Dog lives matter

[Lee Chowaniec]

As I understand the history of this thing, and please straighten me out if I am wrong Lee, the ACO submitted her thoughts on what was required of a new facility to ensure staff and animal safety, and to provide a healthy residential environment for the animals.

Assuming that my understanding is correct, your observation is meritoriously fundamental to this rather perplexing situation.

This grant was prepared by the new "Whiz Kid" grant writer retained by Ruffino, was it not?

If I am equally correct on the grant writer's role, does it not appear that the new grant writer may have dropped the ball in her preparation?

So, who bears the burden of that possible misstep, the animals and the dedicated ACO staff, eh?

It is my understanding the DCO's role was to advise what was required to meet state grant funding application requirements and Ag Markets standards to provide a safe environment for animals and staffing; an operation that was in the best interests of the community. Once the DCO presented what was required for building project grant approval, it was up to the engineering department to determine project cost. Why the town did not apply for more available grant money when applying for the state grant should be questioned. Up to $500,000 was available.

The grant writer's function was to prepare the document that was presented to the state petitioning grant funding for the construction of the facility - no input as to size of grant funding or input on facility design / project costs.

[mark blazejewski]

JUST MY OPINIONS:

It is my understanding the DCO's role was to advise what was required to meet state grant funding application requirements and Ag Markets standards to provide a safe environment for animals and staffing; an operation that was in the best interests of the community. Once the DCO presented what was required for building project grant approval, it was up to the engineering department to determine project cost. Why the town did not apply for more available grant money when applying for the state grant should be questioned. Up to $500,000 was available.

The DCO appears to have completed its required tasks fully and efficiently.

The grant writer's function was to prepare the document that was presented to the state petitioning grant funding for the construction of the facility - no input as to size of grant funding or input on facility design / project costs.

Thank you for clarifying this Lee.

My incorrect assumption that the grant writer may have had a more expanded role in the process was to an extent based on this information...

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.

Supervisor Ruffino thanked Town Engineer Ed Schiller for being involved in the process.

I also thank Mr. Schiller for his involvement in that specific process.

However, given the information provided by the DCO, and the current costs of time and material, I only wish I could thank Supervisor Ruffino and Mr. Schiller for further scrutinizing the rather low, targeted figure of $305,000.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Summer treats for our best friends


Where to spoil your dog
Buffalo News - Gusto

Area businesses are making it easier to spoil our dogs with summer treats, cool drinks and by allowing us to bring our dogs – at least on the patio.

Frosty’s Ice Cream

Frosty’s, with locations in Depew and Lancaster, touts a variety of presentations ($2-$3) for dogs. The Basic Baby Size is vanilla custard in a cone or bowl, the Doggie Delight is a baby-sized bowl of vanilla custard topped with dog biscuits. The Doggie Digger adds the element of fun with dog biscuits buried beneath vanilla custard.

The Doggie Sundae adds peanut butter to the dog biscuits atop the custard. “Sometimes people will come up and get something for their dogs and not themselves,” Frosty’s owner Nick Del Carlo said. “It’s funny when the dogs get excited in the parking lot because they know what they are about to get.”

[Lee Chowaniec]

The sealed bids for the construction of a 1,620 sq. ft. (with optional garage) dog shelter were opened on May 26th. There is no resolution scheduled on the June 7th meeting to accept or deny the bids. One would think that if a bid were close to meeting the allotted funding available ($305,000), the town would have readily accepted it to move this project along, as it has been two years in the making and 15 months since NYS granted 75% of the estimated $305,000 project cost.

No garage, 3 less kennels, no brick & mortar construction, what’s left to cut to ensure the facility provides for the wellbeing and safety of the dogs, staff, and community?

April 15th – May 15 Dog Control report:

307 Complaints or calls received
147 Calls responded to / follow-ups
15 Compliance notices
76 Final notices
39 Court appearance tickets issued
6 Dog bite reports filed
9 dogs redeemed.
1 Dog rescue transfer
1 Dog transfer to SPCA
0 Dogs euthanized
0 Deceased dogs
3,170 miles patrolled with van

[Lee Chowaniec]

Dog Control Committee Chair Mike Wozniak gave a brief presentation on the status of the construction bids that were opened and reviewed on May 25th.

Wozniak declared that the town received three bids and are still in the process of reviewing the bids He declared that Town Engineer Ed Schiller is in contact with the bidders to get information from them in relation to the town’s project cost estimate.

