PART 1: Saint Vincent de Paul’s new director said they’re partnering with COTS, an experienced provider of supportive housing, to overcome a financial shortfall
Thank you for this thoughtful and informative post. COTS partnership and the incremental transition of folks into this site will lead to the most success.
What we do for the least of us speaks to our humanity. Most people don't choose to be homeless. This is a positive step. Thank you SVDP and Sebastopol Times!
SVdP, PSH, DHS, COTS, PBVs, NOFA, EVHs, CoC, NOFO, AIM...that's a lot of acronyms !
Let's hope that, during the upcoming council election, voters remember the pivotal role Sandra Maurer played with respect to enabling the rollout of Gravenstein Commons, and Sebastopol's potential financial liability if it all falls apart.
Council Members McLewis and Zollman voted against this project due to the fact that funding was unstable and the political horizons were murky. The naysayers on this project proved to be true in terms of the financial aspect. McLewis and Zollman have done a good job ushering this forward and trying to create a stable landing. I would like to point out, that this is another example where the City is providing a social service for the County and not being reimbursed. By law, the occupants for Gravenstein and Elderberry Commons are from a County list. Why should the City be reimbursed? 1) Loss of Property Tax. If this were a market rate development, the developer would be paying market rate property tax. 22 Units would probably be valued at at minimum 4 million dollars. 2) Loss of Sales Tax Revenue. People living in market rate apartments have more disposable income to spend in town. These locations are in town and one might assume occupants would purchase locally. 3) Increased City services. In its first year, Elderberry Commons used the Sebastopol Police Department at high volume. The budget for the Police Department is roughly $5 million. If Elderberry Commons accounted for 10% of total call volume, that is $500,000 paid for by the people of Sebastopol to support a County service. It would be fair if the County reimbursed Sebastopol for the lost property tax revenue and cost to provide service for Gravenstein Commons. In addition, it would be fair if the County reimbursed the City/Citizens of Sebastopol for the lost TOT revenue and cost of City Services for Elderberry Commons. Sebastopol has 2 Permenant Supportive Housing locations and Park Village - all which support housing the formerly homeless. The only other facility in West County is at the former George's Hideaway location. Sebastopol is carrying the bulk of housing without any sort of compensation from the County for its work. Sebastopol is the only City with a population less than 10,000 in the State of California that has two Permanent Supportive Housing projects. This is most likely because it is not very economically viable for small communities to fund this type of project and to also lose the revenue. Council Members Hinton, Rich and Maurer voted in favor of the Gravenstein Commons so this was 100% by choice of Council. Elderberry Commons was brought forth by Supervisor Hopkins - Hinton, Rich, Guerney, Glass, and Slayter approved it. Myself and others pointed out that it would create economic hardship to lose Sebastopol's only downtown hotel to Permanent Supportive Housing as hotels are key economic drivers in tourist economies and also difficult to get built. Most cities vie for hotels. That is why the current Council just elected to give The Barlow Hotel project a 50% TOT rebate. At this point, it would be prudent to figure out how much revenue is lost from these projects and how much it costs to provide City services to occupants and ask the County for an annual reimbursement. This would be a shared financial partnership and acknowledge the investment Sebastopol has made in these projects. It seems unfair that people paying property tax in Sebastopol have the majority of their property tax go to the County and then have the little left over applied to social services that help the County.
More fentanyl trafficking and people in crisis to further cement our town square as a place that's predominated by junkies who just sit there all day on their laptops and phones. And, of course, zero help for our revenue-imperiled town. Chapter 9 beckons!
Thank you for this thoughtful and informative post. COTS partnership and the incremental transition of folks into this site will lead to the most success.
What we do for the least of us speaks to our humanity. Most people don't choose to be homeless. This is a positive step. Thank you SVDP and Sebastopol Times!
SVdP, PSH, DHS, COTS, PBVs, NOFA, EVHs, CoC, NOFO, AIM...that's a lot of acronyms !
Let's hope that, during the upcoming council election, voters remember the pivotal role Sandra Maurer played with respect to enabling the rollout of Gravenstein Commons, and Sebastopol's potential financial liability if it all falls apart.
Council Members McLewis and Zollman voted against this project due to the fact that funding was unstable and the political horizons were murky. The naysayers on this project proved to be true in terms of the financial aspect. McLewis and Zollman have done a good job ushering this forward and trying to create a stable landing. I would like to point out, that this is another example where the City is providing a social service for the County and not being reimbursed. By law, the occupants for Gravenstein and Elderberry Commons are from a County list. Why should the City be reimbursed? 1) Loss of Property Tax. If this were a market rate development, the developer would be paying market rate property tax. 22 Units would probably be valued at at minimum 4 million dollars. 2) Loss of Sales Tax Revenue. People living in market rate apartments have more disposable income to spend in town. These locations are in town and one might assume occupants would purchase locally. 3) Increased City services. In its first year, Elderberry Commons used the Sebastopol Police Department at high volume. The budget for the Police Department is roughly $5 million. If Elderberry Commons accounted for 10% of total call volume, that is $500,000 paid for by the people of Sebastopol to support a County service. It would be fair if the County reimbursed Sebastopol for the lost property tax revenue and cost to provide service for Gravenstein Commons. In addition, it would be fair if the County reimbursed the City/Citizens of Sebastopol for the lost TOT revenue and cost of City Services for Elderberry Commons. Sebastopol has 2 Permenant Supportive Housing locations and Park Village - all which support housing the formerly homeless. The only other facility in West County is at the former George's Hideaway location. Sebastopol is carrying the bulk of housing without any sort of compensation from the County for its work. Sebastopol is the only City with a population less than 10,000 in the State of California that has two Permanent Supportive Housing projects. This is most likely because it is not very economically viable for small communities to fund this type of project and to also lose the revenue. Council Members Hinton, Rich and Maurer voted in favor of the Gravenstein Commons so this was 100% by choice of Council. Elderberry Commons was brought forth by Supervisor Hopkins - Hinton, Rich, Guerney, Glass, and Slayter approved it. Myself and others pointed out that it would create economic hardship to lose Sebastopol's only downtown hotel to Permanent Supportive Housing as hotels are key economic drivers in tourist economies and also difficult to get built. Most cities vie for hotels. That is why the current Council just elected to give The Barlow Hotel project a 50% TOT rebate. At this point, it would be prudent to figure out how much revenue is lost from these projects and how much it costs to provide City services to occupants and ask the County for an annual reimbursement. This would be a shared financial partnership and acknowledge the investment Sebastopol has made in these projects. It seems unfair that people paying property tax in Sebastopol have the majority of their property tax go to the County and then have the little left over applied to social services that help the County.
More fentanyl trafficking and people in crisis to further cement our town square as a place that's predominated by junkies who just sit there all day on their laptops and phones. And, of course, zero help for our revenue-imperiled town. Chapter 9 beckons!