NOTE: At a Special Meeting held last night the City Council voted 7-0 to not keep the facility at its current location; 2-5 not to purchase the Schafter Property (Valdetta/Lorenz pro); and 5-2 to place it on the city owned Ft. Raymond track (Valdetta/Lorenz con).
While I am glad that my fellow council members finally got the hint that the current location is a terrible choice, the spurned Schafer property was ideal. The administration advised us so, their only concern was the 6 months they felt it would take to purchase the property.
Overlapping the timelines on the project, it was easy to see that we could hire a project manager/file our certificate of need (2 months) and do preliminary design (4 months) concurrent with purchasing the property. Both sites offered blue sky design, and are located on adjacent blocks.
Here is last night's correspondence on the issue:
Dear Kerry Martin,
Thanks for your input on this important issue. I agree with you that the current location is a bad choice, I wish Linda Amberg understood that. The advantages that I see to using Mr. Schafer's property are thus:
1) We have to buy some of it anyway, as you pointed out, for the levee. This allows us to purchase at at lower rate ($20k/acre for all, $50k/acre for some) land we have to buy anyway.
2) We can start developing faster, important in our current situation where every day of construction counts, as the Schafer property is already cleared and filled. There is $900k budgeted for land acquisition and Schafer is offering his property at less than half of that amount.
3) We have space to create a campus, the city-owned parcels are not big enough for that. This includes replacing the hospital there in 8 years when the bond is paid off, a location which allows the hospital and the Wesley to grow with our community. This includes someday having ambulances based there (important when you are the guy at 5 Mile having a heart attack). Parcels could be sold to private developers for elderly housing. Lots of close parking, which is key with elderly/handicapped.
4) One less intersection to cross before the airport, that much less chance of a mishap. Less chance we are going to need a stop light.
5) Allows for future growth of rec camp facilities - if you have noticed the Armed Forces have been investing in their facility, there is no reason to believe that in the next 50 years they won't want to expand it more...perhaps keeping it open year round.
6) Possible opportunity to relocate city shop/fire in location previously suggested was prime for those buildings. This would free up key property downtown.
I am not opposed to using the city land, but to me it is second choice. I am STRONGLY opposed to keeping the Wesley in the current location. Thank you again for your comments, would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the five reasons for Schafer that I outlined above.
Warm regards,
Dorene M. Lorenz
Seward City Council
-----Original Message-----
Dear Councilmembers,
I have been quiet for 6 years now, but it is time to present an opinion or two. With regard to your upcoming decision tonight on the location of the Wesley Nursing Home, considering your time frame, of your three choices, I have a hard time understanding why there is any discussion of any site other than the city owned parcels in the Fort Raymond Subdivision.
As Marianne Kiel stated at your Monday meeting, locating the hospital in its present location was a mistake. Everyone in town was rushed and manipulated by former City Manager Ron Garzini. It is in a hazardous location should the Lowell Creek Dam be breached.
It is in a congested location, hemmed in by the mountains, streets and residences. No one is happy with the helicopter operations above the residential neighborhood. And lastly, as you are now discovering, there is no room for proper expansion.
The Fort Raymond site is encumbered only by a seasonally used and minimally developed campground; and the short term lease with the Army Resort for a possible, bowling alley. The community can easily give up the campground revenue in favor of the benefits of a new residential nursing home and proper hospital location. We can easily give up the idea of a possible bowling alley. The site is otherwise undeveloped and under utilized.
It has access to the highway, SeaLion Ave and Hemlock. It is not within a residential area. It is close to the airport for fixed winged medical transport. There is adequate room for the nursing home, future relocation of the hospital and the heliport. There is also an additional city lot on the north side of Hemlock that could be used for parking etc.
The idea of purchasing private land in Forest Acres when you have an adequate site available, makes not sense whatsoever. Additionally, if you look at an aerial view of the property proposed by Mr. Shafer, a good percentage of it is in or on the other side of Jap Creek/Resurrection River channels. One advantage of acquiring it, is that it includes the route you need for the North Forest Acres Levee / road. Purchasing this parcel also ups your development costs as opposed to property the city already owns.
Thank you for your time and commitment to this major decision.
Kerry Martin, City of Seward Community
Development Director (retired)
-----Original Message-----
Mayor & City Council
City of Seward,
Seward, Alaska 99664
Dear Members:
Regarding the site selection for the development of the new nursing home, I would like to offer my thought on the matter. Recognizing the time crunch and the frustration of some members of the council in that their concerns and ideas have not been addressed, it appears our backs are against the wall and a decision must be made tonight.
I was on the council when the City authorized the construction of the new hospital. There was a proposal then to relocate the hospital on the City owned property between the Army Recreation site and the Seward Highway. Basically the City administration was opposed to that idea and it would have delayed the project, however there seems to be a "NOT IN MY BACK YARD" attitude on new development or visionary land use plans. We must look ahead and plan for an expansion of the future health care needs in the Seward area. Presently this area is used for camping sites, which I don't consider the highest and best use for this property.
There is no room for Hospital expansion at the present site, unless we go into a multi-story building. We still have the helicopter landing pad issue, which was a source of great debate when it was proposed. Moving the Hospital to a site adjacent to Forest Acres would provide our health care facilities being more centrally located to serve the growing needs of the Seward area.
With an eye towards future development, we could still work with Mr. Shafer on the possible purchase of his land. We need developable property -- not merely for parks and campsites. We have the levy project, the transfer station service road, the relocation of the City Shop, the electric equipment storage yard (located outside city limits on the highway) could be sold and relocated.
The City Shop (which is a disaster waiting to happen), a Dog Pound, and a Vehicle Impound Yard is not the highest and best use of this valuable city property. This property should be developed into home sites which would increase the tax base in Seward. An example is the Leirer development project in Bayview, and all the new homes being built in that area.
The present site on First Avenue could be developed and expanded into a Senior Housing complex. Not all "old people" end up in nursing homes, as a matter-of-fact most prefer to live independently as long as possible and I feel there is a growing need for upscale independent living facilities for our aging population.
Yes, this project is probably going to be more expensive, but in the long run it will meet the future needs of the Seward area.
Sincerely,
Margaret Anderson
-----Original Message-----
Dear Council Members:
I would like to voice my support once again for an off-site location for the new LTC and Hospital facility. In particular, I would like to state my support for the purchase/trade agreement was proposed by Steve Schafer and Al Schafer of the 53.06 acres located west of the Seward hwy and north of the rec camp.
I believe this parcel of land offers the City of Seward the opportunity to devlop a state-of-the-art health care center which might include not only a beautiful new longterm facility but also:
1. Expanded revenue resource departments such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapies.
2. Fully equipped radiology departments
3. Top-of-the-line lab/testing department
4. Adequate and private physician clinic services
5. Expanded physician specialty services
6. Private and personable well baby and woman's services
7. Collaboration and co-location of other health services in town currently operating in competition or off site from the current hospital services such as Glacierview and possibly Seaview Community Services.
It also offers in the trade agreement with the Schafers:
1. Expanded tax base by allowing a private developer to create increased and much needed "in-city" housing in the 400 acres requested in trade in this agreement.
2. More cost effective site preparation than the currently proposed rec camp location secondary to the ground elevation levels of the re camp being below that of the Schafer's property.
3. Would allow for other city use for the remainder of the property at the 53.6 acre site such a City Maintenance facility.
Most Sincerely,
Tina E. McLean
Owner/Executive Director
Active Alaskan Physical Therapy
13080 Seward Hwy
Seward, Alaska 99664
1 comment:
Great blog I hope we can work to build a better health care system as we are in a major crisis and health insurance is a major aspect to many.
Post a Comment