Transportation & Planning Committee
Thursday, January 26, 2012
1:30 – 3:00 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room CH-14
Committee Members:
Staff Resource:
David Howard, Chair
Michael Barnes, Vice Chair
John Autry
Warren Cooksey
Patsy Kinsey
Ruffin Hall, Assistant City Manager
AGENDA
I.
Red Line– 90 minutes
Resources: Katherine Henderson & Mark Briggs
The review period for the Red Line Regional Rail Draft Business/Finance Plan is ongoing
in each of the nine jurisdictions proposed to participate in the project. As part of the
Charlotte review process, project consultants Mark Briggs (Parsons Brinckerhoff
Advisory Services) and Katherine Henderson (KKH Consulting) will present to the TAP
Committee the details of the proposed funding, financing and governance structure for
this project. The presentation will conclude with policy questions for the Committee's
review, followed by discussion.
Action: For information
Attachments: 1. Red Line Regional Rail Project.ppt
2. Red Line Proposal Questions.doc
Link to the Red Line Regional Rail Project website: http://redlineregionalrail.org/
Attachment: Bicycle Advisory Committee Annual Report– Information Only
Attachment: Zoning Board of Adjustment Annual Report– Information Only
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, February 13, 2012 – 3:30 p.m.
Distribution:
Mayor & City Council
Transportation Cabinet
Curt Walton, City Manager
Katherine Henderson
Leadership Team
Mark Briggs
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Red Line Regional Rail Project
North Corridor: Mooresville to Charlotte
Funding, Financing and Governance
Funding Financing and Governance
Charlotte Transportation and Planning Committee
Charlotte, NC
January 26, 2012
Mark Briggs, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Katherine Henderson, KKH Consulting
Slide 1
Red Line Regional Rail
Unified Benefit District (UBD)
District (UBD)
Slide 2
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
Governance: Joint Powers Authority
Governance:
Joint Powers Authority
Funding and Finance Plan
Recommendations
Process/Next Steps
Slide 3
GOVERNANCE:
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Slide 4
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Joint Powers Authority Recommendations
• Limited‐power regional entity formed for the single purpose of executing
for the single purpose of executing the Red Line Regional Rail (Phases I and II)
• Created by mutual consent of the seven North Corridor local governments
• Closely related to and controlled by Closely related to and controlled by
its member agencies, including CATS and the State, through Board representation
Slide 5
North Carolina JPA Enabling Legislation
160A‐462. Joint agencies.
(a) Units agreeing to an undertaking may establish a joint agency charged with any or all of the responsibility for the undertaking. The units may confer on the joint agency any power, duty, right, or function needed for the execution of the undertaking, except that legal title to all real property necessary to the undertaking shall be held by the participating units individually, or jointly as tenants in common, in such manner and proportion as they may determine. determine.
(b) The participating units may appropriate funds to the joint agency on the basis of an annual budget recommended by the agency and submitted to the governing board of each unit for approval. Slide 6
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
North Carolina Revenue Bond Act
Article 5 of Chapter 159; 159‐80 and following:
• Permits revenue bonds to be issued for a public transportation system and for economic development
for economic development
• Specifically authorizes the use of the Revenue Bond Act by Joint Agencies by defining the term “Municipality” to include joint agencies under Article 20 of Chapter 160A
• Revenues that JPA can pledge toward revenue bond include :
– TIF
– Special Assessment District
– Revenues from a contract with the State
 Express statutory authorization in North Carolina for issuance
of revenue bonds by a joint agency as envisioned for Red Line
Slide 7
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
3) If a joint agency is established, its composition, organization, and nature, together with the powers conferred on it; Proposed JPA powers:
– Ability to receive revenues
– Ability to issue bonds (based on revenues from members)
– Ability to allocate/spend money within the UBD on approved expenditures – Ability to own assets, except real property
– Ability to enter into contracts
– Ability to sue (or be sued)
JPA WOULD NOT BE GRANTED THE POWER TO TAX
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Slide 8
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
3) If a joint agency is established, its composition, organization, and nature, together with the powers conferred on it; f
d
i
Structure of 18‐member Board:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State of NC: two members
CATS: two members
City of Charlotte (non‐CATS): two members
Town of Huntersville: two members
T
Town of Cornelius: two members
fC
li t
b
Town of Davidson: two members
Town of Mooresville: two members
Mecklenburg County: two members
Iredell County: two members
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Slide 9
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
JPA Function
Strategic Planning, Policies &
Operating Guidelines
Administration / Governance;
Legal and Intergovernmental Affairs
Financial Management, including
Budgets and Annual Reports
Operations & Maintenance
Type
Internal
Board
Personnel / Notes
Internal
Executive Director
Internal
Planning for both Phase I and II
Contract
Project Development / Execution;
Design & Construction Management
Communications / Public Relations
Legal / Bond Finance /
P3 Procurement
Contract
Finance Director. Must also appoint
treasurer and auditor.
