Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 560

Thread: Dog lives matter

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    233
    Lee:

    As former liason to Public Safety and current board member (for the next couple weeks anyways), maybe I can provide a little insight from my experience and talking to the court...

    The situation as I understand it is that a DCO writes a ticket for unlicensed dog. If that person pleads guilty to the violation, he pays a fine of around $20. If the person does not show up, it is a violation and they will be still be fined. If he pleads innocent, he can have his day in court to fight the charges. Judge Colby's hands are a little tied as to the punishment that can be doled out. He is not allowed, for instance, to issue a bench warrant of arrest for no shows or repeat offenders and can not force the resident to get a dog license. He can fine them and that's it. Again, this is all just my personal understanding of how it works. As for other jurisdictions handing out more severe punishments, I am not aware of this.

    However, all is not lost as the DCO's can continue to ticket the offending pet owner. The thought here is that the owner would be better off just getting his pet licensed than paying the more expensive fines over and over.

    I questioned whether there could be a "Fix-it or ticket" type situation where the ticket could be waived if the license is paid and I was told that it was up to the judge to decide but that would most likely be the case.

    It is interesting to me is that repeat offenders choose to pay the more expensive fine over and over rather than just get their pet licensed but that is their prerogative, I guess.

    Hope I understood the question and answered it!

    Matt

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    [QUOTE=MaddMatt;1906277]Lee:

    As former liason to Public Safety and current board member (for the next couple weeks anyways), maybe I can provide a little insight from my experience and talking to the court...

    The situation as I understand it is that a DCO writes a ticket for unlicensed dog. If that person pleads guilty to the violation, he pays a fine of around $20.
    It is my understanding that this transaction takes place at the DCO office and the person pays a $25 fine plus the licensing fee – which varies.

    If the person does not show up, it is a violation and they will be still be fined.
    At the DCO office, or in court? If the individual does not show up in the DCO office, isn’t it the practice to put out three compliance notices and if the individual is still a no show a final notice then a court appearance ticket is issued – delivered by a DCO in person?
    If he pleads innocent, he can have his day in court to fight the charges.
    How can he plead innocent if he refuses to get his dog licensed – which is a state law?

    Judge Colby's hands are a little tied as to the punishment that can be doled out. He is not allowed, for instance, to issue a bench warrant of arrest for no shows or repeat offenders and can not force the resident to get a dog license.
    Isn’t it a criminal offense for an individual to not appear in court when summoned? Why can’t a bench warrant be issued as in other municipalities?
    If the individual ignores three citations from the DCO, goes to court and the court cannot make that person get a dog license, why should anyone bother getting a dog licensed.

    He can fine them and that's it. Again, this is all just my personal understanding of how it works. As for other jurisdictions handing out more severe punishments, I am not aware of this.
    He can fine them, but does he? 92 court appearance tickets issued and only $560 in fines taken in. Are the persons appearing in court:

    Who are fined paying those fines in the time allotted? Is there an established date when such fines should be paid?

    What happens when fine due date is blown off?

    Is it mandated the individual appearing in court have his dog licensed? Why not, if the court cannot make the individual get a license? So, the individual pays the fine – or maybe not -, the dog remains unlicensed and circus comes back to town.

    However, all is not lost as the DCO's can continue to ticket the offending pet owner. The thought here is that the owner would be better off just getting his pet licensed than paying the more expensive fines over and over.
    I don’t believe that happens. If it does, what a fruitless and wasted effort to get people in compliance.

    I questioned whether there could be a "Fix-it or ticket" type situation where the ticket could be waived if the license is paid and I was told that it was up to the judge to decide but that would most likely be the case.
    As you were involved in public safety, I don’t have to remind you that it is imperative to have dogs licensed to ensure they have been vaccinated for rabies. Failing to perform a dog census and getting dogs licensed to ensure a rabies vaccination has been administered helps alleviate pet owners concern should they or their pets get bitten.

    If the town is going to build a new dog control facility to ensure the operation meets housing standards, it should ensure policies and procedures are in place to ensure dogs are licensed and violators penalized.

