The Durham City Council reviews how rising paratransit and fare-free transit costs are driving major budget gaps, debating options like institutional contributions, higher county support, and possible tax changes while trying to avoid restoring fares. The council also confronts a money-losing downtown parking fund, where debt, discounts, and redevelopment plans are increasingly tied to the general fund. 13mins
Original Meeting
Video Notes
To view Part 3 - https://youtube.com/live/IQojyWSPv1w
To view Part 1 - https://youtube.com/live/VoqXySYbS8c?feature=share
To learn more about the Budget Process visit http://www.durhamnc.gov/199
Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/cityofdurhamnc
Like: http://www.facebook.com/cityofdurhamnc
Like: https://www.instagram.com/cityofdurhamnc/
Follow: https://www.threads.com/@cityofdurhamnc
Follow: https://bsky.app/profile/cityofdurhamnc.bsky.social
Listen: https://www.spreaker.com/user/city-of-durham-nc--10123646
David Bradway
-
-
-
Sean explained that while most riders had low incomes and fare-free service for these riders was desired, the Durham County Transit Plan’s financial model—managed annually by GoTriangle—showed so little remaining capacity that an ongoing $2.2 million request for this initiative would have pushed the plan into a negative balance.
-
-
-
-
A speaker described how federal funding caps in the regional planning organization limited Durham’s transit dollars despite high environmental and economic justice needs, and argued that merging into a larger regional system could still benefit Durham by advancing major projects like BRT and light rail within a broader regional economy.
-
A speaker stated that returning to fares was non‑negotiable, emphasized needing many smaller cuts to close the transit budget gap, asked to revisit fund‑balancing options after seeing the full budget, and called for serious revenue discussions with Duke University similar to other universities’ payments to host cities.
-
Council Member Kopac and another speaker discussed pursuing renewed institutional contributions from entities like Duke University, acknowledged strong council and community support for fare-free transit despite a remaining multi-million-dollar gap, and suggested a mix of cost savings, higher county support, and a modest local tax increase to strengthen funding negotiations.
-
City Manager Ferguson and council members reaffirmed fare-free transit as the working assumption, requested analysis of how many riders would qualify for exemptions if fares returned, framed fares as a last-resort option amid tax and fund-balance considerations, and discussed that most potential budget cuts would affect personnel, with the manager inviting confidential input on prioritizing services.
-
City Manager Ferguson outlined that the parking fund was not self-supporting, anticipated recommending a budget with a negative balance, and noted that council’s interest in redeveloping lots and offering downtown fare discounts would deepen the shortfall and require general fund support and future policy decisions.
-
Sean reported that with parking rates already near the top of the market and no changes planned, the parking fund projected a $2–$2.5 million structural deficit driven mainly by Morgan-Rigsbee deck debt service, leading to negative fund balances and effectively borrowing from other enterprise funds until the budget returned to balance.
-
A council member and staff reviewed how roughly one-third of parking costs stemmed from debt service on the Morgan-Rigsbee deck and legacy projects, and the city manager noted that additional garage repair expenses were already being subsidized by the debt service and general funds rather than the parking fund itself.