The Finance and Personnel Committee of Erie County convened on December 5, 2024, to address significant budgetary issues stemming from the county executive's vetoes. The meeting focused on the implications of these vetoes on the planning and community fund budget for 2025.

The session began with a discussion regarding a transfer that was not included in the gaming budget, which raised concerns among committee members. An email dated October 23 was referenced, highlighting the absence of an action sheet to correct this oversight. The committee noted that the council's response was to remove the transfer from the planning fund budget to ensure alignment.

Attorney Talarico provided legal context, asserting that the county executive's veto aimed to increase a budget item that the council had already reduced by $100,000. He emphasized that the executive does not possess the authority to amend the budget in a manner that contradicts the council's decisions. Talarico pointed out that the Home Rule Charter does not grant the executive the power to appropriate funds, reinforcing the council's position that the veto lacked legal validity.

The committee then moved to address the executive's veto of ordinance 72, which pertained to the planning and community fund budget. An action sheet was proposed to decrease the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fund balance by $900,000 and transfer those funds to the planning department. The committee discussed the need for clarity in the budget title, agreeing to amend it to accurately reflect the 2025 planning budget.

Further deliberations revealed that the original veto included a complex breakdown of appropriations, including a $75,000 allocation from the ARP fund and a $900,000 reduction in pass-through grant expenses. The committee concluded that the executive's vetoes were not merely overrides but rather attempts to reinstate budget items that the council had eliminated, which Talarico argued was beyond the executive's authority.

The meeting concluded without any objections to the proposed amendments, indicating a consensus among committee members to move forward with the adjustments to the budget. The discussions underscored the ongoing tension between the county executive's office and the council regarding budgetary control and appropriations, setting the stage for potential future legal challenges.