Member jurisdiction or third party.
Ongoing, long-term.
Member jurisdiction or third party.
Some ongoing functions, some
discrete projects.
projects
Third party, discrete projects
Contract
Contract
Third party, as-needed
Third party. Heaviest at JPA inception.
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Contract
Slide 10
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Creating a JPA: Project Recommendations
9) Any other necessary or proper matter. • JPA agreement explicitly protects all member JPA agreement explicitly protects all member
jurisdictions from recourse
• Local control of local rail‐related infrastructure improvements, following:
–
–
–
–
–
Adopted Station Area Plan
Cost analysis vs JPA execution
Design and construction specs
Design and construction specs
Bid documents and solicitation
Contractor selection
§ 160A‐464. Provisions of the agreement
Slide 11
State Leadership and Support
• Project leadership role by NCDOT and consultants
– Scoping, planning, review and adoption processes
Scoping planning review and adoption processes
• Strategic position and transportation experience
– NCDOT rail knowledge and expertise
• History of State backing for infrastructure borrowing
• State will review plan, potentially commit to:
– Fund 25 percent of the project capital construction costs
Fund 25 percent of the project capital construction costs
– Fund 25 percent of ongoing O&M costs
– Back the bond financing package
Slide 12
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
FUNDING AND FINANCING PLAN
Slide 13
Project Costs (2018 dollars)
Project Component
Main Line Track
Grade Crossings
Vehicles
Stations
Charlotte Terminal Area &
Vehicle Inspection Facility
Systems
Professional Services
NS Licensing Agreement
Freight Rail Rationalization
Project Reserve
Station Area Improvements
Total
Source: CATS
Slide 14
Estimated Cost (millions)
$70.5
$44 9
$44.9
$58.3
$56.6
$66.0
$25.8
$40.9
$28.1
$5.7
$11.6
$43.6
$452.0
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
RLRR Finance Plan: Funding Partnership
Total project capital cost: $452M
Capital and O&M proposed to be funded via p
p p
the following partnership:
• 25% CATS = $113 M (transit funds)
• 25% State = $113 M (multimodal funds)
• 50% Local = $226 M (value capture)
Slide 15
Unified Revenue Approach
• The TIF and Assessment District revenues are “rolled
revenues are rolled up
up” into the into the
cumulative amounts
• The revenues are allocated by contract from the jurisdictions to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
• JPA will offer “Availability Payments” based on the combined TIF and Assessment District revenues
• The JPA secures the financing through the issuance of bonds or P3 approach
Slide 16
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
TIF and SAD: Who is Affected?
• Both mechanisms affect ONLY those properties in the Unified Benefit District. The rest of the properties in each town, city
Benefit District. The rest of the properties in each town, city or county are not affected.
• Within the project’s Unified Benefit District,
– Tax‐Increment Financing:
• Is allocated by municipalities and counties
• Does not affect property owners
– Special Assessment District:
Special Assessment District
• Is self‐imposed by majority petition
• Affects only income‐producing properties
Slide 17
Value Capture Development Assumptions
• Projected “Value Capture” only includes known projects
• Identified
projects:
Identified projects: – Beginning construction with projected phasing
– Where owners commit to develop as the economy improves
– On key sites where jurisdictions are confident that near‐term development will occur
– With development plans endorsed by jurisdictions (densities, mix of uses and entitlements)
Slide 18
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Key Project: Gandy Communities
Phil Gandy:
Phil
G d
“I began to assemble the properties six years ago because I saw the vision for a TOD and thought it was worth the investment. The design of the project and the uses all focus on
project and the uses all focus on the coming of the Red Line.”
