Lancaster Industrial Development Agency (LIDA) resignations

[Lee Chowaniec]

At the January 3, 2022, Organizational Meeting, Ronald Ruffino, Dino Fudoli, Grant Getzoni, Kevin Lemaster, Lynne Ruda, Frank Todaro, and David Rinow were appointed members of the Lancaster Industrial Development Agency (LIDA) to serve at the will of the Town Board. A very diverse group politically and in business and public careers

The only returning LIDA member is Town Supervisor Ronald Ruffino who was appointed and served as LIDA Chair in 2021. The newly appointed LIDA members held an Organizational Meeting yesterday and appointed former Town Supervisor Dino Fudoli Chairperson for 2022.Fudoli was the only name nominated for Chair consideration and was appointed by a 6-1 vote; Ruffino casting the lone ‘no’ vote.

Immediately after the Chair vote took place Supervisor Ruffino submitted his resignation and left the meeting.

This morning LIDA Chief Financial Officer & Assistant Secretary Pamela Cuviello submitted her resignation. Cuviello serves as Director of Administration and Finance (LIDA CFO) and as Director of Administration and Finance (LIDA PILOT billing.

Cuviello serves as Town of Lancaster Director of Administration and Finance, appointed by Ruffino when he took office in 2020.

[mark blazejewski]

Immediately after the Chair vote took place Supervisor Ruffino submitted his resignation and left the meeting.

As I have written earlier, I believe that the Town Council's new Conservative majority sought to be all-inclusive in its appointments to the LIDA.

This LIDA Board membership is not only composed of high quality actors, but reflects all of the political philosophies of Lancaster, strong voices representing both Erie County and the VOL, and contains two very well-informed, grassroot actors...

In my opinion, its selection by the Town Council's new "People's Majority" is a tribute to ALL of the people of Lancaster, and seems to depart the highly partisan scheme that has oppressed Lancaster for decades. As I see it, every member will be valued, and every voice will be heard, and that is what serving the needs and the best interests of Lancaster is all about.

While I may respect Supervisor Ruffino's decision, in my mind, I simply can not harmonize his resignation, for whatever reason tendered, with his 2019 campaign pledge to be "tuned in to the 21st century and the concerns of our residents."

Reference: (Click Attachment To Enlarge)

ruffino and ticket 2019 1014.jpg

With that said, I offer this question:

Why would Supervisor Ruffino deprive his supporters their voice on the LIDA, and withhold from the organization, an entity which exists to further the interests of the people of Lancaster, what wisdom he may have gleaned from his many years of experience in town government?

Just askin'.

[mark blazejewski]

This morning LIDA Chief Financial Officer & Assistant Secretary Pamela Cuviello submitted her resignation. Cuviello serves as Director of Administration and Finance (LIDA CFO) and as Director of Administration and Finance (LIDA PILOT billing.

Cuviello serves as Town of Lancaster Director of Administration and Finance, appointed by Ruffino when he took office in 2020.

I simply do not know the reason(s) which prompted her resignation, but I am compelled to ask does not Cuviello reside in Clarence?

If so, perhaps her 2020 appointment as Director of Administration and Finance may suggest a broader issue, based upon the wisdom of appointing non-Lancaster residents to key government positions holding great responsibility?

I understand that the Director of Administration and Finance is appointed solely by the Supervisor, and is installed without Town Council approval.

In that connection, does her allegiance reside strictly with her sponsor Ruffino, or with the residents of the town and the taxpayers who pay her salary?

[gorja]

It's unbelievable that the LIDA members would appoint as chairman a Lancaster resident that does not pay his Lancaster school taxes on his property in Cheektowaga



