HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-27-21 Agenda Work Session
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA | 1 of 1
Agenda
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Work session
7 p.m. Sept. 27, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Due to current public health concerns, this meeting will be conducted remotely
using Zoom.
Please use the bookmark feature to navigate and view the item attachments.
1. Opening of the work session
2. Agenda changes and approval
3. Items for decision ― consent agenda
A. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
B. Proclamation – 2021 Diaper Need Awareness Week
4. In-depth discussion and topics
A. Review and discuss transportation priorities
B. Budget amendment for Water Treatment Plant filters repair and rebuild
5. Other business
6. Committee updates and reports
7. Adjournment
Interpreter services or special sound equipment for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act is available
on request. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, call the Town Clerk’s Office
at 919-296-9443 a minimum of one business day in advance of the meeting.
AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1
Agenda Abstract
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Meeting date: Sept. 27, 2021
Department: Administration
Public hearing: No
Date of public hearing: N/A
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT
Emily Bradford, Budget Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject: Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
Attachments:
Budget Changes Detail Report
Brief summary:
To adjust budgeted revenues and expenditures, where needed, due to changes that have occurred since budget
adoption.
Action requested:
Consider approving budget amendments and transfers.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background information and issue summary:
N/A
Financial impacts:
As indicated by each budget amendment.
Staff recommendation and comments:
To approve the attached list of budget amendments.
For clerk’s use
AGENDA ITEM:
3.A
Consent
agenda
Regular
agenda
Closed
session
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2021-2022
DATES: 09/27/2021 TO 09/27/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
09/27/2021 400,000.00 -16,200.00To cover vaccine bonus 24015 235,900.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4200-5300-581 RECOGNITION PAY
09/27/2021 0.00 16,200.00To cover vaccine bonus 24014 16,200.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5600-5300-110 TELEPHONE/INTERNET
09/27/2021 1,448.00 140.00To cover overage 24010 1,588.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5600-5300-455 C.S./ENGINEERING
09/27/2021 35,038.00 38,000.00To move Engeering exp to correct acct 24012 73,038.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5600-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
09/27/2021 1,000.00 -140.00To cover overage 24011 860.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5600-5700-729 CAPITAL - INFRASTRUCTURE
09/27/2021 205,000.00 -38,000.00To move Engeering exp to correct acct 24013 167,000.00EBRADFORD
30-80-7220-5300-581 RECOGNITION PAY
09/27/2021 0.00 5,700.00To cover vaccine bonus 24016 5,700.00EBRADFORD
30-80-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
09/27/2021 400,000.00 -5,700.00To cover vaccine bonus 24018 358,434.00EBRADFORD
35-30-5900-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
09/27/2021 11,187.00 -900.00To cover vaccine bonus 24019 10,287.00EBRADFORD
35-30-5900-5300-581 RECOGNITION PAY
09/27/2021 0.00 900.00To cover vaccine bonus 24017 900.00EBRADFORD
0.00
EBRADFORD 2:11:08PM09/21/2021
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
GF -
Contingency
Administration
Streets
Streets
Streets
Streets
Utilities
Administration
W&S
Contingency
Stormwater
Stormwater
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2021-2022
DATES: 09/28/2021 TO 09/28/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
30-80-7220-5300-455 C.S./ENGINEERING
09/28/2021 27,500.00 85,000.00To cover BRIC funding consultant 24022 129,500.00EBRADFORD
30-80-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
09/28/2021 400,000.00 -85,000.00To cover BRIC funding consultant 24023 273,434.00EBRADFORD
0.00
EBRADFORD 1:48:38PM09/22/2021
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
Utilities
Admin.
W&S
Contingency
AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1
Agenda Abstract
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Meeting date: Sept. 27, 2021
Department: Governing Body
Public hearing: No
Date of public hearing: N/A
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT
Mayor Jenn Weaver
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject: Proclamation – 2021 Diaper Need Awareness Week
Attachments:
1. Proclamation
2. Proclamation request letter
Brief summary:
National Diaper Need Awareness Week is September 27 – October 3, 2021. This event provides an excellent
opportunity for our community to recognize the 17.9 percent of Hillsborough children living in poverty whose
access to a reliable supply of clean diapers is necessary for their health and wellbeing. Moreover, Diaper Need
Awareness Week can help educate the public that diapers cannot be bought with food stamps or WIC vouchers,
making a sufficient supply of diapers an economic hardship for families in need.
Action requested:
Approve proclamation.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background information and issue summary:
The Diaper Bank of North Carolina, which is working in our community to bring attention to the issue of diaper
need, would be honored if this board would sponsor an official proclamation to name September 27 – October 3 as
2021 Diaper Need Awareness Week, coinciding with the week of national recognition. This proclamation would
lend official acknowledgment to the important work of educating the public on diaper need as well as emphasize
Hillsborough’s personal commitment to addressing childhood poverty.
Financial impacts:
None
Staff recommendation and comments:
None
For clerk’s use
AGENDA ITEM:
3.B
Consent
agenda
Regular
agenda
Closed
session
PROCLAMATION
2021 DIAPER NEED AWARENESS WEEK
WHEREAS, diaper need, the condition of not having a sufficient supply of clean diapers to keep babies and
toddlers clean, dry, and healthy, can adversely affect the health and well-being of babies, toddlers, and their
families; and
WHEREAS, national surveys and research studies report that one in three families struggle with diaper
need and 48 percent of families delay changing a diaper to extend their supply; and
WHEREAS, purchasing enough diapers to keep a baby or toddler clean, dry, and healthy can consume 14
percent of a low-wage family’s post-tax income, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient supply; and
WHEREAS, a daily or weekly supply of diapers is generally an eligibility requirement for babies and toddlers
to participate in child care programs and quality early-education programs; and
WHEREAS, without enough diapers, babies and toddlers risk infections and health problems that may
require medical attention, and may prevent parents from attending work or school, thereby hurting the family’s
economic prospects and well-being; and
WHEREAS, the people of Hillsborough recognize that diaper need is a public health issue, and addressing
diaper need can lead to economic opportunity for the state’s families and communities and improved health for
children, thus ensuring all people have access to the basic necessities required to thrive and reach their full
potential;
WHEREAS, Hillsborough is proud to be home to trusted community-based organizations including Diaper
Bank of North Carolina that recognize the importance of diapers in ensuring health and providing economic
stability for families and thus distribute diapers to families through various channels;
WHEREAS, Diaper Bank of North Carolina and its staff and volunteers served on the front lines of
Hillsborough’s COVID-19 pandemic response helping families in our communities weather the crisis;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jenn Weaver, mayor of the Town of Hillsborough, do hereby proclaim the week of
September 27 through October 3, 2021 as
DIAPER NEED AWARENESS WEEK
in the Town of Hillsborough, thank the aforementioned diaper bank, their staff, volunteers and donors, for their
service during the COVID-19 crisis, and encourage the citizens of Hillsborough to donate generously to diaper
banks, diaper drives, and those organizations that collect and distribute diapers to those struggling with diaper
need, so that all of Hillsborough’s children and families can thrive and reach their full potential.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused this seal of the Town of Hillsborough to
be affixed this 27th day of September in the year 2021.
Jenn Weaver, Mayor
Town of Hillsborough
1311 E. Club Boulevard Durham, NC 27704 (919) 886-8085
info@ncdiaperbank.org
August 25, 2021
Honorable Jenn Weaver
Mayor of Hillsborough
Dear Mayor Weaver,
National Diaper Need Awareness Week is September 27 – October 3, 2021. This event provides
an excellent opportunity for our community to recognize the 17.9 percent of Hillsborough
children living in poverty whose access to a reliable supply of clean diapers is necessary for their
health and wellbeing. Moreover, Diaper Need Awareness Week can help educate the public
that diapers cannot be bought with food stamps or WIC vouchers, making a sufficient supply of
diapers an economic hardship for families in need.
