Left In Lowell

Chelmsford and Public Ambulances

10 Responses to “Chelmsford and Public Ambulances”

1. Fran McDougall Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 6:25 am

   Mimi, I’ll bite. How can I state how terrible a plan this is for the Town. Presently we have a contract with Trinity Ambulance which costs us a nominal $1. Using the ploy that this is the Town’s financial pot of gold, not,the ever changing scenario is, Plan 1; buy 2 new ambulances, hire 5 new fire men, since this wouldn’t fly they yweaked it into just one ambulance, still 5 new jobs.
   Sounds fine but the big problem is public safety. At the present time, fire does arrive first at scene followed by Trinity. The problem arises when it’s time for transport. If patients have to be taken to hospitals out of town, which often requires a good block of time, we are without coverage and must depend on “mutual aid.” In any day Trinity could have as many or more as 4 calls within a short period and they handle them very well.After billing and other expenses, can’t wait for the overtime and work related disabilities, their rosy projected figure in the latest plan is a bountiful $218,000. I believe the big problem here is that we have a very young and naive new town manager, lives out of town, who has chosen to listen to an exfireman/union rep/selectman and not those who really are concerned about public safety. This is merely a jobs program for the fire department. Does any one think WPA?
   There is a selectmen’s meeting tonight at Town Hall, 7:00 PM at which Trinity’s John Chemaly will speak. (Love this guy and what he has given our community!) On Thursday night at 7:30 there will be a public forum at the Senior Center on Groton Rd.
   Others have been coming forward with the rebuttal numbers showing how this is a poorly thought out farce. I let them make the financial points.
   I am her to say as a TM Rep. that I am vehemently opposed to the plan and am so disappointed in the path this new manager has chosen to go and the voices he has allowed to cloud his judgement.
   BAD IDEA!

2. Shawn Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 9:01 am

   Fran is right on about this issue.

   Regionalization through outsourcing to Trinity has been good for Chelmsford and the surrounding towns.

   If you cherry pick the most profitable cases to the town to help fund your safety department, you drive the vendors out of business and then you have to create a whole fleet of ambulances.

   I can see no good reason for this other than to support a local union.

   If the people of the town want all the stations open, they would choose to fund them. They have obviously decided to cut back.. and thus the rotating closed station (which I find to be an interesting solution).

   This is one case where county government should exist.. fire and emt systems should cover area regardless of town boundary. In lieu of that, outsourcing to companies that have the available fleet and can share the costs and risks across the region is the solution (without creating another government burocracy).

   Trinity does a good job of this (not to mention the unbelievable support they provide to the communities beyond their official service.

3. MikeC01824 Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 10:32 am

   Town leadership on this issue has been focused on profits instead of public safety. When the profit margin wasn’t high enough with two ambulances, it became one ambulance.

   Instead, we should be concerned about public safety first, and maintaining other essential services that benefit everyone, like our schools, our police, and even having a reserve to fight off the occasional greedy 40B developer.

   Chelmsford as a town has chosen not to fully fund any of these and we’ve suffered real cuts in all of them. Yet in our last election nobody spoke out about a prop 2 1/2 override.

   A broader and less risky source of revenue would help everyone, not just the fire department. This is not a time to divide our town.

   This plan is risky in terms of lives and town finances. It’s particularly risky *because* of town finances. The discussion is on making a profit and not on investing and maintaining this with safety first. We already cut back fire and police services. In the budgets ahead, who’s to say the ambulance service wouldn’t take a cut also?

   This plan is also divisive. The revenue seems earmarked for the fire department and not any of the other aspects of our inherited infrastructure that we’re charged with maintaining.

   If this plan is implemented, it will be that much harder to pass an override that is good for the town as a whole.

   Chelmsford residents should ask our leadership to direct their energy toward crafting a prop 2 1/2 override proposal that benefits everyone.

   (And I say all this even after having a Trinity driver flip off me and my family.)

4. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pm

   I don’t live in Chelmsford so like Mimi I haven’t been following the debate all that closely, but it seems to me that the town should not be considering operating the ambulance service.

   As has been pointed out when the one amublance is on a call it leaves the town uncovered and Trinity, or Patriot or the new startup service in Lowell (the name escapes me) or one of the other regional ambulance services would have to be called in.

   Beyond the expense of the purchase of the ambulance and 5 new hires, you have to consider the upkeep of the ambulance and what will be used when it is down for repairs, you have to look at the total wages for the 5 new firefighters including training, benefits, overtime, etc.

   I would say that if the town is looking for ways to generate income than put the ambulance contract out to bid again and treat it like a tow contract. The town gets X amount for each emergency call etc etc.

   It would generate some money, not a lot, and the expense that goes along with an ambulance service would not be the town’s responsiblity.

   Where the new town manager lives is not an issue and only clouds the debate.

5. Fran McDougall Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

   Where the TM lives is relevant in this case in that this plan that has been thrown out there needs to be approved by the Selectmen on Sept. 24 in order for it to be on the warrant for the Oct. 15 Town Meeting. It would be implemented on Jan 1 2008. This seems to me to be a rush to alter the system before having a true history of all the past studies we have done on the matter. I am not against outside hires. After all I spent many years working for the City Of Lowell. There is a history to this issue that is being ignored and any one who has lived through this knows we’ve “been there, done that.”

6. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

   As I said, I have not been following this debate but I still don’t see the relevance of the TM’s home address in this.

   Wouldn’t the proposal still need to be approved by selectmen on the 24th to be on the Oct warrant even if the TM lived in Chelmsford?

   If you’re saying selectmen are set to push this through without proper study then it seems to me your beef is with selectmen, not the TM.

7. concerned Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 11:00 am

   Fran,
   Judging from last night’s debate it appears as though this is more about the popular guy losing the town contract than anything else. Yes, John Chemaly is a charitable guy, but we could all afford to be charitable it we were charging the outrageous prices that he is!

8. Sarah Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

   I am all for the town taking over the ambulance. I have utilized Trinity ambulance and was disgusted by the poor care I received. Then there was the ridiculous bill they sent. I called other companies to see what the rate charge would be and Trinity is over the top.
   And Fran, you are my town meeting rep, I did vote for you, and I regret it. You should be ashamed of the comments you are making at the meetings! It is offensive and unprofessional. Do you realize how ridiculous you sounds??????

9. chelmgirl2 Says:
   September 11th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

   I have taken the opportunity to review some of the comments posted on this website thus far. As a Chelm resident and taxpayer I feel its my obligation to set the record straight. I’m in agreement with “Concerned” as Fran appears more upset that the town’s “good ole boy” is going to possibly loose he beloved ambulance contract which by the way has earned him anywhere from $400-$600K a year. Yes, those figures were contrived right from Chemalys mouth. Do the math…over 13 years that has earned him a conservative 5.2 million dollars….no wonder why he occasionally offers a free ambulance for games and town celebrations. BTW…have you ever utilized their services? Again “Sarah” hit it on the head….the 5 min ambulance ride from our home in Chelm to LGh cost $1800.00!!!! The ambulance ended costing us more the the ER visit. Nothing is for free…WE the town taxpayers and insurance companies are bearing the actual cost of this “free” (actually its costs the town a $1) The towns proposed ambulance rates are significantly less than the good ole boys at Trinity. No wonder why insurance rates continue to escalate 15%-30% every year. Have you compared Trinity’s rates to the rates of other companies around??? They are on average 40-60% higher……. The rubber stamp of Bernie Lynch (surprise surprise he and Chemly were best of friends….nothing like open government huh??) is now gone and Paul Cohen has enough courage to stand up for what he knows and feels is in the best interest of the town….did anyone actually watch the town meeting last night??? Didn’t Frans buddy Chemaly hear him admit to putting liens on taxpayers homes for not being able to pay the bill…wow, what a great guy!!! Furthermore, the plan that Cohen has now presented is the same model that is currently utilized…plus we would now have ALL our fire stations open…I wonder who will have to die before real PUBLIC SAFETY takes precedent…..oh wait but Fran thinks Chemly is a great guy! If this plan doesn’t pass then these stations will remain closed….and we the people of Chelm will remain at risk. I also thought it was intereseting to read the article in todays Lowell Sun…hhhhmmmm, seem a little one sided. Again, the Sun did a great job protecting one of their good ole boys…..hasn’t anyone ever considered WHY Chemly tried to portray this as such bad idea???…he’s the one that stands to loose millions!! Secondly, Chemaly again got caught ” stretching” the truth again…his powerpoint presentation was filled with inaccuracies and mistruths…can’t wait to see Cohen rip him apart!!! Enough for now…I will be back….

10. frustrated Says:
    September 14th, 2007 at 1:23 am

    O.k….sorry about the “hi-jacking” thing….. Jeesh! Fran did it too…Can you yell at her too? I know, I know , I provoked her.

Leave a Reply