Dog lives matter

[mark blazejewski]

Supervisor Ruffino: I am going to respond to the person who wrote that email communication. He and you will get a response before the next meeting. I am not prepared to give a response at this time.

I look forward to the Supervisor's response on all of those questions contained in the email communication. I am particularly eager to have the Supervisor amplify on this:

Supervisor Ruffino openly declares had it not been for him the $305,000 NYS grant would not have happened. Yet he asks why the grant application was not for $500,000. Had it been $500,000 Lancaster’s obligation for shelter construction cost would have amounted to $125,000. It is now $260,000 and increasing with each change order. Who dropped the ball?

"Who dropped the ball" is way too kind of a characterization.

IMHO, the more accurate question is "Who tore that ball from the hands of competence, and then kicked it threw the window of ineptitude???

[Lee Chowaniec]

Dog Control Department Operation

While waiting for a promised response from Supervisor Ruffino on whether Dog Control Officer (DCO) Jean Karn is a Department Head considering her administrative duties are substantial in many ways but limited in some, and as an advocate for the safety and wellbeing of staff, dogs, and the public, I wonder whether Lancaster residents have any idea what the dog control operation involves.

Main Function of Department:

• To serve the residents of the Town of Lancaster and Villages of Depew and Lancaster who may have problems or questions related to dogs
• Ensuring the licensing of dogs
• Picking up dogs at large
• Ensuring proper care and feeding of dogs detained at the Town of Lancaster kennels
• Enforcement of Town and Village codes and New York State law pertaining to dog control
• Issuing appearance ticket for violations of Town and Village codes
• Enforcement of impoundment fees to be paid by the respective owner to the Town Clerk of the Town of Lancaster
• Maintaining an up-to-date census of dogs in the Town and Villages
• Sending notices for delinquent dog licenses
• Maintaining kennels to provide a clean and safe environment for detained dogs


Typical Work Activities of Dog Control Officer

• Ascertains and lists the names of all persons in the municipality owning or harboring dogs
• Picks up stray dogs either licensed or unlicensed
• Cares for and shelters seized dogs
• Maintains records as required by the state of New York on dog enforcement and control
• Enforces the provisions of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law pertaining to dog control, with the power of a piece officer
• May handle injured animal and/or wildlife complaints

Other

• The Lancaster School District has partnered the Town of Lancaster Dog Control Department to provide a vocational training and opportunities program to students with and without disabilities to prepare them for their eventual entry into the workforce. The goal is for students to develop a comprehensive skill set comprised of general workplace responsibilities, e.g., being held accountable for tasks, timely completion of all tasks, and to the extent possible, making independent decisions.
• Conducts seminars with businesses and organizations to instruct individuals in reacting appropriately to animal behavior – sometimes in coordination with Wildlife Organization.
• Involved with rescue dog organizations.

Staffing

Dog Control Officer – full-time – Jean Karn

Assistant Control Officers:
Elizabeth Bertozzi - Part-time Dog Control Officer working thirty-five hours per week
1 - Assistant DCO – 19.75 hrs. per week
1 – Assistant DCO – 8-12 hrs. per week
1 Assistant DCO – 5 hrs. on Sunday

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Elizabeth Bertozzi - Part-time Dog Control Officer working thirty-five hours per week

Lee, I believe she was appointed to a FT position on January 18

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee, I believe she was appointed to a FT position on January 18

Yes, you are correct. My bad! Full time, 35 hours per week.

The important thing here is that there are 168 hours in a week. With the hiring of the new Assistant DCO, the coverage by department staff is still under 110 hours per week. The Police pick up coverage if it entails noise / nuisance complaints and the pickup of strays. Handling dogs should be done by trained / certified personnel with proper protective equipment. There were 4 dog bite incidents this past week. DCO employees must come in and get paid overtime if there is a personal threat to the police officer.

Last year, a town board member and the Supervisor declared that the department was not being managed correctly – that Lancaster’s dog control operating budget was much higher than municipalities of like size. Staffing was bloated, needed to be tweaked, and it was even ridiculously suggested that the department should consider using volunteers.

Perhaps Supervisor Ruffino should inquire whether the other municipalities assign the dog licensing revenue to the dog control department to help offset its appropriations. Lancaster dog license revenue goes into the General Fund.

Most importantly, it is time my question who is responsible for the $126,000 new shelter grant application $126,000 is identified. It is time this department gets a reset!