The Diaper Bank of North Carolina, which is working in our community to bring attention to the
issue of diaper need, would be honored if you would sponsor an official proclamation to name
September 27 – October 3 as 2021 Diaper Need Awareness Week, coinciding with the week of
national recognition. Your proclamation would lend official acknowledgment to the important
work of educating the public on diaper need as well as emphasize your personal commitment
to addressing childhood poverty. We have a sample proclamation which may help your office
compose the appropriate proclamation for our community.
If you have any questions concerning the request, the sample proclamation, or National Diaper
Need Awareness Week, please call Julie Bowling at 910-777-3243. We appreciate your support
of Diaper Need Awareness Week and the ending of childhood poverty in Hillsborough. Thank
you for your consideration of this special request.
Sincerely,
Michelle Old
Executive Director
Diaper Bank of NC
AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1
Agenda Abstract
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Meeting date: Sept. 27, 2021
Department: Public Space, Planning
Public hearing: No
Date of public hearing: N/A
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT
Stephanie Trueblood, Public Space Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject: Review and discuss transportation priorities
Attachments:
1. NC 86 Connector Feasibility Study
2. Transportation Priorities Presentation Slides
Brief summary:
Transportation recommendations will be a major component of the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan. Many
roadway and bike/pedestrian improvement projects have been discussed in the past but have not been prioritized.
This discussion allows time to review the various transportation projects and make decisions about what the most
immediate needs are. Staff will also present the findings from the NC 86 Connector Feasibility Study. Priorities will
be set.
Action requested:
1. Choose preferred alternative for NC 86 Connector Project
2. Prioritize feasibility studies (MPO planning funds)
3. Review and prioritize other roadway and bike/pedestrian projects
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background information and issue summary:
N/A
Financial impacts:
TBD
Staff recommendation and comments:
See presentation slides.
For clerk’s use
AGENDA ITEM:
4.A
Consent
agenda
Regular
agenda
Closed
session
PREPARED FOR
Town of Hillsborough, NC 105 E. Corbin St.Hillsborough, NC 27278 919.732.1270
PREPARED BY
VHB Engineering NC, P.C.Venture 1940 Main Campus DriveRaleigh, NC 27606 919.829.0328
July 2021
Corridor StudyNC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Phase II
Hillsborough, NC
NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Description and History .......................................................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Study Process ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 Stakeholder Engagement Plan .............................................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Project Partners ......................................................................................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Project Contributors .............................................................................................................................................................................................4
3.0 Project Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................................................................................5
4.0 Existing Conditions, expanded study area ........................................................................................................................................5
5.0 Network Deficiencies and Opportunities...........................................................................................................................................6
5.1 Network Deficiencies ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6
5.2 Network Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................................................................6
6.0 Development of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................................8
6.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................................................................................................................................................8
6.2 Alternative 1 A & B – New location connector ..........................................................................................................................................8
6.2.1 Typical Section ............................................................................................................................................................................................8
6.2.2 Benefits of Alternative .............................................................................................................................................................................8
6.2.3 Deficiencies of Alternative....................................................................................................................................................................17
6.2.4 Stakeholder Input ....................................................................................................................................................................................17
6.3 Alternative 2 – Improve Existing US 70A ....................................................................................................................................................17
6.3.1 Typical Section ..........................................................................................................................................................................................17
6.3.2 Benefits of Alternative ...........................................................................................................................................................................17
6.3.3 Deficiencies of Alternative....................................................................................................................................................................18
6.3.4 Stakeholder Input ....................................................................................................................................................................................18
7.0 Stakeholder Engagement Summary ..................................................................................................................................................19
8.0 Opinion of Probable Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................19
9.0 Study Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................................20
NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Area ...........................................................................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 Area Projects .........................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3 Proposed Alternative Centerlines .................................................................................................................................................................9
Figure 4 Alternative 1A – Western Extent ..................................................................................................................................................................10
Figure 5 Alternative 1A – Eastern Extent ....................................................................................................................................................................11
Figure 6 Alternative 1B – Eastern Extent ....................................................................................................................................................................12
Figure 7 Alternative 2 – Western Extent .....................................................................................................................................................................13
Figure 8 Alternative 2 – Eastern Extent .......................................................................................................................................................................14
Figure 9 Typical Sections ..................................................................................................................................................................................................15
List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated Construction Costs for NC 86 Connector ............................................................................................................................19
Table 2: NC 86 Connector – Alternatives Comparison Matrix ...........................................................................................................................20
2NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description and History
The area south of downtown Hillsborough is primed to experience substantial growth with the ongoing Collins Ridge residential development and mixed-use redevelopment of the nearby Daniel Boone site. Even without the traffic generated by these two sites, increasing traffic has worsened congestion on the surrounding road system. A lack of network continuity forces inefficient, out-of-direction route choices on vehicles traveling to and through the study area. East-west and north-south traffic must both share some of the same road segments. As a result, heavy conflicting turn movements create bottlenecks at critical intersections, imposing excessive delays and long backups on drivers, especially during peak travel periods. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
The purpose of this Phase 2 study is to identify and evaluate opportunities to increase connectivity and network efficiency in this area. In the last five years, various iterations of studies have tried to address this need with no definitive resolution. There are a number of reasons why previously studied alternatives did not gain traction as an implementable project, such as notable public opposition and lack of a defined scope that balances local access vs. regional mobility as well as the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity goals of the Town of Hillsborough.
The Town of Hillsborough is growing, and the Town, must plan and prepare for smart growth as guided by the land use plans including higher density development than Hillsborough has historically experienced. Currently, the NC 86 Connector project is in the early planning stages, proactively setting the stage for a future project that can address this growth rather than reactively constructing a short-term fix that does not sustain the long-term needs of the Town.
1.2 Study Process
Knowing the outcomes of previous studies, the project team established a study process to address specific deficiencies in previous work on this connector. Building on the existing condition and traffic demand information from the Phase I study (June 2020), the team revisited the real purpose and need for the project as well as the geographic scope of the study area, resulting in the development and evaluation of potential project alternatives that meet a revised and accepted Purpose and Need statement.
Integral to this re-evaluation of Purpose and Need was input and feedback from project partner agencies and project contributors from the community. The details of these groups are described further in Section 2.0.
Orange Grove RdOrange
Grove
Rd
En
o
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
d Elizabeth Brady Rd¬«86
¬«86
¬«86
£¤70
£¤70
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-40
Old
NC
86
Eno
R
i
v
e
r
Eno River Eno RiverS Churton StFigure 1: Project Vicinity AreaI00.25 0.5 Miles
Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of Hillsborough
Collins
Ridge
Town of Hillsborough
Occoneechee State
Natural Area
BUS
NC 86 Connector Study
Town of HillsboroughOrange County
4NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
2.0 Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Stakeholder engagement was of primary focus early in the project process. The project team developed an engagement strategy that targeted focused groups of stakeholders. These stakeholders were divided into two distinct groups, Project Partners and Project Contributors, as their input would be used for different purposes in developing alternatives for the project.
2.1 Project Partners
The Project Partners group included agencies that will, over the course of the project’s life cycle, play an integral role to the planning, construction and maintenance of the project. Among other reasons, coordination with this group was important to establish concurrence on the Purpose and Need, to discuss coordination with future infrastructure and land development plans, and to evaluate potential project constraints beyond the physical study area (i.e., funding, maintenance). This group consisted of representatives from the following agencies or departments:
• North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division 7• NCDOT Rail Division• Orange County• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrborro MPO• North Carolina Railroad• Town of Hillsborough
The project team met with this group twice over the duration of the study. The first meeting was a roundtable discussion intended to explain their role in the study, review the previous studies and designs completed for the project, and to facilitate an open discussion about the real purpose of a new east-west connector in southern Hillsborough.
