Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2018 Town of Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2018 Opening: The regular meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:00 pm on June 27, 2018, in Southold Town Hall conference room. Present: Members Present Members absent Guests Chris Baiz John P. Sepenoski Venetia Hands Douglas Cooper Karen Rivara Bob Hanlon Jim Glover John B. Sepenoski Jr. Tom Stevenson Mark VanBourgondien Councilman Bill Ruland Approval of Minutes: ndththth Agenda, Minutes of May 2, 16 & June 6 2018 meetings distributed for review and changes. May 16 has nd a paragraph (highlighted) to be revisited for clarification. Motion to approve minutes of May 2 made by th Mark VanBourgondien and seconded by Tom Stevenson. Motion to approve minutes of May 16 made by th John Sepenoski Jr. and seconded by Doug Cooper. Motion to approve minutes of June 6 made by Doug Cooper and seconded by Mark VanBourgondien. Ongoing Business: Reminder about Public Hearing 7:30 pm on July 3, 2018 - in relation to Amendments to Chapter 205, Public Entertainment and Special EventsAll committee members are asked to attend the public hearing. Next scheduled meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee is set for July 11, 2018 7:00 pm in the S from local farmers. Tom Stevenson sent an email with the following suggestions: a) Notes are taken and officially entered into minutes. b) clarify, defend, or maybe even speak. We can digest what was said at our next meeting. c) Have a speaker sign-up list at the podium and put a time limit on comments (3 minutes? 5 minutes?) so that everyone has the opportunity to speak. If there is time at the end, speakers could by all means speak for a second time. I think microphone hogging/rambling should be avoided. Town of Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2018 Joint work session review and comments: Chris Baiz attended and presented information to the Reasons and backup material will be necessary in order to change the Town Code. Committee discussion on commentary given at the work session by Councilman Dinizio and Town Attorney Bill Duffy. The committee is concerned the Town Board and local government do not appreciate the full economic impact of the local agricultural industry. Local restaurants could not survive without the influx of tourism we get during the growing season. The Farm Credit East handout from Chris Baiz helped other Town Board members better understand how farm businesses are benchmarked. 280-13. Use regulations. Permitted Uses, Farm Operations, bulk schedule is in the zoning tables. The Town Attorney needs to do the bulk schedule along with Permitted Uses with Town Board approval. All of chapter 72 of the Farm stand Code is to be included in 280-13, along with the farm stand operators permit. The Permitted Uses need to coincide with the definitions. There are differences in various agencies regarding farm zoning. Ag & Markets classifies farms as agricultural zones and the Suffolk County Health Dept. maintains they are commercial zones. The work waived by the Town Board. Committee members asked if this was a public printed document that could be FOILED. This Town document was confirmed to exist and has been applied in the past. Committee members also asked to receive the existing 280-13 Permitted Uses and the revised 280- 13 Permitted Uses for review before the public hearing. Other Business New/Old: Food Truck issue was discussed and reviewed. The sale of prepared food items from food trucks in low density zones AC through R80 are not a permitted use. Food trucks may fall under accessory uses but are permitted in business zones and at permitted special events. 8 Hands Farm was given as an example and has a mobile food truck permit for a mobile food truck that has never moved. They also have a Suffolk County Health Dept. permit that states they do not have public seating. There are also tables available for customers buying food from their food truck. Town of Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2018 In the case of wineries, the Code allowed certain things to be served at wineries such as crackers and cheese. Currently, wineries do not feel they want to provide food as the Code only allows for certain foods to be served. Wineries have utilized food trucks to sell food to customers that believe food mitigates the effects of alcohol served. Food Trucks are welcomed and solve this issue for the Winery and tasting room owners. and does this apply to public or private events or both? The Food Trucks want to provide this service and the Wineries want to continue to use them. Food Trucks are not even a permitted use by special exception per the zoning code. Additional discussion about permitting Food Trucks as there is a need for them. Young people are the ones with the energy to run a Food Truck and cannot afford the costs associated with a brick and mortar building, especially starting out. Maybe permitted Food Trucks should be connected with a local restaurant. Email sent by Chris Baiz on Jun 27 at 2:37 pm references Harvard Kennedy School paper titled: On the Go: Insights into Food Truck Regulation. This paper can be accessed at the web address: https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/case-study-food-trucks-585. (Copy attached). This illustrates how other cities are dealing with the Food Truck issues. To address the Food Truck issue with the Town, the committee needs to state the positive reasons to have Food Trucks and why those reasons are important to both wineries and the Town. The Food Truck issue is one that no one could have foreseen, therefore maybe the Code is not flexible enough in some areas -density parcels (AC through R80). Noise code ordinance was given as an example of how Town Code was adopted to address a need within the Town. There is much future discussion warranted on Zoning Code issues and being able to amend the Code without opening the door to additional issues. Mention was made about the legal notice of Public Hearing published in The Suffolk Times regarding -(See attached). The committee letter dated March 27, 2018 to Scott Russell and the Town Board (see attached), was handed out as well. The hearing is set for July 3, 2018 and all committee members are asked to attend. Review of Chapter 205 . eds to be clarified. All ordinance. The committees suggestion was that it should tie in. Town of Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2018 New Business: speakers, responses to speakers, giving feedback at the end of the meeting, compartmentalizing the agenda for the meeting were all points covered. Speakers would be asked to: Make their point. State objections Provide solutions Providing ideas to the Agricultural Advisory Committee will assist the committee in guiding the Town Attorney to protect Agriculture in the Town of Southold. The hope is to get ideas and feedback. Mark VanBourgondien was asked to act as liaison with the Long Island Farm Bureau to get the word out about the listening session. Announcement made to make the committee aware of a grant promotion at ELIH for free mammography and radiology readings for the underserved or underinsured in our area. This would possibly benefit some of the underserved farm workers. