Look at the 5 year budget projection in the same document. Without the Barlow Hotel the city is projecting to be below policy reserve levels in FY27-28 and it will run out of reserves in FY29-30. Even with the hotel reserves are effectively depleted by FY 29-30.
Reserves are critical to ensuring sufficient cash to pay bills when expenses and revenues don't match during the year. Also, they are critical to help the city get through economic downturns or meet an unexpected expense. Once reserves get below a certain level expenditures may have to be delayed until revenues are realized or the city has to borrow money from the "bank". Once they are depleted the city is effectively bankrupt and the county takes over the city.
It is unclear that the council is aware and focused of the problem. The discussion about being out of a financial crisis was alarming. The council was discussing the actual document that shows bankruptcy in the immediate future. They should have been asking questions like what level of reserve is necessary to ensure sufficient cash flow to pay the bills during the year.
Rather than cancelling the financial emergency or accelerating spending of "excess" reserves, the council should be talking about establishing a "Financial Oversight Committee" that includes members of the community that understand finances and can consider new options to strengthen the city's financial future.
Historically, the solution has been to not spend money to fix the streets. The 5-year forecast includes $800,000 per year to fix streets. It is likely that is more than has been spent by the city (without grant money) in the entire last 10 years.
According to a recent MTD report the city's pavement condition index (PCI) of 50 is the worst in Sonoma County. A score of 49 is considered poor. Streets in this condition cost 5 to 10 times more to repair than is cost to maintain fair/good streets.
The 2025 Street study estimated that the city would have to spend minimally $1MM a year to just maintain the current overall pavement score. at $800,000 the PCI will continue to decline.
If the city council follows the pattern of previous councils, expect the $800,000 for street repairs to morph into a priority to fix potholes.
Given budget problems why is the city obsessed with two way streets that are 1/unpopular; only 23% actually want two way streets, and 2/ against the recommendation of expensive consultants. This plan is wasting our money and will destroy the downtown at the behest of a developer (see the Sebastopol Times article reporting on a secret meeting with Chamber of Commerce, developer of a dying flooded outdoor mall including at least one council member) pushing for two way streets. Let's re-route all the northbound traffic from 112 through the Barlow to give it the small town Main Street feel instead!
Hi Tibby - As the editor and lead reporter for this news site, I have no idea which story you're referring to when you wrote "See the Sebastopol Times article reporting on a secret meeting with Chamber of Commerce, developer of a dying flooded outdoor mall including at least one council member." Can you provide a link? I don't believe we ever wrote such a story. Perhaps you're thinking of another paper?
It was the invitation only meeting in the Barlow. You wrote a preface about your conflict of interest because of you're being a part-time contractor for the City of Sebastopol. And then toward the end, "Seemingly rankled at the many hits directed at Sebastopol’s city government, Mayor Neysa Hinton stood up and said that the city had spent $500,000 in the last several years on economic development efforts. (Author’s note: This includes $136,000 on Relaunch Sebastopol, $26,000 of which went to this author in 2022.)". Thank you for that transparency, very honorable.
Oh, that's what she was referring to! Interesting. I didn't recall that there was a mention of two-way streets at the meeting. I wouldn't call it a secret meeting, however. Although it was by invitation, it seemed like there were about 100 people from dozens of organizations and businesses in Sebastopol.
The city is not paying for the street consultant. It is a grant that is supported by CalTrans because numerous entities sense the city might need to improve moving through it safer, with better flow for downtown non Barlow business. My observation so far, is that either way, do nothing or something, this may have very little effect on the Barlow.
This is not magic money. Californians are paying for the grant and consultant through Caltrans. If Sebastopol gets a grant so must many other cities. Sebastopol is also paying for the staff time to handle this. Please list the numerous entities and where the sense came from? The surveys do not support this. There is no connection between what the people in town want and two way streets. The evidence that making this change leads to safer streets is very weak with plenty of evidence it will not lead to safer streets. Speed cams, red light cams, speed bumps and vigorous enforcement are proven to make streets safer yet have been ignored in the plans. Let me also respectfully point out that the goals of safer streets with better traffic flow is like having your cake and eating it too. More flow leads to faster traffic which leads to more accidents. Lastly, you can bet that since the Barlow developer is pushing for this as described in the Sebastopol Times, it is not having a negative impact on the Barlow.
Well, I disagree there is no interest or no connection. This grant opportunity would not have arisen without advocates. Again no interest would be a strong statement considering the businesses downtown, who have a strong interest in looking into it and have had bought of issues with traffic in front of their shops. We are trying very hard to keep those store fronts active and for a while they we not. The flow currently feels to push people through rather than invite them to stay.
