A Question About the Manor

Can I ask a question about the Manor?

I have to admit, I'm a little bewildered by the strong feelings regarding keeping the Manor in County hands.  I understand that Countryside in Delaware County is a cautionary tale, but that's really apples and oranges.  And I understand that private companies have been making unpopular decisions regarding their nursing homes for financial reasons.

So here's my question:  Under the massive annual financial pressures created by the costs of the Manor, what will keep the County, in the future, from making unpopular decisions as well?

We've spent nearly two months now trying to trim over $5 million from next year's budget.  We've tried really hard not to kick too many cans down the road, but some cans had to be kicked.  Ancillary supports to servcies have fallen by the dozens, many never to return.  Next year, when the job starts again, where do we cut?  And the year after?  As long as the Manor is costing Otsego County $4+ million a year over revenues, and assuming that the taxpayers of Otsego County are not willing to endure the 30+ % tax increase required to pay for it outright, the level of care at the Manor will have to be on the table.  As long as very existence of the Sheriff's patrol and senior meals is on the table, as long as the quality of road maintenance and the caseload of Social Service caseworkers are on the table, the quality of care at the Manor will have to be on the table, as well.  And until the management and confidential staff throughout the county get a raise (it's been five years, and counting), everything's on the table.

I think the opponents of privatization have created a false dichotomy:  it's not a case of greedy private operators vs. a rosy, unaltered future with the County.  Both will be struggling with finances, and with paying for an expensive, complex institution in an unpredictable funding environment.  Each entity may respond differently, but neither can guarantee anything.

 

Democracy at Foothills

 An enormous number of us came out to have fun on Wednesday night - the Foothills main stage auditorium seats over 600, and they were bringing in more chairs by the dozen. 

I spoke early, and then left to attend the Schreibman/Gibson debate at SUCO (which is a different story), so I can't tell you how it went after that .  The Star has summarized things.  Here's my testimony:

Good evening.  My name is Gary Koutnik, and I am a member of the Otsego County Board of Representatives.  I represent the 11th District, just a stone's throw from here, and I would like to thank you for scheduling a hearing here in Otsego County.

I represent an urban, residential area - the First and Second Wards in the City of Oneonta.  We're unlikely to have a pipeline routed through our district, and we're unlikely to find a drilling pad appear in someone's backyard.  But last fall, when I visited every house in my district and spoke withmany of my constituents, I found a large majority who had grave concerns about the methane industry coming to Otsego County.  And as a County Representative, I must act in the best interests of the County as a whole, as well.

This is a hearing about the Constitution Pipeline, I know, not about fracking per se.  However, it would be dangerous to dismiss the argument that they are closely linked.  You need look no further than a Williams press release, dated March of the year, in which Alan Armstrong, the CEO, said this about the pipeline:

Our goal is to be the leading gathering, processing and transportation solution provider for producers in the Marcellus Shale.

We're putting together the kind of infrastructure that makes drilling in the Marcellus even more desirable for producers because we provide large-scale infrastructure solutions that connect producers' natural gas and natural gas liquids to the best markets.

We cannot separate the pipeline and fracking in the Southern Tier and the northern Catskills.  Others have spoken, and will speak, about this natural connection, in more detail.  However, throughout it all, please remember the freely-expressed, public intent of the pipeline company, when you listen to those who tell us there is no connection.  The evidence suggests that this position is either naive or disingenuous. 

Thank you again for scheduling a hearing in Otsego County.

So democracy progresses.  It was loud, messy, uncomfortable and exuberant - and that was just while I was there.  It was we the people, doing our best to act in the best interests of everyone.  It was wonderful to be a part of it.  And FERC now has a very clear idea of what is on the minds of the folks in this part of the country.

One More Fun Thing To Do Next Week

By now, just about everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding the Constitution Pipeline, and alternate Route M, which will send the pipeline through Otsego County, essentially along or near I-88.  At its last meeting, the Board of Representatives - after a three-hour public comment period - approved a resolution encouraging the use of Route M.  The vote was not unanimous:  four of us voted against it (and one was absent).  My concern was focused on the use of the pipeline as transport infrastructure for local fracking operations sometime in the future.  My concerns were roused by the fact that the CEO of the pipeline company pretty much said that that was its purpose.  You can read, and decide for yourself, here.  

None of the hearings conducted by the Federal regulatory agency regarding the pipline were held in Otsego County, and the comment period was, initially, closed on October 9 (thus the hasty Board vote).  One of the nice developments after the Board vote was that the comment period was extended, and a hearing in Otsego County was scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, at 7PM at Foothills.  This is an important issue and essential, I think, in the fight against hydrofracking.  Come and show your concern, speak if you'd like, or bring a written comment.  Let me know if you need more information.

Two Fun Things To Do Next Week

Well, it depends on your definition of 'fun.'   As I mentioned here last week, budget time is among us, and we have to trim down the requests by a whole lot to get to 'balanced.'  Most of the committees have done most of their detailed investigation and cutting by now.  One of my committees - Health and Education - spend a good deal of time talking about the senior meals program through the Office for the Aging.  It's not a mandated program - the law doesn't require that it continue - and, overall, it costs abvout $800,000. The law does prohibit charging or means-testing participants, regardless of ability to pay.  There are center meals, provided in public places (Nader Towers and Elm Park Church in the southern part of the county), and there are home-delivered meals.  More frozen meals are being delivered to outlying sections of the county, in order to reduce the number of trips per week, so that savings has already been accomplished.  So how do we address this?  Should it be eliminated entirely? Close one or more centers?  Freeze more - or all - meals and deliver only once a week?  This is just one program in one Department; these kinds of discussions are going on all over the County.

The Two Fun Things To Do involve observing this process yourself.  The Administration Committee, renamed the Budget Committee for this process, takes the Budget as it stands after the Commmittees have done their best, and interviews Department heads, looking for more cuts.  The Budget Committee will meet at 9:15 AM at the County Office Building on Monday, October 22, and Wednesday, October 24.  The meetings are open to the public but, like Board meetings, the public can observe but not participate in the process.  I don't know for sure which Departments are scheduled for which day, but if you are interested, you can call the Clerk of the Board's office and ask.  I'll be there Monday, observing as well.  I think it's important that we all know what goes into this sausage of a Budget.