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

County in the black for 2012

May 17, 2013

Instead of being in the red as predicted in 2011, the county government was in the black for 201....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-17-13 7:03 AM

How many yrs did we hear Edwards and the CCLeg say the county home was losing bucco bucks, and now all of a sudden it's not?

If this isn't suspicious enough, he's now alleging that all county services are collectively operating in the black (under budget)? This is great news if it's true, but just b/c Edwards says so doesn't make it true.

I think I'd faint if the Observer ever did a little research and cited credible evidence to corroborate such allegations BEFORE printing them.

This is the trouble with today's media. It's become a form of entertainment, and confirmed facts are irrelevant EXCEPT when it involves legal (personal) issues with merit. Then you can bet that multiple sources of confirmation would be clearly noted.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 7:17 AM

"I'm honored to tell you today Chautauqua County is in the black," Edwards said.

If this is true, and the audit proves that the county ended up in the black (under budget) for 2012, why has Edwards been saying for AT LEAST the last 18 mos that the county home is losing $11,000 PER DAY? Where was he getting these numbers from?

C'mon Observer...ask some obvious questions for once...geeez!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 7:50 AM

How did merging two agencies save five million dollars? All they did was change the name. If anything that cost money. Im guessing he doesnt even know why there is a surplus. How can anyone take anything he says seriously?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 7:54 AM

If the observer were two report anything critical of this administration you can bet they would want corroberation. You are absolutely correct Captain. The local newspapers are no better then the liberal media at the national level. When the media dont do their job, government abuse only grows.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 8:12 AM

The article said the "County" is in the black folks,not the county home. The County home is still losing money. As far as merging the two agencies,the reason for the savings was explained and involved more than a "name change". Good job by Mr Edwards and the entire County team!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 8:18 AM

Why are we surprised? They scream doom and gloom at budget time so everyone gets scared, then we are suppose to be thrilled when they were wrong! Remember the budget is just their word about what it will cost and it doesn't have to be based in fact. Good way to cut staff and service while lying that everything is still OK. Do we really believe that less staff, less resources, and less time can produce more? He will say anything to look good going out the door to help further his own career.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 8:37 AM

The CCH has it's own budget separate from the county general fund. This article does not mention the CCH. The county had a surplus mostly due to a state audit of funds it requires the county to send to the state. The state took too much county money and gave it back.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 8:38 AM

"This surplus will enable us to make the required investments in our infrastructure", so says Mr. Edwards. Give government an extra dollar and they will figure out a way to spend it! Maybe the county executive should have said since we are one of the highest taxed counties in the entire country we will use this surplus to reduce the property tax or the sales tax. This is a classic example of why government can't be trusted with OUR MONEY - they tend to think it's THEIR MONEY.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 8:39 AM

BTW, the CCH is still losing $3.2M per year even with the savings outlined in yesterday's paper.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 8:45 AM

Phil will be the first to complain when he hits a pothole on a county road.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 9:23 AM

"because county employees found more efficient ways of performing their duties, services were provided to county residents at less expense." Well SHAME ON YOU....shouldn't you always be working efficiently??? 6 million to those who didn't qualify. You are kidding. Looks like there should be a clean sweep of everyone at the county. Just what would our taxes be if they ALWAYS worked efficiently????? Call the cops!!!!!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 9:47 AM

Commentor-improvements and changes in order to be more efficient is ongoing and always WIP as it is even in ones personal life. I am not a "big government" guy by any stretch but when I see improvement I do give credit.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 10:16 AM

I'm sure the County will find a way to get back into the "RED".. They have had years of practice.. A pat on the back for saving 2 & a half Million on Welfare fraud. Now, think how much we could save if ALL Welfare Fraud was eliminated.. I personally had my name forged on a Welfare Rent Receipt so they could continue on Welfare & the SS Dept. would do nothing about it..

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 11:07 AM

Fred: please explain to us how you came to the conclusion that CCH is still losing $3.2M per yr, even AFTER significant cost-saving measures were imposed.

The truth is no longer relevant to self-praising reps and the media who help them by printing intentionally misleading stories. It's all about achieving the objective thru false perception.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 11:13 AM

The CHH: If we determine the value to the community of a service simply via “red/black,” where’s the uproar for selling every county service that doesn’t pay for itself?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 11:20 AM

DKex: I don't want to re-hash the same old arguments, so I'll just say you're absolutely correct!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-17-13 12:56 PM

SNOTZIMAN - the county budget exceeds $200 million. Are you suggesting that's not enough to fix potholes?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 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