Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Analyzing the County Home

Some in state for sale

September 6, 2013

A new Center for Governmental Research study has shown that unless changes are made, county-owned nursing facilities may not survive....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-06-13 7:58 AM

As we can see from the article it is not just Edwards who wants to sell the home.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 8:03 AM

No doubt that Ron Johnson can help to make our County Home more financially stable while at the same time continuing the high quality care for our most vulnerable citizens. He has the expertise and knows how to reduce costs while increasing income, without sacrificing the quality of care for the residents.

I suggest that readers not only read this report on County Homes in general in NY as well as re read the report that was specifically on the CC home.

With the IGT funds, the CCH is NOT losing money as continues to be reported. One factor that I have not heard the County address is if the Home is sold, "how they will offset loss of an average of nearly $500,000 in transfer of funds from the County Home to the County General Fund to cover indirect cost allocations — funds that would be lost to the General Fund if the Home is sold, unless equivalent reductions in government staff costs (beyond the County Home payroll reductions) follow the sale"

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 8:09 AM

How many County employees outside of the County Home will lose their jobs and in what departments will those job losses be felt?

Has anyone asked this question?

If providing additional services would benefit the income of the Home but are currently not permitted by the State, are our local State reps working on changing this policy? Why cannot the County operate a rehab facility, an assisted living facility as well as the nursing home?

"Historically counties have considered public nursing homes to be an important part of their mission, and have repeatedly cited their role in providing a “safety net” for vulnerable populations, including serving disproportionate numbers of low- income and “hard to place” resident"

Should that not still be part of our mission?

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 8:43 AM

As Judeye says, with the IGT funding the CCH is not losing money. The IGT is a taxpayer funded subsidy. Without the $3.2M in IGT the home IS LOSING money. Judeye can spin the facts anyway she wishes but the end result is the same.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 9:08 AM

the report tells it like it is, losing money and will continue to lose, how much plainer can it be, if there was any indications other than Johnson's political claim, we could change our mind, there isn't sell the home, give the taxpayers a break that's needed seeing other tax revenue is drying up quickly, the cow is running dry, act now

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 9:36 AM

Government should stick to the things it does best. Maintain our roads, provide us with water and deliver public safety. Everything else should go to the private sector where competition will determine costs and quality of services.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 9:40 AM

Public services cost money, and I agree that many of these costs can be modified (reduced), but if the sole objective is to either make a profit or eliminate that particular service, then the same objective should apply to ALL county services.

Why are the CGR findings limited to the CCH? Is it b/c the home is a separate facility that can be easily sold off? Did Edwards or the CCLeg ever formally request (pay for) a CGR to determine the cost/revenue ratio involving ALL public services, such as; sheriff patrols, correction officers, courthouse guards, park maintenance, DOT snow removal & bridge crews, admin positions, etc etc etc?

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 10:22 AM

One of the best reasons to NOT vote for Johnson is he has the same mentality as Judeye!! He is a bit of a contradiction isn't he?? He has privately owned nursing homes and yet he is singing the praises of the County owned Home??? He is just vote gathering. As for his business acumen it is very questionable. All he wants to do is get elected to puff up his ego. He would be the worst County Executive this area has ever seen. Ask him what he really did as front man for Fredonia Place? If he is such a business man why isn't he still there?? The bumble heads like Judeye and Johnson will continue their fight until the County Home locks it's doors. Then all the fears will become reality. Be smart Vote Horrigan and SELL the Home!!!!

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 10:28 AM

Agree with Captain - why not study ALL county services and let taxpayers decided which to cut if they don't break even?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 10:32 AM

You cant privatize Police Protection, thats State law! Read the penal law spells out who can be Police officers. Private companies cannot provide Police protection!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 12:20 PM

I totally agree with Captain, and have been saying the same thing all along. Why is using county funds to pay for the CCH considered "losing" money, and yet not so for all of the other "services" we provide to the citizens of the county. These home were originally established to help those most in need, that other homes will not accept. Why do we want to throw these people to the wolves? It is better for our seniors with Alzheizmer to be sent to any home 100 miles away instead of being taken care of close to family? Were is the compassion?

