Ambulance subsidy rankles SLT officials
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe is tired of subsidizing ambulance service on the South Shore and is about to demand El Dorado County pay what it actually costs to run the program.
The bulk of the Feb. 3 City Council meeting centered on the 14-year-old Cal-Tahoe JPA which oversees the ambulance service that is provided by South Lake Tahoe and Lake Valley fire departments.
While the local agencies, with oversight by a board of directors, run the day-to-day operations, it is the responsibility of the county to provide residents with ambulance service. If the JPA were to disband, ambulance service would be solely the county’s responsibility.
When the county went out for a bid in 2011 only the JPA made an offer. That contract expires in 2016, though the county has granted the JPA board’s request to open the contract.
Ambulance service per law must be provided by El Dorado County. Photo/LTN
The fire departments operate three full-time and two reserve ambulances. But the county is only paying for two vehicles.
The county has also drained the coffers by reimbursing the JPA for trips to other hospitals at a flat fee. Inter-facility transfers used to garner 93 percent of the cost for the JPA, plus mileage. At that time it was a big revenue stream.
Another financial obstacle is that when the benefit assessment district was formed the engineer’s report left out condos and timeshares from having to pay the fee. Wording in the assessment says, “Each property shall be assessed in relation to the entire cost of the provided service.” That isn’t happening and the JPA board wants all parcels to pay their share.
The county also is not reimbursing the city for what it actually costs to run the dispatch center.
Fire Chief Jeff Meston told the council the JPA has been subsidizing the ambulance service for 13 years for a total of $13 million. Of that amount, $8.58 million came from the city’s pocketbook and nearly $4.5 million from Lake Valley.
The council agreed to meet with Supervisor Sue Novasel, who represents Tahoe on the Board of Supervisors, to request an item be put on the supervisors’ agenda regarding equitable compensation for the ambulance JPA. The vote was 4-0, with Councilwoman JoAnn Conner abstaining. She is on the JPA board and believes the council is usurping her authority.
Her council colleagues said as group they are a stronger voice than the JPA board, but are not trying to step on the JPA board’s toes.
The JPA board is made up of two council members and two Lake Valley Fire board members.
Part of the problem in getting the county be fair is that the JPA board for years was totally dysfunctional. Ever since North Tahoe Fire Protection District left the JPA in 2006, many votes have been 2-2, so progress was stalled. Slowly they have begun to play nice.
But still, South Tahoe wants a fifth board member, but Lake Valley says no. There has been talk of officials from Barton Health or CalStar being a fifth member or even increasing the board to seven to possibly function better.
It wasn’t until Meston came on board that the true operating costs and subsidizes made by the city and Lake Valley have come to light.
Lake Valley Fire Chief Gareth Harris was in the room for the entire discussion, but never left his seat in the front row.
Perfect example of public sector ineptitude. A pissing match over a fifth person, ensuring gridlock really. The existing JPA board members should all resign and the agencies need to fix this or be held personally accountable. Joann the council is stepping in because you have not been effective.
Glad to hear that Fire Chief Meston has investigated this and reported on the true operating costs and subsidies. I have heard positive remarks about Meston, one of which is that since he was an “outsider” from the SLT Fire Department that he is not obligated to anyone in that department.
I would prefer that JoAnn Conner place the financial well-being and the concerns of the City before her ego. A 4-0 vote obviously shows that the other Council Members want to take action.
We pay for ambulance service in the LVFPD.
WHERE DOES THIS FEE GO? Sounds like it is totally the County responsibility. The
JPA should be disolved but it’s scary to turn over anything to the County in the state of disfunction that is going on down there. I’d love to know how much Vail Corp is paying for all the calls that are made from there. Fee for service, what a concept. The ambulance is at one property in our ‘hood all the time. Maybe insurance could start to fund ambulance calls.ha-ha
How do you know what I “believe” Kae, you didn’t ask me. My abstention was because I do not believe this is the right course of action at this point. When you are in the middle of negotiations, it serves no good purpose to alienate the people with whom you are working.
Slapshot and 4-mer: with all due respect, I do not believe either of you have ever attended a Cal-Tahoe JPA Board meeting nor have any of you read all the minutes. The City fire fighters, Chiefs Meston and Harris, and the Lake Valley Board and Fire Fighters have been working very hard the past two years, and have met several times with the representatives from the County to come to a more equitable solution to this issue. We have actually made tremendous progress in a number of areas, including financial.
It is way past time that these funding disparities are corrected. Like shouldering the entire financial burden of the airport, for decades naïve city leaders have been deficient in assuring equitable funding for infrastructure on behalf of the city’s taxpayers. Other examples include the fire dispatch participation costs and funding of implementation of the area’s reverse-911 telephone system, resulting in a special telephone tax, and other surcharges, fees, and taxes for city residents. Lead or get out of the way. My compliments to the city Fire Chief for trying to coax the elephant out of the room.
Seems like Conner is playing in the sandbox alone. Isn’t it her job to inform council of what is going on with the JPA? Mayor Cole and the rest seemed mostly surprised by everything the Chief presented yesterday. Can’t believe Conner, after two years on this JPA has not apprised council of the sad state of affairs.
Separately, she was not elected to abstain. That’s the cowards way out. I’m also guessing that the rest of council has had it with her eye rolling, muttering under her breath, shaking her heard, etc. Very unprofessional and shows an inability to control herself.
How do you know what I “believe” Kae, you didn’t ask me. My abstention was because I do not believe this is the right course of action at this point. When you are in the middle of negotiations, it serves no good purpose to alienate the people with whom you are working.
Slapshot and 4-mer: with all due respect, I do not believe either of you have ever attended a Cal-Tahoe JPA Board meeting nor have any of you read all the minutes. The City fire fighters, Chiefs Meston and Harris, the City JPA reps (Wendy David is the new second rep, who was unfortunately appointed after the JPA meeting in January, and therefore could not really comment on what we have been doing) and the Lake Valley Board and Fire Fighters have been working very hard the past two years, and have met several times with the representatives from the County to come to a more equitable solution to this issue. We have actually made tremendous progress in a number of areas, including financial.
Conner, you have met “several times” and have worked “very hard” over the past two years with the county. Really? Lake Valley and the city are out 13 million in funding to support the JPA and you have only met “several times”. I can’t believe you are allowed to represent us.
JoAnn: 13 years and 13 MILLION DOLLARS time to get off the pot(toilet). Have not seen the meeting yet but I will.
Quoted from JoAnn Conner’s post(s) above:
“…it serves no good purpose to alienate the people with whom you are working.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Supposedly all the 911 calls in the state can be handled at one center. Supposedly this reduces costs. Curious if this is true.
Why is the split unequitable? Is it calls per jurisdiction, population, time? I wouldn’t expect the split to be 50/50.
If one is against a measure, wouldn’t the appropriate vote then be “NO”? If LTN doesn’t know what you “believe”, Ms. Conner, wouldn’t it be natural to state what you “believe”? This is the perfect place to do so.
Some excerpts on the definition and use of “abstention” from Wikipedia. I find the sentence about “political expediency” most interesting:
“An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual’s ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not be politically expedient to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.”
As stated above:”My abstention was because I do not believe this is the right course of action at this point. When you are in the middle of negotiations, it serves no good purpose to alienate the people with whom you are working.” Again, None of the other Council members and possibly no one on this site has attended any of the JPA meetings and have not seen the progress we made. If you watch the video, you see that all of those concerns presented are being addressed, and many have already been resolved.The City actually has no legal standing to approach the County on this issue, except through the JPA. The contract is with the JPA, not the City. That is why letters of support were requested from all the interested parties.