The Sonoma Valley Hospital board rewrites South Lot RFP

The Sonoma Valley Hospital board of directors meets Thursday night, to evaluate a rewritten RFP for sale or development of the South Lot|

The Sonoma Valley Health Care District's board meeting on Thursday night will pick up where last month's left off – with discussion of the fate of the South Lot and an attempt to smooth feathers over an alleged breach of the Brown Act.

The so-called South Lot, a 2.83-acre property at MacArthur and Fourth Street West, was purchased by the health care district in August of last year, after years of negotiation, based on a $2 million loan from a hospital district supporter. A section of the property is already used as overflow parking for hospital staff, and among the proposed uses of the property was as a “staging” lot for construction materials, in the event of a remodel or new construction on the main hospital property.

But in the December meeting, the board went into closed session to discuss the disposal or future use of the property. Boardmember Bill Boerum objected – not only to the closed session status of the discussion, which he did not attend in protest, but the result of the meeting, which seemingly favored the option to put the property up for sale.

As a result of the closed session meeting and its apparent decision to sell, Boerum filed a complaint with the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office citing a violation of the Brown Act open-meeting law, objecting that the subject of the meeting didn't fall within the allowable definition of a closed session.

Caroline Fowler of the DA's office looked into the charge and issued her conclusion on Jan. 11.

“We have not found any evidence that would support a criminal action against any of the board members because there is no evidence that they intended ‘to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or as reason to know the public is entitled to' under the Brown Act…” wrote Fowler.

But the apparent focus on selling the South Lot still rankles Boerum, as it did the several members of the public who offered comment at the Jan. 5 board meeting.

Norman Gilroy, who has a long-standing involvement in hospital district direction and served as a member of the now-defunct South Lot Committee, forwarded a 12-point letter to the I-T advocating retaining the South Lot for hospital-related purposes, instead of selling it.

That letter evoked an unsigned response from the board, which denied that a decision to sell had been made, and asserted that a hospital use could be a priority.

“The intent of the recommendation was not to sell off the property to the highest bidder but to find a proposal that would complement any use that would be acceptable to the District. There is no pre-determined use of the property so that all proposals received will be considered.”

Public doubt dutifully aired, the board voted to send the RFP back to the drawing board, nominating hospital CEO Kelly Mather, boardmember Sharon Nevins and hospital CFO Ken Jensen to rewrite it.

That rewrite, which was included in the board's agenda for its Feb. 2 meeting, is minimal – for instance, changing the subject of the RFP from “Offer for Sale of Land for Development” to “Offer of Land for Development or Joint Venture.” At several places in the RFP, the words “offering for sale” are replaced with the words “offering to make available.”

“The District invites written offers for the purchase, joint venture or other proposed use of the available parcel,” the RFP concludes, leaving the door open wide for proposal other than a simple sale.

Boerum, currently serving as board secretary, contacted the I-T with his response:

“Very frankly, I still find it dismaying that the board has not discussed what we – either individually or as a group – may want for use of the land. And, no direction has been given to the CEO to stipulate any requirements. Apparently the approach being taken is to consider whatever proposals are submitted in response to the RFP without providing even the broadest of guidelines and in absence of exploring partnerships with other public agencies.”

Mather, however, was satisfied with the new RFP.

“I think the re-write of the RFP should meet the intention of the board's direction to make it more clear we are seeking any type of proposals, not just from developers,” said Mather. “We will see if the board has any further changes on Thursday night.”

Update: According to Peter Hohorst, who chaired the meeting in Jane Hirsch's absence, "We made some minor editing changes to the draft of the RFP to make sure that it would attract as many interested parties as possible, but none of them were substantial."

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.