Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late APPROVED 6/2/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION April 14, 2015 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Report Patrick McDonough, Triangle Transit Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented Development, said an updated briefing on the transit project is being presented via PowerPoint, followed by a portion of the flyover video of the corridor. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project • Recent Project Update • What We Study for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • Five Key Decisions in EIS: Reviewing the Data • Build or No Build • Little Creek Crossing • Duke/VA Station Location Choice • Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility (ROMF) Site • New Hope Creek Crossing • Ask Questions Along the Way • No Action Required At This Meeting Secretary Foxx Visit Feb 19th Elected Official Corridor Tours What We Study • Transit Ridership • Regional Travel Patterns • Capital & Operating Costs • Noise /Vibration • Cultural & Historic Resources • Public Parklands • Natural Resources • Energy Use • Traffic • Utilities • Air Quality • Water Quality • Land Use • Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities • Visual & Aesthetic • Minority & Low-Income Population Impacts • Neighborhoods • Business & Residential Impacts • Population Served • Employment Served • Construction Impacts Five Key Decisions • Build or No Build • Little Creek Crossing • Duke/VA Station Location Choice • Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility (ROMF) Site • New Hope Creek Crossing To Build or Not to Build • Build • No Build Little Creek: C1 Eliminated • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) provided a letter stating that C1A, C2, and C2A were viable alternatives but that C1 was not. • USACOE would not authorize use of federal government property (game lands and a waterfowl impoundment) for C1 "given the availability of less damaging alternatives." Little Creek: Travel Time • C2 time 56 seconds shorter than C1A • C2A time 10 seconds shorter than C2 Little Creek: Ridership • Lowest ridership alternative: C1A, NHC2, Duke Eye Care Center Station with 23,560 daily riders • C2 and C2A both add over 700 daily riders compared to C1A Little Creek: Capital Cost • Lowest capital cost alternative: C2, NHC-LPA, either Duke/VA station at $1.522 billion • C2A adds $7.6m in capital cost • C1A adds $36.Om in capital cost Little Creek: Operating Cost • Lowest operating cost alternative: C1 (eliminated), NHC-LPA, either Duke/VA station at $16,846,000/year • C2 and C2A add $56,900/year in operating/maintenance cost • C1 adds $82,100/year in operating/maintenance cost Little Creek: Public Parklands-4(f) • Section 4(f) requires consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. • Before approving a project that uses Section 4(f) property, FTA must either: (1) determine that the impacts to the property are de minimis (will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of property), or (2) undertake a Section 4(f) Evaluation. • C2A has least impact to Section 4(f) properties Little Creek: Natural Resources Little Creek: Water Resources • Low Impact Design techniques have kept total acreage and linear feet impacts low for project of this size Timeline for Local Gov't Participation • Jan 2015 — Review Five Key Decisions • March-June 2015 — Local Governments & Public Review Data on Benefits / Impacts of Alternatives • April — May 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Recommended NEPA Preferred Alternative • September/October 2015 — Official 45-day comment period: Local Governments and Citizens provide comments on Key Decisions and any other items related to the D-O LRT Project • Fall/Winter 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Final EIS • February 2016 — Record of Decision issued by FTA Discussion Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County has been involved in protecting New Hope Creek since the 1980s and would like to know Triangle Transit's proposal and what any alternatives are for protecting it. Patrick McDonough said showing the video would best answer that question. Video started at 7:16pm Commissioner Rich asked if homeowners in the East 54 development knew of the light rail proposal. Patrick McDonough said he thought that many did know of the proposal. Commissioner Rich said she recalled that signs had been put up in the past but when she spoke recently with new home owners, that they were unaware that the light rail would be in front of the property. Patrick McDonough said there have been two meetings with the Home Owners Association (HOA), and letters have also been received. He said individual home owners may not be aware but the HOA is. Commissioner Rich asked if signage could be posted to make the community aware. Patrick McDonough said he is not sure of the best way to handle such communication, but he is pleased that the East 54 HOA is aware of the project and is involved in the discussion. Commissioner Price asked how loud the rail will be and if home owners will