Real Property Information
Parcel 143089 93.130-10-1.210 TRANSIT RD FUDOLI DINO J Inrem Code
Year Cycle/Desc Instl InRem Bill No. Principal Adjust Credit Fee Pd Intr Paid Balance Interest Total Bal Payer Information
2021 1-County Tax 01 17720 3,683.85 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,686.05 823.38 4,509.43 n/a
2021 2-School Relevy 01 201639 1,580.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,580.81 189.70 1,770.51 n/a
2020 1-County Tax 01 17745 3,590.68 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 3,580.81 1,565.90 5,146.71 n/a
2020 2-School Relevy 01 201928 1,545.30 0.00 1,545.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2019 1-County Tax 01 17748 3,551.54 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,553.74 2,312.57 5,866.31 n/a
2019 2-School Relevy 01 201737 1,470.25 0.00 1,470.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2018 1-County Tax 01 17747 3,444.51 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,446.71 2,979.38 6,426.09 n/a
2018 2-School Relevy 01 201578 1,483.60 0.00 1,483.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2017 1-County Tax 01 17748 3,485.98 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,488.18 3,760.61 7,248.79 n/a
2017 2-School Relevy 01 201690 1,417.46 0.00 1,417.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2016 1-County Tax 01 17764 3,575.89 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,578.09 4,622.19 8,200.28 n/a
2016 2-School Relevy 01 200926 1,461.93 0.00 1,461.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2015 1-County Tax 01 17249 3,559.91 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,562.11 5,362.71 8,924.82 n/a
2015 2-School Relevy 01 201688 1,513.36 0.00 1,513.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2014 1-County Tax 01 17262 3,611.36 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,613.56 6,212.38 9,825.94 n/a
2014 2-School Relevy 01 201699 1,506.03 0.00 1,506.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2013 1-County Tax 01 17263 3,587.86 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,590.06 6,939.11 10,529.17 n/a
2013 2-School Relevy 01 45063 1,482.09 0.00 1,482.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2013 A-Inrem 01 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 n/a
2012 1-County Tax 01 17260 3,012.43 0.00 0.00 2.00 468.81 3,483.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 fudoli dino j
2012 2-School Relevy 01 293685 1,449.49 0.00 1,449.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2011 1-County Tax 01 17261 3,352.66 0.00 0.00 2.20 1,227.26 4,582.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 fudoli dino j
2011 2-School Relevy 01 420083 934.43 0.00 934.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2010 1-County Tax 01 17256 3,269.38 0.00 0.00 2.10 614.23 3,885.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 fudoli dino j
2009 1-County Tax 01 17289 3,316.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,316.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2008 1-County Tax 01 17305 3,243.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,243.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2007 1-County Tax 01 17306 3,302.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,302.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2006 1-County Tax 01 17307 3,295.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,295.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town:
2005 1-County Tax 01 17295 3,125.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,125.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town:
2004 1-County Tax 01 17288 2,962.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,962.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town:
2003 1-County Tax 01 17289 2,844.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,844.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town: check 1674
Balance as of 34,180.12 34,767.93 68,948.05

Those same "conservative" board members raised the stipend amount for the inexperienced LIDA secretary

[gorja]

Originally posted by mark blazejewski:

I am compelled to ask does not Cuviello reside in Clarence?

Doesn't the Town assessor live in Newstead?

[mark blazejewski]

Originally posted by mark blazejewski:

Doesn't the Town assessor live in Newstead?

Does anyone working for the Depew DPW live in the Village of Lancaster, and is permitted to do so as a component to a previous "trifecta" arrangement involving the VOL DPW, the Lancaster Highway Department and the Depew DPW?

[mark blazejewski]

It's unbelievable that the LIDA members would appoint as chairman a Lancaster resident that does not pay his Lancaster school taxes on his property in Cheektowaga

Gorja, as I have previously written:

This LIDA Board membership is not only composed of high quality actors, but reflects all of the political philosophies of Lancaster, strong voices representing both Erie County and the VOL, and contains two very well-informed, grassroot actors...

In my opinion, its selection by the Town Council's new "People's Majority" is a tribute to ALL of the people of Lancaster, and seems to depart the highly partisan scheme that has oppressed Lancaster for decades. As I see it, every member will be valued, and every voice will be heard, and that is what serving the needs and the best interests of Lancaster is all about.

Just my opinion, but this is a diverse group indeed, and it is very sad to ponder the stark reality that the LIDA is now deprived of a Ruffino's input; an enlightened voice, well-experienced in screw-ups, which could have been very instructive as to how to avoid future calamities, eh?

State auditors blast Lancaster financials

By Stephen T. Watson Oct 13, 2012

Auditors from the state Comptroller’s Office sharply criticized the Lancaster Town Board for its handling of the $1.6 million purchase of a commercial property eight years ago and for allowing the town’s four fire districts to store up more than $5 million in reserves.

The auditors, in a report released Friday, said the Town Board “likely wasted” much of the $2.5 million spent since 2003 on the former Colecraft building, a structure that was to serve as the town’s new police and courts building but has sat largely unused since then.

While Town Board Democrats have defended the purchase as the right decision at the time, a small group of residents has for years argued that town officials erred badly in buying the property, and the audit largely backs up this position.

“It’s official now: The taxpayers were misled. Taxpayer money was wasted. This was bad government,” said Supervisor Dino J. Fudoli, a Republican who took office in January and who slammed the Colecraft purchase during his campaign.

The audit also takes the Town Board to task for approving annual increases in funding for the four fire districts that provide coverage in the town without reviewing the districts’ finances – including unnecessarily large reserve funds.

Town officials say the fire districts save this money to pay for expensive new vehicles and equipment, but they are planning to more closely scrutinize the budgets of organizations that get town funding.