“I shall have a further update at the next meeting,” declared Wozniak.

I was going to ask Wozniak at the public comment session whether the bids came in anywhere close to the town’s estimated $305,000 project fund allowance – with or without the garage design included. I did not get the opportunity as the meeting ran long and I had to exit before 8 pm.

I would not hesitate to guess that the project construction bids were higher than expected and the reason the town is haggling with the bidders.

If the bids were higher even when excluding the garage, where 3 kennels have already been removed from the original design, what more could possibly be removed to ensure the building of a facility that meets Ag & Markets standards and provides for the wellbeing and safety of dog, staff, and community?

Two years in the making and we still don’t have a shovel in the ground and the current wooden shed continues to deteriorate and become more deplorable. Shiny new vehicles and equipment appear more important than dog lives.

[mark blazejewski]

“I shall have a further update at the next meeting,” declared Wozniak.

I was going to ask Wozniak at the public comment session whether the bids came in anywhere close to the town’s estimated $305,000 project fund allowance – with or without the garage design included. I did not get the opportunity as the meeting ran long and I had to exit before 8 pm.

Since I most probably would be required to only comment, so in light of Wozniak's comment, I would have observed:

"Does the June 21 target date for further information suggest that you foresee an Early and Absentee vote turnout favoring the REPDEMS?"

[Lee Chowaniec]

No longer physically able to attend in-house town board meetings, I was disappointed to see that there is no resolution on the agenda to accept or deny the received construction bids for the new dog control facility. It does not allow my hearing Dog Control Committee Chair, councilmember Mike Wozniak’s promised update and to have the opportunity to question and/or comment on future construction plans.

It appears obvious the bids received far exceed the project funding allowed and the ‘We are still in the negotiating stage’ is but a stall tactic. A shovel in the ground was promised for June with a September finish due date.

The cost of this project was grossly underestimated when the town first applied for a state grant. Despite the building design changes, the loss of three kennels, garage elimination, equipment changes, etc., the construction cost still exceeds funding available.

It is difficult to determine whether the dog control project or the 2021 budget process was the bigger fiasco this past year..

[Lee Chowaniec]

Construction of new dog control facility delayed indefinitely

In his committee report at Monday evening’s town board meeting, Dog Control Committee Chair Mike Wozniak declared there were eight construction bids received for the new dog control building, ranging from $600,000 to $900,000. The town was still in the process of working to reduce the cost as there is only $305,000 in the allotted project fund.

Wozniak: Town Engineer Ed Schiller is working diligently with the low bidder to see what we can do there. I can tell you honestly that we have been looking at this from all different angles and stay within guideless for the AG & Markets grant. The cost is more than is what is in the budget to spend.

Supervisor Ronald Ruffino interjected: One of the reasons is the cost of the materials. We found out they have gone up drastically. I did check with Ag & Markets, and we have the ability to extend the grant for two years. I am not one to take the position that we should spend $600,000 to build a $300,000 building.

I just read an article from Business Firs that says lumber prices have come down a bit now. People refuse to pay the high prices. We have to go through this a bit more. I am in a position where we may have to extend the time of construction until the prices come down.

I always treat things as a household member, and I certainly would not pay double the cost to build something. We do need a new one, but we can get by for a little more time. Be it 3 months, 6 months, a year, but I would rather have that drop down. In my heart, I can’t agree with this.

When asked when the clock would start for the 2-year extension period, Ruffino said September.

When asked if possible to request more state grant funding, Ruffino answered that was not possible. Ruffino added that the grant application was for $305,000 – the state portion is 75% or $225,000, the town’s portion $80,000. “A good deal” declared Ruffino, adding he could not see the town spending $375,000 instead of the town’s $80,000 portion to build a $600,000 building.

Comment

“We need a new one,” said Supervisor Ruffino last night. “The dog control facility is in deplorable shape and needs to be replaced,” declared Committee Chair Wozniak months ago. But materials have gone up in cost drastically and a desperate need is put on hold indefinitely. Dogs, dog control staff and community safety, wellbeing and services are compromised – indefinitely. Should they have been?

In January 2020, by resolution, the town applies to 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). The application declares the current facility is currently deficient in more than a dozen guidelines set forth by the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters.

