LAST THOUGHTS
Let's now consider some questionable recent statements made by the proponents of Measure B.
1.
In the April 17, 2019 (mistakingly says 2018) Foresthill Messenger, Paula Bertoncin, a Citizen for Adequate Public Safety Supporting Measure B (her label), wrote, "Gross revenue of $240,000 per year of ambulance transport could be lost" if B fails. But that is not gross revenue.
The FFPD Financial Reports give the following numbers under ambulance income:
2016-2017 Service Fees $566,933.84
GEMT $73,000.40
2017-2018 Service Fees $477,592.18
GEMT $36,705.05
So gross revenue from the ambulances is over $500,000 a year. The FFPD then takes a "Write Down" of over $300,000 ($386,814.98 in 2016-2017, $324,239.11 in 2017-2018), so the $240,000 figure is actually net income, after the write down.
This Write Down I assume is for replenishing the General and Contingency Reserves, and maybe some other expenses, since the only amount close to it appearing in the Audit Report comes under Fund Balances - Committed and later under the aforementioned Reserves. That is perfectly fine, but it should not allow the gross revenue to be mis-stated.
2.
Another statement in that article says "With 'wall' wait times of 3.5 hours or more at a hospital and ambulances ten deep waiting to hand a patient off to a physician. . ." we need a local ambulance service.
I don't know where she gets the ten deep ambulances, but the wait times at Sutter Faith in Auburn when I checked were:
ER Wait Time: 27 minutes before being seen by a doctor.
Discharge Time: 2 hours 36 minutes before being sent home.
Time Before Admission: 5 hours 1 minute before being admitted to hospital.
Transfer Time: 2 hours 23 minutes admitted before being taken to room.
Broken Bones: 41 minutes before receiving pain meds.
If taken by ambulance, I'd think the relevant wait time is the ER one, which is much, much less than 3.5 hours.
UPDATE: You learn something new every day. So "wall time" is the time an ambulance crew stays with the patient at the hospital waiting to hand him over to the hospital staff. Throughout the nation, it is becoming an issue. Industry standards say it should be 30 minutes or less; there are cases of 6 hours. The cause seems to be mostly low staffing by the hospitals, and sometimes a lack of bed space, although some point to increased 911 calls also.
My thoughts on this is simply that if hospitals persistently have ambulances ten deep and on-the-gurney waits of 3.5 hours, forget arguing about response time or how many ambulances we need. The emergency medical system is too close to collapse at the other end.
3.
Another mis-statement in a second article by her in the same issue: "Many no voters asked for a few concessions and the Fire Board listened and re-crafted the measure." As my main article points out, no such thing was done. The 2 changes were the replacement of 2.6% with $7, a sleight-of-hand that makes no difference, and a sop of allowing "not developable property" to opt out, maybe, which will apply to extremely few and might be counter-productive per fire danger.
4.
Another reason for voting yes for the increase, the main one for her she says, is to keep Fire Insurance affordable. But in that same article, Ms. Bertoncin gives 2 examples of how it'll keep it affordable: the first example is of an increase from $536 to $1634 a year IF B passes and we keep the same insurance rating. And the second was for a quote of $15,000 a year with a $10,000 deductible, again IF B passes and we keep the rating.
And she considers that keeping the insurance affordable? She even goes so far as to say a 3 rating for Foresthill, at those rates, is "excellent".
Can going to an 8 rating, as she claims will happen, truly make such insurance less affordable? Even a $1634 premium for a town whose residents make an average income of $34,000 per household is hardly an affordable amount. And the Measure B tax actually raises the cost to that household another $240, for a total increased hit to their finances of $1338. That's acceptable?
Again, let's be real. The cause of Fire Insurance cancellation is not lack of fire services in Foresthill. It is due to the policies of the State and Federal governments that allowed the forests to become tinderboxes and result in the terrific firestorms in the last few years. Insurance companies are paying out more than they expected to, so they drop as many as they can, and raise rates as high as they can, to minimize future payouts. They are in business to make a profit, after all. Passing Measure B will have almost no effect on slowing rate growth or stopping cancellations.
