ROTTERDAM Town delays vote on ambulance taxing district BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter
Members of the Town Board narrowly voted to postpone an ambulance taxing district referendum until sometime in November . Board members Nicola DiLeva, Gerard Parisi and Matt Martin voted in favor of delaying the referendum after confusion arose over the purpose of the referendum and who would be able to cast a ballot. Supervisor Frank Del Gallo and board member Robert Godlewski voted against the resolution following a prolonged discussion at Wednesday’s business meeting. Many thought the referendum was to create a tax district supporting Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services Inc., a not-for-profi t ambulance company that now serves the town. But Del Gallo said this week that the board will send the town’s ambulance contract out to bid regardless of whether residents support the taxing district. Concerns also arose over whether the timing of the vote — June 29 — was too near the Independence Day weekend. There was also confusion over who could vote and what credentials were required to participate in the election. On Wednesday, a majority of board members also tabled resolutions to not require personal registration of voters before the referendum and to absolve the town of offering absentee ballots. Del Gallo and Godlewski voted against both resolutions. Parisi lauded his fellow board members for halting the vote until the fall. He said the added time will allow more residents to vote on the issue.
now that the dispatchers are out how long for the paramedics and police
rotterdam up to the thruway will be come the city of schenectady i picked that line because FDG said "I wouldn't live there" of the congestion in downtown rotterdam
Talking to each other is better than talking about each other
I just may be missing something here, but exactly why is rotterdam having a vote for a taxing district if it is going out for bid and just may end up going to a private entity? Obviously, rems can't bid on anything since they FIRST need taxpayer's money to survive. It just seems a$$ backwards to me!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I just may be missing something here, but exactly why is rotterdam having a vote for a taxing district if it is going out for bid and just may end up going to a private entity? Obviously, rems can't bid on anything since they FIRST need taxpayer's money to survive. It just seems a$$ backwards to me!
That's what I said at the meeting...why are we voting on a service that must go to bid anyway? Worse, why are we bidding on paying for a service that we could have at no charge??
This is just a local form of socialized medicine...the pro-tax crowd wants residents to pay for someone else's use of these services... and the REMS staff apparently agrees since they have been inconsistent at best with billing/collection, attributing this to sympathy for those who can't or won't pay...or stingy insurance companies with whom they have to fight for payment.
If only everyone had been paying attenion all along...this nightmare would have ended long ago.
So what is the procedure to kill the referendum? Since an offer has been made to provide ambulance service at no cost, it's a no-brainer to accept the offer. Does the Town Board have the legal authority to mandate who we get service from? And if they have that legal right, then don't they also have the legal obligation to select the most cost effective ($0.00) vs. paying for service via a tax district? At a very minimum, if there is some Town allegiance to REMS, they should be subsidized until they have cleared their debt, and then REMS should compete against Mohawk, without a tax district. The BBB link that was put out on the forum shows Mohawk has an A+ rating, that's a lot of happy customers I would say. If the referendum does go to a vote, the electorate (whomever it is decided to be) must vote it down. That eliminates the perpetual taxation for a service we can get for free.
It is true we are at the mercy of Mohawk if REMS goes away, however the link "littlesal" posted shows they have been in business since 1964. That's a 46 yr. track record. Point is, Who cares if we are at their mercy, and what does that mean with respect to ambulance service? Are they going to shake you down for money before they transport you to a hospital? THINK, please THINK . . . .
So what is the procedure to kill the referendum? Since an offer has been made to provide ambulance service at no cost, it's a no-brainer to accept the offer. Does the Town Board have the legal authority to mandate who we get service from? And if they have that legal right, then don't they also have the legal obligation to select the most cost effective ($0.00) vs. paying for service via a tax district? At a very minimum, if there is some Town allegiance to REMS, they should be subsidized until they have cleared their debt, and then REMS should compete against Mohawk, without a tax district. The BBB link that was put out on the forum shows Mohawk has an A+ rating, that's a lot of happy customers I would say. If the referendum does go to a vote, the electorate (whomever it is decided to be) must vote it down. That eliminates the perpetual taxation for a service we can get for free.
It is true we are at the mercy of Mohawk if REMS goes away, however the link "littlesal" posted shows they have been in business since 1964. That's a 46 yr. track record. Point is, Who cares if we are at their mercy, and what does that mean with respect to ambulance service? Are they going to shake you down for money before they transport you to a hospital? THINK, please THINK . . . .
Well said AVON.....very well said!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
So what is the procedure to kill the referendum? Since an offer has been made to provide ambulance service at no cost, it's a no-brainer to accept the offer. Does the Town Board have the legal authority to mandate who we get service from? And if they have that legal right, then don't they also have the legal obligation to select the most cost effective ($0.00) vs. paying for service via a tax district? At a very minimum, if there is some Town allegiance to REMS, they should be subsidized until they have cleared their debt, and then REMS should compete against Mohawk, without a tax district. The BBB link that was put out on the forum shows Mohawk has an A+ rating, that's a lot of happy customers I would say. If the referendum does go to a vote, the electorate (whomever it is decided to be) must vote it down. That eliminates the perpetual taxation for a service we can get for free.
