Two EMS Funding Measures Going to November Ballot

The Quorum Court met last night in special session to consider sending two proposals to the ballot in November to fund ambulance services in unincorporated Benton County.  

Both resolutions passed and thus both will be on the ballot in November.

As you may recall, proposal 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 proposal would imposed a $40 per household fee on unincorporated homes only.

I voted against the resolution sending the millage to all Benton County voters and voted for the 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 taxes for ambulance service to their homes and businesses.  

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

When I looked at the actual EMS runs into unincorporated Benton County, 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.

This 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 did not support sending both proposals to the ballot and giving voters the choice for themselves.  

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

I believe explaining the differences between the two to these different sets of voters will 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.

Which is why I supported 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.

Regardless, now unincorporated county voters will get to choose among both funding options while incorporated voters will get to choose whether or not to support a new millage tax to fund unincorporated ambulance 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