Page 9 of 38 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 560

Thread: Dog lives matter

  1. #121
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Board reaches agreement in Dog Control Department compensation structure
    Lancaster Bee


    After lengthy discussion, the Lancaster Town Board unanimously approved the salary compensation structure for the Dog Control Department at Monday’s meeting.

    A resolution was first introduced in July and was tabled, then was reintroduced at the end of July, and was voted down. The same resolution was unanimously approved Monday, with the added assurance of someone sitting down to look at the Dog Control Department schedule. Supervisor Ron Ruffino and Councilmember Dave Mazur, who previously voted against the resolutions, agreed that the schedule needed to be tweaked to spread out the two most experienced Dog Control officers to cover more hours.

    According to the resolution, any individual appointed to an unsalaried part-time position as dog control officer in Lancaster will be compensated for the actual number of hours worked, except in the case of an unscheduled call-in required as a result of a dangerous dog presenting a threat to public safety. If a worker is called in to care for a dangerous dog, an unscheduled call-in to care for or feed any dog in their custody, or for court appearances as needed, they are compensated for four hours or the actual number of hours worked, whichever is greater.

    Ruffino said at a July meeting, if someone is being called in to work, that they should have to work the four hours in order to get paid four hours.

    “The way it’s written right now is they can come in for 15 or 20 minutes to feed the dogs and get paid for four hours,” Ruffino said, adding that was his only issue with the resolution. “I can’t agree with that. … I’m not against giving them four hours [pay]. They should have to work the four hours.”

    Dog Control Officer Jean Karn said feeding the dogs takes longer than that, especially if there are multiple dogs.

    “If somebody calls in sick, what’s going to happen is somebody’s dogs are going to sit there all weekend, and not be fed or watered, and we can not have that,” Jean Karn said, adding New York state law requires feedings every 12 hours. “I’m not going to get a person to come in, who is at a family function on a weekend, to come in for $13 an hour to come in and take care of dogs.”

    Ruffino said when Jean Karn was hired, it was part of their agreement, that she would come in on off-hours if need be.

    “I do, but I am a part-time person. I’m not a full-time person,” Jean Karn said. “I work my hours that I work a week … When I’m not in town is when I need something. If I’m not in town, what would you like me to do?”

    Ruffino suggested adding to the resolution that the employee would need to work the full four hours to get four hours of pay.

    The four hours of pay gives employees the incentive to come in on the weekend.

    “The way it’s written right now is they can come in for 15 or 20 minutes to feed the dogs and get paid for four hours,” Ruffino said, adding that was his only issue with the resolution. “I can’t agree with that. … I’m not against giving them four hours [pay]. They should have to work the four hours.”

    Dog Control Officer Jean Karn said feeding the dogs takes longer than that, especially if there are multiple dogs.

    “If somebody calls in sick, what’s going to happen is somebody’s dogs are going to sit there all weekend, and not be fed or watered, and we can not have that,” Jean Karn said, adding New York state law requires feedings every 12 hours. “I’m not going to get a person to come in, who is at a family function on a weekend, to come in for $13 an hour to come in and take care of dogs.”

    Ruffino said when Jean Karn was hired, it was part of their agreement, that she would come in on off-hours if need be.

    “I do, but I am a part-time person. I’m not a full-time person,” Jean Karn said. “I work my hours that I work a week … When I’m not in town is when I need something. If I’m not in town, what would you like me to do?”

    Ruffino suggested adding to the resolution that the employee would need to work the full four hours to get four hours of pay The four hours of pay gives employees the incentive to come in on the weekend, during one of the few times Jean Karn would be unavailable to come in.

    Police Chief William Karn said the resolution is overdue. Last weekend he was called in by Dog Control for an aggressive dog, and was needed to help get the dog in a kennel. The dog ended up being put down, but had bitten multiple people.

    “They’re getting a lot of these types of incidents,” William Karn said. “The Dog Control Office needs the ability to call people in … We need somebody that’s trained. If we have one of my officers do it, they don’t have extensive training. So they could possibly get bit, or they end up shooting a dog. Obviously both those scenarios we want to try to avoid.”

    William Karn said there were fewer than 10 call-ins last year in the Dog Control Office.

    “These people need to get paid for their expertise,” said Bob Leary, a council member. “It’s not going to be much money … We just want to make sure that there’s going to be someone there in case somebody calls in, and someone is there to cover the dogs. It has to be someone there with the expertise to do it.” Leary said if changes need to be made to the resolution when the new facility is completed, they can make changes.

