Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Human Services Department and District Attorney's Family Support Division Building
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
The Board of Supervisors held no public hearings to explain the site selection criteria of the Human Services Building Project. They were discussed only in Closed Session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board of Supervisors should hold public meetings to explain areas such as housing needs, social objectives, economic considerations, and contingent liabilities whenever projects such as the new Human Services Building are under consideration.
F2
The weight given to non-economic criteria (social, political, community benefit, etc.) was not made clear to prospective participants in the site selection process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should establish a written policy that makes clear to future bidders and the public alike exactly what the parameters of any Request for Proposal will be, and should make provisions for strictly adhering to that policy.
F3
During the site selection process, the Crocker Company made clear in its report that manifest environmental problems existed in the Roseland Redevelopment Area: infrastructure issues of right of way, eminent domain, parking, and hazardous materials cleanup.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
A former member of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors was on the Board when the need for a new Human Services building project was identified and endorsed.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
This same former board member was instrumental in the development and presentation of the Roseland Assemblage Proposal, which was offered to the Board of Supervisors during the first year following that supervisor’s retirement.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Roseland Assemblage site, located within the Roseland Redevelopment Area, includes land in which the former supervisor, among others, holds a financial interest.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Sonoma County has no written policy concerning former County officials seeking to do business with the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Board of Supervisors should adopt a written policy prohibiting County officers and employees from conducting business with any former officer or employee for a period of one year after leaving the County’s employ (the so-called “Revolving Door” policy).
F8
The State of California has a law that restricts former state employees seeking to do business with the state.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Orange County has a “Revolving Door” policy that reads as follows: “A public official or employee shall not meet or confer with a former county official or employee who is acting as a lobbyist within one year following termination of the former official or employee from county employment.”
No recommendations for this finding
F10
It is unclear which entity, the County or the developer, would bear the ultimate cost of cleanup and infrastructure development.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
No building is leased by the County for more than 20 years. The proposed Roseland building would be leased for 30 years. Conclusions The Grand Jury finds no evidence of illegal use of insider information by any of the parties to the selection process. However, involvement of a recently retired member of the Board as a participant in the 1997 site selection process does give the appearance of impropriety in that it could have offered a decided advantage to the former member. The Board of Supervisors should avoid even the appearance of preferential treatment for former Board members or other county officials. Although a fair, impartial, and open site selection process had been agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors and the Crocker Company, the heavy emphasis placed on the Roseland/SWSR Redevelopment Area by the Board has resulted in at least the perception of reducing the other 23 sites to the status of “window dressing.” In the Request for Proposal process, all participating bidders had equal access to the same printed criteria and stipulations. What all did NOT have, however, was information relative to the high degree of emphasis which the Board of Supervisors placed upon the SWSR/Roseland Redevelopment Area. Of the five pre-qualified participants who began the proposal process, three dropped out almost immediately when they determined that the social and political aspects of the criteria were going to outweigh the purely economic aspects. In response to the complainant’s allegation that the Board of Supervisors acted contrary to the best interests of the taxpayers by heavily weighting the process in favor of the Roseland Redevelopment Project as a prospective site for the new building, the Grand Jury concludes that the Board acted within the scope of its purview. The challenge of balancing the social and economic benefits of placing the facility in the Roseland area versus a possibly more immediately buildable and less costly alternative outside the urban core of the County is an appropriate one for elected representatives. The Grand Jury observes the appearance of impropriety in at least two areas: The sequence of events and policy machinations leading up to the selection of the Roseland Redevelopment Area as the site for the new building gives the impression of a “stacked deck.” The continued involvement of a former member of the Board of Supervisors in the ongoing discussions of site and process, after that member subsequently became a member of a competing firm, leaves much to be desired. The Grand Jury is concerned with the sequence of events that led to the site selection and contract negotiations. While the Grand Jury makes no findings regarding the social advantages or disadvantages of locating the Human Services Building in the preferred site, it is concerned with potential extraordinary costs to the taxpayers. Aside from the costs and complexities of acquiring parcels that comprise the site and a railroad right-of-way, the site is located in a toxic area known as a “brownfield.” There are still open questions on the extent and nature of the contamination and whether a portion of the cleanup costs will to be borne by the taxpayers. The Grand Jury believes that the preferred developer will have difficulty keeping the costs of the lease within the limits to qualify for maximum state and federal reimbursements. 13
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R4Residents of Sonoma County need to be vigilant in their oversight of the County’s dealings in both business and public policy. For more information, residents should obtain a copy of Agenda Item #37, June 4, 2002 Board of Supervisors meeting, in which staff recommends cancellation of the project. Required Responses to Findings Board of Supervisors: F1, F2, F7, F10, and F11 Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors: R1 through R3 14
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Grand Jury finds no evidence of illegal use of insider information by any of the parties to the selection process. However, involvement of a recently retired member of the Board as a participant in the 1997 site selection process does give the appearance of impropriety in that it could have offered a decided advantage to the former member. The Board of Supervisors should avoid even the appearance of preferential treatment for former Board members or other county officials. Although a fair, impartial, and open site selection process had been agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors and the Crocker Company, the heavy emphasis placed on the Roseland/SWSR Redevelopment Area by the Board has resulted in at least the perception of reducing the other 23 sites to the status of "window dressing." In the Request for Proposal process, all participating bidders had equal access to the same printed criteria and stipulations. What all did NOT have, however, was information relative to the high degree of emphasis which the Board of Supervisors placed upon the SWSR/Roseland Redevelopment Area. Of the five pre-qualified participants who began the proposal process, three dropped out almost immediately when they determined that the social and political aspects of the criteria were going to outweigh the purely economic aspects. In response to the complainant's allegation that the Board of Supervisors acted contrary to the best interests of the taxpayers by heavily weighting the process in favor of the Roseland Redevelopment Project as a prospective site for the new building, the Grand Jury concludes that the Board acted within the scope of its purview. The challenge of balancing the social and economic benefits of placing the facility in the Roseland area versus a possibly more immediately buildable and less costly alternative outside the urban core of the County is an appropriate one for elected representatives. The Grand Jury observes the appearance of impropriety in at least two areas: The sequence of events and policy machinations leading up to the selection of the Roseland Redevelopment Area as the site for the new building gives the impression of a "stacked deck." The continued involvement of a former member of the Board of Supervisors in the ongoing discussions of site and process, after that member subsequently became a member of a competing firm, leaves much to be desired. The Grand Jury is concerned with the sequence of events that led to the site selection and contract negotiations. While the Grand Jury makes no findings regarding the social advantages or disadvantages of locating the Human Services Building in the preferred site, it is concerned with potential extraordinary costs to the taxpayers. Aside from the costs and complexities of acquiring parcels that comprise the site and a railroad right-of-way, the site is located in a toxic area known as a "brownfield." There are still open questions on the extent and nature of the contamination and whether a portion of the cleanup costs will to be borne by the taxpayers. The Grand Jury believes that the preferred developer will have difficulty keeping the costs of the lease within the limits to qualify for maximum state and federal reimbursements.