Board weighs contracting EMS staffing and new Fire & EMS tax as county debates long‑term rescue funding

Emergency Service Solutions (ESS) representatives gave the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors a detailed run‑through of contract emergency medical services models on May 8, laying out staffing options and costs as county officials and local rescue organizations discussed how to stabilize 24/7 ambulance coverage.

An ESS presenter identified in the record as an ESS representative (co‑founder; speaker name not specified in the transcript) told the board ESS can provide custom staffing models — from part‑day/peak coverage to full 24‑hour staffing — and summarized pricing the company has used in other rural Virginia counties. ESS said its fully staffed 24/7 ALS staffing option would cost about $788,400 per year for one 24‑hour ambulance; a 12‑hour daily coverage model was listed at about $394,200 per year. ESS also quoted an hourly staffing rate of $90 per staffed ambulance hour and said starting pay for paramedics in its contracts is typically $26–$27 per hour, before benefits.

Josh Mullins, identified in the meeting as an ESS co‑founder, and Tyler Winrich, listed as ESS vice president of operations, accompanied the presentation and answered technical questions about hybrid staffing, recruiting, and contract length. The ESS representative said ESS contracts historically have ranged from short trial terms up to five to seven years in established partnerships.

Representatives of the Nottoway County Emergency Squad (NCES) — led in the meeting by a speaker identified as Mr. Williams — described ongoing operational shortfalls. Williams said NCES had 31 employees and reported 158 responses in the prior month; he and other local rescue officials told supervisors the squad routinely operates with one staffed ambulance in many shifts and is struggling to recruit and retain certified providers. Williams said the squad’s monthly revenue recovery (billing returns) ran roughly $40,000–$60,000 per month and that covering a fully staffed ambulance locally could cost in the $750,000–$1.1 million range depending on whether insurance, fuel and vehicle leases were included in the county’s payment.

Board supervisors and staff pressed for specifics: how many full‑time employees are needed per station (presenters said about eight full‑time staff to cover 24/7 for one ambulance), how pay and benefits compare between county employment (including Virginia Retirement System) and private contractors, and how hybrid models (county vehicles, contracted staff, or nonprofit squads) would work. ESS and local squads discussed advantages and tradeoffs of hybrid models (e.g., one 24‑hour truck plus a 12‑hour truck) and the difficulty of staffing in the region where many providers hold multiple jobs or live outside the county.

County staff and the board also discussed funding. The county administrator and budget staff presented a FY‑26 budget proposal that creates a separate Fire & EMS fund. The proposal moves several existing general fund contributions to the new fund (totaling roughly $918,003) and projects Fire & EMS tax revenue of about $1,473,500 if the board adopts the proposed levies. That projection was calculated as 7¢ per $100 on real estate and 63¢ per $100 on personal property across combined Fire and EMS rates (later broken down into a 2¢/100 real estate + 18¢ personal property for fire and 5¢/100 real estate + 45¢/100 personal property for EMS based on a 72/28 EMS/fire split). The radio system debt service and implementation costs were moved back to the general fund in the proposal; staff estimated first‑year radio debt service at about $515,000 with $180,000 in implementation costs.

The board took formal steps on the record: supervisors adopted orders (not dollar amounts) establishing the existence of a fire levy and an EMS levy and an order to allow courthouse construction fees and the recording of new construction in the real estate book. Those motions were moved and seconded on the floor and recorded as “Aye” in the meeting transcript. Later in the meeting the board voted to advertise the proposed tax rate and the FY‑26 budget for public hearing; Vice Chair Norton made the motion to advertise and a second was recorded. The public hearing for the FY‑26 budget and tax rate was scheduled for May 22 at 7 p.m. in the General District courtroom.

Officials emphasized the county’s limited revenue options and the urgency of stabilizing ambulance coverage. County staff and supervisors discussed short‑term options — such as a monthly stipend to NCES to keep a second ambulance staffed — and longer‑term options, including contracting with a private EMS provider or hiring county employees with VRS benefits. Local rescue leaders said some additional short‑term funding would allow them to put a second ambulance into more consistent service while recruitment proceeds. Supervisors said they would explore reappropriation or discretionary transfers for immediate needs and continue budget deliberations in the two weeks before the public hearing.

The discussion left several items for follow up: more detailed cost breakdowns (including equipment, insurance and fuel), a clearer reconciliation of decal funds/vehicle taxes and the proposed levy calculations, the final composition of any oversight board for a partnered rescue governance structure, and whether short‑term monthly payments should be made before FY‑26 revenues arrive. Several supervisors invited NCES leaders and ESS representatives to provide more detailed financial worksheets before the May 22 hearing.