Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-21-1986 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1986 7:30 P.M. OLD POST OFFICE CHAPEL HILL, N.C. A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda PAGE # C. REPORTS 001 1. Triangle Area Public Transportation Study 016 2. Telephone Task Force Report D. ITEMS FOR DECISION 016 1. Telephone Task Force Report 028 2. Set Meeting for Hearing on Joint Planning Agreement 038 3. Campaign Signs _ 040 4. Foster Parent Training 043 5. Bid for Generator 046 6. Budget Amendments 048 7. Capacity Use Study 049 8. Change Order for Revere Road Office Annex 051 E. _-APPOINTMENTS F. ADJOURNMENT 001 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag�'n a Item No.Al la ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 21, 1986 SUBJECT: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STUDY STATUS REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE,X501 YES TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive a status report on the public transportation study for the Research Triangle Region. NEED: In January, 1986, the Department of City and Regional Planning in cooperation with the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at the University of North Carolina proposed to the N. C. Department of Transportation a Research Triangle Region Public Transportation study. Subsequently, the study began with the following goal: To develop a consensus among local and state officials regarding an appropriate course of action to mitigate the transportation problems within the Triangle region through methods other than traditional highway development. On May 20, 1986 the Board received an update from the study group. The study group has requested to appear before the Board to present another status report. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 00k• • TRAVEL IN THE TRIANGLE: CHOICES Report No. 2 of the Triangle Area Public Transportation Study 4 %‘*44. - Department of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina October 6, 1986 TRAVEL IN THE TRIANGLE: CHOICES • O(k EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Now is the time to move ahead with the planning and development of a pub- lic transportation system for the Research Triangle region. If city and county governments maintain the interest in and support for public transporta- tion that this study has created, a workable, though small scale, regional system can be realized very soon. More importantly, continued planning and successful initial services will pave the way for a future public transporta- tion network which will connect the corners of the Triangle. As the report Travel in the Triangle: Trends has shows, only five major. _ highway corridors serve the Research Triangle region. At present most of them are experiencing severe traffic congestion during the rush hours. In 10 to 15 years all will be experiencing traffic jams even with the constructionnr of ad- ditional lanes. Clearly additional transportation capacity, beyond that which is currently planned, must be provided if the region is to continue to grow without undue traffic impacts. This additional capacity may be provided entirely by new highways. - Qu. the other hand, some people may maintain that public transportation is the an- swer. Realistically, however, both highways and public transportation are needed., A balanced system of regional highways and public transportation ser- vies will complement each other and provide increased mobility to the citi- zens of the region. Inter-city commuters, shoppers, and persons going to Tri- - angle universities, hospitals, the airport, social services, and other loca- tions will all benefit. Before major progress on a regional public transportation system ean► be made, however, four basic questions must be answered. _ 1. What role can public transportation play in the future development of the Triangle region? 2. Which types of public transportation are appropriate for the, Research Triangle region? 3. To what extent can public transportation reduce the need for new high- way construction? 4. What steps should be taken by leaders in the Research Triangle area to develop a regional public transportation system? . Each of these questions is answered and briefly discussed in the perm graphs which follow. - What role can public transportation play in the future development of the Tri- angle region? Public transportation has a potentially important role to play. As Is the case with highways, public transportation can be a catalyst for land use change. Over the years highways have allowed city boundaries to be pushed outward and helped create suburbs while maintaining access to jobs. Similarly OO q 2 public transportation can provide access to employment and other locations necessary for the health and welfare of our citizens and visitors. Inter-- estingly, however, high capacity services, like express buses or light rail, can create a focus for clustered, high density development which can couenter urban forces which lead to urban sprawl and traffic congestion- It is inappropriate, however, for public transportation or highways to be the driving forces which create, by default, the form of the cities in which we live. It is appropriate for community leaders to develop oaster •plans for the Triangle region, so that transportation networks can be designed to serve the land use. In this process care must be taken to preserve right-of-way for. - both highway and public transportation options so that no transportation op. tion is prematurely foreclosed: There has already been public discussion swa - the need to preserve highway right-of-way. Similarly, possible rail corri- dors, like the state-owned North Carolina Railroad connecting Raleigh, Cary, Morrisville, the Research Triangle Park, and Durham, should also be protected for possible future high capacity transit service and high density develop- ment. What t' .-s of public trans•ortation are au. • . late for the Research Trian,le region? Public transportation includes a range of services. Ridesharing in car- pools, vanpools, local buses, and express buses are familiar to most people. Commuter lanes that accept only high occupancy vehicles gushes carpools, van- pools, and buses are common in many large metropolitan areas. Light rail service, which is a modern reincarnation of the old street trolley, is effec- tively used in a. number of locations. In the barest cities metrorail (subways) and commuter trains are used. Trains on monorail -track are also used in special high capacity situations like theme parks. To determine which of these options.are appropriate, guidelines for suc_: cessful public transportation service may be compared to future trends in the Triangle region. Eased on population, employment, residential and non-resi- dential density, and commuter demand, it has been determined that -carpools, vanpools, express buses, and commuter lanes are most appropriate for commuter travel, at least in the I-40 corridor which was used as a case study in this analysis. The future traffic volumes in this corridor are similar to or less than those on I-40/NC-54 between Chapel Hill and the Park, US-70 between Raleigh and Durham, and US15--501 between Chapel. Hill and Durham. Thus, car- pools, vanpools, express buses, and commuter lanes are appropriate public transportation options for those corridors as well. Other heavily traveled highways such as US-7O east of Raleigh, US-64 east and west of Raleigh, and I-85 into Durham were not studied but may warrant public transportation now or in the future. And, while this study concentrated on the use of public trans- portation for commuter travel, non-commuters will also use public transporta- tion in the for access to shopping, medical, entertainment, social service, and other purposes. - As metropolitan regions grow, high capacity, high speed rail alternatives become feasible and very desirable. Within the next 20 years the Triangle re- gion may cross the threshold for which light rail is a workable option for commuter and other travel. Before this occurs, however, significant changes in land use and development trends must occur. Residential densities, at • 3 oot. least in potential light rail corridors, would have to increase to an average of nine or more dwelling units per acre and generate demand equal to or greater than that on, for example, two lanes of 1-40. Furthermore, employment densities would have to increase dramatically. Otherwise, many -commuters would have to transfer from the light rail line to buses. and vans to reach their final destination. Such transfers erode the travel time and convenience advantages created by light rail. This transfer problem at the employment end of the trip would be particularly acute in - the Research Triangle Park and neighboring developments which emphasize low density, scattered employment lo- cations. Metrorail, commuter train, and monorail systems at their current level of technical development are not appropriate for the Triangle region now or in the foreseeable future. Traveler demand is inadequate, and -cost is too great. - However, if one is optimistic about the pace of new rail technology and eco- nomic growth in the region, rail costs may fall and commuter demand may in- crease sufficiently to warrant new consideration of emerging technologies like, for example, electromagnetically levitated, high speed trains.. To what extent can public transportation reduce the need far new highway con- • struction? - . If a relatively high percentage of persons choose public transportation for commuter and other trips, public' transportation can help maintain acceptable levels of service on existing highways and their currently planned improvements. Properly operated and promoted, public transportation can forestall, but not eliminate, the long term need for new highway construction. Stated another way, public transportation can help stretch the value of our transportation dollar. At present the average vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) on 1-40 to -the Re-- search Triangle Park area is a low 1.1 persons per vehicle. This translates to one person in addition to the driver in every tenth car. Filghway•corridors to major downtown employment centers often have a VOR of 1.3 or higher, espe- cially when parking is restricted and travel costs for gasoline, parking, and • tolls are expensive. If the present 1.1 VOR continues into the future, the currently planned six-lane 1-40 will not carry the projected 1995 traffic. I . traffic jam conditions are to be avoided, a VOR of 1.2 would have to be achieved. This means that the number of commuters sharing rides would have to double in the next ten years. Unfortunately the 1.2 rate is still low and would leave I-40 at about the same level of service (LOS E) that it is at to- day. Average TOR would have to reach 1.4 or better if all six lanes of I-40 are to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C) with moderate conges- tion. In order to reach the higher rates of vehicle occupancy, the attraction of ridesharing must be increased relative to the single passenger automobile. One way of achieving this is to build commuter lanes which are open only to high occupancy vehicles like vanpools, buses, and carpools with three or more passengers. Because little or no congestion exists on a commuter lane, the travel time along the commuter lane is less than on the adjacent general traf- fic lanes. This travel time reduction is one type of incentive for rideshar- ing. Other incentives include special parking privileges, lower commuter costs, and the convenience of having someone else do the driving. • 4 oo� To explore the commuter lane option a bit further, suppose that commuter lanes were .built on 1-40 instead of the planned general traffic lanes. What would be the impact on, for example, 1995 traffic congestion, and .would com- muters use the special lanes? - If vehicles had to have three or more passengers in them to use a coo- muter lane, an excellent level of service (LOS E) traffic flow could be achieved. The trip to work along the 10-mile commuter lane would be faster and save commuters approximately three to five minutes relative to travel in the adjacent general lanes where traffic -would move at an improved level, of _ service (LOS D). Thus, by building a commuter lanes travel would be significantly better for those who choose ride sharing, and the commuters in private automobiles would be better off, also. Without the commuter lane and. without Increased ridesharing, the new six-lane 1-40 will be over-capacity (LOS E) soon after It is opened. For successful commuter lane operation, however, the average 4OR - must be 1.4, a high, but reachable goal. Charlotte, for example, has a - -: similar ridesharing goal for travel to the downtown area. With the synergistic, mutually beneficial interactions . between a good regional . ridesharing program and commuter lanes, the necessary YOR can be achieved. Light rail service can also affect traffic - congestion and the need . to build highways if a high percentage of travelers use the system. Theoreti- cally a high capacity light rail line can substitute for up to seven highway lanes in high density corridors. In lower capacity corridors light rail is usually justified for a ridership of 4000 passengers per hour which Is equiva- - , lent to about two highway lanes. . Comparing this threshold ridership figure to projected regional travel suggests a required public transportation. ridership. of about 12% of the year 2005 morning rush hour traffic between -Ra leigh, the - . Research Triangle Park area, and Durham. If only .tbe Durham Expressway.corri- dor, which. is one possible light rail route, is considered, approximately 36%- of the commuters in that corridor would have to choose light rail in order to. judge it feasible. (Of course right-of-way, construction, and operating . costs, as well as access and distribution problems must also be considered in evaluating the feasibility of light- rail..) Thus, if light rail becomes feasi- ble in the future, it can make a significant impact on congestion and the need - to build highway lanes. As discussed in the answer to the first major ' question, however, the outlook for light rail remains uncertain. In summary, if there can be significant increases in the use or carpools, - vanpools, buses, or light rail, then there can be significant impacts on cam- ' gestion and the need to build.highways. The success of public transportation, however, will depend not only on making it available, but also on making it attractive with respect to cost, convenience, end speed. Thus, there are challenging opportunities to the public and private sectors to use transports tion and land use policies to influence public transportation and eventually the ways in which we live and travel. • 5 007 What steps should be taken by leaders in the Research Triangle area to develop a regional ublic transportation system? Public transportation will be an important link in the regional trans- portation network of the future, and it can have an important role to play in determining land use patterns and development. It can not only carry many people to their jobs and other destinations, but it can also be the focus of desirable development in high density corridors. To achieve the optimum blend of highways, public transportation, and development, area leaders must take a proactive, anticipatory role in coordinated land use and transportation plan- _ ping: In this regard some very specific recommendations are offered with re- spect to public transportation. During the next two to five years: • 1. Develop an organization to carry out regional public transportation. planning and operation. . 2. Emphasize carpooling and vanpooling through the existing regional Tat. A Ride program. 3. Initiate regional bus service with a public or private operator 4. Increase the number of park-and-ride -lots to serve the expected in- crease in carpools, vanpools, and express buses. 5. Preserve potential transportation corridors for light rail service, as well as highways, in order not to foreclose any future transportation possibilities. . 6. Reconsider development goals and explore the feasibility of high den- sity development along transportation corridors. - 7. As preliminary planning progresses for new highway lanes in over ca- pacity corridors, examine the feasibility of building commuter lanes instead of general traffic lanes. 8. Depending on the outcome of preliminary planning studies, construct commuter lanes in the medians of 1-40 between Raleigh and Chapel gill, the Durham Freeway, and the Northern Wake Freeway. During the next five to 10 years: • - 1. Depending on the existence of high density corridor: development and the pace of such development, examine the feasibility of a light rail system which connects downtown centers, residential and shopping clus- ters, and employment locations in the Triangle region. During the next 10 to 20 years: 1. Depending on the feasibility of light rail service, design and con- struct a regional light rail system. 6 - ODE 2. Continue the process of coordinated regional land use and transporta- tion planning. 