Two dramatic and controversial issues are confronting the city right now. The first has been at the forefront of my thoughts and activities the past few weeks. This issue involves the announced closure of Cascade Locks High School next year. Several options have been suggested for our community in response to the decision. Should we send our students to Hood River as the school board intends? Should we try to change the minds of a majority of the board members? Should legal action be taken to stop the closure? Should we send our students to another school district? Should we try to form our own school district or a charter school? What other options are there to consider? Do we need an organized group with a decision making board to navigate through the possibilities? What options do you support?
The second issue was raised during Monday's council meeting. Due to our fancy new emergency services building, our emergency services department has taken on some debt. We appear to be moving closer to the decision to place the burden of this debt on the department that has incurred the debt. Our temporary solution on Monday was to spend a portion of our contigency (cash carrry-over) fund to pay the January through June portion of the debt. The next step is to find a way for the emergency services department to shoulder the payments. Two options have been suggested. One option is to cut the services that are currently provided and use the savings to pay down the debt. The other option is to invest in the revenue generating abilities of the department and use the dividends of that investment to pay down the debt. Several questions must be answered for both of these options before a decision is made, however, it is not too soon for you to offer your opinions.
We have discussed the emergency services department before and it deserves more discussion. With this in mind, please remember to limit your comments to the respectful exchange of ideas and opinions rather than specific critiques of personalities or individuals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Councilman for Cascade Locks
- Lance Masters
- This blog is intended as a way for people interested in Cascade Locks to share ideas and opinions. Posts that are interpreted as hindering the free flow of ideas and opinions may be removed. Please be encouraged to discuss ideas and opinions rather than individuals and names.
10 comments:
I think people should lobby Board members Bob Dansko or Mike Oates to ask the board to reconsider its decision and delay the closure by one year. That would give the community a fair chance to work on options to keep it open and also give some other things time to shake out - i.e. the Nestle plant or casino or both.
I don't believe that Hood River will give us a year regardless of who we lobby unless Salem steps in and forces the issue.
I know of a few EMS departments that offer medical transport for people on Medical and other situations for which they are paid for. Not a lot mind you, but there is re-imbursement and a source of revenue. I'd much rather see this than to have our services shut down and die waiting for someone else to show up.
We currently have approximately 1000 people residing in Cascade Locks. Assuming 500 are adults, and that the short fall is truly $250,000.00, and that's according to the superintendent, how do we finance keeping our high school open? We also have only 61/2 months until the new school year. I believe this was a business decision forced upon the school board by the economy. Whether we try to open a charter school, move to a different district, we have a limited time to act. Challenging the last election which was suggested by one council person can't happen fast enough to change the start of next year and getting enough people in the valley to sign a petition would be problematic. They've always treated Cascade Locks as a bastard step child. I think the most effective thing we can do is let the board know that they will never pass another ballot measure in this county if they go ahead with their plan. They've already turned Parkdale against them, do they really want to do the same to Cascade Locks?
As to the EMS department, they already make a profit on ambulance service. I think it's irresponsible for the council to throw the financing over the fence and expect EMS to assume the responsibility. The city voted against a service district so where would financing come from, the volunteers? As anonymous said, I don't want to do anything to cause a decline in the level of service our providers give us, some day I might also need these people's help for a medical emergency or fire. How quickly people forget that our fire fighters were the first on site when the forest fire came to Cascade Locks. It's time to get behind this group of volunteers, not hinder them.
I still advocate for lobbying at a local level, it's part of how you do business. Just waiting for someone to come in and save us from ourselves, whether it's from Salem or Washington, D.C. just doesn't cut it.
On the second issue, I think you need to do some of both to solve the debt issue. Maybe re-approach the fire district issue. Just because it didn't pass before doesn't mean it's not worth another try.
The sad, scary thing is that Chief P stated that he has the option (and would use it) to turn down the transports that involved Medicare or Medicaid patients because it wouldn't pay enough. I found this attitude along with his characterization of this transport as "revenue generating" to be repugnant and feel it to be immoral to pick and choose who gets to be transported. I wouldn't wish to be treated that way and wonder if that attitude extends to OUR citizens on Medicare or Medicaid.
