pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-21 | 9 | 1980 staff report assumed a 75% collection rate; that she does not think the [current] collection rate is at 75%; residents use County services; the City should find a way to pay for the services; that she is bothered by the three options because the options are presented as financial calculations; information is not provided regarding impacts; inquired what would happen to response times if the County provided ALS services; stated the issue is not just dollars and cents; two-thirds of the City's calls for service are medical; inquired how many calls utilize ALS versus BLS services; stated that she cannot see going to a lesser service if ALS service is utilized; inquired whether more overtime would be needed; inquired what was the glitch in not reporting on the last 911 response calls. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $6.6 million [annual cost in providing the ALS program] is the result of $2.3 million in recovered revenues for ambulance transport services and $4.3 being contributed from the General Fund, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City would lose $2.3 million in revenue if the City's ambulance service ceases. The Interim City Manager responded the City would lose $2.3 million in revenue; however, fire-staffing demands would be less; $6.6 million is the total cost for the services. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; the item needs to be brought back with accounting data in order to make a decision. Councilmember Tam stated the 1983 memo [from the Assistant City Manager] is very helpful; the community cannot afford to have the Contract in a log jammed position for something as important as ambulance service; in 1982, voters voted 80% to establish a paramedic service and bring critical life saving medical treatments to the City; the vital service is worth the added cost, especially since Alameda has the highest percentage of people over 65 years old; BLS is not sufficient; the Fire Department can provide a service level that surpasses the County's response times; the County is offering a solution through annexation; Alameda is the last City holding out on being part of the EMS District; Measure P funds should be used to help pay for the difference between service costs and insurance reimbursements; ALS service is the highest priority for community public health and safety and is a must have; stated that she would like to direct the City to enter into negotiating a contract. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council has had prior Closed Session discussions on legalities of the matter, which have not been flushed out; elements need to be understood before moving forward; Alameda's service level is superior; the County believes that the City has fallen into a $6.6 million hole; legal and financial information is needed; that he is not sure whether said information can be discussed in open session. The City Attorney stated that she has not seen the County counsel opinion regarding Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 September 21, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf |