Scott County Fiscal Court on April 11 heard a request from county staff about an ambulance receivable and a collection agency's desire to file suit on an individual account. The court tabled the request pending additional information and directed staff to bring a report on unpaid balances.

Chris (county staff) explained that the county uses a third‑party billing company that engages its own collection agency. In this case the collection agency reported a cease‑and‑desist order from the individual, and the collector asked whether it should file suit. Staff said the county does not directly control the collection agency — the billing company does — and that the account in question was relatively small.

Magistrates debated whether allowing suits for small balances might create a precedent that encourages nonpayment; one magistrate noted that if small balances were never pursued, people might stop paying larger bills. Others preferred local, negotiated agreements rather than outsourcing collection. Several magistrates asked staff to prepare an aggregate report of outstanding balances (recommended look‑back of three years) and to propose a dollar threshold for when the county should support legal proceedings.

The court did not authorize litigation and tabled the request. Staff agreed to return with a report summarizing outstanding balances, why accounts are unpaid (where known), and recommendations for a policy or threshold to guide future action.