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Jim Glover and seconded by John Sepenoski Jr. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Cheryl Kaswell HARVARD Kennedy School for Democratic Governance and Innovation ON THE Go -, INSIGHTS INTO FOOD TRUCK REGULATION Paper Series: Regulatory Reformfor the 21st-Centuryit Initiative of the Ash CenterforDemocratic Governance Innovation Jessica Huey, Harvard Kennedy School, MPP Candidate 2/20/2015 ON PHE Go-, INSIGI I FS INTO FOOD TRUCK REGULATION Raper Series: Regulatory Reform dor the 21st-Century City, an Initiative of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Abstract Mobile food vending dates back to as early as 1866 with the creation of the "chuckwagon" to feed roaming cattlemen in Texas. Since the late 2000s, however, food truck popularity has exploded capturing the attention of not only consumers and entrepreneurs but also regulators and city officials. A number of hypotheses exist for the dramatic rise of food truck vendors. Some cite the recession's impact on brick and mortar establishments while others point to the use of social media which enable vendors to reach followers in real-time. Whatever the cause, it is clear that food truck vendors aren't planning on going away any time soon. Cities across the country are recognizing that existing regulations do not adequately address the challenges of operating food trucks. According to a 2012 forecast by Intuit Inc., the food truck industry is projected to account for approximately $2.7 billion in food revenue by 2017, making it a substantial player in the food service industry.' This case study presents a review of the current state of the mobile food vending industry, the challenges facing cities in regulating this industry, and examples of how four cities— Austin, Washington D.C., Boston, and Portland - have attempted to balance entrepreneurship with the preservation of public health and safety as they implement regulatory reforms. The Problem Prior to 2008, mobile food vendors could most commonly be found scattered around construction sites and a select number of street corners. The recession's halting effect on the economy, however, changed the landscape of mobile food vendors as construction stalled and many entrepreneurs began to rethink the mobile food industry. First garnering national attention in large urban centers like Los Angeles and New York City, food trucks have since spread to cities large and small. Offering an alternative for 1 Food on Wheels: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream,September 2013. wwwtilc.or Documents Find 22OCiLt �'`�2OSolutigns Research%20�nnovation Economic%2ODevelooment TFoodJEgEkRe ort20'13 Final 3-2�, dF _ I40."! Key dyschOIDI ASH CENTERA both business owners and consumers leading increasingly on-the-go lifestyles, food truck vendors benefit from their ability to more easily reach new customers bases while customers benefit from increased variety. As food trucks have grown in popularity, many city officials wrestle with how to update regulations to mitigate any negative externalities. For many cities, existing regulations applied to mobile food vendors were originally narrowly defined for ice cream and hot dog vendors. Municipalities are being forced to revisit these regulations as issues arise over competitiveness, parking, sanitation, property and sales taxes, and proximity to brick and mortar businesses. Feeling the impact of competition, many restaurant associations are also weighing in to ensure this new industry is subject to the same health and safety regulations as other food service providers. All of this has provided much fodder for the public debate on whether food trucks should be allowed to operate, and if so, how they should be regulated. Understanding the Problem To fully grasp the mobile food movement debate, it is necessary to recognize the challenges of varied state and local approaches to regulation. Other major issues include how cities can best provide enforcement mechanisms, ensure fair competition, and protect public health and safety. Varied One of the major hurdles with the rapid growth of food trucks is that each locality has a different approach to regulating, making it difficult to implement standardized regulations. Regulatory debates are shaped by the different perspectives of local stakeholders, including food truck vendors, local restaurant owners, restaurant associations, consumers, and city officials. These regulations — or lack thereof - often reflect the priorities and values of these stakeholders. Portland, for example has actively promoted food trucks as a means to spur economic activity. Other cities have faced strong resistance to food-truck friendly regulations largely due to vocal opposition from restaurant associations. In some cases, there is tension between state and local regulations. For example, when the City of Los Angeles attempted to impose stricter local rules on mobile food vending, courts overturned these attempts. This is due in part to the fact that catering trucks are regulated by state law, which allows local governments only the authority to impose additional regulations to protect public safety or health. In 1993, the state of California declared in Barajas v. City of Anaheim that the use of streets for commercial purposes is a matter of public concern and subject to regulation imposed by the state, and not the city. A 2006 ordinance prohibiting food trucks from parking in the same spot in a residential neighborhood for more than a half-hour or in a commercial area for more A"IWnedySchool ASH CENTER than an hour was overturned based on the fact that it did not directly affect public health or safety of citizens.z Enforcement In addition establishing regulations, many cities are challenged with implementing effective enforcement. In densely populated cities like New York City where the demand for mobile vending permits often exceeds supply, the bureaucratic processes and waitlists for obtaining a permit present stiff barriers to entry for new vendors.3 As a result, there are many reports of unlicensed vendors. In Los Angeles, an estimate from the Los Angeles County Health Department speculated that around 11,000 illegal vendors operate every day within the county—of which an increasing number are illegal