Quoted from 215

Cicero:


I don't see where a single word you say is even close to reality.  At the last town board meeting it was stated that REMS has been collecting
ALS fees for many many years.   As far as Gerard pulling off a budget coup, gutting money from the police budget and raises for Hamilton-
where do you get your information?  There were no raises for police discussed or taken out of any budget and how much was "gutted" from
the 14 million dollar budget- probably half of which is the police.  You are completely in the dark.  Truth is-  every town board over the years
was aware of REMs collecting for ALS.  The chief blew the whistle on Tommasone and Parisi and the police budget was gutted and raises were taken away?

What world are you living in?  You obviously were not at the last meeting.

Welcome back professor

Quoted from 713

Are these all medical staff or does that number include administration?  Are there 60 people on payroll and the same number of
employees?  Does this include legal counsel, consultants, etc?

They are all paid employees. Anything they pay to legal counsel, consultants, etc. is over and above payroll, on an as needed basis.

Quoted from CICERO

You are correct I wasn't at the last meeting, the only information I have to go by is the Gazette.  The quote in Gazette that makes me believe REMS may have been in a gray area billing ALS fees is this;


Why did REMS just decide to stop billing ALS at the change of Administrations?  If this was going on for years, why the sudden stop?  Rotterdam faced with a 7.8% increase in taxes, you would think collecting the hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue would be a priority.

Also in the Gazette, Bob God was quoted questioning where the ALS money was spent.

Pappa if you could shed more light on the situation, and help get the facts straight would be appreciated.

I dont know why they stopped billing for ALS on January 1st but I assume that the reporter who wrote an article about it asked that question...

As far as collecting ALS money being a priority- I guess it was not a priority of any Board because it hasn't been done in many years.

Quoted from B GAGE

Welcome back professor

Thanks Brian.  Computer was down for a while.

Quoted from 215

I dont know why they stopped billing for ALS on January 1st but I assume that the reporter who wrote an article about it asked that question...

Quoted Text

Godlewski also questioned what REMS did with money it previously collected for the town’s paramedic service. He said REMS collected some fees for the paramedics under the previous administration but never turned any of the money over to the town.

I guess my concern is with the Deputy Supervisor who voted for creating a taxing district, scheduled a referendum for June 29th and December 14th, and 4 weeks before the December election HE STILL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT REMS HAS BEEN DOING WITH THE TOWN'S ALS MONEY!  Now the FDG Administration is 11 months into this, and they have scheduled 2 referendum votes and they don't know where the ALS fees are.  They expect the residents to vote on this issue and THEY don't even know where the ALS money is!

Why should I trust this process, when the Deputy Supervisor obviously doesn't know what is going on.  

BTW, how is REMS staying solvent in 2010 without collecting the ALS fees?  They've been operating for 11 months without ALS fees and haven't come to the TB crying for money.

Thats a good question...  With an extra 150,000 a year, maybe they should have been in good financial shape if they can
operate now without it.

Maybe I can shed a little light on this subject.  We (the Town) are not allowed to bill for the ALS services provided by our paramedics, only the transporter (the ambulance) can bill.  We also cannot force a not-for-profit to bill for the service or for them to turn the billing over to us, it's not a revenue that we can properly obtain without a contract.  This issue wasn't a secret and there was a LOT of fighting going on between different parties over this for the last 5 or 6 years.  

For those trying to provoke a response from us about Mertz, I can tell you that he was hounding the town comptroller constantly about REMS and what they owed the town and when.  Depending on what side you are on, Mertz was either your hero or an a$%hole.  If he didn't oppose the tax district, it would have been created by the Tommasone administration without a vote.  With the exception of Mertz, they were all in on it, just look after Tommasone lost REMS hired Parisi!  Mertz always seemed fair on this issue, supporting REMS but forced them to get their act together.  I can tell you that every week he would ask if REMS had paid their gas bill to the town, he said if they can't pay their gas bill then something else is going on, then we found out the IRS issue.  Mertz is out of office because of this issue.  Even though he may have been right and it is hard to find fault in any of his political positions, he clearly lacked the public relations skills and tact to be an elected offical.

Being right on a few issues doesn't make him a political genius, but for those who want to keep talking about him I will continue to say

"Mertz for President"  (at some point we'll agree that we need new faces and new blood in office)

I heard that the 'save rems' signs are now appearing in rotterdam.

I'm concerned that many rotterdamians are receiving the wrong message. Rotterdamians are not 'saving' rems. They are actually voting on a tax increase. No where on the signs does it state that fact.

Perhaps the town can place a communication piece in both the gazette and spotlight outlining the facts surrounding this vote.

Quoted from bumblethru

I heard that the 'save rems' signs are now appearing in rotterdam.

I'm concerned that many rotterdamians are receiving the wrong message. Rotterdamians are not 'saving' rems. They are actually voting on a tax increase. No where on the signs does it state that fact.

Perhaps the town can place a communication piece in both the gazette and spotlight outlining the facts surrounding this vote.

Yes...they are posted on Burdeck St. and will likely spread quickly.

