If the amount that you state were the true cost of what REMS will need from the taxpayer it would be a real bargain but that figure is stated to be low for the sole purpose of winning the referendum vote. When the price tag to fund REMS starts to climb and the taxpayer says enough it will be too late to do anything about it and that's why it should stay as a budget item so that there is some control over the cost.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The fact is that the Anti- REMS thugs-blowhards-windbags   were so sure 6 months ago that no one would
support the ambulance district  ...   now they realize that many people do support REMS and the tax district
.. so they have to grab at whatever straws they can

No, the "Anti-REMS" crew finally sees what a FIXED vote this is. No absentee ballots, no representation by EACH property owner, holiday time when a lot of residents are with family - or out of town, and ONE polling place with no alternative set in case of weather (which is highly possible a week before Christmas).

Fixed? Yes - it's fixed. Happy?

Quoted from Shadow

If the amount that you state were the true cost of what REMS will need from the taxpayer it would be a real bargain but that figure is stated to be low for the sole purpose of winning the referendum vote. When the price tag to fund REMS starts to climb and the taxpayer says enough it will be too late to do anything about it and that's why it should stay as a budget item so that there is some control over the cost.  

        Shadow is spot on!  What is the condition of the buildings that REMS uses?  Do they need new roofs, new parking lots, siding, new windows, insulation?  These capital costs are all expenses potentially covered under the assumed ambulance district.  When was the last time anyone saw a shabby fire department?  All upgraded or brand new thanks to the fire distict.  It's just the way it is, power embraces entitlement!

Quoted from Shadow

If the amount that you state were the true cost of what REMS will need from the taxpayer it would be a real bargain but that figure is stated to be low for the sole purpose of winning the referendum vote. When the price tag to fund REMS starts to climb and the taxpayer says enough it will be too late to do anything about it and that's why it should stay as a budget item so that there is some control over the cost.  

Why wouldn't it be the real amount - a budget must be in place to run their operation - the tax base should be based on their budget - as far as an audit - GOOD - the last audit was done in 2008 with nothing found out of the ordinary - an updated audit should verify this - this keeps all parties honest

Quoted from 966

Why wouldn't it be the real amount - a budget must be in place to run their operation - the tax base should be based on their budget - as far as an audit - GOOD - the last audit was done in 2008 with nothing found out of the ordinary - an updated audit should verify this - this keeps all parties honest

           There is a "projected"/"estimated" budget based on equipment to be purchased, ie. new ambulances.  The budget does not include expenses for capital projects that may be currently needed, but not reflected in the budget.  These costs will be passed on in future budgets once you are locked in with an ambulance district.  Keeping this in mind, Mohawk was actually going to take over the properties and put them on the tax roles, and pay the Town a small stipend.  So a general fund revenue source is generated rather than a special tax district with annual bill to the property owners.

Here ya go folks. A complaint form you can fill out and send to the AG if you think there should be an investigation.

You can either fill it out right on line by clicking on each box, typing your concerns, then print it out and fax or snail mail it............OR....you can print it out, fill it out in long hand and fax or snail mail it.

It don't get any easier than this folks!

http://www.ag.ny.gov/resource_center/complaints/pdfs/comp_char.pdf

long hand? wow ... you mean with like a pencil or pen?? Gotta find one.

Quoted from AVON

         The connection of an ambulance district with REMS may have been an illegal Resolution.  If you call for a referendum for an ambulance district to cover the costs of ambulance service, it is doubtful it is legal for the specification of the provider to be so attached.  The law seems to indicate that the service has to be contracted which implies a bidding process.  The existing resolution is crafted as ambulance district with REMS vs. no ambulance district.  So if the voters vote NO, we are right back where we started from.  This is why the referendum package would be viewed as illegal because the vote is unnecessary when there is more than one provider that is willing to bid.  The criteria to establish a special tax district does not allow for predetermination of the provider from what I can glean from the laws.

AVON...thank you for confirming my suspicions regarding that resolution...it seemed to me that pre-designating REMS as
the ems provider before the vote occurs is no different than designating them in the language of the referendum itself..which
was previously confirmed to be illegal...but it accomplishes the same goal...it would unlawfully guarantee that REMS would be
the benefciary of the new tax funds.

You may remember that the absence of that designation in the language of the referendum the first time this vote was scheduled
was the basis for REMS' objections to that referendum...and FDG's ensuing statement that if the vote passed, the contract would go
to bid. REMS knows they can never compete in that process....which is why they want to be designated as the ems provider if the tax
district is created.

