HOW WE SEE IT County Residents Shouldn’t Ignore Ambulance Needs

After years of debate, we’re confi dent in this evaluation: Nobody loved the idea of asking residents of unincorporated areas to pay an extra fee to preserve ambulance service across rural Benton County.

The issue has lingered for so long because (1) ambulance service providers have been incredibly patient in their push for funding to shore up their finances and the capacity to respond to rural areas without harming service inside cities, theirprimary mission; and (2) because there is no great solution that will leave anyone happy. The annual fee is a tough pill to swallow, but those who came around to supporting it know it will be even tougher to stomach someone dying or being more seriously injured because of a lack of ambulance coverage.

We believe Benton County, with its growing population and housing in unincorporated areas, has a responsibility to ensure an ambulance system exists to serve residents, visitors to the county and those just passing through. It is the second-most populous county in Arkansas. It’s ludicrous that any part of it should go unprotected.

This is a public safety issue for which there is no dodging responsibility. Benton County leaders know that, and made a decision they don’t like, but see as necessary. Some opponents appear blinded by a “taxed enough already” mentality and cannot accept the realities their elected leaders have grappled with for so long. They oversimplify, trying to make this a rural vs. city battleground.

Let’s be clear: Ensuring ambulance responses to unincorporated areas is a county problem. It’s up to Benton County - not any of the seven cities who have carried the burden of serving rural areas for years - to fix the problem. In reality, the cities represent a path to ambulance coverage far cheaper than anything the rural areas could develop independently.

Emotional (they owe us) or pocketbook (I don’t want to pay one red cent more) reactions make up most of opponents’ arguments. A core point goes something like this: “We shop in the cities. We pay sales taxes when we shop. The cities owe it to us to use that money to pay our share of the ambulance services.”

By the same argument, city residents who pay property taxes and county sales tax could demand the county come into the cities and pave streets because it’s “their money.” Or why shouldn’t the sheriff provide all the law enforcement in the cities, too?

Some argue the cities are bluftng on cuts to ambulance service without a long-term source of county funding. That’s a fool’s bet. Fact is, the cities have increasing costs and growing populations to care for. Without county participation, the system will eventually fall apart, sending the county scrambling to protect its rural residents. Just wait to see what that costs.

Lastly, as Rogers Fire Chief Tom Jenkins has so clearly pointed out, the city sales taxes paid by county residents don’t come close to covering the cost of making the service available. City residents pay far more into municipal coffers than do visitors from the county.

Rural residents who oppose this fee don’t know a bargain when they see one, nor do they acknowledge that for years, they’ve been getting an even better deal.

It’s in their best interests to approve the $85 fee on Feb. 11. If it’s defeated, opponents will have the momentary satisfaction of spiting their own faces while holding their bloody noses in their hands.

Then, they’ll realize they need an ambulance.

Will one be available?

WHAT’S THE POINT?

The ambulance fee on the Feb. 11 ballot for rural Benton County residents isn’t making anyone happy, but funding is needed to ensure a growing county can protect its residents.

Opinion, Pages 10 on 02/02/2014

Upcoming Events