Chautauqua County Legislature adopts amended resolution making job creation a top county government priority for next four years

The Chautauqua County Legislature adopted an amended resolution on Aug. 27 stating that job creation and retention will be a top economic development priority for county government for the next four years.

The final measure, passed after an amendment by substitution, carried on a roll call of 13 yes, 5 no and 1 member absent. The motion to amend by substitution passed earlier in the meeting, 14 yes to 4 no with 1 absent.

The debate centered on competing views about whether a one-line goal—"job creation as the number one goal"—was the right policy signal for the legislature. Legislator Larson opposed the amendment and the original version, saying the amended language read as "propaganda" and was legally inaccurate about the roles of county entities such as the county and the Chautauqua County Industrial Development Agency. Larson argued past county practice showed the county itself had financed and built industrial parks and infrastructure, not solely the IDA.

Legislator Nelson said job growth should be the legislature's emphasis, citing the county's low median income, a 17 percent poverty rate, and long-term population decline. "Our county's median income is among the lowest in the state," Nelson said. He opposed the amended substitution because he said the county should make job growth its highest priority.

Legislator Johnson said he opposed a declaration that job growth be the single number-one goal because he prioritized filling the roughly 500 current unfilled, high-paying jobs in the county before promoting new job creation. "If we can't fill those, then why should somebody come here and spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars per job to create more jobs we can't fill?" he asked.

Legislator Dickey, an economist, supported the amended resolution, saying job creation is important but not "the one thing" and that the county has other responsibilities to taxpayers.

Legislator Gustafson, who supported the amendment, said the amended measure ensures that county priorities include both job retention and creation rather than focusing only on growth. She cited a decline of more than 14,000 employed residents since 2005 and noted more than 1,000 open positions remain unfilled locally, arguing that limited workforce availability—not only job creation—constrains economic recovery.

Several legislators cautioned about framing the issue as a political test. Legislator Scudder said he supported job development but opposed presenting the policy as a confrontational motion that pressures members into a yes-or-no posture.

Legislator Larson and others urged that adopting an explicit multi-year policy would direct county departments such as Public Facilities and Planning to prioritize infrastructure and other supports that can facilitate private investment. Larson cited examples of past county-supported industrial development projects.

The amended resolution was introduced as a substitution to the original 225-25 resolution. The motion to amend was made by Legislator Harmon and seconded by Legislator Vanstrom. On the motion to amend, the roll call recorded 14 yes votes (Anthony, Buchanan, Dickey, Gustafson, Harmon, Heizer, Johnson, Landy, Niebel, Pavlok, Penhollow, Proctor, Vanstrom, Shagnon) and 4 no votes (Carl, Larson, Nelson, Scudder), with Legislator Bankowski absent. On the final roll call for the amended resolution, the 13 yes votes, 5 no votes, and 1 absence were recorded and the resolution was adopted.

The resolution covers county-level policy direction and does not itself appropriate funds or change law. Legislators noted the four-year span corresponds to the next county executive term and that the resolution is intended as guidance for county departments and boards, including the IDA and public facilities, when evaluating projects that may promote job creation.

Supporters and opponents repeatedly asked what concrete metrics or enforcement would follow from the statement of priorities; the adopted text does not set specific numeric targets in the legislature's public discussion. The clerk recorded the vote counts on the record.

The legislature moved on to other agenda items after the vote; the adopted resolution will appear on the county minutes and is available from the clerk's office.