Lancaster approves 2013 amended budget, Supervisor votes no

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster Supervisor Dino Fudoli kept his promise that if his proposed (preliminary) budget was modified in any way to add what he considered needless costs, he would vote against it – and he did last night after withdrawing his name from sponsoring the approval of the General Fund portion of the budget.

It was a he said, she said night regarding need to fill the vacated position in the Clerk’s office with a full time or two part time individuals. Supervisor Fudoli and several residents voiced opinions that the position could be adequately filled with part time help. The four Democratic town board members echoed the justification and need for a full time Clerk’s office position – a union position that would cost the town much more than the $19,000 claimed on the amended list of additions.

During the public comment session that precedes the vote on the resolutions, the following exchange took place between residents addressing the town board and the town board members.

Resident Lee Chowaniec

Supervisor Fudoli, according to the pre-filed resolutions posted on the town web site and on tonight’s written agenda you are listed as sponsoring the final budget resolution. Did I not hear it mentioned earlier that you were not sponsoring the adoption of the General Fund budget resolution? Did I hear correctly?

Supervisor Fudoli: That is correct. I am not sponsoring the budget resolution. It will be sponsored by Council member Mark Aquino. (Fudoli did sponsor the adoption of the Special Districts budget resolution)

Chowaniec: Supervisor Fudoli, in your proposed (preliminary) budget you had eliminated a full time position from the Town Clerk’s Office – a position that had become vacated because of a retirement. To cut costs you proposed filling the full time position with a part time employee. Do you have documentation or data to support your claim that such change will not negatively impact the department’s efficiency?

Supervisor Fudoli: Yes, we actually do have information that shows that per resident we have the highest staffed Clerk’s office in the county. I did not just willy-nilly make budget cuts, but did research by contacting Supervisor’s of other town’s and asked them for their staffing numbers based on population and tax numbers and made my decision based on that.

According to the preliminary budget you proposed, the elimination of a clerk typist from the tax Department would be a cost avoidance of $41,117.

Filling that position with part time part time help would cost $19,000.

That is a savings of $22,117.

The budget is amended to keep the clerk’s position full time with the rationale that extra wages for vacation help would be cut by $5,000 and the keeping the full time position would only add another $17,117 to the budget. I believe it would cost more than that and have to ask the following:

Does the town pay into retirement costs for part time help?

Fudoli: No, that holds true anywhere.

Since the town contributes 21% of full time town employee wage into the pension system that’s another $8,635 to fill a full time position.

Has the person been chosen to fill the full time slot and if so will this person receive family plan health coverage at $19,000, or an individual premium cost of $7,000.

Fudoli: No one has been chosen to fill any position as of now.

And then there are other stipends for full time employees that need to be considered – like future longevity pay after 5 years of service.

Therefore, we could be looking at anywhere from a $33,000 budget increase to $45,000 depending on individual family status and health insurance need; not the claimed $19,000.

So I would have to say that if the part time individual fills the needs of the tax department, and you say it does, to reinstate a full time person to the Clerk’s office is fiscally irresponsible; and indeed will cost the town much more than the $17,000 (or listed $19,000) claimed in the amended/final budget?

One has good reason to ask whether this amendment was added to satisfy the want of the Town Clerk or the union. It certainly does not benefit the best interest of the taxpayer – especially when no town employee contributes to their health care plan.

Resident Mike Fronczak

Fronczak: Let me see if I heard right. If we were to fill the clerk’s position with a part time person, we would pay only $19,000. Now we are going to put a full time person and pay all the benefits that were mentioned. Whose idea is it to put a full time person instead of part time help? Was it one person or the entire board?

Supervisor Fudoli: You should perhaps address the question to Councilman Aquino since it is his resolution.

Aquino: The majority of the board is in favor of filling the vacated position with a full time employee.

Fronczak: So now this is going to cost more money.

Aquino: Obviously we got one opinion from Mr. Chowaniec, but when the Supervisor’s budget came in I looked at the proposed cuts and went to the different departments and asked if the cuts were justified. I spoke with Ms. Coleman (Town Clerk) at length. I trust her judgment as she has been here for over twenty years and she runs a very efficient department. I think I have a neat perspective on this as I was the clerk judge in the Village of Lancaster. I understand that the volume of business this Clerk does is significantly higher than that.