need to soundproof. Patrick McDonough said part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) looks at this very issue. He said they have three categories of receptors of evaluating the noise level and are in the process of this evaluation. He said there will be a draft EIS by the end of the year. Commissioner Pelissier asked about the rail going through the Friday Center's parking lot. Patrick McDonough said the University of North Carolina (UNC) has agreed to have it studied and are working on expressing their preference. He said no official statement has been issued by UNC thus far, but they seem to be leaning towards C2A. He added UNC is seeking to work with the Town of Chapel Hill on the issue and will state their final preference in the future. Chair McKee asked about parking facilities. Patrick McDonough said in this corridor, with the Friday Center, there are about 800 spaces. He said they would maintain the park and ride at the Friday Center and he said if UNC considered redeveloping the Friday Center, changes could be considered at that time. Chair McKee asked about parking at the Woodmont Station. Patrick McDonough said there is no parking lot. He said parking here was considered originally, but the Friday Center is a much better access point. He said there is also a large lot at Leigh Village, the next station up the line. He said in considering the flow of traffic at peak times, Woodmont is a much more difficult station to get cars in and out of than either the Friday Center or Leigh Village. Chair McKee asked why a station would be there if there is no parking available. Patrick McDonough said the Town of Chapel Hill is planning to develop more densely in this area in the future. He said the Town sees this as a walk up station. Commissioner Pelissier said there is a proposal for a large development at Leigh Village. Patrick McDonough said yes, there is a group of landowners, who own about 300 acres in the area, working together to create a master plan for a large development. He said the City of Durham is seeking to develop regulations to support the plan. He said a public meeting will be held on April 30tH Video stopped at 7:43pm. Commissioner Price asked about extra bus services. Patrick McDonough said when Orange County adopted the plan there were bus improvements included. He said many of the bus improvements have already been implemented. Commissioner Price asked if the other route options line up with the bus plan, since C1 has been ruled out. Patrick McDonough said construction takes about 3 to 4 years, and during this time they would be working with all local transits, such as Chapel Hill Transit, Duke Transit, etc. He said if the light rail can better meet the transportation needs then the buses will be removed from service and be freed up to serve in a different capacity. How the buses can best be used will be determined by transit authorities over time as they study needs. He added bus and rail integration is very important and it is being looked at in an ongoing manner. Commissioner Pelissier said the BOCC only have minimal work sessions to choose from in order to give feedback on the key decision points and she suggested to Bonnie Hamersley that it be added to the September work session. Patrick McDonough said that BOCC commentary would be very welcomed this evening and he suggested the BOCC have further discussion in May, in order to give feedback in a more timely manner. Commissioner Rich said since C1 is out and C1A is about $36 million more, C1A does not seem like money well spent. She said after being on the tour she is not sure how she feels about C2 and C2A. She said she thinks the rail being closer to the park and ride at the Friday Center makes the most sense to her. Commissioner Dorosin said the operations cost makes C1A the least favorable. He said that one of the determining factors should be for the rail being as close to the road as possible. He said this visibility would allow vehicle commuters can see the train going by as they sit in traffic and wish they were on it. He said this would be the best advertising possible for the benefit of the train service. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Dorosin about the visibility of the rail, and said she would go with C2A. She said she could accept C2 but likes C2A better. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Pelissier, and the same principal applies to the New Hope Creek alternatives. Commissioner Price said she would like a better idea of where additional housing would be developed. One of the purposes of the rail is to increase mobility for the largest number of people. Patrick McDonough said local governments come into the picture and are key to the issue of land use. He said the Town of Chapel Hill and the City of Durham are in the driver's seat in terms of the types of zoning they will put in. He said Triangle Transit is working in partnership with both communities. He said a Federal grant has been applied for to help think creatively about these issues. He said a decision about the grant is still pending. Commissioner Burroughs said she felt good about C2 and C2A. She said she is leaning towards C2A and echoed the sentiment regarding the value of the rail being highly visible. 