Dog lives matter

[Lee Chowaniec]

Too cute not to see again

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...00D4&FORM=VIRE

[Lee Chowaniec]

At Monday night’s town board meeting Councilman Robert Leary is sponsoring a dog shelter construction change order resolution representing additional charges accrued to comply with the safety requirements for the animals which include increasing the height of the masonry walls by two feet between kennels (from four (4) feet to six (6) feet), additional epoxy to be applied for the increased walls’ height and altering the height of the chain link fencing by two feet and reducing the opening size by one inch.

The Contract Bid Sum changed by Change Order #3 is in the amount of $ 13,261.00. The change order simply puts back a design that was originally in the original plans, changed later to save on expenditures. Adding it back meets standards set to protect the safety and wellbeing of the animals.

The six-foot walls have already been constructed with knowledge of the impending contract change arranged by Councilman Leary and Town Engineer Ed Schiller.

The new shelter is really shaping up and will fill all the boxes in meeting animal, public and staff safety and welfare guidelines.

Kudos Mr. Leary! I wonder who will be appointed Dog Control Committee Chair for 2022.Hopefully someone who cares about animals and in making the operation a viable and successful one.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Last night, the town board vote for change order resolution approval in the amount of $13,261 to MGR Constructors, Inc., to make changes to comply with the safety requirements for the animals that will be housed in the new dog shelter that is under construction.

The changes include increasing the height of the masonry walls by two feet between kennels, additional epoxy to be applied to the increased walls’ height, and altering the height of the chain link fencing by two feet and reducing the fence opening size by one inch (from 2 inches to one inch).

Councilman Robert Leary sponsored the resolution. He and Councilmembers Dickman and Burkard voted ‘yes,’ Supervisor Ruffino voted ‘no,’ Councilmember Mazur’s vote was unintelligible on the recording.

Before casting his vote Supervisor Ruffino explained why he was voting ‘no’: “When is this this going to stop. This project has grown to over $600,000. Taxpayers are now on the hook for $400,000 – not the $75,000 as originally established in the grant we received.

Councilman Leary interjected that the only other change order he was aware of was the change order to reduce the cost of the construction costs (from $603,000 to $488,661, a $128,044) decrease).

Leary: “Former councilmember Wozniak said there were a lot of things to be cut to reduce the construction cost. These changes are being made to keep the dogs safe when they are in our custody. Dog Control Officer Jean Karn recommended these changes. She’s the expert. I agreed with her recommendation. Other things remain cut from the original plan. These changes are there to protect the dogs and to protect the town from being sued if something happened to the dogs while in our custody.

Supervisor Ruffino: I am coming from the point of doing it right the first time. If we needed a $600,000 facility we should have gone for that kind of money, and we didn’t. Now they (State) will not give us the 75% grant funding to cover the increase,

Residents comment at the closing public comment session

Resident Dave Rinow commented that he took umbrage at the malfeasance that occurred by the town when the cost of the shelter construction was grossly underestimated when the state grant was applied for. “The increased cost cannot be put on Leary.”

Resident Kevin Lemaster echoed Rinow’s declaration that the project cost was underestimated at time of grant application. “It is what it is. It should be built to meet State Standards and for the protection for the animals and staff.”

Comment

When Mr. Rinow was addressing the board and inquired whether Supervisor Ruffino had visited other shelter sites to give him some idea of project construction needs and cost, Ruffino interjected: “I am the reason we got the grant.”

Supervisor Ruffino’s declaration clearly implies that he was involved in the grant application to the extent he would have been informed of the project’s design and estimated cost. When 2,100 square-feet new build homes sell for over $305,000 how could he have not known that the grant application construction cost was grossly underestimated?

When the first construction bid went out on the original design (grant application), the bids came in $900,000 to over $1 million.

Changes were made and the second set of bids came in with the lowest at $603,000. The town negotiated with the contractor, things were taken out of the design and the final construction cost was set at $488,661

The town will be getting $228,750 from the State’s Animal Companion Grant. The town’s obligation for the estimated $305,000 construction cost would have been approximately $75,000. The cost to the town will now be $488,661 - $228,750 (grant) = $259,991; $189,911 more than the $75,000.

Had the town applied for the maximum state grant allowance of $500,000, the town’s construction cost obligation would be 25%, or $125,000.

Someone cost the town taxpayers approximately $113,000. It was not councilmembers Leary or Dickman as they were not on the dog control committee. It certainly was not DCO Jean Karn.

Supervisor Ruffino’s construction costs were inaccurate - the project cost is $488,661, not $600,000. The cost to the taxpayers is not $400,000, rather $260,000. His inferring he was unaware of the gross initial project cost underestimate is puzzling, as well as his ‘no’ vote to a resolution that is in the interest of animal / staff protection and meets established Ag & Markets standard guidelines.

Two and one-half years in the making and we are still months away from shelter completion.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Monday evening Councilmember Robert Leary sponsored a resolution to create a position that would make part-time Dog Control Officer Jean Karn full-time; 35 hours to 40 hours per week, at no increase in wages. Karn’s vacated part-time position would be filled by current Assistant Dog Control Officer Elizabeth Bertozzi (19hrs per week). Karn’s salary remains the same as budgeted in 2021, $51,511. Bertozzi will earn $29,120 (35 hrs./wk. at $16/hr.

The resolution was adopted 3-2 after an extended board discussion prior to vote.

Supervisor Ruffino: I do not question Jean’s (DCO Karn) love for dogs. I also love dogs. But for some reason, we are not running this department financially right. The reason I say this is because I talked to Supervisors in other municipalities. We are the second highest budget. The highest is Clarence. The only reason Clarence’s budget is higher is because they don’t have a police department. They have tow full-time DCO’s who are licensed to carry guns. That’s one reason.

In 2021, we had a budget of $131,000 – in a town with a population of 45,000. West Seneca with a like population, their Highway Department is doing it for $86,000. Grand Island, with less people does it with three part-time DCO’s for $38,000. Cheektowaga with a population near 90,000 does it for less than $121,000. Amherst with a population of 130,000, $114,000.

We are doing something wrong. And we are going to be creating positions and spending more money. I just can’t support this. Ruffino asked if anyone else had anything to add.

Councilman Dave Mazur, not using the microphone as usual, commented but his words were unintelligible. It must have been in support of Ruffino because he voted against the resolution along with Supervisor Ruffino.

Supervisor Ruffino: commented on Mazut saying that people have been complaining about seeing two people riding in the dog control van. Things have to change in that department.

Councilman Leary: A lot of those questions and concerns you bring up have been answered in the past, I am sponsoring this resolution because it ties things together and provides safety for the dogs and residents of Lancaster. Dog issues have increased significantly. And at this point of time, it is the right thing to do – to bring Karn in full-time and to fill Karn’s slot with Bertozzi. Mr. Mazur can talk to Ms. Karn anytime he wants to.

Ruffino to Leary: Have you talked to other towns to see how they do it? I’m baffled by Cheektowaga’s 90,000 population and they do it for $121,000. I talked to their supervisor.

Leary: Their salaries are not going to change.

Ruffino: But we are adding more hours.

Leary: More hours are needed.

Ruffino: I think if we scheduled better we would not need more hours. I don’t want to tell people how to do they’re job, but when you look and see how other towns do their jobs, and for the money they are doing it, I have to look at this. That’s my job.

Leary: Supervisor, you are telling her how to do her job and are criticizing her. I disagree with you. She does an excellent job. We are going to move forward with this resolution. The issues that exist will get resolved. Together, with the new building, we will have an excellent dog control operation.

Councilman Dickman: To alleviate the added costs, it is time the town pursue doing a dog census. The added license fee revenue can be used to offset operational costs.

Vote
Yes – Leary, Dickman, Burkard
No- Supervisor Ruffino, Mazur

Comment

Supervisor Ruffino’s town dog control operational cost comparison between towns is apples-to-oranges. No consideration of department operation activity (some towns provide only a 5-day service), number of dogs registered, number of dogs seized, citations and their processing, etc.

Leary was spot on when he stated scheduling had been discussed numerous times over the years and how best to serve the public and dogs – public safety is the town’s number priority, protecting the dogs and their care equally important.

Regarding Mr. Dickman’s dog census comment and using increased revenue from licensing fees, the revenue by law is supposed to go into the department’s budget. It is going into the general fund. If it would go into the dog control budget, the department would be the most cost-efficient in town. Apples-to-oranges!

Ms. Karn is to be commended for managing the Dog Control operation efficiently, especially considering the deplorable four-kennel wooden structure at her disposal. This is nothing more than nickel-and-dime political BS – especially when considering the town grossly underestimated the cost of building the new shelter and not applying for a $500,000 State grant; instead of the $305,000 grant application it did apply for. That error cost the taxpayers over $100,000. Who was asleep at the wheel then?

[mark blazejewski]

Comment

Supervisor Ruffino’s town dog control operational cost comparison between towns is apples-to-oranges. No consideration of department operation activity (some towns provide only a 5-day service), number of dogs registered, number of dogs seized, citations and their processing, etc.

Leary was spot on when he stated scheduling had been discussed numerous times over the years and how best to serve the public and dogs – public safety is the town’s number priority, protecting the dogs and their care equally important.

Nicely done Lee.

Leary appears to have vigorously answered every Ruffino point with solid rebuttal answers all of which tended to expose Ruffino's comments for the half-truth, undeveloped soundbites that they were.

Just my take, whatever is truly bugging Ruffino's ass about the Dog Control Office, it seems to stem from a petty, personal issue with the Dog Control Officer. But again, that is just my opinion.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I don’t know what the working relationship is between Supervisor Ruffino and DCO Karn, nor do I know who puts together the Schedule of Salaries that was voted on at Monday evening’s town board meeting. However, in Supervisor Ruffino’s sponsored resolution as well as Councilmember Leary’s sponsored resolution, they both list a Dog Control staff of seven – DCO Karn (Part-time 35 hours) and 6 Assistant DCO’s (19’3/4 hrs. each).

If the department were so staffed, that would cover 153 hours of the 168 hours of the departments 7-24, 168-hour schedule. In reality, there is only Karn and 4 Assistant DOC’s making the operational coverage only 114 hours.

Making Karn full-time will add 5 hours to the scheduling total. Bertozzi to 35 hours from 19-3/4, adds another 16. Total now, 135 hours coverage of the 168-hour week.

Department Wages

$51,511 – no wage increase, no benefits
$29,120 – Bertozzi – 19-3/4 hrs. to 35, no benefits
$49,296 – 3 Assistant DCOs @ $16/hr, no benefits.
$103,719 – Total wages

The total staffing wages in the 2012 budget was $91,577. In 10 years the Dog Control Department’s staffing wages have increased by $12,000. In that period, the town has grown in population and number of dogs, its operation has become more efficient, open, and transparent, and all that was accomplished under the leadership of Ms. Karn working with a deplorable 4-kennel shed sine her hiring in 2017.

As Karn puts together the department budget, does the hiring and all the tasks assigned to a department head, I hope she is recognized as such.

And Supervisor Ruffino declared Monday evening that the Department is being mismanaged. Nonsense! Not by her.

Nickel & dime BS! Supervisor Ruffino questioned Monday evening why the town did not go for the $500,000 State Animal Companion grant instead of the $305,000 grant to help build the new dog shelter. The error cost the town over $100,000. As the town CEO, one who said he was responsible for getting the grant, the Supervisor has no idea who dropped the ball? It wasn’t Ms. Karn.

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Lee, 103,719 dollars is a pittance compared to the cost of yearly new equipment for either the Rec dept or the Highway dept. Any monies invested in the dog pound will only benefit the citizens of Lancaster. The Dog Pound should be an example to surrounding communities on how to compassionately care for dogs within a town or village. This is not the place to cut corners, Mr. Ruffino. I understand there is movement about to start a go fund me page or some other vehicle to gather money to donate to the dog pound. Contributions have been accepted before. Expect some sort of action in the coming weeks. An involved citizenry is welcomed by the new majority. Lee, your information stream is invaluable. I know for a fact the new majority reads you and takes your view into account.

The new facility lacks camera coverage of important parts of the building. The cost of live cameras to have 24 hour view of the animals and facility would have been well worth the advantage to the personnel who man the pound. Those cameras could be made into a live feed to where ever needed. Small minds come up with small solutions. It will be refreshing to see bigger thinkers solving bigger problems now. History is being changed every day now as far as how it used to be, Lee. This is going to be fun to follow now.

Stay tuned

[mark blazejewski]

I understand there is movement about to start a go fund me page or some other vehicle to gather money to donate to the dog pound.

I have heard something similar, and I took such comments rather seriously.

[mark blazejewski]

And Supervisor Ruffino declared Monday evening that the Department is being mismanaged. Nonsense! Not by her.

Perhaps he is confusing the DCO with the Budget Director?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Shelter constructure progress (1-7-2022)

Six-foot walls up, dropped ceiling installation, connecting kennel door, looking good!

Shelter construction - 1-7-2022 (1).jpg

Shelter construction 1-7-2022 (2) .jpg

Shelter construction (3) 1-7-2022.jpg

Shelter construction (4) 1-7-2022.jpg

[Lee Chowaniec]

The additional changes made Monday night to comply with the safety requirements for the animals in the new shelter - which include increasing the height of the masonry walls by two feet between kennels, additional epoxy to be applied for the increased walls’ height and altering the height of the chain link fencing by two feet and reducing the opening size by one inch – were original design plans to meet State AG. & Markets guidelines to protect animals and staff – and included in the plans submitted for the NYS Animal Companion grant.

The $13,000 in additional charges are not to provide added ‘bells & whistles’. Cuts made to the original design to reduce costs because the project construction cost was grossly underestimated.

Dog lives do matter for all the love, support, and protection they offer us. We in turn need to protect them in time of need – when lost or abused.

Welcome to Mark Burkard, new Dog Control Committee Chair. Hope you like dogs, Mr. Burkard!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-OGVyNyArc

[Lee Chowaniec]

In a world consumed today with hate, anger, fear, divisiveness and despair, a welcome diversion to love, patience, and compassion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng2XjYt5elg

[mark blazejewski]

The $13,000 in additional charges are not to provide added ‘bells & whistles’. Cuts made to the original design to reduce costs because the project construction cost was grossly underestimated.

Dog lives do matter for all the love, support, and protection they offer us. We in turn need to protect them in time of need – when lost or abused.

Welcome to Mark Burkard, new Dog Control Committee Chair. Hope you like dogs, Mr. Burkard!

Hopefully, Councilman Burkard's oversight will mark the beginning of an era that will bring an increased focus on the value and importance of the Dog Control Office.

Such an era would, in my opinion, be a glaring departure from the detached and disinterested attitudes regarding, along with the initial incompetent and sloppy approaches to, the new facility's construction process.

I think that it is about time that the responsible elected and appointed town officials match in skill, interest, and commitment, Mrs. Karn's dedication to, and love of, our furry friends.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Getting it right

It cannot be overstated that the recent Leary sponsored resolution for shelter construction additions and costs are not additions to build a Taj Mahal dog shelter, but to instate provisions that were in the project design when the grant was applied for. Provisions required to meet safety guidelines as stated in the Ag & Markets manual.

Provisions removed when construction cost cuts were negotiated between the contractor and Town Engineer. Supervisor Ruffino voted against this resolution declaring incorrectly that he was tired of all the change orders. “When is this going to stop?”

Councilmember Leary reminded Supervisor that the only other change order was to reduce the cost of the construction project. The low construction bid came in at $603,000 and was negotiated down to $488,661. Ruffino misspoke when he said the project had grown to over $600,000 and that town taxpayers were on the hook for $400,000. The project cost prior to resolution approval was $488.651 and town taxpayers were really ‘on-the-hook for $260,651.

Ruffino lamented that the town should have gone for the grant maximum $500,000. The project would have cost town taxpayers only $125,000 – 25% town obligation of the $500,000 grant application funding.

Town CEO Supervisor Ruffino, who said at the meeting, “I made the grant happen,” who dropped the ball in underestimating the cost of building a 2,100 sq.-ft. commercial building for $305,000? A blunder that cost the town $$135,000 ($260,651 - $125,000).

And the shelter was reduced from 9 kennels to 6, there is now a 1-car garage instead of two, and other deficiencies remain. As it stands now, an amazing improvement over the deplorable 4-kennel shed in operation.

Leary is proposing another resolution Monday night to create a position to replace promoted DCO Karn – from part-time 19-3/4 hours per week to 35 hours. The department is understaffed. Unlike the staffing posted in the Schedule of Salaries there are not 6 Assistant DCO’s, but 4. Nickel & dime stuff when compared to a $135,000 blunder.

And, Mr. Leary has not been appointed to the 2022 Dog Control Committee. Go figure!

[mark blazejewski]

Getting it right


Provisions removed when construction cost cuts were negotiated between the contractor and Town Engineer. Supervisor Ruffino voted against this resolution declaring incorrectly that he was tired of all the change orders. “When is this going to stop?”

Councilmember Leary reminded Supervisor that the only other change order was to reduce the cost of the construction project. The low construction bid came in at $603,000 and was negotiated down to $488,661. Ruffino misspoke when he said the project had grown to over $600,000 and that town taxpayers were on the hook for $400,000. The project cost prior to resolution approval was $488.651 and town taxpayers were really ‘on-the-hook for $260,651.

Ruffino lamented that the town should have gone for the grant maximum $500,000. The project would have cost town taxpayers only $125,000 – 25% town obligation of the $500,000 grant application funding.

Town CEO Supervisor Ruffino, who said at the meeting, “I made the grant happen,” who dropped the ball in underestimating the cost of building a 2,100 sq.-ft. commercial building for $305,000? A blunder that cost the town $$135,000 ($260,651 - $125,000).

And the shelter was reduced from 9 kennels to 6, there is now a 1-car garage instead of two, and other deficiencies remain. As it stands now, an amazing improvement over the deplorable 4-kennel shed in operation.

Kudos to Councilman Leary for "Getting it right," because I am led to believe that such a general outcome has historically evaded the dancing Supervisor Ruffino.

Did not the Supervisor tell a public Town Council session on February 10, 2020 "I'm still learning" and "I'll get it right..."?

"After heated discussion between Leary and Ruffino regarding Leary’s concerns, Ruffino stated he was new in his position and still learning."

Reference:https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...da-violations/

So much for the self-acclaimed "most fiscally conservative, experienced and qualified Town of Lancaster Supervisor candidate and have shown that every day since being elected to the Town Council."

image (93).png