Despite a number of doors seeming to close, the Lawrence County Commissioners still want to get money they say is owed to them from a now defunct emergency medical services.

At its Tuesday meeting the commissioners received correspondence from assistant prosecuting attorney Mack Anderson asking again that the state’s Attorney General Mike DeWine step in to attempt to recover the more than $300,000 in question from the Southeast Ohio Emergency Medical Services.

In May State Auditor Dave Yost released an audit of SEOEMS that once served Lawrence, Athens and Jackson counties for more than three decades. The tri-county EMS was dissolved at the end of 2010 when Athens and Jackson counties pulled out.

According to the audit, SEOEMS owed the county a refund of $301,396. The audit targeted years 2008, 2009 and 2010, where it was determined that Athens for that period had operated in the red with a total deficit of $409,118. Jackson had deficits of $304,482 for 2008 and 2010. However in 2009 Jackson had a surplus of $68,175. That translated to Athens and Jackson counties owing SEOEMS $645,425 as well as the refund to Lawrence County.

County Commission President Les Boggs first attempted to get the money during a June SEOEMS board meeting, but lost when the majority of the board voted not to give the county the money.

The commissioners then went to the county prosecutor’s office who asked DeWine to intervene. He advised that he needed more information before he could possibly assist in the collection of the money.

Also at that time a spokesperson from Yost’s office said the county would have to provide documentation before there could be a possible recovery since the figures in question were listed as fact, not as a finding for recovery.

“At this time there is no document showing that a finding for recovery should be issued,” Brittany Elking from Yost’s office said in November. “We should need to see how the assets and liabilities should be distributed and if there is a document brought to our attention that shows that agreement was not followed a finding for recovery could be issued.”

In his letter of Dec. 14, Anderson said he was forwarding to DeWine copies of the 2009 and 2010 contracts between the county and SEOEMS.

“Particularly we would refer you to article 5 indicating the responsibility of SEOEMS to refund the county the amount of total annual receipts which exceeds the total annual disbursements,” the letter states. “Therefore, rather than enforcing the audit we wonder if your office could pursue a collection against SEOEMS pursuant to these contracts and on behalf of the Lawrence County Commissioners.”

Boggs said DeWine wanted to see contracts between the different counties and SEOEMS to determine if a collection was enforceable by those contracts.

Dan Tierney, a spokesman for DeWine said the office did receive Anderson’s letter but that there were no contracts attached.

“The letter was regarding our local debt collection program,” Tierney said. “We have a program where we can enter into memo of understanding to collect local debts. We are going to need more information from the county regarding their request in the letter. The type of debt they may be seeking is not the type of debt involved in the program.”