Quoted from Shadow

It's only vital if you're working for the REMS.

CHA-CHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Coolidge was right .. you can't debate an ignorant person -- and you folks are just plain ignorant.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Coolidge was right .. you can't debate an ignorant person -- and you folks are just plain ignorant.

thanks.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Coolidge was right .. you can't debate an ignorant person -- and you folks are just plain ignorant.

REMS vital for what? for whom?

Quoted from senders

REMS vital for what? for whom?

REMS is vital for the health and safety of all town residents and visitors to the town -- its services
are

your side is trying to claim that it is NOT a vital service or that it should be privatized --- taking
your side's approach ..  why don't we just privatize fire fighting and police services ??

at one time people paid insurance $$ to a privately owned bucket and hose brigade -- if your
house or business went up in flames -- the brigade that you had insurance with would come and
put out the fire --- fortunately  Benjamin Franklin saw that having a PUBLICLY paid fire service
was more effective and efficient

similarly -- there are privat security companies -- so why don't we privatize the police service ?
every one would pay for their own security service .. if they choosed to do so.  

Using your argument against REMS -- my family has not needed the tax payer supported fire
services since 1966 (when the barn behind our house burned down) -- so why should we pay a
tax for 44 years to the fire district to put out fires in other peoples' houses -- why should it come
out of our pocket ???

Once you see how ridiculous your argument is when applied to fire or police service .. you should
see how ridiculous it is to want to privatize ambulance service.

the social 'value' of homes-tax far outweighs the privatized fire brigades
the social 'value' of neighborhood-security-tax far outweighs privatized security

there is no GENERAL OVERALL value in a ride to the hospital that is publically funded.........if there is no REMS the value of the homes or the security of
the neighborhoods is not affected......unless you are planning a mass epidemic in which case everyone would be instructed to stay in their homes
anyhow........

is personal life valuable.....you betcha.....but it IS that personal.....as far as fire/police go that affects EVERYONE ALL THE TIME......

Quoted Text

REMS and Mohawk make their cases
John Purcell 09/21/10

Decision likely to come down to a public vote

The public will decide the future of Rotterdam’s emergency services during a tax district vote, but that vote has yet to be scheduled.

Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services and Mohawk Ambulance Service presented their proposals to the Town Board on Wednesday, Sept. 15, before a packed room of residents and emergency service personnel from both companies.

Supervisor Francis Del Gallo said if residents approve the tax district, then REMS will continue providing emergency services to the town, but if they vote it down, then the own will go with Mohawk, a for-profit company.

“We are planning to have a vote and let the taxpayers decide whether they want a tax district or not,” said Del Gallo. “If they want to pay taxes for this, they’ll vote yes, if they don’t, they’ll vote no.”

Town Attorney Michael Godlewski said that even with a public vote, anything relating to the ambulance contract would be subject to formal board approval.

Many of the residents said they were concerned about approving a tax district to keep REMS service and then having the contract awarded to Mohawk.

Richard Brandt, vice president of operations at Mohawk Ambulance Service, said that is not something his company is interested in either.

“We don’t want a nickel of taxpayer money,” said Brandt. “We’re not asking for a tax district. We don’t need funding from the tax district. We’re self-sufficient.”

Godlewski said lawyers are still looking into the legality of designating REMS as the only organization to be associated with the taxing district on the upcoming ballot. Town Attorney Joseph Liccardi said he is waiting for a response from the New York State Attorney General’s Office before commenting on the matter.

Schenectady County Legislator Anthony Jasenski, D-Rotterdam, gave to presentation for REMS and explained the history of the nonprofit organization dating back to 1936.

“Almost 75 years of tradition, dedication, sacrifice and quality service — not to mention the lives saved — all speak for itself,” said Jasenski. “Once you turn the page on Rotterdam EMS and eliminate them from the system, you will never be able to flip back the page and bring them back.”

Jasenski said covering certain major expenses, such purchasing a new fleet of ambulances, is the reason behind creating a tax district for REMS. The total cost to replace the four-ambulance fleet would total more than $500,000. Over time, it is expected the revenue required by REMS in a tax district would decrease. If established, REMS board of directors, appointed by the public, would establish the tax district.

Mohawk representatives said their company would save the town money and produce revenue for the town.

“Mohawk Ambulance has presented to the Town Board a proposal for services that is a huge benefit to the taxpayers in Rotterdam,” said Thomas Nardacci, spokesman for Mohawk Ambulance, in a prepared statement after the meeting. “[Mohawk] not only eliminates the need to provide government subsidies and eliminates the need to create a new tax that is estimated to cost an additional quarter of a million dollars, but will actually generate well over $100,000 annually in new revenue for the town.”

The estimated annual cost of the tax district would be $15 for a home assessed at $150,000 in Rotterdam, said Jasenski.

“Tax subsidies for emergency services are not a new thing for the town of Rotterdam,” said Jasenski. “An annual $15 payment for the average Rotterdam home is a small price to pay for that peace of mind and the quality of service being provided.”

REMS also expressed an interest in billing insurance companies for Advanced Life Support services, which would require an agreement with the town. Mohawk generates revenue from ALS in other municipalities, and 100 percent of the revenue from this source would go back to the town.

Deputy Supervisor Robert Godlewski said he would be interested in exploring the possibility of ALS billing with REMS, but to his knowledge, REMS hasn’t tried to get ALS approval in the past.

