To the Editor:
(Hamilton, NY- May 7, 2015) The results of the vote on Ambulance Taxing District referendum held on April 28 were close, with 49 percent voting in favor of the district and 51 percent voting against its passage. Because the measure was defeated, funding to support ambulance service in the town will be paid for within the annual Town and Village budgets.
We will continue our efforts to make sure that Town residents have a robust 24-7 emergency paramedic coverage that is there when you and your neighbors need them. Working with the Ambulance Service Community Working Group, the Town Board will continue to collaborate with the Villages of Hamilton and Earlville, the Town of Lebanon, SOMAC, Community Memorial Hospital, local fire departments, and the Madison County Office of Emergency Management to find efficiencies, control costs, and encourage volunteer support for this vital service.
The Town Board appreciates the time and energy that town residents devoted to understanding the issue and expressing their concerns. We understand that the bottom line message from all voters was “keep taxes as low as possible while still providing emergency medical coverage for our community.” We agree with this sentiment, and pledge to continue our best efforts to achieve that goal.
Visit the Town website for more information – www.TownofHamiltonNY.org.
Town of Hamilton Council
Suzanne Collins, Council Member
Peter Darby, Deputy Supervisor
David Holcomb, Council Member
Christine Rossi, Council Member
Eve Ann Shwartz, Town of Hamilton Supervisor
I think that perhaps had you found a more equitable way of raising funds, rather than taxing people based on the value of the property(ies), you might have gotten a different response. People have a general sense that SOMAC has not been run in a fiscally responsible way, firstly, and are reluctant to reward perceived incompetence, and secondly, the value of one’s home has absolutely no bearing on the degree to which one person or another might need an ambulance. A fairer solution would have been to divide the amount of funds needed by the number of households, or even the number of people in the town, and come up with a per person or per household figure, and then adjust that downward because of Colgate’s comparatively high demand and higher likelihood of use. Such a system would have allowed landlords to incorporate their rental properties’ shares into the rent in a transparent manner, and would have made it much more equitable, rather than essentially forcing the wealthier residents in the Town to pay an unfairly higher cost.