============================================================ Health Options Digest December 7, 2002 Coalition for Health Options In Central Eugene-Springfield ============================================================ * EDITOR'S LETTER * NEWS SUMMARY * CALENDAR 1.sn - Mon 12/9 - Springfield City Council 2.xx - Mon 12/9 - Eugene City Council * PEOPLE SPEAK OUT 3.cn - Deep Dish with Dinah: Now it Can be Told (#416) 4.rg - Commentary: RiverBend is the right site for new hospital 5.mwh - Testimony: Maureen Weathers 6.mwh - Testimony: Lawrence H. Vinis, M.D. 7.rg - Make process responsive 8.ew - Time for comment 9.sn - PeaceHealth should be allowed to move 10.sn - Arlie should play a role in Gateway site 11.sn - Time for comment 12.sn - Editorial: There's still time to weigh in on PeaceHealth zoning * PUBLIC HEARING 13.kval - PeaceHealth Debate 14.rg - Both sides speak out at first hospital hearing 15.sn - Community speaks up at PeaceHealth meeting * ANTITRUST ISSUES 16.kezi - A One Hospital Town? * TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 17.rg - Projects too expensive * ANNEXATION 18.sn - Council approves PeaceHealth-related resolution * DLCD REPORT 19.dlcd - Report on plan amendments requested by PeaceHealth 20.ph - Jottings: One Man Speaks Out 21.rg - PeaceHealth says state official biased against plan 22.rg - Report: The hospital organization rebuts a state agency's criticism 23.ew - Slant: PeaceHealth CEO Alan Yordy comes off as wacky * OTHER NEWS 24.rg - Lane County health programs up for discussion 25.rg - Report: Minorities' health coverage better 26.rg - Sports center meets no resistance 27.rg - Ex-mayor enjoys cameo in movie about gun issue 28.rg - Stu on the move 29.ew - Happening People: Nena Lovinger * KEY, CREDITS, MORE INFO ===================== Editor's Letter ==================== In this space, I take editorial license to share CHOICES's views. But elsewhere in "Health Options Digest," we strive to provide a balanced and complete digest of news related to health choices in our community. We do not censure stories and views with which we disagree. Moreover, we look far and wide to find stories and views you may have missed. In this issue, we include stories and views drawn from four printed publications (The Register-Guard, the Springfield News, the Eugene Weekly and the Comic News), two TV stations (KVAL and KEZI), two hospitals (PeaceHealth and McKenzie-Willamette) and three government agencies (City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and the state Department of Land Conservation and Development). Where else can you get all this news, organized, indexed and summarized? And it doesn't even cost you a cent! Why does CHOICES go to such lengths? Because we agree with a recent editorial in the Springfield News that concerned citizens need to inform themselves and then voice their opinions. We provide "Health Options Digest" as a service to the community so that people can better inform themselves. But just reading published news stories is not enough. The decision to allow PeaceHealth to build a major regional center in the Gateway area will have implications for generations to come. It is important for citizens to consider the proposal from different perspectives, looking at all the issues and implications. We agree with the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) that "it is critical that any decision to enable PeaceHealth to construct a new major hospital and the development of related facilities and other services, be based on a comprehensive understanding of all impacts and mitigations up front in the local planning process." It is not acceptable for PeaceHealth and the City of Springfield to make decisions step-by-step. At this point, the City of Springfield is being asked to allow for a major regional hospital without knowing what exactly is being planned -- to write a blank check. It is also not acceptable for PeaceHealth and Springfield staff to argue merely that the proposed amendments are legal. It is necessary for PeaceHealth and the City of Springfield to provide evidence as to why the proposed changes are, on balance, in the public interest and better than the alternatives. If the proposed changes are not in the public interest, even if legal, then they should be rejected. But the community needs more information beyond what PeaceHealth and the City of Springfield have supplied so far to determine if the proposal is in the public interest. Democracy is not the easiest form of government. It requires citizens to take the effort to scrutinize the work of government. But democracy is better than any other form of government we know. Get informed and speak out! Rob Zako, Editor 343-5201 rzako@efn.org ====================== News Summary ====================== On Monday, the Springfield City Council will discuss a new "transportation system maintenance fee" -- a new fee or tax to maintain existing streets (#1). Also on Monday, the Eugene City Council may act to impose a new "transportation system maintenance fee" to take effect before the end of this year (#2). Deep Dish with Dinah suggests why she bought the condemned Spencer's Brew Pub. She also gives a welcome, but unsolicited, plug for CHOICES. Thanks, Dinah! (#3) Roger Saydack, a member of the PeaceHealth governing board, argued that the RiverBend site is the right site for a new PeaceHealth hospital (#4). Maureen Weathers, chair of the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital board of directors, and Lawrence H. Vinis, M.D., McKenzie-Willamette Hospital's chief of staff, both testified to Springfield Planning Commissioner against allowing PeaceHealth to build a new hospital on the RiverBend site (#5, #6). In letters to the editor, citizens argued both for and against PeaceHealth's plans (#7, #8, #9, #10, #11). In a editorial, the Springfield News urged citizens (as does CHOICES) to get informed and to speak out (#12). Last Tuesday, many citizens testified to the Springfield Planning Commission about PeaceHealth's plans (#13, #14, #15). Last Wednesday, KEZI (Channel 9 TV) aired a story exploring whether Eugene-Springfield will become a one hospital town (#16). A citizen questions if there is money to build all the planned highways in the Eugene-Springfield area (#17). Last Tuesday, the Springfield City Council recommended annexing an additional two acres of property owned by PeaceHealth into the Springfield city limits (#18). The report from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on PeaceHealth prompted PeaceHealth CEO Alan Yordy to "shoot the messenger." Read a condensed version of the original report (#19), Yordy's repose (#20), and related new stories and opinions (#21, #22, #23). More than 2,900 adults who have received outpatient treatment services during the past year through Lane County health programs may lose those services completely in March (#24). The percentage of Oregon minorities without health insurance plummeted during the 1990s but gaps, especially in the Hispanic community, remain, a new report shows (#25). Hearing no contrary voices, the Springfield City Council appears ready to approve plans for a sprawling sports complex in midtown and to rezone a previous site in the Gateway area for large-scale business use (#26). Bill Morrisette, former mayor and current the state senator from Springfield, has a four-second cameo in "Bowling for Columbine," the latest from documentary commando Michael Moore ("Roger & Me") (#27). Stu Burge is stepping down from the Willamalane Park and Recreation District Board to join the Springfield City Council (#28). Nena Lovinger, a citizen concerned about PeaceHealth's plans, is a "Happening Person" in the Eugene Weekly this week (#29). ======================== Calendar ======================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.sn - Mon 12/9 - Springfield City Council ------------------------------------------------------------ Monday 5 p.m. -- City Council work session. Jesse Maine Room, City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield, 726-3700. * Joint meeting with Willamalane Park and Recreation District. * Sanipac update. * Transportation system maintenance fee. 7 p.m. -- City Council special regular meeting. Council Meeting Room, City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield, 726-3700. * Action on six ordinances for proposed sports complex. * Public hearing on transportation system maintenance fee. 7:40 p.m. -- City Council executive session (non-public). Jesse Maine Room, City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield, 726-3700. * Property negotiations. * Proposed settlement of firefighters/PERS claim. * Collective bargaining issues. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/06/calendar/news1.txt Agenda: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/CMO/2002Council/120902%20agenda.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ 2.xx - Mon 12/9 - Eugene City Council ------------------------------------------------------------ Monday 7:30 p.m. - Eugene City Council meeting. Council Chambers, City Hall, 777 Pearl St., Eugene. Contact Mary Walston, 682-5406, mary.f.walston@ci.eugene.or.us. * Action: An Ordinance Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fees and Adding Sections 7.750 through 7.795 to the Eugene Code, 1971. --- Agenda Item Summary --- This is an opportunity for the council to reconsider action previously taken on a proposed ordinance to amend the Eugene City Code and to impose a transportation system maintenance fee for the purpose of providing stable and adequate funding to operate, maintain and preserve the cityÕs transportation system. --- Background --- Council Action History: On August 12, 2002, the council considered an ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). Prior to voting on the bill, the council approved amendments to the draft TSMF ordinance. (The ordinance which the council will reconsider on December 9 has been revised to reflect those amendments and is included as Attachment A.) Following considerable discussion, the council voted against the bill on a 5-to-4 vote. On August 14, 2002, the council agreed to reconsider the TSMF ordinance and tabled action until after December 1. On November 20, the council voted to place reconsideration of the ordinance on the December 9 agenda. On July 22, 2002, the council held a public hearing on the TSMF. A public hearing on another potential source of transportation funds, a local-option motor vehicle fuel tax, was held on October 28. Both the TSMF and the local gas tax were reviewed by council at a July 8, 2002, work session. The council's consideration of stable and adequate transportation system funding stems from the recommendations of the Citizen Subcommittee of the Eugene Budget Committee that the council implement a transportation funding package consisting of a combination local motor vehicle fuel tax and transportation utility fee for the purpose of generating an additional $9 million each year to address the city's critical transportation system funding needs. Policy Issues: The policy question before the council is whether or not to adopt the ordinance imposing a transportation system maintenance fee to generate funding for the operation, maintenance and preservation of Eugene's transportation system. Council Goals: Work Plan Item 1 under the 2001-2002 City Council Goal for Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources reads: Identify and implement funding sources (including possible reallocation of existing sources) for operation, maintenance and preservation of the transportation system. Financial and/or Resource Considerations: The citizen subcommittee concluded in its report to the council that significant additional funding from one or more new, city-controlled revenue sources are critically needed in the near future if Eugene is to preserve the community's investment in transportation system infrastructure. The results of the consultant study by Pavement Services, Inc., confirmed the need for significant additional pavement preservation funding in the near future to prevent the dollar amount of the current pavement preservation backlog from increasing by nearly 350%, to more than $231 million, over the next decade. As an indication of the escalation of the problem, over the past two years the backlog has grown from approximately $67 million to more than $90 million. On June 24, 2002, the council adopted the FY03 Budget, which included a new Transportation Utility Fund and potential new revenue intended to enable the city to begin addressing the unfunded backlog of transportation system preservation work. Because of the lead time required to fully implement a new source of transportation revenue, it is unlikely that funds would be available in FY03. If the TSMF ordinance is adopted by the council in December 2002, staff anticipates that revenue would be available in FY04 to begin to address the backlog. On November 18, the Eugene Budget Committee received a six-year forecast of the city's road fund. That forecast indicated that, given the current sources of transportation revenue, no road funds will be available for capital street preservation in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the forecast identified operating shortfalls in the road fund beginning in FY04 that will further erode the city's ability to maintain and preserve its transportation system unless new sources of revenue are implemented. The city's Capital Improvement