Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances creation of EMS vehicle fund; refers financing details to Finance Committee
Summary
Council reviewed Ordinance 2025-16 to create an EMS Vehicle Acquisition Fund funded by 12% of ambulance-billing revenue processed by Lifeforce (estimated $48,000–$50,000 annually, capped at $50,000); members debated funding strategy and voted to send the proposal to the Finance Committee (all "aye" except one "nay").
City councilors on April 21 reviewed an ordinance to establish an EMS Vehicle Acquisition Fund intended to set aside a portion of ambulance-billing revenue for long-term replacement of EMS apparatus.
Finance Director Dennis Kennedy told council the Ohio Revised Code permits municipalities to create capital-project funds for equipment acquisition. The proposal would allocate 12% of monthly ambulance-billing revenue collected via Lifeforce, a third-party billing administrator, into the new fund. Kennedy said Lifeforce presently yields roughly $400,000 in annual ambulance billing receipts to the city, meaning the new fund would receive about $48,000–$50,000 a year; the ordinance includes a $50,000 annual cap to start.
Fire Chief Bob Perko outlined a long-term fleet-replacement plan he previously presented in 2018 and reiterated that apparatus prices have risen substantially. “It is kind of the same money in, the same money out. It is just a matter of strategic long-term planning,” Chief Perko said, noting that a dedicated equipment fund would allow the department to save for high-cost apparatus rather than compete each year within the general fund.
Council members debated whether ambulance-billing revenue should be redirected from the general fund and whether a more comprehensive capital-plan for all departments would be preferable. Councilmember Christopher Cooney said directing fees earned from department services into a department-specific capital fund could create more predictable funding for apparatus replacement. Opposition questions focused on whether third-party billing would meaningfully change net collections and on possible tradeoffs for general-fund priorities such as staffing and pensions.
After discussion, council voted to refer the ordinance to the Finance Committee for more detailed review. The motion to send the proposal to the Finance Committee passed on roll call with all voting “aye” except Councilmember Sheri Sax, who voted “nay.” No ordinance adoption occurred at the April 21 meeting; the Finance Committee will review costs, contract terms with Lifeforce (including any fees), and whether the model should be expanded to other departments.