    Council member Adam Dickman said they have been trying to pass a similar resolution for a few years. “Dog Control does a great job,” Dickman said. “[The resolution] is not going to be abused, and if it is, we can revisit it. It’s not going to cost much money, and it’s a better option to pass the resolution than have a worse-case scenario with a starving dog or dangerous dog and have a lawsuit.”

    Ruffino said the board had a good debate on the resolution and they will accomplish what they wanted. “I’m happy we will look at the schedule to address other situations,” Ruffino said.

  2. #122
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Council member Adam Dickman said they have been trying to pass a similar resolution for a few years.

    I've got to start paying attention. I honestly don't remember a similar resolution being proposed prior to this past summer.

    I also didn't realize that Mrs Karn was a part time employee earning $50,750 per year.

    Georgia L Schlager

  3. #123
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    =gorja;1937134]

    I've got to start paying attention. I honestly don't remember a similar resolution being proposed prior to this past summer.


    Nor I.

    I also didn't realize that Mrs Karn was a part time employee earning $50,750 per year.

    Surprised to hear that considering you follow budgets closely.

    Perhaps you don’t realize that DCO Karn receives no benefits, works 35 hours and can’t put in for overtime until her hours exceed 40 hours. It is my understanding she is the only DCO not receiving benefits.

    Karn’s contract is weird and changes at the will of the board and how the town juggles her and the Assistant DCO’S to management 24/7 coverage.

    In 2012, the DCO earned $47,577 with benefits. The Assistant DCO wages totaled $44,000.

    Karn was hired in 2017 at a salary of $50,000, no benefits, and told her schedule would be much lighter and where no more than 30 dogs would be involved annually.

    In 2019, as the Assistant DCO wages increased, her salary was cut to $48,756. The town stove for 24/7 coverage.

    In 2020, Karn’s salary increased to $50,700 as her administrative duties increased significantly in 2019 – especially with her oversight in getting a state grant to build a dog facility meeting state standards. The grant was approved and Karn is now involved in the design and construction of the new facility.

    Read Karn’s monthly activity reports. The town gets a bang for the buck in this department – especially considering the payback in licensing fees and penalties.

    It is a shame her request to spend $5,000 on a town-wide dog census was denied. The payback through the would have been significant. More importantly resident public safety would have been much improved - dog bites with rabbis.

  4. #124
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    It is a shame her request to spend $5,000 on a town-wide dog census was denied. The payback through the would have been significant. More importantly resident public safety would have been much improved - dog bites with rabbis.
    Lee,

    I am glad you raised this issue again, because it is one of significant import.

    Rabid animals have been a problem, even in the village, and not just rats.

    There are significant raccoon and bat populations resident in the village. In fact, some time back, we had a rabid fox on our property which the police had to, tactfully put, dispatch. It was a tragic seen and my heart broke for the emotionally impacted police officer who had to perform that duty.

    The fox was located outside of the fenced-in area of the yard, so it posed no threat to our dog, but that was chance-luck.

    What of unlicensed, unvaccinated dogs who roam the streets or are otherwise unattended?

    I believe that the proposed dog census would go along way to protect the unprotected pets, and their owners as well.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; October 8th, 2020 at 08:33 PM.
    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?"

  5. #125
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    “I do, but I am a part-time person. I’m not a full-time person,” Jean Karn said.
    Then, I wrote -
    I also didn't realize that Mrs Karn was a part time employee earning $50,750 per year.
    Lee responded-
    Surprised to hear that considering you follow budgets closely.
    Yes, Lee, I do read the budgets but had thought the salary was for a Full time position. DCO Karn states her position is part time.

    Apparently, I’m not the only one that misunderstood her employment status as full time.

    This was in the October 5, 2017, Lancaster Bee regarding Supervisor Coleman’s 2018 tentative budget.

