And this would require selling the current city hall and library. Are there restrictions? Is there a market? What is the value of those properties? Timing of such a sale, viz. O'Reilly. Advice: keep the cart behind the horse.
What restrictions will the planning commission place on development at that location? How would those limitations, actual or perceived by potential buyers, affect the demand for, or the price of the properties?
Great questions - and ones we've thought of and lean towards having positive results because of active queries potential tenants. These are questions we can pursue if the council chooses to look further. To fully flesh out a project which is basically in idea stage and speculative - with no approval from council is the wrong order of operations. The next step is vetting the project, as called for by this letter, which should answer your questions more concretely.
Who are the potential tenants and are they willing to pay market rates? Please don't say this is confidential or that you have not reached that stage first, the first thing to discusses with a tenant is money.
There might be a better solution, which is that the Senior Center moves to the O'Reilly and becomes the master tenant and organizes a capital campaign with the County. The Senior Center is its own nonprofit and can fund raise. It serves the majority of West County as their maps show. There is no reason why the City would become the administrative of such a massive complex which would involve a lot of accounting and due diligence. The City simply does not have the administrative resources and has not proven itself to be a great manager of physical assets. The Senior Center, on the other hand, is doing great economically, can fund raise and can partner with the County. I believe the Sebastopol Senior Center is the only facility of its kind in District 5. Maybe Supervisor Hopkins could direct funds toward it since the Senior Center's Data shows it is heavily used by West County residents. If the Senior Center moved, the library could move its administrative offices into the current Senior Center, freeing up floor space for more patron use. I'm not sure if it would be economically viable for the City to sell the library parking lot to a developer. I'm also not sure that developers are wanting to build right now. The City just had to give back 50% of TOT to get The Barlow Hotel off the ground because of financing.
Interesting idea, Kate! If this hasn't already been explored, it should be. One of the biggest drawbacks with the work of the Commons committee is that they were really focused on keeping all these organizations under one roof. The Community Center was included, but the O'Reilly site is not good for the Community Center because of noise and nearby neighbors.
I have explored the idea for sure. Please know that I liked the idea of just moving the 3 - in my matrix you can see the affect of this on the financials. Simply remove the sale of the current buildings. And know that you are asking the Senior Center to come up with $8-18MM on its own. It would take at least $6M just to remodel the current library as it would cause reviews of seismic and ada and there would be no alternative to cover the load - except gifts. My guess is this may never happen - so if we move now we instantly have a better library - with quieter spaces - move interactivty - a space for something Chimera - and it will open up the current civic square for development that can have real economic impact to the core of downtown - much more than current. We do need a 3rd place downtown - where kids can be free but safe. Does that have to be this iteration of a library?
Why doesn't the Senior Center work with the current O'Reilly owner and try to come up with a plan. As the O'Reilly has been vacant with no takers for many years, it seems they might be open to reduced rents from non-profits and a possible tax deduction (?). Maybe the O'Reilly owner could re-imagine the complex as a community hub and give reduced rents to a group of non-profits or do a rent to own for the non-profits that want to occupy the space. The Senior Center has a robust organization and means to raise money. I know they don't want to take on the costs and administrative burden of the project and want the City/ Sebastopol residents to do that but the Senior Center is in a much better financial position than the City.
Erika, from the Library, stated that they would not really be able to use the Senior Center building as it is separate from the Main Library. So that's not a viable option. I'm not sure if the City could simply sell the building as it was a donation. It has parking and a commercial kitchen.
I support the Senior Center growing and doing more. In different discussions, there have been mention of a bookstore, cafe, pre-school at the site. All of these ideas are wonderful and I would love to see that happen. Maybe the great energy and work that has been done can be focused on having the Senior Center develop the space and secure these tenants? It would be great to have that end of town activated by an energized and organized institution like the Senior Center. I think the Senior Center should be working with Supervisor Hopkins to see what type of funding is available.
Kate, I don't want to rehash what I've stated elsewhere here. Just let me add that the Senior Center does not believe running the entire Commons is central to their specific mission. They are enthusiastic about being a partner to the project and directly supporting the O'Reilly campus as a functional resiliency center (which opens the door to various grants and other outside-of-Sebastopol funding sources).
Lisa, that was the City Council's charge for our Committee. And, the under-one-roof strategy for civic functions is compelling. See elsewhere here my explanation of the Community Center - in short, their mission is best served by having multiple venue options throughout the City. The Commons would simply house some of those options.
A question, have you considered how the cuts at the Federal and State have already impacted Sonoma County and with the County of Sonoma not giving Cost of Living increases for their retired County workers for 25 years. The County will not come to your help in building this at a level of money needed. I can see seed money maybe.
I do not support the Commons Project as I live within City Limits and feel that the Council should focus on funding and completing critical Water System upgrades. Currently, our Water Supply is vulnerable. The City Staff have limited time to administer complicated capital improvements. I would like the focus to be on Water and Sewer and paying back the $5.5 Million identified by the Grand Jury. My suggestion is that if the Senior Center wants to expand, they need to take a leadership role and do a capital campaign on their own. The City needs to focus on immediate and vital infrastructure needs. When I vote, I will be voting for candidates who support repaying the $5.5 to the Enterprise Funds and are committed to securing the Water Supply.
Great letter! I wonder if the city council will take it to heart. Are they willing to listen to a CPA? Have they gotten a CPA to review and work with them regarding the water and sewer money, like the Grand Jury said they should do? We shall see.............
I also support the City getting a forensic accountant to review the past Water and Sewer budgets to make sure the Enterprise Funds were refunded when the City transferred the amounts identified in the "Adopted Budgets" out of the Enterprise Funds to the General Funds versus the "Actual Budgets". I personally have never seen a rebate to the Enterprise Funds. Last year Ratepayers were charged for a City Manager even though the position was vacant for a year. I still don't see that money being returned to the Enterprise Funds.
Yes, it's time to get some professional (CPA and otherwise) review of the Committee's research and recommendation. Encourage the City Council to authorize further investigation at the 9/15 meeting.
Are the costs of the CPA being shared by the county, the Library, the Senor Center and all the others who may benefit from this project? Or are we citizens who pay taxes in town being asked to do this, excluding Kent Jenkins who does not live in Sebastopol and does not pay taxes here.
Kent, will the Senior Center be paying for all the due diligence expenses or are they being paid for by the residents of Sebastopol? Where is the financial part of the partnership?
This project is not financially possible. The library administration has not expressed interest in spending the money to build out the space or pay this amount of rent. (The library system just spent $12million on a new office building.) The City itself is at best on a razor's edge financially and will have to come up with a plan to make the water and sewer funds whole. And it would be financially foolish for the City to take on this much additional risk. The Senior Center would have to take on much large monthly costs than they now carry and build out the new space. For starters, a new commercial kitchen would be $500K or so. Which of these entities has the resources to take on the overall risk of building out and running this property? In addition these building have been available for years and are sitting empty, there's your market survey.
A lot of “city” do this, or “city” decided that in the comments. This initiative is entirely driven by three City Council people (Hinton, Carter, Zollman). City Manager Mary Gourley has not said a word. It is not listed in the one year goals. There is no money in the budget for developing the idea. (There is a planned $850,000 deficit and money owed to water rate payers that is not in the budget).There may be some urgency to getting this to a vote before Councilmember Zollman goes off the Council and they no longer have three sure votes.
I'm just wanting to add one observation - if the City commits to the Commons here, then this whole complex will in effect by "anchored" by these uses. I can see a great range of tenants that might want to locate in this Commons complex that will be anchored by the library, City Hall, and the Senior Center. This is a very different scenario than trying to lease an entirely vacant O'Reilly office complex. Given also the proximity to the West County trail, as well as the new Canopy development, I think a Commons project here will hit the ground running.
Right now the City would have to find a person willing to buy the Library, City Hall, and current Senior Center. It is unclear if there are any takers. You might notice huge amounts of commercial vacancy in downtown Sebastopol and lots of large commercial parcels for sale. In addition, the sale of the Library Parking Lot might be a final death knife into the hearts of Main Street merchants. The City also does not have a proven track record with complex administrative functions. In May 2026, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury found it had misappropriated $5,500,000 in Enterprise Funds. It still owes that money to the Ratepayers so that the Water System can receive critical infrastructure upgrades to secure the Water Supply. My suggestion is that the Senior Center, which is a separate nonprofit, move to the O'Reilly and become the anchor tenant and master lease holder. The Senior Center can fund raise on its own and partner with the County. It can have the administrative and legal duties of running a master tenant lease. The Management of the Senior Center is extremely competent. Their books are better than the City's. They are more financially sound than the City of Sebastopol. In watching the growth of the Senior Center, I can confidently say they would be able to manage and finance such a move with ease. They serve West County residents. That location would be better for the West County residents they serve. The could enter into partnerships with for profits and nonprofits.
Interesting suggestion. Yes, SASC is a very well run nonprofit with a mission to support our growing senior population. Yet, the city has a mission as well, which is to serve all of our communities. The Library brings county operational funds proportional to the size of the library, not necessarily the size of the population it actually serves.
The whole idea of the Commons, which has been years in the making, is to bring all these functions and more together to share space, costs, and provide an attractive regional center for government, nonprofits and related businesses. We've road tested the concept with prospective tenants, put together a finance plan which brings in outside-of-Sebastopol funds, and costed out all the viable alternatives.
Many of these first impression questions have already been investigated and answered. The Committee is a public body...anyone willing can find our reports and files through the City website. Has everything been resolved? Of course not, which is why the vote on 9/15 will simply be to authorize investigation beyond the charge of the current standing committee.
Yes, there will need to be professional management, improvements to the bus routes, attention to sidewalks and traffic signals, and all other manner of administrative and logistical support for a Commons. Any major civic project has these kinds of hurdles, and somehow, year after year, municipality after municipality makes it work. I believe we will handle these matters in due course, because this project is that important to our area's well being.
I won't speak to the Enterprise Funds, water rates, or the Grand Jury report, because I didn't spend the last year investigating those. Others have, so I respect their comments about that. Here, I and the rest of the Committee have done this kind of investigation on the Commons concept. That work has led us to focus on the big picture after slogging through the details.
The question is: what project(s) serve the residents and visitors of Sebastopol with new opportunities to thrive, and which projects over time actually improve the City's financial position? We believe a Commons does both. See and hear the data at the Open House and the 9/15 Council meeting.
Hi Kent, I applaud all the work that has been done on the Commons and also love the idea of the activation of the O'Reilly. I hope the work that has been done can be of fruition without the City's involvement. I'm not sure if you are on City Water but as a resident of Sebastopol on City Water, I want my Water Supply secured before the City embarks on a massive administrative project. Right now an earthquake could take out Water for a large percentage of City residents because of the lack of redundancy in the Pleasant Hill line and the unsecured Water Storage Towers. If there is an earthquake both Pleasant Hill and the Water Towers are vulnerable. Well #4 is a decade past its normal usage. These are significant infrastructure issues that have languished for decades due to poor administration by the City. Having a secure Water Supply will best serve residents and visitors.
As you may or may not know, the City of Sebastopol receives less than 20% of the property tax it generates. The County gets the other 80%. Of the tax revenue generated in Sebastopol, 30% of it goes into running the City. This is a fairly large portion of revenue going toward administration. As you point out, running a project of this magnitude requires a lot of administration. At this point, the City does not have the economic resources to complete its duty to residents and local businesses and tackle this giant endeavor. The County, on the other hand, is receiving 80% of Sebastopol's property tax. If the County wants to expand services to seniors in West County, its economic position is much more viable. The County has a budget close to $3,000,000,000 ($3 Billion). Sebastopol is projecting General Fund revenue at $15,500,000 ($15.5 million). As you can see, the County has billions more than the City of Sebastopol and some of those billions are property taxes from Sebastopol. Supervisor Hopkins should be working with the Senior Center to help the Senior Center grow. If you want to help Sebastopol, suggest that it receive a higher percentage of property tax to support its work it does for West County.
Kent, can you point us to the financial analysis that has been done? I have seen Phil’s website which is slick but not truly a financial analysis. You say oreilly is less costly than staying put? Love to see the math. Looked in the drop box. Looked at the commons section of the city website but no docs there.
The financial grid is a matrix and type of analysis as much as can be outlaid at this early stage. You appear to be asking for what we are about to ask the city to do. My website is based on a deep spreadsheet turned over to the city for its use in case this activity does progress.
If the city hall, library and senior center anchor the Commons does that mean the core downtown become unanchored when they leave? Isn't that just logic?
Sort of apples and oranges. Core downtown now depends on retail, office and some residential use. but the "anchor" there is its overall density, how it works together.