Brandt questioned why REMS, after being in service for more than 70 years, hasn’t already sought ALS approval.

If someone weren’t able to pay their bills, Brandt said, Mohawk has a procedure set in place to accommodate individuals.

“We use a hardship write-off policy that is very similar to the one used by a number of local hospitals,” said Brandt. “If people can show us they can’t pay, we are not going to hound them one more time.”

Kelly Rhinesmith, was the only resident at the meeting to speak against keeping REMS and creating a tax district to support the service. She acknowledged her role as the “lone opponent.”

“We asking about a tax district and having a vote again on a tax that we don’t need,” said Rhinesmith. “I understand that this is a heartstring issue. I understand the gratitude that’s generated in these kind of situations, but I also believe that gratitude would be equally intense had Mohawk come and saved my life as opposed to REMS. I’m not disputing that these men and woman are dedicated longtime servants for the town.”

Rhinesmith also didn’t agree with some points in Jasenski’s presentation about REMS.

“The fact that he is telling that basically REMS self-sustaining financially at this point, and we know that is just not an accurate statement,” said Rhinesmith. “What you’re asking them to do is basically pay for a service that they may or may not use.”

http://www.spotlightnews.com/news/view_news.php?news_id=1285093776

Quoted from senders

the social 'value' of homes-tax far outweighs the privatized fire brigades
the social 'value' of neighborhood-security-tax far outweighs privatized security
there is no GENERAL OVERALL value in a ride to the hospital that is publically funded.........if there is no REMS the value of the homes or the security of
the neighborhoods is not affected......unless you are planning a mass epidemic in which case everyone would be instructed to stay in their homes
anyhow........
is personal life valuable.....you betcha.....but it IS that personal.....as far as fire/police go that affects EVERYONE ALL THE TIME......

Actually -- there is a publc value in the ambulance ride .. if the patient dies, he/she can no longer
pay income tax and other tax.    So according to your argument, a publicly subsidized ambulance
idea would help keep more taxpayers alive   therefore .. it is a public value to pay for the
ambulance ride.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Actually -- there is a publc value in the ambulance ride .. if the patient dies, he/she can no longer
pay income tax and other tax.    So according to your argument, a publicly subsidized ambulance
idea would help keep more taxpayers alive   therefore .. it is a public value to pay for the
ambulance ride.

In that scenario, I'd rather have ALS (Advanced Life Support) with Mohawk - to give the patient the BEST possible care.  Tell me again, Rotterdam has what certifications? Basic?  

I'd rather have  [/b]FOUR[b]  REMS ambulances IN the town 24/7/365 than only
ONE  Mohawk Ambulance "promised".

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I'd rather have  [/b]FOUR[b]  REMS ambulances IN the town 24/7/365 than only
ONE  Mohawk Ambulance "promised".

exactly .... for $15 a year... where do i vote...

If you had to pay for those 4 ambulances you wouldn't want them. The issue is about money nothing more. It costs money to fund 2 ambulances, pay salaries, buy new equipment and Rotterdam doesn't have any money.

Quoted from 680

exactly .... for $15 a year... where do i vote...

The Town Board has not yet set the date for the referendum .. they will have to give at least
60 days notice -- my guess is that they will have to act by the October 13 Town Board meeting
in order to get the referendum done before the end of the year.

Come on, they better have the vote on the SAME date as general election in November.

And, is there anything new on who can vote.  


THe previous word was that no absentee ballots, one polling site only.....so that was to mean that taxpayers who handicapped would be prohibited from voting.   Many elderly don't necessarily like to go out.   Let's guess, they will have the vote on an obscure, bitter cold day with 20 inches of snow in January.

I heard that it will be homeowners only, so I guess the elderly parents who live with their caregiver children will be prohibited from having a voice in this service that can be more important to them than to others.

And I'm wondering, since they said that it will be homeowners only, why is that?    People who rent DO pay property taxes and fees, albeit indirectly, so why would they be discriminated against as well?

Gee, someone might preclude people of certain political party from voting on it, perhaps minorities will be prevented from voting, hey what gives?

Quoted from mikechristine1

Come on, they better have the vote on the SAME date as general election in November.  And, is there anything new on who can vote.  
THe previous word was that no absentee ballots, one polling site only.....so that was to mean that taxpayers who handicapped would be prohibited from voting.   Many elderly don't necessarily like to go out.   Let's guess, they will have the vote on an obscure, bitter cold day with 20 inches of snow in January.
I heard that it will be homeowners only, so I guess the elderly parents who live with their caregiver children will be prohibited from having a voice in this service that can be more important to them than to others.
And I'm wondering, since they said that it will be homeowners only, why is that?    People who rent DO pay property taxes and fees, albeit indirectly, so why would they be discriminated against as well?
Gee, someone might preclude people of certain political party from voting on it, perhaps minorities will be prevented from voting, hey what gives?

This type of referendum can not be put on the same ballot as a General Election  -- that is
the way the law is written in New York State.
As for property owners (1 vote per property) only being allowed to vote -- that is also the way
the state law is written  .. as this is a vote  Yes or No on a Tax District ... the same thing
happens when they vote to create a sewer or a water district ...  that is the way that the state
wrote the law.
As for the number of polling places and allowing absentee ballots - I believe that is up to
the Town Board to decide when they write the resolution calling for the referendum.

They can't exclude people of a particular party or minorities -- if the person is a property
owner they can vote.