The wrong message is their precise intention, as it has been all along. REMS wants the public to believe that their only choice is REMS
or no ambulance service at all. In all of REMS' highly touted "surveys", the only question asked is if taxpayers would be willing to spend a nominal amount of money annually to keep what they portray as the only game in town. They never mention the options...they never mention their shady financial history which now includes further revelations of impropriety...they never mention projected increases in
this unnecessary tax...and their survey "sample" is always senior citizens who are the easiest to frighten and who will likely be the most
frequent users of such a service.

The town will not inform the public of their options through any venue...if they did, this nightmare would have ended long ago. It will
now be up to Mohawk to inform the public of particulars that the town and REMS supporters will not provide...and you can bet they will
if this vote that should be cancelled goes forward.

Meanwhile REMS has failed to disclose who paid for their campaign signs as required by law...and they better not be funded with
public money.

So what is anyone or everyone going to say if someone in rotterdam brings up this issue?

Well, I will say what I have been saying, that we don't need another tax.  If they want to be a business, then let them be a business, a self-sustainable business and run that business on their income.  That's the only way you can run a business.  If there are costs that need to be reduced, do that.  If the people think the ambulance squad is such a necessity, then maybe the people who are riding don't need to be paid.  Reduce cost there.

Is there a volunteer out here on this forum that can explain the difference between how we taxpayers fund the fire equipment/stations vs. how we fund REMS?

To me, as taxpayers we should be funding the equipment and hope that we have people that will volunteer to use it.  I live in a rural area and would hope that REMS would find me much faster than Mohawk.  I understand REMS and the volunteer fire companies have a good working relationship.  That's very important to saving lives.  At the end of the day, this is about saving lives.  What's the price we are all willing to pay for that?

Sounds like there are some serious bookeeping issues with REMS.  Let's get that under control and supervision.

Three separate lost hikers were found last night by volunteers.  We owe much to volunteers in this town.

Aside from the bookeeping, how has REMS done in saving and assisting people in need of ambulance services?  Isn't that the most important issue here?

Quoted from huskyhowls

Is there a volunteer out here on this forum that can explain the difference between how we taxpayers fund the fire equipment/stations vs. how we fund REMS?

To me, as taxpayers we should be funding the equipment and hope that we have people that will volunteer to use it.  I live in a rural area and would hope that REMS would find me much faster than Mohawk.  I understand REMS and the volunteer fire companies have a good working relationship.  That's very important to saving lives.  At the end of the day, this is about saving lives.  What's the price we are all willing to pay for that?

Sounds like there are some serious bookeeping issues with REMS.  Let's get that under control and supervision.

Three separate lost hikers were found last night by volunteers.  We owe much to volunteers in this town.

Aside from the bookeeping, how has REMS done in saving and assisting people in need of ambulance services?  Isn't that the most important issue here?

REMS is no longer volunteer.  Saving lives is the primary job of our town paid employed paramedics, they are the only ones providing ALS services, the ambulance transport has been provided by REMS, Mohawk, Western Turnpike and others.  No matter what the vote is, we will still be employing the paramedics, this is just for the transportation part (yes, i know they provide BLS, ALL the ambulances do)

Quoted from huskyhowls

Is there a volunteer out here on this forum that can explain the difference between how we taxpayers fund the fire equipment/stations vs. how we fund REMS?

To me, as taxpayers we should be funding the equipment and hope that we have people that will volunteer to use it.  I live in a rural area and would hope that REMS would find me much faster than Mohawk.  I understand REMS and the volunteer fire companies have a good working relationship.  That's very important to saving lives.  At the end of the day, this is about saving lives.  What's the price we are all willing to pay for that?

Sounds like there are some serious bookeeping issues with REMS.  Let's get that under control and supervision.

Three separate lost hikers were found last night by volunteers.  We owe much to volunteers in this town.

Aside from the bookeeping, how has REMS done in saving and assisting people in need of ambulance services?  Isn't that the most important issue here?

The difference in funding lies within the need...we have no other choice with FDs...we have a much more responsible choice for ems.
Why should we be funding equipment when there is no need to do that? REMS was receiving public money when they were volunteers,
but that did not change the course of their transistion to paid staff...and they have given us no reason to believe that they will return
to volunteer status. They have stated that their payroll will be funded through insurance billing and that tax revenues would fund
equipment and supplies....even though history tells us that they never collected from most, and in some cases never billed users in
the first place...yet somehow they managed to collect revenues for all that ALS service which was never recorded.

I'm sure REMS has done just fine...when they are there...but they have a long history of dropped calls. Their website will tell you how
many calls they've answered...but not the total number of calls. The "life saving" argument is just another fear tactic...no medical
emergency will go unanswered just because REMS is not the provider...and in the event of life-threatening emergencies, REMS
cannot service those patients anyway...they will rely on our paramedics or other ALS service...such as Mohawk...who has been
covering their dropped calls and backed up ALS when paramedics are unavailable all along.

Bookeeping issues cannot be brought under control until we know the full extent of REMS' financials...and to REMS, supervision is not
an option...that's why they want free reign with public money and don't want REMS funded through the annual town budget.

I think the only concern to the rotteramians is what 'transport' service they will need since they already have ALS service. And how they want to pay for this transport service.

REMS = increase taxes and bill per call
MOHAWK = bill per call, reimburse ALS, REMS building back on tax rolls.

The only concern at this point should boil down to money and what would be a fiscally and economically sound decision.