BETTER THAN HEARSAY - Emergency Medical Services Entanglement

ASHLAND - A glimmer of hope quickly dimmed in the impasse surrounding an ambulance contract between the towns of Ashland and Prattsville. 

The ongoing morass, now in its second month, is called “unfortunate” by both Ashland town supervisor Richie Tompkins and Prattsville town supervisor Greg Cross.

It is continuing, however, following a conversation that started out fruitfully between the two leaders at a recent meeting of the Mountaintop Supervisors and Mayors Association (MSMA).

Prattsville has not signed a contract renewal for yearly ambulance service provided by Ashland, revealing a huge gap in how Tompkins and Cross think the way business ought to be and is being conducted.

Ashland also has a contract with the town of Lexington that has been signed and is simple in content, barely two pages long.

The pact shows Ashland’s yearly budget bottom line and the percentage of that total Lexington must pay, based on the number of calls Ashland responded to over the previous twelve months.

There isn’t much more to it. The same is being asked of Prattsville but the same cannot be said for a contract proposal Prattsville has given to Ashland containing language that is not simple.

Tompkins received the 5-page proposal following the MSMA meeting in late January where Cross and Tompkins engaged in productive talks about the contract, according to others in the room.

The subject was raised by their colleagues who gather monthly to shoot the breeze about issues potentially impacting every town and village.

Ashland’s contract with Prattsville is between them and no one else, but the   ramifications of Prattsville not signing, and their multiple demands on Ashland, have an unsettling ripple effect throughout Greene County.

Legally speaking, Ashland is no longer obliged to answer calls in Prattsville.   Morally speaking, Tompkins says he has no choice in the matter, going to Prattsville whether Prattsville is paying or not.

Cross has said he is seeking another vendor but nobody in the emergency services field, including the regulatory State Department of Health, has a clue about who that vendor is and none has surfaced.

Tompkins has said he can’t, in good conscience, leave the residents of Prattsville high and dry. If he doesn’t go, the burden would fall on the neighboring towns of Windham and Hunter.

One ambulance official said they would go to Prattsville for the same moral reason while emphasizing, “we can’t cover their a** forever.”

So a true dilemma has been created that some MSMA leaders thought might be resolved, hearing Tompkins and Cross talk at their meeting.

A few days afterwards the town of Ashland got Prattsville’s proposal which Tompkins says came as a surprise, stating as follows:

“The total projected costs for the ambulance services provided between Ashland, Prattsville and Lexington for 2025 is $650,106.66.

“In consideration of Ashland providing [ambulance services], Prattsville agrees to pay Ashland 47.7% of the total cost equaling $310,100.88 less $45,000 in the form of a refund from overages collected in 2023.”

(Ashland has previously not agreed to refund the $45,000, stating any money is instead carried over to cover future operating expenses). 

The Prattsville proposal further states, “Ashland shall furnish Prattsville a copy of the 2023 and 2024 call logs for Ashland, Prattsville and Lexington upon request.

“The parties acknowledge that there is a sum of approximately $189,425 budget surplus under the 2024 contract that shall be kept in the Ambulance District budget and maintained by Ashland in an interest-bearing account. 

“Ashland shall furnish Prattsville with quarterly financial disclosures regarding these funds.

“Should the use of these funds become necessary for legitimate and unforeseen expenses related to the services provided herein, Ashland shall provide Prattsville with all information and documentation regarding said expense prior to utilizing the fund where practicable.

“Ashland shall upon request furnish Prattsville with an annual report summarizing the number of ambulance calls, a breakdown of ambulance calls by type and by the municipality, and the average ambulance call response time for the current and prior calendar year.

“Ashland shall keep its financial and operating records in a manner in which it will be able to provide the revenues, expenses, and other operational data by the municipality for which services are provided.

“Furthermore, Ashland’s books and records shall be available for audit by Prattsville upon request,” the Prattsville proposal states.

“Ashland hereby agrees to submit a copy of its annual financial statements to Prattsville prepared by an independent certified public accountant within thirty days of receipt.

“Ashland hereby agrees to prepare a three (3) year capital plan relating to emergency medical services equipment and vehicle acquisitions and submit a copy of this capital plan to Prattsville,” the proposal states.

And toward the end of the proposal, it states, “Ashland agrees to the provisions of Section 103-b of the General Municipal Law.”

The proposal notes that section of General Municipal Law, “requires that upon a refusal of a person when called before a Grand Jury or other authorized persons to testify concerning any transaction or contract with Prattsville or who refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution or to answer any relevant questions concerning such transaction or contract shall be disqualified thereafter from contracting with any municipal corporation, public department, agency or official thereof for a period of five (5) years after such refusal or until disqualification shall be removed.”

Tompkins has said Ashland is routinely and regularly audited, offering those records to Cross. Tompkins says the latest Prattsville proposal will be shared with the town attorney, otherwise not commenting.