever the Board approves. He said representatives from Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools said they could not attend but said they are in support of ensuring that picketers are not allowed on the grounds of their schools. He said they suggest a limit of 500 feet from their property. He said that this ordinance would not apply to most of the schools in the CHCCS district, unless the towns approved the same ordinance. He said that he could speak to the town attorneys and ask if the towns would be willing to adopt something similar. He said that Orange County Schools have staff present to speak on the item. Carrie Doyle, Orange County Schools Board Chair, said they have experienced three protest situations. She said that one was outside of the football game with a large number of attendees wearing Proud Boys clothing. She said it lasted over 45 minutes and they shouted at cars, had a bullhorn, and their comments were racist and bigoted. She said that this was outside the school's capacity to restrict due to the right of way. She said they were pacing back and forth but never standing or blocking the entrance. She said that a couple of people were particularly threatening and that the application of the ordinance to only ten or over would not have assisted during this event. She said that students reported feeling unsafe. She noted that this gathering was not student led and they shouted misogynistic and homophobic comments. She said that they have had challenges at Board of Education meetings. She said that during a meeting there were threatening protesters in what they were carrying and wearing. She said that did not impact the school day as much. She said that the protest at Stanback limited afterschool activities and that students did not feel safe the next day. She said that students are frequently recognized at Board meetings and that is something to consider. She said that there is a long car line and they had a situation where protestors were speaking out against school policies and were passing out materials to those in the line. Patrick Abele said when they talk about the safety and security of school, it begins at the perimeter. He said that they cannot determine intent. He said that individuals were coming from outside of Orange County that had said they were going to voice an opinion on an agenda item but were really there to demonstrate or disrupt to get as much national attention as possible. He said that there were individuals that came to Stanback were from out of county and out of state plates on vehicles. He said that these individuals have sought out these types of events in which to demonstrate. He said that the students ask to keep them safe and there is no safe zone on a school property for these types of activities. He said that they request a zero limit on the size for individuals requesting to protest on a school campus. He said that once they are on school property they have policies and they will work with law enforcement. He said that when it comes to people being near the campus in public areas, the question of enforcement becomes the ordinance. He said that without an ordinance in place, as a school official he or another school employee has to be out there and go between the individuals to tell them if they are on or off of school property, if they are following school rules, if they are bringing items on campus that aren't allowed. He said that at a certain point, if there is an ordinance or a crime has been committed then law enforcement will take over. He said that what they are asking is for the Board to develop an ordinance that does not put school staff in that position. He said that they know that law enforcement backs them and have always been there when they have needed them. He said that there is a gray area without an ordinance about what can be done. He said that there is the potential there for the future to be able to put plans in place for current vulnerabilities and to keep schools safe. Commissioner Bedford asked Patrick Abele if he had a recommendation on the number of feet from school property. Patrick Abele said no less than 1,000 feet from school property. 14 Chair Price asked if they could go down to zero. John Roberts said they could go down to zero or any number they want. He said that it could be 10 on county and zero on the school property. Chair Price asked if it is standard to have a vigil defined as picketing. John Roberts said it was in several sample ordinances from other jurisdictions, but the Board could remove that. Chair Price asked if they received a permit they would be able to have a vigil. John Roberts said there is no permit required, and that it would only apply on county or school owned property. Chair Price she was thinking of a vigil in front of the courthouse or on the courthouse steps. John Roberts said the courthouse steps and lawns are traditional public forum areas where demonstrations would be allowed. Commissioner Bedford said she noticed the ten or more people and looked at the February 1st meeting. She said that Raleigh uses ten or more but Wake County uses any person. She said that one person who is yelling at children is inappropriate, and she supported changing it to any person. She said after hearing from Patrick Abele, she supported changing it to 1,000 feet. She said this can be reviewed in the future. Commissioner Greene said she was thinking of county property not the schools. She said that the Whitted building is county property and this rule would apply to Whitted. John Roberts said no picketing would be allowed on Whitted property, sidewalks, or parking lots. Commissioner Greene said she would not be in favor of that. She said that she would support the schools. She said that having demonstrators at the Whitted building is perfectly appropriate and is a first amendment activity. She said that she feels that way about Whitted and any other building the Board meets in as a body. Commissioner Richards said a lot of what they are describing would be happening at a public school board meeting. She said that she cannot think about how to word this to restrict behavior, so they had a right to be there. John Roberts read clause about prohibition on school property. He said that if there was a controversial topic and the school board had a meeting at a gymnasium, this