    A salary adjustment was also made in the budget, to allow the lead dog control officer full-time rather than part-time status.
    This was in a February 6, 2018, Buffalo News article.
    Supervisor Johanna Coleman said that Jean Karn, the only full-time dog control officer, was appointed in July 2017.
    So as a full time employee, I do believe the salary is appropriate. I knew she didn’t receive healthcare as her husband already carries it but did not realize that she didn’t receive the other benefits such as vacation, sick, personal etc.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #126
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    239
    OMG What an incompetent bunch on this town board...to think they could not come up with suitable solution to the Dog Control dept. only points out that good old common sense much less common good takes a back seat to pure political maneuvering...I fear for the future of this town full well knowing they they can't even agree on Dog Control...One more thing to consider...Even though it is called the Clarence rest area, it is geographically in the Town of Lancaster...At one time the town had an agreement with the NYS POLICE for dog related coverage on the NYS Thruway...Does the town still answer calls by the NYS Police on the Thruway?

  7. #127
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    That's possible too. But you'd have to have a follow-up or what's the sense of doing it? The same people would who don't license their dogs now would continue not licensing their dogs, in my opinion
    Mark B. wrote:

    This is off topic of this thread, but indulge me just this one comment.

    You and I share a passion for animals Gorja.

    If the dog is unlicensed, does it not follow logically that the animal is prohibited from engaging veterinary and grooming care?

    I simply do not understand how someone could take a dog into their lives and neglect it in such a way.
    From personal experience as a lifelong dog owner and from research on the matter.

    A dog census was promised by the town board several years ago and never performed. It is long due considering:

    There is the likelihood that there are twice as many dogs unlicensed in Lancaster as licensed.

    Unlicensed dogs provide no proof that the dog has been vaccinated for rabbis and therefore a threat to public safety.

    Any kind of licensing does not guarantee 100% compliance – gun registry, driving licensing, insurance, etc.

    Whatever dog census process the town uses will be met with resistance and noncompliance. A severe penalty system must be included to counter resident noncompliance. Any percent improvement to the current system is better than none and the implementation cost will be offset many times over by added license fees. More important, public safety is enhanced.

    The Dog Control budget the last two years came in at around $150,000 – in a $35 million town budget. The department generated $70,000 in revenues from licensing fees and penalties. The town can well afford to spend whatever it takes to conduct a reliable dog census

    Dog groomers and vets are not compelled to refuse servicing unlicensed dogs. Good vets and groomers will ensure dogs have proof of updated rabbi inoculations before servicing them. When you take your dog to a Dog Park to socialize, is there anyone checking licensing, rabbi vaccination, other public safety issues? Don’t know. Hope so!

    One size doesn’t fit all. There are pet owners that will spend and do whatever necessary to maintain the health and well-being of their pets – considering their well-being as important as their family members. There are others that treat them as casual playthings, while others abuse them in one way or another.

    Owning and properly maintaining a dog’s health and well-being is demanding and often expensive. Unfortunately, too many dog owners do not know that when bringing a pet home and the dog suffers because of it.

  8. #128
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    I do believe that there are dog owners who faithfully take their dogs to the vet for all their vaccinations and grooming at the groomers but do not get their dogs licensed. I agree there are those that treat their dogs like a redheaded stepchild and don't properly care for them.
    There are just some people who feel.they don't have to the right thing intil they caught

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #129
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Dog adoptions surge

    Western New York’s overall "percentage positive" rate – the share of Covid-19 tests that come back positive – was at a seven-day average of 5.1% through Nov. 22. The rate is seeing its highest levels since mid-May.

    Lancaster currently has the highest infection rate in the state, at 9.68 percent. Our esteemed, blameless Governor has taken Western New to task for acting irresponsible and we will soon be entering the shutdown red zone.

    Little time to think about or care about anything else, much less dogs. However, at this time dog adoptions are surging and those interested in pursuing such avenue should be apprised of cost and responsibility.

    SPCA Adoption Rates

    $100 - Dogs 10 years and older
    $200- Most dogs 7 years up to 10 years
    $250 – Most dogs 1 year up to 7 years
    $300 – Most dogs / puppies 21 weeks up to 1 year
    $400 – Most pups 20 weeks and younger (includes Bordetella shot)
    $200-$500 – Particular dog breeds and/or sizes

    Shelter Adoptions

    Rates vary widely – from $50 to $350

    My average annual maintenance cost - $1,000 (food, treats / toys, grooming, and vet.

    Town Services / Performance

    Dog Control Officer Jean Karn recently advocated for and received adjusted approval in the 2021 Lancaster budget:

    For her staff receiving a wage increase to $13.23/hr. (19.75 hrs. per week) Like her, a staff that receives no benefits.

    Performing a dog census. Some form of dog census will be conducted. $5,000 was requested by the department, $4,000 will be allotted from 2021 Printing and Advertising budget.

