The Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors voted 7-1 on Tuesday evening to approve a motion authorizing the advertisement of two public hearings set for Aug. 13: One will concern establishing an

Emergency Medical Service (EMS) District, which would encompass all of Prince Edward County; the other public hearing will concern establishing a tax levy for this EMS District of 1 cent for real estate and 10 cents for personal property tax, excluding merchants’ capital.

The revenue from the proposed tax increases would go solely to provide for emergency medical services.

Farmville 801 District Supervisor Pattie Cooper-Jones was the lone vote in opposition to the motion.

The vote came during the board’s regular July meeting, which also included the board voting to authorize the Prince Edward Volunteer Rescue Squad (PEVRS) to immediately purchase a new ambulance.

A Prince Edward County press release Wednesday stated that “the county will provide immediate funding for half of the $250,000 total cost of the ambulance and the balance upon delivery. It is envisioned this cost will be paid from the revenue generated by the dedicated tax levy.”

The press release cited that the creation of the EMS District “will ensure that all citizens and businesses share in the cost of providing emergency medical services throughout the county.”

The release went on to note that PEVRS has provided ambulance and rescue services to Prince Edward County, Cumberland County and the Town of Farmville since 1969.

County Administrator Wade Bartlett provided explanation in the release for the proposed tax increases, directing attention to the rescue squad.

“The county thanks the volunteers at PEVRS, both past and present, for all of their hard work and long hours in providing these services over the last 50 years and hopefully for much longer into the future,” he said in the release. “We’ve been lucky to have this service, but like all volunteer rescue squads throughout the country, it’s impossible to meet the ever-increasing operational requirements and continue services without sustainable funding.”

In a Wednesday interview, Bartlett stated that a joint meeting Tuesday afternoon of the Farmville Town Council and the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors did not result in an agreed upon sustainable revenue stream for PEVRS.

Hampden-Sydney College, Longwood University and the Town of Farmville agreed at the joint meeting to contribute $30,000 apiece to fund a rescue squad executive director position for one year.

“Now they didn’t say they wouldn’t fund it in the future, but they said, ‘We’d only guarantee one year,’” Bartlett said. “That’s not sufficient in the eyes of the Board of Supervisors. That isn’t what we would call sustainable funding.”

He then defined sustainable funding as “enough to, one, pay for the executive director and then, two, ensure the ambulances are maintained in an appropriate timeframe schedule, which is basically buy one every other year so that their five ambulances are turned over every 10 years.”

The county release stated that “the hiring of a full-time executive director will ensure consistent, reliable management of PEVRS that is not dependent on volunteers, most of whom have full-time jobs and cannot devote the hours required to manage the day-to-day operations of a large organization.”

The release also noted that presently, the rescue squad has five ambulances.

“Four of those have trucks about nine years old,” officials said in the release. “Purchasing new ambulances will ensure that the organization is able to run calls efficiently and effectively without having to be concerned about the maintenance issues of their current vehicles.”

The county release also cited that in recent years, PEVRS has faced a number of challenges that have led to the need for increased investment by the localities it serves, and then the release elaborated on those challenges.

“The organization has been and still is primarily managed by county residents who are unpaid volunteers,” officials said in the release. “In the past, crews manning the ambulances were also mostly volunteers. The decrease in volunteers has primarily been those who man the ambulance.

“To continue to provide service to our citizens, PEVRS had no choice but to hire paid staff to hire the response crews needed to cover over 3,500 calls each year,” the officials continued. “The cost of the paid staff has increased as a result of having to compete for qualified personnel with private emergency medical service providers.

“In addition, EMS call volumes have increased, with non-transport calls increasing at a greater rate than transport calls,” the officials continued. “Non-transport calls are not paid by insurance or Medicaid/Medicare. These calls must be responded to but do not generate revenue. In recent years, PEVRS had only one paid crew running calls, but with the increase in calls and the decrease in volunteers, they now have two (sometimes three) paid crews running calls at any given time. These factors and more have led to the need for increased funding to sustain services.”

Bartlett said in the release that “it is essential we provide a sustainable revenue source for PEVRS to ensure this critical service is provided to our citizens, both now and into the future. … No one likes increasing taxes, but in this case, it is essential to do so in order to continue to provide quality services and care for Prince Edward County residents.”

According to Bartlett in the release, the tax levy will generate approximately $300,000 per year that, according to the Code of Virginia, must be set aside in a special fund to be used solely to fund emergency medical services in Prince Edward County. The release added that in comparison, neighboring counties are paying $600,000 per year for one crew. This funding can be used to support all nonprofit EMS agencies in Prince Edward County, as approved by the Board of Supervisors.

In a Wednesday interview, Bartlett stated that an even distribution of tax payment across more county residents was central to the idea of lowering the real estate district tax levy to 1 cent and imposing a district tax levy of 10 cents on all personal property, excluding merchants’ capital.

“It generates the same amount of revenue as 1 cent on real estate,” he said of the 10-cent levy. “The logic behind that is there are some people who don’t own property. If you do (the tax) all on real estate, then only the people who own real estate pay the tax. Therefore, renters, lessees, whatnot, who don’t own real estate, they would not pay the tax. So what that is, is half will be from real estate and half from personal property.”

He noted that the board’s Fire-EMS Committee recommendation was 2 cents on real estate, period, with no district tax levy on personal property.

“But after some negotiations — there was some discussion — (Robert M.) ‘Bobby’ Jones made that motion,” he said.

Bartlett confirmed that the discussion of imposing a district tax levy on personal property along with a 1-cent real estate district tax levy came Tuesday evening.

Jones, the Lockett District supervisor, followed through on that discussion by mentioning the idea of the 1- and 10-cent levies in the board’s regular meeting.

“That way we’d split the cost of this between people paying taxes on their homes and automobiles, and I feel like that’s a fair thing as far as spreading some of the cost …,” he said to his fellow supervisors.

Farmville 701 District Supervisor and Board Chairman Jim Wilck said he had a problem with two things.

“First, I think the town’s not paying their fair share,” he said. “The other situation is we have to raise taxes for the money we’re going to borrow for the reconstruction of the courthouse and the other building that we’re building, plus the YakAttack situation.”

He noted that an additional tax increase will cause a lot of stress for some county residents.

“I understand what you’re saying in a way, Jim,” Jones said. “But then again, if this thing falls back in the lap of the county to have to fund, no matter what, our main revenue, income is through personal property and real estate taxes. So, no matter what, it’s going to come from those avenues, and I hate to put more stress on people, but it’s going to happen one way or another if we fund it.”

Moments later in summary, and shortly before making the motion, Jones said, “If we just authorize a public hearing, we’ll still have some more time to talk about it. And like I said, I want to support the rescue squad, no doubt, and like I said, it’s going to come from your taxes on your property no matter how you label it. This is one way where we can, like I say, earmark it — this goes to the rescue squad from now on. We can increase it, decrease it through the years as (to) what their needs might be, and like I said, I’d like to divide it between real property owners and the motor vehicle tax.”

In a Wednesday interview, Cooper-Jones explained why she voted against the motion.

“From the beginning, I thought they were talking about a 2-cent increase, and then to add on another 10 cents, that was a bit much for me,” she said.