Sonoma County supervisors scrap controversial $56 million building purchase for office space

This post was originally published on this site.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has scrapped a controversial $56.1 million deal to buy a new building it is now leasing for office space near the county airport.

In a closed session last week, a board majority opted to walk away from the deal, directing staff to scuttle the purchase and sale agreement but continue renting the building until the expiration of the lease in 2031. 

The decision comes nearly two years after the board approved a seven-year lease for the building at 400 Aviation Boulevard with the intent to buy it, and nearly 10 months after a conflict of interest complaint lodged by the county’s largest public employee union stalled purchase plans. 

“I was the only opposition to this for a long time, but I’ve seen the proponents’ enthusiasm fading also,” said Supervisor Chris Coursey. “That we got to this point was not a complete surprise.”

The building was part of a three-pronged plan proposed by county officials to buy and build new office space to house approximately 1,700 employees, or about a third of the overall county government workforce. County officials must replace the 1950s-era office buildings that comprise most of its Santa Rosa administrative campus. Many of those buildings deteriorating and beset with seismic problems, faulty sewage systems and leaky roofs

Earlier this year the county went ahead with a $32 million purchase of two buildings on Brickway Boulevard, just down the road from 400 Aviation Blvd.. Renovations planned there are expected to raise the overall price to $47 million for that office space.

Together, the three buildings, which are some five miles from the county seat in incorporated Santa Rosa, were intended to supplement a simultaneous plan to construct a smaller central building on the county’s current campus.

Details of the conversation that led to the board’s decision were kept confidential under the terms of closed session, but in interviews, Lynda Hopkins, Rebecca Hermosillo said they supported walking away from the deal, which needed support from at least four members.

Coursey had been the lone board member  to speak out against the proposal since its introduction two years ago.

Supervisor David Rabbitt said he went along with the board majority in the closed-session vote, though he thinks the county should have moved forward with the purchase.

Rabbitt has long been the strongest proponent of the deal but was sidelined for months after Service Employees International Union Local 1021 filed a state conflict of interest complaint against him over a campaign donation he received — and subsequently returned — from one of the real estate brokers involved in the Aviation Boulevard deal.

Supervisor James Gore, whose district includes the area where the county planned to buy buildings and the current government seat, declined an interview.

“I don’t really have a comment,” he said in a text.

Coursey, Hopkins and Hermosillo cited the building’s hefty $56.1 million price tag — at least $10 million over appraised figures — as one of the determining factors in their decision to walk away, particularly in light of the deep federal and state cuts to government services anticipated to roll in over the next several months and into next year.

The additional $10 million cost over appraised figures has long been a sticking point and one that SEIU 1021 latched onto when the proposed purchase came before the board in January. The union argued the purchase would gouge taxpayers. 

Public Infrastructure Director Johannes Hoevertsz, who is spearheading the county’s real estate plans, said the additional $10 million included in the purchase price would have covered amenities that come with the building, including furniture, artwork, energy-efficiency features and modern technology. 

“400 Aviation is gorgeous,” Hopkins said. “When we are in an era of fiscal uncertainty, is it prudent to buy one of the most beautiful buildings in Sonoma County for government services?”

In a written statement, SEIU Local 1021 Regional Vice President Travis Balzarini touted the board’s decision as a victory for the union and local taxpayers.

“It was only because of SEIU 1021’s whistleblowing — and the powerful coalition our union built with Sonoma County Conservation Action, the North Bay Organizing Project, community leaders, and elected officials throughout the county — that this wasteful, unnecessary deal was stopped in its tracks,” Balzarini said.

The scrapped building buy still leaves the county on the hook for its seven-year lease. The annual rent started at $1.9 million, but the lease calls for a 3% rent increase each year, with an additional charge of 15 cents per square foot added in years four and five. Those terms were included as an incentive for the county to buy the building within five years.

In 2024, the lease was the most expensive one on the county books, according to an inventory of county leased buildings provided during fiscal year 2024-25 budget deliberations. 

“My biggest comment on where the county went wrong is we should have had the building appraised prior to moving in,” Hopkins said. “The intent was lease to own, which is why the county agreed to the lease terms.”

The building appraisal is dated December 2024, just shy of a year after the board approved the building lease. 

Rabbitt pushed back on criticism that the lease terms were botched and the $56.1 million purchase a mistake, noting the county will still pay millions of dollars in rent over the lifespan of the lease. 

The board’s pivot away from the purchase, he said, was down to politics. 

“I think that people got afraid to move forward with it and chose not to,” he said.

Rabbitt contends SEIU 1021’s staunch opposition to the purchase is driven by its own self-interest in upcoming contract talks. 

“The reason SEIU 1021 doesn’t want us to buy a building is so we have all that money in the bank when we go into negotiations next year,” Rabbitt said. 

A spokesperson for the Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC, which is reviewing the February complaint filed against Rabbitt, could not confirm the status of the case by deadline.

With the purchase of 400 Aviation Blvd. dead, at least for now, Rabbitt suggested the county could try to negotiate in the future if the building does not sell in the meantime. The board will have to decide how to accommodate the employees who currently occupy the building. 

County real estate officials who put together the transaction and continued to back it against some of the critical headwinds, said they reconsider other options.

“I think this recommendation was more financially sound and fiscally responsible than what we’ve seen in the past and practical, because we followed direction to purchase rather than build,” said Hoevertsz. “We need to go back to the drawing board to figure out what the board feels comfortable supporting so the board can make that generational decision.”

Hermosillo, who joined the board at the start of this year, said now was the time to discuss the distribution of county offices. Her comments echoed her predecessor, Susan Gorin, and Coursey, who called for the same conversation when the purchase of 400 Aviation Blvd. was introduced. 

“We need to look at what’s the bigger picture so that we’re not resolving for today but we’re resolving for 30 years down the line,” Hermosillo said. 

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.