The second meeting occurred near the end of the study process, at which the revised Purpose and Need statement was discussed and proposed project alternatives were presented. As with the first meeting, following the presentation of materials, the floor was open to comment and discussion.
2.2 Project Contributors
The Project Contributors group included residents, commercial property/business owners, and real estate representatives. Local perspective is important to help shape the character of a proposed project, building acceptance and investment from the future users and mitigating impacts to those that will be affected. The project team mailed meeting announcements to property owners and tenants in the project area. Those interested in attending a focus group meeting contacted the project team via email to receive registration instructions. The project team held eight virtual small group focus meetings or conversations to solicit input.
A general takeaway from the Project Contributor outreach efforts is that there is no clear consensus or divide with relation to the proposed project among the local constituents that provided comments. Comments heard multiple times from across the groups include:
• Recognize the benefit of an additional east-west connector for improved access and mobility; • Intersection congestion at US 70A and S. Churton Street as well as US 70A at NC 86/Elizabeth Brady Road was of concern;• Existing infrastructure on US 70A, NC 86 and S. Churton Street is sorely lacking for pedestrians and cyclists and needs upgrading;• Appreciation of opportunity to give input early in the project process and of being made aware of project planning process; and,• There is a clear need for improved north-south connectivity and capacity through town.
Feedback, opinions and comments from the Project Contributors on specific presented alternatives are included in Section 6.0 as part of the alternative development discussion.
5NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
3.0 Project Purpose and Need
Project Purpose
The purpose of the NC 86 Connector is to provide more effective east-west connectivity in south Hillsborough, specifically more convenient local, multi-modal accessibility between NC 86 and S. Churton Street, as well as more direct regional connectivity between US 70A in the east and Orange Grove Road/Eno Mountain Road in the west. The project would alleviate the concentrations of traffic leading to congestion at critical bottleneck locations, including the intersections of US 70A at NC 86 as well as S. Churton Street.
Project Need
The need for the project is to improve the current roadway network through south Hillsborough, reducing overall travel time through the area during peak travel periods; create pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between existing facilities and infill development in south Hillsborough; and provide an alternative to I-85 as a local connector between the NC 86 and S. Churton Street.
4.0 Existing Conditions, expanded study area
Building on the Phase I study, the project team expanded the study area to include the signalized US 70A at S. Churton Street intersection and to allow for a more regional review of connectivity in the Hillsborough area. The added intersection operates under congested conditions during peak travel hours, with extended queuing. This intersection is tied into the coordinated signal system along S. Churton Street, thus any improvements or geometric changes to this intersection would need to be coordinated with the future plans for S. Churton Street.
The expanded study area still reflects a similar character in terms of roadway type: two-lane, undivided facilities. This is reflective of the small town feel that Hillsborough is known for and desires to maintain.
Since the previous phase report, the Collins Ridge development has continued to progress, including the construction of Gold Hill Way, which runs along the north side of the development, aligning across from Orange Grove Road at S. Churton Street. Under existing conditions, this two-lane roadway extends eastward from S. Churton Street and bends southward into the Collins Ridge development, not crossing the existing railroad tracks. Should a new location connector be considered, the use of this newly constructed roadway would have to be considered for incorporation into the connector.
From a more regional perspective, the existing network presents a disjointed path for traversing east-west on the south side of town, with no direct route options other than I-85 or US 70 Bypass.
6NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
5.0 Network Deficiencies and Opportunities
By combining a review of the existing network, an understanding of local input, and coordination with partner transportation agencies, the project team identified network deficiencies and opportunities. Some of these could be directly addressed or capitalized upon through implementation of an NC 86 connector, while others are more related to the overall roadway network and would be tangentially addressed by the NC 86 connector.
5.1 Network Deficiencies
The existing roadway network presents a number of identified deficiencies. Understanding these needs helped the project team to revise the purpose for the project and focus the potential project solutions.
The first identified deficiency is existing congestion at the intersections of US 70A at NC 86 as well as S. Churton Street. Both locations are signalized intersections where the major movement is not always a through movement, requiring large volumes of vehicles to turn, generating conflicts and delays. Congestion at these locations could be better managed through various solutions, including a change in traffic control (i.e., conversion to roundabout) or a change in intersection configurations to handle major movements more efficiently.
The lack of crossing opportunities over the North Carolina Railroad represents a major physical deficiency in the existing network. Bridging over a railroad requires a significant investment in bridge construction, right-of-way, and railroad coordination, sometimes making its inclusion in private or municipal projects cost prohibitive. As a result, the options for making east-west movements in the study area are limited, causing bottle necks at key intersections of existing east-west and north-south routes.
Another area in need of improvement within the study area are the pedestrian and bicycle facilities and connectivity of the pedestrian network. The Town of Hillsborough has numerous trails and greenways that allow for connectivity without use of passenger vehicles; however, much of this network is isolated to north of the railroad tracks and the Eno River, without connection to the re-developing area south of downtown. Any project should address this deficiency, providing, at a minimum, sidewalks, but preferably also a separate mixed-use path. These facilities would ideally be included in an option that provides access over the railroad for optimal connectivity.
As also mentioned previously, the existing roadway network does not provide for a fluid connection from east to west on the south side of town without the use of I-85. It is not ideal for local--or even regional commuter trips--to utilize I-85 for short distance trips. In addressing the intersection congestion deficiency, this shortfall could also be addressed if a shifting of major through movements were considered.
5.2 Network Opportunities
Implementation of an NC 86 connector could capitalize on network opportunities beyond the benefit to traffic flow. A new location connector that provides an additional crossing of the railroad opens the option to draw destination traffic to existing and planned development along the corridor. Specifically, a new location connector would provide additional--although not required--access for Collins Ridge and potentially the future Daniel Boone Village redevelopment via NC 86, rather than only S. Churton Street. Similarly, a new connector would provide excellent access to the planned train station east of S. Churton Street. The additional accessibility produced by a new connector would create opportunity for multi-modal connectivity and create additional opportunity for economically and environmentally sustainable mixed-use development in line with the Town’s growth vision.
As mentioned in the network deficiencies section, the existing network does not provide a fluid east-west route for southern Hillsborough. As shown in Figure 2, flow through this area could become more direct in conjunction with the proposed Orange Grove Road roundabouts project that was recommended as part of the Phase I study and has since been submitted into the funding process through NCDOT.
NC 86 Connector StudyTown of Hillsborough
7/26/2021Figure 2: Area ProjectsScale
Orange CountyPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughI01,000 2,000Feet
Legend
Alternative 1AAlternative 1BAlternative 2Eno Mtn Rd/Orange Grove Rd RABsI-0305 - I-85 WideningU-5845 - S. Churton Street WideningI-5967 - Interchange UpgradeI-5984 - Interchange Upgrade
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
£¤70
Date: June 2021
BUS
UV86
£¤70
BUS
8NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
6.0 Development of Alternatives
Three alternatives were evaluated as candidate solutions to the need for an NC 86 Connector that would improve access and mobility between S Churton Street and NC 86. Due to existing reserve capacity within the existing network (specifically along US 70), no alternatives resulted in notable capacity improvements from a network standpoint. The primary capacity issue within this area lies north of the study area, along S Churton Street, at the entry/exit point of downtown. Proposed alternatives resulted in nearly identical traffic projections along that segment of S Churton Street, for which there are currently no planned improvements. Intersection specific improvements did provide some spot relief. Rather than a capacity driven project, the NC 86 Connector is focused on increasing access and mobility for the study area and encouraging multimodal travel by implementing complete streets concepts and elements in the design. Each alternative is discussed below. Their alignments are shown in Figures 3-8.