ordinance would not apply if students were not present. Commissioner Richards said she wonders how to address the specific issues that lead the Board to consider the ordinance, but does not know if there is a way to address it. She said that if a school board meeting is held on school property at a time when students are not present, then this ordinance would not apply. John Roberts said that the ordinance would not apply to the situation where students are there to speak at a meeting. Commissioner McKee asked why the school properties are not by definition county property since they were bought with county money. John Roberts said school districts are separate legal entities and that the land titles are in the school board's name. He said that some properties are in the county's name for financing purposes. Commissioner McKee said he does not understand the difference in picketing on school property and public county property. He said that he is having an issue of understanding when picketing becomes obnoxious behavior or becomes behavior that is not acceptable. He said that standing quietly with friends with a sign, that is picketing, He said that if he is speaking loudly, that is still picketing. He said that speaking at a moderate voice is also picketing. He said that he is convinced that some of the most beneficial movements regarding individuals that did not have certain rights were not achieved by people standing quietly with a sign. He asked how 15 to make a distinction for someone that is advocating for personal or civil rights and someone that is opposed to something. He said that he has a problem with the subject. He said he is struggling to sacrifice liberty for every moment someone should feel safe. He said that he does not know where the dividing line is. He said he is not comfortable saying that someone that does not agree with something has to stand 1,000 feet away from the property. John Roberts said there is no way to make a distinction of the content of speech. He said they cannot do that. He said that the only standards of conduct are content-neutral, safety driven restrictions. He said that would be no firearms or weapons, opposing pickets must be separated, and pickets cannot block freedom of movement or access. Commissioner McKee said they have been told stories about what people were saying, and that is content. He said that he agrees with what the ordinance says about weapons, and he feels that the size of the sign support should be smaller than it is currently drafted. He said that a 1" x 2" stake for a sign is a weapon. He said that his problem is who makes the subjective decision as to whether his behavior has crossed the line and there is no way they can write that up. Commissioner Hamilton said she agreed with Commissioner Bedford about the limit being any person and with the 1,000 feet buffer. She said that she wants to remove the age requirement of being eighteen and have it read primary and secondary education. She said the Board is not trying to control behavior but rather create a reasonable limit on where folks can be and to help maintain safe learning environments for students. She said that there are so many ways to protest, and this is not saying they cannot come to school board meetings or to the Whitted Building. She said that parents can also email to complain about the schools. She said that this is reasonable to protect children who at their development level, cannot deal with stress the way an adult can. Chair Price thanked the County Attorney for drafting the ordinance. She said she did not understand why county property needed to be combined with school property. She asked if they could put the 1,000-foot limit around the schools. She said that the safety concerns they are trying to address are around the school children, teachers, and faculty/staff. She said that she would like to address county property limitations later because many civil rights movements were addressed by picketing. She said she would like to focus on schools and limit people being able to come on school property. John Roberts said that references to county owned property can be removed. He said the United States Supreme Court has held that private property owners can have limits placed on their property once they have invited the public onto the property. He said that 1,000 feet can go up and down the sidewalk, all linear distances, or from certain boundaries from the schools. He said this could include private properties across the street. Commissioner Hamilton had a follow-up question on distance and if a property is private or not. She asked if she heard correctly that if the county does 1,000 feet and applies it to private property, that the regulation could be challenged. John Roberts said it could be challenged. He said the United State Supreme Court issued a decision that if a private property owner invites the public on to the private property for the purpose of a public demonstration or public activities, that it can be regulated as if it were public property. Commissioner Fowler asked if there are county properties where it would be unsafe to have picketers. John Roberts said yes, and he gave an example of picketers at a solid waste convenience center, which created a limited public forum for that picket. He said that if someone else wanted to picket at the solid waste convenience center, the county would have to allow it. He said it was an unsafe place to allow demonstrations and picketing, and that there are likely others. 