2. Presentation on Alternatives to On-site Septic Systems Allan Clapp, Orange County Environmental Health, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: Septic System Options Major Considerations • Soils • Septic System Options • Development Type • Enforcement/Legal • Accessibility • Operation and Maintenance Georgeville Series Wynott Series Golston Series Aerobic zone Pump System Components If the drain field is higher than the house, a pump system must be used. Advanced Treatment System Components- Waste is treated to almost a drinking water standard and works for non-conventional soils. Septic Trench Options • Conventional Trench • Accepted Trench Products • Chamber Trench • Polystyrene Trench • Tire Chips • Panel Block • Low Pressure Pipe • Drip Commissioner Pelissier asked if any of these alternatives exist in Orange County. Alan Clapp said yes. He said Orange County has an aerobic treatment unit as well as some pete filters. Conventional Trench (photo) Aerobic zone Chamber Trench (photo) • 25% Drain field reduction Trench is same as conventional but no rock (photo) • Polystyrene Trench • 25 % Drain field reduction Polystyrene Systems (photo) • 25 % Drain field reduction • Accepted Trench Product as equivalent to Conventional Panel Block System • Allows 50% reduction • Requires 36" of usable soil. LPP Trench (photo) LPP Distribution Network (photo) Development Types • On Lot systems • Conventional • Land Hooks • Off Site Systems • Conservation/Cluster • Common Area/HOA Conventional Developments Conservation or Cluster Development Cluster Development Common Area with HOA Land Hooks Supply Line Network (2 lines) Supply Line Network (7 lines) Ganged Supply Line Network (26 lines) Enforcement • Local Health Department o Permitting for Soils/Siting /Construction • Planning Department • Type of Development (Conventional vs. Conservation) • Watershed status • Supply Lines as part of Utility Plan Legal • Ownership and Control • Developer • Homeowner • Homeowner's Association • Tri-party Agreement • Easements • Encroachments Special Purpose Lots (photos) Accessibility • Must be able to access all components of the system without "trespassing" or going onto another property o Drain field • Supply lines • Tankage • O & M • Repairs The "Good" (photo) The "Bad" (photo) The "Ugly" (photo) Operation and Maintenance • Issues • Out of sight out of mind • That's not my system • Who's responsible? • Certified Operator Drain Field-poorly maintained (photo) Drain Field-well maintained (photo) Best Planning Practices for Remote Systems • Locate and use the best soils for drain fields • Designate the appropriate type of remote fields for the type of development proposed • Allow for dedicated all-weather access to the drain fields instead of easements • Design for operation and maintenance Commissioner Dorosin asked if the drain field could be used for any other purpose. Alan Clapp said yes. He said the field in the picture is used as a community playing field, used for playing Frisbee, dog walking, running, etc. He said this drain field is about fifteen acres and is an asset to the community. Commissioner Dorosin asked if anything could be built on top of the field. Alan Clapp said no structures can be built on a drain field. Commissioner Rich asked about the financial pros and cons of having an individual septic system versus a community one. She asked if it is controlled by the HOA. Alan Clapp said there are models where the home owner owns the house lot as well as the septic lot. He said with an HOA it can be more expensive, and this is an area ripe for abuse by an HOA. Commissioner Dorosin said there could be smaller property lots, and the septic system could be put in a community area. He said this could work well with a development for safe and affordable housing. Commissioner Rich asked if the maintenance is different depending on the system. Allan Clapp said the maintenance from the health department would be same whether the system is on site or off site. He said there is a maintenance difference with an offsite system and an HOA has to hire an operator to go out yearly and check the system. He said an on the lot system is checked every five years. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is any data that indicates which works best. Allan Clapp said the HOA model seems to work best. Commissioner Pelissier asked for clarification about the tri-party agreements. Allan Clapp said a tri-party agreement is an agreement between the HOA, the Health Department and the developer. He said these types of agreements have typically worked well. Commissioner Dorosin said HOAs are already relied on to maintain open spaces. He said our development model encourages HOAs. Craig Benedict said sixteen years ago, the majority of subdivisions were conventional, two acre lots with on site systems. He said through regulations the conservation cluster design has been recommended. He said, over time, the trend has shifted towards smaller