Public comments at the Henry County Fiscal Court on Jan. 21 centered on the ambulance taxing district’s vote to change ambulance providers and on contract terms that residents and some magistrates say expose the district to large operating losses. The discussion followed a Jan. 20 taxing-district meeting in which the district voted to change services from the incumbent provider to a company identified in public comment as AmeriPro.

Why it matters: public safety and taxpayer dollars. Commenters said the district’s contract with the prior manager (signed in 2019 and implemented in 2020) includes provisions requiring the taxing district to reimburse a provider’s monthly losses. Those losses, commenters said, grew from about $30,000 per month toward roughly $66,000 per month, putting pressure on the taxing district’s budget and potentially requiring use of current-year tax proceeds to cover prior losses.

During public comment, Steve (identified in the transcript as a member of the public) described the contracting history and the financial terms he said are in the contract. He said the contract gave Baptist (named in the transcript) responsibility to manage services and stated that, if Baptist incurred a loss, the district must pay that loss. “Services have moved 30 some 1000 miles up to 66,000 a month. So it's gonna cost us,” Steve said. He warned that after the current transition period the district could face service reductions of roughly 50 hours per week if expenses are reduced, and he said taxing-district leaders had used this year’s tax proceeds to cover prior-year losses.

Magistrates and the presiding official (identified in the transcript as the presiding officer of the meeting) confirmed the sensitivity of information while negotiations and transitions were ongoing. The transcript states that the taxing district initially had a 180‑day termination period in its contract, but the provider agreed to shorten that to 60 days to avoid an extended lapse in coverage. The presiding officer said that shortened term was sought because a 180‑day gap would have left the county without coverage for months.

Court members and public commenters said their priority is stabilizing coverage without an immediate tax increase. One member of the court said their hope is to return to two fully staffed 24/7 ambulances but cautioned that officials do not yet know the final financial settlement once contracts are terminated. The transcript records repeated appeals for clearer, timely communication to the public from the taxing district board and notes that two magistrates sit on that district board and can relay information.

What was not decided: The fiscal court did not take formal action on the taxing district’s provider change during this meeting. Speakers repeatedly noted that the taxing district is a separate legal entity and that complaints about ambulance response should be directed to the taxing district board rather than to the fiscal court. Several commenters asked the county to provide more public information about the taxing district’s finances; the presiding officer and other court members said they were constrained from releasing certain details while the termination and transition were active.

Next steps: Commenters and court members said the taxing district will need to reconcile losses and settle outstanding financial obligations in the months after termination, and the court emphasized attention to economic development as a longer-term way to expand the tax base to support services.