By this time in the election season, plenty of ballots have been filled out and mailed in, and the minds of many are probably at ease.

Not ours. We’re still struggling. Torn this way and that by one measure in particular.

We certainly find no fault with the solidarity shown for the foot soldiers of San Juan EMS, nor with those that voted in favor of its request for a 15-cent property tax increase.

After all, EMS is an award-winning agency, boasting a stellar record in the field, where training and expertise are crucial, and where critical decisions are made under what frequently must be the most trying of circumstances.

Lives often hang in the balance when EMS springs into action. We share the sentiments for the job well done.

But when it comes to the balance sheet and campaign on behalf of that would-be tax hike, our support wavers.

In three years time, 2010-13, EMS has grown from an agency with $1.5 million in annual income and $1.3 million in costs, to one with $3.2 million in yearly expenses and $3.8 million in income. On paper, that’s more than twice the size on both sides of the ledger.

Sure, the devil is always in the details when budgets are on the table. EMS receives less in tax revenue than its number crunchers may have at one time anticipated because of a drop in property values. Many property owners are probably equally dismayed.

While the amount of income EMS derives from tax revenue has slipped incrementally since 2011, the number of calls the agency responded to also dipped by 5 percent in each of the last two years. Pay cuts and unpaid furloughs, implemented in mid-year to help keep the 2014 budget in the black—to the tune of $350,000, as we understand it—are no doubt painful for EMS and its staff to absorb.

Yet, at the same time, that same budget anticipates collecting $1.7 million more in income “other” than property tax than it did just three years ago. And, while pay raises approved for administrative staff two years ago may indeed be warranted and justified because of the expanded duties and job descriptions of each, they were ratified by the agency’s board of directors, the elected officials of the hospital district, at a time when financial troubles were clearly visible on the horizon.

If it takes an exponential expansion to operate an effective medical service today, we admit that we may have missed the memo. But if that’s the case, why not just say so. We thought EMS to be a pretty stellar corps back in 2010, too.

Numbers have been sliced, diced, debated and tossed about like candy corn over the past few weeks. Here’s one more to consider: No. 3.

EMS and those in charge of the hospital district should go back to the drawing board, once again, and come back with a campaign that more accurately addresses the agency’s financial condition, its obstacles and its prospects. Campaign mailers that declare: “44% more calls with 20% less revenue,” don’t do justice to what already is a complex equation.

In our opinion, voters deserve better.

Quite possibly, residents and property owners of the hospital district may indeed be getting a good deal from their publicly supported emergency medical service, even with a 15-cent tax increase added on. Who knows?

The quality of care speaks for itself.

It may take a third time before the voters, but with better numbers, it might be the charm.