Sonoma’s Council approves Farmers Market plan

Posted on January 24, 2017 by Sonoma Valley Sun

At the meeting of the Sonoma City Council on Monday, January 23rd, the farmer’s market agenda item began with a thorough framing and articulate staff report by city manager Cathy Capriola. Capriola noted off the top that the market is a “very successful event”, and a “very strong community building event.” She then recapped the original market Request for Proposal (RFP), the values laid out therein, and explained exactly in what order the evening’s process would unfold, and what the council would be voting on.

The first item to vote on was the ad hoc committee’s resolution. The second was whether to continue the current non- Brown Act ad hoc committee format, and/or what type of market review body would be in place going forward.

The ad hoc committee resolution, Capriola said, was equivalent to conditions put in any special event. Policy goals contained in the conditions are:

One, create a social gathering.

Two, focus on local farmers and vendors; shift the farmer to non-farmer ratio to have relatively more farmers; eliminate 15 stalls from behind city hall; move food trucks to the back of city hall; have three food trucks max and only have them twice a month; have local restaurants featured twice a month along with the food trucks. These changes will not affect the remainder of prepared food vendors on the horseshoe, who will be allowed every week.

Three, support local musicians. For a two-month trial period, every other week, move the music to the Grinstead Theater.

Four, add an additional layer to the vendor appeal process in the interests of transparency and fairness.

Five, in terms of fees and costs to the city, it is not a goal of the city to charge more, nevertheless charge-backs will be made for police, fire etc.

Six, improve environmental and green practices; ensure proper recycling and composting.

Capriola wrapped up her report by noting that there would be no market on July 2^nd, as proximity to the very large 4^th of July event amounts to excessive wear on the Plaza. Given that this year’s contract review and time crunch element amounts to a unique situation, Capriola said the fee would be set this year by the council and not the Community Services and Environmental Commission (CSEC). The CSEC would still be able to look at the market with its own lens, in its coming event approval hearing.

In the interests of not repeating the time crunch of this year, market review will come back to the council in August. Since the original RFP was in 2011, there could be a new RFP, said Capriola, to have some competition. If so, the goal would be to have an RFP done by November of 2017.

Ad hoc committee report

Next, the ad hoc committee held the floor. Edwards was “encouraged by the way it has been presented” by city manager Capriola. Harrington wanted to clarify that prepared food would be available every week. She also noted that the word “local” was imprecise, and in her estimation, local means: City of Sonoma first, Sonoma Valley second, and Sonoma County third. Local is “our community first.” In terms of stall fees, Harrington said that all events should move to better recycling, and that event/ stall fees should account for that.

(Of note, CSEC commissioner Matt Metzger has done recycling research and discovered that it is likely that for special events, much recyclable material is going to the landfill, for lack of a market to sell it.)

Market Management comments

Then Valley of the Moon Certified Farmer’s Market (VOMCFM) manager Chris Welch made a few comments. Welch clarified that the provision for an additional appeal process layer with city council members would not give those council members final say, but rather make the council members part of the VOMCFM board of appeals.

For prepared food, with 15 less stalls, there would be less of it overall, said Welch.

As for what constitutes “local”, the VOMCFM has to consider many factors and classes of vendors and farmers, and the management has a weighted point system to help define who is local or not. To conclude, Welch said the VOMCFM was eager to work with the city and clarify goals for the market. He supported a Brown Act (publicly noticed meetings) market review body, for more transparency in market stakeholder input. And, for next year’s review process, he hoped to not be under the gun with a time crunch like this year.

Mark Curtis, vice president of the VOMCFM board of directors then spoke of some concerns and reservations the board had with the current resolution. Of primary concern is the financial viability of the VOMCFM, with the loss of 13 weekly vendors. With the many changes proposed, Curtis said it will be hard to tell what causes what in market performance, for vendors, farmers and management. In the past, when the music was moved, sales went down. Curtis also suggested that two CSEC commissioners, rather than two council members, could observe a secondary vendor appeal.

