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
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.
Kate isn't describing hindsight here, she's describing foresight that was ignored by our city government. You're correct about the big appetite though...our council has never met an indirect spend it didn't like.
Yes, many people pointed out the economics of this and other decisions. Information based on facts and budgets were ignored by the Council.
I have just confirmed from the County that Sebastopol does indeed generate $18,218,448 in property tax revenue and only $3,702,711 is returned back to the City for taxpayer services. This means that the City generates $14,515,737 for the County EVERY SINGLE YEAR! What does the City and its residents get in return for that $14,515,737? The City still must pave its own roads, finance its own administration, support its parks, provide its own police and fire and ALSO support County Social Services and Recreation like the Senior Center, Elderberry and Gravenstein Commons, Park Village, Ives Pool and the Community Cultural Center. This might be why the City is in a perpetual financial crisis. The County either needs to reimburse the City for its Countywide Social Services and Housing Programs or give Sebastopol a much higher percentage of the $18 million it generates in property taxes. To put it in perspective, the County take on property taxes is almost the entire City budget .....
That money can go toward Sebastopol if the City Disincorporated and let the County run the show. A contract to disband would bring in the Sonoma Sheriff to run Law Enforcement as in Sonoma and WIndsor. If the City contracted out Law Enforcement same as the current Fire Department the LE situation would be run by profesionals and the CIty would have a say who they wanted as Chief. The Current Chief would stay. And so would the PD.
This isn't hindsight. I, and many others, tried to get Hinton, Mauer and Rich to listen to the fact that this was a fiscally irresponsible project but to no avail. At least Zollman and McLewis must have read the entire document and voted with the interest of the city in mind and not blindly going along with Paul Tibbets (who is now a cowboy in Oregon) promising the world.
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.
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!
COTS approach seems questionable. Take folks in a stable living situation and move them to the new facility. Why? Why disrupt their lives? Their funding approach sounds questionable. The director says funding coming from " canceling master leases". Why is this? Existing housing with folks there, cancel the lease and transfer to the Sebastopol operation. Why? If ain't broken dont fix it.
Sebastopol and it residences should set the criteria for any new tenants including the rules for eviction
I received this from Chris Cabral of COTS after I had published the story: “ COTS will be moving some long-term tenants who currently reside in other master leased properties in Sonoma County. These properties are single-family homes that COTS has leased from private landlords for some time. Because operating and managing multiple properties is more expensive, COTS is condensing some of these leases into one larger master lease at Gravenstein Commons. This will allow for stronger onsite supportive services, provide private residences for our tenants, and reduce overall leasing costs for the project. Because we are reducing leasing costs, this means that COTS can pay for additional onsite supportive services like case management, behavioral health support, onsite property management, and community-building events.”
Thanks for clearly explaining COTS plan. I'm not sure that makes me feel anymore comfortable. Net net no more folks are off the street, they are just being moving around. And I would say their approach has some pros and cons. Great the tenants get more services but the downside is removal from a residential neighborhood where they are more integrated into a "normal" mainstream lifestyle. Which is better? Who's to say
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.
Because, well maybe because our fair City has a bigger appetite than it can afford. Hindsight is always 20 20 vision.
Kate isn't describing hindsight here, she's describing foresight that was ignored by our city government. You're correct about the big appetite though...our council has never met an indirect spend it didn't like.
Yes, many people pointed out the economics of this and other decisions. Information based on facts and budgets were ignored by the Council.
I have just confirmed from the County that Sebastopol does indeed generate $18,218,448 in property tax revenue and only $3,702,711 is returned back to the City for taxpayer services. This means that the City generates $14,515,737 for the County EVERY SINGLE YEAR! What does the City and its residents get in return for that $14,515,737? The City still must pave its own roads, finance its own administration, support its parks, provide its own police and fire and ALSO support County Social Services and Recreation like the Senior Center, Elderberry and Gravenstein Commons, Park Village, Ives Pool and the Community Cultural Center. This might be why the City is in a perpetual financial crisis. The County either needs to reimburse the City for its Countywide Social Services and Housing Programs or give Sebastopol a much higher percentage of the $18 million it generates in property taxes. To put it in perspective, the County take on property taxes is almost the entire City budget .....
That money can go toward Sebastopol if the City Disincorporated and let the County run the show. A contract to disband would bring in the Sonoma Sheriff to run Law Enforcement as in Sonoma and WIndsor. If the City contracted out Law Enforcement same as the current Fire Department the LE situation would be run by profesionals and the CIty would have a say who they wanted as Chief. The Current Chief would stay. And so would the PD.
This isn't hindsight. I, and many others, tried to get Hinton, Mauer and Rich to listen to the fact that this was a fiscally irresponsible project but to no avail. At least Zollman and McLewis must have read the entire document and voted with the interest of the city in mind and not blindly going along with Paul Tibbets (who is now a cowboy in Oregon) promising the world.
Thanks for raising all the issues! All these need to be weighted to fully understand the consequences and costs before a decision is made
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.
The acronyms!!! Oy! I nearly made a joke about that in the piece.
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!
COTS approach seems questionable. Take folks in a stable living situation and move them to the new facility. Why? Why disrupt their lives? Their funding approach sounds questionable. The director says funding coming from " canceling master leases". Why is this? Existing housing with folks there, cancel the lease and transfer to the Sebastopol operation. Why? If ain't broken dont fix it.
Sebastopol and it residences should set the criteria for any new tenants including the rules for eviction
I received this from Chris Cabral of COTS after I had published the story: “ COTS will be moving some long-term tenants who currently reside in other master leased properties in Sonoma County. These properties are single-family homes that COTS has leased from private landlords for some time. Because operating and managing multiple properties is more expensive, COTS is condensing some of these leases into one larger master lease at Gravenstein Commons. This will allow for stronger onsite supportive services, provide private residences for our tenants, and reduce overall leasing costs for the project. Because we are reducing leasing costs, this means that COTS can pay for additional onsite supportive services like case management, behavioral health support, onsite property management, and community-building events.”
Thanks for clearly explaining COTS plan. I'm not sure that makes me feel anymore comfortable. Net net no more folks are off the street, they are just being moving around. And I would say their approach has some pros and cons. Great the tenants get more services but the downside is removal from a residential neighborhood where they are more integrated into a "normal" mainstream lifestyle. Which is better? Who's to say