food vendors.4 According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, over 2,000 different state and local agencies in the United States are responsible for inspecting food trucks across the country.5 Once identified, such illegal vendors can face fines, jail time and have their property confiscated if they are caught selling food illegally. Many cities, however, simply lack the manpower for effective enforcement. Ensuring Fir Competition Another major concern with the dramatic rise in food trucks is whether there is fair competition between mobile food vendors and brick and mortar restaurants. Restaurants want to ensure food trucks are subject to many of the same operating regulations while food truck operators would like regulators to think critically about which regulations are appropriate for this new industry. Some restaurant owners argue that mobile food vendors are not subject to the same taxes as brick and mortar restaurants, such as property taxes. Mobile food vendors contend that they are still required to pay taxes on their mobile truck and equipment, gas, and all required municipal sales taxes, which can vary if vendors cross city or county borders. With respect to state and local taxes, some states have taken steps to enact new sales tax legislation that has positively benefitted mobile food vending. Recently, California's State Board of Equalization adopted a regulation that saves food truck operators the 2 UCLA Law Students Help Taco Truck Operators Overturn LA Ordinance,June 2009. fatty, latimes i I .lati es.cofrn/lanow 200'9 5 Aclaj:iaw st dents-heq -taco-truck-o erators-overturn- la-ordinance.html 3 The Food Truck Business Stinks, May 2013. www.n time�s.corfw 2013 OS 1.2 maine tlfe oodrotruck-businessstlnks.htrrtl? aewaarted=ails r0 4 40 Percent of LA Food Trucks and Carts Unchecked by Hearth Inspectors,April 2014. www.:sc r.or ro rains airtalk 2014 04 0fJ 36339 'fort errernt-of'wfa-food'-trucks-andmcartti-unchecke 5 Food Truck Secrets; 10 Things Food'Frucks Don't Want You to Know,September 2012. www.luffir� ton ost„com 201.2 0'T .3 food truck secrets-10 thin s n 1694775.html . AraVl ARo�t�em�rt�ufY ctr��a.. ASH CENTER hassle of charging their customers a different sales tax rate as they drive from city to city. Effective July 1, 2014, the regulation presumes sales tax is included in the price of taxable items if the retailer has not added it separatelyes Debates of fair competition also include the issue of use of public and private space. Mobile food vending is most popular in cities with lots of foot traffic. In already densely packed downtown areas, public and private parking for food trucks can be limited. To regulate these spaces, cities have used various approaches including creating food truck hubs or pods as in Austin and Portland or establishing designated food truck parking zones with lottery assignments like Washington D.C. and Boston. Other cities regulate the geographic boundaries between food trucks and brick and mortar restaurants. Ensuring Public Health and Safety The food truck regulatory reform debate invariably leads to questions about public health and safety. Many cities and states require food trucks to use a commissary. Commissaries are established commercial kitchens where food service providers can go to prepare and store food. In cities with regulations prohibiting mobile food vendors from preparing, storing, or cooking food on the food truck, commissaries are critical. Commissaries also provide cleaning and sanitation areas and facilities to safely dispose of grease, used water, and solid waste.' Some cities are exploring regulatory reforms that work around existing health codes in a way that still protects public health. In 2011, Go Box, a local Portland business, introduced a business model that allows consumers to use re-usable containers despite health code Section 3-304.17 which prevents customers from bringing their own containers for takeout. Go Box's model allows customers access to reusable containers that can be deposited at a number of drop-off sites to be professionally cleaned and returned to participating food truck operators. In other sustainability efforts, the City Council in Austin passed a measure in May 2014 that makes it easier for food truck vendors to recycle and compost. Under the previous health code, it was difficult to offer composting or recycling services. This ordinance would allow mobile food establishments to provide solid waste, recycling, compost, or used oil receptacles on the same property and detached from the mobile food establishment.$ 6 Board of Equalization Serves Up Simpler Sales Tax Regulation for Food Trucks,June 2014. lwtkl./ vvw oe.ca.rry/news/2014/32 14 . fir 1-low to Start a Food Truck:I earn About:Commissaries,February 2014. h1t� FooaltrLicicr.ELiI 0ial 02Lstart-food-truck I rri corniiiissaiit x Austin City Council, May 2014, littp://www,aListiritexas.gov/'edirns/document.cfm?id=209384 toi9nbt 40.Kefinedy cool ,S ENIT E Regulatory Reform Policy Ar�eas In September 2013, the National League of Cities produced Food on Wheels: Mobile a report exploring regulatory reform areas for cities to consider when regulating the mobile food vending industry. After analyzing 13 cities of varying size,the report identified four main policy areas offocus for regulators: 1> Economic Activity — aspects of food truck regulation that could potentially enhance economic development (e.g., streamlining permitting processes and permitting costs) 21 Public Health—aspects related to sanitation and food safety 3) Public Smfety — aspects related to the utilization of private property, vending proximity to schools, and pedestrian safety 4) Public Space — aspects of food truck regulation that deal with the use of the utilization of public property to conduct business (e.#., time constraints, proximity rules, and geographic limitations related todensity) These policy areas are among the most debated in the mobile food vending regulatory reform process and will bethe basis ofour analysis.The following case studies will highlight four cities and provide an overview of their attempts to enact regulatory reforms inthese areas. o!