Analyzing the Farmer’s Market controversy
Sonoma is once again in the midst of a farmer’s market controversy, an occurrence that seems to happen every decade or two. Some locals think the market’s going swell and that the Valley of the Moon Certified Farmer’s Market is operating in accord with the original RFP prepared by the city. Others feel otherwise, that the market is too successful, too crowded, too noisy and too commercial. Among those with such mixed feelings are the members of Sonoma’s City Council, the ones who must approve the market management agreement with the city.
Opinions about the Farmer’s Market appear to have become contentious after the Community Services and Environment Commission, of which I am a members, voted to give the market a fee break to support a Sonoma County food program designed to provide assistance to low-income residents. The fee break was appealed by Council Member Gary Edwards, and in the Council’s appeal hearing on March 14, the issue became a venue for Edwards and others to voice their overall market complaints. Then, through circumstance, politics, and collective inaction, the City Council set aside consideration of the market management agreement re-authorization to the last minute, and failed to fully identify the issues at stake.
At the council meeting of December 12, the VOMCFM requested a one-year extension of its management agreement, during which time issues and concerns could be worked. However, the new majority of council members took the opportunity to leverage the approval process and attempt to make market changes immediately, before any contract renewal. During council discussion, the creation of a subcommittee to review VOMCFM changes was proposed. This necessitated a special council meeting on December 19 to decide what review type of committee process would be used, and which issues to look at.
Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee
City Manager Giovanatto, in her staff report at the December 19 meeting suggested two review process options: (1) to create a Brown Act covered subcommittee (the plan approved by the council at the meeting of the 12th) made up of two council members, two CSEC commissioners, the VOMCFM management and two members of the public or, (2) to appoint a two-council-member ad-hoc subcommittee not covered by the Brown Act.
Given that the VOMCFM’s vendor planning process normally begins on the first of December and was now behind schedule, and because a subcommittee covered by the Brown Act would require more time for noticing public meetings, the council chose to create the ad-hoc committee. The VOMCFM asked that Edwards, given his previous criticisms of the market, not be on the ad-hoc committee. Mayor Hundley appointed Council Members Edwards and Harrington, nonetheless, though David Cook had also volunteered to serve on the ad-hoc committee.
The public has pushed back hard against the actions of the new council majority, Facebook postings and sharing of Sun articles about the matter online have reached many thousands and stimulated active online discussion. Both Hundley and Harrington have participated in Facebook postings to clarify their positions and reassure the public. After all the brouhaha, a yearlong extension of the current market management agreement may well be the outcome.
In a best-case scenario, everybody will regroup and move on; the ad-hoc committee may simply, as Hundley noted on Facebook, “make a few tweaks.” In the worst case, the ad-hoc committee process may result in conclusions that generate another council split, policy reversals, failure to renew the management agreement and/or a last minute dash to try to cobble together some sort of market solution for 2017.
Critical issues
What are the issues at stake? A preference for and inclusion of local vendors, more farmers, setting an event fee, evaluation of impacts on Plaza restaurants, the proper location of the music venue, possible wear and tear on the Plaza grounds, and reducing the party atmosphere seem to be the primary ones.
The earlier CSEC review of market issues indicates that the most salient issues are (1) how to tone down the party atmosphere and, (2) how to increase participation by farmers. To tone the party down would seem to imply more regulation of the music, alcohol and prepared food.
As for the fee, City staff calculated the actual cost to the city to administer the market on an annual basis in 2016, to be $14,708, including 48 hours of maintenance. Details about how the city specifically calculates its costs have not been provided as yet. For the past five years the yearly fee has been right around $4,000. Strangely, what began as a CSEC initiative to provide a fee break to insure that organic, local produce is more affordable for low-income residents, has morphed into a general discussion about “fair fees” to compensate city government and protect the profits of high-end Plaza restaurants.
This current farmer’s market dust-up, like the one over Plaza hotels, appears to include a conflict of values over how residents see Sonoma, and whom city government supports. In this sense, the farmer’s market has become a proxy for how the community deals with change to its own evolving character. For the ad-hoc committee, the challenge will be to clearly articulate what values are at stake; yet, the committee makes recommendations only, and the final outcome will be decided by a vote of the full City Council.
