Fayette, PTC clash over EMS

Tue, 06/13/2006 - 4:24pm
By: John Thompson

For more than two hours last Wednesday, the Fayette County Commission and the Peachtree City Council butted heads over the city’s allegation that city residents are being double-taxed for EMS services.
But when the dust had settled, no progress had been made and both sides left shaking their heads over a discussion that wound up going nowhere.
Peachtree City officials asked for the meeting because they say they’re being taxed twice for EMS services. Peachtree City has operated its own fire and emergency services division since 1987, but is complaining because city residents are still paying EMS taxes to the county.
“I want to resolve this double-taxation issue tonight,” said Peachtree City Mayor Harold Logsdon.
City officials said the city is paying more than $220,000 a year in EMS taxes and the county needs to stop charging residents the tax.
Fayette County Director of Fire and Emergency Services Director Jack Krakeel offered a history lesson in EMS services in the county, so officials could place the current dispute in context.
In 1973, the state created the Emergency Medical Service Systems Act, which established guidelines for EMS systems. After the act, the county used grant funds to acquire two ambulances and obtain the license for Fayette County EMS. The ambulances were placed in Fayetteville and Peachtree City and staffed by volunteers.
In 1978, the county acquired two more ambulances and placed them in Tyrone and south Fayette County to provide better coverage. Shortly afterwards, Peachtree City obtained its own EMS zone and license.
Between 1983 and 1987, the county established the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and consolidated all the county volunteer programs into one department. The department continued to provide EMS support to Peachtree City.
But in 1987, the city told Fayette County that it was taking over full responsibility for all EMS functions.
In 2000, House Bill 489 was established urging local governments to work at eliminating duplication of services and Peachtree City officials started raising the tax equity issue.
Krakeel told the officials that there were three options available: retain status quo, reimburse the city on an annual basis or create a separate EMS tax district that would exclude Peachtree City.
The director calculated the financial impact of reimbursing the city and discovered that its $220,149 a year or approximately $3.61 for a Peachtree City resident with a $200,000 home.
Another option offered by Fayette County would be consolidation.
“A total consolidation would be the most bang for the buck,” said Commission Chairman Greg Dunn.
But the very mention of the word sent shivers through the Peachtree City officials.
“I don’t think I’m buying all that. We’re content with what we have. We just want to end the double taxation,” said Logsdon.
Commissioner Peter Pfeifer said all the talks were mere speculation, since not all the facts were available.
“I think our citizens expect us to work together. There’s a reason for consolidation happening around the state,” said Pfeifer.
He suggested the group commission a study, but was met with stony reluctance from Peachtree City’s officials.
“Right now, you are costing the citizens of Peachtree City money,” said City Councilman Stuart Kourajian.
With neither side willing to budge, both sides left the meeting wondering how the issue would eventually be resolved.
[Commissioner Pfeifer tells his viewpoint in a letter to the editor on Page A7.]

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Wed, 06/14/2006 - 7:47am.

Fayette County Commissioners, especially those up for re-election now would do well to heed the warning signs about this issue. Peachtree City residents are taking broader notice of this issue and there is a growing resentment at the failure of our county commissioners to respect our position as a city. A certain county commissioner ran his recent re-election campaign calling himself someone who has a "reputation with [city officials] of someone they can talk to," and that he will give their concerns a "fair hearing." Lip service only goes so far and on this EMS issue, we are still getting lip service- now in the form of the county wanting more studies. Meaning less action.

The fact is that county commissioners have no intention of altering the status quo- why should they? Peachtree City residents are being double-taxed and have been for decades now to the tune of millions of dollars to the county coffers. Hard to blame Pfeifer et al for wanting to string this along with proposals of more "studies." When you fail to respect the proposals and facts of our elected representatives, you fail to respect us as citizens of our city first, county second. A county commissioner who disrespects and ignores Peachtree City residents is running an election-day risk.


Peter Pfeifer's picture
Submitted by Peter Pfeifer on Wed, 06/14/2006 - 12:28pm.

Dear Mr. or Mrs. Squirrel;

I do not recognize that there is a "failure to respect our position as a city."

I do not believe that City taxpayers have expressed a position. None of the current City Council/Mayor ran for office with this issue as part of their campaign. Did they? And, I know of no referendum.

So, one could hardly say that the citizens have had any opportunity to take a position on this issue. As a Peachtree City taxpayer, I certainly have not been given that chance by those who have decided for me what is best for me.

You will get "more action" from me when more information is known by me. I would be happy to run for reelection with "I try not to make uninformed decisions and I don't go along to get along" as my issues.

Statements like "The Commission just wants the money ... the power ... or the control are just plain silly regarding the majority of this Commission.

Regards,
Peter Pfeifer


cmc865's picture
Submitted by cmc865 on Tue, 06/13/2006 - 8:08pm.

Mr. Pfeifer,

There is no conspiracy to withhold information from you or anyone.
First, you need to make sure you are comparing "apples to apples" the response times you refer to arent as close as you think. The county covers (per your letter) 199 sq miles as PTC covers 24, they respond an engine to their med calls along with a medic unit and the time they are reporting is the first arriving engine. The first arriving Engine may or may not be ALS (advanced life support) the question you need answered is what are the AMBULANCE response times, THATs where I think you will see the difference in response times. NO ONE is hiding them from you, you are well aware of Open Record request or even easier for you, just go to headquarters (station82) and look at the monthly reports hanging on the wall in public view. I know you are screaming that we compile these reports and there must be some cover up, however, there isnt, and you can verify these numbers through Fayette 911. I believe its clearly stated that the citizen's of PTC do not want to consolidate services, and the trend is just the opposite of what you claim, look at all of Fulton County wanting to start their own services by becoming cities,Ask Fairburn, Sandy Springs, the future cities of Milton, Johns Creek, all of South Fulton, and now Dunwoody in Dekalb County. Everyone realizes that they get more "BANG for your BUCK" when the money and sevices stay where you need them. The city council, my elected officials, have spoken for me, and WE want our money back. Stop the conspiracy theory claims and get the info. More importantly make sure your comparing Apples to Apples.

Chris Campbell
PTC


Submitted by allin on Wed, 06/14/2006 - 9:17am.

I believe you are under estimating the voice of the citizens of PTC stating they do not want consolidation ? In today's world we need to be looking at ways to streamline and consolidate opportunities but at the same time continue the quality of service and response time.

What are the issues around providing county ambulances and EMT's services and have them located at PTC fire stations? This would resolve the response times issues - Is this taboo? I'm looking for the biggest bang for my taxpayer buck - My guess would be the county and PTC taxpayers would benefit from a more streamline process?

Is the real issue around the taxpayer and county commission or is it a territorial issue and who's money is it anyway?

Suggest tearing down the walls (re-invent the wheel) sometimes you would be surprised at the results and benefits especially for the taxpayers.

Submitted by Sailon on Wed, 06/14/2006 - 12:38pm.

Same for Sheriff's department. It ain't goin' to happen because no one can get elected to do it.

Peter Pfeifer's picture
Submitted by Peter Pfeifer on Tue, 06/13/2006 - 9:09pm.

Your response illustrates my point(s). No conspiracy theories are needed.
What we have had in the past have been claims and counterclaims about service and cost.
My information on service comes from Chief Krakeel. Since he is a nationally recognized expert in this field (EMS), and I am not, I defer to his opinion until I am convinced to the contrary.
This is exactly the type of issue that we can easily resolve if we were to actually sit down and study the issue. Then, there wouldn’t be any “he said this and they said that” nonsense, would there?
That’s why I can’t understand how anyone would oppose finding out the real facts, not the opinions we’ve already heard over and over.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.