�VARD Kennedy School �� ASH CENTER | Case Studies Austin, TX • Fbnulation •885,400(2013) • Municipal Code •Austin City Code,Sac. 10-3-1:Mobile Food Establisi n ei s • Relevant Wabsite • Flaming and Development Inview Departrrent •www.audintexasgov/department/rmbile-food-establistmerts • Estimated dumber of 82gd Truck I rmi • 1,400+ mobile food vendor permits in Travis Carty(2012) mom wwnwmio qua µ..w .. iM wvf hay r be goCatr d Nenr�IbodxVdsney centralized permttirg wauitwwn fY teat+ Ar l�Itd roof adoPI addttiarel prone$ resdential and vwdx permit r P 11-19 lworrst fulher conlrerdal u e building w pti red "Alict food tucks warrrmmaWrfWrftoanerrinmmnrmr a ......mn .... m .mmw raHrvinvrmmmilnyimmmammamawwaromnmrcan!mmrcrnrcm� 'Morro»nunmmrvmwnomvrvrmwmwwmo-%ronnarvnmwmrmrm New permt and permt Mav rcaC lrp ..,, the Slbjed to amal fire wwt n20 f irq)ediomb�r ftArdin renewal checklw3 Heafth and aHinenrtm Departno restauart SerHces Department Fre ...... uuuuuuuuuuuummmu. uuu ou r' ,. mwonw,ww.u:rmwmumur wuwwwa�� �mwmwmmrummnw.w,vrrwrtiwvwfuwioii�w� NW sknit rrcwrflfy' h4a preside mck matte um all tWr Uirtrat itinerary t"eparationAWfity+to crty off date Local Context Known for their food-trailer parks — or hubs of stationary food trucks — Austin's mobile food vending scene has developed almost as rapidly as the city's economy since 2007. During the recession, food trucks became a popular venture with over 900 registered food vendors in Travis County by the end of 2008. By 2012, the City of Austin's Health HARVAASHRD Ken t CENTEsRnoa and Human Services Department reported over 1,400 registered mobile food vendors in the county.9 During this same period, Austin's economy and population were also growing rapidly. According to the 2013 Census Bureau estimates, Austin had the greatest population growth among all U.S. cities with fewer than 1 million residents.10 By 2013, Austin's economy was thriving, leading the nation's cities in gross metro product growth at 4.6 percent." While the rapid growth was good for Austin's economy, it impacted the mobile food industry by making it more difficult to find open land suitable for food-trailer parks. Food-trailer parks gained popularity from vendors because they could share resources and often attract a stable following. The food-trailer park model also benefits landowners who collect rent from vendors after obtaining the permits and installation necessary to provide electricity and other resources. Despite the challenges of finding open land, many vendors are enjoying Austin's economic boom and the demand for food trucks by Austin residents have helped put the food truck scene on the map. Regulatory Reform Highlight: Economic Activity Since 2008, the City of Austin has taken significant steps to encourage the growth of mobile food vendors while ensuring the protection of neighborhood interests. To facilitate growth, the City of Austin streamlined the permitting process for mobile food vendors which previously required vendors to deal with multiple departments for all the appropriate permits. With a centralized permitting process, applicants are presented with a checklist of all the forms required in order to receive a mobile food vendor permit. Mobile food vendors in Austin are subject to annual health and fire safety inspections and vendors are also required by law to disclose a central preparation facility, or CPF, where they store, clean and dispose of their products.12 Enforcement of these regulations lie within the jurisdiction of the City of Austin Code Department, the City of Austin Zoning and Right of Way Departments, and the City of Austin Health and Human Services Department who work together to regulate food truck activity. While encouraging economic growth, the City of Austin has still remained responsive to the community's interests. The city currently allows for neighborhoods to adopt more 9 Food Truck Industry at Crossroads,March 2013 E tt err ac ?c r .c rr�J rustar�w°war m cemJ�r�IL ±ul n food trtick-fndu.istr ITat, rrassro d§Z Everything's Bigger,and Still Getting Bigger,in Texas, May 2014. t /(tr�vwv�r.a�sne .cca�w m*Ls ttcl s 201400 14 L,c Lie ..lr11211f, mations fastest-growirrg•us qn us-bureau-say._ s 5 11 Austin's Strong Metro Economy Will Stay Ahead of the Pack for Years,Report Says,June 2014. !Lttpjjuwrvu .I Iz rfl als ce�rr f ust'rn/r°flews/?0'I. lta d,�°a�z trrrs rrao g metro ecr norn mauvi@I-sta <�t��Mad- _ y ref Fr mli age a011l sz Food Trailers and the Health Department. ,ham: foordtraiNrwrstsustira,uw cr�rs comA¢ocl tr°adlfl-haltha Ia�s�ectwp,M.ws H "YARD Kennedy5chool SH CENTER restrictive regulations for mobile food establishments with respect to operating times and locations, subject to City Council approval. The Planning and Development Review Department provides aIT i�)pjhl ati zoneswith additional restrictions on its website— making it easy for the public and vendors alike to be aware of current regulations. Public H.��Slulth -20(i On, MA Boston, MA • Fbpulation • 645,966 (2013) • Municipal Oode • Mobile Food Truck Ordinance •www.dtyofbostongov/foodtrucksl regulationsf ordinance.asp •Mobile Fbod YMdp_r l i e .www.dtyofbostmgov/foodtrucW • Estimated Nurrber of Fbod Truck Pernits •80+ food trucks(2014) �a...����,w,w,w,�,���we�roew,�0000�����000������roa.R,���.m.�,w��,.w.w..�.m.�w..................................... .......................�w.....www...........................,o ° so Offi Initiatives and Mobtle t� for approved . eeeee ��� F9rtneredwith W%ord, Rotridesnroxtt nto to create a food truck 'to rr r �s pthlicc*ace parking to learn abort city Food Truck Committee legal toolM regulations 4--.......omu,riwwrvmm.;wxvi— mpvm,w rcnmmrvm rsn,mmmwmmm;vnn uu wrvarwmvanv no norvr,ury auw; �—)ww)rvwmv,ru 'v ,m^ounoym o Wj iresa GF5 PrmidesRies of the permitting Wizard Naagahon oMiact Orlire searchable application foreasy ,a identify trLtks database of latest food Rrad h3rdbo ns.an li4 permit completion wit pIrwer health inspectionreaits I'I "noper0ltie catit catioru aaol u a Ides OrilRblesfar ir to RRoof of Cerfif i ad atedion Wbnager oorsurersard%erdars ard thick locafiom Gormis ary Kitchen Local Context With less than a hundred food trucks, Boston's food truck scene may be small in numbers but it certainly has not been overlooked by city officials. Since food trucks became popular in Boston's dining scene in 2011, the City has been active in promoting the industry's growth while focusing on ensuring a healthy and sustainable industry. ttvAgf➢KenrredyclrorwN lH CENTER Boston's approach to mobile food vending largely focuses on transparency and collaboration. In 2010L the City mfBoston established theof Food­ ' As effort,of this ��n� the City later established the Boston which brought healthy food trucks hosted 6vthe city todowntown Boston and into residential neighborhoods. To help food truck vendors navigate the process of starting up a food truck business, the city has an Office of Food Initiatives as well as a Mobile Food Truck Committee. As required by ,the Mobile Food Truck Committee includes representatives from the Department of Public Works, the Transportation Department, the Inspectional Services Department, the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Director ofFood Initiatives, and the Assessing Department who collaboratively review and approve food truck applications. Since 2013, the City of Boston has implemented a Live Lottery to provide