“I welcome those criticisms from the audit,” said Councilman Ronald Ruffino Sr. “We need to be doing what’s best for this community, for the taxpayers.”

The audit echoes criticism of the Colecraft purchase that has been reported at length in The Buffalo News. The town bought the 40-year-old, 73,000-square-foot building on Walden Avenue to convert it to a new public safety building.

The town did not request an appraisal of the building’s value and did not seek a feasibility study of its plans for the building until after committing to purchase the Colecraft property, the auditors concluded.

By 2004, when the same company produced a design study for the project, the estimated cost, including the purchase price, had risen to $11.4 million from $8.5 million.

That increase in cost and a lawsuit filed by residents – the former town attorney advised not moving forward until the case was resolved – prompted lengthy delays.

By 2011, after changes in building codes promised to make the project even more expensive, the Town Board opted to cut its losses and build a new complex on Pavement Road.

The audit concludes the town has spent $2.5 million on the Colecraft project, including about $500,000 in interest bond payments. The town, county and Lancaster Central School District also have foregone $440,000 in property taxes since 2003, the audit found.

Ruffino, who was on the Town Board at the time, said he and his colleagues relied on the advice of their consultant in purchasing the Colecraft building. He said it was the option that made the most sense then.

The building is on the market, and Town Board members hope to recoup much of the money invested in the project...

Reference: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/s...133cefd50.html

[mark blazejewski]

Regarding the tax issue to which you referred to on post #4 Gorja, try to let this sink in, so C-O-N-C-E-N-T-R-A-T-E, eh?

The property was designated Wetlands after Dino's ownership.

Dino fought the designation in court to try to reclassify the property, but the DEC prevailed.

With that court ruling, the property was worthless from a business point of view, and as such, Dino chose to let the property go into tax foreclosure.

Personally, my property is zoned Residential, but if it were rezoned Business, I certainly would not expect to pay taxes at a Residential rate.

Does that neutralize your venom?

[Breezy]

It's unbelievable that the LIDA members would appoint as chairman a Lancaster resident that does not pay his Lancaster school taxes on his property in Cheektowaga



Real Property Information
Parcel 143089 93.130-10-1.210 TRANSIT RD FUDOLI DINO J Inrem Code
Year Cycle/Desc Instl InRem Bill No. Principal Adjust Credit Fee Pd Intr Paid Balance Interest Total Bal Payer Information
2021 1-County Tax 01 17720 3,683.85 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,686.05 823.38 4,509.43 n/a
2021 2-School Relevy 01 201639 1,580.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,580.81 189.70 1,770.51 n/a
2020 1-County Tax 01 17745 3,590.68 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 3,580.81 1,565.90 5,146.71 n/a
2020 2-School Relevy 01 201928 1,545.30 0.00 1,545.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2019 1-County Tax 01 17748 3,551.54 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,553.74 2,312.57 5,866.31 n/a
2019 2-School Relevy 01 201737 1,470.25 0.00 1,470.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2018 1-County Tax 01 17747 3,444.51 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,446.71 2,979.38 6,426.09 n/a
2018 2-School Relevy 01 201578 1,483.60 0.00 1,483.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2017 1-County Tax 01 17748 3,485.98 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,488.18 3,760.61 7,248.79 n/a
2017 2-School Relevy 01 201690 1,417.46 0.00 1,417.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2016 1-County Tax 01 17764 3,575.89 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,578.09 4,622.19 8,200.28 n/a
2016 2-School Relevy 01 200926 1,461.93 0.00 1,461.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2015 1-County Tax 01 17249 3,559.91 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,562.11 5,362.71 8,924.82 n/a
2015 2-School Relevy 01 201688 1,513.36 0.00 1,513.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2014 1-County Tax 01 17262 3,611.36 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,613.56 6,212.38 9,825.94 n/a
2014 2-School Relevy 01 201699 1,506.03 0.00 1,506.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2013 1-County Tax 01 17263 3,587.86 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 3,590.06 6,939.11 10,529.17 n/a
2013 2-School Relevy 01 45063 1,482.09 0.00 1,482.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2013 A-Inrem 01 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 n/a
2012 1-County Tax 01 17260 3,012.43 0.00 0.00 2.00 468.81 3,483.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 fudoli dino j
2012 2-School Relevy 01 293685 1,449.49 0.00 1,449.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2011 1-County Tax 01 17261 3,352.66 0.00 0.00 2.20 1,227.26 4,582.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 fudoli dino j
2011 2-School Relevy 01 420083 934.43 0.00 934.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2010 1-County Tax 01 17256 3,269.38 0.00 0.00 2.10 614.23 3,885.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 fudoli dino j
2009 1-County Tax 01 17289 3,316.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,316.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2008 1-County Tax 01 17305 3,243.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,243.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2007 1-County Tax 01 17306 3,302.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,302.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
2006 1-County Tax 01 17307 3,295.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,295.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town:
2005 1-County Tax 01 17295 3,125.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,125.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town:
2004 1-County Tax 01 17288 2,962.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,962.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town:
2003 1-County Tax 01 17289 2,844.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,844.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 paid at town: check 1674
Balance as of 34,180.12 34,767.93 68,948.05

Those same "conservative" board members raised the stipend amount for the inexperienced LIDA secretary

Ya can't blame Mr. Ruffino one bit. Good for him.

