Nottoway supervisors hear emergency squad’s plea for roughly $896,000 to sustain 9-1-1 operations

At a work session convened by the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors, leaders of the Nottoway County Emergency Squad described a shift from a volunteer-run service to a largely paid operation and asked the county for a near-term funding package — roughly $896,000 as discussed in the meeting — to maintain ambulance service while a memorandum of understanding and oversight structure are negotiated.

The request matters because the squad said it has cut responses and is currently operating fewer staffed ambulances than in prior years; supervisors and squad leaders framed the funding as a stopgap to avoid service interruptions while the county considers a voter-funded emergency services tax levy and other revenue changes.

David Williams, identified in the meeting as assistant captain of the Nottoway County Emergency Squad, told supervisors the service now employs 31 people and that volunteers have declined over the past decade. “We now have 31 employees on staff who are paid providers,” Williams said. He added that paid personnel need predictable payroll support if the county expects continuous emergency coverage.

Squad leaders explained multiple revenue streams and shortfalls: revenue recovery from billing varies month to month; the squad operates a contract to provide ambulances and crews to a federal installation (described in the meeting as a contract that augments 9-1-1 operations and returns surplus to squad payroll); and the organization has leased ambulances with monthly lease payments the speakers said run about $14,000 per vehicle. Squad representatives described “compassionate billing” practices that write off unpaid balances after repeated notices and said those write-offs are a major driver of the gap between projected and actual collections.

During the discussion supervisors pressed for specifics on how county funds would be used and on accountability measures. Supervisors and the squad agreed in principle on three oversight measures to be written into a draft agreement: (1) county-appointed representation on the squad’s executive board (for oversight), (2) routine financial and payroll reporting to the county (weekly reports were requested), and (3) explicit bylaw language addressing minimum operational standards (for example, a clause requiring two ambulances/24-7 service as a threshold). The county attorney and the squad’s counsel were asked to draft a memorandum of understanding and proposed bylaw changes for later review.

Squad leaders described several operational options the organization is pursuing to reduce the gap: switching from compassionate billing toward a stronger collections posture (the meeting included plans to move to harder billing notices and to publicize a subscription program for residents), liquidation or sale of leased ambulances, and continuing to seek revenue from the federal contract. The squad also described uncertainty in using bank lines of credit and said existing reserves have been drawn down over time.

Supervisors asked whether an annual tax levy (already discussed as an option elsewhere in the meeting) could permanently fund EMS, and whether the county should instead fund payroll directly. Multiple supervisors indicated they prefer a phased county contribution (monthly payments to the squad tied to reporting and milestones) rather than a single lump-sum payment; the squad said that approach would help stabilize payroll and staffing while revenue-recovery and levy proceeds come online.

Members of the public and officials pressed the squad on governance questions: who appoints board members, whether the squad’s bylaws include a dissolution clause for assets, and whether county representatives should sit on the squad’s executive board. The squad leaders agreed to include county oversight language in the MOU and to examine bylaws to specify asset disposition if the nonprofit dissolves.

There were no formal votes recorded in the work session. Supervisors instructed staff and counsel to draft the MOU and sample contract language (including operational performance expectations and reporting requirements) and to return the draft for supervisors’ review. The county also discussed advertising an ordinance to place an emergency-services tax levy on a future ballot as a separate process.

The meeting closed with agreement to continue negotiations, to provide the county with weekly financial reports from the squad, and to return with a draft agreement and budget figures for formal action at a future board meeting.