new and existing mobile food vendors with equal access to all city-approved public sites. This year vendors entered into a lottery to select from over 500 shifts available for the upcoming vending year, which begins April 1, 2O1S. Regulatory Reform Highlight: Public Health Often recognized as one of the most innovative cities, the City of Boston has long been using data and technology to advance public good. As part of the city's food truck permit application process, all mobile food vendors are required to register with a GPS contract.navi ion Data is shared with the city to update the Office of Food Initiative's food truck website. This data is open to the public and allows customers and city officials to . This also helps the city ensure that registered food trucks are vending in the appropriate locations at the appropriate times, thus allowing the city to better identify illegal vendors operating without proper certification. While many cities have established health and safety codes for mobile food vendors,the City of Boston allows residents to access data in a user-friendly format. In accordance with the Massachusetts State Sanitary Code, food service establishments are inspected at least once per year. New restaurants cannot open without an inspection and approval from the Health division. The City ofBoston, in addition to listing all food truck locations on the Office of Food Initiative's food truck website, provides data for all food health inspections via , an online searchable database with the latest available inspection ratings by the Health Division of the Boston Inspectional Services Department. The site provides a list of previous inspections, ratings, as well as links to specific violations with comments. The city also provides an online, interactive food truck permitting guide tohelp ensure vendors are advised ofthe appropriate regulations. HARVARD Kennedy School | _ ��� ������ NOW NOW , mal Illll, I-brtiand, OR • Fbpulation • 609,456 (2013) • Municipal Code • Oregon Adrrin Fates, Sac 333-162-0020:Mobile Food Units • Relevant e • B9reau of Ranring and ESAainability • www.portlandoregongov/bps(52798 • Estimated Number of Fbod Truck Fbrmits • 800+ licensed mobile food units(2014) !Hftht wrv,w,. ..Cedrailized mobile notify Cauriy Amial rrobile food tU3e of�ire property food unit pemittirg epartment with odor perrrit rer eml "poaio'omn priatA proem oute charges requred srface parldrg lots �x,on ..,......,......�.w�.. 9Zronir Must haee a base of Allowsfor alcohol ro Dewdopmert Marr operatiorq or licereessbjed to strict erecAmedi tw of corrrrissary,urie$ va¢a '4k s for food pacific requrerreris Ore n ISgatr'Cortrd Irr kduslers are met w rrrrw orw ales Biu retro ... urv��umrv�wrmtiw�rmrrwmiuimuuinunmu�w�, an�wmm� mmwi�w,nw��rmvmwrevN v�mwMw�r�mrrmwa�" .., ...Rk .a. e.....A. fto �� "e iflormationtodlizEn' and oerdorsalilae ftayNrak t'rar taw acrd disrerrinetirg er rrdors regulations �'urmm�wmnmmmmmmwmrvniwwwr ri�ri�rv .: nw�v�mrma��m^� ���r�r�r�s�,ur '. Local Context With the rise in food trucks in Portland beginning in the 1990s, the city has long been referred to as the country's food truck capital. In 1997, a working group was established to create guidelines for the mobile food vendors. In 2009, the city developed an Economic Development Plan which specifically incorporated the mobile food industry. In the plan, the city outlined steps to encourage the use of vacant lots for food truck clusters to deter blight and promote economic development. As of 2014, the city ttAgy? tRKerwr¢edyacirool ASH CENTER estimates over 800 licensed food vendors are operating in Portland and the surrounding Multnomah County.13 1ltegullat„oory lReform 11°Iliighllii,g1hty Public Safety A major challenge for mobile food vendors is how to integrate into a community while preserving public safety of citizens in public spaces. One solution is to create better utilization and regulation of private property where food trucks can reside without competing for limited public space. A second solution is to ensure both food truck owners and citizens are well informed about food truck operations and regulations. Well-disseminated information about regulations is a key to ensuring public safety. Portland's food truck scene has led the way for developing regulations that would allow for the creative use of private property to create "pods". By transforming vacant lots into food truck hubs, Portland generated more foot traffic into areas that may have been subject to blight and crime. With over 20 pods in the city, vendors are able to share resources and build community. These regulations have helped food truck vendors not only establish themselves in the community but also play a role in revitalizing these vacant lots. Current regulations provide that as long as stationary mobile carts have functional wheels, an axle for towing, and are located in a commercial zone,they are considered vehicles and are not required to conform to zoning or building codes on private property. Portland also recently became the first city to pass regulations that allow food truck vendors to obtain alcohol licenses. In 2014, nearly a third of the city's food car pods served beer, wine or cocktails, under strict compliance with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.14 Portland has also been looked to as a model of a city that allows the mobile food industry to thrive while ensuring regulations are well-disseminated. Citizens and food truck owners alike can find ample information online about food trucks via sites like Food Carts Portland which offers tips for helping new vendors and maps of the food truck pods as well as links to a number of previous studies on the impact of food trucks on the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability's website. Beyond the mobile food vendor application itself, the city also provides easy access to information about how to operate vending carts on private property and a detailed Mobile Food Unit Playbook with examples of different types of vendors and flowcharts to aid new vendors through the application process. The latest food safety news can be found on the Chefs Connection — Multnomah County Food Safety Blog which helps vendors stay up to date on regulations and provide tips for safer food handling. 13 Portland's Food Carts Thrive,While SF's Languish,September 2014. Fitt niissionlocal /. 1 't9'aa i t915,-fgod racts-cat -w!hiie-sf's-whileh 14 Food Cart Culture Digs In,Grows Up, Has a Few Drinks, May 2014. V Nt a v�ara�a rn_pji trE i c0 .