Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westchester council debates dedicated EMS/public-safety tax; item moved for fuller discussion
Summary
Council heard a wide-ranging debate about a proposed 0.45‑mill dedicated EMS/public-safety tax (about $13 per household) to create a transparent fund for emergency medical services. Concerns about budget flexibility and who would share costs led the council to move the issue to fuller discussion at the next meeting.
The finance committee asked the council to consider establishing a dedicated public-safety tax limited to emergency medical services (EMS) and related providers. Finance staff explained that a 0.45‑mill levy would raise roughly $13 per household and create a separate cash account dedicated to EMS costs.
Finance staff explained statutory limits and said the tax, as interpreted, must be used only for EMS providers—ambulance, advanced life support and related rescue services—not police or fire. "That means any entity that provides emergency medical services…" staff said in explaining the legal interpretation.
Council members expressed sharp disagreement about the proposal’s value and consequences. Council President Nicole Shamooni said she worried the dedicated fund would reduce budget flexibility and result in pigeonholed dollars that could not be reallocated to other priorities: "If we collect more than what is needed…we can't use it…we can't use it if the…you have it in the general fund you can move it around for the parks," Shamooni said.
Other council members raised concerns about fairness and cost-sharing: would other municipalities or volunteer services that benefit from borough funding contribute proportionally? One member asked whether the borough would be left to "carry the burden for everyone else" if partners do not participate.
Staff and the solicitor explained that when state borough code lacks a precise definition, rules of statutory interpretation require looking at related statutes to determine what counts as EMS. They said the tax must be limited to emergency services as defined by referenced statutes; the solicitor offered to provide clearer citations at the next meeting.
After extended discussion and unanswered questions about contracts and partner contributions (including outstanding responses from a local provider, Good Fellowship), council voted to move the matter to a fuller discussion at the next meeting when more members could be present and additional data could be provided.