16 Chair Price asked about community centers when there is children's programming is taking place. John Roberts said there are not many demonstrations in the county that occur outside of the courthouse or outside of a building where the Board is meeting. Commissioner Greene asked if they could specify that one of the places people could picket or demonstrate is wherever the Board is meeting, while the meeting is taking place. She said it could be included as an exception where picketing can happen. Chair Price asked if Commissioner Greene would be against picketing at the courthouse. Commissioner Greene said no. She said it would be in addition to the courthouse. Commissioner Fowler suggested adding the Whitted Building as an approved location. Commissioner Greene said it could be Whitted, Southern Human Services, or wherever the Board is meeting. Commissioner Fowler said that Southern Human Services is in Chapel Hill. Commissioner Greene acknowledged that because Southern fell in Chapel Hill, it could not be regulated. Commissioner McKee asked how Commissioner Greene's suggestion would affect pickets at an Orange County Board of Education meeting. Commissioner Greene said she was not speaking to the Board of Education at that moment but was addressing the right of people to picket the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner McKee asked if people would not have the right to picket or take action at another board's meeting. He felt this suggestion was singling out the Board of Commissioners. Carrie Doyle said she was not concerned about picketing when the school board was meeting at a non-school site, such as the Whitted Building. Chair Price said her focus was on the students and teachers. Chair Price asked John Roberts if he had any sense of direction from the Board. John Roberts said it seemed like there was consensus to reduce the number of picketers to zero from ten in the definition of what constitutes picketing in a proposed regulation. Commissioner McKee asked for clarification. John Roberts said that instead of defining picketing as "the activity or circumstance whereby groups of ten or more people gather," it would be changed to "the activity or circumstance whereby a person or persons gather for any common purpose." Commissioner McKee said this change concerned him. He said that two people who might be intimidating or abusive could be handled by the Sheriff's office. John Roberts said that the Sheriff mentioned something similar to him. He said he was aware of a situation where two people showed up, and before long 50 people were with them. He said that two people were loud and demonstrating, but as long as they are just loud but following the other terms, they are not violating the ordinance. Commissioner McKee said that it is subjective. John Roberts disagreed with Commissioner McKee. He said it is not subjective, because there are standards that do not take volume or content of speech into consideration. He said it included standards like if they have a weapon, if signs in compliance, or if picketers are blocking access. Commissioner McKee said he had not heard of an instance where weapons were brought to a picket. He asked for any examples of that over the previous two years. Chair Price said she did not want to wait for that to happen. Commissioner McKee said he did not want to suggest that the Board wait for it to happen. 17 Commissioner Richards said she thought there were projectiles at a meeting, such as spear. Commissioner Hamilton said the ordinance is keeping people at a distance from a school to protect children, it does not matter what they are saying. Commissioner McKee said issues for school board meetings ended when the school board began using the Whitted building. He said he needed clarification on what the Board is trying to regulate. He asked if people are showing up at the schools, apart from the board of education meetings. Chair Price said the picketers were not at the meetings, but at the schools. Commissioner Richards said picketers were there when the schools were in session. Commissioner McKee asked if they were at a football game. Chair Price said yes. She said they were supposedly trying to recruit students to their organization. Chair Price asked if they could focus on one section that could be approved before the school year. She asked if the Board supported asking the County Attorney to come back with an ordinance that pertains only to school property and focuses on the safety of children. Commissioner Bedford said she agreed with that request. She said that she supported Commissioner Greene' suggestion of adding to the draft ordinance where and when the BOCC is meeting as an approved location. She said she also supported deleting the county property reference under section B in the draft ordinance. She said she supported changing the definition of picketing to any person or persons and prohibiting picketing within 1,000 feet of a school. She said she wanted to hear Commissioner McKee's suggestion on how big a sign should be. She said the Board needed to discuss what the fine should be for violating the ordinance. John Roberts asked for clarification on what the Board wanted to address. He said that Chair Price seemed to be requesting a focus on prohibiting picketing around school property right now. He said he thought that restricting picketing on county properties would be considered by the Board a future meeting. Chair Price said there seems to be some question as to who, what, and where when it comes to county property. She said she wanted to just focus on the schools. John Roberts said he could do something that would be much shorter and bring it to a future business meeting. He said that since there was a trespass requirement and the Board wanted to consider a misdemeanor violation for a situation involving school property, it would require two meetings based on a new law passed by the NC General Assembly. He said that anything with a potential criminal penalty has to be introduced at one meeting and come back at a second meeting for approval. He said that if the Board wants to do something before the summer, it must be added to the next business meeting agenda. Commissioner McKee asked if the Board supported reducing the sign support to % by 3/4 inches. The Board agreed by consensus. Commissioner McKee said a % by 3/4 inch stick will hold a sign. Chair Price said she wanted to know if there was consensus for focusing on the schools instead of schools and county property. Commissioner Bedford said she thought there was consensus for removing county property from the ordinance. Bonnie Hammersley said that if the Board does not do anything with county property, there would be no change to current procedures. She said that if people want to picket on county property, they usually contact the County Manager's Office. Commissioner Bedford said she thought that $100 was a fair fine for violating the ordinance. 