Let's now consider some questionable recent statements made by the proponents of Measure B.
1.
In the April 17, 2019 (mistakingly says 2018) Foresthill Messenger, Paula Bertoncin, a Citizen for Adequate Public Safety Supporting Measure B (her label), wrote, "Gross revenue of $240,000 per year of ambulance transport could be lost" if B fails. But that is not gross revenue.
The FFPD Financial Reports give the following numbers under ambulance income:
2016-2017 Service Fees $566,933.84
GEMT $73,000.40
2017-2018 Service Fees $477,592.18
GEMT $36,705.05
So gross revenue from the ambulances is over $500,000 a year. The FFPD then takes a "Write Down" of over $300,000 ($386,814.98 in 2016-2017, $324,239.11 in 2017-2018), so the $240,000 figure is actually net income, after the write down.
This Write Down I assume is for replenishing the General and Contingency Reserves, and maybe some other expenses, since the only amount close to it appearing in the Audit Report comes under Fund Balances - Committed and later under the aforementioned Reserves. That is perfectly fine, but it should not allow the gross revenue to be mis-stated.
2.
Another statement in that article says "With 'wall' wait times of 3.5 hours or more at a hospital and ambulances ten deep waiting to hand a patient off to a physician. . ." we need a local ambulance service.
I don't know where she gets the ten deep ambulances, but the wait times at Sutter Faith in Auburn when I checked were:
ER Wait Time: 27 minutes before being seen by a doctor.
Discharge Time: 2 hours 36 minutes before being sent home.
Time Before Admission: 5 hours 1 minute before being admitted to hospital.
Transfer Time: 2 hours 23 minutes admitted before being taken to room.
Broken Bones: 41 minutes before receiving pain meds.
If taken by ambulance, I'd think the relevant wait time is the ER one, which is much, much less than 3.5 hours.
UPDATE: You learn something new every day. So "wall time" is the time an ambulance crew stays with the patient at the hospital waiting to hand him over to the hospital staff. Throughout the nation, it is becoming an issue. Industry standards say it should be 30 minutes or less; there are cases of 6 hours. The cause seems to be mostly low staffing by the hospitals, and sometimes a lack of bed space, although some point to increased 911 calls also.
My thoughts on this is simply that if hospitals persistently have ambulances ten deep and on-the-gurney waits of 3.5 hours, forget arguing about response time or how many ambulances we need. The emergency medical system is too close to collapse at the other end.
3.
Another mis-statement in a second article by her in the same issue: "Many no voters asked for a few concessions and the Fire Board listened and re-crafted the measure." As my main article points out, no such thing was done. The 2 changes were the replacement of 2.6% with $7, a sleight-of-hand that makes no difference, and a sop of allowing "not developable property" to opt out, maybe, which will apply to extremely few and might be counter-productive per fire danger.
4.
Another reason for voting yes for the increase, the main one for her she says, is to keep Fire Insurance affordable. But in that same article, Ms. Bertoncin gives 2 examples of how it'll keep it affordable: the first example is of an increase from $536 to $1634 a year IF B passes and we keep the same insurance rating. And the second was for a quote of $15,000 a year with a $10,000 deductible, again IF B passes and we keep the rating.
And she considers that keeping the insurance affordable? She even goes so far as to say a 3 rating for Foresthill, at those rates, is "excellent".
Can going to an 8 rating, as she claims will happen, truly make such insurance less affordable? Even a $1634 premium for a town whose residents make an average income of $34,000 per household is hardly an affordable amount. And the Measure B tax actually raises the cost to that household another $240, for a total increased hit to their finances of $1338. That's acceptable?
Again, let's be real. The cause of Fire Insurance cancellation is not lack of fire services in Foresthill. It is due to the policies of the State and Federal governments that allowed the forests to become tinderboxes and result in the terrific firestorms in the last few years. Insurance companies are paying out more than they expected to, so they drop as many as they can, and raise rates as high as they can, to minimize future payouts. They are in business to make a profit, after all. Passing Measure B will have almost no effect on slowing rate growth or stopping cancellations.