Slide 19
Key Project: Gandy Communities
• Area A:
– 18 acres open space
– 150 K retail
– 300 K office
– 800 residential units
• Area B:
– 8 acres open space
– 120 residential units
– 150 K office
• Area C:
– 11 acres open space
– 120 K office and retail
– 750 residential units
• Area D:
– 5 acres open space
5
– 350 residential units
Build out value: $220.8 M
Slide 20
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Financing Options: Bond Approach
• The importance of full participation in the Assessment District
• Provides early year revenues before the Tax increment Revenues are realized
yy
RLRR Annual Tax Increment Revenues
ANNUAL SNAPSHOT
RANGE
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
High
$
7,457,011
$ 21,609,741
$ 27,586,137
$ 29,769,517
$ 30,632,619
Medium
$
7,239,816
$ 20,980,331
$ 26,782,657
$ 28,902,443
$ 29,740,407
Low
$
7,022,622
$ 20,350,921
$ 25,979,177
$ 28,035,370
$ 28,848,195
RLRR Annual Special Assessment Revenues
ANNUAL SNAPSHOT
RANGE
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
High
$
16,283,498
$ 25,156,079
$ 29,305,518
$ 30,819,182
$ 31,749,826
Medium
$
15,809,221
$ 24,423,377
$ 28,451,959
$ 29,921,536
$ 30,825,074
Low
$
15,334,944
$ 23,690,676
$ 27,598,400
$ 29,023,890
$ 29,900,322
Slide 21
Independent National Bond Underwriters: Proposed Structures
• Stone
Stone & Youngberg proposes a structure utilizing & Youngberg proposes a structure utili ing
the tax increment and assessment revenues as a single source for bond payments
• Guggenheim Securities proposes separate bond issues with early assessment bonds and later tax increment bonds
• Both approaches are viable
Both approaches are viable
Slide 22
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Stone & Youngberg Structure
• CATS Share: Funding through Zero Coupon Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) repaid in 2018 at 3% interest rate
• State Share: Funding through Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) repaid quarterly from 2014 through 2018 at interest rate ranging from 1.2% to 2.3%. • Local Share:
y
(
– 30‐year Revenue Bonds (based on tax increment and assessment district revenues) at 4% to 5% interest rates
– Includes $11 million in capitalized interest, a $19 million reserve fund, and no less than a 1.4 annual coverage
– Cumulative retained revenues exceed $1 billion, before use for O&M costs
Slide 23
Stone & Youngberg Summary
JPA SA/TIF
CATS
NCDOT
SA/TIF Revenues
Total Construction
Bond Proceeds
RAN Proceeds
RAN Proceeds
Applied to Const.
Proceeds
2013 $ 32,958,331 $ 14,288,963 $ 15,753,997 $ 11,131,292 $ 74,132,583 2014 $ 56,499,996 $ 24,495,366 $ 27,006,852 $ 8,859,837 $ 116,862,051 2015 $ 56,499,996 $ 24,495,366 $ 27,006,852 $ 108,002,214 2016 $ 56,499,996 $ 24,495,366 $ 27,006,852 $ 108,002,214 2017 $ 23,541,681 $ 10,206,402 $ 11,252,855 $ 45,000,938 $ 97,981,463 $ 108,027,408 $ 19,991,129 $ 452,000,000 Total
$ 226,000,000 Slide 24
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Guggenheim Securities Approach
• NC DOT pays 25% – Not financed: funding received evenly
g
y
• CATS pays 25% – Lump sum after construction – Financed with a short‐term, stand‐alone note
• Assessment bonds will be 25% – Sold upfront – Bond sizing will be limited to an amount that can be supported (with coverage) from assessments available on the date of bond sale
• TIF bonds will pay for 25%.