The Climate Action Committee was looking at ways to reduce VMT, not going two way , but better organizing bike routes and increasing other active transportation and connection to other parts of the city.
CalTrans seeks to reduce accidents and incorporate complete streets policy.
I also do not want to conflate better flow with faster and more flow. Although I think having your cake and eating it too is a worthy goal, even if seemingly unattainable like actually eating cake and expecting to loose weight. Maybe eat less cake, healthier cake? Anyway, for me and why I am bothering to have this public conversation, is that the improvements must be worth the expense and disruption. I am neither advocating for or against a decision, just clarifying the process that brings it up now.
I cannot speak to the Barlow's motivations for two way, but looking at the options, I am not immediately struck with how this benefits the Barlow except by just generally making the area feel more hospitable, better for a lingering stay. I can certainly be missing something that could really help my thought process.
why are we moving water and sewer money to the general fund. If we didn't really need that money for water and sewer maintenance then people may want to lower their water and sewer taxation rates. Also, why are we still paying consultant fees for changes in the traffic pattern when it is clear that people don't want to go back to two way streets. What a waste of our
We are moving water and sewer funding to the General Fund to help pay for the indirect costs the systems shares with all city activities, like public works maintenance facilities, electric bills, attorney fees, admin. And being a small town, it it actually takes a good bit of work ( and costs labor hours) to collect data and discern what the enterprise funds' share of the burden is.
That's the work of the Oversight Committee, and its charge to do work, to better understand, and to recommend improvements to the money flow from water/sewer rate payers to General Fund. The goal is to better allocate funding for all infrastructure improvements. We are avoiding an expensive consultant through the committee, and using the valuable skills and expertise in our community to evaluate and advocate.
The city actually has about $20 million worth of roadwork to do and our roads are falling from poor into very poor condition, which is much more expensive to repair. If one includes the amount of money needed for road repair, the city has (minus) - $19 million. And this does not include sidewalks. Roads was one of the top 3 citizen's concerns coming out of the survey.
The grant awarded amount was $230,178 with a City match of $29,822. Total $260,000. Taxpayers need to know this. Phill is a council member. It's disturbing that he doesn't know that the City matched almost $30,000 Of our taxpayers money.
Look at the 5 year budget projection in the same document. Without the Barlow Hotel the city is projecting to be below policy reserve levels in FY27-28 and it will run out of reserves in FY29-30. Even with the hotel reserves are effectively depleted by FY 29-30.
Reserves are critical to ensuring sufficient cash to pay bills when expenses and revenues don't match during the year. Also, they are critical to help the city get through economic downturns or meet an unexpected expense. Once reserves get below a certain level expenditures may have to be delayed until revenues are realized or the city has to borrow money from the "bank". Once they are depleted the city is effectively bankrupt and the county takes over the city.
It is unclear that the council is aware and focused of the problem. The discussion about being out of a financial crisis was alarming. The council was discussing the actual document that shows bankruptcy in the immediate future. They should have been asking questions like what level of reserve is necessary to ensure sufficient cash flow to pay the bills during the year.
Rather than cancelling the financial emergency or accelerating spending of "excess" reserves, the council should be talking about establishing a "Financial Oversight Committee" that includes members of the community that understand finances and can consider new options to strengthen the city's financial future.
Historically, the solution has been to not spend money to fix the streets. The 5-year forecast includes $800,000 per year to fix streets. It is likely that is more than has been spent by the city (without grant money) in the entire last 10 years.
According to a recent MTD report the city's pavement condition index (PCI) of 50 is the worst in Sonoma County. A score of 49 is considered poor. Streets in this condition cost 5 to 10 times more to repair than is cost to maintain fair/good streets.
The 2025 Street study estimated that the city would have to spend minimally $1MM a year to just maintain the current overall pavement score. at $800,000 the PCI will continue to decline.
If the city council follows the pattern of previous councils, expect the $800,000 for street repairs to morph into a priority to fix potholes.
Given budget problems why is the city obsessed with two way streets that are 1/unpopular; only 23% actually want two way streets, and 2/ against the recommendation of expensive consultants. This plan is wasting our money and will destroy the downtown at the behest of a developer (see the Sebastopol Times article reporting on a secret meeting with Chamber of Commerce, developer of a dying flooded outdoor mall including at least one council member) pushing for two way streets. Let's re-route all the northbound traffic from 112 through the Barlow to give it the small town Main Street feel instead!
