Vote nears for ambulance question

We are closing in on the Feb. 11 vote on the Quorum Court's Ordinance to establish Emergency Medical Services District No. 2 and apply an $85 fee on all qualifying residences to pay the cities in question for ambulance services. The county judge has made a mailing concerning this issue to all residences which will be affected but they still have not convinced me this is the only solution to the ambulance service problem.

The Justice of the Peace for District 6, Pat Adams, has a Town Hall meeting scheduled but it will be before this article is published. Hopefully we will have had a good representation of this area at the meeting both for and against this proposed solution to the ambulance service question.

As I have tried to follow the progress of this debate in the daily newspapers, it is evident that some members of the Quorum Court do not have all their facts correct. There are about 19,000 registered voters in the affected area, not the 30,000 to 40,000 one JP suggested. And, no one has mentioned for publication how many people are actually without coverage.

A lot of people in the rural area around the city of Pea Ridge actually pay for coverage now on their utility bill. As I have mentioned previously, I am "covered" by Northeast Benton County's EMSD No. 1 because of the location of my farm and the Pea Ridge Fire/Ambulance because I receive Pea Ridge water, even though I actually live in rural Benton County. Nowhere can I find that a situation of my kind has been discussed. The cities in question, with the exception of Pea Ridge, are advanced life support units. If Benton County were to set up their own ambulance service at a number of locations as volunteer units with basic service and first responders, would that provide the needed services for most of the ambulance runs?

Since our residence is at the edge of the Pea Ridge city limits and Pea Ridge desires to go from a basic to an advanced life support service, I would much rather contribute directly to Pea Ridge at a higher rate than we currently pay on our utility bill than to send more money to the cities in question. The "triple dip" on our household proposed by this ordinance is further proof to me that there was a major breakdown in the analysis that led us to this point. I do not think I need a third insurance policy. Now, a vote on a fee for the affected area has pitted city administrations against rural taxpayers -- and in many instances rural residents against other rural residents.

Nowhere have I found in the daily newspaper articles where rural Oklahoma and Missouri counties were asked how they deal with this type problem. Nowhere have I read that rural Benton County fire departments were asked if they were interested in becoming a volunteer ambulance service with county subsidized ambulances much the same as the original NEBCO EMS -- when it was Volunteer Ambulance Service of Northeast Benton County. I'm sure there would be less frustration at voluntarily donating to support an ambulance in one's own area, rather than providing further subsidies to the cities which we help support with our sales tax, regardless of what the cities say.

I do not know which community with a rural fire department is farthest away from a hospital, but Rocky Branch in southeast Benton County and Gallatin, near the Ozark National Forest, might qualify as examples of distance and problem service areas for any service unit. Are actual runs to these areas from Rogers or Siloam Springs all life-saving events, or are helicopters for life-threatening service and volunteer ambulances for non-life threatening needs more viable? We need to keep the question of "how can we best provide emergency medical service" in the forefront -- not just providing money to the cities with a threat of refusal to meet an individual's needs.

The Morning News of Saturday, Jan. 25, 2014, quoted a Justice of the Peace (Steve Curry, District 11, Gravette and northwest Benton County) as responding to the question "why the payments (to the cities) had jumped from $300,000 in 2013 to $942,000 in 2014?" with the one word many of us feel is appropriate under the circumstances -- "greed." That may sound harsh, but the increase in the yearly request is hard to accept.

There are many questions concerning who will be responsible if a life is lost as a result of a city refusing to respond to an emergency because they did not have a contract for service to the county. What the likelihood is of that actually occurring , none of us know and hopefully we will not have an occasion to find out. Many of us have heard about "mutual aid agreements" such as the fire departments have. I'm not sure the cities can just walk away from any responsibility by saying "you pay up or we won't meet an emergency in your area," particularly if their personnel meet both fire and ambulance qualifications and they have any county-owned fire equipment and a mutual aid agreement.

•••

Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Editorial on 01/29/2014