November 28, 2018
Mayor Hemminger and Town Council Members:
It is the responsibility of this Council to work with GoTriangle to finalize a Cooperative Agreement that serves Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods, businesses and citizens. Great care must be taken because the proposed agreement binds the Town contractually for the length of the term by setting a process that will allow decisions that will affect our community for a long time to come.
We are concerned that the draft agreement GoTriangle has presented to you has significant deficiencies:
- The agreement delegates important design and planning decisions to staff, thus abdicating Council members’ responsibility to protect the health and safety of Chapel Hill residents;
- Planning for the station areas and the route has barely begun; plans do not identify or address the project’s significant environmental, noise and traffic impacts;
- As written would not require that Town stormwater, noise and light standards are met;
- The agreement fails to provide adequate public notice for a full public hearing on the project route and the latest station plans; and
- Lacks specificity and clarification about referenced “terms and conditions.”
We can do better! For example, Durham is considering a Cooperative Agreement that is far stronger than the one Chapel Hill is considering. Specifically, the 18-page Durham Cooperative Agreement includes wording that does not appear in the 10-page Chapel Hill Agreement, such as:
- Requiring that GoTriangle surface parking lots comply with local stormwater management standards;
- Establishing a full funding agreement to cover town and consultant review costs;
- Forming committees and a review process to review stormwater, utility and transportation infrastructure before the 90% plan review;
- Outlining specific documents (in addition to plan sets) to be submitted during the construction process.(*Link to full Durham agreement below.)
While state regulation does not require municipal review for some aspects of this project, Durham has shown by example that sound planning with affected citizens yields higher quality design plans and thus a Cooperative Agreement that better reflects the needs of their citizens. No such process has occurred in Chapel Hill. We are not aware of any opportunity to comment on current 50% plans at a Chapel Hill Council meeting.
Because of these deficiencies, we oppose action tonight by the Town Council on the current document. Simply put, Chapel Hill citizens should not pay the price for the inadequate foundational work upon which this Cooperative Agreement is based. We ask that you postpone your vote until several steps, listed below, are taken to protect the interests of Chapel Hill.
We make this request knowing that GoTriangle and others will pressure you to act quickly. But there is no need to act in haste according to the agreement itself, which states that approval of Third Party agreements must be completed “during the Engineering Phase” which, according to the timeline provided will continue into January 2019.
We ask the following:
- Instruct the Town Manager and staff to outline a public process and timeline for the Station Areas and a public review of the route so that the Council and the Town, take the lead – and responsibility – for land use planning by ensuring that stormwater, environmental, noise and traffic impacts of construction and development on neighborhoods are addressed at each of the station areas. Include a public review of the cost sharing agreement. It’s important that Chapel Hill not be left holding the bag for unanticipated infrastructure costs as GoTriangle works to cut and shift costs to stay on budget.
- Ask the Town Manager, Town Attorney and staff to perform a side-by-side evaluation of the Cooperative Agreements under consideration by Durham and Chapel Hill to identify areas where Chapel Hill’s agreement could be strengthened and improved.
- Establish a process for review of transportation, stormwater, noise, and utility issues prior to finalization of the 90% design plans, modeled on the one that Durham has laid out, e.g. advisory board review, citizen committees from areas affected by construction and development at stations and along the rail line.
- Adopt a more robust and effective permit review process than the town’s fairly weak Engineering Construction Permit (“ECP”) application which the current agreement establishes as the process to be used “in lieu of zoning review”. (** Link to ECP document below)
- Adjust the termination date by tying It to the Gotriangle timeline. North Carolina law now provides that if federal funding is not obtained by November 30, 2019, the project will not be considered for state funding in that year or in the future. Loss of state support will mean the end of the project. The agreement should thus set a termination date of November 30, 2019. If federal funds have been obtained by then, the project and Cooperative Agreement would move ahead. If not, the project will be dead and the region must move ahead to a more practical and cost effective transportation plan. We must not let ourselves be handcuffed to the failed DOLRT for two more years.
- Reconsider the statement of Town support for this project which is included in Section B of this agreement. We note that the Durham agreement lists 14 station areas as the benefits to their city. Chapel Hill’s agreement affirms this plan because, according to the document’s author, council “recognizes its value for its residents.” With two of the three off-campus station areas in Chapel Hill on the chopping block, no connection to downtown, very little opportunity for economic or public benefits to Chapel Hill, rising project costs that threaten our own transit system and limited access to the system for low income residents and those not affiliated with UNC, we urge council to have an open and informed discussion about continued support for this project and about whether there my exist better transit options for the Town and its residents.
- Correct Section C in the Recitals to reflect the true cost of the project, including the anticipated $850-$900 million in interest payments, which brings the total to $3.3 billion.
- Expand opportunities for resolution to include courts in Orange County rather than limiting it to Durham County.
- Restore transparency and accountability for this project by establishing regular reports to staff and Council and set up a town webpage where all updates and approvals are posted. Follow LUMO procedures where the Manager flags significant or controversial decision items and brings them to the Town Council.
We appreciate your careful consideration and action on these items so as to better protect and represent the interests of Chapel Hill and to lay the groundwork for a more effective working relationship with GoTriangle.
Sincerely,
From these signers so far: Julie McClintock, Charles Berlin, Christy Bowman, Linda Brown, Alex Cabanes, Silvia Clements, Rob David, Sharon Epstein, Bob Epting, Tamra Finn, Deborah Finn, Cliff and Linda Haac, David and Cheri Hardman, Carol Hazard, Tom Henkel, Joan Guilkey, Bonnie Hauser, Bruce Henschel, Charles Humble, Rudy Juliano, Fred Lampe, Lester Levine, David Kiel, Linda Kopel, Ken Larsen, Molly McConnell, Amey Miller, John Morris, Mary Duran Olmeda, Phil Post, Jeff and Cheyl Prather, David Schwartz, Alan Snavely, Del Snow, Sherry Stockton, David Tuttle, James and Sarah Valentine, Diane Willis, Neva Whybark
*The Durham-GoTriangle Cooperative Agreement: http://cityordinances.durhamnc.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=281&doctype=1
Memo describing Durham Council work toward a full-funding agreement:
http://cityordinances.durhamnc.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=281&doctype=1
**Chapel Hill ECP application: https://www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=3166