The signs that REMS now has posted clearly indicate that they are urging voters to say yes to REMS with no legal standing to do
so...voters would not be voting yes to fund REMS...they would be voting yes to fund an ambulance district...period...and an illegal
resolution will not change that.

Quoted from Shadow

If the amount that you state were the true cost of what REMS will need from the taxpayer it would be a real bargain but that figure is stated to be low for the sole purpose of winning the referendum vote. When the price tag to fund REMS starts to climb and the taxpayer says enough it will be too late to do anything about it and that's why it should stay as a budget item so that there is some control over the cost.  

No cost at all is the best bargain...but you are right about the inevitable runaway cost. We now know that their operating costs
are already much higher than they have let on since they have consumed an untold amount of ALS funds while spending the public
cash infusions they claim they needed just to stay afloat....all before the vote was ever even scheduled.

Quoted from 966

Why wouldn't it be the real amount - a budget must be in place to run their operation - the tax base should be based on their budget - as far as an audit - GOOD - the last audit was done in 2008 with nothing found out of the ordinary - an updated audit should verify this - this keeps all parties honest

On the contrary, the audit of 2008 found numerous irregularities...not to mention massive debt...and that was before the IRS and
the ALS caper. An updated audit by an independent source is only part of the thorough investigation that the latest developments
demand.

Hey REMS - nice editing of your Facebook page ... censor away, the message is STILL getting out.

Some people maintain screenshots

I received notice confirming receipt of my complaint from the AG yesterday...a case number has been assigned and they are pursuing an
investigation.

In the letter, it urges as much public input as possible...everyone should download the compalint form and chime in !

As usual, many of you can't see the forest through the trees.

First of all, the powers that be are doing EVERYTHING they can to ensure Mohawk is the provider. BG is the driving force and FDG is along for the ride. If you all just stopped interfering, the so-called "anti-REMS" contingent would get exactly what it wants. Why the hell do you think BG brought this point about the ALS payments up NOW, and not six months ago? He's known about it all along. The reason? So that it smears REMS in the days running up to the vote. It's really the only way he and those of his ilk can campaign against the tax district: From afar and behind a curtain.

Next, there's NOTHING illegal about the resolution. FDG can say whatever he wants about the ramifications of the resolution, it doesn't mean squat. In fact, it's only THIS ADMINISTRATION'S opinion that the resolution CAN'T include mention of REMS. The prior administration and REMS' attorney had no problem at all with doing so.

And lastly, the contract for ambulance service DOES NOT need to be bid out for crying out loud. Have any of you been paying attention to this issue?!? This is not a bridge we're building here people. THIS IS AMBULANCE SERVICE. They are two TOTALLY different things. End of story. FDG tried to pull that card last spring and it failed for the simple reason that obviously Mohawk would win if it were to come to the competitive bidding process thereby making this whole BS about a vote 'to see what the residents want' superfluous.

Quoted from Hack

As usual, many of you can't see the forest through the trees.

First of all, the powers that be are doing EVERYTHING they can to ensure Mohawk is the provider. BG is the driving force and FDG is along for the ride. If you all just stopped interfering, the so-called "anti-REMS" contingent would get exactly what it wants. Why the hell do you think BG brought this point about the ALS payments up NOW, and not six months ago? He's known about it all along. The reason? So that it smears REMS in the days running up to the vote. It's really the only way he and those of his ilk can campaign against the tax district: From afar and behind a curtain.

Next, there's NOTHING illegal about the resolution. FDG can say whatever he wants about the ramifications of the resolution, it doesn't mean squat. In fact, it's only THIS ADMINISTRATION'S opinion that the resolution CAN'T include mention of REMS. The prior administration and REMS' attorney had no problem at all with doing so.

And lastly, the contract for ambulance service DOES NOT need to be bid out for crying out loud. Have any of you been paying attention to this issue?!? This is not a bridge we're building here people. THIS IS AMBULANCE SERVICE. They are two TOTALLY different things. End of story. FDG tried to pull that card last spring and it failed for the simple reason that obviously Mohawk would win if it were to come to the competitive bidding process thereby making this whole BS about a vote 'to see what the residents want' superfluous.

VOTE NO!  NO MORE TAXES!

Quoted from Hack

If you all just stopped interfering, the so-called "anti-REMS" contingent would get exactly what it wants.

It's "anti-taxing district", NOT "anti-REMS".  

And if BG want's Mohawk, why did he vote "yes" when creating the taxing district to be put up for referendum?  They ALL voted yes on creating a taxing district...Why?