Program for FY04-09, as currently drafted, does not include funds for neighborhood traffic calming, sidewalk access ramps, residential street lighting, or the street tree stocking and planting program. These program areas do not appear to be eligible for TSMF funding under the proposed TSMF ordinance as amended on August 12. Other Background Information: On October 30, the Lane County Board of Commissioners met with representatives from the cities in Lane County to discuss potential countywide transportation finance measures, including a countywide fuel tax and a countywide vehicle registration fee. At the meeting, the commissioners concluded that the timing was not favorable to proceed with countywide transportation finance measures of any type. There was support expressed for revisiting the issue at some point in the future. Lane County, like many other local governments, is currently facing severe and imminent budget reductions. It also recently had six money measures defeated at the polls, which adds further complexity to any consideration of new countywide revenue options. Springfield City Council on December 2 directed its staff to return December 9 with a TSMF ordinance for consideration and adoption. Springfield is facing immediate shortfalls in its street fund, and initiating a TSMF is seen as the first step to securing more stable revenues for street maintenance and operations. Despite concerns about a challenge from the state gasoline dealers association, Springfield also appears prepared to move ahead with a modest gas tax, perhaps early in 2003. Close coordination with Eugene on the gas tax component remains a strong preference for Springfield elected officials. Timing: The need for adequate funding for the city's transportation system is critical and imminent. Adding urgency to the situation is the distinct possibility that the 2003 Oregon Legislature may seek to preempt the establishment of new local fees, particularly transportation utility fees. Such legislation was introduced late in the last legislative session but failed to gain approval before the session ended. The City's Intergovernmental Relations staff and transportation staff from the League of Oregon Cities concur that enactment of a TSMF before January 1, 2003, could provide at least some level of protection from preemption, which most commonly is written to be retroactive effective to the start of the calendar year in which the legislative session is held. Legislation drafted with an irregular "look-back" date, such as the date on which a particular jurisdiction's ordinance was enacted, can be easier to challenge or amend to include a "grandfather" clause. Typically, ordinances take effect 30 days after approval by the council. If the council determines that it serves an important public purpose to enact the TSMF ordinance before January 1, 2003, an affirmative vote of two thirds of the council is required, and language must be included in the ordinance stating specifically why the earlier effective date is necessary, consistent with the new ordinance requirements in Measure 20-74. Staff has drafted language to this effect for council's consideration (see Attachment B). Finally, throughout the discussion on providing stable and adequate funding to operate, maintain and preserve the city's transportation system, a two-pronged approach has been considered: a TSMF and a local gas tax. Eugene and Springfield staff continue to work closely on common approaches to transportation revenue options, including a metro-area gas tax. The Eugene City Council is scheduled to consider implementation of a local fuel tax ordinance on January 27, 2003. --- Options --- The council has the option to: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance; 2. Revise the proposed ordinance prior to adoption; or 3. Not adopt the proposed ordinance. No alternatives to the subcommittee recommendation for new funding sources have been identified. --- Staff Recommendation --- Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. Staff further recommends that the City Council take the necessary steps to enact the proposed ordinance prior to January 1, 2003. --- Suggested Motion --- Move to amend the caption and add new Sections 3 and 4 to the proposed Transportation System Maintenance Fee Ordinance as follows: an ordinance concerning transportation system maintenance fees and adding sections 7.750 through 7.795 to the Eugene Code, 1971, and providing an immediate effective date. Move to adopt an ordinance concerning transportation system maintenance fees and adding sections 7.750 through 7.795 to the Eugene Code, 1971. --- Attachments --- * Proposed Ordinance. * Motion to amend the caption and add new Sections 3 and 4 to Section 7.795 of the proposed Transportation System Maintenance Fee Ordinance. * Memo detailing economic benefits of transportation preservation program. --- For More Information --- Staff Contact: Kurt Corey, 682-5241, kurt.a.corey@ci.eugene.or.us http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/council/agenda/Monday.htm Agenda Item Summary: http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/council/agenda/s0212097.htm ==================== People Speak Out ==================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 3.cn - Deep Dish with Dinah: Now it Can be Told (#416) ------------------------------------------------------------ By Dinah The Comic News, 12/2/02 Now it can be told why Carolyn Chambers bought a defunct restaurant with no future; why she paid for a business and a building, when all she wanted was the land, and not even that. Chambers bought Spencer's Brew Pub (see Deep Dish #394, http://www.something2eat.com/features.cfm?columnist=1&RequestedArticleID=187) to remove one variable in the development of the Gateway neighborhood. She must have known that the reconfigured Beltline interchange would plow through the restaurant, but her other interests in the area made it a good investment nonetheless. As a director for PeaceHealth and a land speculator in her own right, making that interchange work will pay her plenty of dividends. Nothing wrong with any of that, but odd that nobody has remarked about the deal. Separate two events by several months and nobody notices any cause and effect. Memo to Tim Gleason: Make those journalism students take some history classes, just so they remember how it's done. Here's a fine opportunity to discuss activists and how they get things done in this town. Since we're in the Gateway neighborhood, let's start with CHOICES (Coalition for Hospital Options in Central Eugene and Springfield), a loosely-knit (but tightly-wound) group bent on derailing the looming hospital monopoly called RiverBend. Members are concerned about transportation, land use, environment, and urban planning -- in other words, everything we mean when we brag about the area's "livability." You can get on their mailing list by visiting www.efn.org/~choices. (more...) http://www.something2eat.com/features.cfm?columnist=1&RequestedArticleID=226 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4.rg - Commentary: RiverBend is the right site for new hospital ------------------------------------------------------------ By Roger Saydack Commentary in The Register-Guard, 12/2/02, Page 7A The Springfield Planning Commission will soon tackle the largest, most significant development project in Lane County's history: the construction of a new Sacred Heart Medical Center campus in the Gateway area of Springfield. While this is the first official step on the path toward approval of this project, it is not the beginning. Rather, the hearings are the culmination of more than a year of careful work by Springfield and PeaceHealth planners and teams of experts from the public and private sectors, and literally dozens of meetings with interested community organizations. Much more work -- and more opportunity for public comment and input -- lies ahead. We can expect to have diverse and conflicting opinions expressed about what's best for the community. This project is important to our community and its future; it's good that people care. I worry, however, that people are focusing on "where" the project is located to the exclusion of "how" and "why" -- the extraordinary need we face for new facilities, the incredible difficulty of finding buildable land within the urban growth boundary, and the challenge to plan for, finance and build a project of this size and scope. As a PeaceHealth board member, I have been closely involved in the decision about the new hospital's site for more than three years. The volunteer board and PeaceHealth staff have worked long, hard hours with various local government officials to find a site that meets current and future needs. It has not been easy, but the board is united in its conviction that the RiverBend site is the best possible place for a second medical campus -- best for PeaceHealth and its physicians, staff and patients, and best for the community. The location of a hospital is more than a land use issue. It is a health care issue. It makes sense to build a second campus in the fastest-growing part of the metro area. Unlike the current Sacred Heart campus, the new site will have easy transportation access and room to grow. Recently a staff person from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development offered 19 pages of opinion on the RiverBend project, concluding that: * Contrary to adopted Metro Plan requirements, the decision should fall to three local governments instead of just the home government of Springfield. * Contrary to state law, PeaceHealth should develop a comprehensive master plan before seeking necessary plan amendments or zoning changes. * The region's transportation plan should be amended to accommodate the new hospital. If this is the official position of DLCD, the department is charting new legal territory. In all previous land use decisions, the city in which the property is located has been responsible for making land use decisions related to that property. In this case, that's Springfield. We are not aware of any instances where the submission of a comprehensive master plan precedes the submission of general plan amendments. In fact, the final version of those amendments will dictate what may be included in a master plan. DLCD is proposing to put the cart before the horse. Finally, we have completed some of the most comprehensive transportation studies in the region's history. All of them conclude that the RiverBend traffic impact is limited and will not cause any of the affected roadways to be substantially more congested than they would be without the new hospital. In fact, the extension of Pioneer Parkway, partly funded by PeaceHealth, will actually improve the situation and will return Game Farm Road to a neighborhood street. While the DLCD opinion appears to propose new land use policy, the points raised have been carefully and thoughtfully considered by both PeaceHealth and city representatives working on the project, who respectfully disagree. What's interesting is that a DLCD staff member chose to issue the report at all, since it contains statements that are inconsistent with past practice. It was an unusual move and transparent in its effort to derail the process and force the hospital to build in south Eugene. South Eugene is where the hospital wanted to build. A vote by the Eugene City Council in June 2001 effectively ended discussions to move us toward this goal. Therefore, it wasn't politically or financially possible to do so. We can only conclude that at least one DLCD staff member and like-minded city of Eugene activists want to stop this project -- apparently thinking it's better to have no new hospital than one that isn't where they choose it to be. The Eugene City Council, through its move to downzone our north Eugene property and its vote to discontinue conversations about expansion on our current site, tried to force the hospital to remain within the four-block boundary of the Hilyard Street campus. We believe that it is not in the best interest of the community to confine future hospital development to a site that we already know is inadequate. The hospital is committed to creating a plan that will be a shining example of nodal development and will serve the community's health care needs for generations. Over the coming weeks PeaceHealth will make its case to city of Springfield officials and the community, and the public will have the opportunity to comment. As this project takes shape, we believe most will like what they see. Roger Saydack is an attorney with Arnold Gallagher Saydack Percell Roberts & Potter in Eugene and is a member of the PeaceHealth Governing Board. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/02/7a.ed.col.saydack.1202.