|
|
Save Arnold Drive and | |
| West Sonoma Valley Conservation League | ||
|
Nine Reasons Why Sonoma Hospital Bond Measure Will Fail Again.. Sonoma Valley Hospital Board Member Bill Boerum Insults District Residents Twenty Three Reasons Why Sonoma Hospital Parcel Tax Should Have Failed How Sonoma Hospital Bond Could Pass..
Subscribe to
|
Vote NO (Again) On Next Sonoma Valley Hospital District Bond and Tax Measures... Bond Measure Bails Out Incompetent Hospital Board And Management Update: 10/24/2009: After a recent huge Parcel Tax Increase and 30 Million Dollar Bond Measure for limited 'Building and Plant rehabilitation'.the Sonoma Valley Hospital District is still incurring large consistent losses. On November 10, 2008 Measure 'P' passed by a much lower margin than was projected by supporters. In fact, it is estimated that a majority of actual property owners rejected the measure. Due to the continued exodus of a growing majority of patients to larger systems such as Kaiser, Sutter, Queen of the Valley and Saint Joseph's SVHD is no longer sustainable. Now is the time to stop the never ending waste of taxes on incompetent Sonoma Hospital District Board And Management. Sonoma Index Tribune Page A5 on 10/7 lists Sonoma Valley Hospital Bond Projects and costs that are NOT specified anywhere in the Bond Measure Full Text. There are no specific projects included in the Sonoma Valley Hospital Bond Measure. So, there is NO real assurance of how the monies will be spent. The so-called oversight committee could be stacked with those still favoring a new hospital, wasting yet more funds on off site facility planning. There are no guidelines in the measure of how committee members would be appointed. SVH Bond Measure remains a threat of expansion of the Hospital beyond City of Sonoma Limits into Greenbelt areas. Further, the SIT article notes $600,00 to go towards a 'Master Plan'. Yes, thousands more to be wasted on yet more consultants. However, such an expenditure is NOT authorized anywhere in the text of the SVH Bond Measure. In fact, it is so poorly and loosely written that the monies, could be used for almost anything -e.g. planning again for a new hospital off site.. Remember the large increase in the Parcel Tax? SVH Board state that would 'save' the hospital - well apparently not.. so honesty or anything remotely resembling reality is still not forthcoming from the SVH Board or managment. SVH is not a trauma center so if you have a serious condition requiring trauma level care, you will be taken, as all have for many years to Santa Rosa Memorial or Queen of the Valley in Napa, not SVH. In conclusion, Vote NO on P. Previously, the Sonoma Valley Hospital District Board sought to seek a $45 million, 30-year general obligation bond failed at the April 8, 2008 election. However, shortly thereafter the Board again voted to put essentially the same package before the voters again in November of 2008. The bond failed, which prevented district taxpayers having to pay out even more money each year in addition to to the $195 property owners already pay for the parcel tax, which sunsets in four years. The current parcel tax is 50% higher than the previous parcel tax that the Board had promised would not be needed agan. The November 4, 2008 Hospital Bond Measure will do Nothing to correct the seismic problems of the current Hospital. However, a large part of the monies will be used to buy land blocks away in Sonoma neighborhoods that would be devastated by further Sonoma Hospital Complex Sprawl. Funds from the November, 2008 Bond would have beem used to pay for past exceedingly poor judgments of the Hospital Board, to buy property it does not need and threaten dismantling of long time peaceful neighborhoods in the area and encouraging environmentally damaging sprawl, pay off consultants and engineers for planning for a new Hospital that will never be built based on past designs for other properties that fell through on planning stages, and to buy new Hospital equipment that most Sonomans go to larger medical facilities in Novato, Napa, Santa Rosa and Petaluma use. The November, 2008 SVHD Bond Measure gave no definitive indication of where a new Hospital would be built - leaving all of the past rejected options still open(including those in the Arnold Drive Corridor) in addition to continuing to ignore the obvious best solution of retrofitting in place which much larger medical facilities have done successfully while continuing to maintain services. Why Not Retrofit??? - Successful Retrofit Stories Below..
