@Jo- On Pecan Plantation. As noted in the excerpt I posted above, Pecan Plantation property was not listed in the packet of assigned or amended leases, etc. The address for the clinic is 2800 Village Rd, Granbury. The Hood County Appraisal district shows that Pecan Plantation Properties Inc is the owner of the property. From the official Glen Rose newspaper, the Glen Rose Reporter, week of March 10, 2010., p A4 from Kathryn Jones. "... Glen Rose Medical Center has a restrictive covenant with Pecan Plantation to provide its only medical clinic. That means that Lake Granbury cannot come in there and also offer medical services to residents of Pecan, some of whom are wealthy retirees..... Glen Rose Medical Center couldn't operate without the revenues it generates from Hood County." (Of course, Glen Rose Medical Center couldn't operate without the taxpayer subsidies that it asks for, including this recent 300,000). Judge Maynard told me the other day " According to the lease with GRMF, all contracts will come over to the SCHA. I think that they are reviewing them at this time". Therefore, whatever the contract or agreement was that Glen Rose Medical Foundation had with Pecan Plantatiion is now being reviewed-would be interesting to get a copy of that agreement. We noticed on the check register for January from SCHA that there are two payments to Pecan Plantation.
65277, 27-Jan-2010, PECPLA, PECAN PLANTATION OWNERS ASSOCIAT, , , , 0.00, 436.19
65278, 27-Jan-2010, PECPRO, PECAN PLANTATION PROPERTIES , , , 0.00, 2,691.67
I would expect that the second amount is the monthly lease payment for the building that Pecan Plantation Properties owns, will be verified when we next get a check register from SCHA.
On your second comment about the county commissioners. I don't think the commissioners are holding anything back, I think it's that people have not ASKED to see, for example, a listing of all checks and the totals paid in with balances, etc. I could be wrong-if anyone reading this has gotten this information through public information requests, do post about it. I know I have not. There's a semantic problem with what you're saying about May of 2008. The problem is that when the Certificates of Obligation were first to be brought up in a public hearing, the notice said that the money was to be LOANED to the Glen Rose Medical Foundation which dba at that time was the Glen Rose Medical Center (Heck, Commissioner Mike Ford didn't understand that this was being done). In fact, that's the reason, as was stated to the County Commissioners when they had their meeting with Southwest Securities, that a public hearing HAD to be held, per IRS rules.(TEFRA). LISTEN to the audio from that meeting, a little edited on this link but the whole audio here. (Also recall that, although there was to be no action on that date, and the TEFRA hearing had not yet been held, Mike Ford moved to go ahead on the Certificates, even though the public had not had a chance to weigh in whether they WANTED taxpayer money going on loan to a private entity.) However, the money STAYED in an account with the commissioners. (I was not at the hospital authority meeting in which Maynard expressed shock about the monies, so can't speak to that, plus only 45 minutes of that meeting was recorded by the SCHA). What didn't stay in a seperate account at the hospital end, as the commissioners had expected, were the repayment monies per the lease that was to come BACK to the county to pay back their obligations under the amended lease-the Foundation used those monies for operating expenses.
My view of the history is this. Gary Marks et al tried very hard to get a hospital district passed-you may remember that the district was going to tax the residents 75 center per 100 valuation until Jerry Lee, on behalf of Luminant, complained.
Glen Rose Reporter Nov 13, 2008- Remember that first Mark's petition tried to set a cap of 75 cents per 100 in property valuation till someone, Jerry Lee, connected with Luminant, griped and the petition was withdrawn. You can read about THAT in the Reporter on Nov 20 2008j
We were going to be taxed more AND the monies from the indigent tax (3.5) weren't going to be returned to budget for other stuff by the commissioners. The election was also set for a Saturday which was also VALENTINE'S DAY. But, the citizenry overwhelmingly rejected a hospital district.
So then what? GRMF was running in the red and had apparently pinned all their hopes on turning their operation into a hospital district. When that failed, they told the commissioners that they weren't going to be able to pay them back and at that point plans began to be put in place to dissolve the private Foundation and turn over all its assets to the county, and recreate, as some years before the county did, a hospital authority. (Judge Maynard, after the election, had not seen the advantages of a HA, but that changed).
(I haven't even touched the earmarks that Chet Edwards got for Gary Marks, for the Glen Rose Medical Foundation, all before this, the fact that Edwards only got half the earmark he thought he would, or the fact that GRMF coudn't get a grant except through an earmark because there are too many other close hospitals in the area.)
So I don't agree with you that the commissioners are trying to rewrite history to cover their butts. They may be trying to cover their butts for other things, like the money that was supposed to be paid back for the lease payment. I have no way of knowing whether Maynard was doing a Casablanca style "I'm Shocked! Shocked to Find Out Gambling Goes On Here" when the shortage showed up at the first SCHA meeting or whether he genuinely expected that the hospital was doing their due diligence and NOT spending that repayment money for operating expenses. For myself, I figured once the Atuhority was in the works, all that money for that 14.5 milion was going to be solely the taxpayer responsbility with nobody paying it back but us. And in fact, that's what that document I have linked in the post above says. All us, baybee.
So, again, I don't think that the commissioners are waffling or stonewalling about that money. No one from the public has asked. .. yet. And if, as you're saying, the money actually WAS with the Glen Rose Medical Foundation, rather than Somervell County, that would probably be available to verify, since all records from the Foundation, including past ones, are now public records as part of the SCHA. For me, at this point, i'm taking Maynard at face value-one reason is that the commissioners HAD To, as part of the CO agreement, be able to cover the payments themselves and budget for it.
One more thing on Pecan Plantation. As noted the other day, SCHA went to the commissioners to ask them to up the 50,000 borrowing limit that the SCHA can do. Reason is that they want to add another doctor to the Pecan Plantation clinic AND do some improvements, presumbably internal buildouts to the building that Pecan Plantation Inc owns in order to add another waiting room, etc. One presumes that any changes to the agreement they have with Pecan Plantation would have to be renegotiated but it would, I think, be done, not at the county commissioner level, but between SCHA and Pecan Plantation. As I said, they DID have to ask for the ceiling to be raised. But consider this. If for any reason the SCHA was unable to cover the bank loan they are going to get, who's on the hook??? Point that finger back at the Somervell taxpayer, please. The SCHA didn't want to directly ask for money from the county and wants it to be a loan, but that does presume that the SCHA pays it back. Here, incidentally, is an Attorney General opinon about a hospital authority and clinics operating outside the county.