April 27, 2017
Chairman Dorosin and Orange County Commissioners:
In the last few months, thousands of Orange County citizens have engaged in discussion of the Orange County Transit Plan. A majority have spoken out against the updated Durham-Orange Light Rail plan. The greatest concern is that the plan does not improve transportation services for most county residents, yet it introduces extraordinary financial risks.
The $3.3 billion dollar Light Rail between Durham and UNC will serve less than 2% of the local population. The plan fails to provide promised additional bus services to our downtowns, planned growth centers, and our transit dependent communities. Light Rail service may begin in 2029 and with loan repayments stretching through 2062, and it will consume all available transit funds and eliminate our ability to expand public transit services for decades.
As you know, the plan adds nearly $1 billion of debt, under the control of GoTriangle, an unaudited organization, with no credit rating or proven experience with complex infrastructure projects. In fact, GoTriangle's mishandling of schedules, funding, estimates, and communications is responsible for the latest abbreviated decision process that is so rushed that there hasn't been sufficient time for critical public review or reasonable vetting of the project.
As a result, elected officials are poised to approve the $3.3 billion project without critical examination of many critical assumptions:
- Projected light rail ridership. Since the original 2012 plan was issued, GoTriangle's ridership projections doubled without adequate explanation. There is no mention of seasonal fluctuations caused by the large student and university population served.
- Projected sales taxes. The assumed transit tax growth is overly optimistic given the persistent and historical slow growth in Orange County, and assumes no cyclical downturns or recessions over the next 45 years. Concerns raised by Orange County's financial advisors, prominent economists and others have been repeatedly ignored.
- Interest rate risk. There has been no discussion of interest rate risk associated with nearly $1 billion of debt. Future interest rates will vary widely depending on market conditions, the future credit rating of GoTriangle, and the quality of the assets (including sales tax revenues) that will secure the loans.
Planned bus hours have been cut and the Chapel Hill North-South Bus Rapid Transit project is funded at such a low level that it cannot be built with the available transit tax revenue. There is not enough evening or weekend bus service to make public transportation a reality for those who most need it. Real connectivity within Orange County and to the greater Triangle is not achieved by this plan or by the money spent. If the county or it's towns decide later to make urgently needed public transit improvements, additional taxes will be required, since the majority of the ½ cent transit tax funds are consumed by the Light Rail project for the next 45 years.
The financial evaluation of project benefits, costs and revenues conducted by our elected officials is incomplete and unacceptable. If approved, Orange County's citizens will be committed to a financial plan that falls apart if just one of many assumptions goes wrong. Failure to meet our commitments could result in larger loans, and/or adverse impacts to the county's credit rating. Providing the transit that's actually needed could require increased property taxes and reductions in other county services.
Orange County officials expressed a desire to shield the county from undue risk. Yet commissioners are about to enter into an inter-local agreement that concedes the county's leverage if anything goes wrong. Orange County's role is clearly subordinate to GoTriangle and Durham County. Consider that two stations planned for Chapel Hill have already been identified as potential cost cutting measures.
According to the proposed inter-local agreement with Durham and GoTriangle, changes are approved by "mutual agreement". That means: (1) if federal or state funding or proposed private donations do not materialize; or (2) if Orange County's sales taxes don't grow as projected; or (3) if Durham and GoTriangle want changes that Orange County doesn't like; the county is likely to end up in a loosing arbitration. The inter-local agreement excludes access to appeals and to the courts. Orange County would have a weak case in disputes because the commissioners rushed to approve the sales tax, ridership, financing and service assumptions that form the basis of the contract.
This large and risky plan comes at a time when Orange County faces enormous pressure on its schools and essential services. Federal and state governments are reducing funding for health care, nutrition for children and seniors, affordable housing and public education. That's in addition to the General Assembly's continued challenge to local impact fees and taxing authority. The Commissioners have not explained how the voter approved bonds from last November will affect tax rates, or how future needs for schools, facilities and essential services will be funded.
April 27th is Orange County's last chance to say "no" to this ill-conceived plan. Any other vote leaves citizens throughout the county with grave concerns about our transit future and the fiscal risks associated with the plan.
Anticipating that we may have the opportunity, we are ready to work with county officials to develop a new transportation plan that truly serves the needs of all county residents.
Sincerely,
David Adams, Chapel Hill
Christine and Terry Bazzarre
Tony and Deb Blake, Bingham
Margie Brache, Chapel Hill
Bruce and Dolly Buley, Hillsborough
Aaron and Sarah Butner, Hillsborough
Alex Cabanes, Chapel Hill
Ashley Campbell, Hillsborough
Rev. Robert Campbell, Rogers Road
William and Ann Charles, Chapel Hill
Lucy Castle, Efland
Alex and Maria Castro, Bingham
Bentley Cecil, Efland
Katherine Wilkerson Cheek, Hurdle Mills
Patricia Clayton, Hillsborough
Sheila Creth, Chapel Hill
Sue Culbreth Denton, Hillsborough
Phil Duckwall, Bingham
Bill Efland, Efland
Jaye Ruth Efland, Efland
Mike Efland, Efland
Vivian Foushee, Chapel Hill
Mary George, Chapel Hill
Sam and Christy Gharbo, Efland
Bishop Victor Glover, Hillsborough
Laurel Goldman, Chapel Hill
Kevin and Jaci Greenhill, Mebane
Kim Greer, Little River
Joan Guilkey, Chapel Hill
Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Cedar Grove
Bonnie Hauser, Bingham
Bruce Henschel, Chapel Hill
Mariella Hernandez, Carrboro
Nancy Holt, Bingham
Charles Humble, Chapel Hill
Nina Hypes, Bingham
Larry and Joyce Johnson, Rougemont
Rudy T. Juiliano, Chapel Hill
Lisa Kaylie, Chapel Hill
Lucretia Kinney, Carrboro
Jane Kirsch, Chapel Hill
Chris Krueger, Chapel Hill
Fred Lampe, Chapel Hill
Ken Larsen, Chapel Hill
Ann J. Loftin, Chapel Hill
Molly McConnell, Chapel Hill
Julie McClintock, Chapel Hill
Brenda McCall and Dick Harmsen, Bingham
Vickie McGee, Bingham
Elaine Marinucci, Cedar Grove
Marie and Robert McAdoo, Efland
Elvira Mebane, Efland
Douglas and Yvonne Mendenhall, Chapel Hill
Eugene and Anne Montgomery, New Hope
John Morris, Chapel Hill
Fred S. Naiden
Nancy Oates, Chapel Hill
Bob Patrick and Polly Dornette, Mebane
Jeff Prather, Chapel Hill
John Quinterno, Chapel Hill
David and Terri Ray, Efland
Jorge and Michelle Rios, Hillsborough
Diane Robertson, Carrboro
Shella Record, Little River
Gianni & Lynn Scattolini, Chapel Hill
David Schwartz, Chapel Hill
Ed Sharpe, Efland
Wade Snipes, Efland
Del Snow, Chapel Hill
Mary Sonis, Carrboro
Deb Suchoff, Chapel Hill
Tana Hartman Thorn, Bingham
Karyn W. Traut, Chapel Hill
Terry and Robert Vance, Chapel Hill
Susan Walser, Bingham
Tamara and Whitney Watson, Bingham
Norma and Dick White, Little River
Diane and Robert Willis, Chapel Hill
Phyllis Wright and Harlan Fields, Hurdle Mills
Mark Zimmerman, Chapel Hill
CC: Orange County Citizens and Media
