Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Emergency Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Paramedic tells Tompkins County legislature stroke calls now only 61% covered by Ithaca Fire Department
Summary
A paramedic told the Tompkins County Legislature that the Ithaca Fire Department now responds to 61 percent of stroke calls, down from prior levels; he urged clearer contract and review processes and questioned recent data cited by fire leadership.
Jim Smith, a paramedic who addressed the Tompkins County Legislature during privilege of the floor on April 1, said the Ithaca Fire Department now responds to 61 percent of stroke calls — a decline he said has operational implications for emergency medical services.
“Sixty‑one percent. That is the percentage of stroke calls that the Ithaca Fire Department is now responding to,” Jim Smith said during public comment, identifying himself as a paramedic. Smith told legislators that the figure represents a drop from previous coverage and said the trend is degrading EMS response in parts of the county. He urged follow‑up and noted that a meeting had been scheduled to review emergency‑medical‑dispatch codes.
Why it matters: Stroke and other time‑sensitive medical calls depend on rapid response. Smith said delayed or absent fire‑department response can add retrieval time, for example when fire personnel are needed to access locked apartments with lockboxes, adding to EMS delays.
Smith disputed the interpretation of call‑volume trends presented earlier by fire leadership, arguing a five‑year view is more informative than a single‑year percentage change. “They were at a 10,000 call volume in 2019. There was a huge dip for COVID. The manpower stayed the same … We're talking more of a 5% increase over 5 years,” he said. Smith also questioned whether resource reservation for rare specialized incidents (drownings, electrocutions) justified reduced response to stroke calls.
Transcript records show Smith’s remarks occurred during public comment; he asked the body to note the public‑safety implications and the planned review at the city level. Smith said his concerns were prompted by a written statement from Ithaca Fire Department leadership announcing an evaluation of EMD (emergency‑medical‑dispatch) codes.
What the record shows and does not show: Smith described the 61 percent figure and asserted it was “not acceptable” for stroke calls. The transcript records a planned meeting and a routine review described in a statement from IFD leadership; the transcript does not record a policy change made at the legislature meeting nor does it record an immediate formal direction to county staff to change EMS contracts.
Next steps and clarifications: Smith said the city of Ithaca negotiates some EMS service contracts and that a city‑level review was scheduled. County legislators acknowledged the issue and said they expect further information from city and fire leadership and from contract holders. County staff later said a meeting will be held to review the situation.
Ending: Smith’s remarks put EMS response and mutual‑aid arrangements on the legislative record; county officials and the city of Ithaca will be the next points of contact for any changes to dispatch protocols or contracts.
