Trending Topics

EDITORIAL: Chelmsford, Mass. ambulance service should remain private

Copyright 2006 MediaNews Group, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

Lowell Sun (Massachusetts)

If Chelmsford were to institute an in-house ambulance service, it would be making an expensive error, one that could cost taxpayers nearly $1 million a year.

Currently, the town has a contract for ambulance services with a private company for $1 annually. The contract poses no financial risk, pension obligations, collection or budgetary responsibilities to Chelmsford.

The town doesn’t have to worry about ambulance employees’ sick days, vacation time or potential injuries. There have been no complaints or service deficiencies reported, but if there were, Chelmsford could simply contract with another vendor.

The firefighters’ union proposed the concept as a revenue-generating operation, saying it could bring in about $300,000 a year and would necessitate hiring only two additional employees to the Fire Department. Town Manager Bernard Lynch estimates that, at best, a town-run service would bring in $4,700 to town coffers, but expenses could cost close to $1 million. Town officials also believe at least eight people would be needed to man two town-run ambulances.

Even if the service were to break even on the surface, other personnel costs — including health and retirement benefits — make the concept too expensive to consider.

In the mid-1990s, a committee studied the possibility of bringing ambulance service in-house, but recommended against the move, citing cost concerns. Selectmen are considering a professional study to determine not only whether to bring the ambulance service in-house, but also to review the total fire operations. If a study is conducted, it should be comprehensive, detailing how that department can give residents the best return for their tax investment.

This isn’t the first time Chelmsford firefighters have proposed an in-house ambulance service, and it may not be the last. But officials should offer same response as a decade ago: Thanks, but no thanks