6.1 No-Build Alternative
As a base condition for comparison, a No-Build alternative was evaluated. In this case, no improvements would be made to the project network. The traffic demand within the network will continue to increase with the development occurring in the Collins Ridge and Daniel Boone Village areas. Other roadway projects in the area, such as the S. Churton Street widening and I-85 interchange improvement projects, would address some of these pressures; however, a No-Build alternative would not fully address the purpose and need established for the NC 86 Connector.
6.2 Alternative 1 A & B – New location connector
Alternative 1 presents a new location connector between S Churton Street and NC 86, incorporating Valley Forge Road and its existing intersection with NC 86; however, it also extends from NC 86 eastward to US 70A. This alternative proposes a roundabout at the US 70A and S Churton Street intersection. Alternative 1A proposes a traditional traffic signal at the intersection of NC 86/Valley Forge Road/New Connector, while Alternative 1B proposes a roundabout at that location. In both alternatives, the existing pavement on the current eastern leg of the Elizabeth Brady intersection is removed, creating a three-legged intersection at that location, likely to be signalized in coordination with the connector intersection to the south for Alternative 1A and operating as a stop-controlled intersection in Alternative 1B. In both cases, the existing right-turn movement from US 70A eastbound to NC 86 southbound (and its inverse, the left-turn from NC 86 northbound to US 70A westbound) would become the uninterrupted movement, making Elizabeth Brady Road southbound the minor movement. By extending to US 70A, the through movement of US 70A is shifted south onto the new connector for continuation to/from S Churton Street, reducing volume on the current US 70A route, providing secondary access for existing and planned development in and around the Collins Ridge development.
6.2.1 Typical Section
Based on conversations with the Town and considering design constraints, the recommended typical section along the corridor is shown in Figure 9. Throughout the entire corridor there would be a minimum 5’ sidewalk on the south side and a 10’ shared-use path (SUP) on the north side. The roadway would consist of two 11’ travel lanes with curb-and-gutter. This connector is not proposed to be more than a two-lane facility at this time; this will allow for the new connector to match the surrounding roadway network in character and feel while providing an updated cross section that meets the needs of all user classes by including modernized pedestrian and bike facilities.
6.2.2 Benefits of Alternative
This alternative effectively meets the purpose and need of the project. This new location connector also provides opportunity for improved access to development south of the railroad and east of NC 86 as discussed in Section 5.2. The change in traffic flow to redirect US 70A traffic onto the new connector from at NC 86 will also help to improve operations and reduce congestion at the key intersections. Drivers who were using the US 70A at S Churton Street intersection to access development on S. Churton Street needed to make a left turn at the S. Churton intersection; they would still ultimately make a left turn once at S. Churton Street, but they are now separated from northbound traffic, who are assumed to remain on exiting US 70A.
The change in geometry and through movements at the Elizabeth Brady Road/US 70A intersection would also serve to reduce congestion by allowing the dominant movements (eastbound rights, northbound lefts) to become through movements, gaining green time through signal timing priority.
The new location connector would, as mentioned, allow for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that meet the policies of NCDOT’s Complete Street Guidance and are in line with the values of multimodal travel that Hillsborough supports. The connector would provide connectivity from south Hillsborough across the railroad tracks and northward to the
9NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Occoneechee Speedway trailhead along Elizabeth Brady Road and the Riverwalk greenway which connects across the Eno River and into historic downtown. There are long term plans for a north-south greenway connection through south Hillsborough as well, so coordination with that plan development would produce a well-connected network within the redeveloping south Hillsborough area.
ElizabethBradyRdEno River
CatesCreek
S Churton StOrange Grov
e
R
d
NC 86 Connector StudyTown of Hillsborough
7/26/2021Figure 3: Proposed Alternative CenterlinesScale
Orange CountyPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughI05001,000Feet
Legend
Alternative 1AAlternative 1BAlternative 2
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
Date: June 2021
BUS
BUS
UV86
6/2/2021Figure 4: Alternative 1A - Western Extent
Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughIDate: June 2021
NC 86 Connector Study
Town of Hillsborough
Orange County
Not to Scale
6/2/2021NC 86 Connector Study
Town of HillsboroughOrange CountyPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughIDate: June 2021
Not to Scale Figure 5: Alternative 1A - Eastern Extent
6/2/2021Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughIDate: June 2021
NC 86 Connector Study
Town of HillsboroughOrange CountyNot to Scale Figure 6: Alternative 1B - Eastern Extent
6/2/2021Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughIDate: June 2021
Figure 7: Alternative 2 - Western Extent NC 86 Connector Study
Town of Hillsborough
Orange County
Not to Scale
6/2/2021Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughIDate: June 2021
Figure 8: Alternative 2 - Eastern Extent NC 86 Connector Study
Town of Hillsborough
Orange County
Not to Scale
6/2/2021Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughIDate: June 2021
Figure 9: Typical Sections NC 86 Connector Study
Town of Hillsborough
Orange County
Not to Scale
Alternative 2 Typical Section
Alternative 1A and 1B Typical Section
17NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
6.2.3 Deficiencies of Alternative
While this alternative does fully support the vision of a new east-west connector, it also has some drawbacks. By nature of being a new location project, there are inevitable impacts to private property and natural resources; these can be mitigated appropriately through coordination with property owners and regulatory agencies, offsetting those impacts, but not negating them. Additionally, there is notable cost associated with this alternative due to the need to acquire property as well as constructing a significant structure over the railroad tracks, discussed in more detail in Section 7.0. Currently, there are plans for a realignment of the track curvature in the study area, so close coordination with NCRR as well as NCDOT Rail Division on timing and design would be critical to project implementation to optimize opportunities for cost savings, such as banking cut from the rail project on site to provide fill for the future connector project. At this time, it appears that the track realignment project is scheduled to happen before any funding would likely be available for the proposed connector project; however, this could change and should be continually revisited and updated if this alternative be carried forward as a project.
6.2.4 Stakeholder Input
When presented to stakeholder groups, this alternative was met with mixed reactions. Within the Project Partner group (transportation agency representatives), there was no strong opposition to the proposed new location connector, and the additional connection to US 70 a was considered an improvement over previous project ideas. There was a balance noted between the benefits and the deficiencies. There were discussions about the impact of spurring development and making sure that the roadway was built to handle that potential traffic. At this time, the Town understands what could develop along a new connector and feels comfortable that the proposed roadway would support such development. Anything at higher density or notably different use than planned would require a zoning change, providing an opportunity for the Town to adjust the project or deny the change, as found necessary. It was also noted that the DCHC MPO is proposing a study of US 70 and US 70A that would also consider this issue; findings from this NC 86 Connector study and any future actions toward project implementation should be incorporated in any US 70 study.
Project Contributors (residents, businesses, and property owners) brought meaningful ideas and discussions to the table during the eight focus group meetings. Among both residents and business interests, there was agreement that a new connector provided some benefit to the existing network, specifically to the intersection congestion and the addition of pedestrian and bike facilities. Some questioned the cost versus the benefit and felt that improving existing facilities to current multimodal design standards would be a more effective expenditure of funds. Residential input tended to like the new location alternative as it is likely to reduce traffic on US 70A, but this was not a unanimous opinion. Business owners in the area felt that their locations were destination businesses, and a new connector would neither hurt nor help them; however, minimizing impact to property was a priority to them.