  3. #63
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Matt,

    I know the last go around for the grant, you repeatedly requested more information from the DCO for the grant writer.


    Is this -
    Posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    A list of the construction materials, detailed floor plan, letter of support from municipal government, justified equipment purchases…
    similar information that you waited for and never received from the DCO the last time?

    It just seems that these items are things that the department head should have been researching since losing the last grant to be ahead of the game this time. Maybe, I just think differently the others

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Matt,

    I know the last go around for the grant, you repeatedly requested more information from the DCO for the grant writer.


    Is this -
    similar information that you waited for and never received from the DCO the last time?

    It just seems that these items are things that the department head should have been researching since losing the last grant to be ahead of the game this time. Maybe, I just think differently the others
    I was disappointed that Matt did not respond to your inquiry. When in fact a resolution was unanimously approved this month authorizing and directing the Supervisor to execute all documents pertaining to the application and acquisition of said funding to the New York State Agriculture and Markets Department, there was no such resolution proposed in 2018.

    When in fact, this year with council member Dickman as Chair of the safety committee, with the support of council member Gaczewski offering to get the required ‘letters’, with council member Ruffino hiring a new grant writer to complete the application, and the town engineer now on board to provide the estimated cost of the project, it appears Ms. Karn has fulfilled her obligation.

    In my opinion, your inquiry is moot, and Mr. Walter should refrain from answering. The facility will most likely be built. How this facility has passed State inspections in the last two years is beyond me.

    As I responded to you in a 2018 post, you appear obsessed with determining blame for the town not getting the grant and now again imply Karn did not meet her obligation.

    In going back to previous 2018 posts regarding grant application, I found these to be of interest regarding why the grant application was never applied for:

    Walter responded that unfortunately there was a grant available, that he reached out to the town board on the matter, they had questions, he reached out to DCO Karn on the pursuit of the grant and the application time ran out. Funds are not available in the town’s budget for DCO operation improvement and they will pursue the grant next year.

    Unfortunately if Councilmember Matt Walters didn't drop the ball there was a State grant available that the Town could have had for a better dog shelter. Then he tried to pass the blame on someone else. If there we're unanswered questions he allegedly needed all he had to do was communicate with the Grant Writer hired by the Town (Sue Maxwell Barnes) at many thousands of dollars. SO SAD MATT WALTERS TRIED TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE FOR HIS SHORTCOMINGS. SAD, SO SAD!

    While you continue to obsess as to who is telling the truth between Walter and Karn, I look at it as it is the town board’s obligation to pursue the grant funding and authorize the Supervisor to apply for the grant; along with the grant writer’s application involvement in formally penning the document for application. Did any of that take place? I don’t think so.

    The grant application process went into effect on 7/20/18. It was Mrs. Karn that approached the board on applying for the grant. From early on through November it was Karn who had provided information to the board. So in all that time Walter now tells Karn that the board had questions and when Karn claims an email was sent but Walter denies receiving the email.

    In the 20 years I attended board meetings I witnessed a grant / bond application process. A department head may request such activity, but it is the board that decides whether the request has merit, then asks the grant writer (in this case) to address application requirements and the board approves the request by resolution. Here the resolution never got to the grant writer because there is clear indication that the town did not want to validate Karn’s grant request.

    Despite DCO Karn’s declaration that she went ‘above and beyond’ to provide information to the board to answer their questions, you make it quite clear that the board (all members favoring the grant application) still had unanswered questions – after 4+ months of time in knowing of the grant. That is perplexing.

    It was very disappointing and disconcerting to hear no one address the board Monday evening re council member Matt Walter’s dissertation on why the town did not apply for the 2018-19 competitive New York State Companion Animal Capital Fund.

    Comments


    Lastly, it would behoove you to investigate the time and effort put in by the West Seneca DCO when it received its grant last year. You quoted what I posted as reference implying that Karn should have provided: A list of the construction materials, detailed floor plan, letter of support from municipal government, justified equipment purchases…

    Karn is not an engineer. Are you assuming she did not contact the town engineer for that information? Why would she not in the 4+ months before application due date run out? She was being stonewalled in 2018.