In March of 2020, the grant application is approved: Town of Lancaster (Lancaster, Erie County): $228,750 to support a new building with epoxy flooring, new kennels, new drains, a new HVAC system, floor sink, exercise yard, and garage.

The grant application could have been submitted for $500,000 where the states share would have been $375,000 and the Town’s $125,000. It was inconceivable to many at the time why the construction cost was only estimated at $305,000 at the time of grant application.

The first request for construction bids did not go out until November 2920 and came back at $900,000 - $1 million. No drastic material increases at that time – just a horrible project cost estimate by the town a year earlier.

After design changes where number of kennels were reduced from 9 to 6, the removal of the garage and other structural changes made, one could only opine that the second set of bids would not come close to the $305,000 project fund. The town may delay the project until hell freezes over, but the construction cost will still far exceed the grossly underestimated application project cost.

Construction should have begun in 2020. The town and its engineering department dropped the ball and are now negotiating with the lowest bidder out of necessity – a bidder where no information is provided regarding experience in building such facilities and/or reason for selection.

Supervisor Ruffino is correct in asserting the town should not have to pay twice the amount to build the facility. It would not be in this position had is appropriately estimated the project cost at grant application time and requested more funding.

A project cost miscalculation occurred from the get-go and the delay is now being attributed to increased material costs. BS!

Good luck DCO Karn. You do an admirable job considering the adage that ‘one has to have the tools to do the job well’. Your toolbox is empty!

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Lee, the same person who oversees that project is now in the process of throwing up a smokescreen to hide the scheme his running mate was making donation money from.
Mr. Wozniak is in over his head when it comes to project development costs. With his claimed background you would think he could do better. But outcomes are real-time proof of one's ability. Either he doesn't care about these poor animals' living conditions or is completely lacking in the ability to carry out his duties as the TOL's oversight.

Last night's Town board meeting was quite an eye-opening affair. With Ruffino's "two other votes" continually correcting him as he skated around the truth to the Cross Creek people, that majority showed to an awful lot of residents who watched on Facebook their true colors. The brightest one being YELLOW, as it is with most LIARS.

Political jargon doesn't taste so good to the commoners. They spit it out fast. It is hard to hear a lot of what Ronny shoveled to the public last night, but with earbuds and actual on-the-ground reports, I could garner enough to know it didn't go well for the Crew.

There is plenty more on the way....Stay tuned

[Lee Chowaniec]

At the July 7th Town Board meeting, the town is adopting a resolution to bond $485,000 (Capitol Improvement Project Bond) or the construction of a new six kennel dog shelter, to be located at 525 Pavement Road.

The $485,000 bond is to be offset by any federal, state, county and/or local funds received including, but not limited to, grant funds expected to be received from New York State in the approximate amount of $225,000. The town’s project cost liability would be $260,000.

This project is deserving and necessary. The current 4-kennel shelter is in deplorable condition. However, comments and resolution clarification are in order from when in January 2020 the Town of Lancaster applied for a $305,000 State Ag & Markets Companion Animal Capital Fund grant, until the present.

The $305,000 grant application was approved in March 2020 – the town was awarded $228,750 from the state to support a new building with epoxy flooring, new kennels, new drains, a new HVAC system, floor sink, exercise yard, and garage. The town’s portion (1/4 of grant fund approved) was $76,250.

Initial November 2020 bid proposals came in at near $1 million and were denied. The recent May bids came in where the lowest bid was $603,000 – near exact size as original application design, but with three less kennels. It includes a garage but no information as to any design changes from the application design.

At Tuesday evening’s town board meeting, the board should be asked for clarification on the following:

1. When $500,000 was max available in grant funding for the shelter project, why was only $305,000 requested? In today’s world it is inconceivable that a 2,100 sq. ft. brick & mortar commercial building with nine dog kennels and a garage could be constructed for $305,000 (including soft costs).

Had the town requested and received $500,000, its share of the construction cost (25%) would be $125,000. This project is now costing town tax payers $260,000. What was engineer responsible for the design and estimated construction costs thinking.

2. The recent low bid shelter construction cost came in at $603,000. The town can now build this shelter for $485,000. What changed?

3. Three kennels have been eliminated from the original design. There is a garage but whether the facility is a brick & mortar building, has adequate sound proofing, adequate security measures in place to protect animals, staffing, and cliental is yet to be determined.

