Minutes 04-20-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 10%, there are other mechanisms by which to mitigate the state funding shortfall. She said if this should occur then the parties should come together to determine a reasonable path forward. Jill Jaworski said the federal government can have delays or budgetary cutbacks, and typically full grant agreements have variations on an annual basis but will make it up at some point. Tammy Bouchelle said there is a provision for mutual termination should all the federal funding be lost. Chair Dorosin said the scenario that is more concerning, in paragraph #14, is what if the revenues do not come in. He said John Roberts has given the Board two options, and he asked what would happen if two parties required to agree, instead of four. He said he does not want to submit an agreement that will fail, but what if#14 comes to pass and Orange County gets less revenue than projected, and Orange County wants to scale back and the others do not. Jill Jaworski, PFM Financial Advisor, said if one or two parties are able to withdraw, then that introduces a significant risk to the commitment, and the FTA will not look favorably on this. She said some nuance could be added, such as the ability to pull out before the federal grant is awarded. She said there are many other entities who want this money, and if the FTA is unsure of Orange County's commitment then it may award monies elsewhere. Katharine Eggleston said if a trigger occurs, an implementable solution would be needed. She said there would need to be a way to reduce the cost of the project, or secure additional revenue. She said there is FTA oversight of the project, and the FTA must deem any and all solutions viable. Commissioner Jacobs said where in the Cost Share Agreement are the material changes referenced. Travis Myren said it is at the bottom of#14, small letter (i). Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is a structured mechanism to review where the parties find themselves and to come to an agreement. He said he does not want to be in a situation that the other 3 entities want to add 5% more, and Orange County deems it too expensive, but loses by majority vote. He said he wants to protect Orange County, and this was the primary basis for him in all of these negotiations. He said he would like the attorneys to bring something back on the 27th, and if not, he will vote no as he is worried about Orange County's general fund. He said if all are committed to the project, then all will act in good faith to make this work; but sometimes people punish a dog who misbehaves by killing a chicken and tying it the dog's neck. He does not want a dead chicken tied to Orange County's neck. He said he trusts the attorneys to have conversations, and bring a solution to the Board. He said Orange County has to be able to make its own decisions. Commissioner Rich asked if there are provisions to prevent the 5% increase scenario that Commissioner Jacobs referenced. Travis Myren said in provision #15 there is a prohibition requiring the dedication of other revenues, and he said there are other responses, in addition to just contributing money, on which the parties may not agree. Commissioner Rich said she is not fond of a unilateral withdrawal, as it gives future BOCCs the option to pull out simply because it does not like the project. Commissioner Jacobs said #14 describes the process of material changes that must be completed prior to withdrawal, and if they are not completed it would be a violation of the agreement. He said he is unsure if there is a penalty for being in violation of the agreement. Commissioner Rich said she has concerns about this for just those reasons, and she feels more comfortable with mediation than unilateral withdrawal.