Based on the above Save Arnold Drive and the West Sonoma Valley Conservation Leagues Urge A NO Vote On The Sonoma Valley Hospital District Construction Bond Measure November 4, 2008... Previously in October 2007, Sonoma Valley Hospital District Board approved a so-called in-town New Hospital option which involves acquiring additional land - all at an enormous price tag yet to be revealed. This option again ignores the environmentally smart option of retrofitting the current hospital and making the most and best use of the current site. In the Sonoma Index Tribune 10/16/07 a reader notes that "....:Dick Kirk:, who shed light on many different avenues that the hospital could have taken, including the possibility :there just isn't enough money and/or business to sustain a hospital in our town....:". Dick Kirk is the current SVHD Board President.
Sonoma Valley Hospital Board Member Bill Boerum Insults District Residents
Editor: Recently, SVH board member Bill Boerum stated that the proposed “In the Neighborhood” hospital campus on the Carinalli property would improve our neighborhood . Assuming Mr. Boerum speaks on behalf of the board, I have requested clarification of his comment from board president Dick Kirk. By “improvement,” is the board insinuating that our neighborhood is blighted? Or, is it the board’s opinion that construction of any kind on the Carinalli property will improve the neighborhood? Thus, if not a medical campus overwhelming the neighborhood, then by analogy a sewage treatment plant, correctional facility, or the like would be an improvement as well? Either explanation is an insult . The Carinalli property, characterized by Mr. Boerum as “… just flat, vacant land,” is a gorgeous parcel, zoned for residential use, and is ringed by a long-established neighborhood of single-family homes.
Mr. Boerum’s hostility and overt derision towards the affected neighbors continues unabated. As chairman of the No on Measure C campaign, he stated that eminent domain was a reprehensible method of acquiring property. Once appointed to the hospital board, however, he now fully supports inverse condemnation through devaluation of our properties, and the destruction of the quality of our lives. During the campaign, Mr. Boerum also said the No on C supporters believed people have a right to keep what they have worked for. Don’t we have a right to keep what we have worked for?
Janice Downey Even with an increased Parcel Tax burdern on the local taxpayers(most of whom using and belonging to medical facilities outside of Sonoma such as Kaiser Permanente) the Hospital is losing large sums of money monthly and had to take an advance on the most recent Parcel Tax installment.
Even though the SVHD is losing money every month; the SVHD Board has spent thousands of dollars of precious Parcel Tax revenues intended for Medical Care on yet more consultants to help plan and 'sell' a New Hospital eventhough a comprehensive seismic study has Never been done!
As recent as March, 2007 Sonoma Valley Hospital District Board had considered 12.5-acre Historic Cooper House Landmark site on Harris and Leveroni roads for New Hospital Site - Many wondered if the Board Had No Shame At All? As predicted, the SVH Board following their slim Parcel Tax victory are feeling fat and greedy again... forget about sprawl, environmental issues and reality... let's pave over one of Sonoma Valleys most precious historic sites.. Believe it or not the SVHD Board thinks the building a huge, wasteful large hospital on a Historic Gold Rush Era Historic Victorian site is an interesting option - obviously the SVHD Board has totally lost all conscience about environmental concerns and needs to be recalled immediately..
In the last SVHD Parcel Tax Election, Intimidation, Threats, Lies, Coercion and Huge Sums Of Money From Wealthy Special Interest Medical Groups - used to by Sonoma Hospital District Board to urge passage of Measure C that failed miserably was used again to effectively 'buy' passage of Measure B(over $25 spent for each 'yes' vote) - The Huge Parcel Tax Increase and Extension .. Letters from the Wealthy Pro B Group targeted over 10,000 patients who were sent political campaign letters in potental violation of Federal and State Patient Privacy Laws.. Click here to download the HIPAA Health Information Privacy Complaint Form. Even with all the special interest funding... the Parcel Tax Approval Rate dropped from 88% in the first Parcel Tax Election down to 73% eventhough the Grass Roots Educational No on B Effort had no funding whatsoever... Considering the dropping of Kenwood from the SVH District and deceptive 'stealth' tactics used by the Wealthy Pro B (Hospital Mafia) Group it is very safe to say that the Parcel Tax Measure Passage was Manufactured and Paid For by the Sonoma Valley Hospital Distirct and Special Interest Groups Benefiting from the Gross Mismanagement and Wasteful Spending of the Sonoma Hospital District..
