By Corey Morris

GH Newspaper Group

Following several days of intense criticism, Grays Harbor Community Hospital officials on Friday issued a statement clarifying their position regarding a contentious lack of agreement involving a Hospital District clinic in Montesano and a street project the city is undertaking.

The City of Montesano has received some $800,000 in federal funding to improve East Pioneer Avenue sidewalks. The improvements include widening the sidewalks for increased handicap accessibility. In order to widen the sidewalks, the city needed easements from all of the properties abutting the project, including Montesano Clinic which is owned by the Hospital District 2, which also operates Community Hospital in Aberdeen.

Last week and early this week, officials from the city, the Council of Governments (a public agency that facilitated the grant application) and Grays Harbor County Commissioner Vickie Raines admonished the hospital district for delaying their easement to the city. While every other property — public and private — had agreed to easement terms, the hospital district had not.

On the final day of the city’s deadline, near the end of the business day, the hospital district submitted paperwork to the city, granting the easement. According to Montesano Chief Financial Officer Doug Streeter, that paperwork included an easement contract and a billboard contract.

The easement requested by the city would have been 6 inches to 1 foot deep along the 100-feet wide clinic property. Streeter said. Using numbers from the county assessor’s website, Streeter put the value of the strip of land at $97.

In earlier discussions, the hospital district had floated the idea of trading the easement for a half-acre city-owned plot of highway frontage. The city was not favorable to that proposition. Streeter has said that the city indicated it was willing to give the hospital “first refusal” to advertise on a potential city-owned billboard that could be built on that lot.

When the city received the billboard contract from the hospital district on June 9, it included a clause that stated the city would owe the hospital district an unspecified amount of money if the billboard was not constructed by December of this year. When Streeter asked how much that would be, the hospital district reportedly told him it would be $40,000. When Streeter said the city wouldn’t agree to that amount, the hospital district reportedly lowered that figure to $30,000.

At that point, Montesano Mayor Vini Samuel decided the city would move forward without the hospital district’s property. The city could only use one of two processes to acquire the easements — the easements could be donated or the city could appraise the land, Samuel says. The city had to use the same process for every entity, meaning it couldn’t appraise for just the hospital when every other property owner agreed to donate.

Had the city not moved forward and kept to the timeline, the city has said, the $800,000 would have been “unobligated.” Those funds were from the Federal Highway Administration, and COG, county and city officials say that if the funding went unobligated those funds would be unavailable for the next 10 years.

In news accounts of the situation, hospital officials were asked for comment, but chose not to. Reaction on social media has been extremely critical of the hospital, particularly of its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Jensen.

In the statement released Friday, hospital district officials say they’re not legally able to give property to the city, and that the discussion about the $40,000 line item in the billboard contract was a miscommunication.

“Exchanges between the hospital and the City of Montesano were moving forward with the thought that the land could be ‘traded’ for a position on a potential billboard the city was proposing,” the statement reads. “At no point in time did the hospital assume or claim the land related to this exchange was valued at $40,000. This simple misinterpretation of the language led to a complete breakdown in communication between the two parties.”

Transferring the property to the city would have required a “time-consuming and expensive process” the hospital district said.

In response to the statement, Samuel said the city would have liked to have known that from the beginning. Without the hospital district’s participation, the City of Montesano will not replace the sidewalks in front of the Montesano Clinic. And the city is expecting it will have to pay an additional $5,000-$6,000 in consulting fees to have the project re-engineered to exclude the property.

“If they knew that back in February or March, it’s unfortunate they didn’t share that with us because we could have cut them off without it costing us any money,” Samuel said.

The hospital district says discussions with the city began in March, and that deadlines were not communicated until the week of June 5.

“At no time did the hospital intentionally stall progress of this improvement. GHCH earnestly desires to be in sync with the needs of our constituents and believe the improvements to Pioneer Avenue will benefit all the businesses on that throughway,” the hospital district said in the statement. “When necessity was relayed, GHCH made administration available to any City of Montesano employee and received no response. As of 4:45 p.m. of June 9, 15 minutes before end of business, all documentation requested was supplied to the City of Montesano.”

Samuel disputes the contention that the deadlines weren’t known.

”The deadlines were clear to everyone. I think there was more emphasis in the last two weeks because we were freaking out, but the deadlines were clear because they had to be clear,” Samuel said.

The hospital’s statement reiterated the district’s duty to manage “the community’s investment.”

“The Public Hospital District 2 Board, administration and staff take these responsibilities very seriously and are constantly working to provide this community with the best possible outcomes whether it be health related or a much-needed improvement in the City of Montesano,” the district wrote.

The statement noted that the hospital plans to continue working for progress in Grays Harbor County.

“With any agreement or negotiation there is room for misinterpretation,” the statement reads. “It is our desire to not debate these issues but work with each other to provide closure and compliance for all involved. “

Samuel said the city is content in moving on without the hospital district.

“Clearly we have a disagreement on the facts, but push comes to shove, they made a business decision so they’re no longer a part of the project,” she said. “I’m not going to debate fault because they’re no longer relevant to what our project is now. I made the best decision I could for the City of Montesano based on the status of the project.”

“It’s unfortunate because we could have improved their property,” she added. “What’s most important is we protect the City of Montesano, COG and all of those partners who need those transportation dollars.”