Council comments, questions and votes

In preliminary council questions and comments, Mayor Hundley asked what the plan was after the two-month music trial period? The upshot here is that this is an unfolding process, and metrics will have to be taken and judgment calls made. Hundley also said that two CSEC commissioners could review a secondary vendor appeal.

Council member Edwards said he wants farmers to be successful, “if we can make them successful, everything else will fall into place.” Council member Agrimonti said that everybody needs to be successful. Council member Harrington said the process is a balance of all parties to be successful.

Council member Cook noted that during the December 19^th council market hearing, he supported an extension of the market’s contract with questions being worked out during the next year, and he was still opposed to the current review process.

City Attorney Jeff Walter had reservations about inserting council members or CSEC commissioners into the VOMCFM board of appeals process. If city personnel are involved, this would make it a Brown Act meeting, and open the city to liability and risk from vendor complaints.

In public comments, various points and suggestions were made in support of the market. The point with a common thread was to have an ongoing review be made by a publicly noticed Brown Act body, as was initially proposed by council in the December 19^th meeting.

In final council discussion, Cook was concerned about liability for kids dancing and falling on the hard surfaces in the Grinstread Theater. He supported a Brown Act standing committee versus an ad hoc committee, noting the importance of transparency. For the market, Cook said, “if it’s nit broke, don’t fix it.”

Agrimonti said the ad hoc committee did a good job, but going forward she would prefer standing committee with Brown Act public notice rules. She asked if the VOMCFM will have a council committee looking at them all the time? Is council oversight in place for all events now? “What happens to the CSEC?” Given the proposed changes in the ad hoc committee resolution, Agrimonti also expressed concern about the VOMCFM financial stability.

Edwards said he liked the expediency of the ad hoc process. It was an “efficient process.” Edwards “like to get things done.” “That’s what I do”, he said, noting that more involved review (Brown Act) has inherent delays. He also hoped that the Grinstead Theater could be improved to be the Plaza music venue. Edwards also noted that the city always has liability for the Grinstead Theater, music or not.

Harrington felt the process thus far was solid.

Hundley expressed thanks to the VOMCFM board, and how all parties were “committed to making sure things work.” Of the farmer’s market, “it’s beyond an event, it’s an institution”, she said.

When it came time for a vote, after various clarifications, there was a 4 to 1 vote, with Cook voting no, to accept the ad hoc committee’s resolution, with one change. The change was that for the VOMCFM secondary vendor appeal process, a written letter to explain why would be sufficient, and no council or CSEC would be involved. The central issue for appeals was transparency and perception of fairness, as per values stated in the original RFP.

Continuing review process

As for the continuing review of the VOMCFM and what sort of body would do that, City Attorney Walter, at council member Agrimonti’s prompting, explained the difference between an ad hoc committee and a standing committee. A standing committee is for permanent issues; an ad hoc committee is for short term issues. Since the VOMCFM council review is short term, just for 2017, an ad hoc committee is appropriate, but, Walter said, it can be a Brown Act ad hoc committee with publicly noticed meetings.

As things proceeded to shake out discussing the ongoing review, Council member Harrington noted that year-to-year it is the CSEC’s job to review the market, but that this year was unique and called for council oversight. Harrington wanted to “make sure we are not disempowering the people” who are charged with market oversight, i.e. the CSEC.

There was talk of possibly adding additional community stakeholder members to the ad hoc committee as time went by. Said Mayor Hundley, “having others involved will give the public more confidence.” Mayor Hundley said it was important to be open and transparent so the public will have confidence in the process.

City manager Capriola noted that Brown Act meetings are usually noticed 72 hours ahead of time, but could be with 24 hours’ notice if there was a critical need.

Then there was a unanimous vote to have the ad hoc committee of Harrington and Edwards continue as a Brown Act body.

The meeting was well done, with proper decorum by all. The new city manager made a strong showing of competence and professionalism. The sense is that this is an ongoing process and all actors are working together. The farmer’s market has settled in to a new year, with some new provisions and experiments. Now it’s on to other salient local issues for the city to address.