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 12:30 PM

baseball: are you saying that the excessive number of CCSD employees used to "guard" Mayville's courthouse can't be replaced with a private security firm?

I agree that actual street patrols, as well as law enforcement in general must be done by the police, but the level of such service ISN'T mandated.

We want to live in safe communities, and police help provide that, but if ALL public service decisions are based solely on a cost/revenue ratio, as the CGR audit involving the CCH focused on, then the sheriff's dept, as well as other public services must be downsized to achieve that same objective.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 2:11 PM

Some county services operate at a loss – public safety, the CCH, the highway department, etc.

If the county has a duty to protect its citizens and fill potholes on the Fredonia-Stockton Road, does it have an equal duty to help its seniors in their greatest time of need?

If it does, keep taking the IGT money – someone somewhere will use it if we don’t – and bust the union if that’ll make naysayers happy. If not, if there’s no moral imperative to aid elders – especially those who’ve worked all their lives and even lose their homes to go on Medicaid to pay for their stay at the CHH – then sell it and feel really pleased with yourselves. (Think your property taxes will do down?)

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 2:24 PM

The fact is that other nursing homes in the county WILL take these patients but don't need to because they will still be at the county home after a private owner takes over.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 2:50 PM

So all of this came about because of a report published by CGR - an organization described by Wikipedia as 'works primarily with local governments on issues of municipal dissolution, consolidation and competitiveness.' So we have a biased front organization publishing biased papers, used by biased politicans with an agenda.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 3:39 PM

Since pro-sellers are more "concerned" with the cost to taxpayers than they are with the needs of society's elderly, disabled, etc, here's a suggestion:

Pass legislation that puts the entire financial burden upon a patient's surviving children, WITHOUT ANY GOVT ASSISTANCE WHATSOEVER (ie; Medicare & Medicaid)! Just think of all the $$$ taxpayers would save by not having to fund these programs. Nursing homes would then become an option to only those who could afford them.

...still want to sell CCH?....didn't think so.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 4:01 PM

crusin,your fellow poster Judeye keeps citing the CGR as proof positive that the CCH is showing a surplus. Whats up with that,please explain??????? Judeye's "fuzzy math" continues to amaze as evidenced by the 0803 post this day.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 7:16 PM

There are necessary services (police, fire protection, road maintenance, etc.)and selective services. Necessary services should be performed at the lowest possible costs to the taxpayer selective services should also be performed at the lowest possible cost and at least break even not make a profit. The only people bringing up making a profit at the CCH are those who are trying to twist the facts!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 9:28 PM

You really think "necessary services" are being provided today at the lowest-possible cost? And providing help to seniors is a just a "selective service?"

Close the county parks - they're selective and don't break even. Close that new restaurant at the Jamestown airport for which the county is paying most or all of the utilities (at a loss). Close the DMV and other county offices in D-F - they're selective and operate at a loss. Heck, let's shut down Meals is Wheels and other senior services while we're at it.


6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-07-13 8:37 AM

DKexpat....You forgot about Carts buses....This is not a necessary service either....

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-07-13 9:10 AM

FredoniaFred..yes IGT money is taxpayer money. Just like the money that comes from state aid to our schools, the federal money that comes flowing in for many of our other services, all is tax dollar monies.

Do you really think that our taxes will go down if we no longer take the IGT funds? If so, by how much?

I want those who are in favor of selling the CCH to answer that first. Tell me exactly how much I will save in taxes. Oh that is right...NOT ONE CENT.

With the IGT funds the CCH operates at a surplus. JoeW and others...just read the report.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-07-13 8:21 PM


0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-07-13 11:18 PM

dk I did not say necessary services are being performed at the lowest I said should be performed at the lowest cost!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 23 of 23 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web