Vote No On Next Sonoma Valley Hospital District Bond Measure 'F'..
FOLLOW THE MONEY... small group of anti-C supporters who joined so-called Health Care Coalition, suddenly turn Pro-B after Sonoma Valley Hospital Board provides them with $200,000 in funds!(you get your money and you support us in Parcel Tax hike(wink, wink...) Bottom line is that endorsements of Huge Sonoma Valley Parcel Tax Increase and Extension - Measure B by so-called Health Care Coalition WERE PAID FOR ENDORSEMENTS...NOT INDEPENDENT THINKING OR SUPPORT...
Press Democrat - February 17, 2007...Sutter Novato 200 Million Expansion Planned To Draw Patients From Sonoma Valley... Besides Making Up for Beds Lost in Santa Rosa Supports Eastern Sonoma County Including All Of Sonoma Valley... Above article in Press Democrat shows positively that more limited services or closing of Sonoma Valley Hospital is already being taken into account by competitors in the area. Novato is a 20-25 minute ride from Sonoma Valley Hospital and has much more modern facilities now and in the future...NO PARCEL TAX IN NOVATO... - which proves that well run hospitals will thrive... poorly run Health Care Districts such as Sonoma will naturally go away as part of the ongoing Health Care Industry shakeout which has been going on since the 1980s..
Saftey Net Funding from Sonoma County as a result of Sutter Santa Rosa Hospital closing may result in a huge windfall of funds to outlying Hospitals such as Sonoma Valley - virtually eliminating the need for any future subsides such as a Parcel Tax.
Editor: Recently, SVH board member Bill Boerum stated that the proposed “In the Neighborhood” hospital campus on the Carinalli property would improve our neighborhood . Assuming Mr. Boerum speaks on behalf of the board, I have requested clarification of his comment from board president Dick Kirk. By “improvement,” is the board insinuating that our neighborhood is blighted? Or, is it the board’s opinion that construction of any kind on the Carinalli property will improve the neighborhood? Thus, if not a medical campus overwhelming the neighborhood, then by analogy a sewage treatment plant, correctional facility, or the like would be an improvement as well? Either explanation is an insult . The Carinalli property, characterized by Mr. Boerum as “… just flat, vacant land,” is a gorgeous parcel, zoned for residential use, and is ringed by a long-established neighborhood of single-family homes.
Mr. Boerum’s hostility and overt derision towards the affected neighbors continues unabated. As chairman of the No on Measure C campaign, he stated that eminent domain was a reprehensible method of acquiring property. Once appointed to the hospital board, however, he now fully supports inverse condemnation through devaluation of our properties, and the destruction of the quality of our lives. During the campaign, Mr. Boerum also said the No on C supporters believed people have a right to keep what they have worked for. Don’t we have a right to keep what we have worked for?
Janice Downey
Press Democrat 3/14/2007
......I opposed Measure B because I fear procrastination will continue, maybe for years. Instead of wrangling over the urban growth boundary and the need for a three-story parking garage and a medical office building, it is time to look at reality. The costs of any of the three new hospital proposals are prohibitive. It is time to look at the future. Medical practice will change so much that the new hospital will be obsolete by the time it is finished. The new model is centralized specialized centers with mobile units. This valley will never be a hub of specialists. We cannot support a general hospital because of the land-use decisions that have already been made. Sonoma Valley will always be a spoke, rather than a hub, of medical care. This is not bad. We can have good care. But it requires planning now instead of listening to high-paid administrators and consultants who want to continue to protect their jobs. When people look back 15 years from now, they will say what we really needed was a highly efficient first response and emergency facility in the center of town. We have the location adjacent to the current hospital for the new emergency facility and the present hospital can be minimally upgraded for use during the next few years. Look to the future and not the past.
