• Photo
• Video

Sphere IT

Save This Page

Reader Reaction

digg it

Rescue billing raises questions

Floyd County supervisors want answers from the private company that handles billing for rescue squad calls after a long-time volunteer member of the squad said a representative for the company threatened her with a collection agency and used heavy-handed tactics in violation of the company’s contract with the county.

Janice Cox of Indian Valley, who works with both the paid EMS crews and volunteers and is a CPR instructor and secretary on the volunteer squad’s board, was transported to the hospital by a rescue squad ambulance in July 2006. Her insurance company paid $500 for the service and she told the board she just recently began receiving bills for a remaining balance of $260.50.

She said rescue squad volunteers were told the county would do “soft billing” of any balance due after insurance by sending out three bills and then write off the balance if unpaid but that a collector for the billing company called on Friday and threatened to send her bill to a collection agency.

“They told me I had 10 days to decide how I wanted to pay for this or it would be turned over to a collection agency,” Cox said. “I feel the volunteers have been lied to if this is the actual practice.”

ox said she and other rescue squad volunteers had assured county residents that they would not be harassed over amounts due and that the actions of the billing company meant they had “lied” to county residents.

Myra Grim, the EMS Administrative Clerk, told supervisors that the billing company is not supposed to threaten those with accounts due but added that she had not received information she had requested from the company.

Grim said the county tries to work out payment plans when possible and that some residents pay as little as $10 a month towards their obligations.

“We try to work these things out,” she said.

Bill Crabtree, a retired Atlanta Fire Department battalion chief who lives in Burks Fork District and serves on the citizens’ committee that helped negotiate the contract with the billing company, said the contract prohibits aggressive collection tactics.

“The contract calls for soft billing procedures only,” Crabtree said. “Threatening someone with a collection agency is just flat out wrong.”

Supervisors told Grim to find out what happened from the billing company and report back to the board.

The board Tuesday also learned new regulations from the Virginia Department of Transportation could force the county to conduct traffic impact analysis studies on roads affected by subdivision development.

Lydeanna Martin, director of tourism and economic development, said VDOT’s “527” process requires the analysis on 20 lot subdivisions on low volume roads where the subdivision could at least double existing traffic.

Martin said at least three subdivisions approved by the planning commission in the last two years would have required such a review had the regulations been in place.

The county would be required to collect a $1,000 fee from developers or builders for the study. Failure to conduct the study, Martin said, could leave the county open for litigation from developers or those affected by increased traffic.

Several supervisors expressed concern that the new regulations is a first step towards more state control over development and would add more drain on the county’s budget and resources.

“I see this as a first step,” said Supervisor Jerry Boothe of Courthouse District.

VDOT resident administrator Bob Beasley backed up Martin’s analysis of the new regulations saying the state wanted “consistency” in handling traffic impact studies.

“It’s now the law and we have to enforce it,” Beasley said.

Martin also told the board that subdivision approvals for the current year continue to run behind the record pace set in 2005 but are running ahead of both 2006 and 2004. The planning commission approved 65 new subdivision lots in the first five months of 2007, compared to 58 in 2004, 150 in 2005 and 47 in 2006.

Supervisors Tuesday also scheduled public hearings for July 10 on proposals to increase the courthouse security fee from $5 to $10 and on amendments to the Tax Relief for Elderly ordinance.

The security fee is levied as part of court costs for convictions in county court and is used to pay for the courtroom metal detector and other security costs. Circuit Clerk Wendell Peters told supervisors the state recently raised the fee to $10 and the county needed to amend its ordinance to comply.

The public hearing is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on July 10, the date of the Supervisors regular monthly meeting.

A second public hearing on the Tax Relief for Elderly is scheduled to immediately follow the first hearing. The county is proposing raising the qualification levels from $17,000 to $20,650 total gross household income to allow elderly residents to obtain a tax credit of up to $200.

The board on Tuesday also:

--Asked VDOT to conduct a feasibility study to see if “Children at Play” signs can be erected on Reece Road and Macks Mountain Road;

--Set June 25 at 7 p.m. for the board’s annual end-of-the-fiscal year close-out meeting;

--Approved $13,768 worth of upgrades to the county’s computer network