More likely, these image-seeking politicians wanted what would amount to window dressing by having the supervisor continue on the board, "but just shut up and stay out of the way." In other words, they would treat Ron as if he were a flashy ring on their fingers. Who needs that, readers?

Just more aggravation, anyway.

Heck, maybe put Lee Chowaniec or Mark Blazejewski on there. LOL. Dino, Lee and Mark - heck, let's add Frank Lee Blunt to make it a wild freak show kind of entity. Lee, Mark and Frank sure have no problems with a tax cheat in charge, anyway. We've seen that countless times before.



Naturally, the appointment will immediately go to Dino's head.

You can bank on that.

May the Good Lord grace the staff with patience and tolerance with Dino as Chairman. Does the former supervisor maintain his belief that government employees are 'non=productive' members of society?

[Breezy]

Regarding the tax issue to which you referred to on post #4 Gorja, try to let this sink in, so C-O-N-C-E-N-T-R-A-T-E, eh?

The property was designated Wetlands after Dino's ownership.

Dino fought the designation in court to try to reclassify the property, but the DEC prevailed.

With that court ruling, the property was worthless from a business point of view, and as such, Dino chose to let the property go into tax foreclosure.

Personally, my property is zoned Residential, but if it were rezoned Business, I certainly would not expect to pay taxes at a Residential rate.

Does that neutralize your venom?

Only a fool would write this.

[mark blazejewski]

Only a fool would write this.

Yea, and only a fool would defend a leader who abandoned his pledges, eh? (See post #2.)

Ya can't blame Mr. Ruffino one bit. Good for him.

Does Ruffino come to mind, Numbnut?

But, I digress, so I'll make this short, sweet, and to the point.

If you are so upset about Dino's appointment, bitch to your buddy Ruffino.

Ruffino could have used his presence to counter Dino's, but he chose to quit the LIDA, leave his supporters without a voice, and abandon his 2019 campaign pledge to address the concerns of Lancaster residents; perhaps a tantrumatic, selfish hissy fit on his part?

Now quick, text Ruffino for more devastating comebacks, eh?

[Breezy]

If you are so upset about Dino's appointment

Update ?????

LOL

It's a laugh a minute. Who cares?? Just more fodder for the next election.

Let the drama begin! Dino just can't help himself. Everyone knows that.

We'll have to see how Frank Lee Blunt investigates the development agency, like he claims in the village.

[gorja]

Does anyone working for the Depew DPW live in the Village of Lancaster, and is permitted to do so as a component to a previous "trifecta" arrangement involving the VOL DPW, the Lancaster Highway Department and the Depew DPW?

My statement regarding the assessor's residence was in response to your complaint regarding the residence of the administer of finance. Nothing more.

[gorja]

Regarding the tax issue to which you referred to on post #4 Gorja, try to let this sink in, so C-O-N-C-E-N-T-R-A-T-E, eh?

The property was designated Wetlands after Dino's ownership.

Dino fought the designation in court to try to reclassify the property, but the DEC prevailed.

With that court ruling, the property was worthless from a business point of view, and as such, Dino chose to let the property go into tax foreclosure.

Personally, my property is zoned Residential, but if it were rezoned Business, I certainly would not expect to pay taxes at a Residential rate.

Does that neutralize your venom?

No venom. I have to pay my Lancaster school taxes and he should as well, in my humble opinion.

[mark blazejewski]

My statement regarding the assessor's residence was in response to your complaint regarding the residence of the administer of finance. Nothing more.

What complaint?

I simply do not know the reason(s) which prompted her resignation, but I am compelled to ask does not Cuviello reside in Clarence?

If so, perhaps her 2020 appointment as Director of Administration and Finance may suggest a broader issue, based upon the wisdom of appointing non-Lancaster residents to key government positions holding great responsibility?

I understand that the Director of Administration and Finance is appointed solely by the Supervisor, and is installed without Town Council approval.

In that connection, does her allegiance reside strictly with her sponsor Ruffino, or with the residents of the town and the taxpayers who pay her salary?