�1/ r + s 218877-78013-food art culture � ti Na:�r r a'ia �w fear,, drinks- "RVARDKennedyS hoot ASH CENTER Washington, D.C. I,IIII • Fb 'on •646,449 (2013) • Municipal Oode • DCMRVendirg Fegtlations-Title 24, Ch5 • Relevant Website • Departmert of Coranw and Regulatory Affairs tittpJ/ dcra.dagov/service/rrobile-food-truck-lieerisrg-information • d TrudLaKMi • 200+ registerd mobile food vendors(2013) Iid,V!ii ' .................... Provides detailed Lottery 919emfor Firesfor illegal Mobile Vending Info mobileroadvay verding of$300 or packet vending zonee for tp to 90 days injail limited mobile vendirg 'gni ....a w.mrn.*auow✓r u�" �Nmrm^r---i. ".).)-n...............­. Vendors not in MVZ nid stay 200 feet away from zores or face$1,000 fire ,—"" Vendors not in MVZ are sbjed to existirg parking lawsard fees Local Context For the past four years, the debate over the regulation of mobile vending in Washington D.C. has been closely monitored by its many stakeholders. In 2013, after multiple proposals and amendments, new regulations were passed affecting over 200 registered mobile food vendors. These new regulations included health and safety provisions as well as the much discussed "Mobile Roadway Vending Lottery." HARVARDKennedy School Ke ASH CENTER Department o Co su er a Regulatory Affairs Prior o these new regulations, eg Y allowed food trucks to operate under regulations for ice cream trucks as they workedon new regulations. In December 2010, the city council engaged in a lengthy e ate over e future of mobile vending operations, The regulations passed in 2013 were a major step o a s re-evaluating the current regulatory structure of mobile food vending. Regulatory e r Highlight: is Space The new city regulations have helped provide guidelines on one of the primary concerns of the local mobile food industry — use of public space. Under the Mobile Roadway Vending Lottery system, the city allows a limited number of vending vehicles, chosen through a rotation-based lottery system, to sell food (or other goods).15 The lottery occurs monthly and allows vendors to rank their location preference for each day of the week. There are 95 spots in eight different zones that vendors are able to apply for between the hours of 10:30am and 2:30pm. Vendors pay $25 each month to enter the lottery and $150 if they accept an assignment. When vendors are selected by the lottery, they are assigned to their highest preferred location which has an available space. If no spaces are available when selected, they will be assigned as "off". No vendor will be assigned an "off' day unless the number of lottery entrants exceeds the number of available spaces (i.e. greater than 95 lottery entrants). Based on this rotation lottery system, no vendor will be assigned a second "off' day until every entrant has had a first "off' day, thus ensuring equal access. Vendors who do not receive a spot via the rotation-based lottery system on a particular day must stay at least 200 feet away from the zones or face a $1,000 fine. The three agencies that oversee regulations of food trucks include the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Health. While the effects of these regulations have yet to be seen, Washington D.C. is making steps to tackle the issue of regulating public space. This case is also an example of the growing mobilization of food truck owners' participation in regulatory debates. With associations like the DMV (D.C., Maryland, Virginia) Food Truck Association and other trade associations being established nationwide — often as a result of lengthy debates with city councils and local restaurant associations - there is a growing trend of food truck owners coming together to strategically represent the collective interests of all mobile food vendors. is D.C.'s Food Trucks Try to Adjust to the City's New Regulations, December 2013. D t C? w .rnr� hlr rs l ,bra,er.c a r rl< s ca�ang rro 91 �n ry k1 1 L.I c c-,Oood tN ucks Y tai. adjust-to-the-citys-riew reputations/ NARidARO KonnedySdioot ASM CENTER ReSLIHS As the mobile food industry has grown, it has forced cities across the country to consider the economic and social impact of this industry on all citizens. Every city faces a unique set of challenges—the cases presented here looking at Austin, Boston, Portland, and Washington D.C. - demonstrate the different approaches to regulating the industry based on the input of stakeholders and the status of the local economy. As the examples show, cities are increasingly looking at food trucks not only as an alternative to traditional dining but also as a player in larger economic and community development plans. The disruption of food trucks has forced cities to think critically about what and how they choose to regulate. Whether it is by leveraging data and technology to support traditional enforcement or by redefining existing regulations, regulatory reform efforts in the food truck industry have resulted in a wide range of approaches that at the end of the day are aimed at helping you answer the age-old question of"What's for lunch?". HARVARD Kenn ed y Schoo I A S H CEN TER BOUT T11 IE Aurli I Jessica Huey is a MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Prior to attending the Kennedy School,Jessica spent five years working for the City& County of San Francisco focusing on workforce development initiatives and labor negotiations. Jessica got her start with the City& County of San Francisco as a member of the inaugural class of City Hall Fellows, a year-long fellowship program in local government. Jessica received a BA from Brown University with a double major in Public Policy and Hispanic Studies. ABOUT THIS PROJECT The Regulatory Reform for the 21st-Century City project,funded by the Smith Richardson Foundation, is exploring, identifying, and developing a best practice framework and accompanying resources for cities seeking to learn more about regulatory reform. This work addresses the fine balance between public health and safety and economic development in regulation at the local level. As part of this project, this paper series is a resource for those US and international cities looking to learn more about regulatory reform, as well as those interested in replicating and adapting best practices to streamline regulatory development, licensing and permitting, and compliance in their own cities. ABOUT THE RIEDITOR Stephen Goldsmith is the Daniel Paul Professor of the Practice of Government and the Director of the Innovations in American Government Program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He currently directs (Data-Smart City Solutions, a project to highlight local government efforts to use new technologies that connect breakthroughs in the use of big data analytics with community input to reshape the relationship between government and citizen. He previously served as Deputy Mayor of New York and Mayor of Indianapolis, where he earned a reputation as one of the country's leaders in public-private partnerships, competition, and privatization. Stephen was also the