Durham staff present final recommended FY2027 transit work program; Go Triangle urges small service adjustments

County staff presented the final recommended FY2027 Durham Annual Transit Work Program during the June work session, outlining funding priorities, carryover projects and a path to approval. Brandy Miner, identified in the record as the Durham County staff working group administrator, said the staff working group unanimously recommended the program and that the county commission will be asked to approve it at the June 8 regular meeting before it moves to the Go Triangle board of trustees for consideration on June 24.

The work program continues implementation of the adopted Durham County transit plan and preserves its four themes: improve the current system, advance projects sooner, connect the region with quick and reliable service, and improve stops and stations. Miner said projected FY27 revenues total approximately $62.5 million, led by an estimated $44 million from the half‑cent transit sales tax; registration fees are expected to generate about $2.5 million and staff plan a $16 million draw from the fund balance to balance the budget. The operating budget is now about $27.8 million (a $2.6 million reduction from the draft), and the capital budget is $34.7 million. Miner said the projected fund balance at the end of FY26 is about $141 million, with the low point in the financial model at FY35 estimated at $10.6 million and the county policy minimum liquidity at $10 million.

Staff described several schedule changes requested by the City of Durham that delay implementation of service improvements on multiple routes. The city requested delays for routes 1–10, 13, 16 and New Year’s Eve service; the most notable impacts staff highlighted were postponing planned 15‑minute daytime service on route 9 and delaying the Sunday midnight extension. Those service delays reduced planned operating costs by about $2.6 million, which staff said helps offset one‑time capital requests the city advanced.

The recommended work program includes multiple capital authorizations and carryover items. Miner listed authorizations for bus stop improvements (~$4.4 million), a Triangle Mobility Hub (design $420,000), the Nelson Road B project ($4.2 million), vehicle acquisition ($728,000), and funding for design and construction of maintenance and paratransit facilities (design and construction allocations across FY27–FY28). Miner also introduced three new capital projects including a $650,000 Durham Transit Plan update (required every four years) and one‑time city projects to address an approximately $8.2 million shortfall through sidewalk and vehicle replacement/rehabilitation funding.

Katherine Egleston, deputy CEO of Go Triangle, used the allotted five minutes to present two cost‑neutral adjustments she said would improve reliability on route 800 (a high‑ridership regional route) and increase midday frequency on the Durham‑Raleigh Express (DRX). Egleston said both adjustments could be implemented without increasing county operating allocations and that under the current interlocal agreement both the county commission and the Go Triangle board must vote on such cost‑neutral adjustments.

Commissioners debated options for handling Go Triangle’s request. Staff and Go Triangle explained procedural choices: remanding the item back to the staff working group, approving the recommended program and pursuing the Go Triangle changes as an amendment, or proceeding and allowing the other boards to register technical corrections or concerns. Staff warned that if both boards have not finally approved a work program by July 1 the system would operate under an interim (status‑quo) budget until a new program is adopted.

Multiple commissioners voiced support for authorizing the chair to draft a letter to the City of Durham clarifying that the county’s action would be a one‑time solution and that the transit plan’s intent is to fund new or expanded service rather than replace baseline operating expenses. Miner and other staff said the staff working group had unanimously recommended the version before the board and that Go Triangle’s proposal arrived late in the schedule and could be addressed via amendment.

The county did not take a final vote on the work program at the work session; staff said the item would be placed on the regular meeting agenda for approval on June 8. The board then moved to the next agenda item.