Benton County To Resume Ambulance Talks

Monday, August 4, 2014

BENTONVILLE -- Benton County's justices of the peace will resume discussion of rural ambulance service and look to revive funding plans they failed to approve last month.

Tom Allen, District 4 justice of the peace and the Finance Committee chairman, said EMS funding is on Tuesday night's committee agenda as a discussion item.

At A Glance

Ambulance Service

Ambulance service to the unincorporated areas of Benton County is provided by seven municipal fire departments and the Northeast Benton County Fire Department. State law requires an agreement between the cities and the county if municipal ambulance service is to be used outside the cities. Talks between the county and the cities have been going on since 2009. For 2014, the county will paying the cities $942,000. The cost of the service is expected to increase to $1.1 million next year and $1.2 million in 2016.

Source: Staff Report

At A Glance

Up Next

Tom Allen, chairman of Benton County’s Finance Committee, said he plans to have rural ambulance funding on the agenda for the committee’s next meeting. The committee is set to meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday in the Quorum Courtroom in the County Administration Building, 215 E. Central Ave. in Bentonville.

Source: Staff Report

The Quorum Court approved ordinances that would levy a 0.2-mill countywide property tax and a $40 per household fee on rural residents outside the Northeast Benton County Fire Department service area.

Both ordinances were adopted, but the Quorum Court did not approve the resolutions needed to place either plan on the ballot. George Spence, county attorney, told the justices of the peace the resolutions required nine affirmative votes to pass. The Quorum Court voted 7-6 for the resolution on the millage. The resolution on the $40 fee was defeated 6-7.

Several justices of the peace voted for one or both ordinances, but voted against the accompanying resolutions. Justices of the peace Joel Jones and Susan Anglin voted for the ordinance and against the resolution on the millage plan.

Justices of the peace Rey Hernandez, Kevin Harrison, Michelle Chiocco, Brent Meyers and Anglin voted for the ordinance, but against the resolution on the plan for the $40 fee.

Anglin said she voted against both resolutions for different reasons. The resolution for the millage was voted on first and the resolution for the fee second. Anglin said she voted against the millage based on her best judgment, and she voted against the fee based on the desires of her constituents.

"This has been a very difficult thing," she said. "I've tried to listen to people, and most of the people I've talked to favor the millage proposal. My head tells me the fee makes the most sense. I cannot see asking the people in the cities to pay another tax for a service they already pay for. With the changes we've made to the fee everyone is sharing in this. Part of it will come from the rural residents and the other part will be made up from general fund revenue. Everyone pays that."

Hernandez said his preference would be to have both items on the ballot. The order of the vote and the opinion of his constituents also influenced his decisions, Hernandez said. He voted in favor of the resolution to put the millage on the ballot and against putting the fee to a vote.

"All my constituents I spoke to were only interested in the millage," he said. "I thought it would be more fair to the voters to give them a choice. We had already voted down the millage when we voted on the fee so out of respect for my constituents I voted against the putting the fee on the ballot."

Chiocco also said she listened to her constituents in deciding how to vote. She voted in favor of the millage resolution and against the fee.

"My constituents, the majority that called me, favored sending both options to a vote," Chiocco said. "If there was only going to be one, based on what people have communicated to me, it would be the millage."

Several justices of the peace said they wanted to have another vote because two of the members of the Quorum Court -- Patrick Carr and Steve Curry -- were absent for the vote at the July 24 meeting.

Carr has said he favors sending both options on for a vote. Curry said he probably would vote for the millage question. If both Carr and Curry voted in favor of the millage and no other justices of the peace were absent or changed their votes, that plan would be approved.

Proposals must be approved by Aug. 26 if the measures are to be on the Nov. 4 ballot, said County Clerk Tena O'Brien. A special meeting can be called by the county judge or by a majority of the justices of the peace, O'Brien said. If the justices of the peace are interested in a special meeting, Spence said he would recommend they tell the County Clerk's Office and O'Brien's staff can canvas the court members to determine if a majority is interested.

Four of the 15 justices of the peace had emailed her office indicating they favored a special meeting, O'Brien said Friday. County Judge Bob Clinard said after the Quorum Court meeting and again Friday he does not plan to call for a special meeting.

Allen said he wanted the justices of the peace to have another opportunity to consider the funding plans.

"I have spoken to Judge Clinard and let him know," Allen said of adding the discussion to the committee agenda. "I believe this is going to be the next opportunity for the JPs to get together in a formal setting to discuss having a special meeting or moving the Quorum Court meeting. If we have enough members there we could take a straw poll to see if there's enough interest."

Allen said he also wants the justices of the peace to begin considering the county's options if no plan is put forward or if voters reject the funding proposals.

"I think we need to have a broad discussion of the Quorum Court members' inability to agree to put something on the ballot," Allen said. "We ought to be able to agree among ourselves. If we can't then this will be sort of a reality check as far as what we're looking at in the way of budget cuts and where that money is going to come from. We need to start thinking about what might have to be cut and what might have to be sacrificed as far as other services if we don't find a way to pay for ambulance service outside of our regular budget."

NW News on 08/04/2014