18 Commissioner Greene agreed with Commissioner Bedford's suggested fine amount. Chair Price asked the County Attorney if he had the information he needed to bring something back at the following business meeting for the Board to review. John Roberts said county property references would be removed and that could be addressed in the future by the Board. He said that would eliminate most of the language in the draft ordinance. He said there would be no standards for picketing, just that picketing would be prohibited around school property. Commissioner Bedford and Chair Price clarified that it would be within 1,000 feet of school property. John Roberts said that the ordinance would have the prohibition, the definition of school property, and the penalties. Commissioner Bedford said there would also be standards of conduct. John Roberts said there would not need to be standards of conduct if picketing is prohibited. Commissioner Fowler said that it seems like people can still picket at the Whitted building and use firearms. John Roberts that the county can prohibit the carrying of firearms in county buildings, but that the county cannot limit the concealed carrying of firearms. Commissioner Fowler asked if the county could prohibit openly carrying firearms rather than concealed firearms. John Roberts said firearms would have to stay outside if there was a picket in front of the building or the courthouse. Commissioner Hamilton said there may still be a benefit to regulating pickets outside of 1,000 feet from a school. John Roberts said he was not sure how it would apply, Chair Price said that would get the Board back into picketing in the rest of the county. John Roberts said if the only prohibition is picketing within 1,000 feet of schools, he is not sure how that would apply. Chair Price said her concern was protecting schools. She said she wanted to try to get it done before the school year starts. John Roberts asked if he should include public playgrounds, or the Board wanted to address it in the fall. Commissioner Hamilton wanted to include language about public playgrounds. John Roberts said that the legislature said people can possess concealed firearms on playgrounds. 5. Presentation from GoTriangle — Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Expenditure Report The Board received a presentation from GoTriangle staff on the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project expenses. BACKGROUND: The Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project was an element of the Orange County and Durham County Transit Plans from 2012 until the project was discontinued in 2019. GoTriangle led the planning, design, and engineering effort. The presentation (Attachment A) provides an overview of the history of the project, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding process, and a detailed report of the total project expenses and contracts. The Durham County Board of County Commissioners received GoTriangle's expenditure report at its May 2, 2022 meeting. 19 Charles Lattuca, President and CEO of GoTriangle, reviewed the background materials. Saundra Freeman made the following presentation: Slide #1 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Expenses Slide #2 Federal Transit Administration The Federal Transit Administration(FTA)providesfinancialand technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways,light rail,commuter rail,trolleys,and ferries. FTA also oversees safety measures and helps develop next-generation technology research.FTA administers the Capital Investment rants{CI(-:,}program,which is a d1wret ion aryg rant program that f u n d s tra n sit capital investments.including heavy rail,commuter rail,light rail,streetcars,and bus rapid transit. Learn mare about the FTA on their website at:httos_1}www.transit.dotgoy/about-fta. Learn mare about theCIG program on FFA's website at:httoW/www.transit.dot.gov/0G. 1 FederalSlide #3 Funding Process PraJect Full Funding The D-0 LRT project sought a federal grant ofaver�1 bill iDn chrough the Capital Investment Grants(CIG�program D-0 LRT completed the Project Development pNJ&e of the Caplital Irwestment Grapts pro8ram's New Starts process as Development Engineering fi�rant Agreement t �4n�IC4C¢rvArmn-rmYrl rrvlrxv Gnin cosrnilrnml�of f:tirrsl ti::lirxi prxess Ircluding d�.elopr9 s�nm-New karts and reMerMnp allemakh+es Furdlrr� saeallry locally pier�rad CornpEele s+�rntieoc alternekNe(Lpq}.antl adopilrg erl�rYeerl�g enp gesl� it inMt IFx:llxc�lly cmxiralrod hry ramie tfa�s�v!ekiar flan depIcted In the dlagrarn above. When the project was ca nueled,it was nea 6 nE the cDmpletiDn uE the Engi neering phase of the program,which was the fina I phase befinne receivi ng the federal grant a nd beginni ng construction. A com prehensive presentation on the Ca pital I rivestment G rants program is avai lable here!https:flyputu.be/Ow�mpbEy Saundra Freeman said the group was not able to get to the full funding grant agreement Slide #4 �alrur�d and �ir-r� lin The Durharn�rartge Light Rail Transit project would have begirt an irrfrastructureinvestment of over$2 billion tannecting NCCU, Downtown Durham, Duke University,and UNC Chapel Hill #hrough over 17 miles of fast,reliable,and congestion-free light rail transit. fv1ay2008—Special TrsnsitAdvisotyC�mmission recommends LightRail between l�urhsm and Chapel Hill, lone�009—{�urhamfihapel Hill-Carrbaro�letropolitan PlsnningUrganization(DCHC tx+SPOM includes LightRail in the �035Long RangeTransporkation Plan, �011—Durham County�+o#ers pass none-half-can##ransit sales tax�60.14%in fa�+orJ,and Durham Coon#y Cornrnissioners approve tight Rail as part of the Bus and Rail Investment Plan. �01�—Orange County�+oters pass a one-half�ent transit sales tax�58,88°f in favor,and Orange CountyComrnission�rs appro�+�Ligh#Rail as partof the Bus and Rail Investrn�ntl'lan. May�01�— Durham County and Orange County negotiate aninitialcost-sharing agreement for the capttalcost of the Light Rail project. tromm Background and Timeline June 2013—DCHC MPG includes Durham-Orange Light Rail(D-O LRT)in the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Pla n. February 2014—The Federal Transit Administration(FTA)approves the project for entry into project Development,the first phase of the federal funding pipeline. Fall 2015—DCHC MP0,Durham County,City of Durham,Town of Chapel Hill,and Orange County unanimously endorse a preferred alternative from ON Hospital to Alston Avenue. February 2016—F7A issues a Final Environmental Im pact State men tand Record of Decision far the D-O LRT project. NovemLber 2016—DCHC M PO unanimously recommends including the NCCU station refinement in the D-O LRT project. 5 Background and Timeline December 2016—FTA appi-oves an arnended Record of Decision induding the NCCU station refinement in the D-O LRT project. April 2017—Durham County,Orange County,DCHC MPD,and GoTriangle boards vote to commit additional dedicated transit funds for the D-D LRT projects in the updated County Transit Plans and cost-sharing agreement. July 2017—FTA approves the D-O LRT project for entry into Engineering,the second phase of the federal funding pipeline. January 2018—GoTria ngle Board of Trustees authorizes the acqu isition of property for the project's Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility, December 2018—Durham City Council unanimously approves rezoning and annexation for the project's Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility. March 2019—GoTri angle board votes to cancel the D-D LRT project. s 22 Slide #7 D,O LRT Fmim 0�%fs FY14-FUI) YM-j.reW,2D2j MW Voliv, �Quzq OWN SA* d j WhWotfft"0*0&W A-W Admkimwdgn j"UW SLOW&-S,PPt LIM IP 3FLZU-n 3�33t �Ukk� 4 -4—Iftf—-0.7co tw 106MI -1:� IkL-A4R rod 3 AZU44 dw WaNiT&Mr Saundra Freeman said the FTA reviewed GoTriangle's expenses. • #8 Appriedmatie�+$157miJllBnwasspe�7t are tl7e Durham-Ora�g�Light Ball Transit project beglnning Ire the#Iscal year grange County. Ctf the Iota I; f$130.9�2,132 wasspen#on Management and Design�839b� Saundra Freeman said that a cost sharing agreement was made that changed the original contribution percentages for Durham and Orange. She said that Orange County's •-• • 23% to Commissioner McKee asked the dollar amount from Orange County. 23 Saundra Freeman said that she has percentages but not actual dollar contributions but could go back and look. Commissioner Fowler asked if the renegotiation of percentages was also due to things that Durham wanted to add to the project. Saundra Freeman said yes but there were also agreements in terms of viability to what the sales tax bases could bring. Bonnie Hammersley said the county's contribution was a little over$29 million. Commissioner Richards asked her to briefly summarize where she thought the project broke down. Saundra Freeman said that it broke down when two of their partners, NCRR and Duke, had concerns that had not been previously discussed. She said at that time, the Board decided the project needed to be terminated because they could not break through those issues. Chair Price said that the state legislature also reduced the amount of funding they had originally planned. Saundra Freeman said they were operating with minimal state participation. Commissioner Richards asked if the state funding was originally expected to be there. Saundra Freeman said yes, and that Charlotte received 25% from the state for their light rail project and the thought was this project would receive the same, but they ended up at 7%. She said there was also a time requirement to move between phases and once they realized they were not going to solve the NCRR and Duke concerns, it was clear they would not meet the timeline. Commissioner Fowler asked if those two partners had signed agreements and then backed out on them. Saundra Freeman said they were not signed and that is a lesson they have learned whether it be MOUs or something legally binding. Commissioner McKee said that Duke warned them for years about going through their campus. Chair Price said even Wake County has changed how they do business. Katherine Eggleston, chief development officer, continued the presentation: Slide #9 Management and Design $12AI422,192 of dotal expenses was spent on project managemen t,design,a nd other consulti ng services needed to prepare the proJect for federal funding ano constructlon, the majorlty of these expenses was related to four major consu Iting contracts,as approved by the GoTriangle Boa fd of Trustees: -URSJAECOM was the Project developmentConsutant IPCCI,PCCexpensestutared$26,722,82& I NOR 14a9[heC,eneral Engineering ConsUltaat(GECI.GEC ekperie5[Otaled$36,775,632. HNTBwasthe Pr4ErBm ManagernentGvnsultart(PMC),PMCexpenses tote led 512,065.515, Game[t-FlernmgfWSPJOIn[venture wvwibeConstrut[lanMan2gemem GansuhantICMQ.CA1C menses wtaled$3,278,525. f PFM was the Financial Advisor Jwww.pfrn= ). Finan€ial Advisor expenses totaled$1,061,1155. Ji1I Jaworski was the contract signatory for PFNI. Expenses for E-0010er project management software totaled%i5.a m, Engineering review reimksursemerits totaled W;.1?6. 24 Slide #10 URS Corporation (formerly United Research Services) was an engineering, design, and construction firm, Headquartered in San Francisco, California, URS was a full-service, global organization.URS was acquired by AECOMin 2014,At the time of the D•0 LRT project, Tim H. Keener was the authorized representative and contract signatory for URS, AECOM(formerly AECOM Technology Corporation) is a global infrastructure consulting firm, delivering professional services related to planning, design and engineering, program management,and construction management.AECOM has approximately 51,000 employees,Their headquarters is located in Dallas,TX, In North Carolina,they have offices in Raleigh, Morrisville, and Charlotte.At the time of the D•0 LRT project, Doug Tennant was the authorized representative and contract signatory for AECOM, Learn more about AECOM on their website at'Saps=!laecom.comlabout-usl. About ■ k j to Katherine Eggleston said these firms were procured by a competitive process. Slide #11 * V RS/A E CO M was contracted f or services rel ated to the project development phase of work. During project development, potential project impacts were assessed and required environmental analysis was completed, Environmental analysis culminated in an Environmental Impact Statement and a Supplemental Environmental Assessment containing over 700 pages of documentation. * URSfAECOM completed a 30 percent level of engineering drawings and plans that were needed to design the project,as it was anticipated at that time. a gement and D' Project Development • 25 Slide #12 H D R is an employee-owned global design firm specializing in engineering, architecture, environmental and construction services. H D R has around 11,000 employees,Their headquarters is located in Omaha, Nebraska, In North Carolina,they have