Council rejects LPH Community PUD for inpatient behavioral facility after debate on security, capacity and data
Loading...
Summary
A proposed PUD to permit a 120-bed inpatient behavioral health facility adjacent to the planned Community Hospital Westfield failed on a 3–4 roll-call vote after councilors raised questions about security staffing and costs, patient transfers and whether the city had received sufficient data on impacts.
The Westfield City Council did not approve Ordinance 25-82, a proposed amendment to allow an LPH Community PUD intended to accommodate an inpatient behavioral health facility adjacent to a future community hospital.
Kevin Todd of the Community Development Department introduced the item. Addison Bradford, counsel for the applicant representing LifePoint Health, and Joe Caesar (Community Health Network) answered council questions about operations, security and patient flow. Bradford said the campus would maintain its own security force of 15 officers providing 24-hour coverage, with roughly three officers per shift; he estimated the security program would cost approximately $2–3 million per year for the campus. He said the majority of patients admitted to the behavioral facility would be referred from the adjacent hospital's emergency department and that the facility is intended as short-term inpatient care with an average length of stay of seven to ten days. Bradford also said the project would not be seeking development incentives and would be fully taxable.
Councilors probed where longer-term care would be provided if patients required services beyond the facility's short-term model. Transcript participants noted that Community Health Network does not operate residential, long-term facilities of that type in Hamilton County, and the applicant said transfer ambulances from its network would be used for interfacility moves. Several council members expressed concern about potential impacts to local EMS and fire services if transfers increase and asked for lists of receiving facilities and operational details.
One council member criticized the information flow and process, stating that requests for references and data had not been adequately fulfilled and saying, "this process has been extremely disappointing," while also acknowledging the community's need for behavioral health services. Applicant representatives said they would provide additional information and that they had met with city staff and council members prior to the hearing.
Councilor Dart moved to approve Ordinance 25-82 and Councilor McCarty seconded. On roll call the motion failed, 3–4 (Yes: Dart, McCarty and one other; No: Patrick Tam, Kurt Wanninger, Noah Herron and Chad Huff), and the ordinance did not pass.