– Sold last – Will still need credit enhancement for a period of time
Slide 25
Summary of Guggenheim Securities Program
Revenue Source
Timing
Credit Quality
Conclusion
NC DOT
During Construction
AAA
Use as PAYGO
CATS
After Construction
A Category
Stand‐alone RAN’s
Assessment
Immediately available
Non Rated , but very attractive to market
k t
Non Rated Assessment Bonds
Tax Increment
Available only after No revenues, new construction
unsellable
Slide 26
JPA BAN’s, backstopped by State of NC, offset by TIF, refinanced ASAP
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Excess Revenues
• Under either approach, there will be excess revenues beyond debt service and O&M costs
debt service and O&M costs
• At a pre‐established threshold, the JPA will evaluate:
– Reducing the 75/25 split of the tax increment revenues
– Reducing the special assessment level from .75/$100 of assessed values
Slide 27
Financing Options: P3 Approach
Assumptions – DBFOM Scenario
• Capital cost of $452M
• CATS and NCDOT each contribute $113M towards capital (interest and principal) through issuance of $206M revenue anticipation notes (RANs)
–
5 years @ 1.9 to 3.3%
• Special Assessment and Tax Increment Financing (SA/TIF) revenues PAYGO during construction ($87M)
• Balance of construction costs financed by private partner
Balance of construction costs financed by private partner
–
–
–
–
Debt/Equity: 80/20
Debt: Private Activity Bonds (PABs) @ 6.0%
Equity: 10.0% return required
Term: 30 years (2013 – 2043)
Slide 28
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Sources of Funds – DBFOM Scenario
NCDOT RAN Proceeds $108M, 24%
PABs
$127M, 28%
CATS RAN Proceeds $98 M , 22%
P3 Partner, 35% Equity
$32 M , 7%
TIF/SA Applied to Construction PAYGO
$87M , 19%
Slide 29
Sponsor Cash Flows – DBFOM Scenario
$100
$80
2.5x
2.5x 2.0x Slide 30
2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
0.0x 2024
$0
2022
0.5x 2020
$20
2018
1.0x 2016
$40
2014
1.5x 2012
$60
2010
Nominaal Dollars (Million)
3.0x State of NC RAN Bond Proceeds CATS RAN Bond Proceeds SA/TIFRevenue PAYGO during Construction
Fare Revenues
Fare Revenues
Incremental FTA Formula Funds (Approx.)
SA/TIF Revenue After PAYGO
Availability Payments
AP Coverage
Avvailability Payment Coverage
$120
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Assumptions – DBOM Scenario
• Capital cost of $452M
• CATS and NCDOT each contribute $113M towards capital CATS and NCDOT each contribute $113M towards capital
(interest and principal) through issuance of $206M revenue anticipation notes (RANs)
–
5 years @ 1.9 to 3.3%
• SA/TIF Revenues PAYGO to construction $20M
• SA/TIF Revenue Bond Proceeds $226M with State backstop
– 4.00% to 5.00% annual coupon
4 00% 5 00%
l
– 30 year term from date of issuance (6/1/2013)
Slide 31
Sources of Funds – DBOM Scenario
SA/TIF PAYGO During Construction
$20 M , 4%
NCDOT RAN Proceeds
$108 M , 24%
SA/TIF Bond Proceeds
$226 M , 50%
CATS RAN Proceeds
$98 M , 22%
Slide 32
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Sponsor Debt Service – DBOM Scenario
5.0x Annual Debt Service on SA/TIF Bonds
4.5x SA/TIF Revenues Applied to Bonds
Nom
minal Dollars (Million)
$100
$
Coverage (SA&TIF Revenue/Debt Service )
Coverage (SA&TIF Revenue/Debt Service )
4.0x 3.5x $80
3.0x $60
2.5x 2.0x $40
1.5x Debt Service Coveerage Ratio
D
$120
1.0x $20
0.5x 2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
0.0x 2010
$0
Slide 33
Sponsor’s Operating Cash Flows – DBOM Scenario
5.0x Annual Debt Service on SA/TIF Bonds
4.5x Operating and Maintenance Costs
$100
Mid Life Overhaul
Mid‐Life Overhaul
4.0x Total Revenue
3.0x $60
2.5x 2.0x $40
1.5x 1.0x $20
0.5x Slide 34
2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
0.0x 2012
$0
2010
Nominal Dollars (Million)
3.5x Total Revenue/Total Cost
$80
Ratio of TTotal Revenue to Total Costs
$120
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Several Tiers of Downside Protection
• Proposal projections are very conservative:
– Only
Only “known”
known projects used in revenue projections: projects used in revenue projections:
$4.9 billion of development vs. $6.9 in Noell study
– No escalation factor on property values
• Bond underwriters further discount model assumptions
• Bond underwriters require:
– Project to generate and maintain cash reserves for lean years
– Project to generate extra revenues each year above what is needed to Project to generate extra revenues each year above what is needed to
pay debt service (high coverage ratios)
• If all else fails:
– State provides cash backstop during lean years (will be repaid)
Slide 35
Conclusions for P3 Options
• Both DBFOM and DBOM scenarios appear financially feasible