In discussion with a representative from DR Horton, owner of Collins Ridge, concern was expressed that a new connector would introduce north-south cut through traffic that would use the Collins Ridge street network to gain “back door access” to future development, such as Daniel Boone Village, putting additional vehicular traffic on neighborhood streets.
One comment that was noted in multiple conversations across Project Contributor meetings was that the proposed connector could add benefit; however, the real concern is the lack of north-south connectivity within the area. While not within the scope of this study to explore options for such an improvement, it is prudent to note this identified concern for inclusion future planning discussions for the Town.
6.3 Alternative 2 – Improve Existing US 70A
Alternative 2 proposes improving the existing US 70A corridor on existing location, focusing on adding sidewalks and improvements to operations at the endpoint intersections. This alternative would provide roundabouts at both key intersections, improving flow, but not adding any new capacity to the overall network.
6.3.1 Typical Section
Based on conversations with the town and considering design constraints, the typical section along the corridor is shown in Figure 9. The improvements to the US 70A corridor would include a 5’ sidewalk on pg19the north side and no provision for a mixed-use path, to minimize ROW impacts. The roadway would consist of two 11’ travel lanes with shoulders. Appropriate swale between the pavement and sidewalk would be required to accommodate drainage needs.
6.3.2 Benefits of Alternative
This alternative meets the purpose and need of the project, but not with the effectiveness of Alternative 1. This alternative modernizes the existing network to accommodate sidewalks, allowing safer use of the corridor by pedestrians.
18NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
The change in traffic control at the endpoints from traditional signals to roundabouts would improve traffic flow at those locations but should be studied further as the project develops to ensure they don’t interfere with nearby traffic flow plans (i.e., coordinated signals on S Churton Street).
Most notably, Alternative 2 would be less expensive and intrusive from an impact standpoint than Alternative 1 as there is no bridge over the railroad and right-of-way acquisitions are likely limited to parcel frontage needs only.
6.3.3 Deficiencies of Alternative
This alternative does support the vision of an improved new east-west connection, specifically for pedestrians, but it does not fully address the big-picture, long-term needs of the immediate vicinity, or the region. Alternative 2 does not address or improve connectivity and accessibility for vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists directly into south Hillsborough, as that requires an additional crossing of the railroad in some form. Additionally, the construction of sidewalks on the US 70A corridor will require future coordination and maintenance agreements, since most of the affected roadway falls outside of Town jurisdiction.
At the entrance to Tuscarora Drive are the Occoneechi Gates, a stone wall entrance that is of local importance. While not officially designated as a historic resource at the local or state level, the public has voiced concern over impact to and protection of this entry point. Future coordination and potential design exceptions should be evaluated to attempt minimization of impact to that area.
While there may be some traffic flow relief at the key intersections studied, it is important to note that this alternative does not provide any additional capacity or accessibility options to the current network, including known planned developments like the train station or Collins Ridge.
6.3.4 Stakeholder Input
When presented to stakeholder groups, this alternative also received mixed reactions. Stakeholders expressed that this alternative would be an improvement to the current network but would not fully address the recognized purpose and need of a connector project. Benefits to pedestrians and the minimal overall impact to properties and natural resources was noted. Some residents expressed favor for a new connector as a way to divert truck traffic off of their residential route and to reduce traffic in front of their homes or neighborhoods. Others preferred conserving resources and making improvements to existing roadways. Commercial interests generally supported the upgrade of the existing roadways.
As mentioned in the deficiencies section, potential impacts on the stone wall at Tuscarora Drive and general infringement on residential properties were also noted as concerns.
19NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
7.0 Stakeholder Engagement Summary
Over the project duration, the project team had numerous engagements, calls, and meetings with identified stakeholders. Specifics from these engagements are included in Section 6, with each alternative; below are general takeaways from the stakeholder engagement process. Overall, there was no decisive or clear-cut opinions by specific group. Within each, there were proponents and opponents of each alternative, with slight overall favoring, as noted below.
Project Partners
The project team met two times with the project Partners Group, who approached their input from the standpoint of their respective agencies and implications to their jurisdictions. Alternatives 1A and 1B were generally well received by this group. The improvement of the existing of US 70A to accommodate sidewalks was seen as a short-term option, but less ideal to this group when thinking about the long-term needs of the area.
The DCHC MPO and Orange County specifically voiced that any decisions about this corridor would be critical to account for in an upcoming US 70 corridor study from that agency.
Input from the railroad representatives (NCDOT and NCRR) indicated that an option to cross the newly realigned railroad was a feasible option, assuming a bridge over the railroad. Ongoing and close coordination would be required to ensure that project timings align and to optimize any potential for banking and reusing cut/fill materials between the projects. NCDOT Rail Division also acknowledged and supported the idea that a new connector as presented would give exposure to the planned train station location, making it more accessible and viable for regular use.
NCDOT Division 7 is open to the idea of a new location option, despite that as presented, they are very similar to a previously studied alternative; however, they recognized the added connectivity benefit of the extension to US 70 on the eastern end as well as the more in-depth public engagement with the Contributors group.
Project Contributors - Residents
The project team held two open input meetings with this group and two additional one-on-one follow up calls. The segment of the Project Contributors representing residential interests tended to favor the new connector alternative as it would lessen traffic on US 70A, which is their direct access points to driveways or neighborhoods and would not impact their personal properties. No one outwardly opposed the new location alternative. This group recognized the benefit of additional access and mobility provided by the connector. Multiple times, though, individuals mentioned that north-south connectivity was the underlying issue facing the Town.
Project Contributors – Business/Commercial Property Owners
The project team held two open input meetings with this group and two additional one-on-one follow up calls. The segment of the Project Contributors representing business and commercial interests were split on favoring a new connector or improving the existing roadways. Existing business owners more favored an improvement to existing while property owners with future market interests were more in favor of the new connection as it would likely increase marketability of lands available for development by adding network capacity and increased accessibility to open land. Both groups within this subset of stakeholders, though, noted that any improvements should be designed to accommodate truck traffic, while also maintaining pedestrian and bike facilities.
8.0 Opinion of Probable Cost
For the purposes of comparing between alternatives, planning level construction cost estimates were developed for each. These estimates account for construction quantities based on 2021 dollars. The construction estimates do not include contingencies or mobilization estimates. Additional detail on these estimates, including line-item costs and quantities, can be found in Appendix D.
ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST
Alternative 1A $16.7M
Alternative 1B $17.6M
Alternative 2 $4.0M
Table 1: Estimated Construction Costs for NC 86 Connector
20NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
9.0 Study Conclusions
In support of smart growth and medium- to high-density redevelopment in south Hillsborough, the NC 86 Connector project team has reviewed previous work, evaluated feasible options and ultimately developed three alternatives that address an agreed upon purpose and need for an east-west connector option between S Churton Street and NC 86. The future of transportation lies in a focus on multi-modality, increasing access and mobility across multiple user groups. Regardless of the alternative chosen, it is critical that this connector include facilities to meet this future need.
The first two alternatives (Alternative 1A and 1B) propose a new location connector, which west to east utilizes the newly constructed Gold Hill Way within Collins Ridge, crosses the realigned railroad tracks, ties to existing Valley Forge Road, crosses NC 86 and ultimately connects to US 70A just east of Elizabeth Brady Road. This new location connector would include one travel lane in each direction, a sidewalk and a mixed-use path to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Both alternatives will improve operations at the S Churton Street intersection point as it will divide the east-west traffic between existing US 70A and the new connector, taking pressure off of a single intersection and splitting it between two access points on S Churton Street. The difference between Alternative 1A and Alternative 1B is the proposed traffic control at the US 70A/NC 86 intersection: Alternative 1A proposes a traffic signal, Alternative 1B proposes a roundabout. Both options redirect the major through movements to better facilitate high demand movements by removing the pavement between Elizabeth Brady Road and the new connection to US 70A. These alternatives fully meet the defined purpose and need, but requires significant ROW acquisition, a new railroad crossing bridge structure, and close coordination with ongoing development of Collins Ridge. In general, there was acceptance of the new location concept and agreement that it would provide additional access, mobility and pedestrian connectivity.