Hi Tibby - As the editor and lead reporter for this news site, I have no idea which story you're referring to when you wrote "See the Sebastopol Times article reporting on a secret meeting with Chamber of Commerce, developer of a dying flooded outdoor mall including at least one council member." Can you provide a link? I don't believe we ever wrote such a story. Perhaps you're thinking of another paper?
It was the invitation only meeting in the Barlow. You wrote a preface about your conflict of interest because of you're being a part-time contractor for the City of Sebastopol. And then toward the end, "Seemingly rankled at the many hits directed at Sebastopol’s city government, Mayor Neysa Hinton stood up and said that the city had spent $500,000 in the last several years on economic development efforts. (Author’s note: This includes $136,000 on Relaunch Sebastopol, $26,000 of which went to this author in 2022.)". Thank you for that transparency, very honorable.
Oh, that's what she was referring to! Interesting. I didn't recall that there was a mention of two-way streets at the meeting. I wouldn't call it a secret meeting, however. Although it was by invitation, it seemed like there were about 100 people from dozens of organizations and businesses in Sebastopol.
The city is not paying for the street consultant. It is a grant that is supported by CalTrans because numerous entities sense the city might need to improve moving through it safer, with better flow for downtown non Barlow business. My observation so far, is that either way, do nothing or something, this may have very little effect on the Barlow.
This is not magic money. Californians are paying for the grant and consultant through Caltrans. If Sebastopol gets a grant so must many other cities. Sebastopol is also paying for the staff time to handle this. Please list the numerous entities and where the sense came from? The surveys do not support this. There is no connection between what the people in town want and two way streets. The evidence that making this change leads to safer streets is very weak with plenty of evidence it will not lead to safer streets. Speed cams, red light cams, speed bumps and vigorous enforcement are proven to make streets safer yet have been ignored in the plans. Let me also respectfully point out that the goals of safer streets with better traffic flow is like having your cake and eating it too. More flow leads to faster traffic which leads to more accidents. Lastly, you can bet that since the Barlow developer is pushing for this as described in the Sebastopol Times, it is not having a negative impact on the Barlow.
Well, I disagree there is no interest or no connection. This grant opportunity would not have arisen without advocates. Again no interest would be a strong statement considering the businesses downtown, who have a strong interest in looking into it and have had bought of issues with traffic in front of their shops. We are trying very hard to keep those store fronts active and for a while they we not. The flow currently feels to push people through rather than invite them to stay.
The Climate Action Committee was looking at ways to reduce VMT, not going two way , but better organizing bike routes and increasing other active transportation and connection to other parts of the city.
CalTrans seeks to reduce accidents and incorporate complete streets policy.
I also do not want to conflate better flow with faster and more flow. Although I think having your cake and eating it too is a worthy goal, even if seemingly unattainable like actually eating cake and expecting to loose weight. Maybe eat less cake, healthier cake? Anyway, for me and why I am bothering to have this public conversation, is that the improvements must be worth the expense and disruption. I am neither advocating for or against a decision, just clarifying the process that brings it up now.
I cannot speak to the Barlow's motivations for two way, but looking at the options, I am not immediately struck with how this benefits the Barlow except by just generally making the area feel more hospitable, better for a lingering stay. I can certainly be missing something that could really help my thought process.
why are we moving water and sewer money to the general fund. If we didn't really need that money for water and sewer maintenance then people may want to lower their water and sewer taxation rates. Also, why are we still paying consultant fees for changes in the traffic pattern when it is clear that people don't want to go back to two way streets. What a waste of our
money.
We are moving water and sewer funding to the General Fund to help pay for the indirect costs the systems shares with all city activities, like public works maintenance facilities, electric bills, attorney fees, admin. And being a small town, it it actually takes a good bit of work ( and costs labor hours) to collect data and discern what the enterprise funds' share of the burden is.
That's the work of the Oversight Committee, and its charge to do work, to better understand, and to recommend improvements to the money flow from water/sewer rate payers to General Fund. The goal is to better allocate funding for all infrastructure improvements. We are avoiding an expensive consultant through the committee, and using the valuable skills and expertise in our community to evaluate and advocate.
The city actually has about $20 million worth of roadwork to do and our roads are falling from poor into very poor condition, which is much more expensive to repair. If one includes the amount of money needed for road repair, the city has (minus) - $19 million. And this does not include sidewalks. Roads was one of the top 3 citizen's concerns coming out of the survey.
The grant awarded amount was $230,178 with a City match of $29,822. Total $260,000. Taxpayers need to know this. Phill is a council member. It's disturbing that he doesn't know that the City matched almost $30,000 Of our taxpayers money.