It is true we are at the mercy of Mohawk if REMS goes away, however the link "littlesal" posted shows they have been in business since 1964. That's a 46 yr. track record. Point is, Who cares if we are at their mercy, and what does that mean with respect to ambulance service? Are they going to shake you down for money before they transport you to a hospital? THINK, please THINK . . . .
There is no formal procedure to speak of... all it would take is a motion to kill the vote and three votes to carry the motion. They have no legal obligation to go with the most cost effective solution...unfortunately we have to rely on fiscal responsibility combined with a spine in the face of the unions. Fortunately, we seem to finally have just enough Board Members willing to listen... and learn.
As for REMS, I suggested the same attempt to become solvent and compete with Mohawk. But I also know that way back when REMS and the former White Eagle were evaluated, they made it clear they didn't want a professional business consultant to come in and reorganize a merged operation as a BUSINESS...they didn't even want to merge the squads...they only did it because the Board at the time made it a condition for receiving the $90K they were seeking in another bailout.
And youre right about the no-brainer nature of this discussion...I just told the Board the same thing, AGAIN, at the meeting the other night.
The Town Board should just accept Mohawk's original offer with the stipulation that they use the existing REMS buildings and keep the REMS employees now serving with the REMS. That would be a win win for all concerned.
The Town Board should just accept Mohawk's original offer with the stipulation that they use the existing REMS buildings and keep the REMS employees now serving with the REMS. That would be a win win for all concerned.
AMEN! If, like Gadfly proclaims (and she has been totally reliable on this issue), REMS did not want to form a business, then this is a perfect option for them. They can still be "Mother Jugs & Speed" without the administrative headaches and issues associated with a business!
AMEN! If, like Gadfly proclaims (and she has been totally reliable on this issue), REMS did not want to form a business, then this is a perfect option for them. They can still be "Mother Jugs & Speed" without the administrative headaches and issues associated with a business!
If they had that crew residents would pay for a ride upfront
Talking to each other is better than talking about each other
The town of Rotterdam pushed back the June 29 vote to create a ambulance taxing district for the town of Rotterdam to November with a 3-2 vote and heated debate between board members.
During the Wednesday, June 9 meeting of the town board of Rotterdam, town board member Nicola DiLeva proposed resolution to push back the June 29 vote for the creation of a ambulance district in the town to help inform residents of the reasoning behind the vote. Town Board Deputy Supervisor Robert Godlewski was critical of the former administration under Republican Steve Tommasone and the changing of the vote on multiple occasions. According to Godlewski, the current board has worked to create the vote for the ambulance district- setting an original date for April, which was pushed back to the June 29 date because of the need for a 60-day advanced notice for the vote. He said that the further delay of the vote will delay the creation of the district further.
“Put it to a vote and get done with it once and for all,” said Godlewski.
DiLeva said that the June 29 date was not picked by the members of the board but by Godlewski and that the vote co-insides with one of the busiest weeks in the summer, with the Fourth of July weekend.
“There is no we, there is an I,” said DiLeva.
Godlewski would respond that it was not he who picked the date but the four members of the board who were in attendance for the vote. DiLeva was not at the vote at the April 28 meeting because she was recovering from a surgery she has recently had.
The councilwoman asked to have the vote moved back because of a lack of information alongside the absence of absentee ballots and the timing during the summer. She was also critical of misinformation about the vote, especially the belief that a vote for the ambulance district would be a vote for Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services, of REMS. According to information from the town, if the ambulance district were to be accepted, the district would go out to bid among local ambulance companies.
“No one has the right to put REMS out of business,” said DiLeva.
The resolution to move the vote back to a date to be determined in November was voted in favor by DiLeva, Matthew Martin, and Gerard Parisi with Supervisor Frank Del Gallo and Godlewski voting no.
“No one has the right to put REMS out of business,” said DiLeva.
From this quote, are we to believe that the vote is to keep REMS in business? It is not the role of government to sustain operations of any business. Further, I thought that Del Gallo stated that the vote is to create an ambulance tax district but that the service contract will be put out to bid. It sounds as though even the board members don't know or agree on the intent of the referendum.
I would have preferred the vote to be on Primary Election Day in September so that voters would know exactly where each candidate stood before the general election. Will Parisi, Salamone and Calder state their positions prior to the election so that the electorate will know their views on increasing the size and cost of government? Rotterdam residents should demand an answer not on the holding of the referendum, but about their positions on creating the tax district.
So RG selected the date of the vote to create the tax district for REMS and then denies and then points the finger at someone else, does this look like a familiar tactic, the wizard has been exposed. This Town Board is starting to look like a skit from either the Three Stooges or the Key Stone Cops.
Logged