• Both scenarios require a State backstop
Both scenarios require a State backstop
• Anticipated revenues in the public finance scenario cover debt service and O&M and achieve high coverage
• DBFOM would bear a higher cost of capital but could lead to higher efficiencies through higher risk transfers
– No cost/schedule efficiencies or risk transfers were assumed
• A comprehensive business case should also be developed to assess A comprehensive business case should also be developed to assess
the tradeoffs between DBOM and DBFOM
Slide 36
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
RECOMMENDATIONS
Slide 37
Create a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
• Each of the seven North Corridor jurisdictions should:
– Approve the creation of a Joint Powers Authority with Approve the creation of a Joint Powers Authority with
powers, limitations and representation established by the participants
– Appoint two members to the JPA Board and authorize two members each from NCDOT and CATS
Slide 38
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Initiate the Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
• All seven North Corridor jurisdictions should: – Adopt
Adopt the Tax Increment Financing District boundaries
the Tax Increment Financing District boundaries
– Instruct the County Tax Collector to allocate 75 percent of the incremental property taxes from the parcels within those boundaries to the JPA to fund the Red Line • The City of Charlotte should: – Allocate 75 percent of the incremental property taxes from Gateway Station parcels in three equal amounts
• One‐third to the JPA
• One‐third to the future commuter line to Gastonia
• One‐third to the future commuter line east to Monroe
Slide 39
Approve Special Assessment District • The four towns and City of Charlotte should:
– Secure
Secure requisite percentages of signatures from income
requisite percentages of signatures from income‐
producing properties to adopt the Assessment District
– Establish the special assessment rate at .75/$100 of assessed values in the District
– Allocate 100 percent of the assessment revenues to the JPA to fund the Red Line
Note: For Gateway Station, where existing Municipal Service District (MSD) levies are in place, set the assessment equal to the amount to bring the total assessment to .75/$100 of assessed values. 100 percent of this incremental assessment will be allocated to the JPA.
Slide 40
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Pursue Joint Developments and Negotiated Agreements
– Each jurisdiction owning land that is planned for new private development should:
private development should: • Develop the criteria for the new development
• Plan for the solicitation of development partners as the market warrants
– Each jurisdiction should: • Prepare or revise their Station Area Plans to incorporate land owned by the jurisdiction • Enter into negotiations with land owners for the station development where appropriate
Slide 41
Fund Operation and Maintenance Costs
• The JPA should:
– All
Allocate the annual Revenue Available Payments in excess t th
lR
A il bl P
t i
of the annual bond debt service for the local share for operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
Slide 42
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Implement the Financing Approach
To implement the financing approach, the JPA should:
– Select underwriters to structure the bond financing
Select underwriters to structure the bond financing
• Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) to fund CATS and State portion
• 30‐year Revenue Bonds (RA Payments as the “first call”)
– Select P3 approach and solicit bids under either a DBOM or DBFOM scenario, to include: •
•
•
•
Final design
Selection of rolling stock and technical programs
Selection of rolling stock and technical programs
Construction
Operations and maintenance
Slide 43
PROCESS AND NEXT STEPS
Slide 44
Red Line Regional Rail
Overview Presentation
12/13 Red Line Task Force Summit
Mooresville, NC
Ongoing Five‐Phase Process
Phase I:
2010
RLTF
Formed;
Project
Redefined
Phase II: 2011
Develop Draft
Business /
Finance Plan
Phase III: 2012
1) Review and
Adoptions
2) Establishment
of JPA & Funding /
Financing
Mechanisms
Phase IV: 2013
1) Activation of JPA
& Funding /
Financing
Mechanisms
2) Financing/Bond
Sales & P3
Negotiations
Phase V:
2014-2016
Project
Construction
2017:
Service
Begins
Phase III
Began with
Plan Referral
Slide 45
Draft Business/Finance Plan: Take‐Aways
1. Local governments can participate in the project while maintaining control and protecting individual property rights.
maintaining control and protecting individual property rights.
