HOW WE SEE IT Residents Will Have Say On Service Fee

Sunday, December 8, 2013

In all likelihood, the funding mechanism established by the Benton County Quorum Court to preserve ambulance service in rural areas is on life support.

The prognosis isn’t promising, and if the funding dies, so also may the longtime practice of established city-based ambulance providers responding to emergency calls in the rural partsof the county.

We don’t know that will happen, but let’s keep in mind what was the driving force for Benton County’s long struggle to fi nd a solution. The cities warned that they could not sustain theirresponses to rural areas without a long-term fi nancial plan that would allow them to invest in enough people and equipment to meet the demand without straining capacity. Absent such a plan, leaders in those cities said they would be forced to decide between two futures: Continue responding to rural areas, to the possible detriment of the city populations they were created to serve, or cease responding to a population unwilling to help support their ambulance services.

Faced with those two choices, we suspect the people charged with fi scal and public safety decisions in those cities will recognize their primary responsibility and the limits they must therefore place on a desire to be good neighbors.

After years of debate, Benton County justices of the peace this year created, under state law, an emergency medical service district covering rural areas. They then adopted an annual $85 fee for each household within the district. That fee would create a pool of money to support staff ng and equipment needed at the ambulance services to cover calls in the rural areas. County leaders have said that option is far cheaper than the county creating an ambulance service.

Opponents, primarily of the household fee, successfully petitioned to have the measure put on the ballot for a public vote. That election, which will take place sometime next year, placed the entire funding mechanism on hold.

We view an $85 per household fee to guarantee an ambulance response to rural emergencies as a small price, given that lives hang in the balance. If a loved one suft ers a heart attack or is injured in a car wreck, does the annual fee seem so staggering?

One justice of the peace said last week he will view voter rejection of the Quorum Court’s plan as the public’s desire not to have rural ambulance service. More accurately, it will say they don’t want to pay for it.

The fact of the matter is money has to come from someplace. What solutions do the opponents to this fee suggest? We fear they believe the ambulance services will continue responding no matter what, and that’s a dangerous assumption. We cannot blame the cities for taking steps to ensure the safety of their own residents.

One can argue it’s always healthy for voters to have a chance to express themselves. We believe that’s true.

County off cials, if they fi rmly believe their plan is the right answer, will need to launch into campaign mode to convince a skeptical public they need to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Most importantly, residents of Benton County must remember this: Just saying no isn’t a plan for success.

Opinion, Pages 10 on 12/08/2013