Bob Cannard
Sonoma Valley Sun 2/15/2007 The current hospital board members and just-resigned administrator simply 'do not get it' or do not want to get it! They have lost their credibility, which is why the board has been urged by the residents and experts to resign with the replacement of an enlarged board chosen from and by the community. There will always be a hospital in Sonoma - public or private - without a parcel tax to subsidize a hospital operating on the verge of bankruptcy. A pricey, Oakland-based healthcare consultant continually states that nurses salaries range between $75,000 and $95,000 annually. A survey of Sonoma County nurses reveals this is simply not true. During the past five years, board members/administrator have continually stated they were losing money. Yet costly special elections were held, and one after another consultant group was hired at excessive fees merely to sway taxpayers. This board forgave a $250,000 debt owed by the Valley of the Moon Medical Group, funded the Health Care Coalition with $200,000 and even commissioned an Environmental Impact Report on property the hospital did not own - is there a money tree in the hospital back yard? A recent visit to the ER found the physician requesting warm water with the nurse advising there just was not any! And yet the administrator was being paid, and will continue to receive for another 11 months, $20,000 monthly, total health benefits and the balance of $42,000 towards his retirement. For three years as administrator, one year as consultant, the approximate total expense is $1,000,000.
Are we talking about Stanford Hospital or a primary care hospital in a small California valley?
A large segment of Sonoma Valley residents are Kaiser members, well served by their facilities in Napa, Vallejo, Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Marin. Another large portion rely on specialists with a track record, practicing in the surrounding areas and blessed with state-of-the-art hospital facilities within minutes of their homes. Those residents who rely on a local family physician expect their doctor to become familiar with them and the needs of their family. Therefore, recruiting physicians to work in the hospital is another unnecessary expense.The hospital board and the city planning commission (city council) are openly hostile to our doctors and to the residents as evidenced by the rejection of a valuable non-existing imaging center for the valley. As Bill Boerum stated in 2006, 'the vast majority of parcel holders are local residents, most of whom will become fixed-income people during the life of the bond.' Therefore, a parcel tax was then and now discriminatory. We do not require a hospital of grandeur. If and when the current hospital closes, another one will open - Sonoma will always have a hospital. No more begging for taxpayer dollars to fund frivolous expenditures - NO further burden on taxpayers - if the current hospital cannot succeed on its own, then it must close. Sonoma will always have a hospital. No parcel tax!
Linda McGarr
Sonoma Valley Sun 2/15/2007
We all know the rule: Don’t throw good money after bad. Some of us, however, have still to learn it.
If we vote to continue the parcel tax that has already proved a failure, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when it fails yet again in five years. Don’t let the medical staff or others who have a financial interest play on your fears that you will not get medical attention. As for closure of the obstetrics department, Santa Rosa and Petaluma have excellent and more modern facilities awaiting you. As for as closure of the emergency room, it isn’t going to close because there is money to be made there, too. And instead of preying on the fears of the elderly, we can certainly offer our citizens a shuttle bus to other acute medical care facilities if need be, much cheaper than the millions budgeted for continuing a hospital that has proven again and again that it is not financially solvent.
Vote no on Measure B and stop throwing good money after bad!
Jane Moeddel
Sonoma Index Tribune 2/5/2007
I agree with the Davis' letter regarding the quagmire hospital.
We homeowners pay a premium to live here in the Sonoma Valley. We also pay for our own medical insurance, as well as Social Security and Medicare, i.e., "the American way."
No temporary tax is ever that -- temporary. We don't need a bigger hospital.
As it stands now, the hospital is never full to capacity, and we don't need a medical spa. Just create a sales tax, or charge a flat fee for anyone having a baby. The baby factor alone would more than cover your desired additional costs.