The other consideration is that the neither of the ambulances are in very good shape, and that will affect our ability to transport, and justifies an immediate need to replace one or both of them. It also justifies the hiring of another EMT (the position for which he was originally hired.)
We don't have the money and cannot afford this expense for about 1,000 people. The consultants we paid for said that for an private ambulance service to be justified you need 35,000 people. How can we both pay for and justify this expense and immoral treatment of others and call ourselves Christians?
Are we a private ambulance service, I don't think so. Fire and ambulance are publicly funded. As to the Chief saying anything about not taking medicaid or medicare patients I've not heard that comment. The ambulances are both getting old, one dates to the 80's and the other to about 2002, it came from a company going through bankruptcy. Placing the balance of the financing for the fire station on the department just puts the department in an ever more difficult position financially and will not lead to good or improved service for our citizens.
Stay for one of our new UN-televised workshops. Come on down (bring your PJ's - if it runs past your bedtime, it's always past mine! We'll call a slumber party for policy wonks.)
That was where he said it. And just for reasons like this do I think it is wrong to not televise the entire meeting.
We are fast becoming a private ambulance service. Didn't you know? We have an EMT, if someone would just put a collar and leash on the Chief and keep him in his own yard. His plan would generate no excess revenue, and is dependent upon a non-guaranteed, minimum number of transports. It is basically a fiscal wash. In other words, it will cost us as much as it will make us.
i shall make a prediction: We shall next require a new ambulance because of the added wear-and-tear and mileage on one of the two. When the second ambulance was purchased it was with the assurance that it would not be replaced when it finally gave up the ghost.
Perhaps you want to pay for a station, a fire truck, plus an ambulance all at the same time?
It's unfortunate that individuals in the community insisted on spending hard to come by city money on a review of the fire department and ambulance, that cost the city $5000.00, better spent on equipment and training. I believe the report recommended an addition of personnel to EMS. As to the retirement of the old ambulance, it's well past time to do so and replace it with a backup, either a new one and use the other for backup, or a newer one.
I must say I enjoy Kate's sense of humor/sarcasm, she's correct in that you might want to bring camping gear if you want to stay till the end of the meetings. I have to blame the mayor and council for running so late. The mayor controls the pace and can limit the amount of time the audience can talk to a comment period, and possibly get some of the more verbose councilors to cut back on their comments and how long they take to make them.
Au contraire, dear neighbor. The sheer number of agenda items is the main problem. I am unsure who controls that facet. Perhaps the Mayor, more likely the Administrator.
The $5,000 report was not to the liking of those who requested it either because it was not what they requested.
You have ignored my one point, why get a contract that will require a new ambulance a lot faster? I still don't see a reason for two ambulances, and love to understand why we keep getting stuff (buildings, trucks, staff) without figuring out 1) IF we need it and 2) how to pay for it before buying it.
As to the agenda items, they are controlled by the mayor and the administrator. They decide what can be placed there. I still feel to much time is taken up by people feeling inclined to chime in outside of the public comment period. It's probably both. The important thing is limiting the length of the sessions no matter how it's done.
A second ambulance becomes a necessity when our main one is in for repairs or other service. I know people don't like taking care of those on the highway but that's the way it's set up. Think how one would feel if you were between Brothers and Burns and had a medical emergency and the nearest ambulance wouldn't come because the people in it's town didn't like the responsibility or paying for the service. It's reciprocal.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you were trying to point out, did you mean that we would be buying another ambulance rather than retire the old one. Personally I hope so. At this juncture the government is handing out grant money trying to stimulate the economy, I hope we take advantage of that and get some benefit from it. I put public safety as the first responsibility of a governmental body. Having been here during the forest fire I can tell you that having equipment and reciprocal agreements are a necessity during times of emergency.
Ores
Post a Comment