Is the work done on the ambulance ordinance?
May 2nd, 2007 by 
colson
After a second special meeting, Brandon city council members have finalized what they hope will be a new ambulance ordinance for the city.
Now it’s up to the public to decide if they have made the necessary changes to address concerns voiced during the election.
If the public wants something different or if some are so opposed to a city ordinance at all it’s possible the issue could be referred to a public vote for the second time.
Posted in Uncategorized | 
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I like the direction that the rewriting is taking.
That said, it brings up a good question I would pose to anyone???? Since the election we now have an attorney on the council which has been very instrumental in the rewirting of the ambulance ordinance. So involved with the rewriting that I have to ask,
Where was our city attorney in all of this????????
Some time back, the last council meeting to be exact, our city attorney was fast asleep in the back of the room. Is one to assume that our city attorney is still sleeping?
The major question, in light of the ambulance issue, has it brought to light that the council should be looking at new legal representation? It does appear that maybe we are not getting our money’s worth, unless its to pay her to sleep!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
This whole ordinance discussion has given Brandon an opportunity to look to the future for its emergency services. The city will be one of the largest in the state in the next 20 years.
Brandon eventually will need to have a paid fire chief and an ambulance station based within its city limits. Is now the time to do that? Opinions vary. But definitely now is the time to start thinking about how that will happen when the time comes, and then lay the proper groundwork.
We’re starting to run with the big dogs now. We need city leadership that will think and plan accordingly.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I’m curious what the specific difference between the two ordinances are. Is there any way to see the draft ordinance, or does one need to wait until its published in the Challenger?
As for a referendum, what would happen if the revised ordinance failed? Would the old 281 then become the law?
Very curious deal.
As for the cost deal, this has been raised in public comment before. I know people say, “Well, I don’t want to pay for it.”
Okay, here’s how this works. You either pay now, or pay later. If you don’t have a subsidy model, the users of said ambulance service pay gigantic rates. I mean insane rates. Sioux Falls, compared to communities that fund a portion of an ambulance with a subsidy, have lower fees. They can.
Of course, it depends on your point of view. I’ve long had the view that the cost of readiness should be borne by everyone that could potentially receive ambulance services.
It costs lots of money to have people sitting, waiting for you to have chest pain or whatever. But the actual costs of transport and treatment should be paid by the patient using the ambulance.
However, right now, the patient pays not only for the cost of treatment, but the cost of readiness. So in the end, the patient gets screwed because she is paying all the money for that ambulance to sit there, waiting for her 911 call.
We fund police and fire with a subsidy. Imagine what it would be like if you called the police and got a bill. If someone broke into your car, you got a bill for their transport to jail, along with maybe some pepper spray and a handcuff fee.
It would seem insanse. But that’s how we fund ambulances in this state.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I screwed up in my comment. Ambulance services that receive a subsidy have LOWER rates than cities where the patients pay the entire cost. Scratch paragraph 5.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The ‘revised’ new ordinance is on the city site under council minutes…look at the minutes for the special meetings held these past 2 weeks and you can read 381 with the changes that will have their first reading next Monday night..
We still do not have the requirement of a county license…with that would come a free…yes free..included in the package…over site. SF REMSA is separate from that. My understanding is SFREMSA will not take on Brandon if we are not under the county license. The previous cost of having this service was $4000 a year.
The insurance was raised to the limits in 286 but last night Karber brought a paper from someone that he emailed saying the cost of $10,000 to Medstar for this insurance is too high…so you will see the new ‘proposed’ wording for the insurance in last nights minutes. He wants to take the umbrella away and up the other amounts. Says this is a difference of being charged $3500 to $10,000. Nice of our council to look out for a business huh?
Background checks have been added!
It was again stated that there will be no subsidy for anyone in Brandon.
The other thing that was slipped in….we are now talking about 3 types of service…Transport, 911 emergency calls and a combination of both. The new ordinance has in place that if someone only applies for transport and no one for the 911 side…that we revert back to county. After all we have been through with this….are they now trying to say Jay is only going to apply for the transport portion and not the 911? Curious minds want to know.
The original 286 ordinance also had in it that a business had to prove that they are a solid business, as in they pay their taxes and other bills. – Not added back into this one.
Funny comment by H Buck….why reference 286…wasn’t that the one we voted out?
