Two democrats in favor of funding county home

By NICHOLAS L. DEAN
OBSERVER Mayville Bureau
MAYVILLE - Funding the County Home in 2012 is a good idea regardless of the work being done to privatize the facility, according to legislator John Gullo, D-Fredonia.
As it stands, the tentative 2012 budget has $500,630 in IGT money budgeted - which would be matched by the federal government.
For every dollar paid by the county, the County Home can receive matching funds from the federal government. The money is paid through what's called Intergovernmental Transfers, or IGT funding.
"We're doubling our money," Gullo said during the Audit and Control Committee's recent review of the budget. "It's the best investment. It's a guaranteed return. It's hard for me to walk away from that, just as a kind of a money guy."
Gullo continued on to say that whether the Dunkirk-based nursing facility remains run by the county for another year or two, or is privatized in 2012, the county benefits from essentially "buying" the IGT funding.
"If, in the future, the legislature chooses to not sell the home, it's in a stronger financial position as a result of this investment," Gullo said. "If, in the future, the legislature decides to sell it, there is a very strong argument that we get this money towards our bottom line at the time of the sale. ... It is probably a good idea either way."
The discussion of the County Home's IGT funding came up last Friday during the Audit and Control Committee's review of the 2012 budget. Legislator Chuck Nazzaro, D-Jamestown, had proposed cutting the $500,630 from the tentative 2012 budget. That proposal failed 4 'no' votes to 3 'yes' votes, with Committee Chairman Jay Gould, R-Ashville, and John Runkle, R-Stockton, voting with Nazzaro. Voting with Gould were legislators Tom DeJoe, D-Brocton, Doug Richmond, R-Mayville, and Jerry Park, R-Forestville.
Without money from the county in 2012 and the matching federal IGT funding, the County Home can only afford to survive on its fund balance for another year or two - meaning 2012 and maybe 2013, according to County Finance Director Darin Schulz.
"I remember my exact words two years ago when we were talking about IGT," Schulz said. "The decision is if you believe the County Home is to be a county asset, then you would be crazy not to fund it. If you don't believe the County Home is a county asset, then I think you then make a different decisions. So that's where I think you really have to look at your own personal beliefs as to where you see this going."
Additionally, Schulz said the IGT is expected to continue in the future - so if the county does not fund the County Home in 2012, that is not to say it couldn't be funded in 2013.
Though being budgeted for in 2012, the county does not actually have to commit until May 1 to receive the IGT funding. So, with that wiggle room, Nazzaro suggested not putting the IGT funding into the budget, but rather waiting until after the county's already part-way into next year - and then taking the $500,630 from the county's fund balance early next year.