Debbie Perlow
Sonoma Index Tribune 1/19/2007
Sutter to shut hospital! Kaiser to build new hospital. It boils down to management. Kaiser has done the better job.
Ten years ago Sonoma Valley Hospital had $8 million in the bank. This has been wasted - plus an additional $7 million in parcel tax - by incredibly poor management by the hospital's board and administration.
Had the board listened to the people of this Valley, they would have upgraded the present hospital and perhaps built a new emergency-care facility on an adjacent site.
I attended a special meeting with the president of the board, arranged just for me with a booklet prepared with my name on it, plus an hour-long video meant to convince me they were on the right track. When I questioned the cost, Mr. Nugent said to me, "Bob, you must have a vision. We will worry about where the money comes from later." I told him the people of this Valley were more practical than that, and they have opposed this grand plan ever since.
The land-use general plans of both the City of Sonoma and Sonoma County will prevent us from ever having enough population to support a general hospital. What we need is what we have today, upgraded.
Had this been done 10 years ago, it would now be largely paid off and we would not have this incredibly divisive situation.
The first step is to get rid of the current administration. Second, be open and honest with the people who are paying the bill. Until major changes take place, nothing will happen. The people of this Valley will say, "Fool me once, fool me twice, but never again."
Bob Cannard
Sonoma Index Tribune 1/4/2007 Common sense would convey to the current SVH boardmembers that a new board and a new administrator is imperative for Sonoma Hospital and the community at large. The current boardmembers have not listened to the public, nor will they listen in the future. They need to resign enmasse and a new board selected from within the community by the community.
The board and the admini-strator have inappropriately spent funds that could and should have been utilized to purchase new equipment. In 2005 they forgave $250,000 to the Valley of the Moon Medical Group. There are many other inappropriately spent monies which have been reported by the Index-Tribune. In 2005 the board rejected a proposed imaging center for Sonoma with equipment not available at the Sonoma Hospital. Administrator Kowal is currently receiving a monthly salary of over $20,000 with a contract bonus reward of $500,000 if he can succeed in building a new hospital.
A large segment of Sonoma residents are Kaiser members with facilities surrounding them in Napa, Valley, Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Marin. The rest of the Sonoma residents are blessed with top hospitals within minutes of our homes – Napa, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Marin and San Francisco. In searching for a family physician, most residents look for a doctor who will be with them as they raise their families and in case of major issues, they look for specialists with a track record. The primary-care physicians in Sonoma are adequate – the residents of Sonoma will not support recruited physicians to work in the hospital itself.
Administrator Kowal stated in October 2005 that revenue from Blue Cross and Medicare will exceed the current parcel tax. An extension of the current parcel tax or an even higher parcel tax is not needed. The fact remains that the parcel tax funds were deposited into a special account for a hoped-for-new hospital and not utilized to "keep the hospital open" as threatened by the administrator and board.
A hospital must stand on its own "two feet" - operating efficiently on its own if it is going to serve the community at large.
Sonoma Valley Hospital has always been a primary-care hospital. It will always be a primary-care hospital. Sonomans are medically well taken care of by our various financial sound, upscale hospitals within minutes of our homes.
Let's get real - remodel what we have and become financially sound without a nonsensical parcel tax.
Linda L. McGarr
Unfortunately, Plan 'B' now looks very much like what was resoundingly defeated in the recent Measure C election. If the SVHD Board follows the current trend of Plan 'B' Committee then another NO Vote on the Sonoma Valley Hospital District Bond Measure will be recommended. The SVH Board now has branzenly titled a business plan "for the new Sonoma Valley Hospital Medical Center". It is generally agreed that we need a well functioning small hospital - not an large medical center!
Similarities include...
Plan 'B' 'Experts' state that current site is 'built out'. This notion is absurd considering the current facility is only 50% utilized.
Again it appears the Project path is totally incompatible with existing open space and greenbelt policies. The project as currently envisioned by the Plan 'B' 'experts' will invite sprawl, build beyond true needs and again remove open space, greenbelt and farmlands.