chief domestic policy advisor to the George W. Bush campaign in 2000, the Chair of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the district attorney for Marion County, Indiana from 1979 to 1990. He has written The Power of Social Innovation; Governing by Network: the New Shape of the Public Sector; Putting Faith in Neighborhoods: Making Cities Work through Grassroots Citizenship and The Twenty-First Century City: Resurrecting Urban America; and The Responsive City: Engaging Communities Through Data-Smart Governance. HARVARD Kennedy School ASH CENTER "l Y PHSIl 11': Wed .Irani 06 I`;33:09 131)li' 2018 ID. l,r hirrii ,aClmi 1, illi. SEVERABILITY LICGAJLNGTfGE thraaaI lwwaah yP dfany clause,sentence,paragraph,section,or NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGI G oiixunarttec rna anber shall sr rve witta- part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by I OTICIE IS HEREBY GIVEN,there has out aoTJ?T1§4ta99any court of competent.yuriisdictdon to be in- been. presented to the Town Board of the I k,ny_rrua rnhc,r i�lrrr fa&s to otWnd ,at valid,thejudgment shall not afFect the valid... Tower of Southold, Suffolk County, blew least haltl rat�Yhr nra°r.Grrsr Baal t1iu 4;dp�i�nuupC+�irr ity of this law as a whOo or any part thereof Y York.,on the 22nd day of May,2018,a Local af tea ru i rjltYrtalral ya r" haull be!rihaeo lo ta.a other than the part so decided to be unconsti- Law entitled"A Leos alt Law in relation rrlra C uoitaorrlr a^logr iu uas,ePrara6u�vrpti° tutioroal or invalid- .mm....... un to oorovrllrorr„ C to 71 A ricultural,Advisaag,,�gqui- of the Committee IV EFFECTIVE DATE, rnittee� and 7 1.1.Powers w ar ural 17letrov This Local Law shall take effect imrrnediately ,S._— No'rlG:E IS HEREBY I+UR'1 11Elt The I Advisory Conuoiltrtau upooa. (thug with the secretary of Suite as GIVEN EN that the'I'own Board of the'1'own of` shall. provided by law. Southold will hold a poubbc treating on the A The Town 134mid sh.atll rekr Ifrr I;%per': Dated:May 22,2018 aforesaid Local Law at Southold Town dfall, lwosv d aralq_rlsrrwplorrf rNcva lrrpranruprt qrn l%t tas tlrg BY THE ORDER DE R OFTIE 5309.5 Main Road, Southold,New York,on l'°crnarnutc;c far revtawv. SOUTHOL17 TOWN BOARD the bird alae of,fully 2tU1tf al 7.BIl a,.rn. at TB Elizabeth A Neville y I II ` uriw1-1 nd atrcaaw it the Town alio uiarltaavidrthe Southold Town Clerk whcch time all interested persons wall be ant .. given an opportunity to be heard. @"hitpnrrer 13tr¢rel %s qu talo uvulry°�,in pa Ir tc,yr Rd 2222290 —. to Iit r3rerr q The proposed Local Law entitled, A La� ar la s rrrcrlaacdai�brut not hmrted cal Law i n relation to to the Adollnlion or re'ravisrou>_to the Town,C aide of the'i`owu aif" Iakuee 71r A u�r_an_ltural_�lal,�o..-C—or—rrou%aaN1, wsrans willhich r.._ .�..a rare.x 11p m,° of detract Brom the vii uhrl� o y flroe retteene �'reacts as follows: urs _...-._ LOCAL LAd1�W NCS..20918 a allntd rruhrslarres etre the la�wvn o1 'Srrarth- A Local Law entie tl...d 'Xvela- _ m....,..._ _ aaa.ul lrmw ter rold. drain to theA�lneaatsaan rrf C,hurfl„ice?I a Abui�- C. Review agriculture-related site plan cultural Ativi.serr Colu hill tce” applications and subdivisions BE IT ENACTED by the Town(Board of the !11,11 gm thaa9 is awd.ted to qt rpiarl„- Town ofSoutlroldasfollows: 4trarl ucd�tiYali+:rsNritq,leu,rilcrrw4ltot lau`A'Aricuta'° 1 Chapter 71 of the ode pit Toavu of ¢ria al Adw% try C"ouvrati utltu loan rewsraw, Nowbold is hereby aincnaled as follown: d7j Amaav Pro sed wnlydiviskin od A lrrr:I lo- CIra)lter 71, AG1�tI(°UUTC1RX FM 1V-E raatcdinan.w oatuhuaanllrerrei ailivArn"Iorlatnarl. SORY..._ CI, rill.ravel for cam cohn e shall latter. ls.1 71m q.I"gyrosa taaloth W % r ti reharraal Allvrsory+ C;ommitlec fiat„ The purpose of this Agricultural Advisory reyiew. Committee is to. ��� I kwa d"arnanrigtate sfauliN fan scud aiulvicce e it a ...rroil grri��cwuri�e�Rico nice the im ortance®f`a tical retalirr+ taxa thala N„ .,._.,rlaty ail Lure and its hadustry s both a witaLecanomic ossa aat'surlvtdiva,rdirra irr lu %r L r#lwrwcFhy tan r.laev�. driver Io the local ocaanon%y and ar naode rrf` paaiLkT of faarn%iwuL and furan vesources within huadaa;cw+baclalcr�ovidesthc I"ownolSol. jaold !gyj?rfao^ad ear-eruiblrslrud ra,rur 11rc A .r.... character. l and Advisor n�lpgltanr fco. ala dl hove 45 with both its gyral and rustic characr. vicu� � fB, p1 rqlmgarzire lie conanued vuabilr !!Am i eicer tgrrriin g tis sra� a iraclsiatry,which is nurlxb(buil to the action.The rc°+.+r�turunfsii6rrtteaaa the local ecoruorny. wl�r�alt fee rtafw asaar uarrly-, Provide for the most beneficial rely- tll IGd;via w laMlifila^3a c! sourirrei Nr nits,in C.... m... . ._._.__—_ �.._ traarr^rlasqo N�roN wee°mr tllaaa to r?of kunrl,„lrutl».dh o C p iuraltturalroeaur ur°tes- t". ::._.n l.l1m 'Nuc rre.v"e as lauur�i ti rrrrarlaLr Eyfo9itsY Al- and a rucaahrural rarar„hr.i..x.aril tda fair%f�ar+r�a narrerrar &1%a verve c mtr t sand traria t raa mrut taf tlllG uedearrgare oa il�nwoNolkttrsr tl tru sw�+,rrtr ald Para;,re%a+ss natural resources within the'town erurrreclrca6 twallrill.S.turo Iowruarf,,rotuhuritN <rn m�.."— — 1 __._ d 1B. d'rovivide 11aa lover% IYoreud f panni it) tlt rar5ts is �re rtid It)thr"loon dlorltu I_luurel"rronudop IlarwrraJ o1"AplDwauls u9%�realuut %vilhturear eiyrwlre rrer,Claa eirona�%y t2rinr¢4s}ur°sa4 .. relevant Lown boards and committees with a distrrcl or l"own ai},a urtltl,rrad.(arra s Xr w laU he conduit for recommendations from the e'cALrud tar INt Awa ntdtural ,V vusarr t troa7 ;I'aarwrr's arr+caaltu�ul urdostrues on the Short rni%lau fret review k`fleA IlgiItrar¢ l �alvn(al .roil lozlrcgana ruradancttn of a w aril two uticr r,incl Cwaauraatattaahutll havc115 01 by_I<nrr srouKl wbllr Qu sliom csr,onstdcae'd by thi o priarany'y� 0 racoMineoual.tri rofsl friu ttdl rrz tut to 7l 2 c „ slrlrauq acvdcult Au used rtl 9Nrru C:Irafe>�ur t1a},�c,aorr��er«u^aI relatyli,%ar the desinFh lr1)L of nub cti oil,in-- herern are defenea9 as follows .radiad ticdvXue IN ailho naturae rrf"furrruiur uotl ZONING tri rc ioturau s within nrey Iltnalagascitl air a ti17+hAGRICULTURALAGRICULTURZONINGdD1S'I'�BIC,IS Ira,., ......_ . . - � .,fe _it �._ . _.a...,., �., rerrrand,ati�,rre4wl Yiratlwdruw , ra ria ur traria uansr I rtearar aaau�ar elude a determination . ra3%Ra. aWc�are- Ylhrc4 ��ra�rr�r�,?�Ms�rcat.ictal mrrr�„r°s~wrttcntral"... tion as to whether the districts within the Town of Southold in Inrpia ilcN urr irrrru pu,rur, ®vlrich agricultnre is an allowed nsc. halc anvil t.e CIaa.0 oa�adlrei crltiteetratlrLvarl%li COM MITI 11 The Y+anntholdIcrwrru.Ala lr,l�t Iar�trocutlsaViel c�q:crrgl r�rcn,u�uwhWitu the ricultural iWdvivaar f naantri'tgrc� ua,wutit or "l'+owwn t rp preginral a�istrrct�a '1"hr;; EL-3.Coq'Iljn!iLmtFLglcnlucrkbrlr wtcunniof recorrniucnrlaaldaru 'Isliawll Ile adviscruy ortly- nefl aeu ar?aaaw rh t Reve ocat caarearut tw Ind lid- ..... lunrrwaaottGu sh a1V kra�r C001 Me( cit a.rdl 15ga l�ad torr k a alrrug Ilea-rp rrr ultulal In- unrtc raa!araNaerw alrprrinta.cl by flu-Town lglanat dustr tea%t1,gtaorl iGG�ut .11cat Grp 9Yae I"arra r who are residentsand active owners/ Board, oerat®rswww®f bona fadeITITrecultural or _..m,..