I have a lot of respect for Ms. Coleman and the job she does. She justified what this person does and the need for a full time replacement. Frankly, on a $30 million budget I think this position is warranted and I support this resolution. I respect the Supervisor for his action to try to cut the budget, but I respect Ms. Coleman and feel this is the right thing to do.

Supervisor Fudoli: I am finding out that we have more than double, actually almost triple the amount of staff per resident than any other Clerk’s office in the County. So I thought my position was justified – to look out for the taxpayer and fill the position with part time help.

Councilman Aquino: I am getting a little sick of you acting like you are the only guy looking out for the taxpayer. You keep saying that.

Council members Ron Ruffino, John Abraham and Donna Stempniak followed Aquino’s lead and declared that they all had similar conversations with Town Clerk Coleman regarding the operation and needs of the Clerk’s office and came to the realization that Ms. Coleman had adequately stated her need and justified having the position filled with a full time employee.

At that point Ms. Coleman requested addressing the board and spent several minutes explaining the operation of the Clerk’s office, how much more service is provided by her office vs. other Clerk offices, and how over the last 10-12 years she has cut staff to right-size her department. Coleman declared that she is very frugal to the point that some people call her cheap. “I spend every dollar as if it was mine,” she remarked. “Our services over the year have saved the town money.”

Resident Tom Kazmierczak

I would like to return to what Mr. Chowaniec was saying about full time town employees not paying into the health plan and the added costs of the pension contribution, and I believe what Ms. Coleman was saying, and I am hearing on our being overstaffed in the Clerk’s office. What I am trying to say is that I am hearing a lot of partisan bickering going on. I wish it would come to an end.

But if you save all this money with a part time person, and if Ms. Coleman would need more help, why not hire another part time person? According to Mr. Chowaniec’s figures we would still save money with two part time people.

Supervisor Fudoli: The budget was for two part time people.

Kazmierczak: So why don’t we do that and we would still save money and I would hope we would end this bickering of Council.

Councilman Aquino: We can all agree to disagree.

Kazmierczak: Unlike what is happening in the private sector where Hostess is going out of business the public sector does not have to be competitive, you just keep raising taxes. So let’s try to be as efficient as possible at the lowest cost. People in the private industry do that by hiring part time employees. We should look into doing more of that.

Councilman Aquino: We are not raising taxes by the way.

The Buffalo News reported that the $19,327 budget amendments approved by the Town Board added $2 above and beyond the supervisor’s tentative budget to the tax bill of a home in the town assessed at $200,000. That is true if one does not consider the added pension, health insurance, etc. costs that go along with hiring a full time employee for the position.

[reformthi$]

Last nights tb meeting was interesting.
Here is some key points that intriqued me:
Aquino, "I am getting a little sick of you acting like you are the only guy looking out for the taxpayer. You keep saying that."
Um well in my estimation, if Aquino was looking out for the taxpayer (if he was referring to himself here) then
electing to vote for a FULL TIMER opposed to a PART TIMER with a good chunk of change
represents "looking out for the taxpayer" well then I must be loosing my marbles because that does
not fit into that statement he made.

The clerk position, is it to replace the person that retired? I have to say, Coleman's song was touching....(not) to
justify this FULL TIMER. She mentioned that other muncipalites have in place engineering personal, what does
Bob do?

I read in the news today by this Steve Watson, he put in print how Coleman is frugal/cheap well we will hold
her feet to the ground on that statement. The other thing that Watson touched on was the $2,000 cut from
the Code Inforcement Officer's salary. Um that whole portion of the tb meeting is confusing, I am hoping
that Lee will shed light on that topic. Because if I recall, Jeff Simme was fired from the village and Mr. Pease
replaced him. The $23,000 was for other things, so I am a bit uncertain as to the particulars in this matter.
Watson also mentioned the restored money for the travel to the state Association of Twons annual conference,
I heard that they bring their famlies--WHY are they bringing their families? I agree this should have been left
out of the budget---WASTEFUL SPENDING IN MY ESTIMATION

Mark Aquino has a temper, why has he been elected to be the point person here within the last several meetings
I attended?

[4248]

Sir,

As far as the "Paid Trips" - in the past it was documented that Town Councilmembers consider "Moon Light Cruises" and "Cocktail Parties" along with bringing spouses as being completely OK! - even though its tax funded.