    There are approximately 5,600 dogs licensed in Lancaster (Villages included). It is conservatively estimated that there are as many unlicensed. Where many may feel the licensing fee is a money grab, many more believe it is a public safety service to ensure all dogs are current with rabbi vaccinations, thereby protecting the public and her staff from dog bite consequence.

    The Dog Control Department issues a monthly operations report. The following is a summary from January 1, 2020 through October 2020:

    1,906 Calls or Complaints Received
    479 Compliance Notices Issued
    116 Final Notices Issued
    148 Appearance Tickets Issued
    40 Dog Bite Reports Filed
    1 Dog Euthanized

    Although I have been a lifelong dog owner and have now resided in Lancaster 48 years, I have never had need to use the services of the Dog Control Department. However, I well understood the need of building a new town shelter. I commend DCO Karn for her effort in getting the State Grant to build the much-needed new shelter.

    From someone who believes his dog is his best friend!

  10. #130
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    New dog shelter construction $700,000 above budgeted estimate

    At Monday evening’s town board work session, the board discussed that it had received several construction bids for the construction of the new dog shelter.

    The construction cost estimate had been set at $305,000 - $228,750 funded from financial assistance through the New York State Companion Animal Capital Project Fund, eligible for 75% of the total project cost ($305,000), and $76,250 funding from the town.

    Several bids were received, all around $1 million.

    The board disclosed that further Grant money could not be sought, the new shelter was a worthy project and that giving up the Grant money would be a great loss, and decided to build what was possible through a modified design and perhaps add on in the future.

    At the regular meeting public comment session, I addressed the board with the following questions and concerns.

    Chowaniec: Mr. Supervisor, In January 2020 the town considered applying for a state grant to build a new dog shelter. The project cost was estimated at $212,500. The grant application was for $170,000 and by agreement terms the town would pay 25% of total project cost of $42,500. What was the building square footage of that project design?

    Supervisor Ruffino: 1,200 square feet.

    Chowaniec: A week later the town changed the application.

    Ruffino: Yes, changes were made and the project cost increased to $305,00. By terms of the grant application the State would fund $228,750 and the town would contribute $76,250.

    Chowaniec What was this building project’s designed square footage?

    Ruffino: 1,600 square feet,

    Chowaniec: In September 2020, the town board unanimously approved a site plan prepared and submitted by Ed Schiller of William Schutt & Associates, for an 88’ x 34’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) structure with trussed roof for office space, garage space, kennels, exam room and storage area located at 525 Pavement Road, in the Town of Lancaster. That would put the square footage at over 2,000. Councilman Leary also stated he seen a design for a 2,150 square foot building.

    I have to wonder what size building was considered in the bid process and how the town never thought that a commercial building sized at even 1,600 square feet could be built for $305,000 when most new residential homes in Lancaster exceed that cost.

    When the town petitioned for State Grant funding, didn’t anyone have an idea that construction costs would far exceed $305,000? But certainly not by $700,000.

    That said, I must ask what caused the $700,000 difference? What will we be sacrificing to meet the $305,000 fund limit? Who will be constructing the building?

    Supervisor Ruffino: Ed would you like to explain?

    Ed Schiller (Town Engineer): The project had a lot of add-ons (frills). Like:

    From painted walls to high-end enamel finishes
    Doors between kennels went from plain plastic to stainless steel
    There is a vet examining table when no vet work is done
    A one car garage became a two-car garage
    Sidewalk changes
    Painted concrete walks

    If we take away the frills and get back to where we started, we can get it done at $305,000.

    Chowaniec: Okay, you are removing the frills. Will this building have an office, unlike the current operation where the DCO office is in another building? How many kennels will it have? Will there be a separate kennel for sick and/or aggressive dogs? A safe and secure environment for the dogs?

    Schiller: It will have an office, storage area, wash and dry room, 6 or 7 kennels, 4 regular and 2 larger.

    Chowaniec: What is the square footage of the new designed building?

    Schiller: 1,200 to 1,300 square feet.

    Chowaniec: Garage included?

    Schiller: Garage, which is not required.

    Chowaniec: My questions and comments are directed to ensure that this downsized project does not eliminate anything that impacts the safety, security, and wellbeing of the sheltered dogs. Hopefully, the new design provides those services and meets the grant application requirements Thank you, Mr. Schiller.