2. Towns and counties are protected from financial recourse.
3. The project can be fully funded now, including capital costs and operations and maintenance costs for 30 years. 4. The project is financially sound, and represents an attractive investment to the financial community.
5. All aspects of the proposed approach to fund and implement the project are currently allowed by state law.
Slide 46
City of Charlotte - Transportation and Planning Committee
January 26, 2012
Red Line Proposal Review Questions
Financial feasibility
1. Are the growth and development assumptions reasonable in the current economic climate?
2. How is the Tax Increment Financing and Special Assessment revenue proposal structured? Are
the revenue growth assumptions reasonable?
3. Are the assumptions on operating and capital costs consistent with CATS projections?
4. How does the financing plan interact and/or depend on City of Charlotte debt?
5. What is the impact of the proposed Red Line financing plan on CATS financial projections?
6. How is the “backstop” for risk handled by the Joint Powers Authority and/or the State of N.C.?
Policy / Planning impacts
7. Are there any impacts to adopted Council policy?
i. Tax Increment Financing cap?
ii. Land use planning?
iii. Current economic development initiatives?
iv. Other?
Partnerships / Regulatory Environment
8. How do the various proposed partnerships interact with the Red Line proposal and the City of
Charlotte?
a. Mecklenburg and Iredell Counties?
b. Towns?
c. State of North Carolina?
d. Norfolk Southern Rail?
9. How does the proposed Joint Powers Authority interact with the Metropolitan Transit
Commission (MTC) from governance, legal and policy perspectives?
10. What is the process for establishing station area development standards?
11. What is the impact of the proposal on the Charlotte Gateway Station?
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 9, 2012
Transportation and Planning Committee Members
Stephanie C. Kelly, CMC, City Clerk
Bicycle Advisory Committee Annual Report
The attached report of the Bicycle Advisory Committee is being sent to you pursuant to the
Resolution related to Boards and Commissions adopted by City Council at the November 23, 2009
meeting. This resolution requires annual reports from City Council Boards and Commissions to be
distributed by the City Clerk to both City Council and to the appropriate Committee for review.
If you have questions or comments for these committees, please convey those to staff support for a
response and/or follow-up.
Bicycle Advisory Committee
December 2011
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Subject:
Report of Committee Activity for Calendar Year 2011
As required by the Charlotte City Council’s current policy for boards and commissions, the
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is submitting this report of committee activity for the period
of January 2011 through December 2011.
The BAC serves in an advisory capacity. This includes:
• Making recommendations to the City Council and County Commission on policies and
issues related to bicycle transportation.
• Seeking the implementation of bicycle-related transportation plans and policies within the
jurisdiction of the City of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County.
• Participating in the development and update of those plans and policies.
• Making recommendations on actions that are appropriate and necessary to improve the
efficiency and safety of bicycle transportation.
• Discussing and advocating issues and opportunities to create a more bicycle-friendly
Charlotte.
The BAC is composed of eleven (11) members. Six (6) of these members are appointed by the
Charlotte City Council, three (3) by the Mayor of Charlotte and two (2) by the Mecklenburg
County Commissioners. Committee members serve without compensation.
The 2011 BAC members were:
Dick Winters, Chair
Jane Cacchione, Vice Chair
Hal Bouton
Eric Banks
Frank Burns
Ann Gabrielson
Jonathan Harding
Scott Kusel
D.C. Lucchesi
Andrew Pike
Jane Wasilewski
All members have attended meetings in CY 2011. The term of one member will expire in
December 2011 and he has requested not to be reappointed due to his residential relocation.
Another member will not meet the required annual attendance and will be ineligible to remain on
the committee following this calendar year.
Regularly scheduled meetings of the committee are held at 6:00pm on the fourth Tuesday of the
month at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center.
During calendar year 2011, the BAC members regularly met and addressed such agenda items
that included, but were not limited to, the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discussed the issue of sunken drainage grates during the resurfacing process in an effort
to identify any recommendations to lessen their risk to cyclists.
