Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-24-2017 - 6-a - Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2017
>
Agenda - 01-24-2017 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 01-24-2017 - 6-a - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/20/2017 11:03:50 AM
Creation date
1/20/2017 11:02:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/24/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes 01-24-2017
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
25 <br /> 1 Chair McKee referred to the slide the mentions the revenues percentage projections for <br /> 2 the sales tax increases, and he said he questioned a 5% increase has been achieved every <br /> 3 year, and he thinks they have been fairly flat over the last 2-3 years. <br /> 4 Danny Rogers said that is correct, but over 10 years there was growth of 5.7%. He said <br /> 5 that is over a longer period of time. <br /> 6 Chair McKee said he questions if the County will ever reach these consistent <br /> 7 percentages. <br /> 8 Danny Rogers said a more current update on this question is being gathered. He said <br /> 9 the numbers are lower for Orange County, and a bit higher for Durham County. <br /> 10 Chair McKee asked if the current projected total cost for the light rail could be clarified. <br /> 11 Danny Rogers said that is a complicated question, but the total cost in current dollars is <br /> 12 $1.6 billion. He said it is a goal to add the NCCU extension, which would be about $90-110 <br /> 13 million. He said joint development can be included in the project, such as affordable housing, to <br /> 14 help leverage federal dollars. He said current efforts are looking at how to build the project, <br /> 15 with an original goal of finishing in 2026. He said one thing that is affecting the ability to pay for <br /> 16 the project is whether$100 million or $125 million is received. He said the gap of $25 million <br /> 17 gets exacerbated when the construction period does not match the reimbursement period. He <br /> 18 said the construction period has been extended a few years, to better match the expenditures <br /> 19 with the revenues; but doing this increases inflation by about $2.3 billion, if the project is <br /> 20 completed in 2028. <br /> 21 Commissioner Rich asked if the increase on the Chapel Hill BRT could be identified. <br /> 22 Danny Rogers said from $25 million to a little over $100 million. <br /> 23 Jeff Mann said the original estimate was $40 million, and it is now$125 million; due to <br /> 24 an extension and some cost estimates that have increased. He said this is included in the <br /> 25 financial model. <br /> 26 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that it is included in the new financial model. <br /> 27 Commissioner Jacobs referred to private capital contributions, and asked are there any <br /> 28 actual commitments yet. <br /> 29 Danny Rogers said there are commitments for Right of Way (ROW), and they are <br /> 30 working with partners on funding, which is being received well. <br /> 31 Jeff Mann said some draft letters of intent have been delivered, and things looks <br /> 32 promising. <br /> 33 Commissioner Pelissier referred to putting the BRT into the financial model, and asked if <br /> 34 there is a way to make it later so there would not be the gap during construction of the light rail. <br /> 35 Danny Rogers said probably not. <br /> 36 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the timeframe for the BRT could be reviewed. <br /> 37 Danny Rogers said 2019, and it hits before the main part of the LRT. <br /> 38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the entities who are a party to the implementation plan <br /> 39 are Orange County, MPO, Durham County, Go Triangle. He said Chapel Hill is not actually a <br /> 40 party to this agreement. He said parties who are not a party to the agreement can triple the <br /> 41 cost of a project that they desire, and it becomes part of the plan without the actual parties <br /> 42 being able to vote on it. <br /> 43 Patrick McDonough, Manager of Planning for GoTriangle, said they are trying to figure <br /> 44 out how to deliver projects for which people voted. <br /> 45 Commissioner Jacobs said the BRT is a lovely plan, but is a much larger plan than the <br /> 46 voters approved, and the question needs to be asked if it worth tripling the cost. <br /> 47 Commissioner Price asked if the commitments from the private sector are contingent <br /> 48 upon Orange County's decision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.