At one point one of them said, at open Board Meeting, "It was Valentines Day" -

They get travel pay - food compensation - paid rooms - paid seminars - paid cruises and sight seeing under "Transportation"

Not bad - and Yes Mr.Aquino believes he's protected because he has deep legal and political connections.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Councilman Mark Aquino remarked that we can all agree to disagree. I addressed the board at the public comment session and agreed with Mr. Aquino's statement.

I stated my opinion at the pre-file resolution public comment session that the reason I found fault with reinstating the Clerk office position to full time is because the math does not add up and BS is once more being served up to the public.

I asked who wrote the resolution language that stated the difference in going full time vs. part time was only $19,000. Aquino responded that it was someone from Administration; Dave Brown.

I replied that I was very surprised that Mr. Brown did the number crunching and did not consider the added pension contribution to the NYS Retirement System or the health plan costs. Aquino replied that he does all the financials and that he did the listing.

I responded that if the town is able to get by with part time help, they owe it to the taxpayers to make such change. Supervisor Fudoli did make mention that the town was overstaffed in comparison to other municipalities. I do know that the Town of Amherst, a town three times the size of Lancaster, has 8 full time employees and two part timers. Lancaster will continue to have 6 full time employees and two part time employees.

The board made a decision to go with a full time employee and gave reasons why. I have to agree with Mr. Kazmierczak when he stated that if there is a cheaper way to do something without impacting town efficiency then the town is obligated to take that path. It is still my opinion that two part time employees would serve the town equally well and save much more than the $19,000 claimed in the amendment.

Something stinks here with the $19,000 stated additional cost to go from part time to full time position coverage. The added contribution costs to the retirement system were never added in the appropriations. That alone is an $8,600 increase. If the position is filled by an individual that gets single health plan insurance coverage, that’s another $7,000. If the family plan is in effect, that is $19,000. If the individual has outside health care coverage, they receive a $6,000 stipend for not taking town provided health insurance. So with added pension and health care costs a full time position could cost taxpayers somewhere between $33.600 and $45,600 more.

So when Councilman Aquino declares that $19,000 added budget increase is a drop in a bucket compared to a $30 million budget, that mentality should piss taxpayers off – and that was the mentality of past administrations.

The only way the full time position could be had without any health care cost would be if that individual hired had a spouse already in the employ of the town and who was already receiving health insurance.

BTW – In doing some research today, I found that the Town of Lancaster has a 2010 population listed at 25,318 with 6 full time and two part time positions and that the Village of Lancaster with a population of 10,352 has a full time clerk and two part time employees.

The Town of West Seneca has a population listed at 44,711 and 4 full time and two part time Clerk office employees.

Hamburg has a population of 56,936 and is served by a staff 4 full time and 1 part time employee(s).

Amherst has a population of 122,366 and has a staff of 8 full time and 2 part time employees.

And it goes on and on to validate what Supervisor Fudoli declared regarding the Town of Lancaster staffing being two to three times that of other municipalities in the county. But then again, we have a Clerk’s office that serves the town better than other communities – or so they say.

Yes, something stinks here!

[dmckay716]

All this does is further validate my opinion of Coleman. If Lancaster residents can get her out of office, I believe all our public officials will work more cohesively. I believe she is the driving force behind all of this confrontation and continues to hide behind the scenes.

[shortstuff]

Thank you Lee for the reporting. In reading your post, I felt that the way Mark A. spoke to his Supervisor was disrespectful at best. I suspect that his postering/bluster to the taxpayers is equally shameful. Here is a better scenerio, "Supervisor I too care about the taxpayers and how we spend their money.."

The other thing is in these times typist are no longer necessary. Hence we do not use typerwriters we have evolved to modern technology and internet savvy. I believe the need to hire is ingrained into the system.

I figured Lee you would research this information, thank you for doing that.

[gorja]

Thanks Lee for the play-by-play.
I wonder whose relative the Dems have in line to take that spot.

Next fall, the Dems aren't going to mention that Supervisor Fudoli's tentative budget was lower than the adopted budget.
Their propaganda will be stating that Supervisor Fudoli voted against their proposed tax cut

The REpublican challengers need to announce early and pound the pavement like Fudoli did.

