CC Minutes - 06/18/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

said that the hospital was constructing new, reconfigured rooms and replacing all the rooms it had. Ms. Nathanson said that most of the discussion to this point had been on PeaceHealth's need to expand rather than modernize. She understood the need to modernize, but thought the increase in beds was very minimal. Mr. Johnson suggested the council consider the issue in terms of total capacity rather than the number of beds, because more beds could always be moved in. Ms. Nathanson said she would like to see some different information in support of Mr. Johnson's statements. Ms. Nathanson asked why PeaceHealth selected an investment target to tie repayment to, rather than completion of buildings or the opening of new facilities. Mr. Johnson suggested that they were essentially the same thing. Ms. Nathanson said that Mr. Johnson had described the City's position regarding the sharing of risk as being more focused on shifting costs than on sharing risk. She asked if there was a proposal for shared risk. Mr. Johnson clarified that the shift occurred between the two proposals: PeaceHealth shifted the risk so it was shared equally by both parties after the initial $35 million was expended. Ms. Nathanson asked what properties in the area in question were already owned by PeaceHealth. Mr. Johnson identified the properties on a map. Ms. Nathanson asked if PeaceHealth had considered a different configuration predicated on the property it owned to the south of the hospital. She said that there had been a large degree of residential displacement in the area, which also contained a closed City-owned park. She suggested that rather than focusing on a rectangle, the hospital consider an approach that was more organic in nature and one that took into consideration community and City interest while still being contiguous to the hospital. Mr. Johnson explained the hospital defined "contiguous" as being immediately contiguous, and it wanted the six blocks adjacent to the existing four blocks. He said that the negotiating parties talked about going south of 13th Avenue, but that raised discussion of closing or rerouting 13th Avenue, which was difficult to do. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City was in a proactive mode or reactive mode to development in the west University neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said that the community needed to think about what happened in that neighborhood if the development occurred. He believed the refinement plan needed to be updated and revised, and a large amount of citizen involvement needed to occur. Mr. Fart asked if the hospital would divest itself of the Hilyard property if it moved north. Mr. Johnson said no. The hospital indicated that, if it moved to the Crescent area, there would be considerable investment in and reuse of the Hilyard facility as a clinic, offices, and 24-hour urgent care. Brian Terrett of PeaceHealth estimated that about 700 positions would be lost at the Hilyard facility if the hospital moved. Mr. Fart observed that the hospital was referred to as being downtown but he did not think it was downtown. Mr. Farr asked what costs the voters would be asked to bear if the hospital moved to the Crescent site. Mr. Johnson said that there may be public expenses associated with the hospital, but the voters would not be asked for anything. Mr. Farr asked what would happen to the displaced dwelling units. Mr. Johnson said it was difficult to know because each situation would be unique. It was possible that some of the units would not be demolished for some time because the property was not needed for the first phase of development. It could be that someone moved in, attended and graduated from college, and moved away. Mr. Farr suggested it was reasonable to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2001 Page 5 Work Session