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 5.mwh - Testimony: Maureen Weathers ------------------------------------------------------------ By Maureen Weathers, Chair of the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital Board of Directors Oral testimony to Springfield Planning Commission, 12/3/02 My name is Maureen Weathers. I live at 29 South Alder Street, Lowell, Oregon. I'm here this evening on behalf of the Board of Directors of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital -- and on my own behalf. As you know, McKenzie-Willamette has filed an antitrust lawsuit to stop PeaceHealth from using its market power to control competition for hospital patients. We've been lobbied very heavily by people who think we should use the land use process to fight back against their predatory business practices. However, we don't necessarily believe that PeaceHealth has violated the land use rules which are in effect. The problem is the current land use rules do not protect our community from the problems that a PeaceHealth hospital at Gateway will create. If they build in Springfield and McKenzie-Willamette Hospital is forced to relocate in order to continue to be viable -- Lane County residents will pay the price with increased healthcare costs, and maybe even with delayed access to critical care. As a former Springfield Mayor, I'm concerned because Gateway was intended to attract campus industrial businesses providing new jobs, not the mega-expansion of an existing medical facility capable of putting our community hospital out of business. From the moment I heard the announcement, I questioned the prudence of siting both hospitals (both trauma centers) on one side of the freeway and one side of the river. You probably recall that McKenzie-Willamette Hospital was founded to ensure that acute care hospital services were available to people on both sides of the river. Fifty years later, that need hasn't changed. By the end of this year, our Emergency Department will have responded to over 35,000 patient visits, half of them coming from Springfield area households. These ER visits lead to over half of the 7,000 inpatients we take care of. If PeaceHealth opens this expanded center in Gateway, siphoning off the Springfield and East Lane residents we've traditionally served, our community hospital will be threatened. As a result of PeaceHealth's plans to build in north Springfield, our Hospital's Board of Directors has begun evaluating whether McKenzie-Willamette can continue to be what it is, where it is. We support PeaceHealth's need to update their facilities in order to provide the best possible care in the future. We have the same need to update our facilities at McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. But we question whether the proposal before you takes into full consideration the needs and interests of Springfield and other Lane County residents. This isn't just a business issue between two free-market competitors. It's a public health related land use issue -- well within the responsibilities of the Planning Commission. It's all about planning for a future that ensures a choice of healthcare options -- affordable options. I'm proud of the City of Springfield's well-deserved reputation for taking a "can-do" approach to development proposals. But I'm equally proud that Springfield has a reputation for preserving the integrity of the land use process by applying common sense principles. We need the City's leadership -- your leadership -- to direct the process in a way that avoids unintended, negative consequences. ------------------------------------------------------------ 6.mwh - Testimony: Lawrence H. Vinis, M.D. ------------------------------------------------------------ By Lawrence H. Vinis, M.D., Chief of Staff, McKenzie-Willamette Hospital Written testimony to Springfield Planning Commission, 12/5/02 Springfield Planning Commission Mr. James Burford, Chair City of Springfield 225 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Dear Mr. Burford and Commissioners: Please say "no" to PeaceHealth's request for an amendment to the adopted Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan for RiverBend. As Chief of Staff at McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, I am pessimistic about our ability to continue to serve patients from our current location if a new hospital complex is constructed so close. It will redirect Emergency Department and other patient visits, making it necessary for McKenzie-Willamette Hospital to relocate more strategically or potentially close all together. What justification can be made to abandon existing plans for location of hospital services, especially when doing so will result in this needless and costly potential swapping of locations? If there were no alternatives to Gateway, amending the plan would be reasonable. But recent development of a list of potential Eugene hospital sites (attached) should confirm PeaceHealth has options that do not justify the proposed amendment. As a physician I fully support PeaceHealth's need to update its facilities. The issue isn't whether, but where. The cost of healthcare is already a challenge to many in our community. I don't believe community members can assimilate the even greater costs that will result from 1) building a so-called "100-year hospital campus" in Gateway 2) having to reconstruct Springfield's existing hospital elsewhere, or worse 3) losing it all together if this financial challenge can't be met! Thank you for giving consideration to these unintended consequences. Citizens rely on your fortitude to protect their interests. In this case, your focus on the context in which this request is being made will benefit all concerned. Sincerely, Lawrence H. Vinis, M.D. ------------------------------------------------------------ 7.rg - Make process responsive ------------------------------------------------------------ By Norm Maxwell, Lorane Letter to The Register-Guard, 12/4/02 Again the PeaceHealth hospital siting is in the news. It seems as though all major land use decisions made in Lane County are based not on logic but on influence. We discover that there are no regulations against building in the floodplain here. "Lot line adjustments" that move and shrink existing lots out of the way for a rezone and subdivision gambit are not considered "land use decisions or actions," and therefore notice is not given to neighbors who would oppose these maneuvers if they knew of them and what follows them. Developers and their consultants work quietly in the basement of our public building to create land use reality while we are working at our dead-end jobs that we hate. One swift, unopposed land use deal can generate a developer more money than I will make in my entire lifetime at the salt mines. There is no way for citizens to influence a pending Lane County "land use decision" prior to the official hearing that the challenger gets to pay for and take time off from work to fight. I'm here to tell you that when the development attempt reaches that point, it is not an open-minded inquiry so much as a self-fulfilling prophesy for development. The only immutable standard is the Golden Rule. At least that's how it was in my neighborhood's struggle over Fire Road. Accompanying the great power wielded by local developers needs to be greater responsibility. We need to make Lane County's land use process open and responsive to all from the earliest stages of a proposed action to accomplish this. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/04/ed.letters.1204.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 8.ew - Time for comment ------------------------------------------------------------ By Richard B. Coolman, MD, Eugene Letter to the Eugene Weekly, 12/5/02 I just received a postcard from PeaceHealth stating, "It's time for public comment on the proposed PeaceHealth RiverBend campus," yet none of the options to check and return allow dissent. How typical that they tell the public what they think is best for us, rather than holding themselves accountable to their mission statement pledging cooperative collaboration to promote the health of the community. How sad that they did not ask for public comment before they decided to abandon the downtown Willamette Clinic site and become the largest incentive to sprawl in the history of Eugene-Springfield. I'm so tired of the lies claiming that the Eugene City Council chased them out of town. It was PeaceHealth who abruptly canceled plans to stay on the Hilyard campus, loaned Arlie the money to buy the RiverBend property, and refused to work with the Council to look at alternative centralized sites to the politically unfeasible demolition of six to eight residential blocks. The Council's continued efforts to find a new hospital site compatible with Eugene's citizen-approved planning goals show where the good faith was in those negotiations. So, as the postcard urges, please provide public comment, but consider urging Springfield to keep their hospital, and send ours back, for the health of both communities: Attend and testify at the Springfield Planning Commission hearing: 7 pm, Tuesday, Dec. 3, in the City Council Chambers. Attend and testify at the Springfield City Council hearing: 7 pm, Tuesday, Jan. 21, same location. Contact Springfield city officials: Fax 726-2363; cmo@ci.springfield.or.us http://www.eugeneweekly.com/archive/12_05_02/views.html#letters ------------------------------------------------------------ 9.sn - PeaceHealth should be allowed to move ------------------------------------------------------------ By Julie Brown, Eugene Letter to the Springfield News, 12/7/02 PeaceHealth should be encouraged to relocate at RiverBend, not reviled for seeking to prepare for the future medical needs of Lane County and surrounding areas. I have lived in Lane County for over 30 years and have been aware of Sacred Heart Hospital as a patient, an employee and now as a volunteer. I don't see PeaceHealth as a competitor with McKenzie Willamette. I see them as complimenting one another. Our Medicare supplemental insurance allows both my husband and me to utilize either hospital, and we have done so. PeaceHealth was the most thoughtful, considerate and appreciative employer I ever had. I know that each time they needed to expand, they included their neighbors' ideas into the design of the new structures as much as they possibly could. Now they have come to the point where they can no longer expand at 13th and Hilyard and after an exhaustive review of many sites, have determined that RiverBend will best serve our communities. I would ask the (Springfield) Planning Commission to do all they can to assist PeaceHealth build the new facility at RiverBend. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/06/opinion/news2.txt ------------------------------------------------------------ 10.sn - Arlie should play a role in Gateway site ------------------------------------------------------------ By Bill Morrisette, Springfield Letter to the Springfield News, 12/7/02 The Springfield Planning Commission met on Dec. 3 to consider amendments to the Gateway Refinement Plan that are fraught with dangerous assumptions. The ability of the area to absorb the kind of growth planned by PeaceHealth is questionable. My major concern is how the 33 acres of community commercial is developed and whether or not PeaceHealth controls the entire acreage. The July 1 annexation agreement signed with Arlie & Co. for 12.4 acres states, "The Springfield City Council has identified this property as the appropriate site for Mixed Use Nodal Development ..." The city has now decided that Arlie will no longer be allowed to participate in the Nodal Commercial Development in the Gateway site and this is wrong. I believe Arlie should own 12 of the 33 commercial acres if for no other reason than to keep PeaceHealth honest. Arlie was the party that originally envisioned this type of "village" approach which, at the time, PeaceHealth told me they did not favor. A self-contained village includes a major employer, commercial and retail offices, walking paths, open space and a combination of housing types -- it is referred to as "smart growth." Auto traffic in and out of the area would be minimized. I feel PeaceHealth is more concerned with the bottom line and will attempt to maximize commercial profits at the expense of livability. Arlie sees this archetypal new urbanism design as their signature statement of development in Springfield. Can Arlie be trusted? Yes indeed! They have already donated almost $1 million in land to the city for other uses. My support for the PeaceHealth project is contingent upon Arlie's full participation in nodal (village) development. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/06/opinion/news2.txt ------------------------------------------------------------ 11.sn - Time for comment ------------------------------------------------------------ By Betty and Zane Smith, Springfield Letter to the Springfield News, 12/7/02 We support the zoning changes necessary to facilitate PeaceHealth's new hospital at RiverBend in Springfield, for the following reasons: The RiverBend site is within the city limits of Springfield and is a matter for Springfield officials, not Eugene or state officials. RiverBend is within the urban growth boundary and the attempt to establish a buffer zone inside that boundary is inappropriate. The zoning of land should reflect current circumstances and adapt accordingly. The proposed change from medium residential to light commercial reflects the current need for growth and the desirability for diversity. Access to the McKenzie River is more likely to improve under Peace Health's plan; they have expressed their intent to provide public access. The contention that the zoning changes ignore potential flooding is incorrect. The area is above the 100-year flood plain and mostly above the 500-year flood plain. The inclusion of a responsible development, such as PeaceHealth, will enhance the area's capability to manage and accommodate traffic in the Gateway and RiverBend areas. Finally, it is important to understand that the current location of the hospital, in downtown Eugene, is no longer an option. Peace Health has made every reasonable effort to consider alternative Eugene sites. It is now important to conclude this process and assure the continuation of both quality hospitals serving the Eugene-Springfield community. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/06/opinion/news2.txt ------------------------------------------------------------ 12.sn - Editorial: There's still time to weigh in on PeaceHealth zoning ------------------------------------------------------------ Editorial in the Springfield News, 12/7/02 The Springfield Planning Commission Tuesday night tackled the PeaceHealth zoning issue with a public hearing that drew some 150 people to City Hall. It's the first step in a public process that has been building for more than a year since PeaceHealth announced it was buying property along Game Farm Road on which to build a $350-million regional hospital. The announcement has resulted in a controversy that is far from over. For one thing, the City of Eugene is seeing its major medical facility move across the river into Springfield, which upsets Eugene's city leaders and many residents. For another, several people in Springfield are worried about the future of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital if the larger hospital comes to town. McKenzie-Willamette has already filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Peace Health, charging that it is trying to stop competition between the two medical facilities. The immediate question before the Planning Commission is zoning. PeaceHealth is asking for amendments to the Gateway Refinement Plan and the Metro Plan to allow its development. That, too, is controversial with some saying the proposed zoning changes should also be considered by Eugene and Lane County. Springfield officials say that it's a Springfield matter because the proposed development is totally within Springfield's city limits. Others protest against the zoning change for a variety of reasons while still others favor the changes. At Tuesday's hearing 14 people expressed support for PeaceHealth's plans, while 15 spoke against them. Tuesday's hearing went on for three hours, but the commission didn't get through the list of those who had signed up so it set a second hearing on Dec. 17 to finish up. Those who haven't already signed up to testify won't be allowed to speak but they can offer written opinions until Dec. 31. One concern that was voiced at the hearing was that the public hasn't been allowed to have much input, but the hearing process is designed to call for just that -- and other opportunities arise. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Springfield City Council, which will hold a public hearing in January or February, and more input will be sought at that time. The PeaceHealth development is one of the biggest -- if not THE biggest -- to come to Springfield. What happens on the 160 acres that lie between Game Farm Road and the McKenzie River will have a great effect on Springfield. Concerned residents can't afford to sit this one out. If they haven't done so already, they need to inform themselves about PeaceHealth's plans and then to voice their opinion. They can do that by submitting their written comments to the Springfield Planning Department, 225 Fifth St., Springfield OR 97477. Again, that deadline is Dec. 31, only some three weeks away. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/06/opinion/news1.txt ===================== Public Hearing ===================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 13.kval - PeaceHealth Debate ------------------------------------------------------------ By Jennifer Winters KVAL (Channel 16 TV), 12/4/02 Springfield -- The Springfield Planning Commission got an ear full Tuesday night on PeaceHealth's request to amend the Metro and Gateway refinement plan. The Commission is considering amendments to the plan, that if approved would help pave the way for a northern extension ofÊ Pioneer Parkway to Beltline and allow for development around the proposed hospital. Here are some of the comments from the people who spoke out against the development. "I'm opposed to the PeaceHealth building at River Bend. I think it would add adverse conditions, cause adverse conditions on our congestion and traffic and also lower the quality of life in North Springfield." "The community didn't plan for this, doesn't want it, can't afford it and shouldn't be forced to have it." "PeaceHealth is asking you to make a policy decision without knowing what their intents are." The Planning Commission also listened to PeaceHealth's case for the amendments from attorneys and planners. "So as you listen to all the testimonyÊfrom all of our experts on land use, I'd like you to take a moment and reflect for me. This is about health care for our future. It's about how we're going to design the systems of care for you, your family and our future generations," said Sacred Heart Hospital Administrator Jill Hoggard-Green. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the city council on the issue. http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x32097&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530 ------------------------------------------------------------ 14.rg - Both sides speak out at first hospital hearing ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt Cooper The Register-Guard, 12/4/02, Page 1A Springfield -- Critics on Tuesday called PeaceHealth's plans for a regional medical center in northwest Springfield an affront to sound land use while supporters countered that the site is crucial for the future of regional health care. The two sides weighed in during an initial public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission, which must consider changes to land use plans that the Bellevue, Wash.-based health organization needs to build a $350 million, 500-bed medical campus and surrounding development on 164 acres of residential land between Game Farm Road and the McKenzie River. After three hours of testimony before a crowd of about 200 people, the commission extended the public hearing to Dec. 17. It plans to make a recommendation to the City Council Jan. 22 on whether to accept or deny the proposed plan amendments. Councilors may vote on the changes as early as February. If the changes are approved, PeaceHealth could begin construction next year and open the new complex -- to be called Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend -- in 2007. Speaking toward the end of the evening, City Councilor Fred Simmons echoed the complaints of those who have said the review process lacks adequate public input and a comprehensive accounting of PeaceHealth's plans. "If you're going to do the process, the citizens and the involved parties need to have an opportunity to look at it in its totality," Simmons said. "We have a wonderful opportunity to create a beneficial facility, but it's going to require more public involvement." PeaceHealth proposes to redesignate 33 acres from medium-density residential to mixed-use commercial zoning; to change language in the Gateway Refinement Plan so the hospital complex can be built on another 66 acres; and to use the remainder of the buildable land to meet the city's housing density requirements. Mark Radabaugh, urban representative to the Willamette Valley for the state Department of Land Conservation and Development, said the changes could violate statewide planning goals for economy, housing and transportation. "If these concerns are not satisfactorily addressed, the department may request the Land Conservation and Development Commission to authorize an appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals to prevent the amendments from becoming acknowledged," Radabaugh wrote in a statement submitted Tuesday. PeaceHealth attorney Steve Pfeiffer said Radabaugh's review ignores land use review processes already in place. He rejected the assertion that PeaceHealth should submit a comprehensive development plan before seeking zone changes. "You can't begin with the master plan and show up later with the policy that puts it in place," he said. The state land use department has led the way among critics who say PeaceHealth's proposals constitute major rewrites of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, the area's main growth blueprint -- and that the Eugene and Lane County governments should join Springfield's review of the project. But city Planning Manager Greg Mott said the law is clear: "Any time a site-specific amendment involves property within city limits, the jurisdiction for that amendment rests solely with that city." Critics also say PeaceHealth's arrival in Springfield would mean the end of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, the city's community hospital, scarcely two miles away. McKenzie-Willamette has filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging that PeaceHealth uses its dominant market power to compete unfairly for exclusive health insurance contracts. Maureen Weathers, chairwoman of the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital Board, said it would be unwise for both hospitals to locate on the same side of the Willamette River if flooding cuts off access between the two cities. "If they build in Springfield and McKenzie-Willamette Hospital is forced to relocate in order to continue to be viable, Lane County residents will pay the price with increased health care costs and maybe even with delayed access to critical care," Weathers said. Eugene resident Jim Hale, who served on a committee that designed the Metro Plan more than two decades ago, said officials must find a way for the hospitals to coexist and thrive. "RiverBend is where PeaceHealth wants to be," he said. "It's in McKenzie-Willamette's most lucrative ZIP code." Sacred Heart Administrator Jill Hoggard Green also agreed that health care is the issue -- and the well-treed, riverine site on the McKenzie is the perfect place for patients to recover, she said. "RiverBend creates a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to create a place of healing," she said. The evening was not without levity. At one point, a woman suggested a new city logo for Springfield in which a tall building joins the familiar meandering waterway. Critics say that the city's hospital-zoning rules weren't written to accommodate a project of PeaceHealth's size, but Roxie Cuellar of the Home Builders Association urged support for the changes. PeaceHealth could leave the community if frustrated by an endlessly litigated land-use dispute, she said. Doctors also fell on both sides of the proposal. Cardiologist Richard Padgett, for example, said Sacred Heart Medical Center in Eugene is currently operating "at or over capacity." Yet Dr. John Allcott, who counts on Sacred Heart for 99 percent of his work, said, "my patients are not going to benefit by coming to the north Gateway area -- $350 million could be spent a lot better." Developer John Musumeci, who owns 12.4 acres abutting the PeaceHealth site, cautioned the commission not to approve changes that would give PeaceHealth a monopoly over use of commercial land. "(PeaceHealth is) going to make the decisions" as to whether there will be services that compete with the hospital, Musumeci said. "That 12.4 acres keeps 'em honest." What's Next * A public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission will be held at 7 p.m. Dec. 17 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 225 Fifth St. The commission will deliberate on the PeaceHealth land use amendments Jan. 22. * A public hearing before the City Council will be held at 7 p.m. Feb. 3. After the hearing is closed, the council will decide whether to approve or deny the amendments. * For more information, call the city at 726-3700. -- The City of Springfield http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/04/1a.peacehealth.1204.