Both of those letters are disingenuous at best. To call REMS a 'government run' ambulance company is basically a flat-out lie. To consider the audit, which reviewed REMS financing in 2008, an accurate picture of their present finances is laughable. And to quote a moron like Denis Prager is flat-out sad.

1/2 million in the hole?  

new trucks? garage upgrades?

thats enough for me to not bail them out    

Quoted from Hack

To call REMS a 'government run' ambulance company is basically a flat-out lie.

Agreed, poorly run, government subsidize not-for-proft would be a more accurate description, or a flat-out-fact.  

REMS haven't been solvent since their inception.  

Mohawk on the other hand...

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Other than the few people who post here,   I have yet to meet anyone who opposes REMs and who will
vote no on December 14.       Every resident that I have met -- loves REMS  .. does NOT want to privatize
the ambulance service ... and is planning to vote YES on December 14.    

No wonder the naysayers are so apoplectic.


[b]Vote YES on December 14[/b]

Having your aunts dress in different outfits to get the same yes answer doesn't make
an entire community saying yes to REMS Ron. Time to get those glasses checked!

Quoted from gadfly

You were supposed to have been informed in writing but you probably won't be until the day of the vote, if ever...as the Town Attorney has already
been caught lying about the existence of this "letter"...you won't get the all of the relevant facts, some of potentially huge significance that are still
unknown...and you certainly will not hear about proposed alternatives that could intercept this runaway train.

None of this should be surprising. As always, the whole idea is to keep as many as possible in the dark for as long as possible...preferrably until
at least Dec. 15...as the pro-tax culprits have always known that among other things, too much information in the hands of too many voters not
associated with the interested parties would put their tax dreams in peril.

Brillohead Liccardi along with his lover Borlene Mullough have to go!

Quoted from Hack

Both of those letters are disingenuous at best. To call REMS a 'government run' ambulance company is basically a flat-out lie. To consider the audit, which reviewed REMS financing in 2008, an accurate picture of their present finances is laughable. And to quote a moron like Denis Prager is flat-out sad.

Hack,

There is absolutely no justification for a tax district.  Everyone knows the only reason to create it is to hide the future spending issues so deep in budget discussions that it becomes an afterthought.  Just curious, how many relatives do you have working for them?

Man-up, if the GOVERNMENT is in charge of its funding, it will be "a government run ambulance company" IF it's not, then there will be NO CONTROL on spending.  You can't have it both ways.  And just because they may "appear" to have their finances in order right now, doesn't amount to much at all.  The town is strapped and the only reason to create the tax district is to hide the expenditure.  That is exactly why they took it out of the current budget and actually replaced it with a revenue source.  The majority supporting that move were completely out of their mind and absolutely clueless how this town is run.

Take the funding out of the budget and make them accountable for their own operations, if they can't make ends meet, that's their fault.  They don't even have to make a profit for crying out loud.

I agree with McGarry, we can't afford to expand government.

I think that most people supporting the tax district are either REMS employees or friends and relatives of those that are.

It seems to be the same for Mohawk, also.

The difference is that Mohawk isn't going to need our tax money to  stay in business. Send out bids to REMS and Mohawk on cost to provide service to Rotterdam and let the best company win.

From REMS facebook page:

The first of our four public forums will be tomorrow at 6:30pm at South Schenectady Fire Department, 6 Old Mariaville Rd.

Based on the time/date of this post - it indicates the forum will be Tuesday, Nov 30.

Anyone going?

Quoted from 147

From REMS facebook page:

The first of our four public forums will be tomorrow at 6:30pm at South Schenectady Fire Department, 6 Old Mariaville Rd.

Based on the time/date of this post - it indicates the forum will be Tuesday, Nov 30.

Anyone going?

I'm planning on going, as long as nothing comes up.  Interesting fact is that REMS signs magically appeared on SSFD property today.

Quoted from 474

It seems to be the same for Mohawk, also.

Please clarify.  What do you mean, that the people who are against the taxing district are generally Mohawk employees?  That people don't want the taxing district because they have an invested interest in Mohawk?

Quoted from 147

REMS is claiming "stolen signs".  Some things in Rotterdam never end.

If REMS signs are disappearing, maybe it's that they're putting them places they don't have approval for.  I know of at least one case of this.  It's not stolen if a person is advised that  the owner of the property did not want the sign up in the first place.

Quoted Text

Letter to Rotterdam residents on tax district vote still pending
John Purcell 11/29/10

Supervisor Frank Del Gallo has expressed interest in performing an independent audit of Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services’ ALS billing practices, which were recently brought up at a town board meeting.

Town Attorney Joseph Liccardi wrote the letter to REMS, dated Nov. 17, under the direction of the supervisor. In the letter, Liccardi said Del Gallo would introduce a resolution during the upcoming board meeting on Dec. 8 for the independent audit.

“As the town of Rotterdam currently subsidizes REMS at the level of $10,000 a month, it is imperative that the tax payers receive a complete and accurate financial picture if REM’s operations,” wrote Liccardi in the letter.

Why the supervisor decided to perform the audit now baffled David Cote, chief of operations at REMS.

“The timing is interesting of it all,” said Cote. “If they are that concerned about it they should have done it back before they voted to pass the resolution for the (tax district) vote.”

The tax district vote is scheduled for Dec. 14, which provides little time for the audit to be completed before the vote.

“We welcome the audit, we have said that all along,” said Cote. “We have been open with everything form the Rotterdam Town Board.”

While the letter seeks all ALS billing information dating back to 2002, Cote noted REMS wasn’t formed until late 2004. He added that a year or two ago the previous board had performed an audit.

“What has happened with it is over the years there was a agreements in place to do the ALS billings in town and as time went on … administrators wanted to put that on the back burner till we came up with a formal agreement, but it never seemed to happen,” said Cote.

While agreements with the previous board had REMS keeping the ALS billing, Cote said there was no written agreement.

“It was a verbal agree-ment, they just wouldn’t do it in writing for whatever reason,” he said. “We were doing what we were advised to do by the town of Rotterdam.”

Some board members have expressed an interest previously to renew the ALS billing contract for REMS to recoup any money not being collected. Del Gallo and Deputy Supervisor Robert Godlewski have expressed waiting till the tax district vote before entering into any agreements.

“The feeling I get is that they’re wary of getting into the agreement, because they are not sure what the outcome of the referendum vote is going to be,” said Cote. “Regardless of who the ambulance provider is they could be collecting that money.”

The letter to residents about the tax district vote and what each vote would entail also hasn’t been sent out from the supervisor either.

Del Gallo said in an internal e-mail due the transition in the attorney’s office, with Michael Godlewski leaving to work for the county, a letter had not been finalized.

Previously board members have questioned why the letter hadn’t been sent out, because the attorney’s office said they have prepared a letter, but it wasn’t finalized.

Del Gallo had stated in the message that a board member could complete a letter and then send it to him for the board to approve.

http://www.spotlightnews.com/news/view_news.php?news_id=1291059567

Kevin, it seems that many (not all) people supporting REMS have a vested interest in it.  Whether they are friends with people involved in REMS, family members, firefighters, other public servants, etc. they are somehow connected.  But not all.

The same, in my personal observation, seems to go for Mohawk.  While there are plenty of people (you, Kelly, MT, several others on this blog alone) that are supporting Mohawk for conservative reasons, many of the people supporting them are doing so for the same reasons as those supporting REMS.  That is to be expected in situations like these.

Be if friends, family, political connections/contributions, etc. many people are connected personally to either side.