County Administration Center Update

You may have heard recently about plans to build our new county administrative offices in downtown Santa Rosa. The idea has generated quite a bit of attention, along with some erroneous assumptions and inaccurate information. I’d like to take a few minutes of your time to explain why I strongly support this idea, and why I think you should, too.
 
My reasons are many, including the impact this project will have on taxpayer costs, climate impacts, housing opportunities and community equity issues. While at first glance many people don’t see those advantages in this plan, a closer look reveals that this move will be good for the community, the county and the planet.
 
Before we get too far into those details, let’s look at the needs faced by your county government organization. The question of whether to build new offices has been discussed by the Board of Supervisors since the early 1990s, and over time the answer has become “Yes, absolutely.” The Board of Supervisors first discussed a new Administration Building in the early 1990s. Thirty years later, our existing office buildings aren’t big enough, efficient enough or economical enough to meet the needs of our organization and the public we serve.

 
The sprawling county campus in northern Santa Rosa was designed and constructed in the 1950s and ‘60s – a decision that at the time may have seemed innovative but in fact represented the exact kind of urban sprawl we try to avoid today. Sixty years later, this collection of mostly one-story buildings needs more than $300 million in deferred maintenance work. Meanwhile, the county workforce long ago outgrew the campus, and the county spends nearly $10 million a year to lease additional space.

Last year, a subcommittee of the Board comprised of Supervisor Rabbitt and myself worked with staff and consultants to dive into the financial details and compare the costs of building downtown on the Sears site or redeveloping the existing county campus as a modern, efficient government center that will meet the needs of our county in the 21^st Century. The studies arrived at a predictable conclusion: It’s cheaper to build on the land the county already owns, and to build several smaller buildings instead of one large one.
 
But not much cheaper. And I believe the benefits of a downtown county center far outweigh any cost savings realized by staying on the existing campus. Here are a few examples:

Climate impacts – A downtown county center supports city-centered growth and puts 1,800 county employees a two-minute walk from the regional Transit Mall and a six-minute walk from the Downtown Santa Rosa SMART station. The financial plan calls for a LEED Platinum-rated building that has a net-zero impact for greenhouse gas impacts and water use.

Housing – More jobs downtown will be a catalyst for additional housing downtown, supporting city-centered growth in concert with our community ethic of reducing pressure to sprawl. A downtown county center will free up almost 30 acres of land at the existing county campus, providing potential for many hundreds of homes in a vibrant new neighborhood that is close to transit, schools, shopping and health care.

Equity – Located at a walking distance from the neighborhood of Roseland along the Rodota Trail and Prince Greenway, a downtown county center begins to address structural disenfranchisement by furthering access to government for disadvantaged communities in Southwest Santa Rosa. Proximity to transit hubs also facilitates access for vulnerable and underserved populations who rely on public transportation, such as younger and older residents, very-low-income residents and people with disabilities.

Cost – The plan is for the new downtown center to be built using a public-private partnership, in which the county hires a private firm to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the building (including all utilities and repairs for 30 years). Once the building is complete and county employees are working in it – likely in 2028 – the county then makes an annual payment to the private firm, estimated at $42 million a year for 30 years.

Yes, that’s a big number. But the county deals in big numbers; our annual budget is more than $2 billion. Our annual payroll today, including benefits, is almost $800 million. The estimated annual payment for the new building is less than 1/20 of that number. It is less than what we spend on Information Technology costs today.
 
With fiscal discipline and foresight, our budget staff has a plan to fit that $42 million into future budgets. The Board of Supervisors for several years has been putting aside a percentage of property tax growth each year for exactly this purpose, and we will need to continue to do that and increase it a bit for the future. We will realize significant savings by not leasing office space for hundreds of employees. We will no longer have $300 million in deferred maintenance. A detailed review of the plan will take place at our next public Board meeting on March 1. You can view the staff report and proposed financial plan here.
 
Alternatively, the costs of redeveloping the existing campus also are very high, though still less than downtown. The latest estimate is $3.9 million less annually to fully redevelop the existing campus. Additional leased parking raises the cost downtown. Details are laid out in the staff report.
 
But redevelopment of the existing campus exacerbates the mistake made six decades ago for the county to leave downtown, and it precludes the opportunity for hundreds of units of affordable and market-rate housing to be built at the current campus.
 
Furthermore, the cost estimates and financial plan don’t include revenue that a downtown move could create, such as additional property taxes from multi-family housing catalyzed downtown by the county project, and property taxes realized by putting the county campus back on the tax rolls. The cost differences between the two plans don’t take into consideration any potential state and federal grants that may be available for a downtown government building that takes full advantage of existing transit opportunities and other existing urban infrastructure. 

Finally, the financial plan does include the cost of providing “satellite” county services at locations in west county, north county and east county (a satellite office already operates in south county, in the city of Petaluma). The plan proposes to set aside $1 million per year from transient occupancy taxes (the hotel tax paid for by visitors to Sonoma County) for 30 years. That should more than cover the cost of office rentals for satellite services.
 
As we progress toward this meaningful investment in our future, I look forward to working with you, the Board and the broader community to bring the vision into fruition.
 
If you would like to weigh in, the next Board discussion on the new county administration center will take place on March 1. The meeting agenda and instructions on how to participate can be accessed here. The full staff report on the proposed financing plan is also accessible here. As always, thank you for reading and I welcome your questions, comments or feedback.

Sincerely,

Chris Coursey
707-565-2241
district3@sonoma-county.org
sonomacounty.ca.gov/Board-of-Supervisors/District-3