FALLS VILLAGE — Paramedic coverage in the Northwest Corner is continuing despite concerns raised last month after Sharon Hospital announced it would not renew its long-standing sponsorship agreement with Northern Dutchess Paramedics.
Northern Dutchess Paramedics (NDP), which has provided advanced life support services in the region for decades, is still responding to calls and will now operate alongside a hospital-based paramedic service being developed by Sharon Hospital, officials said at a public meeting Monday, Jan. 5, at the Falls Village Emergency Services Center.
“We haven’t missed a beat; we’re still taking calls,” said Andrea Downs, president of the Falls Village Volunteer Fire Department and an employee of NDP, speaking at the meeting, which was attended by ambulance squad members, first selectmen and representatives of Sharon Hospital.
Sharon Hospital announced Dec. 11 that it would not renew its annual agreement with NDP, ending a 28-year relationship and initially stating that service would cease Jan. 1. Hospital President and CEO Christina McCulloch said the decision was based on compliance concerns tied to the hospital’s role as sponsor.
“Being a sponsor is a big deal,” McCulloch said. “Our concerns were big enough that we couldn’t sign. It was a difficult decision.”
She said the hospital had discussed the issues with NDP representatives and cited unmet state requirements.
Without a sponsoring hospital, NDP could not operate in Connecticut. That issue was resolved when NDP finalized an agreement with Stamford Hospital, allowing it to continue providing services in the Northwest Corner.
At the same time, Sharon Hospital is establishing a hospital-based paramedic service through Nuvance/Northwell, owner of the hospital. Under the current model, the service consists of a single paramedic, who begins the day at New Milford Hospital before traveling to Sharon, prompting concerns from some volunteer ambulance crews about response times while that paramedic is in transit.
Addressing those concerns, hospital officials said while the new paramedic service covers a wide area, so too does NDP, which is based out of Rhinebeck. Some volunteer ambulance crews also said their concerns relate to the transition to two providers, with Sharon Hospital’s service still being built out and not yet fully stationed in Sharon.
Falls Village First Selectman David Barger asked whether more than one paramedic service could operate in the region.
“There could be more than one,” McCulloch said.
Matt Cassavechia, director of emergency services for Sharon Hospital, said Litchfield County Dispatch, which handles all ambulance and fire dispatching for the region, will call whichever paramedic service is available at the time of an emergency.
He acknowledged that the current arrangement could be improved and said the hospital hopes to expand on-site paramedic coverage in Sharon. Doing so would require state approval through a need-for-service application, which Cassavechia said would benefit from letters of support from the community and area first selectmen.
Several volunteer ambulance representatives expressed concern about how changes could affect basic life support services and volunteer operations. Cassavechia said the hospital does not intend to replace volunteer squads.
“We’re not snapping up patients,” he said. “That’s not what we do. We are deliberate and purposeful. We have zero intent of putting volunteers out of business.”
Questions were also raised about possible delays in transferring patients from Sharon Hospital to other facilities. McCulloch said the hospital has been experiencing high emergency room and inpatient volumes but has not seen unusual wait times.
Michelle Hansen of the Falls Village ambulance squad cited a recent case involving a cancer patient who needed to be transported to Yale New Haven Hospital and was reportedly told by Nuvance that there would be an upfront cost of $2,000. NDP ultimately completed the transport.
“That is certainly not our practice,” said Thomas Horkan, Sharon Hospital’s EMS coordinator. “As soon as we were made aware, we took corrective action. It was human error. I listened to the tape. It was unfortunate.”
State Rep. Maria Horn, D-64, attended the meeting to assess how the changes might affect patient care and costs. Cassavechia said billing practices vary among ambulance providers and that clearer rules of engagement would need to be established with local squads.
After the discussion, Sharon First Selectman Casey Flanagan said the outcome appeared reassuring.
“It seems we’re going to have bonus coverage,” he said. “So, I’m OK with this.”
Nuvance/Northwell employees host a Jan. 5 meeting on emergency service providers. From left: Matt Cassavechia, Sharon Hospital director of emergency services; Christina McCulloch, Sharon Hospital president and CEO; Thomas Horkan, Sharon Hospital EMS coordinator; and Dr. Ron Santos, Sharon Hospital emergency room director.By Ruth Epstein
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.