Who’s in charge? Who is really driving the bus?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Supervisor responds to my town letter (red))

Town of Lancaster
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
21 Central Avenue Lancaster, New York 14086 (716) 683-1610
Fax: (716) 683-0512

RONALD RUFFINO, SR.
Supervisor

April 12, 2022

Mr. Chowaniec
93 Northwood Drive
Depew, NY 14043

Dear Mr. Chowaniec,

Thank you for your letter. I have answered your querie below in red to the best of my abilities. From my viewpoint, and what I have witnessed since becoming Supervisor for the Town of Lancaster, it appears that the majority of this Town Board will give certain Department Heads (or people in charge of budgets) special priorities when it comes to budgeting and their department needs. I have never acted in that mannerism and will continue to do my best in pointing out inefficiencies when it comes to the expenditure of our citizens hard earned tax dollars.

Kind regards,
Ronald Ruffino
 
The intent of this correspondence to the Town Board is to seek information who to contact in Dog Control with questions, comments, concerns regarding related dog control department operation or construction of new dog shelter.

On the town's website, under 'Main Function of Department' it states: To serve the residents of the Town of Lancaster and Villages of Depew and Lancaster who may have problems or questions related to dogs.

A complete list of Department Function is provided, and the only contact person listed is Jean Karn-Dog Control Officer. When contacting Ms. Karn and requesting information on related department operations and/or the construction of the new Dog Shelter, I have too often been informed that she does not possess the knowledge I am seeking, that it is out of her authority and/or designated involvement.

When I say to Karn that she should know as she is the Department Head, she answers, "What makes you think that?"

If Ms. Kam is not the Department Head, why is she in charge of putting together a budget, accused by Supervisor Ruffmo of mismanaging the department, accused of spending excessively in comparison to other municipalities, accused of demanding more in the construction of the new dog shelter - when in fact even after the added change orders and increased construction costs all that was included in the design of the NYS Animal Companion grant application has not been provided - 6 kennels instead of 9, a one-vehicle garage instead of 2, and other design eliminations. Disinformation!

So, I ask the following:

Is Ms. Kam the Dog Control Department Head? If not, does the Town of Lancaster have a Dog Control Department Head?

This has been unclear from the beginning as Captain Laurienzo receives a $1,500 stipend for oversight of the Dog Control function. In my opinion, this department needs to be revamped.

If Kam is not the department head, why is she doing the budget? See above response.

Who do I contact on issues and concerns regarding the construction costs and workmanship? Ed Schiller (716)683-5361.

Why is it Karn's responsibility to hire Assistant DCO's, but has no authority to terminate them?

I do not believe that anything prevents her from having the authority (or least begin the process) to terminate an employee for justifiable reasons.

What exactly is Kam's job description? She was recently made a full-time DCO, with no salary increase, but benefits. The recent resolution language provided no insight as to job description.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Yo

When hired in July 2017, the resolution stated: BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Kam is designated to oversee the dog control function within the Town subject to the expectations, oversight, and direction of the Town Supervisor, or designee, and shall work a schedule to be determined by the Town Supervisor, or designee.

I was never in agreement with this arrangement from day one when I was a Councilmember. This resolution had no specifics to it and I raised the point that under this resolution, Mrs. Kam could work 1 hour in a pay period, or 80 hours in a pay period and still receive the same pay.

If Kam is not the Department Head, was certainly not responsible for shelter construction design or its grossly underestimated construction cost, who was in charge?

Ed Schiller is the point contact person from the Town.

Supervisor Ruffino openly declares had it not been for him the $305,000 NYS grant would not have happened. Yet he asks why the grant application was not for $500,000. Why doesn't he know? Had it been $500,000 Lancaster's obligation for shelter construction cost would have amounted to $125,000. It is now $260,000 and increasing with each change order. Who dropped the ball?

That is true, if it wasn't for my persistence and the work of our grant writer, Rotella Grant Management, we would have missed the deadline. I worked with Mrs. Kam after she called me claiming that other Town Board members were failing her.

Here is the information on the actual grant in the category that we fit into:

Eligible organizations serving two or more municipalities, or one municipality with a population of more than two million, may apply for grants of $100,000 to $500,000. For these grants, the awarded funding may not exceed 75 percent of the proposed project cost and applicants are required to match 25 percent of the grant.

Our original specifications were for a 1200 SF building which would have costed approximately $175,000. It was then increased to a 1600 SF building with an estimated cost of $280,000 - $320,000.

Here is Mrs. Kam's request for support for the increased amount (please note the amount of $76,250 which is 25% of $305,000):

On Jan 15, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Jean Kam wrote: Supervisor Ruffino and Honorable Board Members,

On December 2, 2019 the Board authorized the application to the New York State Agriculture and Markets Department for the construction of a new animal shelter.

In order for that grant to be submitted for review by tomorrow 1/16 I am requesting that each Board Member provide me with an approval for the Town's provision of matching funds as required within the Grant application. Currently that amount is 25% of the cost for completion of the project which equated to $76,250.