4. The project is a must. It is disappointing that the town is now spending $185,000 more than initially planned and getting less than originally planned for. Disappointing because the town could have applied for a $500,000 grant which could have covered the cost of the project and the towns construction cost portion would have been only $125,000 – not $260,000, and most likely would have been near construction completion.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Board bonds $485,000 to build dog shelter

Monday night the town board by 4-1 vote approved a $485,000 Capital Improvement Project bond to construct a dog control facility at 525 Pavement Road. Supervisor Ronald Ruffino cast the lone ‘no’ vote.

As there are no design details in the language of the resolution and unable to attend the meeting, I asked resident Kevin Lemaster to address the board in my stead - to ask questions for clarification. I thank him for honoring my request.

From the questions the following was revealed by Councilmember & Dog Control Committee Chair Michael Wozniak:

The lowest construction bid received in June 2021 was $603,000. The Town negotiated with the contractor to have the shelter built for $485,000. The entire project will be constructed by the outside contractor. No town involvement. No contractor change orders.

The building will be larger than the approximately 2,100 sq. ft. designed building in the project submitted for state grant approval.

The project design:

• Includes a garage

• Seven or eight kennels (not nine as designed in state grant application approval and will more likely have six kennels as was being considered in more recent designs)

• It will be A wood and metal building – not a brick & mortar building. Wozniak declared it was never intended to be a brick & mortar. (Not true as grant application and approval will validate)

• Has four-foot concrete kennel separation walls with screening installed above

• Soundproofing insulation only between shelter kennel walls and DCO office Not needed elsewhere according to Wozniak. (No concern for noise impact for neighboring residents or the dogs confined)

Comment

In January 2020, the Town of Lancaster applied for a $305,000 State Ag & Markets Companion Animal Capital Fund grant. There wasn’t anyone that I spoke to at the time of grant application who believed the 2,100 square-foot designed brick & mortar dog shelter could be constructed for anything near $305,000. The Town’s low estimate in project construction cost was inexcusable, especially when $500,000 in Ag & Markets grant funds were available. Had a $500,000 grant fund been awarded, the town’s obligation in the project cost would have been $125,000, instead of the $260,000 cost obligation now imposed.

Considering the deplorable condition of the four-kennel shed shelter, this project is deserving and necessary of moving forward ASAP. The shelter construct should have come about sooner and at less expense to the Lancaster taxpayer. Two years in the making and not a shovel in the ground yet.

Lastly, it would be appropriate for the town to place the project design and details on its website for taxpayers to see and comment on what their tax dollars are being spent on.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Retraction: It was Town Engineer Ed Schiller who responded to Mr. Lemaster last night, not Dog Control Committee Chair Councilmember Michael Wozniak. The recording did not allow me to make that distinction and Mr. Wozniak has been the one recently addressing the matter. Better yet as Mr. Schiller has been the individual in charge in estimating project cost.

Board bonds $485,000 to build dog shelter

Monday night the town board by 4-1 vote approved a $485,000 Capital Improvement Project bond to construct a dog control facility at 525 Pavement Road. Supervisor Ronald Ruffino cast the lone ‘no’ vote.

As there are no design details in the language of the resolution and unable to attend the meeting, I asked resident Kevin Lemaster to address the board in my stead - to ask questions for clarification. I thank him for honoring my request.

From the questions the following was revealed by Councilmember & Dog Control Committee Chair Michael Wozniak:

The lowest construction bid received in June 2021 was $603,000. The Town negotiated with the contractor to have the shelter built for $485,000. The entire project will be constructed by the outside contractor. No town involvement. No contractor change orders.

The building will be larger than the approximately 2,100 sq. ft. designed building in the project submitted for state grant approval.

The project design:

• Includes a garage

• Seven or eight kennels (not nine as designed in state grant application approval and will more likely have six kennels as was being considered in more recent designs)

• It will be A wood and metal building – not a brick & mortar building. Wozniak declared it was never intended to be a brick & mortar. (Not true as grant application and approval will validate)

• Has four-foot concrete kennel separation walls with screening installed above

• Soundproofing insulation only between shelter kennel walls and DCO office Not needed elsewhere according to Wozniak. (No concern for noise impact for neighboring residents or the dogs confined)

Comment

In January 2020, the Town of Lancaster applied for a $305,000 State Ag & Markets Companion Animal Capital Fund grant. There wasn’t anyone that I spoke to at the time of grant application who believed the 2,100 square-foot designed brick & mortar dog shelter could be constructed for anything near $305,000. The Town’s low estimate in project construction cost was inexcusable, especially when $500,000 in Ag & Markets grant funds were available. Had a $500,000 grant fund been awarded, the town’s obligation in the project cost would have been $125,000, instead of the $260,000 cost obligation now imposed.