^ Serve as a vehicle for communication dao iauu au lnrc(nnrrrr¢ %rYtaanz larrru o rl cfrrt.iouw Wavvuc a File apxric urlturral z<+aaTuauaucsugy tlut th¢a within the Town of Southold --�m Town Board, II f Bra, lotvru Cuaarrd shtrfl hadalrrrrtl%routiperforrn such other duties and func- itt the Cottonee members as Chair of the Com tioii are;iviy_ roiiI g}ma.:to tiftu+_,he d I i cIed,lty, � m. mittee. the Town Board. . ruaca m_ - . _ w .�.,...e..d_. .--. t%�irroil whzr�'_I ._^'u C' Chmembers.appointed�o the Corn II Moet ,is, ala qct mittee shall serve fora three-yoar terra. on riga 22ro y irk`the t oturfruttce rrrenalri rY haat no IInilttal formation, Matic rnerrreloer shall w^rve less than once a month. d"ear�acarreygrrV.uarrr Care itnt`rtalai GIiarc+ an Submit to the Town Board annual _. ....—------ .. ya err trLn Lord all Whets for a Il-rrt a cur L'as fu ytnit tlra r dlPu g.rw rllyaot,b>hrra too y o ga ,activities MI A t-"Ihondaa ct Ilow Agyxauangiee piloaoutr villlw for thtac- t r tar!,! _ ww ' Mr.Scott Russell,Supervisor& March 27, 2018 Members of the Town Board,Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Amendments to Local Law Chapter 205 1. CHANGE OF OFFICE FORAPPLICATIONS'SUBMISSIONS For simplicity, in regard to the proposed amendments to Chapter 205, it is suggested that the only change necessary is that of changing the office of submission of an application from the Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals to that of the Special Event Committee. Further, and consistent with the law as presently written,the Town Board need only approve large public events of say 500, or 1,000, people or more, rather than every single event application, as presently proposed. 2. _MULTIPLE VS. SINGLE EVENT APPLICATIONS AND APPROVAL BY RESOLUTIONSm As there are more than 400 applications for one or more events received annually for"Special Events" by the Office of the Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals,the proposed amendments of singly filing one application for each event, instead of multiple events of a similar nature, would increase the number of applications received to somewhere between 800 and 1,000.And then to require the Town Board, by resolution, to approve or reject each one of these applications,would more than double the number of resolutions the Town Board votes on in a year's worth of resolutions. Is this really an efficient use of the Town Board's time? Does this help all the rest of those trying to advance an economy of the Town that would better help and allow its citizens,especially the younger ones,to support themselves and their families?At its March 22 meeting, the Agricultural Advisory Committee discussed ways of streamlining the "Special Events" permitting process to reduce the paperwork burden on both the Town and applicants, including multiple event dates applications.The Committee stands ready to be included in the process to streamline the permit applications and procedure through Code Committee and other administrative and executive meetings to bring understanding of integrating code with daily practice. 3. EIIXEIMIPITING"A,L,,L-PRIVAI[E,--RY--I-NVITATION ONLY EVENTS FROM CHAPTER 205 ---- Further, the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends that under the definition of"Special Event" that the letter°]" beadded 0mread "Private events byinvitation only, such asweddings, wakes, baptisms, communions, bar mitzvahs, etc. and are ofavenue's repetitive activity, indoor oroutdoor, are exempt from the provisions ofChapter 20Gpresently and asmay be amended." 4. PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends that no site plan from Planning Board for car parking on farms be required, rather by law allow 10, 15, or 20 cars per unrestricted acre of the parcel in question.Agriculture in its entirety is the one non-development use of Town lands. Planning is only development focused. Agriculture is the opposite of development and planning. There are, at last count,419 agricultural parcels by tax map numbers in the Town of Southold. Possibly 30 of those may have Planning Board site plans on them. Will there be a consistent streamlined site plan process developed and then made available to the other 389 agricultural parcels?Can the Planning Department and Board handle such aload? Will the approval interval oftime beperhaps two weeks, 3O days, 90 days, or 365 days.The need for supplemental agricultural related revenues is critical in this highest-cost-to-farm region on eastern Long Island in the U.S.These agricultural operations need supplemental revenues in order to achieve, at a minimum,the zero-sum cash flow requirements to maintain acres of farmland in the Town of Southold (which is difficult to achieve at all), rather than force these agricultural acres into housing developments. 5. ANNUAL SINGLE PERMIT FOR SAME-TYPE EVENTS ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS For events of a repetitive nature at a single venue, one permit to cover the year. Perhaps as frequently as one event per week, as Louisa Hargrave had noted in the Alcohol Farm Products Working Group meetings that iutypical ofother agricultural venues across the U.S. G. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE NAMING TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AS ADDITIONAL INSURED A consistency of limits for additional Certificates of Insurance naming the Town of Southold is needed in the current and proposed amendments. In A-10 of the proposed amendments, it is stated as$1,000,000 per occurrence. In paragraph F of the amendments, a certificate of not less than$2,000,000 naming the Town of Southold as additional insured is required. In actual practice, insurance companies issue Certificates of Insurance for additional insureds as....$1,000,000 per occurrence; $Z,0OO,0OOinthe aggregate". 7' TRAFFIC ISSUES REALITY TESTING Traffic for most events is in the range of 50 to 100 cars. One hundred cars is the number that passes Town Hall on the Main Road in a ten-minute period, or less, at the 8 O'clock AM "rush hour" on a weekday. 8. COMPOSITION OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE The Special Events Committee should include, in its makeup,two members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee,one director/officer of the Long Island Wine Council, and the local affairs representative for the Town ofSouthold from the Long island Farm Bureau.