Your prompt email response is required within the hour in order to meet Grant submission guidelines.

Thank you for your anticipated assistance.

Jean Kam
Lancaster Dog Control

After receiving the award, here is the budget breakdown that was submitted for the grant:

Preliminary Budget Breakdown

Construction - $228,750.00
Plumbing $20,750.00
HVAC $30,000.00
Electrical $25,500.00
Total $305,000.00

State 75%: $228,750
Town 25%: $76,250
Total Cost: $305,000

Who is really running the show?

As far as the budget, I'm merely stating facts. Our operating costs for this department is way out of whack when compared to other townships. See attached graph for 2021. Cheektowaga has double our population and they are $1OK less than us. West Seneca has about the same population ana they are $44K less than us. Grand Island was at ~39K with 3 part time animal control officers. They pay them a set rate per day to be on call and then additional pay when they are actually called out. Our office, as well as other councilmembers, have received numerous complaints about seeing our Dog Control van riding around town with multiple employees. The van 1s racking up approximately 20K miles per year.

With the recent addition of 2 full time employees for this department and the cost of benefits for these employees, these figures will skyrocket even more. Please keep in mind that I voted against these resolutions as well.

Thank you!

Lee Chowaniec Lancaster, NY

Comment

• Two plus years in office and Supervisor Ruffino is unable to determine whether Lancaster has a Dog Control Department Head. He requests: You will have to request this of the people who supported this resolution as I'm was completely against hiring 2 full time employees for this department.

What has department hiring have to do with asking ‘does Lancaster have a department head’? It would be nice to get some clarification at Monday evenings town board meeting – from any board member

• Supervisor Ruffino writes: Our original specifications were for a 1200 SF building which would have costed approximately $175,000. It was then increased to a 1600 SF building with an estimated cost of $280,000 - $320,000.

Here is Mrs. Kam's request for support for the increased amount (please note the amount of $76,250 which is 25% of $305,000)

I have a FOIL copy of the Animal Companion grant application and it lists the size of the shelter to be constructed at 2,053 sq. ft. at a construction cost of $305,000. The shelter was designed for 9 kennels, not the 6 constructed. Where are these 1,200 and 1,600 sq. ft. numbers coming from?

Ms. Karn had nothing to do with the design / size of the shelter or its construction costs. Her request to you (Supervisor Ruffino) was for assurance that the application would get to the state in time for consideration and approval.


• Supervisor Ruffino openly declares had it not been for him the $305,000 NYS grant would not have happened. Yet he asks why the grant application was not for $500,000. Had it been $500,000 Lancaster’s obligation for shelter construction cost would have amounted to $125,000. It is now $260,000 and increasing with each change order. Who dropped the ball I ask?

In his response Supervisor Ruffino writes that Town consulting engineer Ed Schiller is the contact person for the project and the shelters construction. Is Supervisor Ruffino implying Mr. Schiller dropped the ball?


• NYS Ag. & Markets will be inspecting the shelter this coming Tuesday (April 19). Deficiencies have been noted. Is the town ready to get their approval?


Where is the openness and transparency politicos promise us at campaign time?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Since Supervisor Ruffino’s response to the letter I had submitted asking the questions I posed on the Dog Control Department, individuals have approached me asking whether I received the response I was looking for. Like them I felt the answers were undefined and disappointing for a Town Supervisor. A Town Supervisor with 18 years of Councilmember experience.

In my submittal, I had asked the following of the Town Board:

What exactly is Kam's job description? She was recently made a full-time DCO, with no salary increase, but benefits. The recent resolution language provided no insight as to job description.

Supervisor Ruffino responded:

You will have to ask this of the people who supported this resolution as I was against hiring two full time people for this department.

As I am unable to attend town board meetings, I would hope the ‘people’ who supported the resolution would clarify what Supervisor Ruffino did not:

• Does the Town of Lancaster have a Dog Control Department Head? If not, who is running the show? The ’Big Guy’!

• In the State Animal Companion grant what was the designed size of the shelter, number of kennels, garage size, etc.? The application was certainly not for a 1,200 sq. ft. building, nor did Ms. Karn have any input in the design. Her quoted email was to move the process along to avoid application expiration.

• Who dropped the ball in underestimating the shelter construction cost, resulting in underapplying for grant amount, resulting in an additional town cost of $126,000?

Somebody, please!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Dog shelter update

At last night’s town board meeting Councilmember Mark Burkard reported that the State would be in to inspect the newly constructed dog shelter. “After they come in, we will update.”