The only common sense, fiscally sound and environmentally sensitive approach would be to retrofit the existing hospital in the current location within the city limits of Sonoma. SAD urges preparation for another NO vote on the Sonoma Valley Hospital Bond Measure.
Dr. Peter K. Ely Says Those Who Voted No On C Are Racist, Rich White People..." Serious Injuries Must Be Transpoted to Santa Rosa or Napa With or Without Sonoma Hospital Available.. To SVH board: resign en masse.. You and I are aware fresh faces on the board and in administration are mandatory for our hospital, which needs to be resized to a satellite facility. The proper leadership is ready to assume their role - these individuals will not use scare tactics, threats, fears, lies: will not create a poisonous and divisive atmosphere in our community to achieve their own personal agendas. They will listen to the people and will use common sense. Undoubtedly, you have given the hospital the best you had to offer. You have fallen short and now it is time for you to say goodbye...."
Past History
February, 2006: SVHD Hospital Bond Fails - Only 23% of vote for expensive and environmentally damaging Sonoma Hospital Bond Measure - calls emerge for recall of Sonoma Valley Hospital Board
SVHD Board Met Wednesday, 1/25/06 and Approved An Immense Medical Complex Targeted For Leveroni Ranch which borders Arnold Drive - Totally Ignoring Immense Environmental Concerns.
Previously the hospital board announced that they had chosen the Romberg property on Arnold Drive/Olive Avenue for the new "medical complex". The Leveroni Ranch was chosen instead, however, this is equally unacceptable since the SAME problems associated with the Romberg Property ALSO exist with the Leveroni Ranch Property in terms of sprawl and loss of open space and agricultural lands. The plans call for much more than just a hospital ... it includes a massive medical office complex with over 70 doctor's offices and a "community" health center.
Save Arnold Drive has long been opposed to any additional institutional development in the Arnold Drive Corridor - particularity relocation of Sonoma Valley Hospital. Such a move will result in much unwanted sprawl and a facility which far exceeds the needs of valley residents along with very high costs.. Most hospitals in California that have needed to upgrade to meet earthquake standards have retrofit or rebuilt in place. The only viable solution is to retrofit on the existing site. However, this most environmentally approach has been rejected by the SVHD Board with numerous weak excuses that it was not 'large enough' - which is not the case.
Smart Design can easily use the existing or other property previously identified within the current city limits. Unfortunately, the SVHD Board prefers an out-of-date sprawling and grandiose
project plan totally disregarding environmental and other concerns. This brings back memories
of the Sonoma Valley School District plans for huge large budget high school in the Arnold Drive
Corridor which was overwhelming defeated when the Bond measure came up for a vote.
Information has also been received that UCSF is planning for a Skilled Nursing Facility on
Eighth Street East with full Radiology and other departments. Perhaps other organizations
not requiring bond support or with plans to build on Arnold Drive will fulfill the needs of
Sonoma Valley Heath care..
New Sonoma Valley Hospital Site Environmental Impacts
A major concern of S.A.D. is the over-development activity in the Arnold Drive Corridor which runs from Glen Ellen to Sears Point through West Sonoma Valley.
They are back again...
From 06.28.05 Sonoma Index Tribune
"..."Sonoma Valley Hospital board member Mike Smith wants the hospital board to talk about eminent domain at its meeting Wednesday afternoon. "There's a lot of concern on how do we make the decision on eminent domain," Smith said. Smith said a number of people have been asking him why the hospital administration is only looking at Arnold Drive as a site for a new medical complex. "People are asking, 'Why not the Leveroni property?' People are also bringing up the Montini property," he said. The Leveroni property is located on Fifth Street West and Leveroni Road, while the Montini property is located on Fifth Street West and Verano Avenue.
"People are asking if we shouldn't be looking at places within the city's sphere of influence," Smith said. "Why not look at other places?" Smith said he is concerned about the number of people who are "up in arms." "As an elected official, when in doubt, let's have a public discussion," he said. "Eminent domain is not a popular thing to invoke."..."
From a recent Letter to the Editor in the Sonoma Index Tribune(6.14.2005)...
