Further discussion about whether GEMS, the newcomer ambulance service, may run calls within the city limits will be left up to the legal representation for GEMS and the city of Pine Bluff, a City Council committee determined Monday.
A special Public Safety Committee meeting was called Monday after the full council passed a resolution calling for a discussion as to whether the business occupation license for Galbraith Emergency Medical Services Ambulance Service Inc. should be revoked.
City Attorney Althea Hadden-Scott advised the aldermen that they do not have the power to revoke GEMS’ business occupation license, so the meeting was brief. Hadden-Scott and GEMS’ attorney, Leon Jones Jr. of Fayetteville, stated their positions and the committee adjourned in 15 minutes.
The key disagreement between the two sides is whether GEMS is allowed to respond to and transport patients from emergency calls within the city limits. Both sides agree that the 1999 ordinance setting up an exclusive franchise agreement between the city and sister companies Emergency Ambulance Service Inc. and Ambulance Transport Service for emergency transports is flawed and contains provisions that run counter to state law.
Jones argued that because of those problems and because the agreement was not put out to bid before the exclusive franchise was granted to EASI, the agreement is invalid and GEMS should be able to respond to emergency calls. Jones said the cease-and-desist order against GEMS responding to emergency calls should be lifted and a competitive bid process should take place immediately.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Hadden-Scott argued that there are some modifications that need to be made to the ordinance, but that does not mean that the whole ordinance is invalid. She said she will have those suggested amendments ready for the aldermen to consider at the next council meeting on Monday, May 7.
Hadden-Scott said the city should complete its current agreement cycle with EASI, which would be up for renewal in September 2013. Instead of the agreement automatically renewing at that time, as the ordinance is currently written, the amendment Hadden-Scott is suggesting would call for a competitive bid process to occur about three months before then so that the successful bidder could be selected in time for the next contract period.
Hadden-Scott said she would suggest in the amendment an agreement period of no less than five years, given the substantial amount of money that would have to be invested in the business by the agreement holder.
Jones disagreed.
“But again, the statute clearly states that there has to be a competitive bid process before you sign a franchise agreement that is exclusive,” Jones said. “Here in this particular case, that did not happen, so therefore, that exclusive agreement is in violation of the state statute and should be therefore be declared void under the state law.”
Jones said the cease-and-desist order is disrupting GEMS’ business. He said he understands Hadden-Scott’s position that she intends to ask the council to amend the ordinance, but that he disagrees with her opinion.
“You can’t amend something that should have been voided in the first place,” Jones said.
“Well, you have the option — you know what your options are legally — and I will stand by my recommendation,” Hadden-Scott said.
Alderman Wayne Easterly chose not to stay for the meeting because, he said, the matter is now a legal matter rather than something for the council to attempt to handle. Alderman Irene Holcomb and Alderman Bill Brumett stayed and voted to leave future discussions up to the legal representatives.
The cease-and-desist order and resolution to consider revoking GEMS’ occupation license relate back to two incidents when GEMS responded to a March 5 traffic accident on Interstate 530 and transported the patients to Jefferson Regional Medical Center and to a Feb. 22 emergency call at Trinity Village Nursing Home and transported the patient to JRMC, according to a March 13 memo from Hadden-Scott to the mayor and council.
Hadden-Scott’s position is that those two transports violate city ordinance because of the exclusive agreement with EASI.
GEMS Director of Operations John Galbraith does not contest the city’s claim that GEMS has responded to emergency calls within the city limits, but argues that the company did not violate city law when it did so.