Legislator Larson introduced a proposal Oct. 15 asking that the 2026 tentative budget include language to increase the use of general fund balance by $600,000: $500,000 for an "Industrial Business Parkland Acquisition" capital project and $100,000 to expand contractual job-training capacity.

Larson said the funds would let the county or the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) enter in good-faith offers on land that becomes available near existing industrial parks and water/sewer, while any final purchase would still require legislative approval. "I want Mark Geiss to have the resource to be able to make an offer on that property," Larson said, referring to the county's economic development director.

Committee members raised multiple objections centered on fiscal discipline and process. Legislator Fred Johnson said he objected on budget-discipline grounds and opposed drawing down the county's fund balance at this time. Other members warned that capital projects must be reviewed by the county planning board, and staff confirmed that a planning-board review would be required before the legislature could act on a capital project.

County staff also said the county executive's separate proposal to promote shared services and consolidations carried a $500,000 figure in presentation materials but actually appropriated no dollars; staff said any dollars would be allocated later and only with legislative approval.

Several members urged that any job-training program be developed by the department that would operate it (examples named in discussion included Jamestown Community College) before the legislature set aside funding. Concerns were also raised that existing state and federal programs or local agencies (such as Chautauqua Works) may provide job-training options.

Larson said economic development director Mark Geiss indicated he "would not oppose" having the resources available in a 2026 budget, but no department head was recorded in the committee as formally requesting the $600,000. Larson later said there would be no second to the motion and the committee considered the proposal dead for that meeting.

No formal vote was taken on the Larson proposal in committee; transcript notes that the proposal was introduced but received no second and was not advanced.