"Anchor" in the case of the former O'Reilly campus is more specific, relating to this single property. In this case, the anchor uses and the supporting, complementary tenant will create a certain density, with the tenants providing necessary financial support too. In other words, the core downtown is not dependent on an anchor use(s) due to its density.
This is spot on. Thank you. It will be a draw for all kinds of local and regional entities. We already have interest from pre-school, co-working space, and independent professionals. However, most prospective tenants need details such as specific available spaces, lease rates, CAM fees, etc. With a 9/15 Council vote to authorize further exploration, we can then provide that kind of information with sufficient detail to get preliminary commitments from prospective tenants. And, part of the plan is an extended escrow period to gather committed interest. If the world changes dramatically during that period (as we know it can happen), then the City can release itself of an obligation to move forward.
Just came out of a talk at Burbank Heights and Orchards about the Commons issue. I was feeling queasy about the process of how this committee was formed and presented itself. The City Council ought not make any firm decisions or spend any money pursuing this one idea right now. Give it a rest until 2027. This time best serves Sebastapolians by brain storming and public discussion. There is no hurry.
There is a public comment for next weeks council meeting from the Kiwanis, gravenstein health action, Meet your neighbors, Sebastopol area time bank, Sonoma county tool library, and the senior center, all in support of this proposal and pledging to work with the City “to articulate space requirements”! Are they rent payers or just hoping the city will carry them all on the backs of the tax payers? Is there anyone that knows the city is budgeting deficits going forward leading to bankruptcy In five years?
Thank you for pointing out the widespread organizational support for continuing investigation into a Commons in Sebastopol. For those organizations not currently operating under an arrangement with the City, they will be paying rent. The whole purpose of the Commons is sharing space and some administrative costs to optimize organizations' spend on real estate. That's in addition to the benefits of working side by side leading to collaborations that improves services to our community. Again, a successful Commons leads to a better Sebastopol balance sheet than any of the other explored options, including doing nothing.
Wait a minute! So you are saying the the organizations not currently operating under an arrangement with the city will be paying rent. That means the senior center would continue paying $1 a year when it should be paying thousands more a month??
Sebastopol as a governing body through the leadership of the City Council seems perplexed at keeping the fine cities roads paved, and improving their missed marks on keeping the Municipal Water flowing. How can this project be taken seriously? Some might say this movement afloat to buy a surplus building, then losing all the tax revenue as it will now be tax free and government owned, is folly. But alas this is just Round Two of more folly. Show me the numbers and prove me wrong...
I hope they answer the CPA! I like the questions. Is the CPA looking to join the Enterprise Funds Oversight Committee. The Grand Jury recommended a CPA for the EFOC.
Also, I recall the director of Sonoma County Library saying that she did not consider O'Reilly a suitable location for the library, at a recent meeting in Sebastopol I listened in on via Zoom.
Because not enough space and multi-storied, that's what the library director said at the meeting. She asked Sebastopol folks not to make plans for a new library, to let library administration do that. Just saying cuz I think the library would be an anchor tenant in the City's view, but maybe not in the library's view.
It might be good for City of Sebastopol to check in with the Sonoma County Library director again before the meeting? Things might have changed in the last few months. But it seems important to understand the library's position clearly.
Madeline makes THE most important point having to do with the library. I remember the director of the SC Library saying it was unsuitable as well. Madeline asked if anyone has checked with the Library director recently and what was her response. So what, if there are 5 people on the committee representing various Library interests. Have any of them spoken to the director? If so, what was her response? How about some transparency.
Addressing the series of comments here. First, I invite you to learn how the SC library system actually works. It's complicated given the various oversight bodies, controlling commission, administration, dedicated taxes, and local branch management. I mention 5 people on the Committee -- no two of them work in the same part of the system. The Library Director is a fierce advocate for the system and wants an ideal space. We all have our ideals, and we all eventually make decisions based on whether what's on offer is better than what we had before (which right now is a too small, mostly shuttered building)
It's interesting to suggest that the Committee hasn't communicated with the library, when the root of the Commons was a decade old demand from the library that the Sebastopol branch needs twice its existing space. Think about it. How would the director even know to discuss desired space alterations at O'Reilly if she hadn't been on a Committee arranged tour?
Perhaps I can be more helpful in stating a process reality. A new space for the Sebastopol Library has to be a cooperative venture between the Library (tenant) and the City (landlord). It is a process dictated by the JPA (which you'll learn about if you study the library system) and the branch lease. None of our conversations about a potential location for the library are official until the City Council authorizes opening a formal negotiation with the Library. That step is part of the Committee's ask of the City Council at their 9/15 meeting. That step is part of the preliminary due diligence the City needs to undertake before giving any kind of approval for actual building acquisition.
Thanks for publishing this letter. All good considerations and a thoughtful way to move forward. One additional question: can the city afford this in light of the fact that it diverted $5.5 million from the water and sewer accounts? As someone who has been paying more than one water and sewer bill in Sebastopol for more than a decade, I look forward to receiving back those funds that were illegally spent on items other than water and sewer. Not against "the Commons", just calling for common sense, just as was reported here. Lastly, I recommend the city hire a forensic accountant or use some serious AI tools to see if there has been any embezzlement, beyond the improper charging for water and sewer. Unfortunately, my faith in the above board operation of our city is not growing!
Max, I wouldn’t hold your breath to receive any money personally. Any money that the city returns to its water and sewer funds will be used for badly needed maintenance, which is what it should’ve been used for in the first place. I don’t believe Kate has ever suggested there was actual embezzlement or even nefarious intent. The money went to support other things in the city, including some things you probably like, like parks and the police.
Excellent question! I suggest you propose this to the Council at their meeting. It seems that if this is viable, the other stakeholders should be able to do it without the City taking on more physical assets to manage and maintain. There is a huge backlog of infrastructure that is under the City's purview that needs to be addressed. Like the $20 million needed for roads. The City should complete necessary infrastructure work and repaying the Enterprise Funds before embarking on a massive capital project that will likely require intensive management and oversight. We need to get the Pleasant Hill Loop fixed so that we have water for 50% of the city if there is a breach in the line.
My suggestion is that the Senior Center move to the O'Reilly and see if the County will help get them started. The Senior Center has heavy usage by residents throughout West County. The Senior Center is a nonprofit that has its own fund raising capabilities. In fact, I think they are having a cool fund raiser coming up. The Senior Center can do a capital campaign and also partner with the County. Currently, the Senior Center rents from the City for $1 per year. I fully support the development of the O'Reilly. Maybe the Senior Center can spearhead the move and organize new tenants. It seems that the City cannot take on more administrative overhead at this point until it fulfills its Grand Jury obligations and fixes the roads. I would love it if the Senior Center got things going at the O'Reilly. Maybe they can be the master tenant on the lease and then manage all the other nonprofits and for-profits that sign on? I'm not sure about the library. Maybe they could move their administrative offices into the current Senior Center location and free up some of the floor space in the current library. That might add an additional 800 square feet at no cost.
