Corrected ordinance
March 15th, 2007 by 
Alica
The proposed city ambulance ordinance, #381, has been corrected and appears on this blog in the ambulance category. It now reads the way the City Council members originally voted it to read. The parts that were published incorrectly before were sections 6-7-12 and 6-7-15.
At last night’s forum, I heard statements that sound like there is some common ground. It seems like folks want good emergency care. Folks agree that the Brandon Police Department and the Brandon Volunteer Fire Department do a real good job of arriving at medical emergencies fast and taking care of patients as much as they are capable. And folks even agree that there are problems with the ordinance.
What I’d like to hear now are suggestions for alternative plans of action from the people who oppose the ordinance. If the ordinance fails at the April 10 election, what do you think should happen next? Should the City Council take another stab at rewriting Ordinance #381? Should they look real hard at reinstating Brandon’s old city ambulance ordinance? Should they forget about a city ambulance ordinance altogether?
Brandon could have 15,000 to 20,000 residents within 20 years. What kind of emergency services system do you think would be necessary in a town that size? What steps do you think Brandon should take to plan for that?
One suggestion that came from both sides of the table at last night’s forum was for the city to put more emphasis on increased training for the police and firefighters in town. The “vote no” side, during their opening statements, said, “If we’re going to spend money, maybe we should put it into training the people we already have.” Councilman Steve Rubin said the city and the fire department need to “get together as a team and work together …. I see that we need to do a better job there.”
Common ground.
Posted in Uncategorized, Ambulance | 
March 15th, 2007 at 11:18 am
It is really pretty simple, since both sides agree that the county ordinances make up most of the meat of the issue. Vote NO and we will revert back to the county standards and REMSA. Then if Med-Star wants to serve the public apply and get approval through the current county process, they would be assigned a designated territory, we would have backup ambulance services, and the city would not need to worry about hiring a medical director or oversight committee. If Med-star fails to meet the county standards then why would the citizens of Brandon want a company that fails to meet an acceptable standards.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Yes, I am one of the ‘ladies’ that were out there collecting signatures to put this all to a vote. Alica…sorry, but I did not say the above quote…The Fire Department responded in last weeks forum that they receive money from the city for contracted services. They are not requesting money from the city for additional training. From being a past member of the Brandon Volunteer Fire Department…I can tell you our Fire Department has the BEST training!!
I would love to see ordinance 286 put back in, and requesting REMA to oversee it as they had before.
If a service can not meet the guidelines…then they need to either not apply or work harder to be able to meet the standards. These standards are put in place to asure quality service. They protect the patient! As revealed last night….no service should be allowed to come to the council and request a new ordinance that they can pass.
***** On Nov. 1, 2004, Jay Masur of MedStar appeared before the City Council to ask for a license to operate an ambulance for Brandon. Here is an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting:
“Jay Masur appeared before the Council requesting that the Council write a new ambulance licensing ordinance so he can operate within the limits of the City of Brandon. After a lengthy and heated discussion, Alderman Polzin moved Alderman Rubin seconded to direct the City Administrator and City Attorney to work with Jay to draft a new ordinance and present it to the Council by the December 6, 2004 regular meeting. Motion carried.”
After hearing this last night…did any of you have any question at all why Brett Karber put his name and the council’s name on the flyer from Jay?
I know I have been at numerous council meeting with this issue, along with other citizens and memebers of the Fire Department. All I can say, is from my perpective…they didn’t want our ‘voice’ they had the one they needed.
Vote NO 381!!!!!!!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Marlys, my apologies for attributing a quote to you by mistake. It was said during the opening statements. Would it have been Jana Schroeder who said it then? I want to correct my original statement.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Yes…I think she did…I should of said that…I was suppose to be upfront last night…but for private reasons, I had to make the decision to be in the audience and asked Jana to take my place.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Isn’t this proposed ordinance just the current county ordinance with lower standards and very little oversight? When the first ordinance was written, with Jay’s input, they couldn’t even meet those standards. Now they are lobbying for even lower standards and fewer controls. It would be interesting to know if Med-star contributed to any of the current city council members campaigns.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Better question yet….Has husets (Mr. Rubin) contributed to Med-Star? Why did the chamber throw out that question at the forum?
March 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Those are good questions. Let’s ask them.
To Jay Masur: How much, if any, did you or your company contribute to Steve Rubin’s campaign to get elected to City Council?
To Steve Rubin: How much, if any, have you or your company invested in MedStar?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
To bad that 99% of the citizens of brandon will never see these comments or questions. The only things the citizens are going to hear is Mr Rubins last comments scaring them to vote yes on his ordinnace so he can get his ambulance service up and operational finally. Of course he not going to dismiss himself from the vote on the business that he employees not only at Husets but also their other tracks.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“Too bad”, that’s so true!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Alica,
Can we start a new topic? For the simple reason that it will stay organized? What I have in mind is….”reaction to the chamber of commerce forum”
March 18th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I can start a new thread on the topic of Ordinance #381. Is that what you’re looking for? That way, people can comment on the Chamber forum, or the city forum, or the topic in general.
Ok?