LP-295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~fc{:r\~Q)( September 2U 994 Memo to: City of New Brighton From: Michael R. Chies. Administrator/Owner New Brighton Care Center Re: Update and status of New Brighton Care Center's building plans. As we are all aware. the property to the north of us is almost cleared. We are excited about the changes taking place. I would briefly like to go over the events leading up to where we are today. During the summer of 1993, the City of New Brighton asked if we would like to participate in the Redevelopment of the old downtown area. We felt it was a great opportunity. since if we did not participate, we would have townhomes right up to our backdoor. We knew we had a number of hurdles to go through because of the regulated nature of our business. An agreement was worked out between the City and the New Brighton Care Center to purchase the land. Minnesota has had a Moratorium on Nursing Home construction since 1983. In October of 1993, we submitted an application for an Exception to the Moratorium. so that the new building costs would be recognized~ by the State and be reflected in the regulated rates that we charge. For the last few years. the State has allowed a limited number of nursing home projects to be funded, via the Exception to the Moratorium process. As the approval process advanced, we felt very comfortable that our project would be included in those facilities making application. In fact, our project had no opposition and most members of the approving agency, INTERCOM. voiced their opinion in that our project met the criteria and we were among those chosen during the first approval round. In the end, INTERCOM changed the approval process and excluded ALL projects that were in the METRO area. We were disappointed and angry at what took place. We felt we were cheated and wronged. Facilities that did not have as pressing needs as the New Brighton Care Center were approved. The SYSTEM did not work fairly, or as it was intended. We felt so strongly about this issue that we.addressed it legislatively. Aftetmonthsof lobbYing at the Capital we were successful in having special legislation drafted and passed. Our issues were supported by many of the key legislators. HOWEVER our special legislation was in two separate bills. One provided the language to allow our project to be built and the cost recognized. The second bill provided the funding. As everyone is aware, G-overnor Arnie Carlson VETOED a number of bills at the end of the session. While our main bill passed, the other bill was vetoed. Our special legislation was a SMALL part of the bill that was vetoed. We were again disappointed.