lots with shared open space in the rest of the development. He said now about ninety percent of local subdivisions have this conservation cluster design, with at least thirty three percent open space and an HOA. Commissioner Dorosin said HOAs are already required or encouraged through incentives. He said this structure is already a part of the development model, and having HOAs engaged does not seem unreasonable. He said the HOA fear of not having money to maintain the system is the same fear as not having money to maintain the open space. Commissioner Jacobs said this requires a higher degree of maintenance, responsibility and open space. He said there are debates within HOAs about whether residents want to pay for things ranging from maintaining private roads to maintaining the community systems. He said this is where he finds more potential problems. He said if HOAs are to be more relied upon, then the County may want to have more say over HOA responsibilities. He asked if such oversight is even within the legal purview of BOCC. Craig Benedict showed the Board a copy of the latest edition of Rural by Design by Randall Arendt. He said Orange County is mentioned in the book. The author has visited Orange County occasionally over the past twenty years since his first edition of the book. He said part of the open space and flexible design idea came from Arendt's ideas in the mid 1990s. He said that Arendt currently sees the thirty-three percent open space concept as a minimum. He said Arendt is leaning more towards fifty or sixty percent open space. He added that in some cases the open space could be farmed, forestry, stream buffers, etc. He said that Arendt also suggests lots as small as 10,000 square feet to minimize roads and impervious off site septic systems. Commissioner Jacobs said in the past developers were using the setbacks required in the ordinance as open space and thus offering almost no additional open space. He said this continued until the ordinance was changed. Craig Benedict presented the following slides: Zoning Regulations —septic system (tanks and nitrification fields) • PROHIBITED FROM BEING LOCATED: • Within stream buffers ■ Staff Comment: Section 4.2.2 (1) of UDO establishes a waiver provision where lots created prior to January 1, 1994 or October 19, 1999 (lots in Cane Creek Overlay) can get an exemption from this prohibition. • Within 300 feet of the reservoir in the University Lake Critical Watershed Overlay (tank and field). • Within Cane Creek and Upper Eno Critical area new septic tanks are prohibited within 150 feet of the reservoir. Nitrification fields cannot be within 300 feet of reservoir. ■ Staff Comment: Health regulations only require a 100 ft. setback from a reservoir and 50 ft. from a stream • Within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream. ■ Staff Comment: Again we have a waiver requirement to ensure we are not denying a property owner use of their property. Zoning Regulations —septic system On-site versus off-site installation • OFF SITE SEPTIC TREATMENT AND/OR DISPOSAL PROHIBITED WITHIN UNIVERSITY LAKE CRITICAL AND PROTECTED WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT(S). • ALL OTHER DISTRICTS — CAN OCCUR WITH APPROVAL OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SECTION 7.12 OF UDO) Commissioner Jacobs asked about clustering in the watershed, which was previously determined to be inappropriate by the Board of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). He said the OWASA Board hired a consultant to review the issue. He said the notion of doing something different with the units was very controversial. Commissioner Pelissier asked if anyone had used the offsite under flexible development. She recalled a development that had recently been before the Board where off site was not possible. She said perhaps that was because of the required lot size. Craig Benedict said in the Dunhill subdivision in the Rural Buffer there were four off site systems, with the majority being on site. Commissioner Pelissier said now that greater open space is more desirable, perhaps the County should review the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and consider changing the lot size requirements. She added without such a change, no one will apply. She said such a change may also open some opportunities for affordable housing as previously mentioned by Commissioner Dorosin. Craig Benedict said there is a new housing market for very small houses and the lot size should be reviewed to consider how to accommodate these new styles. 