[Vision2020] Basic election questions

Tue Feb 6 17:14:35 PST 2007

Gritman is non profit. But many of the doctors and medical agencies that use the facility are making huge profits. 

  The selling of the building also eliminates those that need skilled nursing and are on government medical care will be not longer receive care in the county of Latah. Gritman might provide care for the privately insured that only need assisted care, but those individuals have plenty of good options already with Aspen, Good Sams, Clark House, and in home care. People with severe disabilities will NOT be attended to any longer by this county unless a spot happens to open up, which is unlikely considering the waiting lists at Good Sams and Aspen.  

  Best,

  Donovan

"B. J. Swanson" <bjswan at moscow.com> wrote:
  Tim,

These are great questions. 

Is the ballot question whether to remove the burdens on the LHS property 
requiring it to be used for a health care facility and give it to Gritman? 

-A YES vote will remove the Reversionary Clause. The reversionary clause 
limits the use of the premises to a non-profit hospital. Gritman is a non-
profit hospital and intends to use it for healthcare and a wellness center 
but also as Latah County office space. The reversionary clause makes it 
very difficult to obtain financing because of the restricted use. The 
reversionary clause probably contributed to the failure of Latah Health 
Services because they could not obtain reasonable financing for 
improvements without County backing and County bonds. Gritman intends to 
improve the facility with non-taxpayer supported financing. Gritman would 
be unable to do this with the reversionary clause in place.

--------

If the thinking is that the County wants this property to continue to use 
the property for a health facility, as evidenced by giving it to Gritman, 
why do the burdens need to be removed?

-Gritman would not be able to obtain reasonable financing to upgrade the 
property with the reversionary clause. It’s very doubtful that the County 
could sell or give it to anyone with the reversionary clause in place as 
it would be nearly impossible to obtain financing to fix the facility. 
This is evidenced by the failure of Latah Health Services.

--------

Are there any assurances from Gritman that it won't, at some point, simply 
sell the land for it's own benefit?

-Gritman’s proven track record speaks for itself. Gritman’s mission is 
to ”
 provide excellent and compassionate healthcare for the people of our 
communities.” Gritman has never wavered from that mission in the past 120 
years and will extend that mission to the LHS facility if the voters 
approve. Gritman has acquired and improved many properties and always for 
healthcare related services. Some of the more recent acquisitions are on 
West A Street that became the Palouse Surgery Center and the former 
Bruneel building that was converted into the new Gritman Therapy Solutions 
center. It is not Gritman’s intention to sell it or use it for anything 
other than healthcare, wellness and possibly County offices. Gritman 
invested in architectural renderings that clearly outline our intentions. 
The renderings are on display in the Gritman lobby and also appeared in 
Saturday’s Daily News.

-Also, when you say “
sell the land for it’s own benefit?” Please remember 
that Gritman is non-profit, community owned. Any profits or proceeds that 
Gritman makes are reinvested into healthcare for the community. There are 
no shareholders or developers that will make a profit off Gritman. All of 
the Gritman Board members are unpaid volunteers and residents of Latah 
County. Again, it is not Gritman’s intent to sell this property.

----------

Why is the county giving the land away instead of selling it anyway? I had 
thought the county was contemplating participation in a huge new law-
enforcement complex and needed more room for administrative offices. 
Wouldn't a bit of cash for this property help out with all these new plans?

-The Latah Health Services facility was established in 1957 for the 
healthcare needs of Latah County residents. I believe it was the feeling 
of the County Commissioners that Gritman could provide the closest 
continuation of healthcare benefits to all Latah County residents and 
retain a valuable community asset for long-term community benefit. 
Selling the LHS property to a developer for $500,000 would provide about 
2% toward the cost of a law enforcement complex. Is the 2% investment 
worth the loss of a community asset that can provide healthcare and 
wellness for years to come? That decision will be made by the voters today.

---------

-I heard another false rumor today that Latah County should sell the 
property for $500,000 to pay the remaining debts of Latah Health 
Services. Latah County owns the property. Latah Health Services was the 
non-profit corporation managing the facility. The debts of Latah Health 
Services are completely separate from Latah County and have nothing to do 
with the property. This rumor is totally false.

Thanks for the questions. Please let me know if you have more. 

B. J. Swanson

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.com/

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070206/fa30d720/attachment-0001.html 