Received a report on the implementation process of the adopted Urban Street Design
Guidelines.
Participated in and monitored the development of the North East Corridor Infrastructure
action plan for implementing bicycle facilities in the corridor.
Recommended the installation of test bicycle detection devices at four problematic
signalized intersections, with a goal of decreasing red light violations by cyclists
uncertain if their bicycle was able to trigger a signal change. Recommended criteria and
locations for future installations.
Monitored the development and made recommendation for the adoption of the update of
the City Transportation Action Plan.
Developed the theme for the 2011 BIKE!Charlotte series of cycling events intended to
raise awareness of bicycle transportation and safety. Among the events was a BAC led
ride open to the public primarily along one of the City’s signed bicycle routes. BAC
members participated in the annual Mayor’s Ride to Breakfast as the kickoff event of
BIKE!Charlotte.
Monitored the annual collection of data of bicycle boardings on transit buses.
Monitored the progress of additions to the Mecklenburg County greenway system.
Participated and monitored the development of the Beal Street bicycle pathway
alternative to Wendover Road.
The BAC Silver subcommittee met six times during CY2011. This subcommittee was
appointed by the BAC and is composed of five BAC members. It is charged with review
of the City’s bicycle transportation progress since receiving a bronze Bicycle Friendly
Community Award from the League of American Bicyclists in 2008, with a goal of
offering the best opportunity to achieve a Silver rating with the next BFC review in 2012.
Received a report on the analysis of bicycle crash statistics.
Received a presentation regarding bicycle share programs to aid in determining its
potential in Charlotte.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reviewed the Bike Smart in Charlotte bicycle safety brochure.
Reviewed the development of a Spanish language version of the bicycle safety brochure
and video.
Reviewed planning for the construction of a bicycle passage across the median of South
Blvd connecting Carson Street and Lexington Street in an effort to improve connectivity
for bicycling.
Continued monitoring street resurfacing projects and restriping to ensure creation of
bicycle facilities when practical.
Development of the second edition of the Charlotte Cycling Guide. The guide includes a
map of all bicycle lanes, signed bicycle routes and greenways in the city and includes
recommended routes and safety information.
Updated the Bicycle Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure to reflect references to
bicycle planning documents adopted since the original bicycle plan.
Reviewed plans for a preferred greenway crossing under the planned final section of I485 by the Clarks Creek and future greenway.
Reviewed and made recommendations for bicycle facilities in the East Boulevard
conversion project.
Reviewed the routing plan for the signed Bicycle Route 15.
Monitored the development of the NCDOT street design guidelines as they apply to
bicycle facilities.
Investigated Cycle Tracks as a potential bicycle facility in some Charlotte urban
situations.
Reviewed and offered support for the TIGER 3 grant to develop a continuous bicycle
facility from Uptown Charlotte to the Cabarrus County line, and potentially to the Town
of Davidson.
Monitored potential traffic calming project for Scaleybark Road.
Received reports on the progress of the bicycle parking project conducted jointly with the
Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance (CABA).
Some BAC members participated in leading tours of bicycle facilities during
BIKE!Charlotte, the Conferences of the North Carolina Chapter of the American
Planning Association and the professional development seminars of the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.
Monitored the successful implementation of the bicycle passage in the Dion Street
barricade, which provided much needed connectivity for bicycles.
Monitored the bicycle friendly improvements to the bicycle bridge crossings of Little
Sugar Creek Greenway.
Initiated planning for 2012 BIKE!Charlotte series of events to raise bicycle awareness.
Offered bicycle related webinars as education tools for engineering and planning staff.
Developed criteria for the installation of Shared Lane Arrows in Charlotte.
•
•
•
•
Investigating the experimental use of green colored bicycle lanes in Charlotte to raise
both motorists’ and cyclists’ awareness of those as safety facilities.
Monitoring the development of NCDOT’s project to widen Graham Street which is to
include bicycle lanes.
Review of bicycle lane projects including South Tryon Street, Clanton Road, Rea Road,
Tom Hunter Road, Community House Road, and East Boulevard, among others.
Support for the county greenway program, including participation in greenway openings,
the annual joint tour with the Greenway Advisory Committee and support for grants to be
used for greenway development.
