Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erie County councilors flag discrepancies in posted 2025 budget, consider lawsuit and outside audit
Summary
Council members said the administration’s posted final 2025 budget does not match the administration’s proposal or the council's approved numbers, citing specific line-item changes and raising the prospect of litigation and an Auditor General review.
Council members raised alarms at a recent Erie County Council meeting after finding what they called discrepancies between the administration's proposed 2025 budget, the council's adopted budget and the final budget posted online, and discussed directing the council solicitor to file suit to enforce the annual budget.
A council member said the numbers in the final budget's "proposed" column were "roughly $600,000 less than what the actual proposed budget was," and listed several line-item changes that he said do not reflect council votes. "That's $605,232.06 ... municipal cap fund removed, dollars 105,400 removed from the EMTA grant," he said, adding he had compiled "20 some line items" of concern after reviewing the posted documents.
Councilors and staff described three distinct budget documents in circulation: the administration's original proposal, the council's passed budget and a different final budget on the county website. A council speaker said the result is that "we have inconsistencies across all 3 budgets where it's hard to reconcile the numbers in any capacity." Council members said that mismatch affects revenue assumptions used to prepare tax notices and raised questions about which services would be cut if anticipated millage revenue did not materialize.
The council discussed a proposed resolution (Resolution No. 3) directing the council solicitor to file suit to enforce the 2025 annual budget and to challenge what members characterized as "illegal tax collection efforts" by the joint administration. Councilors repeatedly asked staff for an expedited written explanation and for supporting documents; one member urged answers within 24 to 48 hours. Several councilors said they will also ask the Pennsylvania Auditor General to investigate the accounting discrepancies.
Council staff and other officials told members they are compiling a list of discrepancies and will provide it to the solicitor to inform any legal filing. "I'll get you some answers," a staff speaker responded during the meeting when asked for specifics. Members stressed the potential local impact if the millage assumption is wrong: one councilor said a 7.12 millage proposal represented about $7,400,000 in revenue and asked which programs or line items would go unfunded if that revenue were not collected.
No formal vote on the litigation resolution is recorded in the transcript. Councilors agreed to prepare materials for the solicitor and to consider placing the matter on the agenda for a future meeting; one member said a show of hands would be taken at the next scheduled meeting to gauge support.
Why this matters: council members said the disputed changes could affect service funding, tax notices sent to property owners and the public's confidence in county financial controls. Multiple speakers recommended bringing in the Auditor General for an independent review if internal reconciliation cannot resolve the discrepancies.
The council also discussed procedural next steps: compiling the discrepancies into a document to be incorporated into a complaint, possibly amending any legal filing as new items are identified, and seeking an external audit. The council solicitor and staff agreed to provide written responses and working files to councilors.
Ending: Council members left the meeting urging rapid follow-up. Several said they would supply the solicitor with the items compiled so the complaint could be amended promptly; others said they want the Auditor General to review the county's finances if internal answers are not satisfactory.
