Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-27-2017 - 1 - Consideration of the Final Draft Durham – Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
Agenda - 04-27-2017 - Work Session
>
Agenda - 04-27-2017 - 1 - Consideration of the Final Draft Durham – Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 3:09:56 PM
Creation date
11/1/2017 10:14:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/27/2017
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
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
27 <br /> Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 <br /> As the staffs of GoTriangle, Orange County, and the Towns of • Project capital costs: <br /> Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough have implemented the o Durham: $738.4 million (YOE) <br /> 2012 Plan, more definition has been given to the services and o Orange: $149.5 million (YOE) <br /> projects that are expected to be delivered over the next 12 • Operating expenses (through June 30, 2036) <br /> years. Section 4 describes these projects and services, o Durham: 80 percent <br /> unfunded priorities from the 2012 Plan, and additional <br /> o Orange: 20 percent <br /> expansion that would remain unfunded in this Plan. <br /> • Operating expenses (after June 30, 2036) and State of <br /> As a major project which serves both counties, the cost of Good Repair costs <br /> construction, operations, and maintenance of the Durham- o Durham: 81 percent <br /> Orange Light Rail Transit Project is shared between the two o Orange: 19 percent <br /> county Plans using agreed upon percentage splits. In the 2012 <br /> Plan, the split was approximately 77 percent Durham, 23 Table ES-1 compares the Tax District Revenues used to fund <br /> percent Orange. The parties negotiated a new cost-split for projects and services between the 2012 Plan and this 2017 <br /> several reasons: Plan. <br /> • The scope of the D-O LRT Project was expanded. The In our evaluation of the ability of the Tax District Revenue to <br /> alignment now extends 0.6 miles further into Durham, accommodate reductions in state and federal funding <br /> availability, we assessed costs of projects and service, the <br /> with an additional station at North Carolina Central delivery schedule for projects and services, and the projected <br /> University level of borrowing. The projected borrowing capacity is linked <br /> • Changes to the alignment at the New Hope Creek directly to the assumptions about Tax District Revenue growth. <br /> Crossing extended the length of the alignment in In accordance with industry standards, the 2017 Plan uses a <br /> Durham baseline revenue forecast developed in late 2016 by Moody's <br /> • A station proposed for Orange County, Meadowmont Analytics, a well-regarded economic analytics firm. In <br /> Station, was replaced by Woodmont Station in Durham accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)guidance, <br /> County the financial plan has also been evaluated using a downside <br /> forecast developed by the same firm,to understand the effects <br /> This Plan incorporates the cost split memorialized in a separate and potential mitigations that may be required to plan for less- <br /> cost-sharing agreement which has been executed than-expected sales tax growth. A detailed financial plan can <br /> simultaneously with the Plan. The cost-sharing agreement be found in Section S. Further explanation of the risks to the <br /> allocates expenses as follows: <br /> Final Page 3 of 65 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.