3. "10% Campaign" and Local Food Economy Carl Matyac, presented the following PowerPoint presentation: 10% Campaign • Orange County Local Foods Initiative Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) • Building North Carolina's Sustainable Local Food Economy • Goal: Encourage consumers to commit 10% of their existing food dollars to support local food producers, related businesses and communities • Partnering with NC Cooperative Extension The 10% Campaign • Pledge to spend 10 percent of your existing food dollars locally • Weekly response to email questions • Progress is tracked and entered into statewide database The 10% Campaign: • Promotes North Carolina farmers, foods, communities, and businesses • Educates consumers, decision-makers, and the media • Collaborates with the many influential organizations/initiatives already in place • Expanding the market will result in new farm, food, and manufacturing businesses and create jobs. 2012 Resolution to support the 10% Campaign in Orange County Orange County Agriculture • Stable for past 15 years —2012 cash receipts: $31 Million • Types of crops have changed over the years • Direct to consumer sales up from $26,000 in 1997 to $1.44 million in 2012 • Farms growing vegetables up from 11 in 1997 to 77 in 2012 • Orange County ranks first in NC in direct sales to consumers of diversified produce, poultry, and livestock products. Activities Related to 10% Campaign • PLANT @ Breeze o Incubator Farm • Community Gardens • Food Council o Community Based • Agricultural Summit o Annual Conference • Orangecountyfarms.org o Web site for finding producers and markets • Ag Preservation Board o Voluntary Ag Districts • Piedmont Food and Ag Processing Center • Agriculture Economic Developer Position • Growinorange.com o Economic Development Website Mike Ortosky, Economic Development Office, presented the following slides: Example County Expenditures — FY 2014 Sheriff Department/Jail $257,905 Department on Aging (Senior Meals) $170,905 Catering $ 21,510 Total $450,320 Example: Sheriff/Jail Four Main Vendors: • IFH/Performance — located in Hickory NC & Florence SC now owned by Performance Food Group (national firm —Virginia) • US Foods — national firm (Illinois) with local offices in Charlotte & Distribution Center in Zebulon, NC • R&H Produce — located at State Farmers Market— NC Company since 1982 • Sysco - national firm (Texas) — Office in Charlotte, NC - Distribution Center in Selma, N.C. Food System Schematic "Local" • Many different interpretations • CEFS (10% Campaign) "local is a relative concept" • CEFS does not assign a mileage limit • Refers to production & consumption in the same geographic region • Goal is to optimize sourcing of food in that region • Collards vs. Oranges • "Value Radius" Considerations • Do we want to embrace the CEFS 10% Campaign as it exists (including its definition of "local") or do we want a program specific to Orange County? • Do we want to create requirements or offer incentives toward achieving greater sourcing of local foods? • Can we effectively achieve the goal by collaborative investments (public-private) in a "farm to fork" food system infrastructure which would facilitate local sourcing? Recommendations • Make the 10% Campaign the first priority of the Orange County Economic Development Plan which is under construction at the Economic Development Office. • Fund an initial public outreach campaign and ongoing quarterly/seasonal activities to raise public awareness of the 10% initiative. • Direct the Agriculture Economic Developer to work with County departments to increase local food sourcing and develop and maintain a local producer/provider database (buying guide) for use by County departments in their local sourcing efforts. This buying guide will be continually updated and shared throughout all departments. • Authorize the Economic Development Office to create a Food Systems Advisory Team to assist in the further implementation and ongoing management of the 10% Campaign and other food system economic development efforts. • Direct the proposed Food Systems Advisory Team to also evaluate the possibility of a separate but complimentary "local food sourcing" campaign specific to Orange County. • Merge many of the current initiatives into a common collaborative effort to grow agricultural economic development and local food systems by creating market infrastructure (food enterprise district, food hub, PFAP, rural aggregation center, Breeze Farm development, etc.). Commissioner Burroughs said the aggregation system seems like a big issue to achieving the sourcing of local foods. Mike Ortosky said there is one in Yancey County, and initially farmers were reluctant. He said the farmers get eighty percent of the wholesale value. He said there is more buy-in now. He said ultimately aggregation is the answer especially for smaller to mid-size businesses. He said even larger businesses are looking at it as well. He said larger businesses, like Whole Foods, want to buy locally if there is a way for small growers to provide palettes of food at a time versus ten pounds at a time. Commissioner Jacobs commented on the definition of"local". He said there has been same debate about the arts commission commissioning art for future and whether to do it locally or to do a national search. He said he does not favor a national search but understands that it makes it more difficult if the definition of local means Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said that there are more ways to do incentives. He said getting locally produced foods into the local schools has been a goal for years, and it has proved difficult. He suggested a pilot project to help local