    Comment

    Someone remarked in the work session that there was every indication that there was a ‘disconnect’ between all parties involved in the project. Ya think!

    A $700,000 discrepancy far exceeding the ‘frills’ that were spoken of. Where now the originally designed 1,600 square foot building has to be downsized and ‘takeaways’ considered. What were they thinking?

    When the Grant Application fund max was $500,000, why did the town not apply for more funding which would have allowed for some of those so-called 'frills'?

  11. #131
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Lee,

    In response to your comments on post #130, I have owned dogs non-stop since 1966 and the older I get, the more sentimentally committed I am to the safety and health of our furry friends.

    It is in that spirit that I make these observations:


    (1) Indeed, the $305,000 figure when presented previously struck me as a "If it is too good to be true" estimate. Therefore, is it possible that no town actor held my suspicion and did not probe further, questioning the low cost?

    Would not timely, further probing perhaps have afforded the town an opportunity to submit a more aggressive grant application?

    (2) I am not suspicious of the $1,000,000 dollar construction figure. My suspicion resides with the apparent complacency which attended the previous $305, 000 estimate. That complacency IMHO suggests the combined possibilities of ill-informed naivety, or more troubling, a lack of serious engagement. How else does one explain the process by which the engineering planners and the administration appeared to undervalue the new facility by a whopping $700,000?

    (3) Am I to understand, even assuming that painted walls to high-end enamel finishes, doors between kennels which were upgraded from plain plastic to stainless steel; a veterinary examination table, a two-car garage, and painted sidewalks, were not components to the original scheme, that the cost of those so-called "frills" is $700,000, well over double the price of the original estimate(s)?

    (4) If I am understanding your exchange with Schiller correctly, he claims that a new building can be completed for $305,000, but with a reduction of 300 square feet.

    (5) More troubling, I am uncomfortable with Schiller's response regarding separate kennels for sick and aggressive dogs. I perceive those comments to be unclear, if not evasive. and I am curious about his response regarding the garage.

    (6) As I am uncomfortable with Schiller's response regarding (5) above, equally, I am perplexed by his comment concern garage facilities.

    When you asked him directly "Garage Included?," he simply did not answer. Rather he replied, "Garage, not required." What in Hell does that mean?

    Is a garage included Mr. Schiller, yes or no?

    Lee, this comment is not political commentary; it is an emotional response to what I fear may be an issue of undervalued importance.

    How do I and others of a kindred mindframe follow-up on this issue to make sure that focus is kept on the matter so it does not get swept under the rug?

    I fear that like so many fanciful projects in our area, from the wonders of Domed Stadium to the glories of Peace Bridge, this project, so essential to the lives of the abused and needy shelter animals, this project appears to have been mishandled and manipulated in such a way as to permit it to be turned on and off at the tap of political opportunism.

    The animals need an adequate and safe shelter, period.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; December 9th, 2020 at 05:10 PM.
    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. #132
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Mark,

    I can only reply that I am astounded and confounded. Astounded that the town blew a grant opportunity in 2018 and where we are now in a position where the building has to be downsized and original concept designs eliminated. Worse case scenario, the shelter project again misses becoming less than standard (adequate) or does not get built at all.

    At Monday evening’s town board meeting I heard three building dimensions mentioned – 1,200 sq. ft., 1,600 and 21,50. In a Speakup post on September 22nd, I reported: Last night the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster unanimously approved the site plan prepared and submitted by Ed Schiller of William Schutt & Associates, for a 88’ x 34’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) structure with trussed roof for office space, garage space, kennels, exam room and storage area located at 525 Pavement Road, in the Town of Lancaster. That would put the building at 2,992 sq. ff.

    One would have to ask what concept design was submitted for bids and where all bids came in at near $1 million? From my understanding, the original concept submitted to the state for grant application was for a building approximating 1,600 sq. ft. and containing a two-car garage, enameled walls and some of the other things now considered ‘frills’.

    Had that design concept been changed and expanded after locking it in with the state grant application, who in the town or in the engineering department was asleep at the wheel and permitted such changes having to know they exceeded the terms of the grant agreement and would compel the town to pick up the added costs – if that were even possible.

    A construction project that was estimated to cost $305,000 comes in at $1 million, how is that possible? Who estimated the cost of this project at $305,000? Anyone I spoke to, including myself, knows it is near the cost of a new home in Lancaster – and here we are looking at a commercial project. A $700,000 difference between estimated construction cost and contractor bid estimate cannot be explained away with a few frills added. $700,000 for 'frills'? I don't think so!

