Portage County committee declines to forward Ensign letter of intent after heavy public pushback

A Portage County Health Care Center Committee vote to forward a letter of intent (LOI) with Ensign/Gateway to the county board failed on Tuesday after residents and several committee members raised concerns about the LOI’s terms and the buyer’s record.

The meeting on Sept. 9 featured extensive public comment opposing the proposed sale. Mary Anne Lachevsky told the committee the LOI’s promise to “credit years of service” for employees “doesn’t mean anything without more substance,” arguing the county needs to see Ensign’s personnel policies before any transfer of ownership. Nancy Raupey warned of enforcement and safety issues, saying the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ database “shows citations 26 times” for Ensign properties and alleging significant fines and settlements tied to the company’s facilities.

“The LOI claims they’ll spend 1,300,000.0 on improvements within 2 years, but the catch is, it’s pursuant to the terms and conditions of its internal capital improvement plan,” Raupey said, urging the committee to vote no. No representative of Ensign addressed the committee during the public comment period to respond to those allegations.

County finance staff and outside consultant Gary Johnson of JT and Associates presented financial context during the meeting. Staff reported a census increase to 33 for August and listed recent capital work including an air-handler replacement ($30,000) and other equipment repairs. Johnson cautioned that the preliminary state calculation tied to the Medicaid intergovernmental add-on rate had not been provided to the county; he estimated the interim facility rate fell from about $566 a day to about $516, narrowing some of the previously publicized figures.

Several public speakers and a committee member, Eric Olsen, pointed to the county’s reserves—identified in the meeting packet at roughly $4.6–4.7 million—and questioned selling the healthcare center while those funds remain available. Olsen said the 2025 budget had shown $0 intergovernmental revenue, then noted staff were now reporting an expected $615,000 for the year and a planned $400,000 for capital accounts, asking “what is the plan for the money generated by the sale plus the millions of dollars that have been taxed and not spent on the center?”

Committee discussion returned repeatedly to due diligence and to whether forwarding the LOI would simply move the issue to the county board for further review. One committee member described forwarding the LOI as a step that would permit a 60-day due-diligence period on the county board floor; others said they wanted more concrete protections for employees, clearer capital-improvement commitments and transparency about the LOI’s differing drafts (witnesses mentioned two versions dated July 3 and Aug. 28).

After debate, the chair called for a roll-call vote on the motion to forward the LOI/resolution. The motion failed 1–4 on the committee floor. Earlier in the meeting the committee approved the July 2025 meeting minutes as distributed.

The committee did not approve the LOI and did not set a final sale; members said the item will appear on the county board agenda next Tuesday for further consideration. The committee’s next meeting date will be determined in the coming weeks.