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 15.sn - Community speaks up at PeaceHealth meeting ------------------------------------------------------------ By Jaime Sherman The Springfield News, 12/7/02 The Council Meeting Room was crowded Tuesday evening at City Hall as 150 people gathered to speak at a Planning Commission public hearing on PeaceHealth's requests to amend land use designations in the Gateway area. People arrived early to fill out cards for a chance at three minutes each to testify concerning PeaceHealth's plans to build a $350-million regional hospital on 160 acres in north Springfield. PeaceHealth has asked the city to amend the Gateway Refinement Plan diagram and text and the Metro Plan diagram to accommodate its development plan. Thirty-five private citizens from Eugene and Springfield, community activists, government officials, developers and hospital employees spoke during the three-hour public hearing. Fourteen people expressed support for PeaceHealth's plans, and 15 people spoke against the plans. Five people presented neutral comments about the zoning requests. Of those who testified, 12 were from Springfield and Glenwood, 17 were from Eugene and three were from Salem, Lowell and Fall Creek. Several people requested the city of Springfield deliberate with Eugene and Lane County and accept comment from citizens in those jurisdictions before ruling on PeaceHealth's requests. Greg Mott, the city's planning manager, countered that documents guiding development in Springfield clearly allow individual cities to have sole jurisdiction over land use decisions within their city limits. Philip Farrington, PeaceHealth's director of land use planning and development, agreed with Mott's interpretation of the land use codes. Before members of the public spoke, Farrington and PeaceHealth attorney Steve Pfeiffer attacked the report issued last month by the state's Department of Land Conservation and Development. The report was written by Mark Radabaugh, a Willamette Valley urban representative for DLCD, and stated PeaceHealth's proposals aren't specific enough and lack key information. Pfeiffer said Radabaugh's comments "went too far." Radabaugh was present at Tuesday's hearing and delivered a letter from his agency, stating the state "neither endorses nor opposes PeaceHealth's expansion proposal." "We recognize this is a local decision. However, we believe the proposed amendments currently fall short of compliance with several statewide planning goals," he said. Radabaugh said it is essential for the state to be involved in the amendment process to "avoid the necessity of our department or others relying on litigation to resolve the important land use issues presented by these amendments." Eugene resident Jan Wilson of Coalition of Health Options in Central Eugene-Springfield (CHOICES) concurred with the DLCD report. She said PeaceHealth's proposals for putting a hospital on the Gateway property are "egregious." She said the plans don't meet state requirements and the current zoning on the site doesn't allow a regional medical facility. "Don't engage in a piecemeal analysis," she urged the commissioners. Dave Carvo of Glenwood said PeaceHealth hasn't submitted a specific enough request for land use changes. "They're asking you to make a policy decision on something you don't have any information on," Dave Carvo of Glenwood said. John Musumeci, director of operations for Arlie & Co., said his company supports PeaceHealth's move to Springfield. In fact, his company sold the hospital organization the property and retains 12.4 acres. But Musumeci voiced concern that PeaceHealth's proposed amendments would give his company only a little residential and commercially zoned land. He would like to be allocated some of the mixed use land PeaceHealth is requesting. The public process continued to be questioned throughout the evening. Tom Bowerman, a member of the Game Farm Neighbors Association, said the city is practicing "flagrant disregard" for the practice of planning. He said three minutes is not long enough for citizens to voice concerns about the hospital proposals. Springfield City Councilor Fred Simmons said citizen involvement "needs to be clearly a part of this process." Maureen Weathers, chairwoman of the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital Board of Directors, reminded listeners that McKenzie-Willamette has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against PeaceHealth for trying to quell competition for hospital patients. "If they (PeaceHealth) build in Springfield and McKenzie-Willamette Hospital is forced to relocate in order to continue to be viable, Lane County residents will pay the price with increased health care costs and maybe even with delayed access to critical care," she said. Weathers, a former Springfield mayor, said the proposed site for the hospital was designed to attract campus industrial businesses, not the "mega-expansion of an existing medical facility capable of putting our community hospital out of business." Jim Hale of Eugene helped write the Metro Plan, which guides development today. He testified that the authors of the plan left out how to take care of both hospitals. Hale said the city has a challenging decision to make because PeaceHealth wants to move into McKenzie-Willamette's key zip code. "RiverBend is not PeaceHealth's last choice hoisted upon them by the Eugene City Council," Hale said. "It's their first choice. It's where they want to be." Cynthia Hart of Game Farm Road said she looks forward to sharing her neighborhood with PeaceHealth, which has agreed to build a 30-foot natural buffer to protect her residence from the hospital complex. "I'm selfish, and I like the view I have," Hart said of her neighborhood. "I look forward to having PeaceHealth as a positive neighbor." The people who signed up to speak Tuesday but didn't get a chance to testify will be allowed to share testimony on Dec. 17 at 7 p.m. when the Planning Commission continues the public hearing. Citizens who didn't sign up at Tuesday's hearing won't be allowed to speak during the next testimony, but the written public record will remain open through Dec. 31. After voting on the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission will present an advisory recommendation to the City Council. Councilors will hold a public hearing on the matter in January or February. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/06/local/news4.txt ==================== Anti-Trust Issues ==================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 16.kezi - A One Hospital Town? ------------------------------------------------------------ By Andrea Ash, andreaash@kezi.com KEZI (Channel 9 TV), 12/4/02, 05:35 PM It's the health care battle of the year.ÊIn one corner, one of PeaceHealth's flagship hospitals, Sacred Heart. On the other side of the freeway, a smaller, publicly owned hospital, McKenzie-Willamette.ÊÊBoth provide care to people across Lane County; however, both are also entangled in an expensive legal fight.ÊÊMcKenzie-Willamette alleges that Sacred Heart is anti-competitive, and trying to take business away from McKenzie-Willamette. Sacred Heart says, that's just not true. Brian Terrett/Sacred Heart Hospital: "We have not been able to find any factual basis for their claim."ÊÊ Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, McKenzie-Willamette could have trouble staying open, especially now that Sacred Heart is planning to cross the freeway, and move closer to McKenzie-Willamette.ÊÊ Rosie Pryor/McKenzie-Willamette: "We have questions about whether or not we can continue to be successful in this location." If we lose a hospital, and become a one hospital town, new questions emerge about health care in Lane County. Namely, would prices go up? McKenzie-Willamette says the lack of competition could send prices soaring. Rosie Pryor/McKenzie-Willamette: "Competition keeps us all honest." McKenzie-Willamette backs up its argument with what it considers to be a similiar situation in Roseburg.ÊÊTwo years ago, Roseburg's second hospital, Douglas Community, closed, leaving only Mercy Medical.ÊÊShortly after, one insurance provider, Regence BlueCross BlueShield pulled out of Mercy Medical, because it said the hospital was charging its patients too much money.ÊÊ Rosie Pryor/McKenzie-Willamette: "What we know is that when Douglas Community hospital closed, barely 6 weeks later the remaining hospital, Mercy Medical, raised its rates as much as 25% for some services- on a hospital bill that's a chunk."ÊÊ Mercy Medical admits it did slightly raise rates, but not by 25%.ÊIt also adds, the rate increase came at contract negotiation time- a natural time for rates to go up.ÊÊAnd, it points out, the hospital had not raised rates in nearly three years. If you talk to the folks at Sacred Heart, they'll tell you what happened in Roseburg has no relevence in Eugene and Springfield. Brian Terrett/Sacred Heart Hospital: "I think it's difficult to compare and contrast what happened in Roseburg to what might happen in Eugene, just because one hospital closes in a two hospital town does not mean prices get raised." ÊÊ Sacred Heart points to data furnished by the Oregon Hospital Discharge Database.ÊÊIt depicts what the average patient is charged for treatment at eight comprable hospitals.ÊÊIf you look at just the cost, without factoring in how much insurance companies actually cover, the cheapest hospitals appear to be Saint Charles in Bend, and Salem Hospital.ÊÊBoth are one hospital towns.ÊÊ So back to the original question: would prices really go up?ÊIn Oregon, it appears the answer doesn't necessarily revolve around the number of hospitals in any given community. Cost pressures can come from many directions, including insurance reimbursements, level of service, profit margins, and demand for services.ÊÊBut, even in the middle of this legal battle, both hospitals will agree on one thing.ÊÊThe unique services each hospital provides, like Sacred Heart's NICU, and McKenzie-Willamette's newly remodeled labor and delivery center, give our two hospital town a value you can't find in a one hospital town.ÊÊ ÊÊÊÊÊ The lawsuit between the two parties is scheduled to begin in October of 2003, in Portland. http://www.kezi.com/content/contentID/1356 ================== Transportation Issues ================= ------------------------------------------------------------ 17.rg - Projects too expensive ------------------------------------------------------------ By Kristin King, Eugene Letter to The Register-Guard, 12/5/02 Transportation is one of many areas facing budget problems locally and statewide. Considering that some of our local and state officials don't understand the concept of fiscal constraint, I'm not surprised. The Eugene-Springfield area's transportation budget over the next 20 years is limited to $140 million. Yet local and state bureaucrats recently approved of over $200 million in projects. Do the math. Apparently, our local officials haven't. What's even more troubling is that most of that money is allocated to only two large highway projects: the West Eugene Parkway and the Interstate 5-Belt Line Road interchange. Fixes to the existing road system will just have to wait -- that includes Belt Line from River Road to Delta Highway, South 42nd Street in Springfield and West 11th Avenue from Greenhill to Danebo streets. I wonder: Why doesn't the adage of "fix what's not working before investing in new costs" apply to big-ticket items like new roads and major capacity upgrades? During the campaign for the parkway, Mayor Jim Torrey and other highway proponents told us the money was there. Now officials tell us they don't have to consider all costs when estimating the amount of money a project will cost. In the case of I-5, over half of the project cost has been omitted from the TransPlan estimate. The truth is coming out. With our statewide budget crisis, it makes no sense for scarce tax dollars to be allocated to huge highway projects. It is unconscionable to defund education and social services while maintaining the highway department's status quo. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/05/ed.letters.1205.html ======================= Annexation ======================= ------------------------------------------------------------ 18.sn - Council approves PeaceHealth-related resolution ------------------------------------------------------------ The Springfield News, 12/4/02 City councilors approved a resolution Monday night to initiate the annexation of two acres of PeaceHealth property into the city of Springfield. The two acres are connected to the property in the Gateway area of north Springfield where PeaceHealth would like to build a $350-million regional medical facility and associated medical buildings. The request for annexation will now be sent to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission for approval. The annexation would allow the extension of key urban facilities to the site and allow PeaceHealth to continue with its plans to develop the area. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2002/12/04/local/news6.txt ======================= DLCD Report ====================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 19.dlcd - Report on plan amendments requested by PeaceHealth ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Radabaugh Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), 11/18/02 Ms. Cynthia Pappas Development Services Director 225 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Attn: Greg Mott, Colin Stephens Subject: PeaceHealth ... Dear Cynthia: Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on PeaceHealth's proposed plan amendments in the Gateway area. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the current proposal by PeaceHealth is the most important post-acknowledgment plan amendment that the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has considered in recent years, or will be considered in the foreseeable future. The scale, scope and location of the PeaceHealth proposal are of critical importance to comprehensive planning for the metropolitan area. It is critical that any decision to enable PeaceHealth to construct a new major hospital and the development of related facilities and other services, be based on a comprehensive understanding of all impacts and mitigations up front in the local planning process. Under Statewide Planning Goal 2, the proposal by PeaceHealth is considered a "major revision." The plan amendments under review by the department consist of the following: 1. Amend the Metro Plan diagram by redesignating 33 acres from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Community Commercial (CC) in the northwesterly portion of the so-called McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site (MDR Site), as identified in the Gateway Refinement Plan (GRP). (Local File: 2002-08- 224 amended by 2002~08-244). 