Absolutely the right question. Can the City afford it? But also, can the City afford not to? Come hear the presentation. Spoiler: one of the takeaways is that, over ten years, it is actually more expensive to do nothing with our existing aging properties than it would be to purchase and operate a Commons at the Gravenstein Hwy N campus. Only through the Commons creation do we open new streams of income and tax revenue for the City from outside sources.
Has the City of Sebastopol been paying for space in the O'Reilly complex so the committee can hold open houses there? If not, has the Senior Center been paying the current owners of the complex for use of the property? Have the current owners been providing the space gratis as part of an effort to market the property to the city?
I've been doing a bit of AI-assisted research and have discovered that the president of H1 Real Estate (which owns the O'Reilly complex) is also co-chairman of the board of City Ventures (a development firm that holds an option on the two vacant parcels adjacent to the complex and is building a separate housing project nearby called Canopy).
I'm wondering if any member of Sebastopol's ‘Building The Commons’ Committee has now, or has ever had, a personal or business relationship (as a professional consultant or otherwise) with any members of either of these real estate enterprises.
Interesting research. We seem to have a motivated seller! I wonder why the O'Reilly owner does not convert the center to housing. Or work with the nonprofit entities like the Senior Center to a reduced sale price and receive a tax credit. The Senior Center could do a capital campaign to purchase and then negotiate a reduced sales price. Gemini calls it a charitable bargain sale. They could also develop it as low-income senior housing and get tax credits. Maybe a better path forward would be for the landlord to sell part of the complex to the Senior Center at a reduced rate and then develop the rest into low-income senior housing. I don't think the canopy has sold a single unit so they are probably trying to activate the space to help sales on the Canopy side.
Yes that relationship between the owner of the potential Commons site and the Canopy is there. Which is why both parties would like to get those buildings occupied sooner than later. And, to my knowledge, no one on the committee has any financial ties to either of them.
As far as the Open Houses go, that's a fairly normal procedure for Sellers to make the property available to potential buyers. The bigger the building, the more extensive the tours. The City did commit some staff time to set up the presentation equipment.
My understanding has been that open houses are organized by the sellers of a given property to attract any and all potential buyers, rather than by groups exploring the possibility of persuading a local government to consider purchasing a property based on preposterous funding assumptions.
Sebastopol has zero experience managing commercial real estate but it wants to take over the O'Reilly property to do this. An expensive outside management company will be hired that will prove very costly to us taxpayers. Decisions like this are why our taxes are high and the town is in a financial predicament. This is definitely not viable commercial space, if it was buyers would be lining up to buy or lease it and they are not. It is most likely that the town officials want swanky new digs, the Chamber of Commerce also wants swanky new digs and a few highly regarded local institutions (library and Sr. Center) have joined in. There are many low cost options including remote work, renting space and just making do with what we have as many of us need to do.
Has the feasibility of this been run through an AI? I strongly suggest doing so. A number of flawed contracts the city has signed up for would have been detected immediately by an AI.
It also does not seem that the impact on the downtown has been quantitatively examined. Just a few months ago enhancing the downtown was a major driver in the two way street issue, but now it's not being considered. Is the intent to increase sprawl and the suburban driving culture by moving these city services so far from the center of town?
Hopefully some of the council candidates will take a position to look at this objectively especially the financial impact so the upcoming election will reflect what the people want.
I understand the big perfectly well as the above comments show. The dog and pony show put on for to check a box for public input will be a wasted evening. The experience with the one way/two way was indicative, public sentiment was clearly against two way, it's not who gets the votes but who counts them that matters, as a Time Man of the Year once said. Nevertheless, lets vote in a council that will stop this boondoggle. There is not one clear benefit to the community meaning the people of Sebastopol from this extremely costly and risky project.
Hmm, guessing you didn't go. All 5 City Council members were there, and I saw at least one of the new council candidates. Several presentations highlighted the benefits you don't see, and there were some very thoughtful Q&A exchanges, both pro and con. The Sebastopol Times was there...Laura was able to step in and correct some misinformation underlying one complaint.
The majority of the attendees said this was their first or an early impression of the whole project. This was our second public awareness event offering people the chance to better understand the choices before the Council next week. Should the City approve additional investigation of our recommendation, then there will actually be something concrete on the table for the public to give their input on and a budget to make it happen.
Kent Jenkins does not live in Sebastopol so will not bear any of the tax responsibility for this project, which the free market has rejected since the real estate remains unsold. He is just a special interest or busy-body.
What will become of the Weeks House after the Senior Center decamps? Would the city's ability to dispose of it be hampered by restrictions imposed during the transfer of the property from its former owners to the city in the late 1960s?
As I stated before, I think it would be great if the Library took it over for their administrative offices. There is a commercial kitchen in the building and maybe there could be a cafe for library patrons???
Has there been any assessment of the legal fees that would be required to set up the administration and financing of this process. If so, would they be split between the City and the other entities or would the City of Sebastopol be on the hook for all the legal fees and project administration? I completely support the activation of the O'Reilly Center. I'm just concerned about the City's ability to manage and finance such an operation without losing focus on the immediate infrastructure needs. It would require legal expertise, insurance, maintenance, commercial real estate leasing, financing and other critical administrative functions not currently within the scope of the City's administration. The City has trouble processing certain types of online payments for its water and sewer bills. I'm not sure if it has the staffing configuration to take on a project and financial responsibility of this magnitude.
And this would require selling the current city hall and library. Are there restrictions? Is there a market? What is the value of those properties? Timing of such a sale, viz. O'Reilly. Advice: keep the cart behind the horse.
What restrictions will the planning commission place on development at that location? How would those limitations, actual or perceived by potential buyers, affect the demand for, or the price of the properties?
Great questions - and ones we've thought of and lean towards having positive results because of active queries potential tenants. These are questions we can pursue if the council chooses to look further. To fully flesh out a project which is basically in idea stage and speculative - with no approval from council is the wrong order of operations. The next step is vetting the project, as called for by this letter, which should answer your questions more concretely.
