Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES <br />APRIL 8, 1992 <br />PAGE 2 <br />APPROVAL OF AMBULANCE BILLING POLICY FOR FIREFIGHTERS <br />Baldwin briefly reviewed the discusssion held at the March 25th <br />council meeting and presented the four proposals prepared by <br />staff as directed at that meeting. He commented on his recent <br />letter to the department explaining the rationnale for changing <br />the present policy which allows free ambulance service to <br />firefighters and stressed that no other city volunteers or <br />employees are allowed preferential consideration in their area of <br />expertise. Baldwin stated he was in favor of proposal #3 which <br />would result in an estimated cost of approximately $112.00 for <br />ambulance service for firefighters within a two mile radius of <br />Falcon Heights. This charge includes a reduced base rate, <br />mileage and variable costs. <br />Gehrz felt that present firefighters might be grandfathered in if <br />it was understood at the time of hiring that there would be no <br />charge for ambulance service. New personnel would fall under the <br />new policy. Hoyt was of the opinion that it would be very <br />difficult to handle administratively. <br />Gibson Talbot said she had the same concern as the Mayor as to <br />• the effectiveness of this as a public policy and was in favor of <br />Option 3. She was of the opinion that present firefighters who <br />are under the present policy would be grandfathered in. <br />Baldwin indicated he had been surprised to learn that the policy <br />was still in force as the intent had been to desert the policy <br />several years ago. <br />Ciernia felt at the rate of 2 free runs per year it was <br />inconsequential. <br />Jacobs moved approval of Proposal #3 as presented. Gibson Talbot <br />stated she would like to offer an amendment to which Jacobs <br />replied he would not accept an amendment. Gibson Talbot then <br />moved an amendment that those firefighters who were hired with <br />the understanding that they had the free ambulance service <br />benefit be grandfathered in. Gehrz asked if the department knew <br />of the change three years ago. Baldwin replied that terminating <br />free service was discussed at that time when free service for <br />councilmembers was dropped, and the intent was to desert the <br />entire old policy. Since no new policy was written as intended, <br />it applied to council only, and the entire policy was not <br />deserted. Upon a vote being taken on the amendment the following <br />voted in favor thereof: Gehrz and Gibson Talbot, and the <br />following voted against the same: Baldwin, Ciernia and Jacobs. <br />. Motion failed. <br />Upon a vote being taken on Jacob's motion the following voted in <br />