Tom, It's been a clearly expressed goal to increase minimum staffing & I'm glad you recognize that & can agree on it's importance. I'm seeing a few outspoken people who want their opinions to have more weight than the people who actually do the job, to count more than the people who've put in countless hours of data input, budget calculations, and best practices research. Is there a cost to moving the delivery of emergency services to the level our citizens deserve? Yes, it also achieves the agreed upon conclusion of 3 expert consultant firms. Most importantly, it's the way to increase safety for our citizens, visitors, & first responders.
Interestingly enough, the loudest critics are the ones who just 2 short years ago were proclaiming that consolidation was necessary & urgent. What changed? The departments involved, that's what. As firefighters, we recognize the need for consolidation and we can't let politicians with not-so hidden agendas stand in the way of public safety any longer. This is a step that needs to be taken. It's not a final step by any means, but the first important one we can take.
This shouldn’t be about someone’s opinion. We need the info to make an informed decision. The consolidation advocates haven’t provided that. Why would someone vote “for” without knowing what they are voting for?
I also know a ton about this subject and my hot point is that the City of Ketchum thinks "giving back" 50% of the current fire/ems income line while offloading 100% of the costs "seems about right". There is zero justification for not crediting Ketchum tax payers 100% of the offset. This extra $900,000 of revenue will become completely discretionary and can include parking ticket services, bike lane striping, dog park monitors, etc. This is a very creative way to get around voting for tax increases greater than 3%. If it was really about better EMS for the valley, Ketchum would not have pulled the ambulance out of the Greenhorn station for political reasons.
Look, this whole thing is about getting more funding to the two fire departments. I do not object to that in principle. The city and WRFR are normally constrained by the 3% limitation in annual increases in property tax. They have decided that the 66% of voters would not approve of a levy override for this purpose so they have been forced to do an end run to raise taxes.
By forming a fire district first, the newly appointed fire commissioners are not constrained by Idaho code on their initial budget amount other than public input. And you can be sure that the first hand picked fire commissioners will put forward a budget amount that exceeds the $1,623,000 that the city budgets now in order to make room for more staff.
If they would just simply tell us their goal is to staff up to have 4 person full time shifts year round for both departments (or whatever their staffing goal is with this effort) and why, I would support it and I'm sure most other informed people would also.
Taxes will go up by more if Ketchum loses the ambulance contract. Is there a reason you keep omitting this fact Perry? You and I discussed this on the phone. Have you discovered other information that you have not shared with me? Please tell me that Ketchum is guaranteed to retain the ambulance contract and I will gladly stop bringing it up!
Hi Diane, your comment begs the question, to whom would they lose the contract? For the amount of funds supplied to CoK it would be impossible to have a private company take over:
* Where would be an heated essential facility in which to store the ambulances and have people ready to roll?
* Who would staff it?
* Where would the staff live?
* How would they deal with concurrent medical calls?
The truth of the matter is that, because of the staffing efficiencies of combining both fire and EMS missions in the full time/paid-on-call volunteer departments, the Ambulance district (the county commissioners) fulfills their responsibilities with less tax burden than having stand-alone agencies. The district needs Ketchum and Wood River as the EMS transport agencies, and both fire departments need the Ambulance District in order to afford at least two staff 24/7/365. It's been such for at least 40 years.
Any suggestion to the contrary is a bluff because it would decimate both fire departments and EMS service quality to the detriment of the communities in which the county commissioners live and serve.
What if Wood River got the entire contract and had 24 hour roving staffed ambulance in Ketchum at all times? How about hospital based ambulance as is done in other areas? I am a proponent of fire based EMS, but it is not the only way to deliver ambulance service.
I think it is such a shame for our county that you are telling Ketchum voters to strike this down over a couple hundred bucks. Such a travesty to get so close and have monetary greed destroy it.
No need to respond, I am forever leaving this discussion. I have seen the worst now and I am giving up on my decades long quest to bring a sustainable ambulance service to the whole county that works towards the highest level of patient care. Your plan works for the love of money. Truly disappointing. Over and out.
Leave the debate. You have done a huge job in informing the community. That being said, EMS has never been explained to the public by our elected officials and there is zero information on that as part of this referendum. This isn’t about a coupon for
Hundred bucks. This is about an out of control city council that does nothing g but raise taxes for locals to provide services for non locals and tries to hide it.
I hear your frustration Diane, however I have to agree with Perry. Integrity matters. The issues that the council keeps throwing the voters of Ketchum under the bus with are all "good things". Ketchum is being treated like everyone's rich uncle and has been for years. Many Ketchum voters are hard working people, work multiple jobs, live paycheck to paycheck and have put their heart and soul into this community. They have been asked to pay more and more in taxes for the good of all. The elected officials should be doing their job in vetting the requests, but in my experience they do not do the due diligence, agree to place these requested taxations from outside sources on the ballot and "leave it up to the voters to decide".
Tom, It's been a clearly expressed goal to increase minimum staffing & I'm glad you recognize that & can agree on it's importance. I'm seeing a few outspoken people who want their opinions to have more weight than the people who actually do the job, to count more than the people who've put in countless hours of data input, budget calculations, and best practices research. Is there a cost to moving the delivery of emergency services to the level our citizens deserve? Yes, it also achieves the agreed upon conclusion of 3 expert consultant firms. Most importantly, it's the way to increase safety for our citizens, visitors, & first responders.
Interestingly enough, the loudest critics are the ones who just 2 short years ago were proclaiming that consolidation was necessary & urgent. What changed? The departments involved, that's what. As firefighters, we recognize the need for consolidation and we can't let politicians with not-so hidden agendas stand in the way of public safety any longer. This is a step that needs to be taken. It's not a final step by any means, but the first important one we can take.
This shouldn’t be about someone’s opinion. We need the info to make an informed decision. The consolidation advocates haven’t provided that. Why would someone vote “for” without knowing what they are voting for?
I also know a ton about this subject and my hot point is that the City of Ketchum thinks "giving back" 50% of the current fire/ems income line while offloading 100% of the costs "seems about right". There is zero justification for not crediting Ketchum tax payers 100% of the offset. This extra $900,000 of revenue will become completely discretionary and can include parking ticket services, bike lane striping, dog park monitors, etc. This is a very creative way to get around voting for tax increases greater than 3%. If it was really about better EMS for the valley, Ketchum would not have pulled the ambulance out of the Greenhorn station for political reasons.
Look, this whole thing is about getting more funding to the two fire departments. I do not object to that in principle. The city and WRFR are normally constrained by the 3% limitation in annual increases in property tax. They have decided that the 66% of voters would not approve of a levy override for this purpose so they have been forced to do an end run to raise taxes.
By forming a fire district first, the newly appointed fire commissioners are not constrained by Idaho code on their initial budget amount other than public input. And you can be sure that the first hand picked fire commissioners will put forward a budget amount that exceeds the $1,623,000 that the city budgets now in order to make room for more staff.
If they would just simply tell us their goal is to staff up to have 4 person full time shifts year round for both departments (or whatever their staffing goal is with this effort) and why, I would support it and I'm sure most other informed people would also.
Taxes will go up by more if Ketchum loses the ambulance contract. Is there a reason you keep omitting this fact Perry? You and I discussed this on the phone. Have you discovered other information that you have not shared with me? Please tell me that Ketchum is guaranteed to retain the ambulance contract and I will gladly stop bringing it up!
Hi Diane, your comment begs the question, to whom would they lose the contract? For the amount of funds supplied to CoK it would be impossible to have a private company take over:
* Where would be an heated essential facility in which to store the ambulances and have people ready to roll?
* Who would staff it?
* Where would the staff live?
* How would they deal with concurrent medical calls?
The truth of the matter is that, because of the staffing efficiencies of combining both fire and EMS missions in the full time/paid-on-call volunteer departments, the Ambulance district (the county commissioners) fulfills their responsibilities with less tax burden than having stand-alone agencies. The district needs Ketchum and Wood River as the EMS transport agencies, and both fire departments need the Ambulance District in order to afford at least two staff 24/7/365. It's been such for at least 40 years.
Any suggestion to the contrary is a bluff because it would decimate both fire departments and EMS service quality to the detriment of the communities in which the county commissioners live and serve.
What if Wood River got the entire contract and had 24 hour roving staffed ambulance in Ketchum at all times? How about hospital based ambulance as is done in other areas? I am a proponent of fire based EMS, but it is not the only way to deliver ambulance service.
I think it is such a shame for our county that you are telling Ketchum voters to strike this down over a couple hundred bucks. Such a travesty to get so close and have monetary greed destroy it.
No need to respond, I am forever leaving this discussion. I have seen the worst now and I am giving up on my decades long quest to bring a sustainable ambulance service to the whole county that works towards the highest level of patient care. Your plan works for the love of money. Truly disappointing. Over and out.
Please do not
Leave the debate. You have done a huge job in informing the community. That being said, EMS has never been explained to the public by our elected officials and there is zero information on that as part of this referendum. This isn’t about a coupon for
Hundred bucks. This is about an out of control city council that does nothing g but raise taxes for locals to provide services for non locals and tries to hide it.
I understand your mission Perry. But there is such a thing as collateral damage.
Ketchum is trying to do one good thing. And you are grouping it with all of their other transgressions. Just let the one good thing happen.
I hear your frustration Diane, however I have to agree with Perry. Integrity matters. The issues that the council keeps throwing the voters of Ketchum under the bus with are all "good things". Ketchum is being treated like everyone's rich uncle and has been for years. Many Ketchum voters are hard working people, work multiple jobs, live paycheck to paycheck and have put their heart and soul into this community. They have been asked to pay more and more in taxes for the good of all. The elected officials should be doing their job in vetting the requests, but in my experience they do not do the due diligence, agree to place these requested taxations from outside sources on the ballot and "leave it up to the voters to decide".