offices in Charlotte, Raleigh,Wilmington,and Winston-Salem.At the time of the D-O LRT project,Jonathan Henderson was the authorized representative and contract signatoryfor HDR, Learn more about H D R on theirwebsite at https:llwwwhdrinc,com/about-us. About HDR ah Slide #13 • HDR was contracted for final design services related to the engineering phase of work. Thi5work included= c; Field surveys and investigations, including exploration forsub5urface utility engineering, inspections for hydraulic/drainage design, geotechnical borings, and seismic response tests. a Engineering plans and specifications, including the design of multiple bridges, aerial structures,and 5tations- c Environmental management, including mitigation monitoring plans and the evaluation of proposed changes to the design of the project. o Value engineering, which was required to mitigate potential project c ost i n c rea ses. Management • DesignGeneral • ' Consultant D' . r r 26 Slide #14 HNTB Corporation Is an employee-awned infrastructure solutlons firm.H NTB provides professional servlces related to planning,design,program management,and construction management.H NTB has around 5,OW employees.Thelr headquarters is located In Kansas Clty, AAO, Jn North Carolina,they have offices In Ralelgh and Charlotte.At the tlme of the D-O LRT project, Henry V. Liles Jr.was HNTB's authorized representative and contract signatory. Learn more about HNTB on thelr website at httas://www.hntb.comlabout/. "W-. About HNTB Slide #15 * HNTB was contracted for program management services related to the engineering phase of +mark_ • This work included; • Preparation of materials required for federal evaluation * Detailed plan review and management of light rail program elements including; o Cost and schedule o Real estate o Safety and security o Quality assurance O Rail operations Management • Des 11 ign Pmgram ManagementConsultant 27 Slide #16 Gannett Fleming is a global infraskructurefirm that provides plan ning,design,technology,and construction rranagernentservlces for a diverse range of markets and disciplines,Gannett Flerning has around.2,500 employees. Theirheadquartersisloratedin Camp Hill,PA right outside ofHanisburg, In North Carol i na,they have offices i n AshevlIle.Charlotte,and Raleigh.At the tlme of the d-o LRT project,Bryan P.Mulqueen was the authorized representative and contract5ignatory for Gannett Fleming{W5P joint ventu re. Learn more about Gan nett Fleming on their website at httos;J/www,,qannettflemtcig_cam1about{, SP is as global prof;esslonaI services con sultingflrm with technical experts and strategic advisors including engineers,technicians,scientists,architects,p la nners,su rveyors and environ mental spedaIi5ts,as well as other design,program and construction managernent professionals,WSP has around 50,0W employees. Their headq uarters is located in Montreal,Quebec,Canada,In North Carolina,they have offices in 12alelgh and Mooresville. Learn more about WSP on their web5ite at https:lfwww-wsp-ca mj-en-US/wha-we-are- About Gannett Fleming About WSP Slide #17 • A joint venture between Gannett-Fleur ing and WSP Was contracted for construction management services related to construction preparation during the engineering phase of work. * This work included; o Cost estimating o Construction scheduling o Constructability assessments o Workforce development planning Management Construction Management # r r $3,27 • • 28 Slide #18 $1,061,455 was spent on financial consulting to conduct financial modeling and assist with financial risk management. • 615,099 was spent on E-builder project management software, • 03,176 was spent on design review reimbursements. Other i int and Design Expense Manag Slide #19 Subcontractors and DBE Participation Larger prime consultants partner with subcontractors tocomplete their work GoTriangle sets goals for the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises(DELE subcontractors)in work completed by sukontractors. DBEs are(or-profit small businesses where sod AIVand amnomiealIVdisadvantaged Individuals awn atIGast a 51%interest and also control management and daily business operations, GoTriangle% DUE participation in capital projects has regularly exceeded federal 80,1e1ine5 { The DUE participation goaIforthe(5FC(HDA}was 14%. y The DBE partldpatior) goal forth PM42(HNT8)was 14%- The DBE pa rtlrl patlon goal for the CMC(GFIWSP JU)was 15%- F The DBE partldpatlango@I for theRDC(URSIAECGM)was 8.8%. 29 Slide #20 Appr...i tar Yrrh heetln.ri.rr. r+,m,LM~ I Ai6.dte t.u6t .-I._i. F lead i,N IHHPLI PTjc-.hre 1,31SA4}G]hp 2,O F.na4 FFa}xN,Ns,rX,[MI 01 Irw-r}y n .'.n mc IXW Xrx S..,th enrau L. } 33,1W 1LMr r...h. ait.a-L Y[ IHM 7rdlr.A F.I.r..rrt S t*631AS Aid. t-k, pAFgQh.NC GE IHDIJ MO S 123.UAA6 that Fthak LL,hllt w: IUDLI ul Erg S laLRAII aw k" ,Hf Iural umor,a Rb.pa S 17MI7.1+'Mry. F.n.k h4 ,Xr ■ p10[I 4m.SF.srrs.n $ 33a,a mLa.! R1J. sFarII W.Yn InuRF �pwa bouln } V3MA7*+tk tm.r Dr. IHUN 7.,p rn Er4t.r•+t S Al3:m.i6 him R11. .kL Su bcontractors 11. E.t--W Drip S L%Uo1.26 Wim Ft :k IHPLI S.SM W10�N S 922.W.IL Wh* FMak QX IHG11 Y40-MYrd. 5. L52,1L3L•10 W" F=. YApr.p: General Engineering ConsultantInm d1 LYx trq Ix 3,3LI,L21.11'NYr F-IIP IIrI,hC fHORI IHHOM o-W..trp3.rr� } %EN%J=A1[luk Rift NKIHNTB) 0Er{trN S *R"R Ft * W HNIM gevo;r j cqr 'C i J1i.241.25 WR M/t ChW% NC Program Management Comultant MCIHHTID AL Cans.[ 3Ti,Lti.i3 A.Yn hL.l. �r1m Rw ONTBI Lx lnx rap 1w trbp� S 4d%32i.3L 1NY1. F....Y 1rt.mt4 Rx lnx3� L10d[XIC } a8>ti!8}iaL uiir t....Y bwdr4{w kK IGF�' PM '3htC04y3VMM F- S Udl wwt En[+[FILGA - IGFfvt5PM {IrrConPnFg6nWI Ir251 6 LRMAT OW Not M1.4,Gi I r.FfViS A) HF-W S 11.171ai"0 rf.-N m ftm NC IIwympN) IIRtaAux.ln } 1},331791 LLd R%k aud� NC IdtMk S.3 cal Lars.r.-[ S SdS,i72.L7 mini Mad. bull.YA DS fU151r<E06Ltl Lw CW': S 90.J{fA4 W+I! FMak PCLa.IlSrAjdfl Yld lFlTl huva,x S 1?552a1.$L■ham h[4 Pl,t4rt NG HCIS.I1j1AICCI V; t[snr.u=nnn_n:rti $ 37411Ma Y1FX. F-.W h1.W,XC GC{4JRIt=.: :M,Iw-'.-s:Lr..:an U-p } 321,G2}31}'NYr rm.r A%nb%DA GC(1.WAEWW' X[Llt3 1LurL[_Is S 9"*.l2A6 UO R144 LhrILALKw DL OJIMAEA) w't1F1N,16rineo•,6 S MINAS ww Ftraak hFL�1.X{ DC W[SIrF{Oaad {H 4 L 1.MS,3YM WNW FMak . CG L} Slide #21 .Idol latW pl`1,ay{t'aaw}r.t1 t r,pu .,Lb�ra IZ1 3.M Y.ti' pAA I�.I Ao.rtrrr 5 dv", L.rpx[ tl,ol IWari.id4mu+'l t andab .