Hopefully that update will include not only the findings of the inspection and the shelter’s occupancy date, but responses to the questions I have been asking for weeks on the operation of the department and added project costs because shelter construction cost was grossly underestimated for the grant application design of the shelter – 2,053 sq. ft., nine kennels, two car garage, etc.

Supervisor Ruffino’s responses to a letter I submitted to the Town Board were incorrect, vague, and misleading. If there is no response from the board, one must assume Supervisor Ruffino’s response represented board consensus and the community will not have been answered as to:

• Does the town have a Dog Control Department Head? If not, who is in charge and why is Ms. Karn being charged of mismanaging the department? The board and the community need a tutorial on the services our dog control department provides with its limited staffing. It should be commended, not degraded, or diminished by comparison with other municipalities and their expenditures alone.

• Who was responsible for grossly underestimating the shelter construction cost resulting in the grant application for $305,000 instead of $500,000, costing town taxpayers an added $126,000?

These are fair questions, and the public has a right to open and honest answers.

[mark blazejewski]

Supervisor Ruffino’s responses to a letter I submitted to the Town Board were incorrect, vague, and misleading.

Just My Opinion:

Lee, your comment that Supervisor Ruffino's response was "incorrect, vague and misleading," suggests a thoughtful response, even if his purpose was to mislead.

I have in fact read, and reread, and read again, the Supervisor's comments. In doing so, I am of the opinion that the Supervisor's remarks reflect the reluctant words of a self-perceived burdened actor, who intentionally constructed words and phrases in such a way as to evade direct responses to the topic questions. I also consider the Supervisor's reply to be dismissive of issue priority, contemptuous in tone, and self-serving purpose.

I would be entirely remiss if I failed to note that your email of March 11, 2022 was directed to the attention of the Lancaster Town Board, with two interested town officials being copied on your transmission.

I equally note that to date, only Supervisor Ruffino appears to have made any reply whatsoever, even though the full Town Board and the copied actors had every right, if not an obligation, to make separate, and perhaps dissenting, responses.

In that connection, the remaining members of the Lancaster Town Board now have an opportunity to mitigate the misfortunes of the past performances, and therefore, I fully expect that those heretofore silent members of the Town Board, especially the members of the Conservative caucus, will dispel any suggestions of timidity, and will compensate for what lacks in Supervisor's Ruffino's response, by providing you and all of the town residents, with true and complete answers, publicly articulated, to your very important questions.

Just my two cents Lee.

[gorja]

So, what happened with the state inspection yesterday?

[Lee Chowaniec]

So, what happened with the state inspection yesterday?

It did not go well for individuals deserving of blame for building design deficiencies and shelter construction inadequacies for dog control staff, dogs and the public's wellbeing

Dog Control Committee Chair, Councilmember Mark Burkard stated at the recent town board meeting that he would give an update at the next board meeting after the State inspection. Can't wait to hear his report. The honor is his. Rest assured that whatever he fails to cover, I will. The public is deserving of the truth!

[gorja]

It did not go well for individuals deserving of blame for building design deficiencies and shelter construction inadequacies for dog control staff, dogs and the public's wellbeing

Dog Control Committee Chair, Councilmember Mark Burkard stated at the recent town board meeting that he would give an update at the next board meeting after the State inspection. Can't wait to hear his report. The honor is his. Rest assured that whatever he fails to cover, I will. The public is deserving of the truth!

I FOILed for the report and the town clerk stated that as of today NYS hasn't provided a report to Dog control, Town engineer or any other department

[Lee Chowaniec]

I FOILed for the report and the town clerk stated that as of today NYS hasn't provided a report to Dog control, Town engineer or any other department

So, are you saying everything goes into a report? You know better!

[gorja]

So, are you saying everything goes into a report? You know better!

So it's a matter of semantics? I shouldn't have requested a report, just an inspection dated April 20, 2022?

[Lee Chowaniec]

So it's a matter of semantics? I shouldn't have requested a report, just an inspection dated April 20, 2022?

I know you to be a devoted dog owner and caretaker, but I do not understand your impatience in receiving the NYS shelter inspection report when such report may not be submitted until such time certain findings needing attention are addressed and resolved – or conditioned for future resolve.

At the last town board Councilmember Mark Burkard, Dog Control Committee Chair announced that the State inspection was to take place the following day (cancelled until Wednesday April 20 because of weather prediction). He declared an update would be provided of the inspection and other related dog control concerns by or at the next town board meeting (May 2nd).

Until then, like you, eagerly awaiting the update. We both want what is in the best interests for the dogs, staffing, and publics wellbeing and safety.

[gorja]

Lancaster Dog Control is in search of 96 inch black out curtains. Donations are greatly appreciated, and can be dropped off at our office at 525 Pavement Rd. Thank you!