City Council denies petition

The Bloomington City Council unanimously denied a petition for the creation of a for-profit speciality hospital at the request of both the petitioner and the Bloomington Hospital at Wednesday night's meeting.\nIn an surprising announcement, the petitioner representing the physician trying to build a speciality hospital in Bloomington asked the City Council Wednesday night to deny the petition, citing a lack of support and the use of the word "inpatient" in the petition.\nThe petition included 102 acres of land marked for development, including commercial and industrial space, as well as a medical park with a for-profit, inpatientand outpatient care facility. The inpatient wording in the petition raised concern for the hospital, citing that competition with another hospital would hurt the community. The existing Bloomington Hospital maintained that an inpatient facility would create competition and potentially decrease its revenue -- specifically with subsidies for ambulances.\nDaniel Ubecker, the attorney representing the petitioner, asked the council to give specific recommendations before he brings the legislation before the council again in April.\n"We had hoped to handle this differently. We understand that several groups are opposed to this petition, and we formally request that city council deny this request so that we can work to accommodate the city council," Ubecker said. "We ask the city council to give clear directions, and we ask the Planning Commission to give clear intent."\nThe controversy surrounding a new for-profit speciality hospital has divided the community for the last several months. \nMark Moore, CEO and president of Bloomington Hospital also urged the council to deny the petition, and thanked the public and fellow physicians for their support on the issue.\n"We oppose the use of inpatient care -- if this is removed and the petition is firm, we will not oppose a future petition," Moore said. "Bloomington Hospital will continue to work with the city and county to make sure that anything regarding an inpatient hospital will go through city comment."\nCouncil members praised the public for the discussion provided and also asked for a specific definition of what "outpatient" signifies.\nDistrict V representative David Sabbagh was pleased with the outcome for now but would like a clear definition of "outpatient."\n"I'm happy to see that the "in patient" is being removed from the petition," Sabbagh said. "I also want a good definition of 'outpatient,' consistent with current community standards."\nCouncil at Large representative Chris Gaal, praised the Bloomington community for its involvement and also said the decision made was the right one.\n"I think that this is good for the community to have discussion and to witness this regardless of where you fall," Gaal said. "I think we're getting to the best possible outcome"