`'rtht" Iwv YtrM�,Yrradb.oFr� ! mL'A 9F s+M..a qC ItiN iplman 5 ILTtLLF Xrw YrrttN Iwx1 ini Lrs tas.y..! f yi3rtf.F Lw,s.Q L� I�PI �wSYaY� 1 !�,4ra!# tiYOrlr.r. oI 6 hwftrr C.,I LMYa X 0,60 Lr#L.i Non-DBE #XPLa A. t.-- 11p1 Awc.*-ht 1 M7".f p ho.1[ Subcontractors 11oN tt4r s 1L`,us�1 c.r,uc �1p1 e,.r, t dgiusi tayYwtir 52Y.WAd PAW h[ General EngirK*TingGurLsultA3rft ilM.l •..c..s.0 e.Fi..4 i 3W?N.I. Lrrr,i8 rlW.l rR.�.4wf } IAir,f+]>7 �K PUI lser s 7 M to A1[t"! 4kUh. ! R"ILL IIC hYi1rt14I Iafad.z 5 AM' tdrRiA .i.t..-M t .A6tb,13 r+rWAt. •aS"'m c.--J�mr-rtn 1 .rmmpm ~ LrA hY[Fwal h-. " 5 .`>t. A .arpx[ _ FNlld Ldli va. f aLwaiF.l[ rv+W N ri5 5 L2lr.W[.r[ Lrao C1�F/} pinl 1.. t RRI.+ .3M,Li..S [131MK NI ..57nt.a ! L417l.3! IarrAll[ i IG1.3F L.rrt ! •7/h1L 4LYhe YC r4C1V�4a6.4V1 VYMi7rrniGYr.oF 1 - MWOO[ a'iC14Ri+�L034'F 1. IurAr,Ltr.n}/tl 5 - LrilrtRiL .KI4..Y.tFr,4 +iwrw+ ! TONhIr4.2 NMzmq ? k� e 5 2 13.13 Dl XC 4u�go,LOrry WLar....ta.r�.. F .1,933a1a i mb ' R'0.50341 YMG .rrt ! IfSWIL.IL PAW'.[ NKaFmoW t,.+.ar A+..d s 4S.F,AI3A1 Wt1.i.11x L1r4t.�y L1A+rlyLLXaua t 4agaua e.u,..L4X: :6 Rbubxm l.t 4L ! bryr Va" M.3at- w VA.4b dAu.a•u 5 J4L9Iwm Xre terLM 30 Saundra Freeman continued the presentation: Slide #22 Administration and Staff In accordance with Federal Transit Administration requirements for maintaining adequate technical capacityand capability to manage the project, GoTriangle employed a dedicated staff team responsible for overseeing the engineering and management consultants. Slide #23 Administration and Staff $16,139,172oftotal expanses for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project was spent on staff,administrative support,and the project offi€e. -of this total,$14,935,603 was spent on staff and admi nistrative support, 91,202.569 was spent on a project office. Work completed by GoTriangle staff included work related to! the design ano englneering plans for the project. Garnpllance with the FT#s New Starts program requirements. Project coordination with Ic<al government partners. f Project real estate acquisition activities. ,Land use entitlement apprava Is and support for Ioca I planning efforts in station areas. property owner communlcations, Public i nwolverrient and marked ng. FinaricoImodeling,budgeting, procurement and a drrilakl fatlon, r Legal matters related to the project,including the development and execution of praje€t-related agreements. 31 Slide #24 Other Professional Services and operations $3,82 3R44of total expenses was spent on at her project-related professional services and operation al costs.These expenses included: Redesign of an impacted facility at the University Df North Carolina in Chapel Hill. - T.J.F.Golf Imv&.fax,ode&lac.tomf-9rlaa Coif e&wa&tJte roatract signatory. f Non-profit fundraising man.agernent- - Harr&ook fwww.lr2f[s�5ok.comJ-Danny Kohn&was shacontraer&Igaasory. f Outside iegai counsel. Parker Poe Adams L&-fnskafi(www.pafkery_-x[ I"l-Jeff 6andlnl was rho cons face slgra wry. f Financial services during the project development phase of work. Katherine Eggleston continued the presentation: Slide #25 Real Estate 6,159,465of total expenses was spent on real estate, legal consultants, and other property-related costs. f 4,702,898 was spent to acquire and maintain 23.71 acres for the proaect's Mail Operations and Maintenance Facility. 1,399,119 was spent on other property-related expenses including; fApprai4al5 f Site review -Site preparation F Relocation payments F Outreach and com m u n icat ions to property owners 32 Slide #26 Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility Properties (Durham County) • 5003 Fro rnngton Road t • 4919 Farrington Road 5009 Farrington Road ` • 5013 Fa n;ngton Road = • 4925 Farrington Road ...A- Sol 5 Farrington(toad • 5103 Farrington Road • 5017 Farrington Road N • 4825 Farrington Road • 4815 Farrington Road • 4817 Farrington Road ,� �r...., �' # r• • 4809 Farrington Road F "� _ a 4901 Farrington Road y Total. 23-71 Acres u„ A Katherine Eggleston said these properties will be evaluated for future transit use. Slide #27 Discussion Commissioner Fowler asked if the non-profit fundraising entity still exists. Charles Lattuca said they suspended the registration. 33 Commissioner Greene asked what happens when the property is disposed of and if Orange County gets its share back. She said that Orange County transit plan does not see going down that corridor for probably ever. She said she would like their share back. Charles Lattuca said this issue was also raised at the Durham County meeting. He said that if the property is sold, then 20% of property sales will go back to reimburse the transit plan. Commissioner Richards asked about other assets that may remain and what is the disposition plan of the total project. Katherine Eggleston said the 23 acres described in the slides are the only physical assets. She said that the remainder of the work was for development of plans and reports. She said there has been reuse or repurposing of some of that work. She said at the conclusion of the project they indexed and provided them to local governments to use. She said that the city of Durham is working on transportation project on Durham Road and can achieve it at a cost savings by using some of the reports on file. She said that the reuse is only a fraction of the value that would have been created. Commissioner Richards asked if the only benefits to share would be the sale of the real estate. Katherine Eggleston said that the evaluation is being completed for transit plans are being updated. She expects that to occur within a year or so and if a decision is made to sell the properties, the reimbursements will be made to transit plan at that time. Commissioner Bedford thanked Katherine Eggleston for her ability to communicate the technical language. She asked if any of the $157 million was covered by debt. Katherine Eggleston said no debt was incurred. Commissioner Bedford said one of the things that a consultant identified that could be done is to change the makeup of the Board to add expertise. Katherine Eggleston said that after the project, GoTriangle requested a peer review to assess the situation and make recommendations. She said that the CEO of MARTA Atlanta, the executive from WMATA in Washington DC, and other industry representatives provided the review. She said that report with recommendations that is