The third alternative proposes improving the existing US 70A corridor by adding sidewalks and upgrading traffic control to roundabouts at the US 70A at S Churton Street and NC 86 to improve traffic flow. This alternative fulfills minimum requirements to satisfy purpose and need by improving east-west traffic flow and providing sidewalks and does so for a lower cost and fewer impacts to natural and community resources than Alternative 1A and 1B; however, there is no additional capacity added to the roadway network. As with those alternatives, the stakeholder response was not decisive, but rather accepted the benefits and drawbacks as presented. This alternative provides some positive additions to the network; however, since it does not create a new connection to improve mobility or increase access, the minimal benefits may not be worth the cost and impact of construction and ongoing maintenance to differentiate from a no-build approach.
A no-build option also has notable drawbacks when considering the long-term needs of Hillsborough. As discussed, growth is happening, and it is only prudent that the Town put forethought into how to accommodate growth in a sustainable way that preserves the character of and visions for the Town’s future. In coordination with other projects in the area, specifically the S Churton Street Improvements project, the big picture plan for Hillsborough, including additional mixed-use infill and the planned train station, can be planned for now and implemented when funding and development opportunities allow.
Table 2 summarizes the benefits and drawbacks of each alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 1A
NEW LOCATION, SIGNALS AT NC 86
ALTERNATIVE 1B
NEW LOCATION, RABS AT NC 86
ALTERNATIVE 2
IMPROVE EXISTING
Improves E-W vehicular connectivity Yes Yes No
Improves ped/bike connectivity Yes Yes Somewhat
Improvement of traffic flow at key intersections Yes Yes, slightly better flow than signals (1A)Somewhat; does address US 70 at S Churton
Expected right-of-way impacts Acquire all new ROW, but from fewer owners Acquire all new ROW, but from fewer owners Multiple residential frontages
Notable Coordination Needs Rail Division/NCRR; Collins Ridge Rail Division/NCRR; Collins Ridge Sidewalk maintenance; SHPO
Construction Cost Higher Higher Lower
Table 2: NC 86 Connector – Alternatives Comparison Matrix
21NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
The future of transportation lies in a focus on multi-modality, increasing access and mobility across multiple user groups. Regardless of the alternative chosen, it is critical that this connector include facilities to meet this future need. If a new location option is programmed, it would provide an opportunity to cater to this need by constructing a new facility that meets current design standards for multimodal users. An upgrade of US 70A would require a retrofit into existing design constraints, and cannot feasibly be brought to current complete street standards; however, should this option be explored further, all effort should be made to balance effective multimodal options with potential property impacts. Ultimately, the Town Board should consider these alternatives in conjunction with the long-term growth and goals of the Town. Each alternative provides its own set of benefits and constraints, requiring a balance of those with other potential transportation infrastructure needs such as a solution for north-south mobility or greenway system expansion.
www.vhb.com
9/20/2021
1
TRANSPORATION PRIORITIES
1. Choose preferred alternative for NC
86 Connector Project
2. Prioritize feasibility studies
(MPO planning funds)
3. Review and prioritize other
roadway and bike/ped projects
GOALS FOR TONIGHT
1
2
9/20/2021
2
BARRIERS
•Bridge Crossings
•High Traffic Roadways
•Railroad Crossings
•River and Stream Crossings
•Topography
•Available Right of Way
•Utility Conflicts
•Jurisdictional Constraints
•Regulatory Constraints
CONNECTIVITY PLANNING
Community Connectivity Plan
•Last Update 2017
•High and Low Priority Sidewalks
•Greenways
•Bike Routes
•Pedestrian Amenities
Comprehensive Sustainability Plan
•Transit ‐Oriented Development
•Multi‐Modal Complete Streets
•Connectivity/Walkability/Accessibility
•Greenway System
3
4
9/20/2021
3
2050 TRM DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
Corridor Study
NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Phase II
Hillsborough, NC
5
6
9/20/2021
4
U‐5848, Orange Grove Road Extension (NCDOT 2018)NC 86 Connector Study: Phase 1 (Town 2020)
PREVIOUS STUDIES
OUTREACH
•Project Partners
•Project Contributors
7
8
9/20/2021
5
NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Project Purpose
The purpose of the NC 86 Connector is to provide more effective east‐west connectivity in south Hillsborough, specifically more
convenient local, multi‐modal accessibility between NC 86 and S. Churton Street, as well as more direct regional connectivity
between US 70A in the east and Orange Grove Road/Eno Mountain Road in the west. The project would alleviate the
concentrations of traffic leading to congestion at critical bottleneck locations, including the intersections of US 70A at NC 86 as
well as S. Churton Street.
Project Need
The need for the project is to improve the current roadway network through south Hillsborough, reducing overall travel time
through the area during peak travel periods; create pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between existing facilities andinfill
development in south Hillsborough; and provide an alternative to I‐85 as a local connector between the NC 86 and S.Churton
Street.
NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Expanded Study Area
•S Churton/70A intersection
Deficiencies
•Congestion at intersections
•Lack of railroad crossing
•Lack of Bike/Ped Network
•Use of I‐85 as connector road
Opportunities
•Improved flow
•Railroad crossing
•Access to train station and developments
•Multimodal network
9
10
9/20/2021
6
NC 86 CONNECTOR STUDY
Estimated Construction Costs:
ALTERNATIVES
•No build
•Alt. 1A/1B: New connector
•Alt. 2: Improve existing roads
1A
1B
2
1. Choose preferred alternative
for NC 86 Connector.
Staff recommendation:
Submit Alternatives 1A/B for SPOT
11
12
9/20/2021
7
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT STAGES:
CONCEPT FEASIBILITY DESIGN/ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
SHOVEL READY
FUTURE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
MPO Planning Funds (staff recommendation)
•Downtown Parking Study
•Pedestrian Bridge over I‐85
•Churton Street Widening
2. Prioritize feasibility studies
(MPO planning funds)
Staff recommendation:
•Delay Parking Study
•FY23: Greenway feasibility study
•FY23/FY24: Churton Street Feasibility Study
13
14
9/20/2021
8
ROADWAY PROJECTS
Concept/
Feasibility
Design/
Engineering Construction
Lead
Agency
Construction
Estimates Description Notes
Roadway
I‐85 Interchange at Old 86 (S. Churton) NCDOT
Rebuild interstate interchange to accommodate
additional lanes and safety requirements
NCDOT (I‐5967), right of way 2025,
construction 2029
I‐85 Interchange at New 86 NCDOT
Rebuild interstate interchange to accommodate
additional lanes and safety requirements
NCDOT (I‐5984), right of way 2027,
construction 2029
I‐85 widening NCDOT Additional lanes along I‐85 through Orange County NCDOT
I‐40 widening NCDOT Additional lanes along I‐40 through Orange County NCDOT construction starting 2021
S. Churton roadway improvements NCDOT
Add capacity, mitigate congestion and complete
streets from I‐40 to US 70A
Started 2018 but on hold, right of way
2026‐2027, construction 2029
Eno Mtn Road/Mayo roundabouts on Orange
Grove Road NCDOT
$1,200,000
Replace intersections on Orange Grove Street with
roundabouts at Mayo Street and Eno Mountain Road
Spot 6, on hold, scored but not scheduled
Orange Grove Extension/86 Connector NCDOT
$4,000,000‐
$18,000,000
Construct new road connecting S Churton past train
station property and bridge over railroad to Valley
Forge to Hwy 86/70A or improve interscetions and
complete streets on Hwy 86 and 70A Town needs to give direction
Intersection Old 86/Lafayette NCDOT
Traffic signal or roundabout at Lafayette and Old 86
intersection
Needs to be studied in coordination
Churton Street widening
Churton/Corbin Street intersection NCDOT
Remove slip lane and improve geometry and safety
on intersection Needs to be an NCDOT project if prioritized
Oakdale extension Town Extend Oakdale to connect to Millstone Drive
CONCEPT FEASIBILITY DESIGN/ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
BIKE/PED PROJECTS
Concept/
Feasibility
Design/
Engineering Construction
Lead
Agency
Construction
Estimates Description Notes
Bike/Ped.
