
Posted in reply to the post by farmerdan:
Here is what is wrong with Jim Horn's response:
1) Horn's entire argument is based on the false premise that someone will lease or buy the hospital '
at fair market' yet
he is fully aware that there is no operator ready to do that, not Pipeline, Prime, Dignity, Adventist Health, St Josephs, Sutter, or any of the other hospital chains in California, all of whom have been approached. You can judge for yourself if this is duplicitous.
I know that the District/SWMC approached other potential hospital operators, but I have no knowledge of the proposed terms or conditions. No one in the public does, because the District discussed these matters in closed session using a "trade secret" exemption to the Brown Act. As a result, I don't know if potential operators were asked to sign a management agreement, or actually buy or lease the hospital. I certainly don't know if "fair market value" terms were discussed with anyone.
2)
He can't add. (Or in this case he can't subtract)
Smith makes different assumptions than I did, then says I can't add (or subtract) because my results are different than his. That's illogical and another personal attack.
The district gets $3.7M a year in taxes as he has suggested below.
The district currently uses $1.7M to service bond debt (as he has suggested below.)
Refinancing of the 2010 bonds, which is underway would save at least $200K/year
This is Smith's WAG ("wild-ass guess," a time-honored engineering term) as to what refinancing will yield. The process has just started, and no one knows if or under what terms refinancing may occur.
This would leave the district with $2.2M in 'discretionary funding'
Let's assume that the district applies $800K/year for 5 years to settle it's bankruptcy
(Horn's idea of paying $400K over ten years will never fly with creditors I can assure you.)
$400k/year for 10 years isn't my "idea," it was just an assumption used for purposes of illustration. I'm happy using Smith's assumption, although it results in even less disposable income for the District.
The district now has $1.4M in 'discretionary' income.
Now let's subtract the income from the detachment (40% of 1.4M = $560, 000)
This leaves the district with $840,000 to operate the district and maintain the hospital.
This is actually less than I had estimated using my assumptions ($960k/year)
The operations of the district could be brought to less than $200K.
Again, this is Smith's WAG. I don't know anyone else who thinks this.
(Pipeline has already offered to administer the district f
or no additional cost but there are costs for audits and legal expenses.)
Pipeline cannot administer the District; it would create obvious conflicts of interest and loyalty, although I know that Smith doesn't take such things very seriously. Also, if something seems too good to be true (i.e., administrative services"for free"), it usually is.
This leaves $640,000 to support the hospital in years 1-5 (while the bankruptcy is settled) and $1.2M after the bankruptcy is paid off. (To get to this calculation you have to reduce the income from the detachment area for the $800K that is paid to the bankruptcy. This frees up only $480,000 a year after year 5, not the full $800,000.)
If by "support the hospital" Smith includes maintenance and replacement of the physical plant and equipment, then I agree that's a priority for the District for as long as it owns the building. But that's not the same as subsidizing the hospital's operating losses.
3) Jim also ignores other income and advantages that health care districts have, which include
IGT funds: The hospital is currently waiting for $165,000 IGT funds.
Grants: The hospital is receiving $750,000 a year for 5 years.
The total of both these items is about $915k/year. The hospital is currently suffering operating losses of over $9 million/year, or ten times that amount.
USDA Grants: USDA will pay 15% of capital improvements as a grant
Loans: The state will lend money at 2.2% for capital projects (including major medical equipment)
I don't know many voters who want the District to INCREASE its debt load.
4) A refinance of 2010 bonds can free up some reserve capital (at no cost to the district.)
Again, a WAG...
...
Having said all of that, Jim is correct in saying that I support leasing or selling the hospital to a qualified operator,
when and if this keeps the hospital viable, not before. If JIm has an operator ready to do this, let's move forward but the district already issued an RFP in 2014 and there were no takers other than the foundation. Petaluma Valley has just gone through two years of RFP process and
has no operator to take over at present.
Petaluma Valley had at least one offer to BUY the hospital, but it chose to pursue another lease with St. Joseph (who run Memorial Hospital in Santa Rosa). The negotiation with St. Joseph recently broke down, but the purchase offers may still be viable.