Ummm…yes…it was Harry…but it was a good ordinance.
The council has stated all along that it needed to go because it was not tough enough on scene times. This new ordinance now requires that you respond back to dispatch withing 60 seconds that you hear the call and you must say you are enroute to the call within 3 minutes. Beyond that, there are no times for when you need to be on scene. Am I missing something but isn’t that what they screamed about before? Saying Rural Metro took too long to get to the scene, especially by their exaggerated numbers.
How do you feel about this not being 381 anymore and will have a new number? And yes, this can be brought up for a vote again.
Rally around and come to the next City Council meeting. See if the council is actually representing what you want and not their own agenda.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
The only way to have lower fees without a public subsidy is to have enough call volume for the service to support itself. Sioux Falls service can support itself without subsidy because they have 11,000 calls a year. Brandon has 125 or about 1/100 th of that volume. The dollars have to come from somewhere, either in increased fees or city subsity.
Why do you think Rural Metro hasn’t been able to provide us with a full time ambulance out here? Because bottom line is, it costs about 60.00 per hour, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. That’s about 525,000 per year! They would have to charge over 4000.00 each call if they did 125 calls a year (which is what we have)In order for a private ambulance service to stay viable they have to make money, that is just a fact of doing business. That is for ONE ambulance. What happens if we have 2 accident victims to transport? We in reality need 2, so that’s a million bucks a year. Sorry folks, the math says we’re not ready YET for our own service. Yes, we can have it, but we’ll have to come up with the cash, so what are we going to give up to have it? It’s like my budget, I either have to make more money or give up something else if I have to make a payment on a new car.
If you compare ambulance response times throughout our country, we are very lucky to be so close to Sioux Falls. We could be in a huge city where it takes close to an hour. Or you could be in very rural SD an hour from anywhere.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Wow. Okay, I’ll try to be brief this time:
I was opposed to 381 because many issues I believed should be covered were not. The council has done exactly what opponents (including me) said they should do - revise the ordinance to address these issues. It may not be perfect, but I personally believe its a lot better than it was.
“Concerned,” here are my thoughts on some of your issues:
(1) the insurance changes make good business sense. If a provider can get the same coverage for much less money, why should we demand an “umbrella” policy just for the sake of it? Its not appropriate for a council to run up the costs of doing business in our town when there’s no legitimate reason to do so.
(2) the ordinance always anticipated we might get applicants wanting to provide only transport, 911, or a combination of both. This was not “slipped in”.
(3) you say, on the one hand, that 286 was a “good ordinance” - but then question why this new ordinance doesn’t have “on scene” response times. 286 didn’t have them either. Neither does the county ordinance. Neither does state law. The council can address this in a contract with the chosen 911 provider. In the meantime, the 3 minute en route requirement is a lot better than we had with the county.
(4) renumbering 381 was not the council’s idea - its just a fact of life - when you change an ordinance, it gets a new number.
(5) right, wrong, or otherwise, a majority of the voters approved 381 as it was. Maybe some did so on the representation that it would be fixed - maybe some liked it just the way it was. The point is, your comment that people should come to the meeting to see if the council is pushing their own “agenda” concerns me, in light of all the positive changes and additions the council has now made to 381. The only “agenda” being pushed right now is to address the concerns of the opponents to 381 and make the ordinance better.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Sorry Kathy but when Mr. Karber quits pushing medstar and Rubin defines his relationship with Medstar and Jay then mayby the people will buy that the agenda is about care for the citizens of Brandon rather then the business model for Medstar. The reason response times is such a big deal now is Karber/rubin assault on the unacceptable response times of rural metro but I guess an on call service is much better then staffed 24/7 amublance ( Medstar is going to have on call staff only from midnight to 7).
May 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am
sorry to disagree: there are alot of hidden ties on the council. Does Mr Buck still work for the Rubins out at the track. He used to be incharge of the box seating.
Ties every where
May 8th, 2007 at 1:46 am
In a town like Brandon, is it realistic to expect that anyone who knows enough about the city history, the people, and have strong community ties be entirely free of any business dealing that might come before the city council? This isn’t a Huset’s issue, no matter how its pitched. Rubin has been around for a long time.