Who are the potential tenants and are they willing to pay market rates? Please don't say this is confidential or that you have not reached that stage first, the first thing to discusses with a tenant is money.
There might be a better solution, which is that the Senior Center moves to the O'Reilly and becomes the master tenant and organizes a capital campaign with the County. The Senior Center is its own nonprofit and can fund raise. It serves the majority of West County as their maps show. There is no reason why the City would become the administrative of such a massive complex which would involve a lot of accounting and due diligence. The City simply does not have the administrative resources and has not proven itself to be a great manager of physical assets. The Senior Center, on the other hand, is doing great economically, can fund raise and can partner with the County. I believe the Sebastopol Senior Center is the only facility of its kind in District 5. Maybe Supervisor Hopkins could direct funds toward it since the Senior Center's Data shows it is heavily used by West County residents. If the Senior Center moved, the library could move its administrative offices into the current Senior Center, freeing up floor space for more patron use. I'm not sure if it would be economically viable for the City to sell the library parking lot to a developer. I'm also not sure that developers are wanting to build right now. The City just had to give back 50% of TOT to get The Barlow Hotel off the ground because of financing.
Interesting idea, Kate! If this hasn't already been explored, it should be. One of the biggest drawbacks with the work of the Commons committee is that they were really focused on keeping all these organizations under one roof. The Community Center was included, but the O'Reilly site is not good for the Community Center because of noise and nearby neighbors.
I have explored the idea for sure. Please know that I liked the idea of just moving the 3 - in my matrix you can see the affect of this on the financials. Simply remove the sale of the current buildings. And know that you are asking the Senior Center to come up with $8-18MM on its own. It would take at least $6M just to remodel the current library as it would cause reviews of seismic and ada and there would be no alternative to cover the load - except gifts. My guess is this may never happen - so if we move now we instantly have a better library - with quieter spaces - move interactivty - a space for something Chimera - and it will open up the current civic square for development that can have real economic impact to the core of downtown - much more than current. We do need a 3rd place downtown - where kids can be free but safe. Does that have to be this iteration of a library?
Why doesn't the Senior Center work with the current O'Reilly owner and try to come up with a plan. As the O'Reilly has been vacant with no takers for many years, it seems they might be open to reduced rents from non-profits and a possible tax deduction (?). Maybe the O'Reilly owner could re-imagine the complex as a community hub and give reduced rents to a group of non-profits or do a rent to own for the non-profits that want to occupy the space. The Senior Center has a robust organization and means to raise money. I know they don't want to take on the costs and administrative burden of the project and want the City/ Sebastopol residents to do that but the Senior Center is in a much better financial position than the City.
Lisa,
Erika, from the Library, stated that they would not really be able to use the Senior Center building as it is separate from the Main Library. So that's not a viable option. I'm not sure if the City could simply sell the building as it was a donation. It has parking and a commercial kitchen.
I support the Senior Center growing and doing more. In different discussions, there have been mention of a bookstore, cafe, pre-school at the site. All of these ideas are wonderful and I would love to see that happen. Maybe the great energy and work that has been done can be focused on having the Senior Center develop the space and secure these tenants? It would be great to have that end of town activated by an energized and organized institution like the Senior Center. I think the Senior Center should be working with Supervisor Hopkins to see what type of funding is available.
Kate, I don't want to rehash what I've stated elsewhere here. Just let me add that the Senior Center does not believe running the entire Commons is central to their specific mission. They are enthusiastic about being a partner to the project and directly supporting the O'Reilly campus as a functional resiliency center (which opens the door to various grants and other outside-of-Sebastopol funding sources).
Lisa, that was the City Council's charge for our Committee. And, the under-one-roof strategy for civic functions is compelling. See elsewhere here my explanation of the Community Center - in short, their mission is best served by having multiple venue options throughout the City. The Commons would simply house some of those options.
A question, have you considered how the cuts at the Federal and State have already impacted Sonoma County and with the County of Sonoma not giving Cost of Living increases for their retired County workers for 25 years. The County will not come to your help in building this at a level of money needed. I can see seed money maybe.
Ruby,
I do not support the Commons Project as I live within City Limits and feel that the Council should focus on funding and completing critical Water System upgrades. Currently, our Water Supply is vulnerable. The City Staff have limited time to administer complicated capital improvements. I would like the focus to be on Water and Sewer and paying back the $5.5 Million identified by the Grand Jury. My suggestion is that if the Senior Center wants to expand, they need to take a leadership role and do a capital campaign on their own. The City needs to focus on immediate and vital infrastructure needs. When I vote, I will be voting for candidates who support repaying the $5.5 to the Enterprise Funds and are committed to securing the Water Supply.
I don't think the library is sellable with the black mold issue.
Perhaps sellable as a development site ?
Likely its highest value.
Great letter! I wonder if the city council will take it to heart. Are they willing to listen to a CPA? Have they gotten a CPA to review and work with them regarding the water and sewer money, like the Grand Jury said they should do? We shall see.............
I also support the City getting a forensic accountant to review the past Water and Sewer budgets to make sure the Enterprise Funds were refunded when the City transferred the amounts identified in the "Adopted Budgets" out of the Enterprise Funds to the General Funds versus the "Actual Budgets". I personally have never seen a rebate to the Enterprise Funds. Last year Ratepayers were charged for a City Manager even though the position was vacant for a year. I still don't see that money being returned to the Enterprise Funds.
Yes, it's time to get some professional (CPA and otherwise) review of the Committee's research and recommendation. Encourage the City Council to authorize further investigation at the 9/15 meeting.
And how much will that cost?
Are the costs of the CPA being shared by the county, the Library, the Senor Center and all the others who may benefit from this project? Or are we citizens who pay taxes in town being asked to do this, excluding Kent Jenkins who does not live in Sebastopol and does not pay taxes here.
I invite you to come tonight and/or watch the City Council meeting on Tuesday to better understand the big picture and the details.
Kent, will the Senior Center be paying for all the due diligence expenses or are they being paid for by the residents of Sebastopol? Where is the financial part of the partnership?
This project is not financially possible. The library administration has not expressed interest in spending the money to build out the space or pay this amount of rent. (The library system just spent $12million on a new office building.) The City itself is at best on a razor's edge financially and will have to come up with a plan to make the water and sewer funds whole. And it would be financially foolish for the City to take on this much additional risk. The Senior Center would have to take on much large monthly costs than they now carry and build out the new space. For starters, a new commercial kitchen would be $500K or so. Which of these entities has the resources to take on the overall risk of building out and running this property? In addition these building have been available for years and are sitting empty, there's your market survey.
