Latest on the Benton County EMS Issue

The Quorum Court met this past Thursday to consider sending two proposals to the ballot in November to fund ambulance services in unincorporated Benton County.  In a strange twist, both issues were passed as ordinances but then both were defeated as resolutions to refer the ordinances to the ballot.

Action must be taken prior to August 26th in order to refer anything to the November ballot.  Calling a special meeting has been floated as one idea since two members were unavoidably absent from Thursday's meeting and their votes may have impacted the outcome.

As you may recall, one ordinance would impose a 2/10% millage tax on all real and personal property in Benton County (including businesses) to fund ambulance service in rural areas.  

The other ordinance would imposed a $40 per household fee on unincorporated homes only.

I voted against the ordinance and resolution sending the millage to all Benton County voters and voted for the ordinance and resolution sending the fee to unincorporated voters.

Why?

Under the 2/10th% tax, 84% of revenues would be collected in incorporated cities and towns --  where people already pay for ambulance service by virtue of higher sales and property taxes (for the most part).  

Only 16% of the revenues would be collected in the unincorporated areas.  

When I looked at the actual numbers, approximately 80% of ambulance runs in the rural areas were to specific unincorporated addresses -- meaning rural county residents.  

Under this proposal, 84% of the revenue would be collected in incorporated areas to pay for 80% or more of the runs specifically to unincorporated residents.

That does not make sense to me.

On the other hand, the $40 per household fee in the unincorporated areas addresses a number of concerns that came up during the February special election on this issue:

1) The fee has been lowered from $85 per household to $40 per household.

2) The previous fee was approved by the Quorum Court and then disapproved by rural voters -- this fee goes directly to the voters.

3) The previous proposal funded ambulance 100% from the revenues derived from the fee while this proposal funds roughly half from the fee and half from the general fund -- so the overall cost is spread more broadly and not just among rural county residents.

I believe $40 per year per household to continue ambulance service into rural Benton County is not too much to ask of rural county residents.

Frankly, the alternative is that we continue to find dollars from other parts of the county budget -- such as county roads -- to fund ambulance service.  

I've also been asked why I would not support sending both proposals to the ballot and giving voters the option for themselves.  

First having both on the ballot would be highly confusing.  Rural voters would have two propositions (fee and millage) to consider while city voters would only have one proposition (millage) on their ballot.

I believe explaining the differences between the two to these different sets of voters would be daunting.  Many voters will believe its just easier (and it will be) to just vote no.

Secondly, I'm not sure why voters in incorporated Benton County would vote in favor of a new tax for a service they already pay taxes for?  So automatically that will skew the vote against the millage.

Meanwhile in the rural areas it will be much easier for those voters to vote for a county-wide tax and not for the fee.  Why wouldn't they?  It would be the cheaper and easier route to take.  

Each side gets to pick the financial fate of the other side... you can imagine how that will play out.

What this approach probably guarantees is the defeat of both measures -- and by a significant margin.

This would be a disservice to rural Benton County voters who deserve a choice on how to fund ambulance service.

Which is why I support giving rural Benton County residents a clear and clean choice.  A $40 fee to continue ambulance service or, failing that, signaling to the Quorum Court that we need to continue to cut other areas of the county budget to fund the service.  

As always, let me know your thoughts and questions.  This is a very complicated issue and there are no easy answers.  We may not always agree, but I highly value your input.

Thanks,

Barry