Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Als topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners remove $2.65 million Advanced Life Support facility from FY2016 CIP; ask for more planning if proposed again
Summary
After debate about locations, funding sources and service distribution, the board voted to remove a $2.65 million proposed Advanced Life Support (ALS) central facility from the FY2016 capital plan, with several commissioners asking ALS and county staff for a more detailed countywide plan before reintroducing any project.
St. Mary’s County commissioners decided at their Feb. 23 work session to remove a proposed $2.65 million Advanced Life Support (ALS) facility from the FY2016 capital-improvement plan, after an extended discussion about location, funding sources and whether a single central facility fits the county’s service needs.
ALS representatives and county staff described the facility request as a standalone county project. Staff said ALS currently leases space at the hospital and that the group had purchased a parcel near Cedar Lane (purchase financed from ALS’s own fund balance, according to the discussion). Commissioners questioned whether a single centrally located facility is the right approach for a county that is “north-south” in character and whether the project’s capital request should be phased or moved until a countywide plan is in place.
Mister Kelly, speaking for EMS/ALS interests, confirmed ALS leases hospital space and said the hospital’s expansion created pressure for ALS to find other space. Commissioners said additional detail was missing: site identification, a programmatic plan showing whether single or multiple facilities are needed, design costs and how the project would be funded. Staff clarified the $2.65 million figure would require either a project-specific funding source or a change in the emergency-services- support tax to cover resulting debt service.
Several commissioners said they preferred a fuller plan that considers distributed north/south facilities or a phased approach. One commissioner recommended pairing any capital request with a demonstration of how recurring operating costs — including possible changes to the emergency-services tax rate — would be funded.
After debate, the board directed removal of the ALS new-building request from the FY2016 CIP. Commissioners asked ALS and county staff to return with a fuller needs assessment, site analysis and financial plan if the group wishes to re-submit a proposal in a subsequent cycle.
Ending: County staff will process the removal as directed; ALS was told to prepare a detailed program and financing plan before the board will consider reintroducing the project.