2. Amend various Gateway Refinement Plan policies and implementation measures to enable subsequent plan amendments that would allow construction of a new major hospital and related development, and amend the GRP map to show the area subject to the Metro Plan amendment as Community Commercial/Mixed Use Commercial. (Local File: 2002-08-243). I. General comments PeaceHealth is proposing that development in the MDR Site be enabled by a series of staged and sequential plan amendments. The amendments now under review appear to address only the minimum that is needed to enable the next sequence of plan amendments. The department understands that the next sequence of plan amendments would include submittal of a master plan (under Article 37 of the Springfield Development Code), which would include rezoning of a yet unspecified amount of land, currently designated as MDR in the Metro Plan and GRP, from a Medium Density Residential district to the city's Medical Services (MS) district. The importance of a well-resolved and thoughtful planning decision for future expansion of PeaceHealth is critically important to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan community. There should be no doubt that PeaceHealth needs to expand as it out grows its existing Hilyard Street campus in downtown Eugene. A comprehensive health care provider such as PeaceHealth typically grows as a product of population growth in its service region and changes in its demographic character. A major hospital facility such as PeaceHealth provides a community wide service and any significant proposal for relocation must be viewed as a community wide event. Even though PeaceHealth has presented part of its reason for choosing the MDR site to be for the "wellness" aspects that come with greater aesthetic amenities and open space design, the fact is that other community and social interests must interact with site selection and design. Many of these issues are embedded in the framework of the Metro Plan. In recent years, the City of Springfield has moved deliberately to promote both economic development and to begin setting the stage for more compact, value-added development through new growth management strategies. For example, the city's recently acknowledged Commercial Lands Study directly links redevelopment, inflll and TransPlan's nodal development policies and strategies to resolving shortfalls in its commercial lands inventory. The city has been active in developing mixed-use plans for various nodes and key redevelopment areas, such as its downtown and the Glenwood district. Just over a year ago, the Springfield City Council demonstrated its resolve in denying a commercial redesignation application for an auto-oriented big box development (Home Depot, Inc.) by supporting maintenance of its Marcola employment node as called out in TransPlan and the Metro Plan. Presently, the city is preparing nodal plans for six areas, including for TransPlan nodes located in the GRP, which include the MDR site. With this said, the department believes it is essential that any PeaceHealth proposal be viewed and specifically planned as a nodal center, whether in the MDR site or ultimately elsewhere in the community. PeaceHealth is proposing to relocate a community wide service that will very likely be the largest employment generator in the Eugene-Springfield area during the life of the current Metro Plan and its components, such as the GRP and TransPlan. Besides inducing high levels of employment, the proposal will induce a significant relocation of client needs to an edge location in the metropolitan planning area. Already, many of PeaceHealth's employment and client base utilize transit services which are readily available at the centralized and well~connected Hilyard Street campus, in downtown Eugene. At this point in our review, its is not clear to the department how moving the major operations of PeaceHealth to an edge location in the metropolitan area will facilitate meeting community planning objectives found in the current versions of TransPlan, the GRP and Springfield's Commercial Lands Study. We expect the department will report to the Land Conservation and Development Commission at its December, 2002, meeting that how the city and the metropolitan region resolves PeaceHealth's expansion needs will be bellwether to the success of many of the area's framework land use policies, including, but not limited to, meeting its commitment in TransPlan to reduce reliance upon the automobile. Finally, the department expects that there will be a number of alternatives and/or amendments proposed by staff, the applicant and others during the review of the current PeaceHealth's proposal. For example, city staff has already proposed several significant policy amendments to the GRP that we only partially address in these comments. Therefore, we will view the comments in this letter our initial and general response to a variety of issues raised by PeaceHealth's proposal. We will reserve the right to provide subsequent comments as the project undoubtedly matures and is amended during public review. II. Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals, Statutes and Regulations This section provides a considerable range of comments and observations made by the department during its review of PeaceHealth's proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and GRP. It is organized by applicable Statewide Planning Goals. However, many of the comment and issues we raise affect multiple Goals and interrelated issues. Comments that address specific proposals to amend policies and sections of the GRP may also address interrelated issues that affect multiple Goals. 1. Goal 1 -- Citizen Involvement ... 2. Goal 2 -- Land Use Planning ... 3. Goals 5 and 6 -- Natural Resources and Air and Water Quality ... 4. Goal 7 -- Flood Hazards ... 5. Goal 8 -- Recreation Needs ... 6. Goal 9 -- Economic Development ... 7. Goal 10 -- Housing ... 8. Goal 11 -- Public Facilities ... 9. Goal 12 -- Transportation ... 10. Goal 13 -- Energy Conservation ... 11. Goal 14 -- Urbanization ... III. The Gateway Refinement Plan and Maintaining Internal Balance between Employment and Housing A major land use thesis found in the GRP scheme of land use is the interrelationship a semblance of balance between manufacturing jobs, housing needs and supporting commercial activities. In 1992, the MDR Site was the largest remaining vacant medium density site in the city, and the GRP deliberately provides opportunity for appropriately scaled and located commercial development based on its proximity to housing and transit. (GRP Technical Supplement, p. III-1.) Furthermore, the vacant MDR Site, along with adjacent low density residential designations to its west, are meant to provide balance for expected jobs created in the McKenzie-Gateway SLI Site to the immediate north of the MDR Site. According to the GRP's Technical Supplement, the relationship between the SLI and MDR Sites is described as follows: "Because remaining vacant lands appropriate for MDR designation in the downtown area were inadequate to meet the projected metro area needs, other regions within the metro area were designated MDR, particularly where there would be good access to the street network and transit system (existing and planned), and where large areas of shopping, employment, and services (existing and planned) were nearby. This is reflected in Metro Plan policy 30 (p. III-A-7), 'Encourage higher density residential development near *industrial and commercial* centers throughout the metropolitan area.'" [emphasis added]. (GRP Technical Supplement, p. II-4.) Maintaining internal balance between the location of higher density housing types and industrial and commercial centers is even more important today with adoption of supportive policies in the Metro Plan's housing element, TransPlan, and the Springfield Commercial Lands Study. And it will be important to assure that balance is maintained through whatever the final outcome is in enabling PeaceHealth's expansion needs. Thus, in keeping with the theme and policies of the above Metro Plan and its component policies, the department believes PeaceHealth is faced with two general alternative paths if it wishes to locate a hospital in the MDR Site. First, PeaceHealth would maintain the intensity and scale implied by its current hospital and commercial lands proposal. But in keeping with the need to balance the proposal's added commercial and service jobs with needed housing in the GRP area, it would propose significantly more residential density on the MDR Site. This approach would involve both significant changes to the Metro Plan land use diagram and GRP text, policies and diagram, as well as zoning which would be internally consistent with the Metro Plan and its components. Noteworthy of this approach would be its increased ability to help demonstrate compliance with TransPlan's alternative measures, significantly increase mode shift through increased integration of land use and transit, all which provide a way to amend to the GRP in a manner that continues to maintain balance between job creating development and needed housing at this edge location within the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan UGB. This approach also increases the life of the current UGB and is highly consistent with Goal 14's Factor 4. Second, PeaceHealth could decide that it does not want to maintain needed housing balance with added commercial and service jobs created by its proposal, but choose to downsize the job creating side of its proposal to meet the intent of Metro Plan policy. It may be that only the so-called "wellness" components to PeaceHealth's facilities plans would remain as proposals at the MDR Site. In this case, PeaceHealth would likely have to look to other sites in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area for locating remaining facilities that are needed over the long term. The city needs to provide an analysis that evaluates such alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices. (See related comments under Goals 1 and 2.) While the above comments are extensive, the department is clearly supportive of finding a solution to PeaceHealth's obvious expansion needs. However, there are still significant issues facing PeaceHealth's proposal to expand at Gateway Refinement Plan's MDR Site which need to be resolved through the comprehensive planning process (Metro Plan and its components) before submittal of a master plan under the regulatory process (Springfield Development Code) of land use law. The department stands ready to work with the city and other interests in finding a community wide solution to hospital expansion needs for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan community. A final solution should be driven and accepted by the community. The issue of hospital siting is a multigenerational decision, having life far beyond any locally adopted comprehensive plan. This makes this decision very different that any other controversial planning decisions faced in recent memory in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The department very much appreciates the courtesy and professionalism of your staff in working with all parties during review of this important regional proposal. As noted, we expect continuing correspondence with you, your staff and decision-makers throughout this and subsequent review processes. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 503/373.0050 ext. 224. Sincerely, Mark Radabaugh Willamette Valley Urban Representative Complete report available as a PDF at: http://www.efn.org/~choices/DLCDresponse-PH.