    It’s nice that all board members are now involved in the process of making this happen. It is especially nice to see newly elected Supervisor Ruffino so supportive – getting Karn a grant writer in such short time.

    Enough with the blame game. The needed facility will be built.

  5. #65
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Okay, Lee. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on our opinions on that matter.

    You stated that we have a grant writer. Do you know which one was chosen?

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    I was disappointed that Matt did not respond to your inquiry. ..

    In my opinion, your inquiry is moot, and Mr. Walter should refrain from answering. .

    All:

    I apologize for not responding quickly enough to the the above post. I typically don't check Speakup every day and usually not at all on the weekends.

    As per Lee's wishes, I'll refrain from answering :-)

    Matt

  7. #67
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Thank you Matt for always being at the meetings early in case a resident
    had a question that they didn't want to ask in front of the public.

    Also, thanks for turning the A/C on in the board room and the conversation.

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    One week left to submit the application to the 2019-2020 NEW YORK STATE COMPANION ANIMAL CAPITAL PROJECTS grant for the purpose of building a new dog control facility – a much needed facility as the current shed enclosure is inadequate for myriad reasons.

    Since the December 16 town board meeting, we have learned that a new grant writer has been retained, supporting letters obtained and building design and construction costs estimated.

    Supervisor Ruffino has made it known that the new grant writer retained comes with four assistants, is less costly ($21,600 vs. $35,000) and that the company started on the job before their contract due date. When the hiring resolution was approved this past Monday Supervisor Ruffino thanked Town Engineer Ed Schiller for being involved in the process.

    So, it seems like everything is a go, especially since Supervisor Ruffino has become Public Safety Committee Chair and has taken an interest in making this happen. The grant covers 75% of project cost. It was estimated the project cost would be $170,000. The town would be liable for $42,500 if the grant were approved by the state.

    Considering the grant application is due prior to the next board meeting, I would hope that Supervisor Ruffino would speak at the next meeting on the grant application whether:

    It was entered on time or why not? This opportunity should not be wasted a second time.

    The amount on the grant application – I can’t believe the building construction cost can come in anywhere near the $170,000 estimate. If it does come in significantly higher that the $170,000 an explanation should be given for reasons.

    Whether one is a ‘dog lover’ or not, passing up this opportunity a second time would be fiscally irresponsible and not in the community’s best interest – especially when DCO Karn suggested the town hire a state grant writer for $2,500, money she would provide from her department budget while sacrificing other provisions. A grant writer that would have assured the application was complete and worthy.

  9. #69
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    On the upcoming meeting- agenda

    THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED
    BY SUPERVISOR RUFFINO, WHO
    MOVED ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY
    COUNCIL MEMBER, TO WIT:

    WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Town Board desires to build a new
    Dog Control Shelter Facility. The current dog shelter located at 525 Pavement Road in the
    Town of Lancaster is completely inadequate and is currently deficient in more than a dozen
    guidelines set forth by the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. Therefore the
    Town of Lancaster is submitting this application to request funding to build a brand new shelter
    that will meet and exceed all current guidelines as well as safely hold more dogs, and

    WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Town Board has endorsed an
    application requesting an amount not to exceed $228,750 for financial assistance through the
    New York State Companion Animal Capital Project Fund administrated by the Department of
    Agriculture and Markets in the form of grant funding. This project is eligible for 75% of the
    total project cost ($305,000) as the Lancaster Dog Shelter serves three jurisdictions: Town of
    Lancaster, the Village of Lancaster, and the Village of Depew, and

    WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Town Board commits to providing
    the required 25% match and all funds necessary to complete the project beyond the 25%
    ($76,250) if necessary; and will complete the project within a 24-month period to ensure the
    timely implementation and completion of the proposed project.

