Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> Attachment 4 <br /> Key BOCC Comments/Questions From May 21, 2013 Meetinq <br /> A) Fiscal Year (FY) Financial Summary/Budget Format: <br /> 1) Commissioner Dorosin commented on the "Admin Costs" line in the FY <br /> 2014 budget/forecast (Attachment 1) produced by Triangle Transit ($75,000 <br /> each for Orange and Durham Counties) and stated that it should further <br /> specify and itemize what these costs are meant to address. If this cost is <br /> meant to support a senior financial analyst to manage revenues and <br /> expenses, Commissioner Dorosin asks that this specification be made and <br /> shown as such on the draft budget/forecast. <br /> 2) Commissioner Dorosin commented on the "Personnel" and <br /> "Consultants" lines in the FY 2014 budget/forecast ($169,266 and <br /> $3,206,115, respectively, for Orange County) provided in Attachment 1 <br /> and stated that they should further specify and itemize what these costs are <br /> meant to address including a sub-listing of the titles of the positions and <br /> respective costs associated with personnel expenditures and a sub-listing of <br /> the consultants, their respective tasks, and respective costs associated with <br /> each consultant expenditure. <br /> B) Other Commissioner Questions/Comments <br /> 1) Commissioners McKee and Price requested clarification on what was <br /> meant by the proposed Mebane-Hillsborough-Durham route being <br /> categorized as an express route and requested further clarification on what <br /> such a route meant for stops that would serve rural citizens along U.S. 70 <br /> versus 1-85 (a route traversing 20+ miles with only four [4] stops is still <br /> considered an express route). Commissioner McKee suggested that citizens' <br /> needs would best be served with a route involving U.S. 70 versus I-85. They <br /> further stated that the categorization and nature of the proposed route's <br /> implementation should align with the needs of citizens rather than just <br /> determining route logistics using an exclusively data-driven approach. <br /> 2) Commissioner Gordon requested further clarification on the sizable $6 <br /> million difference in the $30-$36 million range projected for the cost of <br /> project development and planning consulting services associated with the <br /> light rail component of the plan and stated that the reasons provided of there <br /> being uncertainties associated with environmental scoping costs <br /> corresponding to different alignment alternatives (Route options C1 and C2 <br /> were submitted, and alternative C2 was preferred by the BOCC and MPO) <br /> considered should be explained and made apparent in future Triangle Transit <br /> correspondence and presentations to the Board and to the public. There <br />