When the council finally moved to end the private ambulance contract and return EMS to the fire department, he was one of two votes against it.

On July 14, 2026 the Pflugerville City Council voted 5-2 to give ninety days' notice of termination to Bluebird Medical Enterprise, LLC, trading as Allegiance Mobile Health, and to execute interlocal agreements moving emergency medical services to Travis County ESD No. 2 — the fire department. Rogers and Melody Ryan were the two members against.

Meeting
City Council, July 14, 2026, item 7N (RES-1436)
Contractor
Bluebird Medical Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Allegiance Mobile Health
Motion
90 days' notice of termination; interlocals moving EMS to ESD 2
Moved by
Coffman, seconded by Metayer
Vote
5-2 — carried
Against
Ryan and Rogers
Executive session
Requested by Rogers at 12:43am; reconvened 12:53am

What the minutes record

Councilmember Coffman opened the item by saying it was to look at the potential to switch providers to Travis County ESD 2, and moved to give ninety days' notice of termination to the city's private ambulance contractor and to execute two interlocal agreements — one with the district for the service itself, one with Travis County for grant funding. Metayer seconded. ESD 2 Fire Chief Nick Perkins answered questions about how the vehicles are equipped and staffed. Rogers asked to discuss the item in executive session; the council retired at 12:43am and reconvened ten minutes later. The vote was 5-2.

Metayer
Yes
Mayor Weiss
Yes
Coffman
Yes
Ruiz
Yes
Mayor Pro Tem Holiday
Yes
Ryan
No
Rogers
No

Why this vote is different from the others

The other contested emergency services votes in this period were about funding, agreements, and process. This one was about who arrives when somebody calls 911. The motion moved the service from a private contractor to the fire district, and it is the only vote in the corpus where the council acted to put emergency medical services back with ESD 2. David Rogers voted against it.

What the record does not say

The minutes record that Ryan explained her position — she wanted more detail in the contract and could not support one that did not meet the council's expectation of an eight-minute response time. The minutes record no reason from Rogers, only that he asked to take the item behind closed doors before voting no. The minutes are a summary; the video of the July 14, 2026 meeting would settle whether he stated a reason in open session.

What this does not assert

  • does not allege that voting against this motion was improper or unlawful
  • does not allege that Rogers had any interest in, or relationship with, the contractor
  • does not state his reasons for voting against it — the minutes do not record them, and he may have given them
  • does not allege that requesting executive session was improper; it is an ordinary council procedure
  • does not allege that the contractor provided inadequate service; that question is not decided by this vote
  • does not assert that the interlocal agreements have taken effect or that the service has in fact transferred
  • Ryan's recorded reason concerned contract terms and response times, and is not evidence of Rogers' reasoning

Sources