    What is most disturbing is that we now cannot even meet the agreed upon $305,000 project cost without being informed that the building size will have to be reduced by 25%, there will only be a one-car garage, and some other concepts eliminated.

    The town owes it to its residents to be more transparent on this project and publish what the project will now look like that we are going back to square one – 11 months after initial design and cost estimate. The town needs a new dog shelter, one that meets state standards: standards that ensures the dos are humanely treated in a safe and secure environment.

    The town has 2021 to build the shelter. However, sometime in the next several weeks the project has a state deadline

    Lastly, if the shelter could not have been built for $305,000, why indeed did the town apply to the state for more grant funding? $500,000 was available for grant petitioning

  13. #133
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,303
    Lee, as I understand the history of this project, when the Town Board authorized the filing of a maximum $228,750 grant application on January 20, 2020, it anticipated a total project cost of $305,000.

    At that time, I understood that the project cost included the following:

    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

    If my understanding described above is accurate, is not the comment "A one car garage became a two-car garage" perplexing?

    Was not the grant application submitted with a planned two-car garage component?

    If my questions are to be answered in the affirmative, why then did Mr. Schiller suggest that a two-car garage was an "add-on" to the plan attendant to the submitted grant application?


    Can you enlighten me?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; December 10th, 2020 at 08:40 PM.
    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. #134
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Hey Mark:

    What you indicated was in the design of the dog shelter is what I gathered as well from information cited in the grant application of January 21, 2020 – some of it furthered stated in the site plan approval of 9-17-2020: WHEREAS, the Town Board is considering construction of a new 88’ x 34’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) structure with trussed roof for office space, garage space, kennels, exam room and storage area submitted by Ed Schiller of William Schutt & Associates, located at 525 Pavement Road, in the Town of Lancaster.

    The only other reference to this project was on November 2, 2020 when by resolution the town authorized construction bids. None of the three resolutions contained any information building size (dimensions) or how the building was to be equipped – except in the November 2, 2020 site plan approval, submitted by engineer Ed Schiller of William Schutt & Associates. The same Ed Schiller was called upon by Supervisor Ruffino to answer my recent town board meeting questions, affirming to me that the building construction and related costs were his responsibility – as has been the case in all past town building projects.

    So, when Mr. Schiller told me at Monday evening’s town board meeting that the dog shelter’s originally designed 1,600 sq. ft. building could no loner be built for $305,000 (which included the two-car garage, 9 kennels, etc. we were led to be were included), but that the building would have to be reduced in size to 1,200 sq. ft., with only a one-car garage, removal of a few kennels (and some frills), that is not only disappointing because we taxpayers are not getting what was promised. Nor does it explain away a $700,000 difference in construction bid entries.

    What were contractors bidding on? A 1,600 sq. ft. building? A 2,150 sq. ft. building? A 2,992 sq. ft. building as outlined in the September site plan approval?

    And if the position is now taken that we should just forget about cluster***, I would have a problem with that. The town and its engineering department should have to answer for this debacle.

    $305,000 it is, not a penny more to be spent by taxpayers. And that should buy us a building that ensures a safe, secure environment for the dogs and the equipment and garage that provides the department the tools to do the job.

  15. #135
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Have you heard anything? I haven’t.

    It has been one month since the December 7th town board meeting and where any information on the proposed construction of a newly designed dog control facility has been made public - regarding changes to building size / materials, design, number of kennels, equipment, etc.

    No information regarding whether an RFP (request for bid proposals) was submitted, whether bids were received, and whether the prior $700,000 difference between the estimated construction cost of $305,000 and bids of $1,000,000 were addressed. No information provided at the town board level by committee report at the last two town board meetings.

    It is my understanding that within the near future the town must respond to the State on the new design and project costs to meet approval for the state grant fund application if the project is to move forward.

    Hopefully, the town Dog Control Committee Chair and/or the town engineer will provide a project status update at the next town board meeting.

    Reviewed the original grant application and the building was supposed to be 2,150 sq. ft. (not 1,600 sq. ft. as we were led to believe) in size, with a two-car garage, and those so-called frills the town engineer spoke on at the December 7th town board meeting were in the original design.

    Transparency? The residents have a right to know how their money is being spent.

Page 9 of 38 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •