Drum roll, please…
After 10 months of deliberation, the Sonoma Valley Health Care Coalition on Tuesday announced its recommendations for what it said is “a viable plan for a new hospital in the valley.”
The coalition concluded that the best bet to get the required 67 percent voter approval for a general obligation bond would be to build a 56-bed hospital and to simultaneously pursue sites at the southeast corner of Broadway and Napa Road and in town near the current Andrieux Street facility.
Problems with both sites are being ironed out, said coalition leaders Steve Pease and Bob Edwards.
For example, the Broadway site is no longer outside the city’s urban growth boundary. In-town, more land for future expansion may be available.
“Both the Broadway and in-town (sites) were substantially improved in the last three weeks,” Pease said.
As for Cirrus Health’s recently revoked proposal to build a for-profit hospital on Eighth Street East, it fared poorly with the coalition’s options committee. Its vote was as follows: 22 members picked Broadway, seven chose the in-town site and only one picked Cirrus.
But the coalition didn’t rule out a private hospital or a private/public partnership.
“Part of our recommendation also includes that the board continue earnest discussion with Cirrus or anybody like them,” Edwards said.
None of the options committee’s members backed the notion of building a 25-bed in-town hospital.
“It cost almost as much to build and was sizably less-profitable,” Pease said.
Edwards added, “Any kind of hiccup would have sent it in the red.”
By contrast, they predict that – at least initially – a hospital built on Broadway or in town could stay in business without a subsidy in the form of a parcel tax.
“Both Broadway and in-town are sizably in the black,” Edwards said.
The coalition plans to make its recommendations public at 7 p.m., Monday at a yet-to-be-announced location. Then the coalition will make its recommendation to the hospital board. It is expected to pick a date to place a general obligation bond before voters.
“We’re recommending that they get on with it ASAP,” Pease said.
The coalition had a scientific telephone survey of 500 registered voters done in early April by Charlton Research. When respondents were asked a final time how they felt about the four options, the survey showed that 62 percent of respondents liked the Broadway option and 58 percent liked the in-town option.
With the removal of such controversial factors as the urban growth boundary, Edwards and Pease feel that each site has a chance.
A general obligation bond to build the hospital is expected to cost a homeowner $20 annually, per $100,000 of assessed value.
The coalition’s executive summary says, “Minimizing the size of the bond will be vital to securing voter approval.”
Edwards summed up the coalition’s recommendations thusly: “We feel this is probably the last chance for a public hospital.”
Broadway inside growth boundary
In-town has more land available
The coalition’s new-and-improved 11.5-acre Broadway option consists of several properties at the southeast corner of Broadway and Napa Road.
It stays inside the city’s urban growth boundary through the addition of a 3.5-acre empty field just west of the Avalon at Sonoma, an assisted-living facility for senior citizens.
“That owner … had always said, no, no, no, no,” Edwards said. However, the man has changed his mind, saying, “If I could help develop that property, I’d be interested.”
Likewise, the Serafini/Zepponi family recently said it would be willing to sell its 5-acre property if the family comes on as “co-developers,” Edwards said.
“The Serafinis appear to be interested as co-developers,” he said.
The hospital may also be able to buy a half-acre former gas station site right at the corner to add to the whole, Pease and Edwards said.
The Moose Lodge property isn’t included in the new-and-improved Broadway site plan.
An officer in the Moose Lodge told the Sun that the Lodge’s members were willing to move provided that hospital officials could find a similarly sized replacement for their lodge with a similar property tax bill.
Edwards said, “They wanted to cooperate, but they didn’t want to be harmed.”
The in-town site is looking likelier, partly because the Carinelli family has discussed possibly selling a 4-acre vacant field it purchased from the Sebastiani family within the last few years at Fourth Street West and West MacArthur Street.
“Carinelli is kind of back in the equation with people talking to them about development of that site,” Edwards said.
The coalition’s executive summary of its decision said, “The Steering Committee endorsed a reconfigured In-Town option that added at least 4 acres located within a short distance of the present hospital site to represent a total of 8-10 acres.”
Editor’s Note: The Sonoma Valley Health Care Coalition recommended that the Sonoma Valley Hospital board simultaneously investigate building a new hospital in-town near the current facility as well as on the southeast corner Broadway and Napa Road. The coalition gave both potential hospital sites an equal ranking.
– Tim Omarzu, Sonoma Valley Sun
