By Michael Ryan
PRATTSVILLE - Facts are facts and a piece of information written here, last week, was not factual regarding the stalled ambulance contract negotiations between the towns of Prattsville and Ashland.
Prattsville town supervisor Greg Cross advised me of the unfact in a phone talk, February 6, after the column appeared in our online edition.
My apologies to Prattsville for getting it wrong.
I’ll do my best to clarify. Ashland provides ambulance service to Prattsville and Lexington, dividing the cost based on the number of calls emanating from each of the three towns.
Prattsville has not signed a contract renewal, due at the end of 2024, repeating resistance the town similarly exhibited a year ago.
Cross, last year, openly questioned the budget transparency of Ashland town supervisor Richard Tompkins, albeit offering no substantiation.
The contract was ultimately signed. A similar situation is unfolding this year with two added elements. Cross is being asked to pay more and he has asked the State Attorney General to look at Ashland’s bookkeeping.
It has become a complex situation, potentially impacting the ambulance system countywide, detailed here over the past few weeks.
Prattsville has stated it will seek a new vendor. None has been identified. Ashland continues to provide service even as Tompkins says he is not legally obliged to do so, feeling morally bound, not wanting to leave residents of Prattsville out in the cold.
Cross, in an email stated, “it is 100 percent false [Tompkins] comes to Prattsville out of the goodness of his heart.”
Prattsville faces a nearly 8 percent increase if it agrees to the original contract terms, totaling close to half of the Ashland budget.
My mixup had to do with a financial aspect of the contract and $45,000 that would be reduced from Prattsville’s portion of the new budget.
I wrote that Ashland had, “previously not agreed to refund the $45,000, stating any money is instead carried over to cover future operating expenses.”
Cross pointed out that was not factual, that Ashland had obviously agreed to it which is why it was part of the proposed contract.
“People should be able to read the paper and believe they are reading facts,” Cross stated in a subsequent text to me.
“That article falls short of that on a very critical issue. This issue is no joke to me or the [Prattsville town council], Cross wrote.
“And to be painted like that is unacceptable to me,” Cross wrote, believing it shined an undeserved bad light on the town as impossibly demanding.
“It should have never been in the article,” Cross wrote. “It is not a fact,” begging the question…why was it there?
Oddly enough, it was there to present Prattsville’s side of the story, touching upon one key issue in their resistance to the contract.
Cross has spoken about wanting unused ambulance dollars returned to Prattsville at year’s end rather than kept en masse by Ashland.
Tompkins says remaining money is put in reserve for general operations such as purchasing a new ambulance in the future, etc.
The fact is Ashland agreed to the 45 G’s. At a town board meeting, this past Monday night, Cross broached the subject, suggesting that what I wrote about the $45,000 was a “lie,” which is hogwash.
Cross expressed other concerns in a followup email, noting he was not alone in thinking the story was slanted, apparently against Prattsville.
He also said I erred when saying Prattsville had presented a 5-page contract proposal to Ashland, that it was only four pages.
Cross suggested that was another lie. Copies I have received are five pages long, including the signatures page.
Tompkins and Cross each say they want a settlement, exchanging multiple proposals, fine-tuning language including a reference to the $45,000.
Prattsville, in a recent proposal, wrote, “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 emergency medical and 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.
“As such, Prattsville’s total consideration is $265,100.88 for the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2025, and ending on December 31, 2025,” the Prattsville proposal stated.
Ashland responded, “In consideration of Ashland providing emergency medical and ambulance services, Prattsville agrees to pay Ashland $265,100.88 for the calendar year January 1, 2025, and ending on December 31, 2025.”
It is beyond my pay grade to understand why the parties are wanting to use different language to arrive at the $265,100.88 bottom line. Cross and Tompkins each say they want a settlement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment