Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 consideration of options. He said the way this has been structured and discussed has been <br /> 2 misleading. He said this plan has to work for both counties, and it has been implied that all are <br /> 3 muscling for position, but that is wrong. He said it has been a collective effort by both counties, <br /> 4 and they were able to build consensus around this as a collaborative effort. <br /> 5 Commissioner Marcoplos said this is a good time to read paragraph 16, and he said he <br /> 6 could not see there being any type of issue with Durham County or GoTriangle other than a <br /> 7 financial one. He read paragraph #16 and said this offers is a lot of protection. He said if the <br /> 8 federal or state governments decide to pull its funding, then the project is done regardless. <br /> 9 Commissioner McKee said this agreement is between human beings, who have a <br /> 10 tendency to disagree. He said he sees a lot of things that he cannot identify, which may cause <br /> 11 disagreement, and one is that the parties did not want to negotiate the clause from the April 20th <br /> 12 meeting. He said the BOCC has a fiduciary responsibility to every resident of Orange County. <br /> 13 He said he does not have a clue as to what may or may not cause a disagreement, but without <br /> 14 the language that he read before the County is at a disadvantage. He said he is open to <br /> 15 mediation, but not arbitration, as arbitration does not allow for an exit strategy. <br /> 16 Commissioner Jacobs said the agreement calls for mediation before arbitration. <br /> 17 Commissioner Rich called the question. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Dorosin, <br /> 20 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner <br /> 21 Burroughs) <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Motion failed. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded to Commissioner Price to <br /> 26 reject the cost share agreement and the plan associated with it. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Dorosin, <br /> 29 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner <br /> 30 Burroughs) <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Motion failed. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to <br /> 35 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Share Agreement <br /> 36 (Attachment A). <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Chair Dorosin said there is a meeting and confer clause in the agreement, as well as the <br /> 39 creation of an administrative position that will provide oversight and regular updates of the plan, <br /> 40 which will allow the BOCC to know before a material change is triggered. He said all involved <br /> 41 have worked very hard on this plan, and the best interest of the County has been at the <br /> 42 forefront. He commended the Durham BOCC, and said this is a good agreement. He said this <br /> 43 is a big project, and as such it was right to scrutinize it carefully. He said the County is at a <br /> 44 juncture of regional growth, and bold action is required. <br /> 45 Commissioner Jacobs said the administrative position is funded by Orange County and <br /> 46 Durham County, and as such, is responsible to both counties. He said there will be quarterly <br /> 47 updates, an annual update, and every four years there will be a review of the Cost Share <br /> 48 Agreement, to insure it is working properly for the two counties. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner <br />