All voters need to remember next November what the Dems did this November.

Since Aquino seems to want to run the show, is he aspiring to be the next supervisor??

[ichingtheory]

I agree that several things stink! I had the feeling Dem council members would change the budget "after" the public hearing. How convenient! As far as I am concerned, they just gave the Republican Party all kinds of ammunition. They will never agree with Supervisor Fudoli and will continue to do what is best for the union, not the residents. The union is the reason they will not hire part time employees. After all, they have to keep M. Cox happy.

In regards to Jeff Simme: If the Village no longer reimburses the town for his services, why is he being paid? The solution is a simple one, don't continue to work for the Village!

[ichingtheory]

Dino was smart taking his name off of the budget resolution. That decision will pay off next election.

[gorja]

I agree that several things stink! I had the feeling Dem council members would change the budget "after" the public hearing. How convenient! As far as I am concerned, they just gave the Republican Party all kinds of ammunition. They will never agree with Supervisor Fudoli and will continue to do what is best for the union, not the residents. The union is the reason they will not hire part time employees. After all, they have to keep M. Cox happy.

In regards to Jeff Simme: If the Village no longer reimburses the town for his services, why is he being paid? The solution is a simple one, don't continue to work for the Village!

Is it Mr Simme that gets paid or is it Mr Pease?

I agree, all the dems (4 council members and town clerk) are lockstep with the union

[shortstuff]

gorja, the Village was paying the town $23,000 not to Simme when he was employed. The Village paid the additional $7,000 directly to Simme for services
rendered. When the Village relinquished Simme of his duties, they replaced him with Mr. Pease and paid it to Pease. However, it has been shed light to a different scenerio, the town still gets the 23,000 from the Village, but the town has been paying the 7,000 to Simme. Now that Pease is retired, the Village has hired two part time people to do the job.

Question to ask, is Simme still doing services for the Village? He must be because according to the budget Simme is still getting paid from the Town!

Lee, if I have my facts wrong please correct me, it is possible I might not have the full picture.

[Lancaster Resident]

Councilman Mark Aquino remarked that we can all agree to disagree. I addressed the board at the public comment session and agreed with Mr. Aquino's statement.

I stated my opinion at the pre-file resolution public comment session that the reason I found fault with reinstating the Clerk office position to full time is because the math does not add up and BS is once more being served up to the public.

I asked who wrote the resolution language that stated the difference in going full time vs. part time was only $19,000. Aquino responded that it was someone from Administration; Dave Brown.

I replied that I was very surprised that Mr. Brown did the number crunching and did not consider the added pension contribution to the NYS Retirement System or the health plan costs. Aquino replied that he does all the financials and that he did the listing.

I responded that if the town is able to get by with part time help, they owe it to the taxpayers to make such change. Supervisor Fudoli did make mention that the town was overstaffed in comparison to other municipalities. I do know that the Town of Amherst, a town three times the size of Lancaster, has 8 full time employees and two part timers. Lancaster will continue to have 6 full time employees and two part time employees.

The board made a decision to go with a full time employee and gave reasons why. I have to agree with Mr. Kazmierczak when he stated that if there is a cheaper way to do something without impacting town efficiency then the town is obligated to take that path. It is still my opinion that two part time employees would serve the town equally well and save much more than the $19,000 claimed in the amendment.

Something stinks here with the $19,000 stated additional cost to go from part time to full time position coverage. The added contribution costs to the retirement system were never added in the appropriations. That alone is an $8,600 increase. If the position is filled by an individual that gets single health plan insurance coverage, that’s another $7,000. If the family plan is in effect, that is $19,000. If the individual has outside health care coverage, they receive a $6,000 stipend for not taking town provided health insurance. So with added pension and health care costs a full time position could cost taxpayers somewhere between $33.600 and $45,600 more.

So when Councilman Aquino declares that $19,000 added budget increase is a drop in a bucket compared to a $30 million budget, that mentality should piss taxpayers off – and that was the mentality of past administrations.

The only way the full time position could be had without any health care cost would be if that individual hired had a spouse already in the employ of the town and who was already receiving health insurance.

BTW – In doing some research today, I found that the Town of Lancaster has a 2010 population listed at 25,318 with 6 full time and two part time positions and that the Village of Lancaster with a population of 10,352 has a full time clerk and two part time employees.

