Senior Citizens Commission discusses merging with Social Services to better advocate for homeless seniors

The Davis Senior Citizens Commission opened a discussion on whether to ask the city council to merge the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission to increase the commission’s influence on housing and services for seniors.

Commissioner Jeffrey, drawing on experience serving on a county aging commission, proposed the merger and said it would create a more direct route for senior concerns to reach council and developers. "I bring up a motion that the city council be approached on the senior citizens commission joining with the social services commission," he said, arguing the change would let commissioners "tell us how many" units are needed and press for accommodations for seniors and people with disabilities.

Why it matters: commissioners said Davis lacks sufficient very-low-income units targeted at seniors and that existing developments offer few deeply affordable units. Speakers cited the Village Farm project as an example, saying the development includes about 214 units with roughly 14 designated as low-income and none, in the discussion, described as very-low-income. Commissioners said developers sometimes pay in-lieu fees instead of building required affordable units, and questioned whether those fees translate into new housing in Davis.

Commissioners also raised shelter and service gaps affecting seniors. Participants described an incident at a facility referred to in the meeting as "Paul's place," where a resident with incontinence was told she could not return for two weeks; the group discussed whether that exclusion could be an ADA issue and urged clarification of grievance and intake procedures. One commissioner urged establishing an ombuds or advocate so residents of publicly funded programs can appeal or lodge anonymous complaints.

Several speakers stressed that merging commissions could dilute a senior-focused agenda unless safeguards are put in place. Commissioners suggested two possible protections: (1) require that senior issues appear on every Social Services Commission agenda, or (2) form a standing seniors subcommittee within Social Services. Maria, the staff liaison, said she would collect commissioners’ feedback and prepare a report for the city council, but emphasized that any actual merger would be a council decision and is "not a done deal."

Funding and grant opportunities were a recurring theme. Commissioners discussed community development block grants and HUD-related funding and said Davis has not applied for some state or federal grants other jurisdictions have used to build very-low-income housing. Speakers referenced a program named in the discussion as "HERTH" and debated whether the city or county should apply for available funds.

What happened procedurally: the group did not take a formal vote on the proposed merger during the meeting. Earlier in the session commissioners approved the agenda and—by motion and second—approved amended minutes from January.

Next steps: staff will prepare a report summarizing commissioners’ feedback and possible paths (including a subcommittee option or an explicit requirement that senior topics appear on Social Services agendas) for the city council to consider. The liaison said she would bring the commission’s recommendations to council but reiterated that council action would be required to change commission structures.

The meeting then continued with other commission business.