We gotta start another thread if we want to talk about fair assessments Gadfly. I just moved from the suburban part of town and my assessment was $30,000 more than the exact same house a street over. Same exact size, same everything. No reason for the difference. Assessments are not fair in Rotterdam either. I didn't challenge it because I knew I was moving to rural Rotterdam and frankly didn't think I was over-assessed. I did think the house on the other street had a very questionnable assessment. I guess I didn't know anybody in town hall that could adjust it for me. Or maybe I wouldn't ever ask!
Bottom line, I think we need to feel the residents pulse for whether or not they want a local ambulance squad and how they want it funded. I don't think this upcoming vote is how we find out that answer because I don't think enough of the folks eligible to vote really understand the issue.
Why can't we support it through donation? What happened to that method of support?
I was only saying that the tax would be based on assessments...I wasn't suggesting that assessments are fair or unfair.
I totally agree with you on the need to determine accurate public sentiment...and I believe that be achieved only by thoroughly educating that public and granting them maximum accessibility to the vote. I also believe that a key part of that education is understanding the intended purposes of the lack of information, especially with regard to the specifics of other options...and the restricted access to this vote...which is to minimize opposition the interested parties know would result from such an education.
Based on the letter just posted from Frank DelGallo and a few of these recent posts by those of you who are really knowing more of the facts, I don't think we are ready for a vote on this new taxing district.
That's what we've been trying to tell everyone ... this vote needs to - no, MUST be put off, until a minimum of the audit is completed, then determined if REMS is really deserving of tax district benefits.
As I understand this, (and Gadfly could/should correct me if I'm wrong), we are essentially voting for or against an ambulance district. The letter from the Town highlighted this. So if the ambulance district vote passes, the service I would assume would have to go to bid as required by NYS Municipal Law. Then REMS likely would be underbid by MAS and REMS would be out. If the ambulance district is voted down, then MAS would be the likely provider. I say this because the monies for REMS have been removed from the Town budget for next fiscal year, and REMS cannot survive without the supplemental funding. To maintain REMS via donation is illogical based on the continued debt they carry, and the fact that all of their ambulances are allegedly in need of replacement. You would have to raise upwards of $200,000 dollars and sustain that year after year, which I believe to be unlikely. I see the problem as REMS needing far to much money right now just to be on the same playing field as MAS when the bid solicitations start, regardless of the vote outcome.
You are correct...this referendum will ask whether or not an ambulance taxing district should be created. The letter from the Town highlighted this because it is illegal to designate a provider in the referendum language, and it is obvious that REMS supporters are misleading the public into believing that passing the measure would grant the tax proceeds to REMS. It is worthy to note that GP rushed to invoke the resolution recently passed that guarantees tax proceeds to REMS should the referendum pass.
You are also right about the bidding process...and REMS knows they cannot compete...that's why they were outraged when the Supervisor announced that if the measure passed, the contract for ems would go to bid...and that they would not be designated recipient of those funds.
BTW, they will need a LOT more than $200,000 annually...and of course, it will continuously rise from there.
According to the Supervisor's statements, the ems contract will go to bid whether it passes or not...as I believe it should...so there really is no need for the vote.
Personally, I think the Supervisor knows the "give the tax money to REMS if it passes" resolution will be a problem and that's why he voted for it...knowing that he won't have to honor it because he cannot legally do so. Did I mention that FDG is opposed to this tax???
For me the bigger question is what is the town(amb dist) going to do with the collected $230,000 if REMS is not selected in a "bid" process and a competing comany is offering to pay the town(amb dist) $100,000
Where will the $300k go to
Talking to each other is better than talking about each other
For me the bigger question is what is the town(amb dist) going to do with the collected $230,000 if REMS is not selected in a "bid" process and a competing comany is offering to pay the town(amb dist) $100,000
Where will the $300k go to
I would that $50K will go to someone who is sunning herself in Florida. Oh wait, that's a different thread...sorry!
Resolution 273.10 In the event the vote for the Rotterdam Ambulance Special District is approved then the contract will be awarded to Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services. (Unanimously passed)
Resolution 273.10 In the event the vote for the Rotterdam Ambulance Special District is approved then the contract will be awarded to Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services. (Unanimously passed)
Then does anyone know why the Supervisor's letter states that we are not voting for a specific provider?
Because we are not voting for a provider...we are voting for or against a tax district... it is illegal to designate a provider in the referendum.
I hear you on this....BUT if it is illegal to designate a provider, why did they include it in the resolution???? I know your answer, Gadfly, but I like to hear it over and over again.
Help me make sense of this. The way I'm understanding this is - the property owners will be getting taxed to fund a not-for-profit ambulance company(REMS). If the property owner gets sick and needs the REMS to transport him/her to the hospital, and if said property owner has the financial means, he/she in addition to the ambulance district tax will also get billed for the ride. On the other hand, if a non-property owner uses REMS and said non-property owner doesn't have the financial mean to pay, the property owner that pays the ambulance tax, will also be footing the bill for the services that go unpaid. Who decides whether a patient has the means to pay for the service? If REMS soft bills and doesn't send to collections, how and who determines the indigent?
I hear you on this....BUT if it is illegal to designate a provider, why did they include it in the resolution???? I know your answer, Gadfly, but I like to hear it over and over again.
Well, if you really mean it...
I'm not an attorney but it seems to me that resolution would be legally problematic as well. After all, it is accomplishing the same thing I believe the law intends to prevent...which is creating tax districts for insolvent businesses. Imagine if we could just create new tax districts every time a failing business wants public funding...it would be like grassroots Obamanomics...just let the government bail them out and take over while the tax-paying investors get no return.
Wasn't there a resolution by the Town Board that designated REMS as the provider if the ambulance district was passed?
Yes
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