producers to get certification so that their foods can go into schools. He suggested workig with just one school, or school system, initially. He said Orange County could view it as an economic development tool and provide an economic incentive by helping to provide the difference in the cost between what would be paid to someone like Aramark versus paying someone locally. He asked if this concept had been seen elsewhere. Mike Ortosky said he has not seen specific examples, but there is a long list of incentive possibilities. He said that not only Public Schools but also local colleges and universities are interested in buying locally. He said everyone runs into the same problem of how we get enough quantity. He added that the economic incentive would not have to last forever as eventually the practice would become part of the fabric of the way food is accessed. Commissioner Jacobs said trying to get someone in Orange County to start an aggregating business may be difficult. He said he calls it a food broker. He said grants had been sought previously to create to such a position. He said the government does not have to do it but can encourage it, support it and commit to it. He asked Mike Ortosky to get a vision of how the economic department can enable someone in the private sector to do the aggregation. Mike Ortosky said he agreed with the use of the private sector. He said that direction was pursued that Orange County would not have to subsidize for very long. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Sheriff has been spoken with about changing some of the ways the jail purchases their food. Mike Ortosky said it is on his agenda to meet with all who purchase foods. He said that US Foods has a grant to work with several interns from NC State to figure out how to source more locally. He said they are motivated economically but also by the demand for locally sourced food. Commissioner Rich said the Orange County web site indicates that there are Food Coordinators in every county in North Carolina. She asked if there is contact with the Food Coordinator in Orange County. Carl Matyac said the Food Coordinator is Mike Lanier in Cooperative Extension, and he is actively involved in the Breeze Farm program and currently his job has been expanded into Caswell and Person Counties. Commissioner Pelissier said she liked all of the recommendations. She asked if different zoning and land use be required when a food hub or a food enterprise district is mentioned. She said she wants the County to encourage this process to move forward. Mike Ortosky said some of this could happen in Economic Development Districts (EDDs). He said that two existing buildings, one County owned and one not, are being viewed this Thursday as possible locations. He said he is unsure how much would have to be changed through planning. He said there are a lot of innovation clusters being formed around the Country. He said they are typically formed around biotech or IT, and occasionally around food systems. He said the smaller version is food enterprise district, which is all of an economic development district. He said even smaller version is the food hub. He spoke with developer in Baltimore who is building a food hub. He said this is a campus with all of the collaborative facilities on site. He said a part of that would be the rural aggregator, who could be out of town or part of the economic district. He said the goal is to build a market for growers. Commissioner Jacobs said Mike Lenier was originally hired for Mike Ortosky's position. He said he appreciates the amount of effort going into this process. He said it is a refreshingly aggressive opportunity. Commissioner Price said the farmers would need a guarantee that someone is going to buy their product. She said it will be important to start small. She said the aggregator models are very similar to past co-ops. She said in co-ops someone would pool all the types of produce from the various farms and get them to the market. Commissioner Jacobs said a lot of the co-ops go back to the progressive movement one hundred years ago. He said there is no longer a philosophical framework to work together without government or big business involvement. Mike Ortosky said it is important to just keep the conversation and the process moving forward. Commissioner Burroughs said the schools have to review their vendors every five years, and that is a good time to have these conversations about local foods. David Stancil said the schools have been approached and the County continues to try and foster conversation. David Stancil said when the Board of County Commissioners approved this Resolution in 2012, they were asked to go back to review currently practices. He said departments that do major catering were also surveyed. Chair McKee expressed thanks for the hard work being done. He said he is particularly intrigued about the aggregator. He said it will be critical that growers in Orange County have a market for their product. He said if that piece cannot be put in place, the process will stall. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board