The Town of West Seneca has a population listed at 44,711 and 4 full time and two part time Clerk office employees.

Hamburg has a population of 56,936 and is served by a staff 4 full time and 1 part time employee(s).

Amherst has a population of 122,366 and has a staff of 8 full time and 2 part time employees.

And it goes on and on to validate what Supervisor Fudoli declared regarding the Town of Lancaster staffing being two to three times that of other municipalities in the county. But then again, we have a Clerk’s office that serves the town better than other communities – or so they say.

Yes, something stinks here!

This Clerk Office budget situation, and several others that surfaced in the Democratic party members changes to the proposed 2013 budget, again demonstrates how important a balance of power is in government. If the initial proposed budget were not prepared by our fiscally conservative Supervisor, and if the changes to the budget were not challenged by him and capable/determined taxpayer watchdogs like Lee, then they would have had almost unfettered free reign to do what they want and give the public a snow job on why they are doing it. Full power to any political party or group opens the door for excessive abuse of that power, which surely follows sooner or later.

It takes a lot of time and effort to penetrate through the facade that can be put up to keep the public from finding out what is really going on. In many cases it is almost impossible to get the real truth since the taxpayers don't have an unnoticed watchdog sitting in these local government departments on a daily basis to see what is actually going on. Even if one were to visit a department for a day then the staff would likely put on a show for that day. So comparisons to other similar government departments (which may be quite inefficient as well) is probably the best taxpayers can do from the outside.

Even in the private sector department heads in companies don't usually volunteer to have their budgets cut and typically try to justify keeping, or increasing, their budgets---it makes their jobs easier and accomplishing their goals more likely. In the private sector it is competition and fiscally conservative management that puts a check on the natural tendancy for departments and budgets to keep growing. We don't have such a strong check on our local government, although the taxpayers are getting more and more concerned about the never ending tax increases they have had to endure while business and talented people flee New York State as a result.

It is shocking that the Democratic Town Board members can't do the math to know that putting that full time staff person in the Clerk's Office costs much more than the salary only they listed---the taxpayes were able to quickly see this serious mistake. Can these elected officals be trusted to take a really critical look at a particular department budget and determine if it is justified or not? Have they carefully compared the staffing and activities of the Lancaster Clerk's Office to other similar Towns? Are we supposed to put blind faith in elected officials that make mistakes like that? The answer to these questions is quite clear....

[hawkeye]

Councilman Mark Aquino remarked that we can all agree to disagree. I addressed the board at the public comment session and agreed with Mr. Aquino's statement.

I stated my opinion at the pre-file resolution public comment session that the reason I found fault with reinstating the Clerk office position to full time is because the math does not add up and BS is once more being served up to the public.

I asked who wrote the resolution language that stated the difference in going full time vs. part time was only $19,000. Aquino responded that it was someone from Administration; Dave Brown.

I replied that I was very surprised that Mr. Brown did the number crunching and did not consider the added pension contribution to the NYS Retirement System or the health plan costs. Aquino replied that he does all the financials and that he did the listing.

I responded that if the town is able to get by with part time help, they owe it to the taxpayers to make such change. Supervisor Fudoli did make mention that the town was overstaffed in comparison to other municipalities. I do know that the Town of Amherst, a town three times the size of Lancaster, has 8 full time employees and two part timers. Lancaster will continue to have 6 full time employees and two part time employees.

The board made a decision to go with a full time employee and gave reasons why. I have to agree with Mr. Kazmierczak when he stated that if there is a cheaper way to do something without impacting town efficiency then the town is obligated to take that path. It is still my opinion that two part time employees would serve the town equally well and save much more than the $19,000 claimed in the amendment.

Something stinks here with the $19,000 stated additional cost to go from part time to full time position coverage. The added contribution costs to the retirement system were never added in the appropriations. That alone is an $8,600 increase. If the position is filled by an individual that gets single health plan insurance coverage, that’s another $7,000. If the family plan is in effect, that is $19,000. If the individual has outside health care coverage, they receive a $6,000 stipend for not taking town provided health insurance. So with added pension and health care costs a full time position could cost taxpayers somewhere between $33.600 and $45,600 more.

So when Councilman Aquino declares that $19,000 added budget increase is a drop in a bucket compared to a $30 million budget, that mentality should piss taxpayers off – and that was the mentality of past administrations.

