 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
Residents continued to address the Lancaster Town Board on the bonding of $8 million to reconstruct/construct improvements to a town building (3949 Walden Avenue police facility). The general consensus was that a new police facility is needed, but not the one on Walden Avenue, or that millions have been wasted on not taking on this project years ago when the building was purchased.
Resident Lee Chowaniec: “I have always been a proponent of a new police building, but not this building. A new police building that could have been built many years ago for a lot less money; a 40,000 square foot building for $7 million on town owned Pavement Road property, in arms length of the courts; courts that are in use only two days a week.”
“Councilman Ronald Ruffino stated earlier that a 25,000 square foot new build would cost $12 million. How does he know that? The recent feasibility study was only performed on the Walden Avenue building, not taking in consideration for a new build. When you consider what was spent on this building in the past seven years and what will be spent now, one comes up with a total near $11 million.”*
“I haven’t heard anyone yet ask whether this building is for police and courts.” It was answered that it included the courts. And I haven’t heard anyone say that we are putting $8 million into renovating a 55 year old building. We have heard anything recently regarding roof and structural integrity. In fact, we don’t have any idea what you are proposing using the money for because the concept should have changed over the years from the 2003 and 2004 feasibility studies. Nothing has been revealed of the new concept and the building has aged.”
“I am disappointed in this decision and the whole project process. The town should have pursued a new build. That’s my opinion.”
Resident Henry Gull: “It is fitting and proper that we the people can and should show our righteous indignation to have this Town Board saddle the citizens of our town with costs that are unnecessary. The present police facilities we have do a competent job; nothing fancy but it gets the job done. I can attest to that having been a recipient of some of the activities there. We have no need for a Taj Mahal as the building chosen for this purpose has outlived its usefulness years ago.”
“I suggest this Town Board table this resolution until such time that the questions that were broached tonight are fully complied with. It is important for the people in this town to know how their money is being spent. I speak for the people of this town in that regard. There are numerous questions that were brought up tonight that were not shown in this resolution. We have been waiting for all these years for this to be resolved. During that time, the people in this room, as well as all Lancaster taxpayers were paying for the upkeep of this building and all the repairs that have been made on this building. Table this resolution until you can fully explain your concept to the public from which you are seeking $8 million dollars."
Resident Gary Howell: “I am neither for nor against this resolution. The reason I say this is because I don’t understand it. No one has seen a plan. Is there a plan?”
“There is an old plan,” replied Supervisor Giza. “We have a plan. Trautman developed it years ago.”
“When was that developed,” asked Howell.
Supervisor Giza responded, “Five years ago.”
Councilman Ruffino interjected with, “2003.”
Howell: “So this is the 2003 plan?”
Giza: “That was for the whole building.”
Howell: “I’m sorry, but I don’t recall a downsized plan in 2003.”
Giza: “That was for the whole building. We don’t have a sized down plan.”
Howell: “What are you doing for the 40,000 square feet (plan)?”
Giza: “Well, we think we have comparable 40,000 square feet capabilities. There was a fiscal range in there. There was a place to store evidence. You have to place it in a safe area where nobody can touch it because you have to use it for court. We have an evidence room that will be in there, cars and other types of vehicles, golf carts, and motorcycles of all sorts."
"We had a pistol range scheduled for there but I don’t know if it will be in the new plan. Our officers have to qualify periodically to keep their certification. They have to go to another place to fire, so we have to pay them to go there. We could have them do it off duty and fire on their own range, on their own scheduled time frame. But I don’t know whether a shooting range is included in the new plan.”
“The courts will be there. The original plan called for the removal of one of the training rooms. “I’m just trying to throw examples out there.”
Howell: “Okay, but what I am asking is whether the original plan is being scaled down, but that you don’t know what you are going to keep and what you are going to throw away?”
Giza: “We got some ideas, yeah.”
At the public comment session, Howell again addressed the board. “I am sorry to say that I am still confused here. You said it was the old plan minus some features. How do you know this is going to cost $8 million?” The response was that they are not sure it will cost less than $8 million. “Okay, said Howell, I’m still confused.”
Resident Richard Korcz: “How many miles is it from the Walden Avenue building to the present Pavement Road police facility.” When told about 1-1/2 miles, Korcz asked how many people did the board think would be willing to spend $8 million for 1-1/2 mile of highway."
Giza: “That’s one of the reasons we chose this building. It’s on a main road, its closer to the geographic center of the town and village of Lancaster and the police response time would be improved. We turn calls around in 2-3 minutes where another local community has a 20 minute response time. If you want a 20 minute turn-around time, go ahead, it’s much cheaper, the county sheriff’s patrol the area. We wanted a faster turn-around as 15 minutes gained could save a life. We have school resource officers, a D.A.R.E school officer, etc."
"There was a study done for a brand new building, using the Village Hall where the Village police came from before we purchased the building on Walden Avenue. I took anyone who wanted to see the building through the building; board members from the town and village, some of the people that are here tonight. We were told at the time by Trautman (feasibility study) that financially, locationally and otherwise that it was the best option. So that’s the reason we went through this course."
*$1.9 million – 2003, purchase of building and furniture, etc.
$8 million – bonded for reconstruction/construction
$300,000 lost in tax revenue from taking the building off the tax rolls
$100,000 in building repair and maintenance costs
$100,000 in legal fees, feasibility studies, etc.
Next: Government waste & mismanagement
© 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]
|