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ 20.ph - Jottings: One Man Speaks Out ------------------------------------------------------------ By Alan YordyÊ Internal Email to PeaceHealth Employees, 11/22/02 From: Yordy, Alan Date: Friday, November 22, 2002, 9:08 AM To: DL:PHO-All Employees (Geographic) Subject: Jottings: One Man Speaks Out Importance: High You probably read the story in the Register-Guard this morning about the concerns that the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has with our RiverBend proposal. While this has the aura of an official statement by a state agency, it is essentially the work of one individual by the name of Mark Radabaugh. Mr. Radabaugh has had personal concern about this project from the beginning. He and his family have a longstanding history of challenging development activity in the area. The fact of Mr. Radabaugh's bias does not mean that this his statement as an employee of the state should be taken any less seriously. While we believe that Mr. Radabaugh statements do not reflect the position of everyone at DLCD, we are preparing a full response to his allegations. We believe we can demonstrate that many of his assertions are inaccurate under the laws of the State of Oregon, and we are complying with all land use laws. You will also note in the article that Mr. Radabaugh is supported by and closely tied to groups who have also opposed this project from the beginning--Friends of Eugene (Jan Wilson); 1000 Friends of Oregon; Councilors Kelly, Bettman and Taylor. We are now beginning to see some of the strong opposition that we expected to the RiverBend project. We are planning clear and focused arguments in support of our plan as we begin the hearings process. As we continue to show our plans to the Game Farm neighbors, the City of Springfield staff and others who are familiar with regional planning, the plan is getting a positive reception. The foot and bike paths, connections to the McKenzie River and the enhancement of the natural environment that we are planning have all received support. I continue to believe that we will have one of the most beautiful hospital campuses in the Northwest. Combined with superb staff, a great medical staff and a commitment to putting the patient and family at the center of care, we will be a model that others will hope to emulate. Thanks for your ongoing support and belief in this project. Alan ------------------------------------------------------------ 21.rg - PeaceHealth says state official biased against plan ------------------------------------------------------------ By Joe Harwood and Christian Wihtol The Register-Guard, 12/3/02, Page 1A PeaceHealth Oregon CEO Alan Yordy is challenging the professionalism and objectivity of a state employee who last month issued a report critical of PeaceHealth's proposed RiverBend development in Springfield. In a mass e-mail to PeaceHealth employees, Yordy accused Mark Radabaugh, a land use analyst for the state Department of Land Conservation and Development, of harboring "bias" against the RiverBend project. The six-paragraph e-mail, sent out Nov. 22, also asserted that Radabaugh was "supported by and closely tied to groups" that are critical of the RiverBend project, including 1000 Friends of Oregon and Eugene City Councilors David Kelly, Bonny Bettman and Betty Taylor. In addition, Yordy said in the e-mail that Radabaugh "and his family have a long-standing history of challenging development activity" in the Lane County area. Radabaugh, the state department's urban representative in the Willamette Valley, sent Springfield and PeaceHealth officials a 19-page critique of the RiverBend proposal, suggesting that it fails to comply with state land use requirements in numerous ways. His department oversees compliance with state land use goals that mandate compact urban growth and limit sprawl. In his report, Radabaugh suggested that Springfield not vote on any land use changes for PeaceHealth's 164-acre tract until PeaceHealth has produced a far more detailed and comprehensive plan for the land. Radabaugh also said that because of the project's regional scope, not only Springfield, but Eugene and Lane County should review and have some say over it. PeaceHealth vigorously disagrees with Radabaugh's critique and released a response Monday afternoon. After reading a newspaper article detailing Radabaugh's report, Yordy sent out his e-mail about Radabaugh. "While this (report) has the aura of an official statement by a state agency, it is essentially the work of one individual by the name of Mark Radabaugh. Mr. Radabaugh has had a personal concern about this project from the beginning," Yordy wrote. "Mr. Radabaugh is supported by and closely tied to groups who have opposed this project from the beginning ... 1000 Friends of Oregon; Councilors Kelly, Bettman and Taylor. "We are now beginning to see some of the strong opposition that we expected to the RiverBend project," Yordy wrote. Yordy's e-mail didn't contain specifics substantiating his comments about Radabaugh. PeaceHealth spokesman Brian Terrett said Yordy didn't intend his e-mail as an attack. "It wasn't meant to be personal at all," Terrett said. "I think Alan was trying to put some context to the story" that appeared in The Register-Guard. Radabaugh said Monday he had read the e-mail, but described it as "not important." "My only public reaction to this is to move forward, focus on the issues named in the (report) and come to a resolution," Radabaugh said. "We are very willing to work with PeaceHealth." Radabaugh's father, Jack Radabaugh, has long been involved in a Harlow Road area neighborhood group. The retired college professor and administrator has been outspoken on such issues as the proposed Interstate 5-Belt Line Road upgrade project. Representing the neighborhood group, Jack Radabaugh has argued that sound walls are a top priority for the residential area southwest of the interchange if the improvement project goes forward. "I think he (Yordy) has Mark and Jack confused," Jack Radabaugh said. "I'm the one who raises hell." Jack Radabaugh also disputed the notion that he's anti-development, pointing to his efforts to bring a shopping center to the Chase Gardens area near Autzen Stadium. He called the allegation that his son is closely tied to liberal Eugene city councilors and groups opposed to the RiverBend project "not true." "He's just doing his job, which is to enforce the rules," Jack Radabaugh said. "It would be improper for him to be tied to any of these groups." Lauri Segel, Lane County spokeswoman for the land use advocacy group 1000 Friends of Oregon, termed Yordy's e-mail "a smear campaign." 1000 Friends has taken a strong position against the RiverBend project. Segel said she has spoken with Radabaugh on a somewhat regular basis regarding development issues in Lane County and has found him fair and knowledgeable. "But things don't always go our way," Segel said. She has seen instances in which Radabaugh has been fairly permissive with local governments seeking to accommodate development that skirts the edges of state land use rules, she said. "He has bent over backward beyond what I would have liked in making it possible for the metro area to comply -- by hook or by crook -- with state land use laws," she said. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/03/1a.peacehealthmain.1203.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 22.rg - Report: The hospital organization rebuts a state agency's criticism ------------------------------------------------------------ By Joe Harwood The Register-Guard, 12/3/02, Page 1A Springfield -- PeaceHealth on Monday released a sharp rebuttal to a state report that criticized the hospital group's plan to build a regional medical center in the Gateway area. The state Department of Land Conservation and Development last month issued the scathing 19-page report, suggesting that the proposal fails to meet several state legal requirements. The agency, which oversees compliance with the state's land use goals, weighed in on PeaceHealth's request for land use amendments needed to build the 500-bed, $350 million RiverBend medical center and surrounding offices on 164 acres next to the McKenzie River. In his rebuttal, Philip Farrington, PeaceHealth's director of land use planning and development, charged that the state employee who authored the report is biased against the RiverBend development. Farrington also alleged that Mark Radabaugh, the DLCD land use analyst who wrote the critical report, misinterpreted facts and land use policies. Springfield's Planning Commission this evening will hold a public hearing on PeaceHealth's request to rezone part of the RiverBend site and change some language in the Gateway Refinement Plan, the document that guides the area's long-term growth. With those zone changes -- which would ultimately need City Council approval -- PeaceHealth would be free to build a hospital on the property, with specific details to be worked out later with city officials. The land currently is designated for medium-density housing. The state report suggested that city officials not vote on any PeaceHealth proposals until the hospital has produced a far more comprehensive plan detailing use of the entire site. After buying the land for about $35 million, PeaceHealth earlier this fall applied to the city to redesignate 33 acres from residential to mixed-use commercial and to change language in the refinement plan. Farrington said PeaceHealth is required to complete such a far-reaching master plan for the site as part of an annexation agreement it made with Springfield. But to do so, it must first secure the proper zone changes that would allow the land uses -- hospital, medical and other offices, some housing and some commercial buildings -- envisioned for the development. Colin Stephens, a Springfield planner handling the PeaceHealth application, in November told The Register-Guard that it doesn't make sense for the hospital group to submit a comprehensive plan now because the zoning doesn't allow for such a project. He added that under Springfield code, staff would be forced to reject the application because it wouldn't comply with current zoning. Radabaugh also wrote that the RiverBend project would have such a huge impact on the region that elected officials from Eugene and Lane County should take part in the review and approval process. But Farrington blasted the assertion that elected officials from those jurisdictions should have decision-making authority on zone changes that are wholly inside Springfield's city limits. He noted that Springfield and Eugene development codes both exclude the other's intervention when the site being considered for a zone change is inside the respective city limits. Elected officials in Eugene have split on the issue. Mayor Jim Torrey has said he won't intervene in the Springfield land use debate. But at least two city councilors, David Kelly and Betty Taylor, have said the scope of the project's regional impacts warrant Eugene's participation. In his report, Radabaugh also faulted PeaceHealth for planning a development "on the urban edge." RiverBend would be built just inside the northern perimeter of Springfield's urban growth boundary. Intense developments such as the RiverBend proposal are forbidden outside of the urban growth boundary as part of a statewide effort to prevent sprawl, Radabaugh said. But Farrington said Radabaugh is mistaken in even broaching the subject because the proposed site is within Springfield's city limits and growth boundary. He said several other businesses, such as Sony and Symantec, are also on the edge. "The fact that the RiverBend site abuts the 'edge' of the Springfield (growth boundary) has no more applicability than the fact that city's existing major employment center, the McKenzie-Gateway campus industrial area, borders (the growth boundary)." Farrington added that the site is 3-1/2 miles from PeaceHealth's Hilyard campus in Eugene and less than a mile from Interstate 5. Radabaugh also was critical of what he characterized as the loss of land designated for residential purposes that would result from rezoning portions of the site for hospital and mixed commercial uses. The bulk of the RiverBend site is now zoned for relatively dense residential uses such as apartments and duplexes. In his rebuttal, Farrington said the proposed zone changes on the 33 acres, as presently contemplated, would still allow some types of residential housing. The remainder of the buildable land that would remain zoned for residential uses would meet the city's density requirements, Farrington said. Other criticisms included in the state report involved the amount of traffic RiverBend would generate, the possibility of limiting public access to the PeaceHealth property's McKenzie River waterfront and floodplain concerns. Farrington said PeaceHealth would be able to mitigate transportation impacts caused by the development by contributing to off-site road improvement projects, such as those planned for Pioneer Parkway and the I-5/Belt Line Road interchange. He said PeaceHealth also is in the process of working with Lane Transit District to provide a high level of bus service to the site. As for limited public access to the riverbanks, Farrington said Radabaugh's assertion flies in the face of PeaceHealth's "expressed intentions to provide access to and along the McKenzie River as a fundamental component in designing the RiverBend campus." Concerns that the campus could be cut off during a severe flood are also misplaced, Farrington said. "PeaceHealth has always stated its intention to develop the new hospital facilities above the 500-year flood elevation to ensure access to the facility in the event of a major disaster and to reduce costs for flood insurance premiums on the hospital," Farrington wrote. He said the bulk of the proposed hospital site is located above the 500-year floodplain. Public Hearing * Who: Springfield Planning Commission * When/where: Today, 7 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall, 225 Fifth St. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/03/1a.peacehealthside.1203.