The BAC also wishes to express its appreciation to City Council for its continued support of
projects and policies furthering bicycle transportation, safety of cyclists and creating a more
bicycle friendly Charlotte.
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 20, 2012
Transportation and Planning Committee Members
Stephanie C. Kelly, CMC, City Clerk
Zoning Board of Adjustment Annual Report
The attached report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is being sent to you pursuant to the
Resolution related to Boards and Commissions adopted by City Council at the November 23, 2009
meeting. This resolution requires annual reports from City Council Boards and Commissions to be
distributed by the City Clerk to both City Council and to the appropriate Committee for review.
If you have questions or comments for this board, please convey those to staff support for a response
and/or follow-up.
•
«D)
CHARWTTE
DATE:
January 17, 2012
TO:
Mayor a~.i
ity coun. cil
•
\i~
du1s:aif
FROM:
Jeffrey
Zoning Board of Adjustment
SUBJECT:
Annual Report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
As required by the Charlotte City Charter and City Council's current policy for Boards and Commissions, the Zoning
Board of Adjustment (ZBA) is hereby submitting a report of its activities for the calendar year 2011.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties to be carried out in accordance with
these regulations which include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To hear and decide appeals from and to review any specific order, requirement, decision, or determination
made under these regulations by the Zoning Administrator.
To hear and decide petitions for variances from these regulations in accordance with the provisions of
Section 5.108.
To adopt such rules of procedure necessary for the administration of its responsibilities not inconsistent
with these regulations.
To assume any other duties assigned by the City Council.
The Board of Adjustment shall not have jurisdiction with respect to Section 6.201 Conditional Districts
except as provided in this section.
The Board of Adjustment shall not have authority to grant variances for use changes.
The Board's regular scheduled meetings are held the last Tuesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. at the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Government Center. Additional meetings and hearings are scheduled as needed. The Planning
Department Zoning Administration Division serves as support to the Board. The City's Legal Department also
provides assistance.
The Board met in excess of 80 hours for variance and appeal hearings which included eleven (11) regular meetings.
Board members prepare for meetings/hearings by reviewing applications, staff recommendations, and hearing
documents.
Total Cases for 2011: 29
MONTH
January
February
March
April
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
# CASES
2
2
3
5
PLANNING
MONTH
May
June
July
August
DEPARTMENT
#CASES
0
3
2
1
MONTH
September
October
November
December
#CASES
2
4
0
5
www.charlotteplanning.org
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-2853
PH: (704)-336-2205
FAX: (704)-336-5123
2011 ZBA Annual Report
Page 2 of2
The Zoning Board of Adjustment has eight (8) members (5 regular members and 3 alternates). City Council
appoints three (3) regular members, the County appoints one (1) regular member and the Mayor appoints one (l)
regular member. City Council appoints two (2) alternates and the Mayor appoints one (1) alternate. Members are
appointed for a term of three (3) years and until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified. No
member shall serve more than two (2) full consecutive terms. Alternate members serve on the Board in the absence
of any regular member and are appointed in the same manner and for the same term as regular members. All
members are required to attend at least 65% of the regular and special meetings held in any calendar year with no
excused absences. In order to be eligible for reappointment, the member must have attended at least 75% of the
regular scheduled meetings during the term. Any member who fails to attend any three (3) consecutive regular
committee meetings shall be removed.
All members have met attendance requirements and serve without compensation.
Membe rs 0f th e Z omng
. B oar d 0f Adinustment are:
Member Name
Appointed By
Term/Expiration
Jeffrey Davis, Chair
Randall Fink:, Co-Chair
Michael Knotts
David Hoffman
Lynn Wheeler
C. Jennifer Coble, Alternate
Mark Loflin, Alternate
*Vacant, Alternate
City Council
City Council
County Commissioners
City Council
Mayor
City Council
City Council
Mayor
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
3-year
Support:
Thomas Powers, Assistant City Attorney (ZBA)
Terrie Hagler-Gray, Senior City Attorney (Staff)
Zoning Administrator, Katrina Young
Planning Coordinator, Barry Mosley
Clerk to the Board, Sonda S. Kennedy
(end
(end
(end
(end
(end
(end
(end
Date
01/30112)
01/30113)
09/30/13)
01/30114)
01/30/13)
01/30112)
01130112)