Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Ambulance Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erie County Council declines $150,000 general-fund appropriation for East County EMS ambulance
Summary
Council voted 2-4 on Sept. 9 against an ordinance that would have appropriated $150,000 from the general fund to purchase an ambulance for East County EMS. Opponents argued available grant funds should be used first and raised budget-timing concerns ahead of the county’s budget process.
The Erie County Council on Sept. 9 voted down an ordinance that would have used $150,000 in general-fund money to buy an ambulance for East County EMS.
Ordinance number 40-2025, described at the meeting as a general-fund supplemental appropriation of $150,000 to create a line item for East County EMS for purchase of an ambulance, failed on a recorded vote. The transcript shows the tally as two in favor and four opposed; Council members Ms. Schauerman and Mr. Bale voted yes, while Mr. Copeland, Mr. Drexel, Mr. Horton and Chairman Scatella voted no. The clerk announced: “And the motion fails by a vote of 2 to 4.”
Opponents said existing county grant funds or transformational-grant allocations should be spent before tapping the general fund. “If you have a pile of money over here, spend it before we give you a pile of money over here,” said Mr. Copeland, who argued East County EMS had been approved for a transformational grant but had not yet been paid from that fund. Mr. Horton said he would vote no because some of the funding referenced had originated as American Rescue Plan funds intended for Black and brown communities and he did not believe East County EMS qualified for that funding.
Supporters said the ambulance purchase was needed to address an EMS staffing and capacity shortfall. Mr. Bale described training and scholarship expenses tied to the grant fund and said the county’s residents “deserve that service.” Another council member said the county faces a “terrible workforce deficit in EMS” and supported the appropriation for that reason.
Council members also criticized the county executive’s handling of the disbursement: several speakers said the county executive had the ability to release funds and had delayed payment to the EMS applicant, leaving council to consider whether to use general-fund dollars instead. One council member said the executive could “just pen this check” rather than asking council to appropriate general funds.
Why this matters: the failed motion shows disagreement among council members about funding priorities and process ahead of the county’s larger budget cycle. East County EMS proponents said the appropriation would address immediate life‑saving capacity; opponents urged use of already‑earmarked funds and cautioned about spending general-fund dollars while state-level budget uncertainty remains.
The motion failed on Sept. 9; no alternate appropriation appears in the record from the meeting. Council members said departments and funding sources will be examined during the budget review process scheduled for October and November.