The only way the full time position could be had without any health care cost would be if that individual hired had a spouse already in the employ of the town and who was already receiving health insurance.

BTW – In doing some research today, I found that the Town of Lancaster has a 2010 population listed at 25,318 with 6 full time and two part time positions and that the Village of Lancaster with a population of 10,352 has a full time clerk and two part time employees.

The Town of West Seneca has a population listed at 44,711 and 4 full time and two part time Clerk office employees.

Hamburg has a population of 56,936 and is served by a staff 4 full time and 1 part time employee(s).

Amherst has a population of 122,366 and has a staff of 8 full time and 2 part time employees.

And it goes on and on to validate what Supervisor Fudoli declared regarding the Town of Lancaster staffing being two to three times that of other municipalities in the county. But then again, we have a Clerk’s office that serves the town better than other communities – or so they say.

Yes, something stinks here!

Lee isn't this the Guy you voted for? Mark A. has a history of bully actions and sounds like he is up to his old self. Watch out for the wolf in sheeps clothing! Yes we all have made mistakes and I for one will admit it. But Mark A is a nasty person and only more will come out at board meetings!!!!!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee isn't this the Guy you voted for? Mark A. has a history of bully actions and sounds like he is up to his old self. Watch out for the wolf in sheeps clothing! Yes we all have made mistakes and I for one will admit it. But Mark A is a nasty person and only more will come out at board meetings!!!!!

Yes, I did vote for Councilman Aquino. Although disappointed by some of his decisions that I believe are based on an established/career political party system that for years has favored developers, party partisans and unions over community best interests, he was the best candidate last year for a council member seat and where I believed he would work more in harmony with Fudoli; a conservative that pledged to take the community in another direction and bring fiscal responsibility to the town at the same time.

Aquino has drawn criticism for his defense position on the Colecraft Building purchase, the recent Lancaster Airport resolution, his inability to move the Highway Capital Improvement Plan along, and his recent sponsoring of two amendments that have the appearance of sustaining patronage at the expense of the taxpayer.

It appears Aquino has taken over the spokesperson/leadership role of the Democratic Party. In doing so he has attempted to defend some past bad practices that are not defendable. He may be the point man for taking the heat for the two Democratic incumbents who are up for election next year.

I have been waiting for a long time to see a politically mixed board. Although Fudoli is out-numbered four to one, there has been a change in direction on the Town and LIDA Board’s, we have seen a reduction taxes for the first time in thirteen years, and experiencing much more transparency at board meetings – primarily with the institution of agendas, full language of pre-filed resolutions and published communications.

Come on guys, play nice! Voters are sick and tired of the dirty politics and are becoming more informed regarding whose best interests are being served. Lancaster is a great town and the residents deserve better. It should not be about party politics, but there is no question that it is.

[reformthi$]

To follow in step with what you stated Lee,
regarding the communications, pre-filed resolutions/full language it
has pushed forward "transparency." So now the town board
will find it more difficult to hide this $ hit.

Aquino might be deflecting the "bad deeds" from Abraham & Ruffino,
but it sure will shoot him in the foot when he comes up for election.
Knowing how politics go, the opposing party will remind the taxpayers
how Aquino:
said he looked over the Fire departments budget last year--
well if he did that why didn't he do something constructive in the support of the
taxpayers since Aquino is after all on the FINANCE COMMITTEE

Or how Aquino wrote that inaccurate letter to the public regard the inaccuracies
of the Colecraft building justifying previous administrations mistakes.

Or how Aquino put forth a resolution on the airport and screwed that one up
because he didn't understand the language

Or how Aquino is not moving the Highway Capital Improvement Plan along
(Armatura must be getting pi$$ed)

Or how Aquino sponored the resolution to add another clerk in the office
when clearly he is unaware that the department is already at full workforce (and beyond)

Or how Aquino understands that Simme's contractual agreement is unclear yet
still votes yes without clearly defining and getting the full description of Simme's
work agreement with the Village--that resolution should have been tabled until further
defined.

BEST of all -- Aquino's bully mentality $inks, and his bulling is going to get him in
a bad place, and the opposing parties are going to eat him for lunch!!

After all he went after Fudoli that he was sick of Fudoli only looking out for the taxpayers.