 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
Lancaster’s Town Board voted unanimously to approve an $8 million bond resolution for the reconstruction/construction of the 3949 Walden Avenue (Colecraft Building) it had purchased seven years ago to house the then merged police forces of the Town of Lancaster and the Village of Lancaster.
“I thought this day would never happen,” exclaimed Police Chief Gary Stoldt. “The building we have now is insufficient for our needs. We have detectives working out of one building (Walden Avenue) and police working out of another (Pavement Road). There are 50 sworn officers and 16 civilians and we don’t have room to put them all together. We are not looking for the Taj Mahal. If you want to see the problems we have at the Pavement Road facility, come on out. Our people deserve a lot better than the building we are working out of.”
Resident Questions/Comments
Considering the resolution contained no language as to what the $8 million would buy in renovating what portion of the 76,000 square foot police facility, a facility that now houses only the detective squad and used for storage, several residents addressed the Board at the public comment session on prefiled resolutions.
Resident Dan Beutler asked on how many square feet of building would be renovated. Supervisor Robert Giza and Council Member Ronald Ruffino both answered that has yet to be determined. “A rough estimate would be about 40,000 square feet,” declared Supervisor Giza. Beutler asked whether a portion of the $8 million would be used to pay off the $1.9 million spent to purchase the building (included furniture) in 2003. It was answered that this amount was separate from the $1.9 million. “We are saying that we may not spend the $8 million, but that it can’t go over the $8 million,” said Giza.
“The total cost will not exceed $9.6 million for roughly 35,000 to 40,000 square feet of building, vs. looking at a new build of 25,000 square feet at approximately $12.5 million.”
Beutler presented feasibility study figures from 2003 and 2004 made by two engineering firms. “Clough Harbour & Associates had presented a study that showed that 51,000 square feet of the Walden Avenue building could have been renovated back then at $8.36 million, and that included the $1.6 paid for the building and the $300,000 for the furniture/computers/etc. Trautman & Associates has a cost estimate to do all 76,000 square feet of the building for $9.7 million; included $1.9 million for building purchase and furniture. This is six years later and we are going to spend $9.6 million to do 40,000 square feet, or less. How can residents not look at this and say we messed up on this project. Five years ago you could have had this building done and the police in there with the entire building renovated.”
“How long is it going to take us to build this,” asked Beutler? Fourteen months was the answer given, dependent on the weather. “To me this project was messed up from the beginning and is still a cloak and dagger operation where residents are kept in the dark, declared Beutler. “We need a new police facility, but to me this is a bad move, something that should have taken place six years ago, if at all. The town should have built a new police station”
Beutler later asked the board which feasibility study was going to be used, “the Clough Harbour or the Trautman”?
Councilman Ruffino stated that they were thinking of merging the proposals. Beutler stated he had a serious concern and read a letter from 2004 that spoke on the cost differences between the Trautman and Clough Harbour.
Beutler focused on the closing statement whereby a 2004 letter justified estimate differences as “close enough for government work.” “Scary isn’t that,” replied Beutler.
Ruffino countered that the difference could be explained by differences in amount of work and the regulations involved. “My concern is that the public and the police get their bang for the buck,” Beutler interjected.
Resident Mike Fronczak then addressed the Board. Fronczak declared that the board was there to serve the best interests of the community and that it behooved them to listen to resident opinions with respect. “It has been six years that we have been haggling over this project and all that while you guys have been trying to justify why we bought this building in the first place. Now you guys are going to bond $8 million dollars and I don’t see any plan, no one knows what the project is going to cost, what the renovation is going to entail in size or use, equipment, etc. And now, we are jumping at this. We need to put the brakes on this and let the taxpayers know what’s going on. You are asking taxpayers to shell out $8 million and don’t even have a plan in place.”
“I agree we need a new police station. I agree it’s going to increase my taxes. I just want my tax dollars spent wisely and that we are getting the best value for the money. It time we had some openness on this project and you shared with the public on what’s to take place. Is there a plan for the future to spend more money for further expansion? The building should be used for more than storing cots.”
Fronczak voiced concern on how the resolution was worded. “The resolution states improvements to a Town Building. Does this mean that funding for later improvements can come directly from budget money? No one will answer my questions.”
Resident Don Symer: “The present building on Pavement Road that houses the police department admittedly is in woeful shape. There is definite need for some sort of new facility. Saying that, I also expected to see a conceptual plan and am shocked that not even a sketch has been provided. My question is whether the whole exterior of the building is going to be enfolded with the concept; a façade? Or is the entire $8 million going to be spent on interior renovation?
Supervisor Giza responded that there would probably be some cosmetic work. Right now, there’s cement blocks in back and there could be some stucco put on to make the place look uniform. “That’s it,” asked Symer. “Well, we do have a concept of what the original plans looked like,” Giza replied. “You know, it’s easy to make decisions out there (residents) …
Symer declared that he had been in the building and voiced concerns on its structural soundness. “It wouldn’t take much of an earthquake to damage that building.”
Next: Part II: Resident comments continue
© Copyright 2009 by Speakupwny.com - hosted by Online Media, Inc
Top of Page
|
|
|
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|
Buffalo NY Web hosting By OnLineMedia, Inc
www.olm1.com
Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com
[where: 14206]
|