Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
20 <br /> 1 - There are questions about the total number of park and ride spaces available and if <br /> 2 this will be adequate to support demand now that the number of spaces at Leigh <br /> 3 Village has been decreased from the original 2000 estimate; <br /> 4 - The Board is concerned about how the density of development recommended in the <br /> 5 plan and the densities necessary to support Light Rail Transit do not seem to match; <br /> 6 - Light Rail Transit may not be enough to alleviate the congestion in the study area; <br /> 7 - The Board would like to see how the recommendations in the plan may be funded <br /> 8 including which projects could be funded through the proposed Y2-cent sales tax and <br /> 9 what additional funding sources have been identified; <br /> 10 - The Board expressed concerns that the transit portion of the plan is becoming too <br /> 11 complex and that citizens may not utilize transit in this corridor because they may <br /> 12 have to make multiple transfers. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 In conclusion, the Board would like to recognize that the 54 corridor is greatly important but also <br /> 15 requires a large investment. Due to the newly adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, Orange <br /> 16 County is very sensitive to providing the best solution to the study area. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Bernadette Pelissier <br /> 19 Chair, Orange County Board of County Commissioners <br /> 20 <br /> 21 <br /> 22 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz <br /> 23 to approve the letter of Orange County's comments and to submit this letter to the DCHC-MPO <br /> 24 with recommended changes. <br /> 25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 26 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict whether he needed clarification concerning <br /> 27 what the Board wished to have included in the letter and he indicated that he understood the <br /> 28 changes to be made. <br /> 29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there would be discussions with UNC about the <br /> 30 redevelopment of the Friday Center property. <br /> 31 Frank Clifton said that there have been no discussions yet. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 e. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)—Receipt and <br /> 34 Transmittal of 2012 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report <br /> 35 The Board received the 2012 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory <br /> 36 Committee and considered transmitting it to the SAPFO partners for comments before <br /> 37 certification in May and authorizing the Chair to sign. <br /> 38 Craig Benedict said that this item is just to receive this report and transmit it to the <br /> 39 partners. This report is done on an annual basis. The report includes information about how <br /> 40 membership has increased this year. One page two it shows that Chapel Hill-Carrboro City <br /> 41 Schools (CHCCS) has had an increase of 273 students and Orange County Schools (OCS) has <br /> 42 had an increase of 130 students. There were no changes in the capacity this year. Each year <br /> 43 the numbers are compared with the previous year and there are five different projection <br /> 44 methods of estimating future student populations, and then an average of those five is taken. <br /> 45 For CHCCS, the new middle school CHCCS is projected for 2017-2018 and the new <br /> 46 high school is projected for 2020-2021. <br /> 47 For OCS, the new elementary school is projected for 2020-2021 and there are no new <br /> 48 needs for middle or high schools. <br /> 49 Commissioner Gordon made reference to a chart on page 5 of the Executive Summary <br /> 50 which compares the number of projected students with the actual number of students who <br />