available publicly. She said they reviewed the composition of board, improve alignment with riders, composition is dictated by agency's charter Charles Lattuca said that the commuter rail feasibility study is being done in a way that is sensitive to the peer review recommendations. He said that report will be available soon for project management, stakeholders, and government partners. He said that the study is comprehensive and should be finalized in July. He said they spent $9 million on the study, and they are very confident that many questions will be answered. He said that the questions around insurance have been settled with Norfolk-Southern and NCRR. He said those are already addressed if the commuter rail moves into the next phase. Chair Price said the commuter rail will not come to Orange County, but they are looking to add bus service to assist. Commissioner McKee said that the people he was frustrated with are no longer at GoTriangle. He said they played smoke and mirrors. He said that to say that Duke and NCRR were the reason the project was killed is an oversimplification. He said that they expressed reservations and concerns for years and those concerns were ignored or downplayed. He said he has one of the original sets of plans and he used to know the amount of money that was wasted on that. He said that while he did not object to the idea of light rail, some of his fellow board members have heard him argue that it was not the time to do it. He said he gets no pleasure in criticizing the representatives. He asked how much transportation they could provide for $30 million for people that need it. He said that it felt like it was portrayed that he was some country hick who does not understand. He said he hopes that they will go back and factor in that very few people who are transit dependent, who did not have options, were not 34 considered. He said he is not just upset at GoTriangle. He said he is bitter that the folks that need the transportation services did not get them, and they will not. He said the $600,000 is the only benefit that the county will get out of it. He said that all of the other money spent is not transferrable to light rail 3.0 but he highly suspects it is still out there. He asked what the number 1 lesson is learned at GoTriangle to avoid light rail 3.0 or some version of that. He asked what we are going to do. He said that the money is already gone, and it did not move one person. He asked what we are going to do to avoid that happening again. Charles Lattuca said there is no benefit except the property and software. He said that the lessons learned are difficult and painful. He said there have been many changes been made in how they address their studies. He said there has been discussion of a light rail replacement project, but he is not sure where that light rail discussion is today. He said he has heard there is some interest in Orange County, in Chapel Hill, in developing a project that would serve that corridor. He said that the data that shows how Orange County is going to grow, and the 15-501 corridor will grow a lot. Commissioner McKee said he fears that it is still being considered and he does not want another set of plans at his house. Charles Lattuca said GoTriangle is not driving that conversation. He said that will come from this body, along with the MPO, and Durham. Commissioner McKee said he focuses on GoTriangle but understands that this was not just a GoTriangle debacle. He said that GoTriangle has a huge influence because of the information they got was from GoTriangle. Commissioner Greene thanked the representatives for being at the meeting. She said she is sorry the light rail project is over, but she is not interested in relitigating it at this point. She said that one of the lessons is shoring up those relationships in writing and via contracts. She said that they have seen the draft of the Orange County Transit Plan and there is no light rail project depicted. She said they are working in tandem with Durham County in forging a regional connection, and the plan that will be adopted will be very constrained and it is basically a pay as you earn transit system. She said that another lesson that they have learned is to think carefully about the resources they have. She said that she does not think that this is a time to relitigate and cry in their beers over what happened. Charles Lattuca said that he recognizes the dissatisfaction of the folks here and in Durham. He said that they did not have all of the answers and that they want to be more thorough with any future plans. He said that they also want to make sure that they answer all previous questions before another project is taken on. Commissioner Bedford said there is zero talk of light rail 3. She said that the 15-501 study will be redone and it has not gone out to bid yet, but the conversations are about bus rapid transit (BRT). She said they still have work to do to get the North South BRT in Chapel Hill. She said that she wants to reassure folks that what Commissioner Greene said is accurate. She said that the MPO pushed NCDOT to consider changes in how they fund bike/ped and mobility. She said that this could get better impact of travel and transit by adding other projects at a lower cost. She said that NCDOT has been receptive. She said that with the governance study, her board would like GoTriangle to be a little more flexible with working alongside the staff working groups from the municipalities. Chair Price said that at least three of her colleagues were not on the board when the light rail drama was occurring. She said that as background, Durham had a lot of concern about the consultant fees. She said that as she left the MPO one of the big concerns was 15-501 and the widening. She said that it was sent back several times because NCDOT wanted to widen but the MPO wanted bike lanes and pedestrian paths. She said that they talked more about buses and the last mile and one of her biggest issues was that so many people got left out of light rail. She said that is why there is a lot of focus on buses right now. 35 6. Adjourn A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Fowler to adjourn the meeting at 9:34 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Renee Price, Chair Laura Jensen Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.