A lot of “city” do this, or “city” decided that in the comments. This initiative is entirely driven by three City Council people (Hinton, Carter, Zollman). City Manager Mary Gourley has not said a word. It is not listed in the one year goals. There is no money in the budget for developing the idea. (There is a planned $850,000 deficit and money owed to water rate payers that is not in the budget).There may be some urgency to getting this to a vote before Councilmember Zollman goes off the Council and they no longer have three sure votes.
Thanks Glenn for your valuable suggestions.
I'm just wanting to add one observation - if the City commits to the Commons here, then this whole complex will in effect by "anchored" by these uses. I can see a great range of tenants that might want to locate in this Commons complex that will be anchored by the library, City Hall, and the Senior Center. This is a very different scenario than trying to lease an entirely vacant O'Reilly office complex. Given also the proximity to the West County trail, as well as the new Canopy development, I think a Commons project here will hit the ground running.
Right now the City would have to find a person willing to buy the Library, City Hall, and current Senior Center. It is unclear if there are any takers. You might notice huge amounts of commercial vacancy in downtown Sebastopol and lots of large commercial parcels for sale. In addition, the sale of the Library Parking Lot might be a final death knife into the hearts of Main Street merchants. The City also does not have a proven track record with complex administrative functions. In May 2026, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury found it had misappropriated $5,500,000 in Enterprise Funds. It still owes that money to the Ratepayers so that the Water System can receive critical infrastructure upgrades to secure the Water Supply. My suggestion is that the Senior Center, which is a separate nonprofit, move to the O'Reilly and become the anchor tenant and master lease holder. The Senior Center can fund raise on its own and partner with the County. It can have the administrative and legal duties of running a master tenant lease. The Management of the Senior Center is extremely competent. Their books are better than the City's. They are more financially sound than the City of Sebastopol. In watching the growth of the Senior Center, I can confidently say they would be able to manage and finance such a move with ease. They serve West County residents. That location would be better for the West County residents they serve. The could enter into partnerships with for profits and nonprofits.
Interesting suggestion. Yes, SASC is a very well run nonprofit with a mission to support our growing senior population. Yet, the city has a mission as well, which is to serve all of our communities. The Library brings county operational funds proportional to the size of the library, not necessarily the size of the population it actually serves.
The whole idea of the Commons, which has been years in the making, is to bring all these functions and more together to share space, costs, and provide an attractive regional center for government, nonprofits and related businesses. We've road tested the concept with prospective tenants, put together a finance plan which brings in outside-of-Sebastopol funds, and costed out all the viable alternatives.
Many of these first impression questions have already been investigated and answered. The Committee is a public body...anyone willing can find our reports and files through the City website. Has everything been resolved? Of course not, which is why the vote on 9/15 will simply be to authorize investigation beyond the charge of the current standing committee.
Yes, there will need to be professional management, improvements to the bus routes, attention to sidewalks and traffic signals, and all other manner of administrative and logistical support for a Commons. Any major civic project has these kinds of hurdles, and somehow, year after year, municipality after municipality makes it work. I believe we will handle these matters in due course, because this project is that important to our area's well being.
I won't speak to the Enterprise Funds, water rates, or the Grand Jury report, because I didn't spend the last year investigating those. Others have, so I respect their comments about that. Here, I and the rest of the Committee have done this kind of investigation on the Commons concept. That work has led us to focus on the big picture after slogging through the details.
The question is: what project(s) serve the residents and visitors of Sebastopol with new opportunities to thrive, and which projects over time actually improve the City's financial position? We believe a Commons does both. See and hear the data at the Open House and the 9/15 Council meeting.
Hi Kent, I applaud all the work that has been done on the Commons and also love the idea of the activation of the O'Reilly. I hope the work that has been done can be of fruition without the City's involvement. I'm not sure if you are on City Water but as a resident of Sebastopol on City Water, I want my Water Supply secured before the City embarks on a massive administrative project. Right now an earthquake could take out Water for a large percentage of City residents because of the lack of redundancy in the Pleasant Hill line and the unsecured Water Storage Towers. If there is an earthquake both Pleasant Hill and the Water Towers are vulnerable. Well #4 is a decade past its normal usage. These are significant infrastructure issues that have languished for decades due to poor administration by the City. Having a secure Water Supply will best serve residents and visitors.
As you may or may not know, the City of Sebastopol receives less than 20% of the property tax it generates. The County gets the other 80%. Of the tax revenue generated in Sebastopol, 30% of it goes into running the City. This is a fairly large portion of revenue going toward administration. As you point out, running a project of this magnitude requires a lot of administration. At this point, the City does not have the economic resources to complete its duty to residents and local businesses and tackle this giant endeavor. The County, on the other hand, is receiving 80% of Sebastopol's property tax. If the County wants to expand services to seniors in West County, its economic position is much more viable. The County has a budget close to $3,000,000,000 ($3 Billion). Sebastopol is projecting General Fund revenue at $15,500,000 ($15.5 million). As you can see, the County has billions more than the City of Sebastopol and some of those billions are property taxes from Sebastopol. Supervisor Hopkins should be working with the Senior Center to help the Senior Center grow. If you want to help Sebastopol, suggest that it receive a higher percentage of property tax to support its work it does for West County.
Kent, can you point us to the financial analysis that has been done? I have seen Phil’s website which is slick but not truly a financial analysis. You say oreilly is less costly than staying put? Love to see the math. Looked in the drop box. Looked at the commons section of the city website but no docs there.
The financial grid is a matrix and type of analysis as much as can be outlaid at this early stage. You appear to be asking for what we are about to ask the city to do. My website is based on a deep spreadsheet turned over to the city for its use in case this activity does progress.
If the city hall, library and senior center anchor the Commons does that mean the core downtown become unanchored when they leave? Isn't that just logic?
Sort of apples and oranges. Core downtown now depends on retail, office and some residential use. but the "anchor" there is its overall density, how it works together.
"Anchor" in the case of the former O'Reilly campus is more specific, relating to this single property. In this case, the anchor uses and the supporting, complementary tenant will create a certain density, with the tenants providing necessary financial support too. In other words, the core downtown is not dependent on an anchor use(s) due to its density.
should be ..."complementary tenants"
This is spot on. Thank you. It will be a draw for all kinds of local and regional entities. We already have interest from pre-school, co-working space, and independent professionals. However, most prospective tenants need details such as specific available spaces, lease rates, CAM fees, etc. With a 9/15 Council vote to authorize further exploration, we can then provide that kind of information with sufficient detail to get preliminary commitments from prospective tenants. And, part of the plan is an extended escrow period to gather committed interest. If the world changes dramatically during that period (as we know it can happen), then the City can release itself of an obligation to move forward.