Pedestrian connection downtown to rail station Town
Construct pedestrian connection between downtown
sidewalks and Riverwalk to train station property,
preferably without crossing a road, may include bridge
and/or tunnel Included in train station design
Greenway from train station to Collins Ridge
greenway Town
Construct greenway from train station property to
Collins Ridge perimeter greenway
Pedestrian bridge over I‐85, greenway
connection to Becketts Ridge Drive Town
Construct pedestrian bridge over I‐85 with greenway
from Collins Ridge greenway to Cates Creek Park MPO funds
Shared use path/Sidewalks 70 Corridor and N.
Churton
NCDOT/
TOWN
$450,000‐
$1,650,000
Construct shared use path and/or sidewalks along US
70 from Lakeshore to Churton Street and from Corbin
Street to US 70 4 alternatives were developed in 2016
Crosswalks on N. Churton Town
$100,000
Add crosswalks along the side streets of N. Churton
Street at Queen, Union, Orange and Corbin streets Designed in 2015
Sidewalk between Eno Haven and Sportsplex NCDOT/
Town
Construct new sidewalk between Eno Haven and
Orange County Sportsplex
Walkway between Town Hall and Annex
Town
$65,000 including
amenities
Construct sidewalk between Town Hall campus and
Town Annex along driveway
Sidewalk segment to Burwell School Town Construct sidewalk from Churton Street to Burwell
School driveway Not in Connectivity Plan
Pedestrian Bridge at Latimer, sidewalk to Central
Elementary School Town
$200,000‐300,000
guesstimate
Construct pedestrian bridge and greenway between
Latimer and Hayes streets and sidewalks to Central
Elementary School
Sidewalk along Torain Street Town
Construct sidewalk along Torain Street connecting
Faucette Mill Road to Fairview Park
Sidewalk Revere Road‐Corbin Street
NCDOT/
Town
Construct sidewalk along Revere Road and Corbin
Street
Sidewalk on West King Street
NCDOT/
Town
Construct sidewalk along West King Street from Nash
Street to West Hill Street Could terminate at West Hill as Phase 1
CONCEPT FEASIBILITY DESIGN/ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
15
16
9/20/2021
9
PROJECTS
I‐85 Interchange at S. Churton Street NCDOT
PROJECTS
I‐85 Interchange at Hwy 86 NCDOT
17
18
9/20/2021
10
I‐40 Widening
PROJECTS
NCDOT
PROJECTS
I‐85 Widening NCDOT
19
20
9/20/2021
11
South Churton Road Widening NCDOT/TOWN
PROJECTS
PROJECTS
Orange Grove Road Improvements NCDOT/TOWN
21
22
9/20/2021
12
PROJECTS
NC 86 Connector NCDOT/TOWN
PROJECTS
Intersection Old 86/Lafayette NCDOT/TOWN
23
24
9/20/2021
13
PROJECTS
Intersection N. Churton/Corbin NCDOT/TOWN
PROJECTS
Oakdale Extension TOWN
25
26
9/20/2021
14
PROJECTS
Pedestrian Connection from Downtown to Future Train Station TOWN
PROJECTS
Pedestrian Connection from Future Train Station to Collins Ridge greenway TOWN
27
28
9/20/2021
15
PROJECTS
Pedestrian bridge over I‐85, greenway to Cates Creek Park TOWN
PROJECTS
70 Corridor and N. Churton Shared Use Path/Sidewalks NCDOT/TOWN
29
30
9/20/2021
16
PROJECTS
Crosswalks on N. Churton TOWN
PROJECTS
Sidewalk between Eno Haven and Sportsplex NCDOT/TOWN
31
32
9/20/2021
17
PROJECTS
Walkway between Town Hall and Annex TOWN
PROJECTS
Sidewalk segment to Burwell School sidewalk TOWN
33
34
9/20/2021
18
PROJECTS
Pedestrian Bridge at Latimer, sidewalk to Central Elementary School TOWN
PROJECTS
Sidewalk along Torain Street TOWN
35
36
9/20/2021
19
PROJECTS
Revere Road and Corbin Street Sidewalks NCDOT/TOWN
PROJECTS
West King Street Sidewalks NCDOT/TOWN
37
38
9/20/2021
20
PROJECTS: ROADWAY AND BIKE/PED
Roadway
Bike/Ped
PROJECTS: INCLUDING ETJ
Roadway
Bike/Ped
ETJ
39
40
9/20/2021
21
PROJECTS: INCLUDING ETJ AND ORANGE COUNTY
Roadway
Bike/Ped
ETJ
Orange County
PRIORITIES
1. Give direction on the NC 86 Connector Project:
•Submit Alternatives 1A/B (new connector) for SPOT scoring
2. Set priorities for future feasibility studies (MPO funding):
•Delay Parking Study until traffic/parking demand settles
•FY23: Conduct greenway feasibility study from train station to Cates Creek Park including pedestrian bridge over I‐85
•FY23/FY24: Churton Street Widening Feasibility Study
3. Roadway and bike/ped priority projects:
•Continue to pursue roundabouts on Orange Grove Road at Eno Mountain and Mayo
•Complete design for greenway from downtown to train station
•Study and plan the greenway from downtown to Cates Creek Park
•Study feasibility of Churton Street widening (including Hwy 86/Lafayette intersection)
41
42
9/20/2021
22
ROADWAY
•Old 86/Lafayette intersection
•Churton/Corbin intersection
•Oakdale Extension
BIKE/PED
•70 Corridor/N. Churton
•N. Churton crosswalks
•Eno Haven to Sportsplex
•Town Hall to Town Annex
•Sidewalk segment to Burwell School
•Latimer and Hayes
•Torain Street
•Revere Rd. and Corbin St.
•W. King Street
ETJ
•Orange Grove to Patriots Point
•Oakdale Drive
•US 70A
•Rencher Street
•Orange High School Road
•Eno Mountain Road
NOT YET PRIORITIZED
Staff sees these as future projects
not yet prioritized.
43
AGENDA ABSTRACT: Budget Amendment for Water Treatment Plant Filter Replacements | 1 of 2
Agenda Abstract
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Meeting date: Sep. 27, 2021
Department: Utilities/Budget
Public hearing: No
Date of public hearing: N/A
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT
K. Marie Strandwitz, PE, Utilities Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject: Budget amendment for Water Treatment Plant filters repair and rebuild
Attachments:
1. Grant Project Ordinance – American Rescue Plan – WTP Filters Repair & Rebuild
2. Budget amendment
3. Capital improvement plan document for filter replacements
4. Draft American Rescue Plan Act Funds – Proposed Projects
Brief summary:
The Water Treatment Plant consists of three filters. The filters are a critical component of the treatment process.