..."Eminent domain is an extreme measure and should not be used as a threat to frighten people into selling their property. Are not the citizens who populate the "green belt" entitled to the same efforts to find creative solutions as others? And, is not the point of the"green belt" to be green?
The Sonoma Valley Hospital board wants a 30-40 acre site. A hospital and a "hospital complex" are not the same thing. A smaller site could easily accommodate a well-planned, quality hospital...."
According to the Sonoma Index Tribune on February 23, 2005 "Sonoma Valley Hospital officials are looking at three possible sites for a new hospital....But one site they're not looking at is the Sebastiani-Cuneo property on Fourth Street West and West MacArthur."
At the SVHD Board meeting on February 23 the Hospital Predident, Bob Kowal, stated that they have targeted three sites all on Arnold Drive - a site near Shamrock Concrete, the Larbre property on Arnold and Craig, and on property across from Hanna Boys Center. Per the Sonoma Index Tribune "...Kowal said so far the hospital hasn't found a willing seller..." and Save Arnold Drive sure hopes that they do not!!!
The proposed new sites on Arnold Drive make no sense whatsoever for the reasons noted below.
Rather than preventing a environmental disaster in the Arnold Drive Corridor; the SVHD Board is more interested in having a grandiose sprawling and expensive hospital campus miles away from the City of Sonoma and near a Golf Course.. Financially the SVHD is still alive only due to the parcel tax that was barely passed a few years ago.
Building a new hospital will cost millions more than rebuilding in place and will cost SVHD taxpayers much more - estimated two more parcel taxes and two or more bond measures to keep the SVHD afloat before, during and after building a new hospital - which for all intents and purposes is not needed with respect to its' planned size.
The Sonoma Valley Hospital board voted earlier on a resolution on February 18, 2004 that will started the process again to build a new hospital. Previously two sites were identified on Arnold Drive either of which would have severe negative environmental impacts.
SAD believes that retrofit-in-place is the most economically feasible(millions less than building a new hospital) and an environmentally prudent way have handling the needs of the Sonoma Valley Hospital District for improved facilities.
According to the Sonoma Index Tribune ...'At the board's January 28, 2004 meeting, Dick Fogg, chairman of the hospital's strategic planning committee, made a recommendation to the board that it build a new hospital... Wednesday's board meeting will include a presentation to the board by Fogg, and a discussion on whether or not to proceed on building a new facility by the board. Last month, Fogg told the board that the aging facility needs to be replaced because of seismic requirements.
"Because of SB 1953 (the seismic requirement mandates) we have to do something about the physical plant," Fogg said. "Now is the time to move forward. A tax-supported community hospital in Sonoma Valley is viable."...'
Below information is from two years ago which is again relevant due to the re-surfacing of this problematic proposal for a new hospital...
Sonoma Valley Hospital is currently located with the City of Sonoma and is easily accessible to residents.
In addition, most Sonoma Valley Residents now travel to Santa Rosa, Napa or Petaluma where larger medical facilities and offices are available for treatment. This percentage has been growing steadily over the last few years.
Sonoma Valley Hospital Strategic Planning Advisory Council Fails to Garner Quorum - Internal Support Failing
SVCAC/Sonoma Valley Hospital Re-location Public Forum Has Low Attendance
Sonoma Valley Hospital District Financials Poor - Additional Bond Measures May Be Needed To Augment Operations With the SVH District now losing about $1,000,000 annually; the SVH District will be bankrupt and out-of-business before the new hospital is built!
Re-location of SVH Not Needed - New Legislation Pending...
Sonoma Valley Hospital Site Selection Committee Bent On Paving Over The Valley
Parcel Tax Measure Passes Amid Scare Tatics Sutter recently admitted with regard to facilities in Santa Rosa that they "prefer" to use open space for new hospitals rather than retrofit old facilities to meet earthquake standards - even though they have the funds to easily go that route.
Additional updates on this new problem will be posted on a regular basis.
Last Updated: October 24, 2009
|
