Benton County voters took care of their neighbors -- and themselves -- on election day.
A surprising 58 percent of countywide voters approved an additional property tax to help pay for ambulance service.
The measure was one of two presented to voters, albeit not all voters, to address a serious funding issue for the county.
The other proposal was a per-household annual fee of $4o that would have been charged to property owners in part of rural Benton County. Only voters in the affected area could vote on that option. They rejected it, with 48.6 percent of voters favoring the fee.
When the Benton County Quorum Court opted to refer both issues to voters, the plan seemed like pure folly. There was the chance both would fail and the county would be forced to cut other services to keep ambulances running into the rural areas.
Some city officials, whose constituents already pay for emergency medical services within the major cities, were openly opposed to the tax hike. Yet enough city voters obviously disagreed, helping to pass the 0.2-mill increase in property taxes.
Preliminary and unofficial tallies put the total vote for the referred ordinance at 34,263 (58.09 percent) while 24,722 (41.91 percent) voted against it.
Those are tallies from all 73 of the county's precincts. By comparison, in the 50 precincts that considered the household fee, 5,357 (48.63 percent) were for it and 5,658 (51.37 percent) were against it.
As of Friday, the Benton County Election Commission did not have a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of the vote.
But, even if every voter in the 50 precincts who voted for or against the fee also voted for the property tax, they'd make up less than a third of the votes cast countywide for the measure. Only 11,015 voted in the 50 precincts.
These rural residents needed the help of their city neighbors and got it. Remember, more than 34,000 of countywide voters were for the property tax.
Of course, the issue was never just about protecting the rural people.
Anyone who drives the rural roads, including some stretches of highways, or otherwise spends time in those areas will also benefit from having ambulances standing at the ready. Anyone could need the life-saving service at any time.
Benton County residents know now that the county will get additional tax revenue to pay for emergency services.
They can also know that the county government won't have to cut other services drastically to free up money to pay those bills.
There's still some work for the Quorum Court to do. The tax is estimated to bring in $834,000 annually. And it won't be immediately available. The tax has to go on annual property tax bills and be collected.
Meanwhile, the county is paying about $942,000 this year to seven cities that provide ambulance service in the rural county. And, next year, the cost is expected to increase to $1.1 million next year.
Obviously, the new revenue doesn't quite match the cost. A voluntary tax some residents pay for ambulance funding will help for now, but will probably get smaller with adoption of the required tax. The county might eventually have to tighten up somewhere in its budget to cover the full rural ambulance costs.
Plus, the city of Springdale, which has been running ambulances into southern reaches of the county, has said it will stop the practice on Jan. 1, 2016.
Springdale made a decision that is best for its own residents. The city had been trying to serve more than 300 square miles in Benton and Washington counties and hit a point that it would either have to cut back the response area or add ambulances and staff. It notified both Benton and Washington counties that Springdale would stop service to rural areas in both.
Central Emergency Medical Services, which already serves large parts of Washington County, is ready to take over the rural areas Springdale has covered there, for a price. But Benton County hasn't made a backup plan yet.
So, there is not just a funding gap but also a looming service gap that county leaders will have to overcome.
The 0.2 additional mills that all county taxpayers will eventually pay makes resolution of these issues far easier than they could have been without the money.
And, best of all, it really shouldn't be a huge burden on most property owners.
The added tax works out to be roughly $4 a year more on a $100,000 home. That's not a lot of money for some peace of mind.
BRENDA BLAGG IS A FREELANCE COLUMNIST AND LONGTIME JOURNALIST IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS.
Commentary on 11/09/2014