Trending
SALEM -- Fractured opinions persist regarding proposed modifications of the city's ambulance ordinance.
An ordinance to enact the second set of proposed modifications to the city ambulance ordinance, which would see the Salem Fire Department removed from the city ambulance rotation, which was previously hotly debated in an April 25 rules and ordinance committee meeting, came before city council Tuesday. While councilman Jeff Stockman initially made a motion to suspend statutory rules and to allow the proposed modification all three readings and passage in a single night, Councilmen Dennis Plegge, Ron Zellers and Steve Faber all voted against the motion, killing it. As a result, the ordinance was only able to receive the first of three readings.
As a result of the vote a special council meeting has been scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday in city council chambers to further discuss and hold second and third readings of the ordinance.
All of this came in the wake of a tumultuous safety committee meeting immediately prior to the council meeting in which the fire department further argued against the proposed changes. Faber, the safety committee chairman, said that the meeting had been called to "hear some suggestions from the fire department and gather information."
Fire Department Captain Jeff Olinger expressed frustrations that the ordinance was being modified again shortly after council had approved the previous version, which the fire department felt was an improvement.
"We're here for the citizens and want to do the best that we can for them at all times, and we felt that the last ordinance was a step in the right direction for the department, the citizens and even for the city financially," said Olinger.
Faber and Zellers both questioned why the proposed changes were necessary.
Stockman explained that the intent of the previous iteration of the ordinance was not to add the fire department as a rotating ambulance company that would sometimes be the primary agency for response and transport on a medical call, but to establish it as a set third option for transport should both the private ambulance companies in the rotation at the time be unavailable. Stockman further argued that the fire department ambulance did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the rotation as the ordinance specifies the rotation be comprised of "no more than three separate and unrelated private ambulance providers" and that the proposed changes simply corrected the mistake and clarified the original intent of what had been previously approved.
Zellers, Plegge and Faber all argued that they had understood the previously approved changes to be adding the fire department as a rotating agency deliberately. Faber in particular noted that he was in favor of the fire department being in the rotation.
"When I'm sitting in my office and I hear sirens and look out the window, I see the fire department ambulance and sometimes an engine with them, and then minutes later, I don't have a stop watch to say it's three minutes, or seven minutes, but minutes later after our fire truck and ambulance have gone out of earshot, a private ambulance comes. I thought we were always part of the rotation," said Faber.
Mayor Cyndi Baronzzi Dickey echoed Stockman's explanation regarding the intent of the previously approved changes, noting that this difference in understanding of the ordinance had been what prompted the currently proposed revisions.
"The understanding that I had and that the ambulance company had when we left that night was that there would be a three-party rotation list with the private ambulances rotating and the ambulance company for the city, the fire department, being the third option, and I guess [Stockman] wrote it that way and I understood it that way, but we did not intend to have the ambulance company for the city rotate with the private, so they would be number three on the list. That was what we understood.
"So, we directed dispatch that way, and the next thing we knew a couple weeks later, EMT is calling and saying we're losing business because the fire department is rotating into the first and second slots, instead of just private ambulances. So, we regrouped, and had another meeting, and there was a difference of opinion on what everyone understood. So, [Stockman] has been working on re-doing this, meeting with people, holding other meetings, to get this ordinance to what you're going to see tonight," said Dickey.
Dickey also said that the fire department has always responded to every call as first responders and that with the proposed modification they would continue to do so; however, under the current iteration of the ordinance they are acting as a private ambulance company rather than a backup ambulance as intended. Dickey said that as a result the private companies were threatening to pull out of Salem unless the fire department was removed from the rotation.
"Our private ambulances are telling us they are not going to stay in the mix if they have to compete with our fire department as an actual ambulance service, because they lose money. That's their argument, and they've been really strong about that," said Dickey.
This potential issue has been made worse by the fact that KLG has been temporarily removed from the rotation due to inability to meet the response time standards of the ordinance as a result of staffing issues. As a result, the only agencies currently within the rotation are the fire department and EMT.
Stockman said he had had a lengthy discussion with the Fairlawn fire chief about a similar situation in Akron where private ambulance companies pulled out, necessitating the city to rely upon fire department ambulances and mutual aid from departments like Fairlawn.
"Now Akron is stuck in the lurch, because all they have are the fire department ambulances and Fairlawn is needing to help Akron, and it's become quite a mess. When the private companies pull out like that it becomes a disaster," said Stockman.
Zellers said that while he understood, that for the private companies to threaten to leave the area in such a manner was on the "borderline of blackmail."
Dickey said that regardless the city needs the private companies, noting that if there was ever an emergency call while the department was responding to a fire or an accident requiring multiple ambulances, the city would be unable to respond without the private ambulance companies. Dickey also said that removing the fire department from the rotation would not completely remove them from the emergency response, as they would continue to respond to all emergency calls as first responders and continue to have the authority to make judgment calls and transport if a patient cannot wait for a private ambulance to arrive. The fire department would also continue to have the authority to transport in the event of receiving an unsolicited request from a patient during an emergency response.
Olinger questioned how the fire department's presence in the rotation could be costing EMT money as they claimed, arguing that previously there were three companies in the rotation so having only the fire department and themselves in the rotation would increase the number of calls they were receiving.
"A couple years ago there were three companies in the rotation -- KLG, EMT and Life Fleet -- and now there's only one. So how are we stealing calls and going to put them out of business when there used to be three companies they rotated with, and we're just the second company now, and they should be receiving more calls than they were," said Olinger.
Olinger also said that it felt like if the department used its discretion regarding what was best for the citizens, there would be further complaints and that the ordinance would be changed again.
"If I get more aggressive and do what's best for the citizens all the time, somebody is going to call and complain and it's going to get changed again, and that's how I personally feel, because that's how it got changed before," said Olinger.
Dickey argued that if the fire department remained within the bounds of the ordinance the private companies would have no ground to make complaints.
"I have gotten calls complaining, but if you are within what the ordinance says, I tell them I'm sorry, when you registered you knew the rules," said Dickey.
Dickey also argued that if a company did not arrive within the specified time span or otherwise did not meet the standards of the ordinance, the fire department should transport, noting "they have to stay within the rules, too," and that any complaints would be directed to the ambulance review board because that is the designated mechanism to address those grievances.
"If there's been a long period of time and you know it's been more than nine minutes, then you go. If they're in danger waiting, you go. If they requested you unsolicited to transport them, you go. That's the law," said Dickey.
Dickey said that the ordinance had never been changed as the result of a complaint and that the only times it had ever been changed were an initial edit when the city first obtained the fire department ambulance to include it, the previous change to make clarifications to the ordinance as it was a "mess" that "didn't agree with itself," and the currently proposed change to have the ordinance reflect the original intent.
As the meeting was adjourned immediately preceding the start of the evening's city council meeting, Faber thanked the fire department representatives present for contacting him and informing the committee members further about the issue, encouraging them to contact him in the future when they felt the need to advise council on issues relating to the department.