According to the city budget figures I have seen the ambulance took in $611,836 from the period of 2005 thru 2008. The expense of the city ambulance budget was $700,103. That is an operating loss of $88,267. If the city council is looking for ways to cut the budget then this looks like good place to start.
The ambulance is a vital and necessary part of the wellbeing of this community. One could question though if it could be run better as part of the Hospital?
The hospital runs a profitable budget and operates in the black. If the hospital is running in the black then why are the citizens paying for an ambulance to run in the red? The ambulance serves the hospital and so why shouldn't it be a part of the hospital. You could save many costs by putting the ambulance under the umbrella of the hospital. City Administrator David Lang has pointed out that it was foolish to have two administrators for the same thing when he was talking about the police department. I am sure he would agree that his argument could also apply here.
The hospital could run the ambulance at a profit and thereby save the city money to ease the budget shortcuts.
The ambulance lost:
2005 $32,826
2006 $18,722
2007 $ 5,948
2008 $30,771
Is the hospital building a garage to hold the ambulance in? Wouldn't it better serve the community for the hospital to oversee the ambulance?
This would save on administration costs and office expenses as you would not have two offices to maintian with computers, electric, heat, water, and staff.
This would also help with employee issues. As it is now when nurses
run with the ambulance along with the EMT's they answer to two different supervisors and if there are issues you have two different agencies to deal with. This could add to confusion and causes one to wonder "Who is in charge?" It would be more efficient to have one supervisor and one director for the ambulance and the hospital.
Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:26 am
Calendar