One filter is redundant and two must always operate. The water plant has experienced problems with Filter 1 and
has identified necessary repairs to prevent full failure. A vendor is scheduled to arrive in October and given the
backlog of most vendors time and materials, we got on their schedule early. To not lose our place, we need this
amendment to obtain a purchase order. The filters have not had any major evaluation or comprehensive
rehabilitation since their initial construction. It is proposed to allocate a portion of the town’s direct receipt of
American Rescue Plan Act funds to repair Filter 1, evaluate Filters 2 and 3 and repair or rebuild Filters 2 and 3
based upon the findings. The estimated cost of the worst case of rebuilding all three filters is $556,500.
Action requested:
Approve the use of a portion of the American Rescue Plan Act funds to repair the water treatment plant filters.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background information and issue summary:
The attached CIP document explains the water treatment plant filters projects. The attached draft budget serves as
an overview of planned allocations from the American Rescue Plan Act funds and will be discussed in more detail
at future meetings.
Financial impacts:
This action would allocate $556,500 of the $2,280,000 of American Rescue Plan Act funds towards the water
treatment plant filter rebuilds. Using these funds will not impact the current operation or capital budget of this
currently unfunded but necessary project.
Staff recommendation and comments:
Using the American Rescue Plan Act funds on water and sewer projects is a good investment and provides relief to
rate payers, especially those in lower income brackets, and allows the prompt completion of pressing and
unfunded infrastructure projects.
For clerk’s use
AGENDA ITEM:
4.B
Consent
agenda
Regular
agenda
Closed
session
AGENDA ABSTRACT: Budget Amendment for Water Treatment Plant Filter Replacements | 2 of 2
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – WATER TREATMENT PLANT FILTERS REPAIR/REBUILD
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina, that,
pursuant to N.C.G.S. 159-13.2, the following grant project ordinance is hereby adopted:
Section 1: The project authorized by this ordinance is to repair and/or rebuild the water treatment
plant filters.
Section 2: The officers of this governmental unit are hereby directed to proceed with this grant
project within the guidelines set by the budget contained herein.
Section 3: The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project:
American Rescue Plan $556,500
TOTAL $556,500
Section 4: The following amounts are available for expenditure for the project:
Water Treatment Filter Repair/Rebuild $556,500
TOTAL $556,500
Section 5: This ordinance shall be amended in any manner so long as it continues to fulfill the
requirements of G.S. 159-13.2 and other applicable laws.
Section 6: Copies of this ordinance should be furnished to the Clerk, Budget Officer and Finance
Officer to be kept on file by them for their direction in carrying out this project.
Adopted this 27th day of September, 2021.
Jenn Weaver, Mayor
Attest:
Sarah Kimrey, Town Clerk
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2021-2022
DATES: 09/27/2021 TO 09/27/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
77-25-3001-3310-007 GRANT - ARPA - WTP FILTERS REPAIR
09/27/2021 0.00 556,500.00To establish project 24026 556,500.00EBRADFORD
77-25-3001-5700-771 ARPA - WTP FILTERS - MAINT. - EQUIP
09/27/2021 0.00 556,500.00To establish project 24027 556,500.00EBRADFORD
1,113,000.00
EBRADFORD 2:14:25PM09/22/2021
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
ARPA Fund
ARPA Fund
Section 1 Project Title:Budget Unit #:8120
Budget Unit:Priority Rank: 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Future
FY23 FY24 FY25 Years
556,500 - 185,500 185,500 185,500 - -
Section 2
Section 3
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 Total
Salaries / Benefits -
Prof. & Consult. Services -
Materials & Supplies -
Maintenance / Fuel -
Other -
Total - - - - - - - -
Section 4
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 Total
Prelim Design / Plans -
Engineering / Arch. Serv.-
Land / ROW / Acquisition -
Clear / Grade / Site Prep -
Building / Utility Constr.-
Equip / Machinery / Furniture 185,500 185,500 185,500 556,500
Total Capital Cost Est.185,500 185,500 185,500 - - - - 556,500
Total Oper. Impact Est.- - - - - - - -
Total Expenditure Est.185,500 185,500 185,500 - - - - 556,500
Section 5
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 Total
185,500 185,500
185,500 185,500 371,000
-
Total Program Financing 185,500 185,500 185,500 - - - - 556,500
Section 6
Type of Expenditure
Delaying this project could ultimately result in the need to rebuild all of the filters instead of only repairs. Rebuilding the filters is significantly more expensive. Additionally, the plant
can treat the needed amount of water with two of three filters working, but not just one filter. We would have to purchase water through our interconnections with Durham or Chapel
Hill if more than one filter does not perform as required.
Description of Capital Item
History and Current Status; Impact if Cancelled or Delayed
New or Additional Impact on Operating Budget
The picture below shows a cut out of a water treatment filter. The bottom layer of the filter is called the underdrain. The underdrain has a cap on it that allows air to be pumped into
the filter to expand the media so that solids can be backwashed out of the filter. Staff believes the cap on the second filter is cracked or broken. To inspect the filter, the media, which
includes gravel, sand, and anthracite must be removed to allow access to inspect the cap. If the cap is cracked or broken, the cap can be replaced to repair the filter. However, if the
cap is broken and allowed gravel to enter the underdrain, the underdrain must be completely removed to rebuild the filter.
Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina
Fiscal Year 2021-22 through 2027-28 Capital Improvement Plan
Justification and Linkage to Council Goals, Balanced Scorecard, other Master Plans, or Department Goals & Objectives
In FY21, one of the three water treatment filters air cap failed. We received a worst-case-scenario quote of $169,100 to completely rebuild the one filter. With a 10% contingency, the
buget amount is $185,500. If the failed air cap can simply be repaired, the cost will be significantly less. We will not know the extent of the damage until the filter is evaluated.
Another filter is having similar issues but appears to not have the same extent of damage. It will likely need to be repaired or rebuilt in FY23. We would like to evaluate the third filter
in FY24. Staff would like to plan for the worst-case scenario of a rebuild for all three filters.
Water Treatment Plant
Type of Project:
Unappropriated Subsequent Years Total
Requested
Funds
Budget
Year 1
FY22
Water Treatment Filters Repair/Rebuild
Water & Sewer
Total
Appropriations to
date
Functional Area:
Maps / Charts / Tables / Pictures
Activity
Project Costs
Method(s) of Financing
American Rescue Plan Funds
Funding Source(s)
Operating Revenue
ARP Funds - Proposed Projects
Project Initial Update Comments
Water System
Water Plant Filters Repair/Rebuild 185,500 556,500 Funds replacement of all 3 filters, not just one. Bundle into one project.
Replace Actuators @ Water Plant -100,000 Initially 4-year project. FY21 funds not spent. Partially ties into WTP filter project.
Hydrant & Valve Project 420,000 - Fire protection projects are not eligible for ARP
Gov. Burke Water Main Replacement - 180,000 Frees SDF's to fund Hwy 70 main replacement and/or replace Hassel St. tank
McAdams Rd. Main Replacement - 381,000 Equity priority: serves historically economically disadvantaged area. Also, frees
SDF's to fund Hwy 70 main replacement and/or replace Hassel St. tank
Water Sub-total 1,217,500
Sewer System
WWTP Clarifiers - Coating Metal Surfaces 190,000 190,000
Lawndale - Pump Station & Basin Rehab 500,000 Equity priority: serves historically economically disadvantaged area. Also, frees
funds for River Pump Station + system wide I&I and rehab projects. Note: staff
is also pursuing BRIC funding for this project. We should know by early 2022 or
sooner if it will be funded. If funded, then that frees $500,000 for other needs.
Wastewater Collection Sys. Improvements 374,692 TBD - depending on direction from utilities director, pending analyses, & grant successes
Sewer Sub-total 1,064,692
TOTAL 2,282,192