Just came out of a talk at Burbank Heights and Orchards about the Commons issue. I was feeling queasy about the process of how this committee was formed and presented itself. The City Council ought not make any firm decisions or spend any money pursuing this one idea right now. Give it a rest until 2027. This time best serves Sebastapolians by brain storming and public discussion. There is no hurry.
There is a public comment for next weeks council meeting from the Kiwanis, gravenstein health action, Meet your neighbors, Sebastopol area time bank, Sonoma county tool library, and the senior center, all in support of this proposal and pledging to work with the City “to articulate space requirements”! Are they rent payers or just hoping the city will carry them all on the backs of the tax payers? Is there anyone that knows the city is budgeting deficits going forward leading to bankruptcy In five years?
Thank you for pointing out the widespread organizational support for continuing investigation into a Commons in Sebastopol. For those organizations not currently operating under an arrangement with the City, they will be paying rent. The whole purpose of the Commons is sharing space and some administrative costs to optimize organizations' spend on real estate. That's in addition to the benefits of working side by side leading to collaborations that improves services to our community. Again, a successful Commons leads to a better Sebastopol balance sheet than any of the other explored options, including doing nothing.
Wait a minute! So you are saying the the organizations not currently operating under an arrangement with the city will be paying rent. That means the senior center would continue paying $1 a year when it should be paying thousands more a month??
Sebastopol as a governing body through the leadership of the City Council seems perplexed at keeping the fine cities roads paved, and improving their missed marks on keeping the Municipal Water flowing. How can this project be taken seriously? Some might say this movement afloat to buy a surplus building, then losing all the tax revenue as it will now be tax free and government owned, is folly. But alas this is just Round Two of more folly. Show me the numbers and prove me wrong...
I invite you to come tonight and/or watch the City Council meeting on Tuesday to better understand the big picture and the details.
I hope they answer the CPA! I like the questions. Is the CPA looking to join the Enterprise Funds Oversight Committee. The Grand Jury recommended a CPA for the EFOC.
Also, I recall the director of Sonoma County Library saying that she did not consider O'Reilly a suitable location for the library, at a recent meeting in Sebastopol I listened in on via Zoom.
Because not enough space and multi-storied, that's what the library director said at the meeting. She asked Sebastopol folks not to make plans for a new library, to let library administration do that. Just saying cuz I think the library would be an anchor tenant in the City's view, but maybe not in the library's view.
It might be good for City of Sebastopol to check in with the Sonoma County Library director again before the meeting? Things might have changed in the last few months. But it seems important to understand the library's position clearly.
There are 5 people on the Committee representing various Library interests
So why does the Library director keep making comments at the meeting contradicting the committee?
Madeline makes THE most important point having to do with the library. I remember the director of the SC Library saying it was unsuitable as well. Madeline asked if anyone has checked with the Library director recently and what was her response. So what, if there are 5 people on the committee representing various Library interests. Have any of them spoken to the director? If so, what was her response? How about some transparency.
Addressing the series of comments here. First, I invite you to learn how the SC library system actually works. It's complicated given the various oversight bodies, controlling commission, administration, dedicated taxes, and local branch management. I mention 5 people on the Committee -- no two of them work in the same part of the system. The Library Director is a fierce advocate for the system and wants an ideal space. We all have our ideals, and we all eventually make decisions based on whether what's on offer is better than what we had before (which right now is a too small, mostly shuttered building)
It's interesting to suggest that the Committee hasn't communicated with the library, when the root of the Commons was a decade old demand from the library that the Sebastopol branch needs twice its existing space. Think about it. How would the director even know to discuss desired space alterations at O'Reilly if she hadn't been on a Committee arranged tour?
Perhaps I can be more helpful in stating a process reality. A new space for the Sebastopol Library has to be a cooperative venture between the Library (tenant) and the City (landlord). It is a process dictated by the JPA (which you'll learn about if you study the library system) and the branch lease. None of our conversations about a potential location for the library are official until the City Council authorizes opening a formal negotiation with the Library. That step is part of the Committee's ask of the City Council at their 9/15 meeting. That step is part of the preliminary due diligence the City needs to undertake before giving any kind of approval for actual building acquisition.
Good to hear, thank you
Thanks for publishing this letter. All good considerations and a thoughtful way to move forward. One additional question: can the city afford this in light of the fact that it diverted $5.5 million from the water and sewer accounts? As someone who has been paying more than one water and sewer bill in Sebastopol for more than a decade, I look forward to receiving back those funds that were illegally spent on items other than water and sewer. Not against "the Commons", just calling for common sense, just as was reported here. Lastly, I recommend the city hire a forensic accountant or use some serious AI tools to see if there has been any embezzlement, beyond the improper charging for water and sewer. Unfortunately, my faith in the above board operation of our city is not growing!
Max, I wouldn’t hold your breath to receive any money personally. Any money that the city returns to its water and sewer funds will be used for badly needed maintenance, which is what it should’ve been used for in the first place. I don’t believe Kate has ever suggested there was actual embezzlement or even nefarious intent. The money went to support other things in the city, including some things you probably like, like parks and the police.
Excellent question! I suggest you propose this to the Council at their meeting. It seems that if this is viable, the other stakeholders should be able to do it without the City taking on more physical assets to manage and maintain. There is a huge backlog of infrastructure that is under the City's purview that needs to be addressed. Like the $20 million needed for roads. The City should complete necessary infrastructure work and repaying the Enterprise Funds before embarking on a massive capital project that will likely require intensive management and oversight. We need to get the Pleasant Hill Loop fixed so that we have water for 50% of the city if there is a breach in the line.
My suggestion is that the Senior Center move to the O'Reilly and see if the County will help get them started. The Senior Center has heavy usage by residents throughout West County. The Senior Center is a nonprofit that has its own fund raising capabilities. In fact, I think they are having a cool fund raiser coming up. The Senior Center can do a capital campaign and also partner with the County. Currently, the Senior Center rents from the City for $1 per year. I fully support the development of the O'Reilly. Maybe the Senior Center can spearhead the move and organize new tenants. It seems that the City cannot take on more administrative overhead at this point until it fulfills its Grand Jury obligations and fixes the roads. I would love it if the Senior Center got things going at the O'Reilly. Maybe they can be the master tenant on the lease and then manage all the other nonprofits and for-profits that sign on? I'm not sure about the library. Maybe they could move their administrative offices into the current Senior Center location and free up some of the floor space in the current library. That might add an additional 800 square feet at no cost.
Will the Senior Center be expected to pay more than $1 per year for their new digs at the O'Reilly Center?
I invite you to look at their Board's public statement of support for continuing to investigate the O'Reilly campus option.
I invite you to do so and answer my question.
Absolutely the right question. Can the City afford it? But also, can the City afford not to? Come hear the presentation. Spoiler: one of the takeaways is that, over ten years, it is actually more expensive to do nothing with our existing aging properties than it would be to purchase and operate a Commons at the Gravenstein Hwy N campus. Only through the Commons creation do we open new streams of income and tax revenue for the City from outside sources.
Has the City of Sebastopol been paying for space in the O'Reilly complex so the committee can hold open houses there? If not, has the Senior Center been paying the current owners of the complex for use of the property? Have the current owners been providing the space gratis as part of an effort to market the property to the city?
Hmmm, the silence on this question is deafening.
I've been doing a bit of AI-assisted research and have discovered that the president of H1 Real Estate (which owns the O'Reilly complex) is also co-chairman of the board of City Ventures (a development firm that holds an option on the two vacant parcels adjacent to the complex and is building a separate housing project nearby called Canopy).
I'm wondering if any member of Sebastopol's ‘Building The Commons’ Committee has now, or has ever had, a personal or business relationship (as a professional consultant or otherwise) with any members of either of these real estate enterprises.
Interesting research. We seem to have a motivated seller! I wonder why the O'Reilly owner does not convert the center to housing. Or work with the nonprofit entities like the Senior Center to a reduced sale price and receive a tax credit. The Senior Center could do a capital campaign to purchase and then negotiate a reduced sales price. Gemini calls it a charitable bargain sale. They could also develop it as low-income senior housing and get tax credits. Maybe a better path forward would be for the landlord to sell part of the complex to the Senior Center at a reduced rate and then develop the rest into low-income senior housing. I don't think the canopy has sold a single unit so they are probably trying to activate the space to help sales on the Canopy side.
Yes that relationship between the owner of the potential Commons site and the Canopy is there. Which is why both parties would like to get those buildings occupied sooner than later. And, to my knowledge, no one on the committee has any financial ties to either of them.
As far as the Open Houses go, that's a fairly normal procedure for Sellers to make the property available to potential buyers. The bigger the building, the more extensive the tours. The City did commit some staff time to set up the presentation equipment.
My understanding has been that open houses are organized by the sellers of a given property to attract any and all potential buyers, rather than by groups exploring the possibility of persuading a local government to consider purchasing a property based on preposterous funding assumptions.
I think "understanding" is carrying a lot of weight here.
Sebastopol has zero experience managing commercial real estate but it wants to take over the O'Reilly property to do this. An expensive outside management company will be hired that will prove very costly to us taxpayers. Decisions like this are why our taxes are high and the town is in a financial predicament. This is definitely not viable commercial space, if it was buyers would be lining up to buy or lease it and they are not. It is most likely that the town officials want swanky new digs, the Chamber of Commerce also wants swanky new digs and a few highly regarded local institutions (library and Sr. Center) have joined in. There are many low cost options including remote work, renting space and just making do with what we have as many of us need to do.
Has the feasibility of this been run through an AI? I strongly suggest doing so. A number of flawed contracts the city has signed up for would have been detected immediately by an AI.
It also does not seem that the impact on the downtown has been quantitatively examined. Just a few months ago enhancing the downtown was a major driver in the two way street issue, but now it's not being considered. Is the intent to increase sprawl and the suburban driving culture by moving these city services so far from the center of town?
Hopefully some of the council candidates will take a position to look at this objectively especially the financial impact so the upcoming election will reflect what the people want.
I invite you to come tonight and/or watch the City Council meeting on Tuesday to better understand the big picture and the details.
I understand the big perfectly well as the above comments show. The dog and pony show put on for to check a box for public input will be a wasted evening. The experience with the one way/two way was indicative, public sentiment was clearly against two way, it's not who gets the votes but who counts them that matters, as a Time Man of the Year once said. Nevertheless, lets vote in a council that will stop this boondoggle. There is not one clear benefit to the community meaning the people of Sebastopol from this extremely costly and risky project.
Hmm, guessing you didn't go. All 5 City Council members were there, and I saw at least one of the new council candidates. Several presentations highlighted the benefits you don't see, and there were some very thoughtful Q&A exchanges, both pro and con. The Sebastopol Times was there...Laura was able to step in and correct some misinformation underlying one complaint.
The majority of the attendees said this was their first or an early impression of the whole project. This was our second public awareness event offering people the chance to better understand the choices before the Council next week. Should the City approve additional investigation of our recommendation, then there will actually be something concrete on the table for the public to give their input on and a budget to make it happen.
Kent,
I thought that all 5 Council Members could not attend because of the Brown Act???? Is there a double standard going on????
Kent Jenkins does not live in Sebastopol so will not bear any of the tax responsibility for this project, which the free market has rejected since the real estate remains unsold. He is just a special interest or busy-body.
What will become of the Weeks House after the Senior Center decamps? Would the city's ability to dispose of it be hampered by restrictions imposed during the transfer of the property from its former owners to the city in the late 1960s?
As I stated before, I think it would be great if the Library took it over for their administrative offices. There is a commercial kitchen in the building and maybe there could be a cafe for library patrons???
Take a look at the SASC website. I believe there is an article there that at least partially addresses your concern
Thank you thank you for outlining the important questions that should be looked at for a preliminary investigation. A relief to have these so clear.
Has there been any assessment of the legal fees that would be required to set up the administration and financing of this process. If so, would they be split between the City and the other entities or would the City of Sebastopol be on the hook for all the legal fees and project administration? I completely support the activation of the O'Reilly Center. I'm just concerned about the City's ability to manage and finance such an operation without losing focus on the immediate infrastructure needs. It would require legal expertise, insurance, maintenance, commercial real estate leasing, financing and other critical administrative functions not currently within the scope of the City's administration. The City has trouble processing certain types of online payments for its water and sewer bills. I'm not sure if it has the staffing configuration to take on a project and financial responsibility of this magnitude.