Considering the deplorable condition of the four-kennel shed shelter, this project is deserving and necessary of moving forward ASAP. The shelter construct should have come about sooner and at less expense to the Lancaster taxpayer. Two years in the making and not a shovel in the ground yet.

Lastly, it would be appropriate for the town to place the project design and details on its website for taxpayers to see and comment on what their tax dollars are being spent on.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Questions needing answering

I had several questions answered at the last town board meeting on the town bonding $485,000 to build a new dog shelter. $225,000 in a state grant fund will be used to reduce the town obligation to $260,000.

Had the town applied for the max allowable $500,000 state grant, the town’s project cost obligation would have been $125,000 (25% of grant application amount). The grant application was submitted for $305,000 - $228,750 (75%) funded by the state and 76,250 (25%) funded by the town.

Question #1

Who estimated the cost of building a 2,100 sq. ft. brick & mortar building with 9 kennels and a two-car garage, etc. at $305,000 when the grant application was conceived? It wasn’t the DCO. Not the grant writer. Who does that leave qualified for estimating a project cost that was so grossly miscalculated?

Question #2

Why did Supervisor Ruffino vote ‘no’ on the resolution to bond for the construction of a shelter to replace one he even called in ‘deplorable’ condition’ and in need of replacing ASAP?

Supervisor Ruffino was supportive of this project and involved in the project from its initial grant writing phase to final grant application submittal. The $305,000 project cost estimate was ludicrous. Who convinced him otherwise and where an opportunity to petition for near $200,000 in state grant funds were lost? Who cost the town $135,000 in funds and months of project delay?

If Supervisor Ruffino were to be asked about his ‘no’ vote’ and his answer would be to delay the project until the cost of materials came down, wasn’t that factored into the reduction of the lowest bid of constructing the project from $603,000 to $485,000. Or what was taken out of the project design to lower the cost?

One cannot help but be suspicious of the process when the town engineer who is the point person on the project was asked at the last meeting how many kennels there would be and he answered, “I don’t know off-hand, I believe 7 or 8. There are six and that was established meetings ago and where the bid graphic shows six.

We are always being promised truth and transparency when politicos seek office. You will find neither here.

[mark blazejewski]

Questions needing answering


Question #1

Who estimated the cost of building a 2,100 sq. ft. brick & mortar building with 9 kennels and a two-car garage, etc. at $305,000 when the grant application was conceived? It wasn’t the DCO. Not the grant writer. Who does that leave qualified for estimating a project cost that was so grossly miscalculated?

The Town Engineer?

Was an unretained architectural firm somehow involved?

Was a private contractor, or one with such a background, informally contacted and it estimator submitted an unofficial estimate bid which seriously under-valued the costs of such a project?

If so, I have heard of such historic occurrences unrelated to these circumstances.

Just my opinion, something happened under the radar.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Town Engineer?

Was an unretained architectural firm somehow involved?

Was a private contractor, or one with such a background, informally contacted and it estimator submitted an unofficial estimate bid which seriously under-valued the costs of such a project?

If so, I have heard of such historic occurrences unrelated to these circumstances.

Just my opinion, something happened under the radar.

Speculation Mark, or are you hearing what I am being told.

The 'firm' that was handed over the design to cost estimate the construction of a dog shelter to meet Animal Companion grant standards was on a mistakenly 1,600 sq. ft. building - not the design of the 2,100 sq. ft. brick & mortar shelter design with nine kennels, etc., that was submitted to the state, or one that put out for first bid in November 2020 that was a 2,900 sq. ft. building. The grant application should have been for $500,000.

We still have no idea whether the project cost has been reduced from the $603,000 bid to $485,000 because more 'out-of-the-box' cuts were made as no plans are being made available to the public.

The public was also expected to comment on the project and file for permissive referendum without any knowledge of project design, construction detail, etc. and was not told the truth when questioning the town on the project.

The town f'ed up, costing taxpayers $130,000 in the process - and without a shovel in the ground after March 2020 grant approval.

We need a shelter, NOW! Let's move on and build one ASAP. And stop shading the public and shinning the light on innocent parties.