I think it could lend itself to conspiracy theories, but I have no suspicions what so ever that some fat envelopes were passed under the table in exchange for votes.
If I regularly shop at Tru Value, does that mean I can’t have any input or public stance on hardware stores? It might be handy to shop locally instead of driving to Sioux Falls, so if I’m dedicated to seeing a hardware store stay open, is that a conflict of interest?
May 8th, 2007 at 9:31 am
No Anonymous, it is not wrong to want a business to thrive in Brandon–but as city officials they need to stay impartial– not do everything possible to make sure that one hardware store or business succeeds over another. If as a council member you do have such ties (monetary interest or conflict of interest), you are to excuse yourself from the vote. I think there was a problem with the council using MedStar stationary to answer the critics of 381–perhaps city letterhead should have been used instead if it was the council’s view. I think choices such as the one cited has led people to think there is more to the story than meets the eye. I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing and will accuse no one. If anyone has proof they should forward it to the Attorney General of the state.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
A while back, this blog asked Jay Masur to say how much money, if any, he or his business gave to Rubin’s election campaign. And asked Mr. Rubin how much, if any, he or his business has invested in MedStar. Neither person answered, at least not on this blog. Or, to my knowledge, in any other public venue.
If council member Jones buys a widget from Acme widgets, that isn’t a conflict. But if council member Jones invests money, or buys stock, so to speak, in Acme widgets, then yes, that’s a conflict.
But like you said, grateful, there’s no knowledge of any wrongdoing and there are no accusations. There have been questions, however, and it would ease minds to have some reassurance from the parties in question.
Failing that, though, the public must give the benefit of the doubt.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Public officials are supposed to be held to a higher standard. They need to understand that if something appears to be inappropriate then the public will view it as such and that official should recuse themselves. If the timber industry donated millions of dollars to the winning presidential candidate’s campaign and then that president use executive orders to totally open up federal forests to that industry for unlimited harvesting, that would be, at the very least, unethical. It certainly wouldn’t sit well with the American people.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Thanks Alica and others I was trying to figure how to explain that the Medstars relationship with Mr Rubin was a little bit more then Jay sitting in stands and watching a few races throughout the season. Kudos Charles regarding the standard and perception of standards for elected officials.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I heard that the council is dropping the license fee from 600.00 per year to 25.00 per year. Councilman Karber said companies wouldn’t apply because 600.00 is too high. Seems Rural Metro has been paying that much out here for years. In fact Karber told Metro at the forum they were owed the difference. Oh wait…he once again didn’t know what he was talking about. If a company can’t afford 600.00, are we getting a viable company that can support themselves? It was also thought by a councilmember that there was money in the city budget to pay for oversight. I thought the people of Brandon were promised this change wasn’t going to cost any money? Also, any background check worth running costs 100.00 each. The city of Sioux Falls pays for these. Will we be paying for these as well? Will we be requiring random drug testing? I hope so, these medics will be driving an ambulance and having direct patient contact. You absolutely can not get a healthcare job anywhere without a drug test. Who will implement and pay for these? These may seem like petty details but we are not talking about a coffeeshop or hardware store here, we’re talking about a business that can save (or take) lives.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I got it!!! Husets hires all of Medstar people and does a background check and will volunteer to share with the city? lol
May 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Yea an ambulance service is what would be a good idea for Brandon. What this has turned into is an absolute joke. First of all why are we always going back and rewriting the ordinance? I would think that any city council member would do their homework prior to making such a huge proposal to the city. This is not a smart businees decision. Also, why is Medstar always brought up? Did we not vote to have this go to a bid, or are we just writing this so only Medistar can meet it. I am also concerned that some of the members on the city council have direct ties to Medstar. Ruben hires him for the track. I see this as a severe conflict of interest. Also, since most of the focus is on Medistar (Jay M.)and he is talked about so highly what happend to him when he tried to run an ambulance service before in Sioux Falls. Also is he still in Aberdeen and Huron? If not, WHY????
Again, I think Brandon should not only ask themselves what is really going on behind the scenes between Medistar and a few of the City Council members and what is the integrity of our City Council. Remember had it not been for a few residents to petition this to a vote the City Council was actually going to approve this ordinance without a vote and without your knowledge and input.
I am for an ambulance service in town and I think Brandon will benifit but how it is being accomplished is an absolute joke.