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 23.ew - Slant: PeaceHealth CEO Alan Yordy comes off as wacky ------------------------------------------------------------ The Eugene Weekly, 12/5/02 PeaceHealth CEO Alan Yordy comes off as a wacky conspiracy theorist in his allegations (in the R-G Dec. 3) that DLCD land use analyst Mark Radabaugh has a "bias" against the RiverBend project, and has some secret pact with city councilors and local activists. If Radabaugh does have a bias, it's simply in favor of responsible, lawful land use planning. It's his job. This project is a land use nightmare and it's better for all concerned to confront these huge issues now rather than later. http://www.eugeneweekly.com/archive/12_05_02/news.html#shorts ======================= Other News ======================= ------------------------------------------------------------ 24.rg - Lane County health programs up for discussion ------------------------------------------------------------ By Randi Bjornstad The Register-Guard, 12/6/02, Page 2D They call it a challenge, but it sounds more like a potential disaster. More than 2,900 adults who have received outpatient treatment services during the past year through Lane County health programs may lose those services completely in March. It's all part of the generally gloomy federal, state and local budget outlook, of course, but county officials say that support for outpatient services will be reduced by more than 75 percent. "The impact of this loss will result in more people admitted in the hospital emergency room, more people involved in the criminal justice system, an increase in domestic violence and child abuse and an increase in the number of deaths due to drug overdoses," said Peg Jennette of Lane County's Health and Human Services Department. To talk about the "challenge" of continuing to help people with chemical and other addictions in the face of severe budget shortfalls, the Board of Commissioners and the departments of Health & Human Services and Children & Families will hold a public forum on Wednesday. The two-hour meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. at the Lane County Mental Health Building at 2411 Centennial Blvd. in Eugene, across from Autzen Stadium. Those who may wish to attend include citizens concerned about treatment issues as well as consumers of services, their advocates and people involved with treatment and prevention programs. Refreshments will be served. For more information, call Jennette at 682-3777 or Julie Hynes at 682-3928. Lane County reporter Randi Bjornstad can be reached at 338-2321 or rbjornstad@guardnet.com http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/06/2d.cr.countybeat.1206.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 25.rg - Report: Minorities' health coverage better ------------------------------------------------------------ By The Associated Press The Register-Guard, 12/2/02, Page 2B Salem -- The percentage of Oregon minorities without health insurance plummeted during the 1990s but gaps, especially in the Hispanic community, remain, a new report shows. The Oregon Health Plan of 1994, likely was a driving force behind the shift. The four largest minority groups in the state -- Hispanics, Asian-Americans, blacks and Americans Indians -- all saw insurance coverage increase during the decade. The report is from the Oregon Progress Board, a government panel that compares statistics with a set of 92 benchmarks to chart quality of life for the state's 3.5 million residents. The report showed that 23.6 percent of Hispanics lacked health insurance in 2000, down from 29 percent in the early 1990s. The percentage of uninsured blacks, Asians and American Indians dropped even more -- by at least 50 percent each. The gains moved those three groups to within one percentage point of Caucasians and put them near the state benchmark of 8 percent uninsured. The biggest problems face the Hispanic community, Oregon's fastest-growing minority. But some, such as Nilbia Gonzalez, 27, fall through the cracks. She provides coverage to her two youngest daughters, ages 8 and 3, through the Oregon Health Plan. But Gonzalez has no insurance for herself or her 12-year-old daughter, both born in Mexico. She described how she seeks help from friends and neighbors to pay uncovered medical bills, a practice common for Hispanic residents, who still are more than twice as likely as whites to lack medical coverage. The Oregon Health Plan serves a disproportionately high number of minorities partly due to higher poverty rates. Also the state provides more bilingual materials and has hired more workers to educate the public on the importance of preventive treatment. Federal grants are on the rise, and initiatives for migrant farmworkers were expanded in the 1990s. Jeff Tryens, the progress board's executive director, attributed the disparity among Hispanics to recent immigration -- the state's Hispanic population grew 144 percent during the 1990s -- and to cultural and language barriers. The goal is for all groups to reach state benchmarks. In other findings, the percentage of women receiving "adequate prenatal care" has increased. Black women saw the largest gain -- from 61.5 percent in 1990 to 75.8 percent in 2000. Hispanics improved from 54.9 percent to 68.7 percent, and white women improved slightly to 81.4 percent. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/02/2b.or.minorityinsure.1202.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 26.rg - Sports center meets no resistance ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt Cooper The Register-Guard, 12/3/02, Page 1C Springfield -- Hearing no contrary voices, the Springfield City Council appears ready to approve plans for a sprawling sports complex in midtown and to rezone a previous site in the Gateway area for large-scale business use. No critics appeared Monday at the first of the council's public hearings on rezonings necessary for the monumental project 14 years in the making -- relocation of the planned 160,000-square-foot sports complex from Sports Way in northwest Springfield to the southwest corner of Main and 32nd streets. The council is expected to approve the rezonings after a second public hearing next Monday. A six-way deal was signed in September to build the $12 million project along Main Street and to sell the previously planned site in the Gateway area to Eugene businesswoman Carolyn Chambers. Rezonings for the Gateway site and the one in midtown represent changes to the land use diagrams of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, the metro area's blueprint for growth. When the project emerged early this year, Eugene City Councilor Gary Rayor was among the critics who said rezoning the Gateway site for campus-industrial use could exacerbate traffic in the crowded Interstate 5/Belt Line Road area. But no one objected Monday and attorney Bill Kloos, who presented Chambers' rezoning request, said such use would cause less traffic than the current plan, a mix of public lands and commercial zoning. Councilor Christine Lundberg seized on Kloos' observation: "We are not doing something that is in some way making the Gateway area a worse transportation area," she said. Chambers bought the 22-acre site from the city for $3.2 million, but she will pay another $2.2 million if the land is rezoned for valuable campus-industrial use, which could include regional distribution centers, research and development complexes or industrial and business parks. The city hopes to use money from the Chambers purchase to cover its $3.2 million cost to relocate the planned sports center to Main and 32nd, where the land must be rezoned from light-medium and heavy industrial use to commercial use and parks and open space. That rezoning would accommodate the sports center on 10 acres; five soccer-athletic fields on 20 acres to the south; and five acres of shops, restaurants and stores to the north. The shops would be "a place for parents to get a cup of coffee, do some minor shopping for gifts and crafts, a place (to buy) sports apparel, a place to eat before or after a game," said Larry Reed, development director for Arlie & Co., which orchestrated the deal by donating land for the sports complex. Pending the council's approval of the rezones, Broad Base Programs, the nonprofit group formed to build and operate the sports complex, could begin construction in April, and four fields could be open by next fall. The complex could serve up to 5,000 people daily and would feature an ice rink and six full-size basketball-volleyball courts. The deal also includes Willamalane Park and Recreation District, which will develop and manage the athletic fields; and Kidsports, which will use two of them and have room to build a third. What's Next * Public hearing: The City Council plans to vote on proposed rezones next Monday, following a public hearing at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 225 Fifth St. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/03/1c.cr.sportscenter.1203.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 27.rg - Ex-mayor enjoys cameo in movie about gun issue ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt CooperÊ The Register-Guard, 12/7/02, Page 1B Ê Say, isn't that former mayor Bill Morrisette in the new movie about gun violence? Sure enough -- the state senator from Springfield has a four-second cameo in "Bowling for Columbine," the latest from documentary commando Michael Moore ("Roger & Me"). Moore's known for catching big shots off guard with his camera lens, putting them on the spot regarding prickly social issues. "Bowling for Columbine" bills itself as "an alternately humorous and horrifying film about ... the violent soul of America." While Moore was combing the media coverage of school shootings, he ran across an ominous comment from Morrisette in the aftermath of the May 1998 shootings at Thurston High School: "There are a lot of little time bombs out there waiting to go off," Morrisette said. Morrisette had no idea he was in the movie until a staff member saw it in Portland. He saw it about two weeks ago with his wife, Janice, while the two were at a national health convention in New Orleans. Morrisette found the movie and the use of his quote "excellent," and he laughed at an interview between Moore and star Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association. As Moore grilled Heston, the actor seemed to be thinking, "Why did I let this guy in here?" Morrisette said, chuckling. "Bowling for Columbine" starts Dec. 20 at the Bijou Art Cinemas, 492 E. 13th Ave., Eugene. Call 686-2458 for more information. Springfield reporter Matt Cooper can be reached at 338-2317 or by e-mail at mcooper@guardnet.com http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/07/1b.cr.spcitybeat.1207.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 28.rg - Stu on the move ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt CooperÊ The Register-Guard, 12/7/02, Page 1B Say "so long" to Willamalane Park and Recreation District Board member Stu Burge. He'll be back on City Council come January. Burge, who tendered his resignation at Wednesday's board meeting, is president of METCO Investment Realty, a commercial-industrial-residential property firm that recently relocated to downtown from Glenwood. He served on the council from 1993 to 1998. His second term ended early when he moved out of Ward 4 to McKenzie Crest Drive, which is in Ward 1. The park district will fill Burge's remaining term at its Jan. 8 meeting. Applications will be accepted through Dec. 20. Call 736-4044 for more information. The district also has an opening on its budget committee. Applications for that opening will be accepted through Jan. 16. Springfield reporter Matt Cooper can be reached at 338-2317 or by e-mail at mcooper@guardnet.com http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/07/1b.cr.spcitybeat.1207.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 29.ew - Happening People: Nena Lovinger ------------------------------------------------------------ By Paul Neevel The Eugene Weekly, 12/5/02 "I'm committed to this state and this community," says land-use activist Nena Lovinger, volunteer secretary for LandWatch Lane County. LandWatch coalesced in the mid-'90s to counter proposed relaxation of land use codes that would have allowed development on Lane County's forest resource lands. "We succeeded in that effort," she notes. Born in Eugene, Lovinger was schooled in Dallas and Corvallis before she returned to earn degrees in interior design and art history from the UO. During a 22-year marriage, she raised two kids, traveled and lived in Europe, Asia and Africa. "It's significant for me to be back here now," she says. "The state of Oregon has it all -- such a rich environment." Formerly president of the South University Neighbors Association, Lovinger now lives on 40 acres along Little Fall Creek, where she divides her time between farming and land use advocacy. "Nena is passionate, well-versed, and well-spoken," says Lauri Segel of 1000 Friends of Oregon. "She's a great asset to our community." Landwatch's current concerns include the siting of cell-phone towers, reforming the county's Land Management Division, and PeaceHealth's new hospital site. Stay current at www.landwatch.net http://www.eugeneweekly.com/archive/12_05_02/news.html#hp =========================== Key ========================== "Health Options Digest" is best read with an email program that recognizes links to web pages. It includes leads from and links to stories and opinions from the following publications: rg = The Register-Guard sn = Springfield News ew = Eugene Weekly cn = Comic News ode = Oregon Daily Emerald cce = City Club of Eugene Newsletter or = Oregonian For some stories, two links are given. Use the first link if the story is still current; use the second if another issue has since been published. ========================= Credits ======================== "Health Options Digest" is published once every week or so by the Coalition for Health Options In Central Eugene-Springfield (CHOICES) as a service to the community. It is intended as an unbiased digest of news and opinion related to proposed changes in health care options for the community. The purpose of "Health Options Digest" is to inform, not editorialize. Please forward your copy of "Health Options Digest" to a friend. If you know of someone who should be on the CHOICES email list, or for questions about your subscription, send email to rzako@efn.org. ======================== More Info ======================= Please visit our web site for info about how you can contact us, the local papers, elected officials, PeaceHealth and McKenzie-Willamette: http://www.efn.org/~choices