2021 Lancaster Budget work session

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Lancaster town board met today to review the 2021 preliminary budget and to make adjustments before the final budget is adopted next week. Residents were able to listen in to the work session through a teleconference call, but not allowed to participate.

Unfortunately, the public was at a disadvantage in not having a copy of the budget version discussed and to some of the changes that had already been made. Discussed at the hour-long work session:

Fund Balance Use

Councilman Robert Leary questioned why more unreserved fund balance was not being used to decrease the tax levy which thereby reduces property owner tax liability. Supervisor Ruffino and Budget Director Cuviello voiced that they wanted to leave a well-funded reserve in case of another Covid related shut down and the impact to revenues.

Leary countered that looking at the fund balance needs for the remainder of the fiscal year and the remaining fund balance reserve, the town could comfortably use another $400,000 to lower the taxes of likewise struggling property owners and still have enough in reserves to cover unexpected emergency guideline use.

Dog Control

Where changes were made in other departments that appeared satisfactory to department heads and the town board, the discussion turned to the Dog Control Department regarding assistant worker wages and removal of a $5,000 request to fund a dog census.

Where Ruffino’s budget lists the assistant DCO’s earning $14.00 per hour, the work session math showed the hours scheduled indicated the workers earning only $12.83 an hour. DCO Jean Karn adamantly supported her workers deserving the same wages as a fast-food worker and where they were performing services that were hazardous as well. They are part-time workers, receive no benefits and are scheduled to work no more than 19.75 hours per week,

Karn also voiced disappointment with the removal of the $5,000 to perform a dog census where the revenue gained by the licensing and the added public safety protection by ensuring licensed dogs are rabbi vaccinated.

Leary declared that 60% of the dogs in Lancaster are unlicensed. Councilman Dickman supported the dog census project is worthwhile for same reasons.

Considering going door-to-door during COVID was not feasible the discussion centered on a mail census. Supervisor Ruffino declared it was tried one time and found unsuccessful. “People just threw them away,” said Ruffino.
I have been a Lancaster resident for 48 years, had licensed dogs in all that time, and never remember a dog census performed by mail.

Karn also voiced disappointment that the $70,000 taken in by her department in licensing revenues and penalties goes unmentioned when her budget is being scrutinized.

Wages

Councilman Dickman suggested the removal of Town Council member wage increases; “Not appropriate at a time of Covid impact to the public,” said Dickman.

Leary and Dickman suggested the removal of the $5,000 Budget Officer stipend. Removed from the budget during the Fudoli administration, Ruffino wanted it reinstated as he believes he is underpaid when comparing his salary ($72,500) to other Town Supervisor salaries (claiming they earn $85,000 to $90,000). Leary countered that the Budget Officer stipend should never have been in the budget in the first place considering the town has a full time Financial director who does the budget preparation.

Document viewing

Councilman Leary asked Budget Director Cuviello when the revised document would be put up for viewing. Cuviello said the changes would be made quickly, send to the Town Board members for further review, and hopefully posted on the town website by Friday.

So kiddies, until the final version gets posted, we are still in the dark as knowing specifics on budget adjustments, fund balance use, or tax liability.

We re all in this together, right?

[gorja]

Personally, I believe the people that don't have their dogs licensed now do know that they should be licensed.
A post card telling them that they should be licensed, I don't think will change that.
Going to a house and hearing the barking, tells the story. Just my opinion

[gorja]

Personally, I believe the people that don't have their dogs licensed now do know that they should be licensed.
A post card telling them that they should be licensed, I don't think will change that.
Going to a house and hearing the barking, tells the story. Just my opinion

A town in Monroe county sent post cards out and the residents had to send them back whether they owned dogs or not.
Then dog control followed up with residents that did NOT send the mailer back. That might be an option.
I just don't have faith in people doing the right thing when they haven't been all these years.

Also, a BIG fine should be assessed when an unlicensed dog is picked up. Just my opinion

[mark blazejewski]

Special Town Council Work Session on the Preliminary Budget for 2021...

Reference: https://soundcloud.com/user-329292372/2020-11-09-tbm

[WNYresident]

Personally, I believe the people that don't have their dogs licensed now do know that they should be licensed.
A post card telling them that they should be licensed, I don't think will change that.
Going to a house and hearing the barking, tells the story. Just my opinion

how many post cards would have to be mailed ou?

[mark blazejewski]

Going to a house and hearing the barking, tells the story. Just my opinion

Your opinion has great common sense merit Gorja, and I agree totally.

But, people who have no regard for the law and for the health interests of the neighborhood visa v rabbis, may just say that they are babysitting a friend's or family member's dog. Unless the census taker has legal authority to in some way prove that the dog belongs to the resident, the system would be screwed.

[gorja]

Your opinion has great common sense merit Gorja, and I agree totally.

But, people who have no regard for the law and for the health interests of the neighborhood visa v rabbis, may just say that they are babysitting a friend's or family member's dog. Unless the census taker has legal authority to in some way prove that the dog belongs to the resident, the system would be screwed.

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 blazejewski]

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

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.

[Lee Chowaniec]

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.

I will respond, but will do so on the Dog Lives Matter thread where I believe it is more appropriate.

[gorja]

Like Lee said, licensing is not a prerequisite to using vet services or grooming services. I always bring a copy of Tipper's rabies vaccination to a new groomer