3. Evaluate new technological possibilities as they emerge. The future will bring exciting opportunities to the Research Triangle re- gion. The challenge will be for regional leaders to mold the opportunities into an attractive, livable environment. One key to success is for leaders to. develop a future image for the region and use innovative land use and transportation solutions, including public transportation, to bring that image to reality. • • • • 004 DRAFT -Do not Quote-- TRAVEL IN THE TRIANGLE: IMPLEMENTATION Report Number 3 • Triangle Area Public Transportation Study September 1986 Department of City and Regional Planning. University of North Carolina Chapel Hill , NC 27514 o1c PREFACE This report is one of a series resulting from the- Triangle. . Area Public Transportation Study. Report No. I , "Travel in the " Triangle: Trends" identifies potential problems. Report No. 2, "Travel in the Triangle: Choices" presents an analysis of • transportation service options for the region. This report, "Travel in the Triangle: Implementation," presents proposals for implementing the options selected for new public transportation services in the Triangle. The Triangle Area Public Transportation -Study, . f'unded by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, is conducted jointly by researchers from the University of North Carolina, North Carolina. State University, and Duke University. This report and an earlier discussion paper benefitted from comments, suggestions and questions raised by members of. the Greater Raleigh Transportation Advisory Committee and the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee.. Associates of UNC's Institute of Government provided valuable information on legal and administrative issues. As in the case of the first two reports, the Transportation Study Steering Committee assembled to review the research was extremely helpful . • • ii 0.11. TRAVEL IN THE TRIANGLE: IMPLEMENTATION Executive Summary The leaders of the Triangle area have an opportunity to- step forward to address region-wide transportation issues before these issues become serious transportation problems. Report No. I. analyzes the travel , population and employment trends and indicates that before the year 2010 nearly all major highway corridors will be at or above capacity even with the construction of planned highway improvements. Report No. 2 examines the alternatives and concludes that several public transportation options, such as ridesharing, express bus, commuter lanes, and light rail , can reduce projected levels of congestion in the Triangle area. This report reviews the organizational options and proposes the establishment of a regional public. transportation authority . (RPTA) to plan, finance and operate. public transportation services in the Triangle area. The RPTA should be responsible for coordinating all public transportation services and for providing services outside and between existing urban service districts. The RPTA should nave staff that is able to analyze travel demand and the level of needed public transportation, work with state and local h";ghway planners and local transit operators to identify cost-effective solutions, and operate transit services to meet regional transportation needs. • The RPTA should be empowered to collect fees, impose special assessments, issue revenue bonds, receive grants and other funds and own real property. Although not a unit of general government, the authority should enjoy a permanent existence, substantial independence, and unified management. The RPTA should be accountable to the public throigh its commissioners who iii may be appointed for fixed terms by the elected officials of the three counties and municipalities of Durham, Orange and Wake counties. The RPTA should develop a special set of relationships to the Research Triangle Foundation, the Raleigh--Durham Airport Authority and the Triangle J Council of Governments. Through these relationships, the RPTA should seek to coordinate transportation services with employment growth taking place at RTP, RDU and other growth centers. It should also seek participation in land use planning and zoning decisions which will shape the pattern of. physical development in the region. The recommendation of creating an authority to implement needed public transportation actions is based on two major considerations. First, the prospect of growing congestion in the Triangle region poses a serious problem. Increasing travel times, delays in commuting to and from work and possibly more expensive and dangerous trips for area residents constitute only part of the problem. In addition, the attractiveness of the region to potential employers and residents will decline unless traffic congestion is kept within reasonable bounds.. Smaller metropolitan areas with high quality of life and low costs of living have a comparative advantage relative to larger metropolitan areas with more urban amenities but with more serious urban problems. Ease of access is an important aspect of the Triangle area's attractiveness. To maintain this level of access as the region grows will be a challenging task. Second, the results of the analyses in Reports No. I and No. 2 are not encouraging in the following sense. The study of trends projects increasing congestion even with the construction . of planned highway improvements. The study of choices indicates iv that -serious congestion may remain even after additional highways are built and regional public transportation services are substantially 'increased. To alter these undesirable outcomes will require leaders with the courage to stake difficult decisions that will influence the demand for travel as well as the supply • of facilities and services. An administrative mechanism with sufficient standing to carry out the mandate of area leaders will. also be required. Less ambitious organizational alternatives . will .probably prove to be inadequate. The RPTA will not arise full-blown tomorrow. It will grow • out of the process that this study has initiated. What . is. needed to move from this study_ to an authority with the mission and resources to do the necessary tasks is the establishment of a process to continue the work . The presentation of Reports No. 2 and No. 3 to the joint meeting of the Greater Raleigh -TAC and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro TAC -ends this. study. That meeting should also mark the beginning of a process which continues the work on regional transportation problems. Local public officials are in the position to determine the agenda for future 'work . The NC Department of Transportation is , ready to respond to local initiative. The action -agenda suggested below is intended to identify some major issues that local leaders should consider . *UDATE TRENDS Timely information. on the rate and. distribution of area growth is essential to sound planning and assessment of potential problems. *DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS- . The analysis of choices in Report No. 2 represents a first cut examination of the feasibility of various public v - transportation options. As noted in Report No. 2. promising options deserve more careful scrutiny before substantial. investments are made in marketing and offering new services. *ANALYZE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND IDENTIFY.NEW CORRIDORS OR EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING CORRIDORS TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH. Additional highway lanes and several public transportation options require right-of-ways for future usage. -Judicious purchases of key parcels can lead to the preservation of corridors and the space to accommodate increasing public transit services as the demand for service grows in the future. *REVIEW THE ELEMENTS OF THE NEW ORGANIZATION. • As with Report No. 2, the assessment of organizational issues in this report is limited in its scope. The RPTA needs to be designed more precisely and ultimately created by legislative action. The services to be provided, legal po '.ers, governance, . and administrative structure must be designed in detail . *SECURE FUNDING TO CONTINUE T!?E STUDY PROCESS. The willingness of Triangle area jurisdictions to provide funding is an 'indication of the relative importance of the problems and opportunities flagged in this study. Local leaders should establish a fair funding formula and solicit contributions from all jurisdictions. The NC Department of Transportation may be willing to provide assistance after local funding commitments have been secured. *HIRE STAFF ASSISTANCE TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY ANALYSES. Professional help is needed if the study is to continue. Members of the Transportation Study Steering Committee have been generous in contributing their time but are the first to suggest the need for permanent staff. *REVIEW ALTERNATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR ThE NEW ORGANIZATION. OIL 4 Several funding alternatives are identified and described in this report . The Institute of Government at URN-CH should be asked to develop enabling legislation and a financing plan for any proposed new organization. The steering committee and the TACs have made substantial progress to date in discussing the important transportation issues and arriving at a shared understanding of the problems and opportunities facing the Triangle area. Local officials should build on this exemplary effort and mandate its continuation. The public 's awareness, the available technical talent and expertise. and the finanical resources of the relevant participants combine to create the potential for success. Leadership from local jurisdictions is needed as the catalyst to realize this potential. in solving the Triangle area's transportation problems before they reach crises proportions. viz ot• . ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda. BOARD OF CON SSIONERS Item h o. C d. • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT • LNG DAIS OCTOBER 21, 1986 ' Subject: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. GENERAL TELEPHONE OF THE SOUTH, CENTRAL ' TELEPHONE COMPANY AND AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE" SOUTHERN" STATES, INC. Department: COUNTY MANAGER I Public Hearing: Yes Attacbments: Izafprmation Contact: MANAGER'S OFFICE . X501 YES Phone Embers: 732-8181, 968-11501,. • 22T-0231. = • PURPOSE: To consider what further action-to take regarding- the County's complaint-- dtm.r disruption in long distance .telephone service. - • NEED: Since..'.respons`.es =of 'the telephone company were found to be unsatisfactory to the County the State of North Carolina Utilities Commission ordered a second response to be made by each company. Those have since been received HEM:,- and forwarded to the Telephone Technical Task Force for analysis and- . -- recommendation. The County has until October 27, 1986 to report its finding which must be according to one of four alternatives, i.e. : - ( )The relief offered in the further responses filed by the Respondents is- acceptable and we do not desire a public hearing in the proceeding. • '( )TheF:further responses filed,by the Respondents. are not satisfactory, and we hereby-request a public hearing at which time 'we will present evidence ' _ in support of the complaint. ( )Although the further responses filed by the Respondents are not completely • • satisfactory to us, we do not request a public hearing at this time. We - do request that the Commission keep this docket open for at least six months so that the matters complained 'of can be monitored by the- Complainants, the Commission and the Public Staff. - _ ( )The further responses filed by the Respondents are not completely - - . . satisfactory to us as complainants and we request the following additional information .subject to commission review as to the reasonableness of our request. A report and recommendation will be made at the October 21, -1986 Board RECOMME'NDA' Uiting by Richard Helwig, Task Force Chairman. . As the Board decides. . • F f x • :GTE, _ AUG ) fc General Tel=,, *- Com ny • • of the South 3901 Roxboro Road, Pia-Box-1412 Terry M. Desmond Durham, North4arolina 27702 Government Relations Manager 1.1 Ms. Sandra J. Webster, Chief Clerk 4416 29 North Carolina Utilities Commission Dobbs Building 430 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 August-28, 18• '414 SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. P-89, SUB 23 Dear Ms. Webster: In the Commission's Order dated August 11, 1986, each Respondent Company in Docket No. P-89, Sub 23 was ordered to reply separately to the original Complaint filed on July 11, 1986 to the extent that the requested information was not contained in the joint response filed May 20, 1986. General Telephone Company of the South has reviewed the Order and it is felt that the joint reply adequately covered the events and actions taken in connection with this Complaint. The joint response • represents a more in-depth response than General could have provided individually since General provides only access capacity, under tariff, to AT&T-C for Central Telephone Company' s Hillsborough Office. General Telephone Company of the South is restricted, by Federal Order, in its participation in the toll environment. General cannot separately develop contingency or diversity toll plans, nor can it individually implement such plans. Any such plan(s) would need to be the responsibil- ity of AT&T--C in concert with the involved local exchange companies. General has taken action to implement the ordered INTRALATA DDD comple- tion test calls from Durham into Hillsborough. The testing program will begin September 1, 1986 and continue through February, 1987. General will report the results to the Commission on a monthly basis with copies of the report going to the Orange County Board of Coninissioners and the - - Public Staff, in accordance with the August 11, 1986 Order. If you have any questions or require further informations please call me at 471-7656. Your truly, ,;40tivig2 r 'RY M. DESMOND JWC:mrb A part of GTE Corporation *ate Xartil euralina • ditties dommiSSILIU Lehr DOCKET NO. P-89, SUB 23 BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of - - Orange County Board of Commissioners, ) - _ Don Willhoit, Chairman, 106 East ) Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North ) Carolina 27278, ) : Complainants ) ORDER -SETTING TIME FOR RESPONSE OF THE COMPLAINANT ) General Telephone of the South, ) Central Telephone Company, and AT&T . ) Communications of the Southern States; ) - • Inc. , ) Respondents ) BY THE COMMISSION: On August 29, 1986, AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. , and General Telephone of the South filed their further separate responses in this docket as required by the Commission's Order of. August 11, 1986, in this docket. On September 11, 1986, Central . Telephone Company filed its further separate response. - A representative of the Orange County Board. of Commissioners has informed the Commission that. Orange County has received copies of these three separate responses. • The Commission is of the opinion that this Order should issue providing that the Complainant Orange County Board of Commissioners sh _lie to and including Monday, October 27, 1986, in which to file its reply to the separate responses of the three Respondents. A form is attached to this Order for the convenience of the Complainant. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners shall have to and including October 27, 1986, in which to file its response to the Respondents' responses in this docket. _ - ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. This the /7,4 day of 986. . NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION (SEAL) San.ra J. 41aler, Chief Clerk f r ' DOCKET NO. P-89, SUB 23 nyc Orange County Board of Commissioners v. General Telephone of the South Central Telephone Company - AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. ( ) The relief offered in the further responses filed by the Respondents is acceptable to us as Complainants, and we do not desire a public hearing in this proceeding. ( ) The further responses filed by the Respondents are not satisfactory to us as Complainants, and we hereby request a public hearing at which time we will present evidence in support of the complaint_ ( ) Although the further responses filed by the Respondents are not completely _ satisfactory to us as Complainants, we do not request a public hearing at this time. We do request that the Commission keep this docket open for at least six (6) months so that the matters complained of can be monitored by the Complainants, the Commission, and the Public Staff. ( ) The further responses filed by the Respondents are not completely satisfactory to us as Complainants and we request the following additional information , subject to Commission review as to the reasonableness of our request. (detail ). Signature of Complainant THIS RESPONSE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO: Chief Clerk - North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office . Box 29510 - Dobbs Building Raleigh,, North Carolina 27626-0510 REVD SEP 12 1986 440 i Sp BEFORE THE ; � =• NORTH CAROLINA.UTILITIES COMMISSION FSSt�; In the Matter of _ . Orange County Board of Commissioners, ) - Don Wilihoit, Chairman, 106 East Margaret ) Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 ) Complainants ) vs. ) Docket No. P-89, Sub 23 ) General Telephone and Telegraph Company,. ) Central Telephone and Telegraph Company, ) • and AT&T, ) Respondents. ) RESPONSE OP . CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY NOW COMES Central Telephone Company — North Carolina (Central) and files this response to the Order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission dated August 11, 1986. In support thereof, Central responds to the response of the Complainant filed on July 11, 1986, to the extent that. the - requested information is not contained in the joint response filed May- 20, 1986. Central's response will reference those items -contained in the Commission's Order of August 11, 1986 as followsr - . "A. . We ask that the Utilities Commission request a complete response by . each of the respondents, separately, to all three of our initial requests. - ... 021 "1) To assist in securing immediate relief (from all long distance interruption). - Central's Response: Central, a local exchange carrier, is primarily responsible for local access service. Central recognizes this responsibility to its customers for the provision of total service. At the present tine• InterLATA Long Distance Services are provided in Hillsborough by AT&T.. Further, General Telephone of the South (General) provides access to the inteaLATA and intraLATA long distance networks through its Durham toll center. Moreover, as a contractor for Central and AT&T, General • currently provides Hillsborough customers with operator and directory.- _ - assistance services. It is Central's responsibility to represent its. customers with General, Southern Bell and AT&T. This is exactly what . Central did during the April 1986 intraLATA long distance outages. Central communicated with different levels of management and - non-management personnel both with AT&T and General to secure an immediate and lasting resolution to the frequent interruptions in long distance services experienced by Centrals Hillsborough customers. The results of this effort have been set forth in the joint response filed May 20, 1986 and the response of AT&T filed August 29, 1986.. "2) . To... make complete public disclosure of the events, their causes and the remedies taken to date. • • • . . - 2 - O2 Central's Response: Following is Central's record of events: April 8: The AT&T's Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down at approximately 11:00 AM and was not restored until 1:15 PM. Central contacted both General and AT&T concerning outages. April 9: Central experienced sporadic problems throughout the day. Although the times are estimated, the network first went down at approximately 8:45 AM and was back on line at approximately 9:20 AM. The second outage occurred ,-- at approximately 11:00 AM and was beckon line at approxi- mately 11:45 AM; the third outage occurred at approximately 1:30 PM and was beckon line at approximately 3:30 PM. Central contacted both General and AT&T concerning all. outages. April 10: Central's records indicate the AT&T Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down at approximately 9:30 AM and was not restored until approximately 10:00 AM. The AT&T Long Distance Network (GCS function) went down again at approximately 12:30 PM and this time was not restored until approximately 2:30 PM. Central contacted AT&T again to refer problems to higher management. • 3 -- • 02e- April 11: Central's records indicate the AT&T Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down again at approximately 10:00 AM and was not restored until. approximately 12:15 PM. Central was also advised on this date by General that they and AT&T were converting 720 trunks from digital to multifrequency signaling to help alleviate the service outages. April 12: As this was a Saturday, Central had as employee stationed in the Hillsborough office to monitor the situation. We did note a problem! on Saturday �- morning but due to lower traffic volumes and access via the 720 trunks General and AT&T had converted, there was minimal effect on Hillsborough customers. We did not log a specific time of outage on this date. April 13: Again, Central had an employee stationed, in. the Hillsborough office to monitor the situation but did not encounter any service affecting condition. on this date. April 21: Central personnel in our Technical Assistance - Center notified its Vice President-Operations that they were again experiencing trouble- dialing into Hillsborough/Durham area. Suspecting this could be connected to the prior problems, the Wee President-Operations contacted General's General. Manager in Durham to inquire about the problem.. • 024 The General Manager investigated the situation anti reported back to Central that one of the "A" links . failed and in the process of switching to the • alternate "A" link, Durham lost'access to ISO - trunks. We understood the AT&T Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down at approximately • 8:25 AM and was not restored until approximately 11:35 AM. _ "3) To ... develop, under public scrutiny, a plan for a. permanent solution- , . . . to this problem, together with a prompt timetable_ for the plan's �- • implementation; and, further, to ensure that the telephone service. providers implement forthwith the permanent solution. so that. such problems have an almost nil probability of ever.happening again. • Central's Response: - Central believes the plan for permanent solution to the interLATA: long distance failures referred to in the Commission's Order of August- 14 1986 has. been adequately addressed by the joint respondents in its response of May 20, 1986 and AT&T's response of August. 29. 1986.. - Central will fully cooperate with all parties in this regard_. • "B. We ask the Utilities Commission, on our behalf, to inquire about and • investigate the management structure of the individual respondents where they interface with each other, with the equipment, and with their . subscribers, paying particular attention to their plans for providing .ax . . _ s._ continuity of service especially in times of system failure and -othear crises, and to report these findings to us. Central's Response: _ Central interfaces with General and AT&T on many different levels of management and non-management. Our non-management craft personnel. • - under supervision of management work together with General and AT&T . regularly for installation, removal and repair of trunk routes leaving Hillsborough and connecting with AT&T's Long Distance Network through the Durham toll center. Various levels of management and - non-management craft personnel with Central converse and continue to work with their respective counterparts with General and AT&T on a ,- . regular basis. Central has an Industry Relations Manager who communicates regularly with AT&T and General, Our Vice . President-Operations communicates with General and AT&T.,at the higher management levels. Central has numerous contacts both with General and AT&T through our Regional and Corporate offices. Central believes that .all of these interfaces and points of contact are more than adequate to protect service continuity..- . "C. We ask the Utilities Commission to begin monitoring long distance service to Orange County for all abnormalities, and to review the results against their requirements for adequate and reliable service, and to report the findings to us at appropriate intervals. _ : ;- . OA: Central's Response: - As previously reported to the North Carolina. Utilities Commission in a letter dated August 20, 1986, Central will begin test calls as prescribed on September 1, 1986 and will continue for six months and will.report. the results- to the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the Public Staff and the Orange County Board of Commissioners for their review. "D. Lastly, we wish the opportunity to review and evaluate further all additional information that comes forth in response to all the foregoing • questions before we request further action by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. .- Central's Response: • -Central will cooperate fully in providing information as requested. - Wherefore, based upon the Joint Response of May 20, 1986, the response of AT&T and General, the additional information contained herein and the results of the testing which will be forwarded to the Commission, Central has complied fully with the Commission's Orders of April 17, 1986 and August 11, 1986. This the 11th day of September, 1986. Res t "- tfully submitted, 54.-ye.#77 , ,,es M. gimxe ounsel McMillan, Kimzey, Smith. - & Roten Central Telephone Company 205 Neat Martin Street Post Office Box 150 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 • �.. - 7 _ - 7.� g?:.-tom-,,: • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Response of Central. Telephone was duly served upon the the following parties this date by depositing a copy thereof, postage prepaid in the United States mail, addressed as follows: Mr. Don Willhoit - Chairman Orange County Commission 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27178 -Public Staff North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29520 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0520 Mr. Wade H. Hargrove Counsel to AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. Post Office Box 1151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Dale E. Sporleder General Telephone Company of the Southeast - Post Office Box 1412 Durham, North Carolina 27702 This the 11th day of September, 1986. s M. Kismet' • • • • ■ • A) ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda. . • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No.__, , - ACTION AGENDA ITEM .ABSTRACT • r DXIE OCTOBER 21, 1986 • . . -' Subject: REVISED, PROPOSED JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO • IDepartment: COUNTY MANAGER ( Public Hearing- Yea Y 1t4 • 1 • Attachments: Information Contact MANAGER'-S OFFICE X501 Agreement Phone Numbers: T32-8181, 968-3&501, . Commissioners Memorandum l PURpOSE: ' To set a public hearing date for considering the _agreement .together - with any Board directed changes. - • NEED: Following a review of the revised agreement October 13 it was agreed that the Manager and and Town and County board representatives would- meet to incorporate certain language changes. Some of the suggestions . - included:. 1. Requiring joint' approval of the land use plan and plan amendments; and 2. Limiting rezoning requests to only initiated by the towns or County and requiring joint approval for these requests to be approved. RECOMMENDATION(S) : . 1. Provide guidance to staff on desired changes known at this time. 2. ' Appoint what representatives the Board wishes to meet with - the towns to discuss other changes. - 3. Set a public hearing date on the agreement plus any recommended . changes. - (Recommend November 18 Public Hearing date in Chapel Hill with Planning Board. Recommendation to be prepared- on November 24 following quarterly Public Hearing. Board of Commissioners action on December 1 regular meeting date.) • JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Uwe DRAFT September 16p 1986 September 19p 1986 • September 22, 1986 October 8, 1986 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day _ of . 198,_-, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, and THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, a municipal corporation duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina. WITNESSETH: In consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the cooperative efforts of the parties in establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system of planning within their respective areas of public concern, the parties to this Agreement hereby mutually agree as follows:. ARTiCLE 1 . PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1 .1 Purpose of the Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange County-Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area, as defined herein. Section 1 .2 Definition of Joint Planning Area A. The term "Joint Planning Area" as used in this Agreement refers to that area lying outside the extraterritorial planning Jurisdiction of Chapel Hill but within the joint planning boundary designated on the map attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. The terns also _ refers to the area shown on modifications of Exhibit A if the Joint planning area boundary is amended pursuant to Section 2.6 of this Agreement. B. Exhibit A shows an area where Chapel Hill 's interests are pre-eminent. This area is referred to throughout the remainder of this agreement as the Chapel Hitt Joint Development Area (CHJDA) . C. The terms "Ten-Year Transition Area" and Twenty Year Transition Area" refer to those areas so designated on Exhibit A, as the same may be modified in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.6 of this Agreement. Section 1 .3 Effective Date and Duration A. This Agreement shall become effective on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance adopting this Agreement and an ordinance that amends Orange County 's Zoning Ordinance ( including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations as prescribed to • Section 2. 1 of this Agreement. The previously adopted Agreement shall become null and void upon this date. B. This Agreement shall remain I n effect until terminated - O L L by mutual agreement or by withdrawal of Orange County or Chapel Hill . A party may not withdraw. until It holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party within thirty (30) days of the public hearing. The withdrawal shall be effective one ( 1 ) year following receipt by the other party of the written notice. ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION AND - AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS Section 2.1 Standards Within Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas A. Upon County adoption of the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area, Chapel Hill shall prepare a Zoning Map for the Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas which, upon approval and adoption as prescribed in Subsection B of this Section, shall become part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be prepared using zoning districts which correspond to the text of the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and which correspond with the density designations and plan classifications as prescribed in the adopted Land Use Plan for the CHJDA. B. Upon completion of the Zoning Map referred to in - Section 2. 1 A above, Orange County shall amend its Zoning Atlas in accordance with said Map to zone areas within that portion of the Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas that lies within Chapel Hill 's JDA. Orange County shall also adopt by reference the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and make its provisions applicable only to that portion of the Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas located within Chapel Hill 's JDA. Section 2.2 Standards Outside Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas - Within that portion of the Joint Planning Area that lies outside the Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance ( including Zoning Atlas) and. Subdivision Regulations that are In effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain in effect unless modified in accordance with Section 2.6 of this Agreement. Section 2.3 Permit Administration Within Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.5 and 2.6, the Town of Chapel Hill shall perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.1 B. Subject to the remainder of this Section, Chapel Hill shall administer the referenced ordinances just as if the land were located within the Town's extraterritorial Jurisdiction . Administration shall include but not be limited to the following: 1 . Receipt and processing of applications; 2. issuance of any required permits and certificates; 3. Review and approval of required site/construction plans; rV 4. Conducting necessary site/building Inspections; 5 . Enforcement of a l l standards; 061 6. Any other acts or things necessary to administer the Ordinances; - and shall be carried out in manner so as to insure that a developer complies with all applicable ordinance requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Town of Chapel Hill . The Town of Chapel Hill may also charge fees for processing of applications, conducting site/construction plan reviews and carrying out site/building inspections in accordance with fee schedules applicable within it 's extraterritorial planning Jurisdiction. B. Whenever the Town receives an application for a development permit relating to land within the Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas, it shall have five (5) working days from the stamped receipt date on the application to forward twenty-five (25) copies of the application and plans to the Orange County Planning Department for review. The Town shall establish timetables to insure that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, advisory boards and planning staff - have an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications. within the framework of the County 's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the County and Town shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, the Town board before which a development application is pending may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of the Orange County Board of Commissioners or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after the Orange County Planning Department has received the application, whichever comes first. Section 2.4 Permit Administration in Joint Planning Area Outside Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas and Within the Town of Chapel Hill Extraterritorial Jurisdiction A. Except as, otherwise provided in Section 2.6 and the remaining provisions of this Section, Orange County shalt perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.2 in the same manner as if the land were located outside the Joint Planning Area. B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within the Rural Buffer portion of the CHJDA as shown on Exhibit A, it shall have five (5) working days from the stamped receipt date on the application to forward five (5) copies of the application and plans to the Chapel Hill Planning Department for review. In processing an application under this Section, the Orange County Planning Department shall cooperate with and consider the recommendations of the Chapel Hill Planning Department. C. The Orange County board before which the development application is pending may not vote to issue or deny the permit until it has received the recommendations of the Chapel Hill Planning Department or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after the Chapel Hill Planning Department has received the -4- . application . whichever occurs first. - D . Whenever the Town receives an application 03.4 for a development permit relating to land located within its . extraterritorial planning Jurisdiction, it shall have five (5) working days from the stamped receipt date on the application to forward five (5) copies of the application and plans to the Orange County Planning Department for review. in processing an application under this Section, the Chapel Hilt Planning Department shall cooperate with and consider the recommendations of the Orange County Planning Department. E. The Town board before which the development application is pending may not vote to Issue or deny the permit , until it has received the recommendations of the Orange County Planning Department or until the expiration of forty—five (45) days after the Orange County Planning Department has received the application, whichever occurs first. Section 2.5 Enforcement Remedies A. Permit revocation, if necessary and authorized by ordinance, shall be handled by the individual or board authorized to issue the original permit. B. Within those portions of the Joint Planning Area• where the ordinances specified in Section 2.1 B are administered by the Town of Chapel Hill , enforcement efforts through the use of civil penalties, criminal penalties or injunctive relief shall be initiated by the Town. The Town shall have the duty to defend at its own expense and shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent it can legally do so, Orange County, Its Board _ of Commissioners, its advisory boards, its staff and all members of its boards and staffs, in their official and individual capacities, from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, expenses, damages or iiabilities, including' attorneys fees and court costs, resulting from the Town administration of the ordinances specified In Section 2.1 B. C. Orange County shall notify the Town and the Town shall notify Orange County as soon as practicable thereafter, of any such claim, action or proceeding. Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments A. Any proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan and Orange County Zoning Atlas applicable to. the Joint Planning Area shall require County approval . The approval process shall be in accordance with adopted Orange County procedures and shall include referral to the governing body and planning board of the Town for review and recommendation. Such review and recommendation on proposed amendments shall occur before the Board of Commissioners makes a final decision. B. Whenever Chapel Hill amends the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance referenced in Sections 2. 1 B. it shall refer such amendments to Orange County with a request that the County make corresponding changes as expeditiously and as reasonably possible so that the Town may continue to enforce 03C -5- ,w 11th 1 n its respective portions of the Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas the same standards that it enforces within its own regulatory Jurisdiction. C. Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall be referred to the planning boards of the respective Jurisdictions for comments and recommendations.. Such changes shall not become effective until approved by the parties to the Agreement. - THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of • 198.. . Mayor, Town of Chair, Orange- County Chapel Hill Board of Commissioners ATTEST: ATTEST: • Town Clerk Clerk to Board of Commissioners • • , '. 1 • ✓ r �. r fir` • ... M�► +1 • ir'� � � , 2 ■Li �i1 "pj ,yam ~ r • Yw Iii - ` i p nd / 4 /r.f�hJ 1 �/L � ..• INF -1-- .1---- - - -L.:. ?:a.'. � _.,,,...■ . ■.-ul--II 4 01r4,'-‘Illiainhiat h iii, 1' ', I '' .. ' X00 . - ' .•„ , ),:, 06,46!• . ';[ fri•-\ ,Alk-ffe A - :-' "".!. 1 '-. - -,,.„ t. / 1 1 r,i: _ 11'"-, :.+S.....c7t � a A PE • kry. AA.--„0.-- -1.1 , liWi- 1- .4 ,...."---.=.4.1r. ..--...7- - ..,./.- . _...0i . . - = ) . ii. :.,„ , 1 w*,- -,44 ”" ',A! _,,,,o,..,-,dov,,.. .-4r.e‘-\ ,-- ,..._... 10...... . .........: • 1 krirl- eNq - ,.. - ..,00 -..---7- -i. ... ..\ ;. - %It% -, _ .... .:t... ..•-•' . .01 i ..'.1' , ..:‹ . t 41110 i .1 `0 • © '� - "P' Ili ..,,,_,. Jr( 4 • 7• ‘ ' ' '''- ' \ ./ .:-.. t , , .,..1 ,INIFIfirt ‘ -6'.\N """.... . 1 . : ''.1 . , g`,/ N A '; . lkilloor t : t I 1 :. b 0..m° It.,.- i e1 19 1, -. r ;-- 1, 11.3' l r t---.4 ' r . \ 4i -, ,mil\ , _ , 5r a) • `l y . •4. �1 ���JJJ ___ Chatham County A + �-� • . V r • •� TO1 NT a,/U 0I.Idyy,.,l6- A4 PLANN l N G• AR �4~, lY «„ �� TQgay in.,. M2.Ey4 /jpy�r4RRy ' �.� �7 COMEL rNcL 1 CA4RQoAN, •4..R/rarc7fu� tar wpAtY 0N6 ORANGE COUNTY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Board Members FROM: County Manager SUBJECT: Proposed, Revised Joint Planning Agreement and Timetable for Consideration DATE: October 8, 1986 This memorandum is in response to your request for recommended ways to streamline administration of the joint review process while maintaining County oversight of the permitted land uses within the transition areas identified for Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Based on a review of the approval process as it has been administered, Carrboro's suggestions for improvement, and consultation with the three planning directors and two town managers I am hereby proposing that you consider adopting the attached, revised agreement for the administration of planning and approval of development applications within the joint planning area. Before outlining its features let me briefly review County purposes which have been carried forward in this new agreement. You will note that only the means for accomplishment has been changed. County objectives are threefold: 1. Provide for orderly county development which for the transition areas adjacent to Chapel Hill and Carrboro necessitates the use of urban density and standards in approving development applications. 2 . County determination of how the areas will be developed as a means of protecting the citizens within these transition areas who are and shall remain under county jurisdiction. 3 . Facilitate the review of development applications in a manner that is as expeditious as reasonably possible. While the existing agreement accomplishes the first two objectives it fails to accomplish the third. We have had a cumbersome process in terms of duplicated hearings and other review steps as governed by the County ordinance and INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8610-501 Proposed, Revised Joint Planning Agreement and Timetable for Consideration October 8, 1986 Page 2 regulations. Once the town ordinances and regulations are additionally adopted the process will become even more complex unless steps are taken to simplify administration. What is proposed is an agreement which would establish a new distribution of responsibility between the County and two towns. The County would: 1. Be the sole party required to approve the land use plan for the JPA and any amendments to the plan once adopted. 2 . Approve the zoning, zoning map and zoning atlas for the areas and cause these to become part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 3 . Review and render recommendations on all develop- ment applications within the transition area portions of the JPA while providing sole approval on any applications for development outside the transition areas yet bounded by the rural buffer portion of the JPA. 4. Provide follow up inspections for projects within the rural buffer portions to ensure compliance with the terms of plan approvals. Each Town, on the other hand, would perform responsibi- lities as follows: 1. Develop the zoning map for County approval using the text of their land development ordinances conditioned on the requirement that they correspond to the density and plan classifications prescribed in the adopted land use plan. 2 . Review and approve development applications within the transition areas of the JPA and review and render recommendations on applications within the rural buffer that extends from each transition area. 3 . Provide follow-up inspections on approved projects within the transition areas. These changes, if adopted, should cut out unnecessary processing steps, maintain County control over the land use plan, ensure zoning conformance to the plan, and provide 03ti INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8610-501 Proposed, Revised Joint Planning Agreement and Timetable for Consideration October 8, 1986 Page 3 greater clarity and ease of administration with only one jurisdiction, rendering specific permit approval. By copy of this memorandum I am formally transmitting the proposed revised agreement to the two Town Managers for review by their governing boards. The sequence of steps necessary to act on the revised agreement include setting a date for hearing at the October 21 meeting, conducting the hearing on November 3, review and recommendation by the Orange County Planning Board November 17, decision by the Board of Commissioners December 1 and decision by each town on dates thereafter. . 00-2?"%/2 ti.tf*D".1.% Kenneth R. Thompson KRT/srs cc: Robert Morgan David Taylor Planning Director and Chair of the Orange County Planning Board Enclosure 036 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. 1) 3 ACTION AGENDA I'll ABSTRACT MEETING DATE October 21, 1986 . + Subject: CAMPAIGN SIGNS • Department: COMMISSIONERS I I Public Hearing: Yes X no f • • • Attachments: Information Contact: BEN LLOYD, x505 732-8552 Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: Revision of the ordinance as to signs. NEED Our ordinance limits what candidates may do in putting up campaign signs during elections. Candidates were told in the'Spring election that the County might begin to enforce the sign regulations. While this did not occur, now the Fall elections are here and there is the uncertainty of what the rules are and whether they will be enforced. Also the Planning Departmetit is wanting to charge fees to issue . permits for the signs. I Object to the County regulating campaign signs since the campaigns are short in time. I do think there ought to be a limit in time given to remove the signs once a campaign is over. Why add a fee just to cover new paperwork. I ask the Board to reevaluate these sign rules. RECOMMENDATION: My proposal is that these rules be dropped from the ordinance and that fees for political signs not be approved. e) All signs shall comply with the construction requirements of the North Carolina State Building Code. Trailer mounted signs do not meet these standards. mended f) Signs identifying any non-residential use permitted ri ht '/3/84 or by special use permit in a residential zone shall nog not exceed 16 square feet in area and shall be limited to one single or double-faced on-premise sign per street or road frontage. No sign shall exceed six (6) feet in height. Height of the sign shall be measured from the average finished ground. level to the highest point of the sign. Measurement shall not be taken from the highest point of a mound or berm at the sign site. mended- g) No more than 3 signs totaling 9 square feet in area are per- /3/84 . , mitted: on each residentially zoned lot in connection with elections and political campaigns. Such signs shall be removed within 7 days after the election or the conclusion of the cam- paigns. In cases of second or subsequent primaries, signs must be removed 7 days after the concluding election. mended h) Within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District the /4/84 — following additional requirements shall apply: 1 . Outdoor advertising signs shall not be permitted in the MTC district. 2. Permitted signs within the MTC district are limited to identification and incidental signs. 3. Within the MTC district the maximum area of any sign face shall not exceed seventy-two (72) square fee. 9.13 Sign Survey Required and Compliance Deadlines Set The Zoning Officer shall make an inventory of all signs not. . meeting the requirements of this Article. This inventory, - which shall include all land within the zoning jurisdiction of the County of Orange, shall contain the location and a description of the sign and the name and address of the owner(s) of the lot on which each sign is located, as con- . tained in the current tax roll. Additionally, for each sign, the Zoning Officer shall note the reasons for the determination that each sign falls under the provisions of this section. Upon completion of the inventory, the Zoning Officer shall notify by certified mail the owner(s) of the lot upon which each sign is located of the determination that such sign falls within the provisions of this section. Such notice shall. also include a copy of this Article, and the name and official address of the Zoning Officer. (See Article II) . 9-6 ORANGE COUNTY 041 • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA .. • ' ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.•D /- - • MEETING DATE October 21, 1986 SUBJECT: Contract to Provide Foster Parent Training DEPARTMENT: Mental Health/Social Services' ( .,PUBLIC HEARING: YES ' x NO • ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Holt Contract proposed by OPC Mental Health • PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 - •HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 - • DURHAM - 688-7331 . PURPOSE: To provide specialized training for foster parents who provide care for "Willie M" (special, needs) -children. . NEED: For several years OPC Mental Health-and the Dept. . of Social Services have' jointly provided this foster parent training. Due to a vacancy at OPC Mental 'Health a - contract is needed to allow Orange County through the Department of Social Services. to purchase this training from another Mental Health professional. IMPACT: OPC Mental Health is seeking to provide funding for this joint training. The proposed contract will enable the purchase of this training prior to filling the training position. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve Service Contract. s U 41 No. 573 mm ID N/A SERVICE CONTRACT _. This contract, made and entered into this 6th day of October 19 86 , by and between the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center and Orange County Personnel That for the purpose and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center hereby contracts for the service of training for specialized foster parenting and accept the terms of such a contract. - - they First: The service to be performed by Orange County Trainer is as follows: Training, including 8 two-hour sessions plus preparation and coordination time, for prospective foster parents. Second: This contract shall begin on the 6th day of October 19 86 , and unless sooner terminated by mutual consent or as hereinafter shall exist and continue until the 20th day of November 86v �., , 19 provided that either party shall have the right to terminate this contract for service upon two weeks (14 days) notice in writing to the other party. It is expected that the contractee will conduct his/her duties in a manner consistent with the mission of the OPC Mental Health Center as a human service organization. Violations of the terms of this contract shall be grounds for immediate term n of the contract by the contractor. tion Third: The Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center agrees to pay the sum of $20.00 per hr, as full compensation for the services of for a of 52 hours or $1040.00 trainer upon receipt of an invoice which indicates the amount of monies owed to the con- tractee for services rendered. The invoice whould be Sent by the 5th working day of each month after services are rendered to assure payment by the 15th of the month. If the bill for service comes to the office after the 5th of the month, the contractee will receive payment by the 30th of the month_ rt is understood that work time called for in this contract will not exceed sixteen (16) hours per week. It is further understood that the Orange-person-Chatham Mental Health Center assumes no medical, professional, or automobile liability insurance either for the con- tractee or the client served. • Gantrattee or Authorized enc A9 y Representative / SS / Federal Employer ID 11 • Address: William F. Baxter, Jr., Area Director, OPC Mental Health Center . Date J 04 ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT # 573 OPC agrees to pay a lump sum of $1040.00 in advance to Orange County for a maximum of 52 hours of trainer time (including preparation, coordination, training sessions and transportation) . It is understood and agreed that all unused monies will be reimbursed to OPC upon the termination of this contract. Contractee Date Orange County William F. Baxter, Area Director Date OPC Mental Health Center 2:14.01( 7 6.74.! Orange County Department of Finance Date Olt BID 'TABULATION BID FOR: Oltd 4L — (k eA qi'tu&,ttf, a- CLOSING DATE: C} _ 1�r -P(. v CLOSING TIME: a5 IS P tlk , FOR OFFICE USG: BID A14ARDED TO: BID PRICE: C BUDGETED AMOUNT: �C I fn t¢ir Cov�4�t -cci, - ��oo �C I MM 04L MEMORANDUM TO: Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager FROM: Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff RE: Change-over of generator at the Jail Date: October 10, 1986 Following a meeting with Mr. Bill Smith from Energy Conversion Corporation of Greensboro it was ascertained that the following functions would absolutely be connected to the 30 KW generator: 1. ) Control panel 2. ) Cell doors 3 . ) Lighting 4. ) Electrical receptacles in control room Depending on the power used by the above functions, the following items will be added: 1. ) stove in jail kitchen 2. ) refrigerator in jail kitchen Due to the three-phase wiring required by the heating system, adding the heat to this generator has pretty well been ruled out. (Bill Smith has stated however, ECC would add it if the capacity of the generator is sufficient and the County wants to add the expense of compensating for the three phase hook- up. ) Energy Conversion Corporation proposes to add an electrical panel in an accessible location to operate the emergency generator only. This would serve to simplify the change over to emergency power in a crises situation. We feel that the immediate emergency power needs of the jail would be met through the change out to a larger generator. It is requested however, should the need for an additional jail facility arise in the future, that a full-scale generator be installed as part of the construction so that the jail might also be utilitized as an emergency command center (including communications capabilities) in the event of a disaster. With these facts being true, I am satisfied with a bid award to Energy Conversion Corporation for the installation of a 30 KW generator at a cost of $7200. 00. • ORANGE 'COUNTY 04(: - BOARD. OF C.OS`IISSIONERS ACTIO1 AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO MEETING DATE October 21 , 1986 _ • • SUBJECT: Proposed Budget Amendment _ DEPARTMENT: Finance . I PUBLIC HEARING: . YES X Ha ATTACHMENT(S): . 4 - _ INFORMATION _CONTACT: Donna Wagner Proposed Budget 'Amendments PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 : HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-9361 . CHAPEL HILL - 967--92.51 • • MEBANE -- 227--2.031 - DURHAM - 683-73.31 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget amendment . . • • • • NEED: GENERAL FUND To budget for funds to be allocated to the Teen Networking Team (as approved by the Board of Commissioners on: October 6 , 1986) . • • • • • IMPACT: GENERAL FUND . This amendment will transfer funds from the Commissioners ' " Contingency to. an account for the Teen Network Team. - RECD M[NDATION'(S) : Approve motion to amend the 1986-87 Budget Ordinance " by the proposed amendment . 04 '' ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1986-87 BUDGET -AMENDMENT The 1986-87 Budget Ordinance as adopted on July 23, 1986 , and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows : BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND Appropriation: Teen Networking Team $ 0 $950 $ 950 SOURCE: Contingency $50 ,000 950 49 ,050 To appropriate funds to the Teen Networking Team. Approved this 21 day of October, 1986 . 0 4 t' ORANGE COUNT! Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Items ao. 7:)r7 • ACTION AGENDA IT@! ABSTRACT morm DATE October 16, 1986 Sdbject: CAPACITY USE STUDY OF THE ENO RIVER • I I �ent: COMMISSIONERS Public 1n Yes % no • • Attachments: Information Contact: Don Willhoit, x505 942-2571 Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-1i501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To consider requesting State assistance for such a .study to help the County and its water utilities to manage our scarce-water resources. NEED: The Division of Water Resources has aided the County in its assessment thus far of drought conditions. It has, moreover, identified measures to better utilize existing supplies. Now while we are prepared to go into more detail in determining what to do in terms of short and long_ ' range strategies it would appear timely to request the State's continued assistance. North Carolina statutes permit capacity use studies. This is technical assistance to develop scientifically based studies of watersheds where the aggregate uses of surface water have developed or threaten to develop to a degree which requires coordination and regulation. We need this kind of in depth review and analysis to help develop further short range management strategies and long term plans. ` RECOMMENDATION: Authorize a request to be made of the State to conduct a capacity use study to assist in the development of short and and long range management strategies and plans. , 04 ORANGE COUNTY Action BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item Nonnt.a ACTION AGENDA rim ABSTRACT • MEJING DATE October 21. 1986 Subject: Change Order for Revere Road Office Annex Depar'tmeA: COUNTY_MANAGER 1 I Public Hearin;: yes g. no I I l r Attachments: Information Contact: :MANAGER'S-OFFICE X501 Change Order Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968.11501, 227-0231 • PURPOSE: The change orders for: 1. Removal of Drywall Ceiling 5. Removal of Carpet 2. New Accoustical Ceiling 6. Removal -of -paneling 3. Patch Ceiling 7. Removal 'of--Furrin-g--Strips 4. Patch Plumbing Floor 8. Removal-of-Base 9. New Carpet NEED A need exists to make changes in the ceiling wall and floor to better match the new installation with what is already in existence. • IMPACT: The impact fore-the above listed change orders is .$4221. The credit for the roof on a prior change order is more than adequate to cover this. Therefxsre funds are available within the project budget. • RECOMMENDATION: Approve change order. CHANGE Distribution In: l; ORDER 051 OWNER ' ARCIIIII:CT AlA DOCUMENT 6707 CONTRACTOR FIELD 0 OTIILR ❑ PROJECT: Carr Building Renovation CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 2 (name, address) Corbin St. ' Hillsborough, North Carolina INITIATION DATE: October 16, 1986 TO (Contractor): I- ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 5568 1 D.W. Ward Construction Co. P.O. Box 15157 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction Durham, North Carolina 27704 L J CONTRACT DATE:August 13, 1986 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Item One • Removal of drywall ceiling and related patching in plumbing store Extra $ 183.00 Item Two New accoustical ceiling in plumbing store Extra $ 121.00 Item Three Removal of paneling, furring & base in plumbing store Extra $ 784.00 Item Four Remove carpet and patch floor in plumbing store Extra $ 349.00 Item Five Install new carpet in plumbing store Extra $ 2,963.00 Item Six , New ceiling height in central reception Extra $ 101.00 Item Seven Need for steam cleaning carpet in plumbing store eliminated Credit $ 280.00 Resultant Change Order Amount Extra $ 4,221.00 \,a ...lid until ,agne I by ghoul du.O■n1•r anll An hilel t. ti11;n.Itun• I,I Ih,• (',nutat ha indicate, hi. agreement herewith. 'inhaling any atlluslinenl in the Contract S sir (•nnrr.lt 1 time. I'hc• original IConlraci Sum) (Wr�(1/iyikteI/!y(ts/Iilyiy(t/O/•i,()/was $ 221,856.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ ( 7,661.00) . The IConlract Sum) (IC/(✓l/.01,4 yEV1 thrl it/l/it/Vlyprior to this Change Order was $ 214,195.00 The IConlr,Icl Sum) /(Jt/.yf,/ilittAf Ayl/c /t/rviit f,y) will be (inc:rc:sedi (/I)(Mr,(,(OVAint$IF/g&/W, by This Change Order $ 4,221.00 Me new 1Conlraci Sun) f(/I/,yIII/WcYgL)/t)(i/i)&n.itAi/including Ibis Change Order will he $ 218,416.00 The Contract Time will be ( 1;khiI kyl(/g)(`/4W011.1 (unchanged) by ( —0— I Days. The I).tke rti Suh+lanlial Completion as of the dale of thii Change Order therefore is February 27, 1987 Aulhnrized: CHR Associates, PA D. W. Ward Construction Co. ' County of Orange \R( I Il l l t I (uNJJ r ( 1Ok ()wNLk 730 Airport Road 1�a6 Communciation Drive 106 E. Margaret Lane \thlre•• Arlilre.` Atkin.... Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 • Durham, N.C. 27704 Hillsborough-, N.C. 2727; If- ItY 1)..\II. iti. I):\tl: DATE • MA UOCUMLNT 07111 • (IIAi:(:1: ()K1)IK • :\1'1:11 1'1:11 1011 IN AI.\w • ••• .1'1:119T:i8 'wl... eld has been reaudited u! 1111 WI RI( -\N IN\I11 ll11 t)t ARC 11111( 1%, 1711 NI%V Y11RA .\\'I.. N.\\'..\V.\t,IIIN(,111N, 1).('. ORM, 7�1 197ti raar.nzr my:�ired by the Laca)javernm 051 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS It No. E ACTION AGENDA IT14 ABSTRACT MEETING DATE October 21, 1986 Subject: APPOINTMENTS IDepartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I I Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe Under Separate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancy is announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. A-14- ARTS COMMISSION - 1 vacancy; 1 recommendation has been received. RECOMMENDATION:_ As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAHEY BEN LLOYD NOI ,W NER October 23, 1986 DON WILLHOIT Ms. Sandra J. Webster Chief Clerk North Carolina Utilities Commission P. O. Box 29510 Raleigh, NC 27626-0510 Dear Ms. Webster: Reference Docket No. P-89, SUB 23 At the Orange County Board of Commissioners'meeting on October 21, 1986, I was authorized, by unanimous vote, to transmit this, our reply to the Respondents' separate responses of August 29, 1986 for AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. and General . Telephone of the South, ail of September 11, 1986 for Central Telephone Company. ��;,, W out relinquishi i ny rights to ,.._ Fin ;for other forms of action ;tr'.: -r a proeedu a.nd rules e•'-;.,•-- '..rth Carolina Utili ,,, - ,-;,-":_=ion, reply `w. - • the Commission 1) o-'' ^Y - anie To �•' the-- availability and deperi r,,_ !. __:, - _ ..,ti- h .,, 7,',P'__ - _ .•. S'. ,erconnections to and thro i a anti i b = ` .0 .- to survive common•fail = N?_ 1�- ii ,,. .o .. h : ;.. G-F;'. .&a completion and r : ;a it `G 'ordered; and 3) To ord= "' d f - �: �_ T 1„ ,.t-,�.�,-_n._' ,1�� ;.�-.,,used by the three eom t= . ,.,° _s - :-- _ -,� well as "failed” Sincerely, ij....-- W Don Willhoit Chairman ammm • BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of Orange County Board of Commissioners, - ) Don Willhoit, Chairman, 106 East Margaret ) Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, ) Complainants ) • ) vs. ) Docket No. P--89, Sub 23 ) General Telephone of the South, ) Central Telephone Company, and AT&T ) Communications of the Southern States, ) Inc. ) Respondents ) REPLY OF ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . AS ORDERED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 TO SEPARATE RESPONSES OF AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE SOUTH AND CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY . ORDERED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION ON AUGUST 11, 1986 The overriding principle in this complaint is the public's need for high availability and high dependability of telephone service. The telephone industry has allowed its subscribers to include expectations of such high service levels in their plans for dealing with life-threatening emergencies, with daily business-related affairs, and with the convenience of chatting with near and distant relatives and friends. Substantiating this complaint is that the system failed, massively and repetitively for several days. Even with all of the inter- company communications, the system continued to fail regularly. At issue in this complaint is that the monumental evidence, as disclosed in the facts of the failure and in the descriptions of the actions taken, encompasses but one undisputable example of the frailty of service, especially in time of failure. That this failure repeated 1 for days must be seen as a symptom of greater problems that the laws of North Carolina, the regulations of the Utilities Commission and- the operating practices of the entrusted carriers must address and solve. Either the Utilities Commission must order substantial changes in inter-company operating policies,- procedures, and network connectivity for the regulated companies, or the public must be advised to substantially downgrade its expectations of availability and dependability of telephone service as provided by Central, General, and AT&T. Consideration pf the responses. . First, AT&T has responded by describing its design, development, and implementation of a seven-point plan: "As a result of the meeting [with Orange County's task force] , AT&T has undertaken several actions to assure itself and the customers it serves in the Orange County, Durham and Raleigh areas that high quality service is • provided on a continuous basis." We note the deployment of network changes, in design and in both hardware and software. In Section II, item 2 (page 14) AT&T says it 'contracts with General Telephone of the South -(GTS) whereby. GTS provides interLATA switching to AT&T through GTS's toll center at Durham . . . for guaranteed switching capacity measured by equivalent voice circuit terminations required to provide for the interLATA demand." AT&T offers, in point 6 (page 4) , "to work with the Local Exchange Companies (LECs) to evaluate alternative serving arrangements . .. including direct connection from a planned new local switch in Hillsborough to AT&T's Point of Presence (POP) . These alternative serving arrangements are access facilities which are a matter for ultimate determination by the Local Exchange Companies." Central, in its September 11, 1986 response, says it 'is primarily responsible for local access service [and it] recognizes this responsibility to its customers for the provision of total service." Central also says that "General Telephone of the South (General) provides access to the interLATA and intraLATA long distance networks through its Durham toll center." And further notes that "It is Central's responsibility to represent its customers with General, Southern Bell and AT&T. This is exactly what Central did during . . . [the outages by] communicating] with different levels of management and non-management- personnel both with AT&T and General to secure an immediate and lasting resolution to the frequent interruptions in long distance services experienced by Central's Hillsborough customers." We strongly note that Central's method did not produce an immediate . resolution to what it described as frequent interruptions in long distance service. Moreover, Central has disclosed no effort to strengthen its network interconnection to interLATA and intraLATA carriers, and that it continues to want to operate with the same set of failure-mode plans which clearly did not provide timely relief to its subscribers during this failure and, one must assume, will not provide such protection in future failures. - 2 General Telephone of the South, in its short filing of August 28, 1986, seems to disclaim any ability of its own to provide for the quality of its service to AT&T and Central, both of which contract with General for connections between subscribers and the long distance environment. General says that "Any such plan (s) [contingency and diversity] would need to be the responsibility of AT&T-C in concert with the involved local exchange companies." And it. cites that it "is restricted, by Federal Order, in its participation in the toll environment." We firmly believe that the above synopsis points to weak and confusing contractual relationships between the companies that bring about inadequate and unreliable service, contrary to standards set out both in State law and in Commission policy. One can only conclude that Central, General and AT&T each seem to believe that it is the others' primary responsibility to see that the subscriber has adequate and reliable long distance service. We see AT&T admitting its part of the problem and promising substantive modifications. We see Central and General focusing quite narrowly on the symptom, ignoring the bigger issue, that there -will be system failures and as local exchange companies, they must provide adequate and reliable service in a way that their service, and their access to other carriers' service, survives such kinds of failures; that access to a non-functioning node is not access at all. I. Therefore, we respectfully request that the North Carolina Utilities Commission order: 1) That Central and AT&T negotiate direct connections for - interLATA services and, if necessary, that Central be given the authority to construct facilities for direct connection to AT&T's Point of Presence, even if that Point of Presence is not located in Central' s serving area. 2) That Central accelerate the scheduled installation of its new digital local office in Hillsborough for the purpose of supporting these direct connections as soon as possible. 3) That both Central and General construct any new interLATA channels to a different AT&T Point of Presence. to gain higher availability and reliability through a minimum of two physically separated paths. Point 2 of the Commission's August 11, 1986 order calls for reports of toll service outages and for tests and reports on intraLATA and interLATA call completions for a period of six months. II . Therefore, we respectfully request: _ 1) That this docket remain open to review the results of the reports and of the test calls. 2) That the Commission modify its order to call for staggering times for calling into Hillsborough test numbers, and for direct 3 confirmation that each "busy reached" in fact is because the test number in Hillsborough was reached, as opposed to some other number, and that it actually was busy. 3) That the Commission order some testing during the evening hours of 8:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. for incoming and outgoing calls. This the 23rd day of October, 1986. Respectfully submitted, Don Willhoit Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners. 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IiILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 O+..I q ti T: N ago IdEINRAIIILUE TO: COUNTY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 21 , 1986 SUBJECT: CAPACITY USE STUDY OF ENO RIVER On tonight's Board of Commissioners agenda is an item regarding initiation of a capacity use study of the Eno River. This item was also considered at the Planning Board 's October 14 meeting. Mr. Don Cox appeared before the Planning Board to present information about the status of the Eno River and request that a resolution supporting a capacity use study be adopted. I have attached a copy of the Planning Board minutes and Mr . Coxes statement for your consideration. The Planning Board requested that additional information be provided at its November 17 meeting before considering adoption of a resolution . The Board of Commissioners may wish to defer action on a study . recommendation until its December 1 meeting to receive the Planning Board recommendation . If you have questions, let me know . i v�6r ,04( ; Marvin Collins Planning Director 414:7- DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 14 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Chris Best, Tim Hubbard, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz (Prince Taylor arrived at 8:22 p.m. ) . STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Gene Bell , Greg Szymik, Eddie Kirk, Brad Torgan, Joanna Bradshaw AGENDA ITEM #3: PRESENTATION a. Mr. Don Cox - Soil and Water Conservation Capacity Use - Upper Neuse River Basin Mr. Cox presented the report included on pages of these minutes. He also presented slides support- ing his document. Yuhasz inquired if there had been any significant differences in the management practices of the reservoirs over the last four or five years that would contribute to the decrease in the in--stream flow that is being measured by Durham. Cox respond- ed that it had been primarily the increase in the out of basin transfers. Jacobs inquired what would be accomplished by a capacity use study. Cox responded what would be accomplished would be the results of a very complex study by the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Resources (John Wray, John Morris), that would provide a scientific data base for the whole Upper Eno Basin, would establish the recommended stream flow levels and would provide some guidance for options for the communities to deal with. He noted that some stream flow studies had been done but he was referring to a complete study. of the watershed . Jacobs asked if one of the concerns of the study would be a new reservoir site. Cox responded -that the detailed engineering study for a reservoir or dam design would not be part of the study but that a site with the optimum yield could be found. Jacobs inquired about the study performed by John McAdams Company. Cox responded that the study by McAdams was Just a compilation of existing data and not a new study . MOTION: Shanklin moved to recommend to the Board of Commis- sioners that a Capacity Use Study on the Eno River be done. Seconded by Walters. Planning Director Collins recommended that the Planning Board get more information from John Wray before sending a resolution forward to the Board of Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Board to acquire more background infornation on the study by asking John Wray to meet with the Planning Board at the regular meeting in November before sending forward a resolution supporting a study. The motion was withdrawn . UPDATE ON UPPER ENO RIVER, ORANGE COUNTY, 1986 Prepared by Donald N. Cox, Hillsborough, N. C., . September 19, 1986 The Eno River rises in northern Orange County, flows by Hillsborough,_ through the Eno River State Park into Durham .County, where in eastern Durham County it joins with the Little River and Flat River to form the Neuse River. The Eno, at Hillsbcrough has .an average "flow of approximately 66 cfs, an historic 7Q10 of 1.7 cfs; and from yarious stream studies, a need for a 5.4 cfs - minimum flow for preservation of a viable fish habitat. - The water supply impoundments on the Eno River include Lake Orange, owned by Orange County, on the east fork of the Eno, fed by approxtmatelii 14 percent of the river watershed above Hillsborough, providing by fair the major supply of water, Corporation Lake on the main run of the Eno, owned by the Orange-Alamance Water System, a private water company, Lake Ben Johnson, with a dam on the main stem of the river just below Corporation Lake, owned by Hillsborough, and a small impoundment formed by damming the river and cutting a diversion channel for the river, used by Piedmont Minerals for process water to separate the pyrophyllite mined and processed nearby. The Orange-Alamance Water System currently withdraws .6 - .7 mgd with 95% leaving the Neuse River Basin, 75% delivered out of Orange County into Alamance County. Hillsborough withdraws approximately 1.3 mgd for its. service area, approximately 60% is returned to the Eno 3.2 miles downstream at its wastewater treatment plant outfall . Hillsborough may also treat and deliver ! to Orange Water and Sewer Authority, serving Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the Cape Fear River Basin portion of Orange Countyyamounts of water ranging from .4 to 1.5 mgd. All of this portion is removed from the Neuse Basin_ -t -2- • Piedmont. Minerals withdraws 0.25 mgd, 3 or 4 days a week with none drawn the rest. Most of this is lost in process or from evaporation ,from their sediment ponds. - : . The 3.2 miles of river between Lake Ben Johnson and the wastewater outfall is the section of river most impacted by abnormal low stream flows. The Eno River. State. Park begins several miles below the outfall and has. - the river flow augmented by this approximately 0.8 mgd of effluent. Over twenty miles downstream, ' Durham, who operates a wastewater treatment plant "_ . discharging to the Eno has found its 7Q10 dropping from 2.6 cfs in the _ • early 1970's to 0.6 cfs in recent years, due totally to the out-of-basin • transfers. in the upper Eno. . From 1977 through 1985 there have been increasing times of NO flow in the Hillsborough section of the Eno, reaching over 12 weeks in 1985. This year, in recognition of the increasing impacts of these low to no--flows, a strong effort was made to assure a high flow condition, as it turned out, in the face of a potentially very serious drought condition. Reservoir management strategies were developed by Orange County with assistance from the Division - of Water REsources and ways were found to release water through the dams to maintain some stream flow. These efforts were marginally effective, in part because of opposition ._ from several sources to the maintenance of ANY stream flow, and in part because of the learning process of managing, for the first time, a reasonably complex . system of dams and water withdrawls. Water conservation regulations were proposed, established, and then modified to reduce stream flows below the 7Q10 at various stages keyed to the level of water in the Lake Orange impoundment. By early June flow had reached 7Q10. From mid June to present the daily levels have been below 7Q10, as low as 0 to 20% for many days (except for 1-2 days several times from rainfall in August). -3- These regulations were implemented and several conservation and stream- flow reduction levels were activated during the past months. The stream flows were managed with varying degrees of success, but required a significant amount of daily activity from the assistant Orange County !Manager_ As s. a solution to the daily management difficulties, a siebn made of 6 inch plastic pipe has been made and installed which is supposed to provide a controlled 'release from Lake Ben Johnson of •1.7 cfs_ It has yet to a.few operate successfully for more than hours at a time. It is planned that the entire flow of the Eno River'at Hillsborough will be supplied through this siphon made of 6 inch plastic pipe with up to a 3 foot draw down in the water level back of the dam. Resoultions to Difficulties: More Water An effort has just been started to study and obtain consensus on a new water impoundment site on the upper Eno River. Whatever the decision is, it will take 10-15 years to implement. - In the interim, the only choice is to purchase water from adjacent municipalities to augment the existing supply in the amounts necessary-to meet the present and new water supply demand generated from the numerous new housing subdivisions, not yet built, but approved with agreements to supply water and sewer services. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority has requested amounts up to 1.5 mgd or 2.3 cfs for the next 3 years until their new Cane Creek reservoir can be built. They may, however, be able to purchase this amount from Durham when Durham's new Little River reservoir at Orange Factory comes on line next spring. Hillsborough has made efforts to get agreements for water supply from - - Burlington, Mebane, and Graham, but technical and jurisdictional difficulties r� -Y- • have made this a rather unlikely alternative at this time. • The Orange-Alamance Water Corporation, a private water company, is supplying water from the Eno River, Reuse Basin, to customers in Alamance County, Cape Fear Basin, adjoining the areas supplied by Mebane and Graham. The major growth of their service area is occurring in Alamance County. There is at present no limits except presently installed equipment on the amount of water this private corporation can withdraw from the Eno and divert to Alamance County. It appears to me that for the next 10-15 years the demands onthe upper Eno River water will continue to exceed the storage capacity and abuses to the stream flow level will continue to occur. _ It is also a rational judgement that if Hillsborough is forced to purchase water and maintain a 7Q10 in the river, that they will purchase only the minimum amount of water necessary, and that the 7Q10 will become the regulated,. sustained flow existing un-naturally for many months as it was this year_ - . The only regulat`ons devised to deal with th is problem lie within the - Capacity Use Area Act and allow the State of North Carolina to perform scienti - fically based studies of the watershed, develop guidelines to manage the conflicting interests, assist the users in implementing necessary changes. - and if ultimately necessary, declare the Eno River Basin a Capacity Use Area and regulate by permit all withdrawals in excess of 0.1 mgd. The jurisdictions involved have been warned for over 20 years that they would have to deal with their water supply problem. By delaying, and usurping the natural stream flow levels they have created a crisis that has no quick solution. I believe that the time is near where the information gained through a capacity use study by the State will be essential in assuring protection for the Eno River. I would like to ask this committee _to pass a resolution supporting a Capacity Use Study on the Eno River. UPDATE ON UPPER ENO RIVER, ORANGE COUNTY, 1986 Prepared by Donald N. Cox, Hillsborough, N. C. , , September 19, 1986 The Eno River rises in northern Orange County, flows by Hillsborough, through the Eno River State Park into Durham County, where in eastern Durham County it joins with the Little River and Flat River to form the Neuse River. The Eno, at Hillsborough has an average flow of approximately 66 cfs, an historic 7Q10 of 1.7 cfs, and from various stream studies, a need for a 5.4 cfs minimum flow for preservation of a viable fish habitat. The water supply impoundments on the Eno River include Lake Orange, owned by Orange County, on the east fork of the Eno, fed by approximately 14 percent of the river watershed above Hillsborough, providing by far the major supply of water, Corporation Lake on the main run of the Eno, owned by the Orange-Alamance Water System, a private water company, Lake Ben Johnson, with a dam on the main stem of the river just below Corporation Lake, owned by Hillsborough, and a small impoundment formed by damming the river and cutting a diversion channel for the river, used by Piedmont Minerals for process water to separate the pyrophyllite mined and processed nearby. The Orange-Alamance Water System currently withdraws .6 - .7 mgd with 95% leaving the Neuse River Basin, 75% delivered out of Orange County into Alamance County. Hillsborough withdraws approximately 1.3 mgd for its service area, approximately 60 is returned to the Eno 3.2 miles downstream at its wastewater treatment plant outfall . Hillsborough may also treat and deliver to Orange Water and Sewer Authority, serving Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the Cape Fear River Basin portion of Orange County,amounts of water ranging from .4 to 1.5 mgd. All of this portion is removed from the Neuse Basin. -2- Piedmont Minerals withdraws 0.25 mgd, 3 or 4 days a' week with none drawn the rest. Most of this is lost in process or from evaporation from their sediment ponds. The 3.2 miles of river between Lake Ben Johnson and the wastewater outfall- is the section of river most impacted by abnormal low stream flows. The Eno River State Park begins several miles below the outfall and has the river flow augmented by this approximately 0.8 mgd of effluent. Over twenty miles downstream, Durham, who operates a wastewater treatment plant discharging to the Eno has found its 700 dropping from 2.6 cfs in the early 1970' s to 0.6 cfs in recent years, due totally to the out-of-basin transfers in the upper Eno. , From 1977 through 1985 there have been increasing times of NO flow in the Hillsborough section of the Eno, reaching over 12 weeks in 1985. This year,,. -: in recognition of the increasing impacts of these low to no-flows, a strong effort was made to assure a high flow condition, as it turned out, in the face of a potentially very serious drought condition. Reservoir management strategies. were developed by Orange County.with assistance from the Division of Water REsources and ways were found to release water through the dams to maintain some stream flow. These efforts were marginally effective, in part because of opposition from several sources to the maintenance of ANY stream flow, and in part because of the learning process of managing, for the first time, a reasonably complex system of dams and water withdrawls. Water conservation regulations were proposed, established, and then modified to reduce stream flows below the 7Q10 at various stages keyed to the level of water in the Lake Orange impoundment. By early June flow had reached 7Q10. From mid June to present the daily levels have been below 7Q10, as low as 0 to 20% for many days (except for 1-2 days several times from rainfall in August). -3- These regulations were implemented and several conservation and stream- flow reduction levels were activated during the past months. The stream flows were managed with varying degrees of success, but required a significarLt. amount of daily activity from the assistant Orange County Manager. As a solution to the daily management difficulties, a siibn made of 6 inch plastic pipe has been made and installed-which is supposed to provide a controlled release from Lake Ben Johnson of 1.7 cfs. It has yet to a,feu) the operate successfully for more than hours at a time. It is planned that th entire flow of the Eno River at Hillsborough will be supplied through this siphon made of 6 inch plastic pipe with up to a 3 foot draw-down in the water level back of the dam. - Resoultions to Difficulties: More Water - An effort has just been started to study and obtain consensus on a new water impoundment site on the upper Eno River. Whatever the decision is, it will take 10-15 years to implement. In the interim, the only choice is to purchase water from adjacent municipalities to augment the existing supply in the amounts necessary to meet the present and new water supply demand generated from the numerous new housing subdivisions, not yet built, but approved with agreements to supply water and sewer services. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority has requested amounts up to 1.5 mgd or 2.3 cfs for the next 3 years until their new Cane Creek reservoir can be built. They may, however, be able to purchase this amount from Durham when Durham's new Little River reservoir at Orange Factory comes on line next spring. Hillsborough has made efforts to get agreements for water supply from Burlington, Mebane, and Graham, but technical and jurisdictional difficulties have made this a rather unlikely alternative at this time. The Orange-Alamance Water Corporation, a private water company, is supplying water from the Eno River, Neuse Basin, to customers in Alamance County, Cape Fear Basin, adjoining the areas supplied by Mebane and Graham. The major growth of their service area is occurring in Alamance County. There is at present no limits except presently installed equipment on the amount of water this private corporation can• withdraw from the Eno and divert to Alamance County. It appears to me that for the next 10-15 years the demands on the upper Eno River water will 'continue to exceed the storage capacity and abuses to the stream flow level will continue to occur. It is also a rational judgement that if Hillsborough is forced to purchase water and maintain a 7Q10 in the river, that they will purchase only the minimum amount of water necessary, and that the 7Q10 will become the regulated, sustained flow existing un-naturally for many months as it was this year. The only regulations devised to deal with this problem lie within the Capacity Use Area Act. and allow the State of North Carolina to perform scienti- fically based studies of the watershed, develop guidelines to manage the conflicting interests, assist the users in implementing necessary changes, and if ultimately necessary, declare the Eno River Basin a Capacity Use Area and regulate by permit all withdrawals in excess of 0.1 mgd. The jurisdictions involved have been warned for over 10 years that they would have to deal with their water supply problem. By delaying, and usurping the natural stream flow levels they have created a crisis that has no quick solution. I believe that the time is near where the information gained through a capacity use study by the State will be essential in assuring protection for the Eno River. I would like to ask this committee to pass a resolution supporting a Capacity Use Study on the Eno River. r TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Technical Review Task Force - Telephone Richard A. Helwig, Chair DATE: Monday, October 20, 1986 TOPIC: Proposed reply to NC Utilities Commission docket P-89, SUB 23 Long Distance Failures During April, 1986, requests corrective orders from the North Carolina Utilities Commission. The Telephone Technical Review Task Force respectfully submits to you its proposal for a reply to the second round of disclosure responses made by AT&T, Centel, and General Telephone, as ordered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) . This proposed reply comes to you with the unanimous recommendation of the Task Force from its meeting of Monday, October 20, 1986. After both joint and separate filings by the three telephone companies through the NC Utilities Commission, and after meeting with eleven AT&T representatives, and with continual contact with Centel, the Task Force has developed and substantiated several proposals for changes in the operating relationships between the companies providing long distance service to Orange County. The reply that we recommend to you asks the NC Utilities Commission to order these changes. The NCUC can accept our request and order the changes, or deny our request in whole or in part, or ask for further responses from the phone companies, or call for a hearing on the request, or withhold action pending other actions. For completeness, there are probably other procedural options also possible. Our proposed changes fall quite nicely in line with the direction that the Regional Telephone Task Force of the Triangle J COG seems to be heading. The arguments and specifications for our requested changes form a substantial foundation for the COG to build on. October 23, 1986 Ms. Sandra J. Webster Chief Clerk North Carolina Utilities Commission P. 0. Box 29510 Raleigh, NC 27626-0510 Dear Ms. Webster: Reference Docket No. P.-89, SUB 23 At the Orange County Board of Commissioners' meeting on October 21, 1986, I was authorized, by unanimous vote, to transmit this, our reply to the Respondents' separate responses of August 29, 1986 for AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. and General Telephone of the South, and of September 11, 1986 for Central Telephone Company. Without relinquishing any rights to call for other forms of action under the procedures and rules of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, in our reply we are asking the Commission 1) To require of the involved companies a higher availability and dependability of service which depends upon interconnections to and through other carriers and includes the ability to survive common failures; 2) To keep this docket open pending the completion and analysis of the monitoring that the Commission ordered; and 3) To order modifications to the monitoring procedures used by the three companies to give diagnostic meaning to "busy" as well as "failed" test calls. Sincerely, Don Willhoit Chairman Late IIf ell earalitia j °� Sac ky '(• r • tt�tttes eIItv„j$LjIYt •. le"t0• DOCKET NO. P-89, SUB 23 BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION -- •In the Matter of _ ) Orange County Board of C 05i signers, ) Don Willhoit, Chairman, North ) Margaret Lane, , ) Carolina 27278, . Complainants pROEP. SEWING�'�.f(c�MO[+1QLAI�SR�IT RESPONSE OF HE C • v. ) General Telephone of the Sou h,AT&T ) Central Telephone Company, ) Communications of the Southern States; _ ) - Inc. , Respondents ) August 29, 1986, AT&T Comm n d tions further e BY THE COMMISSION: On Aug Order o States, Inc. ,, and. General Telepo � by the u Commission' s hone Southern S On September 11, 19Com Central Order separate responses in this docket as required August �11, 1986, in this docket.separate response. Company filed its .further :sep separate e County Board. of Commissioners h�s informed A representative of the Orange has received copies of these the Commission that Orange County responses. providing i s of the opinion that this rder s should i shall issue v separate The Commission County Board of Commissioners tp the Sep that the Complainant Orange 1986, in which to file its reply, including Monday, October 27, 1986, A form is attached to this Order for the responses of the three convenience of the e County Board of Commissioners oners ORDERED that the Orange which to file its missioe to IT. ve, THEREFORE, October 27, 1986, shall Respondents' responses gin this docket. - the Resp ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.- ''0o This the % day of 986. NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION • : �.�Cerk , � - ��er, Chief Sanira (SEAL) flitute of dortlj Carolina t ttilitirs Commission PI-6Sh DOCKET NO. P-89, SUB 23 BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of Orange County Board of Commissioners, ) Con Willhoit, Chairman, 106 East ) Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North ) Carolina 27278, ) Complainants ) ORDER SERVING RESPONSE, ) REQUIRING FURTHER RESPONSES, v. ) AND SCHEDULING TESTS ) General Telephone and Telegraph ) Company, Central Telephone and ) Telegraph Company, and AT&T, ) Respondents ) BY THE COMMISSION: On June 4, 1986, the Commission issued an Order serving the joint response of the three Respondent Companies upon the Complainant Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Commission's Order requested the Complainant to review the joint response and advise the Commission whether the response was acceptable to it and if not whether the Orange County Board of Commissioners desired a public hearing on its complaint. On June 23, 1986, the Commission issued an Order granting the Orange County Board of Commissioners an extension of time to and including July 14, 1986, in which to file its reply in this docket. On July 11, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners filed its response to the joint response of the three Respondents. The Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the joint response "because it appears to answer only partially item one of our request, to ignore very important aspects of our second item, and to completely ignore item three." The Complainant made the following requests: "A. We ask that the Utilities Commission request a complete response by each of the respondents, separately, to all three of our initial requests. "1) To assist in securing immediate relief [from long distance interruption]. • e "2) To . . . make complete public disclosure of the events, their causes and the remedies taken to date. "3) To . . . develop, under public scrutiny, a plan for a permanent solution to this problem, together with a prompt timetable for the plan's implementation; and, further, to ensure that the telephone service providers implement forthwith the permanent solution so that such problems have an almost nil probability of ever happening again. "B. We ask the Utilities Commission, on our behalf, to inquire about and investigate the management structure of the individual respondents where they interface with each other, with the equipment, and with their subscribers, paying particular attention to their plans for providing continuity of service especially in times of system failure and other crises, and to report these findings to us. "C. We ask the Utilities Commission to begin monitoring long distance service to Orange County for all abnormalities, and to review the results against their requirements for adequate and reliable service, and to report the findings to us at appropriate intervals. "D. Lastly, we wish the opportunity to review and evaluate further all additional information that comes forth in response to all the foregoing questions before we request further action by the North Carolina Utilities Commission." A copy of the reply of the Orange County Commissioners is attached to this Order. The Commission is of the opinion that the Respondents should each reply in a separate response to the requests of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in its response of July 11, 1986, to the extent that the requested information is not contained in the joint response of the Companies filed May 20, 1986. The Commission is also of the opinion that the three Respondents should implement a testing program on long distance calls to and from Hillsborough and file reports thereon with the Commission. The Commission desires that such testing should begin on September 1, 1986, and continue for a period of six months. A proposed testing program is set forth in ordering paragraph 2, below. The Respondents shall be afforded an opportunity to file comments on the, proposed tests. If no comments are filed, the tests should begin on September 1, 1986, and continue for six months. If comments are filed, the Commission will consider them and issue a further order. 0 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows: 1. That each Respondent Company shall reply, in separate responses, to the response of the Complainant filed on July 11, 1986, to the extent that the joint information is not contained in the oint response filed May 20, 1986 . The replies of the Respondents shall be filed with the Commission on or before August 29, 1986. 2. That on and after September 1, 1986, the Respondents shall implement the following tests and reports; provided, however, that the Respondents may file comments on the testing program on or before August 25, 1986. If comments are filed, the Commission will consider them and issue a further Order. I. Future Toll Service Outages Centel , General , and AT&T shall individually report to the Commission any conditions with their respective facilities which disrupt toll service into and/or out of the Hillsborough exchange. The report shall be made in writing as soon as possible after discovery of the service affecting condition. The report shall indicate the nature of the problem, the date and duration of the disruption and the corrective action taken. II. Hillsborough Originated Completion Tests Centel shall report to the Commission on a monthly basis: 1. the results of intraLATA DDD completion tests from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill , Durham, and Raleigh such that during each month, at least one hundred (100) test calls are placed to each of the above exchanges. The tests should be placed during the busy hour(s) of normal working days and spread throughout the month. 2. the results of interLATA DDD completion tests from Hillsborough to Mebane, Roxboro, and Hickory such that during each month, at least one hundred (100) test calls are placed to each of the above exchanges. The test calls should be placed during the busy hour(s) of normal working days and spread throughout the month. III. Completion Tests Originated from Other Exchanges General shall report to the Commission on a monthly basis: 1. the results of intraLATA DDD completion test calls from Durham into Hillsborough such that, during each month at least two hundred (200) test calls have been placed during the busy hour(s) of normal working days and spread ad throu hout the month. Centel shall report to the Commission on a monthly basis: 1. the results of interLATA DDD completion test calls from Roxboro, Asheboro, and Hickory into Hillsborough such that, during each month at least one hundred (100) test calls have been placed from each of the above exchanges. The test calls should be placed during the busy hour(s) of normal working days and spread throughout the month. P AV. Submission of Reports to the Commission 1. The reports and tests required by preceding paragraphs I, II, and III shall be prepared and submitted to the Commission for a period of six (6) months. 2. The reports required by preceding paragraphs II and III should include such pertinent information as: a. date and time tests were performed. b. the date and time any failures occurred, the type of failure encountered, the cause of failure., and any corrective action taken. c. all test results should be segregated according to originating and terminating locations, time, and date. 3. A copy of the reports shall also be served upon the Complainant and the Public Staff. The Public Staff is requested to assist the Commission and the Complainant in the evaluation of these reports. ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. This the //.6i, day of( 1986. NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION i (SEAL) an.ra . "e T e , l e 1 erk ... G'T ,-rr- _i - , ,.: _- 4.a` 1 AUG `, - General Tel : a Corn any t of the South' 4e - • ...s { e 3901 Roxboro Road. tF P. Box 1412 Terry M. Desmond Durham, Nor4Carolina 27702 Government Relations Manager 919-471-7656 "`--- Ms. Sandra J. Webster, Chief Clerk '' ,; North Carolina Utilities Commission , '` � a Dobbs Building 430 North Salisbury Street ' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 August- 28, 8 SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. P-89, SUB 23 Dear Ms. Webster: In the Commission's Order dated August 11, 1986, each Respondent Company in Docket No. P-89, Sub 23 was ordered to reply separately to the original Complaint filed on July 11, 1986 to the extent that the ' requested information was not contained in the joint response filed May 20, 1986. General Telephone Company of the South has reviewed the Order and it is felt that the joint reply adequately covered the events and actions taken in connection with this Complaint. The joint response represents a more in-depth response than General could have provided individually since General provides only access capacity, under tariff, to AT&T-C for Central Telephone Company's Hillsborough Office. General Telephone Company of the South is restricted, by Federal Order, in its participation in the toll environment. General cannot separately develop contingency or diversity toll plans, nor can it individually implement such plans. Any such plan(s) would need to be the responsibil- ity of AT&T-C in concert with the involved local exchange companies. General has taken action to implement the ordered INTRALATA DDD comple- tion test calls from Durham into Hillsborough. The testing program will begin September 1, 1986 and continue through February, 1987. General will report the results to the Commission on a monthly basis with copies of the report going to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Public Staff, in accordance with the August 11, 1986 Order. If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at 471-7656. Your truly, ./ i' 'RY M. DESMOND JWC:mrb A part of GTE Corporation 6.7 . __ g rte . y #1 r 1 BEFORE THE �i � rt`'�'y���{ f:`" NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION `=' " In the Matter of Orange County Board of Commissioners, - ) Don Willhoit, Chairman, 106 East Margaret ) Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 ) Complainants ) ) vs. ) Docket No. P-89, Sub 23 ) General Telephone and Telegraph Company, ) '". Central Telephone and Telegraph Company, ) and AT&T, ) Respondents ) RESPONSE OF CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - NOW COMES Central Telephone Company -- Worth Carolina (Central) and files this response to the Order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission dated August 11, 1986. In support thereof, Central responds to the response of the Complainant filed on July 11, 1986, to the extent that the requested information is not contained in the joint response filed.May 20, 1986. Central's response will reference those items contained in the Commission's Order of August 11, 1986 as follows: - "A. We ask that the Utilities Commission request a complete response by- each of the respondents, separately, to all three of our initial requests. . "1) To assist in securing immediate relief (front all long distance interruption) . Central's Response: Central, a local exchange carrier, is primarily responsible for local access service. Central recognizes this responsibility to its customers for the provision of total service. At the present time InterLATA Long Distance Services are provided in Hillsborough by AT&T. Further, General Telephone of the South (General) provides access to - the interLATA and intraLATA long distance networks through its Durham toll center. Moreover, as a contractor for Central and AT&T, General currently provides Hillsborough customers with operator and directory,- assistance services. It is Central's responsibility to represent its customers .with General, Southern Bell and AT&T. This is exactly what Central did during the April 1986 interLATA long distance outages. Central communicated with different levels of management and non-management personnel both with AT&T and General to secure an immediate and lasting resolution to the frequent interruptions in long distance services experienced by Central's Hillsborough customers. The results of this effort have been set forth in the joint response filed May 20, 1986 and the response of AT&T filed August 29, 1986.- "2) . To... make complete public disclosure of the events, their causes and the remedies taken to date. • • . . . is i +�, 4•').• ,!i:', r Central's Response: Following is Central's record of events: April 8: The AT&T's Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down at approximately 11:00 AM and was not restored until 1:15 PM. Central contacted both General and AT&T concerning outages. April 9: Central experienced sporadic problems throughout the day. Although the times are estimated, the network first went down at approximately 8:45 AM and was back on line at approximately 9:20 AM. The second outage occurred ,- at approximately 11:00 AM and was back on line at approxi- mately 11:45 AM; the third outage occurred at approximately 1:30 PM and was back on line at approximately 3:30 PM. Central contacted both General and AT&T concerning all outages. April 10: Central's records indicate the AT&T Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down at approximately 9:30 AM and was not restored until approximately 10:00 AM. The AT&T Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down again at approximately 12:30 PM and this time was not restored until approximately 2:30 PM. Central contacted AT&T again to refer problems to higher management. :: � 4. =I 3 .» • April 11: Central's records indicate the AT&T Long Distance Network (CCS function) went down again at approximately 10:00 AM and was not restored until approximately 12:15 PM. Central was also advised on this date by General that they and AT&T were converting 720 trunks from digital to multifrequency signaling to help alleviate the service outages. April 12: As this was a Saturday, Central had an employee stationed in the Hillsborough office to monitor the situation. We did note a problem on Saturday .- morning but due to lower traffic volumes and access via the 720 trunks General and AT&T had converted, there was minimal effect on Hillsborough customers. We did not log a specific time of outage on this date. April 13: Again, Central had an employee stationed in the Hillsborough office to monitor the situation but did not encounter any service affecting condition on this date. April 21: Central personnel in our Technical Assistance Center notified its Vice President-Operations that they were again experiencing trouble dialing into Hillsborough/Durham area. Suspecting this could be connected to the prior problems, the Vice President-Operations contacted General's General Manager in Durham to inquire about the problem. The General Manager investigated the situation and reported back to Central that one of the "A" links failed and in the process of switching to the alternate "A" link, Durham lost access to 150 trunks. We understood the AT&T Long Distance . Network (CCS function) went down .at approximately 8:25 AM and was not restored until. approximately . 11:35 AM. "3) To ... develop, 'under public scrutiny, a plan for a. permanent- solution to this problem, together with a prompt timetable for the plan's .- implementation; and, further, to ensure that the telephone service • providers implement forthwith the permanent solution so that such problems have an almost nil probability of ever happening again. Central's Response: Central believes the plan for permanent solution to the interLATA long • distance failures referred to in the Commission's Order of August 114 . 1986 has been adequately addressed by the joint respondents in its response of May 20, 1986 and AT&T's response of August 29, 1986. . Central will fully cooperate with all parties in this regard. • "B. We ask• the Utilities Commission, on our behalf, to inquire about and investigate the management structure of the. individual respondents where . they interface with each other, with the equipment, and with their subscribers, paying particular attention to their plans for providing • _ • 1 in times of system failure and other continuity of service especially crises, and to report these findings to us- • Central's Res onset ' different levels of Central interfaces with Genera]. and AT&T °n` many management and nonmanagement. Our non-management craft personnel • management work together with General and AT&T under supervision of manag sites leaving for installation, removal and• repair of trunk ro reg ularly Distance Ne�rtc through Hillsborough and connecting with AT&T's Long • ham toll center. Various levels of management and the Durham • non°managem ent craft personnel with Central converse and continue to • h their respective counterparts with General and AT&T on ' work with er who • regular basis. Central has an Industry Relations Manag g Our Vice• communicates regularly with AT&T and General. . President-Operatio ns communicates with General and AT&T at the higher levels. Central has numerous contacts both with General es I • management leve central believes I Regional and Corporate offices- and AT&T through our Reg • that all of these interfaces and •points. of contact are more than \ . adequate to protect service continuity- Commission to begin monitoring long distance ”C. We ask the Utilities and to review the service to Orange County for all abnormalities, results against their requirements for adequa.te. and reliable service, to report the findings to us at appropriate intervals:. \ ' ' and t P \ . \ . • y; 3FrG" : : 6 \ . , , . :d • Central's Response:, - As previously reported to the North Carolina Utilities Commission in a letter dated August 20, 1986, Central will begin test calls as prescribed on September 1, 1986 and will continue for six months and will report the results to the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the Public Staff and the Orange County Board of Commissioners for their review. "D. Lastly, we wish the opportunity to review and evaluate further all additional information that comes forth in response to all the foregoing questions before we request further action by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. .- Central's Response: Central will. cooperate fully in providing information as requested.. Wherefore, based upon the Joint Response of May 20, 198&, the response of AT&T and General, the additional information contained herein and the - results of the testing which will be forwarded to the Commission, Central. has complied fully with the Commission's Orders of April 17, 1986 and August 11, 1986. This the 11th day of September, 1986. - Res - tfully submitted, 3X.. .4°7).17T Imes M. Klmze ounsel McMillan, Kimsey, Smith - & Roten • Central Telephone Company 205 West Martin Street Post Office Box 150 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 . - 7 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Response of Central Telephone was duly served upon the the following parties this date by depositing a copy thereof, postage prepaid in the United States mail, addressed as follows: _ Mr. Don Willhoit - Chairman Orange County Commission 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27178 7- Public Staff North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29520 - Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0520 Mr. Wade H. 'Hargrove Counsel to AT&T Communications of the . Southern States, Inc: - • Post Office Box 1151 - Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 - Mr. Dale E. Sporleder General Telephone Company of the Southeast Post Office Box 1412 Durham, North Carolina 27702 This the 11th day of September, 1986. :roes M. Kimzey r`r • . 1 • r ;ja'"aa rl'+.t. • TIIVAVRRZLNGTON, S IT:U. 8.7 XIAIRGROVE • .A.TTORtii'1S AT LAW RALEIGH,I-I,NO.RTIT C:AI2OJ:.INA C'.t r"t LS�i ],TC[:11-; 1IAILItiG Aflr,Rrs'J . 41007-RAM-11 AM-11 J.71.\ROLTT 7'l.�.�Tirll\GTOti 1'-C.P.PDX L.1,61 XL\7.E16H,V.C.27t301.! HOC;1'7:}y.STI 7'.'1r '-��---- \,-A 11A TiC7COVN 01'171C I:.‘i C:PCll-i&Y. 120OISTER,5 l't. (`TSTL FAYrC•rr\•n T.Y S•IJ- CP-:1.71 ALL 0.1'0U'L..L It Al 1;11C;rr,N.C.:27001 .1i (:.I., SCiE,A1117. 0014 Ii.I:D\1•A liD.S `—T--� 151 ANN sr.T`14A.7: /r,iUM L"t�1-i711 nOL'.c:.T.AS 1:.lc 1::Crtil3Trtv r.rr.AlTt,rlr r. r11:1•co"r.>t IiIn C:•WIC l 1:r3'I I,L - Z-:r,7]COP11.1n ANN-I.1-rA.;3 T?ti;t'-,c IDIT:r '2 -I 1i;) T1i014. ..T.D 1:..`:;ON 1.1.1z0.0.i:N 731"Ii1.'0N CSC4%.1011 1511(1115111.C:13OWT:X.Y. " J-C3.v_:)PAT--REN' G.'PR.-:AN COLLTtiS,.T] C.A7:.Y:1_:ONT)LYO\r. August 29, 1986 Ms. Sandra J. Webster • Chief Clerk North Carolina Utilities Commission _ Dobbs Building 430 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, - North Carolina 27611 Re: N.C.U.C. Docket No. P-89 , Sub 23 Dear Ms . Webster: • Transmitted herewith are an original and thirty (30) copies of the Response Of AT&T Communications Of The` Southern States, Inc. to the Commission' s Order dated August 11, 1986 , in the above-referenced Docket. Copies. of the Brief are being served on the Public Staff, the . Orange County Commission and all parties of record. If any questions should arise during the course of your consideration of this matter, it is respectfully requested that you communicate with this office . • Very t my yours, THARPINGTON, SMITH & HARGROVE • tic,_e H. Hargrove _Counsel to V AT&T Communications Of The Southern States , Inc. WITH/k s • Enclosures • • BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of Orange County Board of Commissioners, .: ) Don Wiliho:it, Chairman, 106 East Margaret .) Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, ) Complainants ) vs. ) Docket No. P-89 , Sub 23 General Tel.ephor^ and Telegraph Company, ) Central Telephone and Telegraph Company, ) and AT&T, ) Respondents ) RESPONSE OF AT&T COZ.DIUNICATIONS NOW COMES AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. (AT&T) and files this Response to the Order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission dated August 11, 1986. In support thereof, respondents show the following: On August 13, 1986, AT&T representatives from External Affairs, Network Operations, Technical Support Departments, and Bell Labs met with Mr. Dick Helwig, Chairman, and several members of the Orange County Technical Task Force (the Task Force) . The purpose of the meeting was to respond directly to Orange County' s request for information in addition to that which was filed with the N.C.U. C. on July 11, 1986. Included herein is information 91` provided to the Task Force in advance of the meeting in an effort to promote an open, constructive dialogue among the participants. As a result of the meeting, AT&T has undertaken several actions to assure itself and the customers it serves in the Orange County, Durham and Raleigh areas that high quality service is provided on a continuous basis: - Ongoing discussions are in process with A= Headge rters Network planning and implementation organizations to ensure continuing atter-iti-e::; to the possible impacts on customers of designing- and deploying new functionality in the AT&T Network. AT&T recognizes the increased complexities of software dependent networks and the interdependent relationships that exist in those networks down to the local end switching office. The purF)ose of these discussions is to renew our commitment and efforts in designing and deploying networks that provide high quality and reliability to ensure customer satisfaction with AT&T services. - An AT&T Quality Assurance Task Force representing Operations, Engineering, External Affairs, Access Management, etc. , is being established to address the issue of service quality in the Orange, Dur-hai - 2 - N+ 0 and Wake County areas. Orange County Technical Task Force members discussed problems they have been experiencing receiving and originating i_nterI TA long distance calls. AT&T' s Quality Assurance Task Force will work with Genra.1 and Central Telephone Companies to identify p_:obiems and take or request corrective action. AT&T. will report conditions which disrupt toll service into and/or out of the Hillsborough exchange as ordered by the Commission. With respect to the orange County Com nisi;ion' s concern regarding emergency plans or backup plans, the information provided in Section II of this Response clearly demonstrates that AT&T has provided for emergency situations , that may ffe:ct customer service. AT&T has redundant equipment in its switching offices, duplicate CCs switching offices (i.e. , Atlanta and Birmingham) , diversity in the signaling network and voice path network and several layers of operational and technical support. organizations to isolate and correct network trouble as quickly as possible on a real time basis. Contractual arrangements with the LECs (described in section II). also establish their responsibilities for ensuring network performance on services provided to AT&T. - 3 Although the AT&T network design from Greensboro to Durham is not unique, nor are there chronic service issues related to this facility, AT&T is studying the feasibility of providing addit5„,nal facility diversity from Greensboro to Durham.. The conclusion of this study will be shared with the • Orange County Technical Task Force.- • AT&T is evaluating alternative ways to- inform • customers about how to contact the Cc;,mpany when they are experiencing problems with a long distance connection. The Technical Task Force expressesl a concern that customers do not know how to tell AT&T they are having trouble originating or receiving interLATA calls. AT&T is willing to work with the Local. Exchange Companies (LECs) to evaluate alternative serving arrangements between the facilities of AT&T and - those of the LECs, including direct connection from . a planned new local switch: in Hillsborough to AT&T's Point of Presence (POP) . These alternative serving arrangements are access facilities which are a matter for ultimate determination by the Local Exchange Companies. - - .4 -• -- After a reasonable period of inservice operation of the new digital local office planned for Hillsborough, AT&T is willing to meet with the Oranga County Technical Task Force to discuss the quality of AT&T service they are receiving at that time. WHEREFORE, . based upon the Joint Response of Nay 20, the additional information contained herein and attached hereto, and AT&T' s meeting with the Orange County -Technical Task Fc'rce, is clear that the cause of the service outage problem in early April has been permanently corrected and that AT&T has taken reasonable and appropriate actions to ensure continued quality, reliable Service to the Orange County area. Resp ctfullly Submitted, /4/ //lr Wade H. Hargrov Tharrington, Sml. h & Hargrove Counsel AT&T Communications 2.09 . Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh, North Carolina 2760] . )1-1- 1A-aCCIL. Gene V.-Coker General Attorney AT&T Communications 1200 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 August 29, 1986 • - 5 - 1 _ 1 economics, etc. Durham may remain a System 6 software location without affecting any service currently available. AT&T could not convert back to System 6 software because that system had been replaced by the• installation of 2STP . computer hardware and System 7 software. - System 7 software -; s not being "debugged" on line. The software was tw and debugged in its development process. AT&T waz; ins Calling and testing. high capacity circuits (4!fl links) between 2STP: that used System 7 software which, when c o mb _ e 1 with the i comp<... vil) .e software protocol int.f._fric': and l-h..- ...c!.ib• •-ter' _ Cdr `.!.'.'_eci. .: .. ..�:... _ -� ti.. Durham switch to the CCS network, resulted in th:: tpril network failure. - - There were only two types of breakdowns in AT&T's network, one software and the other hardwar e, both of which have not occurred since they were: corrected on. April 21. The network failures during the week of April 6 through April 13 , and on April 21, affected Hillsborough and twelve,: other offices - whose interL?TA calls were connected to AT&T ' s network through the Durham office. Calls originating from cities in other Lr TAs (e.g. , Charlotte or Rocky Mount) to these thirteen offices would not have been .co 7 leted. Calls between Charlotte and Rocky Mount were not affected by this network problem. Cooperation, communication, and coordinated action between AT&T, General, and Centel existed at all times through the identification and correction of the network failure. - -- During the period of trouble, alternative options and fixes were investigated. Action was taken• to reduce service • interruption while trying to isolate the problem. General Telephone and AT&T converted 720 CCS trunks to Multi- . Frequency (MF) type signaling. The MF trunks are not affected by CCS troubles. It was decided to leave these - trunks as MF to provide additional network diversity and - redundancy. . -- The design of the network changed, again in July and will change again in June of 1987 as part of our e fort4 to . provide quality, reliable service. Diagrams of the current and future network configurations are included in the next section of this report. AT&T is willing to work with the Local Telephone Companies to evaluate any 'additional net.c•york • configurations that will improve service to its customers. -- As a result of the August 13 meeting between AT&T and the Orange County Technical Task Force, AT&T is studying the feasibility of providing additional facility diversity from Greensboro to Durham. The conclusion of this study will be shared with the orange County Technical Task Force. - 9 - 0 The Hillsborough serving office will convert from a step-by- step switch to a digital switch in March, 1987 . When this occurs, Centel will have the capability of splitting inter.L 1TA and i.n t::aLAT 1 traffic and delivering ATT traffic to AT&T' s facility Point of PresLInce (POP) in Durham- in one of three ways: 1. Entirely boa.i.nd the Durha wl access tanderi (P1-;0) . 2 . Directly to AT&T' s facility POP on a final group. 1' h]•C; ti. �•4 • �)I.1.':'i�•L..i.w i.:Ci .�:�.L'�<'.l Q �. .+.....:':i,�.��_..:}r .. �'`_? C.:;?, a �:.7 with alternate 5 n, canahiliti s behind the} D l ci acces tandem. The method cha seer. is a local company decision by Centel and/or their designated agent, Gene .al Telephone- of ti1:._ South. _owovor, AT&T will cooperate with them and provide there with forecast information to help then cow-, to a decision. " . .W. ----- -- • • ___________ _____ • ________ , .. - • _.._ .. .---- - • 1 , .. 4 , . - Attached are diagrams of the long distance network delign today and nn plaed for 1937 - included is information about the components of the network, the programs, systems, and t_ohnical centers utiliz . by AT&T to monitor and manage y• the quality and reliability of the network; and escalation guiCelinas for correcting 2STP problems were given to the Technical Task Force. This information addresses network structure, management, and pnrformanea. - AT&T contracts with Gsnral Telephone of thz .South (GTS) whereby GTS provides interi, TA switching to AT&T through toll center at rnlrhn - CTS is responsible for the planning, engineing, xu:-intnnnen, Lnd mace :-: n-rn .Jary for providing and onrating senviceL; and facilities provided to AT&T. AT&T contracts for guaranteed switching capacity mPam2red by equivalent voice circuit terminations required to provide for the intorLATA demand. Each party is responsible for raintaining tIlat portio-;-i of the into.rtoll massage trunk and switching ecuipmcInt which it provides. The cc vary operating the office which first recognize'.7, a . trunk failure is responsibl for isolating, reliring, and/or referring the trouble as approoriate. • GTS nay institute network controls to eliminate network con ,ntnn. . caused by failure or malfunction of AT&T facilities an aust notify AT&T immediately of such action. In the case cn' the interLATA network failure in April, the AT&T STPs "tol '' the Durham switch to stop handling signaling traffic on both sets of "A" links . While this was not a network coninnol instituted by GTS, there was immediate communication between the. Companies. - Back--up plans and emergency plans to ensure reliable, continuous service are requirements of the design and evolution of the network. The diagrams of the currant network design (attached) provide a graphic presentation of the diversity in the network through both CCS and multifreguency trunking. The CCS Network is supported by the it2SCCS Support System and the following support centers: RWC (Remote Work Center) , NESAC. (National • Electronic Switching Assistance Center) , Bell Labs, and CNAC' (CCS Network Advainistrtion Center) . . - Redundancy and diversity are network design requirements. The AT&T CCS Network has rc7fIndancy throughout the country. The CCS Network is dividd into regions with two 2STP5 each. • The 2STPs within a region are mate offices, each with internal backup capabity (i.e. , duplicate processors) , in case of a total machine failure. Each 2STP is connected to its regional mate 2STP and all other 2STPs. via one or more • layers of diverse Signal Links (SLK) . Depending on the • • ' volume of long distance traffic, the. switch office is able to increase the signal link capacity and/or build additional links to meet its switching needs. In addition, the Atlanta and Birmingham 2STPs each have one signal. link to the Durham switch office. Each signal link has two diverse facilities, for a -total of four diverse routes to the Durham office. - 14 - NN No. 573 WM ID N/A SERVICE CONTRACT This contract, made and entered into this 6th day of October 19 86 by and between the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center and Oran a Count Personnel • That for the purpose and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center hereby contracts for the service of training for specialized foster parenting accept the terms of such a contract. and they First: The service to be performed by Orange County Trainer is as follows: Training, including 8 two-hour sessions plus preparation and coordination time, for prospective foster parents_ Second: This contract shall begin on the 6th day of October 19 86 , and unless sooner terminated by mutual consent or as hereinafter shall exist and continue until the 20th day of November 86 vided, provided that either party shall have the right to terminate this contract for service upon two weeks (14 days) notice in writing to the other party. expected that the contractee will conduct his/her duties in a manner consistent with the mission of the OPC Mental Health Center as a human service organization. Violations of the terms of this contract shall be grounds for immediate termination of the contract by the contractor. Third: The Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center agrees to pay the sum of _ $20.00 per hr, serices og traifor a maximum of 52 hours or $1040.00 as full compensation for the- 7 upon receipt of an invoice which indicates the amount of monies owed to the con- tractee for services rendered. The invoice whould be sent by the 5th working day of each month after services are rendered to assure payment by the 15th of the month. If the bill for service comes to the office after the 5th of the month, the contractee will receive payment by the 30th of the month. it is understood that _ work time called for in this contract will not exceed sixteen (16) hours per week. It is further understood that the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center assumes no medical, professional, or automobile liability insurance either for the con- tractee or the client served. Contractiee or u1t/r�,L/rized Agency Representative 56-6000327 • Ss# / Federal Employer ID # Address: 106 E. Margaret Lane _ Hillsborough, NC 2]2]$ THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN PREAUDITED IN THE MANNER- REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET AND O'/ � / FISCAL CONTROL ACT. William F. Baxter, Jr., la Director, OPC Mental Health Center i/(�/ctj r r DAI7CI FINANCE-OFFICER ~ ` . Date Ti r ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT # 573 OPC agrees to pay a lump sum of $1040.00 in advance to Orange County for a maximum of 52 hours of trainer time (including preparation, coordination, training sessions and transportation) . It is understood and agreed that all unused monies will be reimbursed to OPC upon the termination of this contract. 10/21/86 Contractee Date Orange County iu ,L Will am F. Baxte , Area Director Date OPC Men al H alth Center 2,(1.1.1( 7 474 Orange County Department of Finance / Date THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN PREAUDITED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET AND FISCAL CONTROL ACT. id/446 5e Scµ� DA FINANCE OFFICER I O4 ORANGE COUNT] Acrion Agenda . • BOARD OF O SSIORLRS tU� • ACTION AGENDA ITLM ABSTRACT Kamm DATE October 21, 1986 Subject: APPROVAL OF BID FOR GENERATOR [Department.:PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES I i Public Hearing- Yes X DO • z • Attachments: Information Comlact: PAM JONES, X497 ' BID TABULATION Phone Embers: 732-8181, 965-450-is 227-0231- • . FURPOSE: To consider an award of bid to install a 30 KW generator at .the Orange County _ Jail. Note that this expenditure from the Capital Fund had been placed -on hold pending resolution of the Sheriff's concern over the adequacy _as to generator size (see attached memo now supporting the generator proposed • for purchase) . _ NEED: The Orange County Jail has electrically operated cell and access doors. Currently, in a crises situation where electrical power to the jail is disrupted, the doors. must be opened manually, a cumbersome, time-consuming 'process. It has been ascertained that the generator currently being used at the jail is not sufficient size to operate both the lights and doors. - -Since this presents an extremely dangerous -situation it should be. addressed immediately.. . Bids were solicited in September, with three companies responding, a . - tabulation is attached. - IMPACT: There is $5,000 in .the :capital project fund specially _for this work to be done. Funds -are available for the additional $2,200 required. - RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve unfreezing of the Capital Fund amount for. generator ' purchase. 2. Recommend. that the bid for change-over to a 30 KW generator. at the County Jail be awarded to Energy Conversion Corporation of Greensboro, NC for a sum of $7,200. - 1 APPROVED 11/3/86 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on October 21, 1986 at 7: 30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioner Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr. , Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers William T. Laws and Albert Kittrell, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Director of Planning Marvin Collins and Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Lloyd inquired about the status of the request made by Grainger Barrett on behalf of Alice Gates Durham and her two sisters involving a narrow right-of-way. Ken Thompson indicated that the matter had been referred to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Willhoit stated that those wishing to speak to items on the printed agenda will be recognized at the time that item is discussed. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Josephine Barbour commented about an accident which occurred last Sunday at the intersection of St. Mary's Road and Highway 70. She requested that DOT be informed of the accident and asked to investigate this intersection for placing of a traffic light. Chair Willhoit indicated a letter would be sent to DOT asking for an investigation and report. D. ITEMS FOR DECISION 7. CAPACITY USE STUDY (A copy of the verbal presentation given by . Don Cox is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. ) Don Cox, Chair of the Soil and Water Conservation District, gave a slide presentation showing the Eno River at different instream flow levels. He emphasized that a capacity use study by the State will be essential in assuring protection for the Eno River and asked the Board to pass a resolution supporting a Capacity use Study on the Eno River. After further discussion of the instream flow and comments from the Board about the study, a motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize a request be made of the State to conduct a capacity use study to assist in the development of short and long range management strategies and plans. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. REPORTS 2. TELEPHONE TASK FORCE REPORT (The entire response is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) Dick Helwig, Chair of the Technical Telephone Task Force presented on behalf of the Task Force a reply to the second round of dis- closure responses made by AT&T, Centel, and General Telephone, as ordered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. He outlined the recommendations as contained in the response. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner • 2 Marshall to approve the response to the North Carolina Utilities Commission as presented by Dick Helwig on behalf of the Telephone Technical Task Force. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. ITEMS FOR DECISION 5. BID FOR GENERATOR An award of bid to install a 30 KW generator at the Orange County Jail was presented for consideration of approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the bid for change over to a 30KW generator at the County Jail and award the contract to Energy Conversion Corporation of Greensboro, North Carolina for a sum of $7,200. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. REPORTS 1. TRIANGLE AREA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STUDY (A complete narrative of the presentation is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. ) Dr. Emil Malizia, member of a study team for Transportation Research and Education at the University of North Carolina, gave a summary of two reports. Report No. 2, "Travel in the Triangle: Choices" presented an analysis of transportation service options for the region and report No. 3, "Travel in the Triangle: Implementation, " presented proposals for implementing the options selected for new public transportation services in the Triangle. In an effort to reflect the views of the local officials in the area, he requested that any feedback to the reports be given to Marvin Collins or Don Willhoit. The transportation advisory groups will take all feedback into consideration when preparing the final report which is scheduled for completion before December 31, 1986. D. ITEMS FOR DECISION 2. MEETING FOR A HEARING ON THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Ken Thompson noted that following a review of the revised agree- ment on October 13, it was agreed that the County Manager and representatives from the Town and County Board would meet to incorporate certain language changes. With reference to the requirement of joint approval of the Land Use Plan and Plan amendments, Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that changes to the Land Use Plan as well as changes to any of the County's ordinances are legislative acts which cannot be delegated. The County Commissioners are the final decision makers on any legislation which is part of the Joint Planning Process. The Board may delegate responsibility to a planning agency for reviewing and approving development projects including the delegation to the Town of Chapel Hill if the Board so desires. After further discussion it was decided to request that the representative from Chapel Hill draft some language for the changes they advocate in time for the first meeting which will be scheduled the first part of November. It was the consensus of the Board that Commissioner Marshall serve as the Board's representative; that Commissioner-Elect John Hartwell be invited to attend the meeting, and that a public hearing for considering the Joint Planning Agreement be set for November 18, 1986 in Chapel Hill. 3. CAMPAIGN SIGNS -, 3 Commissioner Lloyd expressed concern with the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance as it refers to campaign signs. He agreed a time limit should be set for removal of signs after an election but requested that the Ordinance pertaining to campaign signs and the fees and requirements for erecting the signs be reviewed. Ken Thompson indicated that the Ordinance was not enforced in the Spring but plans had been made to enforce this Ordinance in the fall election. Chair Willhoit stated that since signs are already erected for the fall election it would seem inappropriate to begin the enforcement at this time. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this matter to the Planning Board and request a more reasonable ordinance dealing with political signs. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. CONTRACT TO PROVIDE FOSTER PARENT TRAINING Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the service contract for providing specialized training for foster parents who provide care for "Willie M" (special needs) children and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. BUDGET AMENDMENTS Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to amend the 1986-87 Budget Ordinance as stated below: GENERAL FUND Appropriation - Teen Networking Team $950. 00 Source - Contingency $950.00 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8. CHANGE ORDER FOR REVERE ROAD OFFICE ANNEX Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the change order for various changes in the ceiling wall and floor to better match the new installation with what is already in existence and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. APPOINTMENTS ARTS COMMISSION Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint William Hannah. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, November 3, 1986 in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk I