I have been trying to find the reference to the calculation being based on population percentage as you suggest. This was never my understanding.
It was my understanding that they were basing their decision on actual USAGE averages, not population distribution. This makes the argument and the analogy moot.
The Mayor provided a breakdown of the contract here:http://www.milescity.com/...id=4238#37
In summary, the City provides average usage figures over the past years as falling between 13% and 20%. This is far short of 27%
The argument becomes: Which figure gets multiplied to determine the County's fair share?
If the total budget figure of ~$800K is used, the figure would range from $104K..$160K. As David points out, if this is the figure used, then a rebate back to the county based on actual realized revenue would be fair at the end of the budget cycle.
If the LOSS figure of ~$280K is used, then the range would fall between $36K..$56K. In this case, the $41K is within range, albeit low.
If the figure of "The ambulance is in the black" is used (i.e. there is no loss) then the range should fall somewhere between $0K..$0K.
I would refer you to this thread:http://www.milescity.com/...id=4238#21
I discuss the follies of administrations past regarding mis-distribution of ambulance labor costs. It is this distribution that has created much of this problem.
This issue really has nothing to do with anything, in reality. Why? Well, because the City over the past 2 years has slowly been "correcting" the distribution to restore it to a more accurate figure. This is not a process which can be turned on and off without creating other problems. I suspect that by next year the distribution will be restored. This will reveal an ambulance operating at a loss and requiring tax subsidy. This will demonstrate the City's need for County funds.
The City initially based their request on the total budget, and adjusted their position when the error was presented. The unfortunate thing about this is that the Commissioners did not present the error. They are on record saying they have not even looked at a budget. This is the crux of the issue right here.
While the City may have acted in error (on that one figure), the negotiating party never acted at all
. Without so much as visiting the departments in question, they simply refused the negotiations (read the published documents on http://www.milescityvoice.com
) and presented all sorts of non-germane arguments. They shot from the hip without even researching the services. Had they taken the time to visit these figures in detail, they could have understood not only the initial error, but also their actual "Fair Share". Their lack of initiative was a gross and very costly disservice to the public.
To create an analogy for you, this would be like getting up in the morning and cracking open a milk container over the pan because you wanted a fried egg. Obviously, your failure to evaluate what you were working with would result in you not having a fried egg, but rather a big mess.
Most of us would learn the first time we created a milk spill. Sadly, this cacophony of "Fire Away" has been, and I suspect will be, repeated over and over and over again with this regime.
More example to share later.