    THEREFORE,
    BE IT RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Lancaster is
    hereby authorized and directed to file an application to the New York State Department of
    Agriculture and Markets Companion Animal Capital Project Fund, for funds in an amount not
    to exceed $228,750, and upon approval of said request to enter into and execute a project
    agreement with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets for such financial
    assistance to the Town of Lancaster, New York for a the creation of a new dog shelter.

    BE IT FURTHER,
    RESOLVED, that the matching funds will be paid from the Town of
    Lancaster 2020 Budget Line Item No. 001-3510-220.

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    The language in the resolution is explicit regarding the need of a new dog shelter:

    The current dog shelter located at 525 Pavement Road in the Town of Lancaster is completely inadequate and is currently deficient in more than a dozen guidelines set forth by the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters.

    This project is eligible for 75% of the total project cost ($305,000) as the Lancaster Dog Shelter serves three jurisdictions: Town of Lancaster, the Village of Lancaster,) and the Village of Depew. If approved, the grant would cover 75% of the project cost ($228,750) and the cost to the town would be $76,250.

    A year ago the town blew the deadline to apply for the grant. Missing out again this year would be inexcusable and could very well jeopardize ever being considered serious in taking on the project in the future.

    The Dog Control Department deserves the tools to do the job especially considering the vast improvement in management and operation performance. The annual dog report from 2019 lists the activity summary as follows:

    2,255 – Complaints or calls received

    755 - Calls responded to

    816 Compliance Notices

    313 – Final Notices

    102 – Court Appearance tickets issued

    44 – Dog Bite Reports Filed

    100 – Dogs Redeemed

    13 – Rescue / SPCA Transfers

    1 - Dog Euthanized

    5 – Dogs Deceased

  11. #71
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    I am sure that Ms. Karn gave this project her all.

    I hope this newly retained "Silver Bullet" grant writer gets the job done, but these comments in The Sun cause me concern...


    Attached Images Attached Images
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  12. #72
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    I am sure that Ms. Karn gave this project her all.

    I hope this newly retained "Silver Bullet" grant writer gets the job done, but these comments in The Sun cause me concern...


    I'm also sure that the supervisor backed her all the way.

    Georgia L Schlager

  13. #73
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I'm also sure that the supervisor backed her all the way.
    Gorja,

    You and I are both dog lovers and apply our charitable efforts in that direction. On that subject, there is no daylight between us.

    I don't care if the Supervisor was Coleman, Ruffino, or Gaczewski, I presume that you and I just want the thing built, so kudos to whomever was instrumental if the project is completed.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  14. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Kudos to Karn and Ruffino

    Reading a copy of the Lancaster Sun’s report on the town’s intent to build a new dog shelter with 75% of the estimated $305,000 cost to be funded through a state grant, I commend all the parties involved in pursuing this grant , but especially Dog Control Officer Jean Karn and Supervisor Ronald Ruffino.

    Ms. Karn aptly described the need of replacing the current 4 kennel100-square-ft. ‘shed’, listing such inadequacies as: no space to house large or sick dogs; no running water; drainage issues, storing dogs in cages in Karn's office which is in a building distant from the shed, etc.

    Supervisor Ruffino declared the current facility was completely inadequate; deficient in more than a dozen ways that do not meet the guidelines set forth by the Guidelines of Care for Dogs in Animal Shelters.

    The newly proposed facility will have:

    An office for employees

    Nine kennels

    A two-bay garage

    An exercise area

    Running water

    Proper drainage

    4- ft walls to house dogs safely and securely

    Separate area for sick dogs – away from the healthy dogs

    The town will know whether the grant application was accepted by February 21. If not, Karn and Ruffino are committed to seeking other grants to make the project happen.

  15. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    How sad that in today’s world mankind and animal abuse is so prevalent.

    https://youtu.be/ZVyFSTYY7zg

Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. All lives matter
    By Yankeefan2009 in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2015, 08:11 PM
  2. Black Lives Matter
    By FMD in forum Speakup Here
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 10th, 2015, 05:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •