Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting <br />Aug. 12. 2002 <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />LifeNet moves their resources around depending on their calls. Mr. <br />Klinkerman pointed out that the City of Paris EMS has two paramedics in each <br />ambulance, which improves patient care. Two paramedics can perform <br />advanced procedures simultaneously on a critically ill or injured patient. <br />LifeNet provides only one paramedic and one EMT basic per ambulance. He <br />reminded the Council that there is also the rescue truck that responds to <br />accidents anywhere in the county. Mr. Klinkerman said the city's paramedics <br />have and average of twelve years of experience. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Neeley said if the city is busy trying to pad these costs and <br />pass them on to the county, since she pays county taxes along with city taxes <br />you would be penalizing her as a city taxpayer as well as penalize someone in <br />the county. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary H. Shaver, 1800 N. W. Loop 281, Suite 310, Longview, Texas, with <br />the firm of Boon, Shaver, Echols & Coleman, came forward stating that he was <br />present this evening because Mr. Schenk asked him to review the contract that <br />the City Council has been discussing. As per specifics, Mr. Schenk had <br />requested Mr. Shaver to look at whether the contract was ambiguous, whether <br />it clearly apportions the expenses between the City of Paris and Lamar County, <br />and whether the contractual relationship established in the contracts comply <br />with State law. <br /> <br />Mr. Shaver stated that the contract is very clear in terms of what the terms <br />expected of each party are. The fact that there is a disagreement is not an <br />indication that there is any ambiguity and he promised that people disagree <br />about extremely clear contracts all the time. The point he would like to make <br />to the Council members is that the terms of this contract are clearly defined and <br />he did not find any ambiguity regarding the contract. <br /> <br />Mr. Shaver said there is a specific cost sharing arrangement with the parties <br />having specifically defined obligations in terms of payments or meeting <br />shortfalls. He did not see any problem with either the intentions of the parties <br />for county-wide service or the parties obligation to pay for the excess of <br /> <br /> <br />