How does the recreation department hide SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND TAX DOLLARS/FEES

[4248]

I would like to know why I am the only person who questions how the recreation department managed to squirrel away over $600,000.00????

SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in fees charged to new home buyers - wasn't that money supposed to be earmarked for recreation department programs ?

How long does it take , how many homes were assessed to collect SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in fees ???????
If the recreation department led by County Leg/Lancaster Parks Boss/LAN Dem Committee Member McCracken collected SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in fees from home buyers - doesn't that seem OD - why wasn't that money used to reduce the cost of Recreational Programs ?????????

How does a parks budget thats tax funded and a recreation department run by the same guy hide SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS when preparing his budget ?????

Was this surplus exposed in prior budget years - I don't think so !!!!!!!!!
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd why this money has just been laying around unused for so long - now when they need some "Election Year Good Will" Councilman Ruffino and friends pop up with SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND in unused fee's collected from new home buyers.
Last point --- isn't it like blatant over charging if all along they knew they had such a heavy surplus - yet the fees weren't reduced or discontinued ?????

They (Town Board) controlling members aren't interested in the "Majority of Lancaster" - they only care about those who support the LAN Dem Committee and there candidates. As has been said during a swearing in ceremony in Town Hall, "We will work hard for those who support us"



A. A recreation filing fee shall be paid by the building permit applicant with each residential building permit application, or, in the alternative, at the option of the Town Board, upon the recommendation of the Planning Board, the Town may accept a contribution of land by a subdivision applicant or developer for future development of recreation area, provided that such use will conform generally to the recreational master plan of the Town of Lancaster.
B. The fee schedule where the Town imposes a recreation filing is as follows:
(1) Single-family dwelling: $1,250 per lot.
(2) Multiple dwelling: $1,250 for each dwelling unit.

[gorja]

In the 2013 budget, it shows the estimated Recreational Fees Fund balance of $478,178.


If the balance is now over $600,000 was there over 90 dwelling units permitted since December?

[shortstuff]

This budget that now holds $600,000 in it for recreation fee funded account bring in per household that is built--the homeowner foots $1,250.00? Am I reading that right? That is pretty significant.

I can see that many housing units were done -- building is at a significant high in the area.

I still think at this time if Ponytails is not utilized to its full potential--is this a must have right now? I am certainly on the fence with this project.

Let's remember how the fire department accumulated something like 4 million and the town was caught red handed for filling this fund with lack of oversight. I would hate to see the rec fund under the same situation.

So why is that fee not fixing the items that are in need of fixing at the park? Like holes in the asphalt where the little bridges are in the park which is a liability. Why are the fencing where the baseball fields in need of repair still look like they are in need of repair? The swing set areas on the ground are loaded with weeds--shouldn't that be cleaned up?

Is this fund used for the aforementioned?

[Lee Chowaniec]

• The Recreation Department did not hide money. The surplus was not exposed this year. The fund balance is recorded every year in the budget. For the last 8 years the amount in the fund balance was recorded as:

2005 - $108,347
2006 - $95,643
2007 - $19,342
2008 - ?
2009 - $224,465
2010 - $213,526
2011 - $391,766
2012 - $506,208
2013 - $478,178

• The Recreation Department does not control the any aspect of setting building recreation fees or have control in dispensing funds unless the town approves such spending. Mr. McCracken was unjustly maligned here.

• Recreational funding is used only for capital projects and can be inter-fund transferred to pay off debt. It cannot be transferred and used for town budgeted operational purposes. Last year $90,000 was used for drainage and paving purposes for Walden Pond Park. The Westwood Pavilion is close to having its roof replaced.

• Recreation filing fee funds were used to pay off the Westwood Park and Heritage Trail debt.

• Recreation filing fee funds are used to make repairs and improvements to the town’s four parks and the trail. Some of the infrastructure is getting old and needs attention. Those fees help doing things that if they were not there would come out the budget general fund.

• Some of us are well aware of what’s in the fund and its uses. Nothing has ever been ‘hidden’. The $600,000 fund balance number became public because of the town’s intent to use some of the money to pay the utility bills for the new Westwood Park baseball training facility and its possible use to pay some of the ‘soft costs’ to keep the project cost from exceeding the set bond limit.

• Were 90 homes built so far that upped the balance from $478,178 to $600,000? There were 90 units (homes/townhomes/patio homes/apartments) constructed this year.

• The filing fees are in line with other municipalities and to reduce such fees to reduce builder cost so that maybe he could pass those savings onto the homebuyer is laughable. Thank God the Recreation Filing fee fund is in good health. Those funds could be reduced in a hurry through a needed capital improvement project.

[gorja]

Lee you stated that the recreational fee funds are used in capital projects. Is it just recreation and parks capital projects or could the funds be used for capital projects in other departments?

[4248]

So could someone break down what the "Soft Costs" include ?

Lee stated , "The $600,000 fund balance number became public because of the town’s intent to use some of the money to pay the utility bills for the new Westwood Park baseball training facility and its possible use to pay some of the ‘soft costs’ to keep the project cost from exceeding the set bond limit"

So the Town of Lancaster (Taxpayers) is bonding (borrowing) $1.7 million dollars - this will be paid back by the facility users !

Money collected from a fee added to building a home - called Recreation Fee will be used to pay for utility hook ups - to also pay future utility costs and other costs !

I understand some who post here support this batting box - I don't.

I and many others believe this should have been put on the falls ballot for a vote.

This project is being subsidized with tax dollars and fees collected from residents.

The Town(taxpayers) are financing (bonding) the $1.7MILLION.

So spin as we might - this project for a private concern - this project could fail and the taxpayers would be stuck with paying for it. We will already be saddled with utility cost, installing those utilities and "Soft Costs".

Will the facility users reimburse the Parks and Recreation department for the Rec Fees used - I don't think so.

So actually the $1.7Million is already over that mark - their just using the Rec funds to cover the rest - how clever we are !!!!!!!

The best part of all (Politically speaking) is now they can say "Look what we did for you - vote for me !"

The taxpayers don't get to vote on spending almost $2Million dollars - tax payers pay future utilities - and a vary good chance the taxpayers may eat much - if not all of the cost if the batting facilities doesn't raise enough yearly cash to make payments.

It was also skirted around during discussions - but there will be directors involved with this facility. How many people will earn monetary compensation because of this project or its supervision ?

Last point, If Lee feels Parks Boss McCracken or Councilman Ruffino were "unjustly maligned" - thats his opinion. I don't feel speaking ones mind and questioning the appearance of a situation should or does rise to that level.

[WNYresident]

I understand some who post here support this batting box - I don't.

Wait until a few "town employees" start to be needed for what ever reasons at the facility. You think you have added cost now?

So are there any plans on what this "facility" will look like?

It could be a good lesson for other towns on how not to spend property owners money.

[shortstuff]

Does Terry McCracken provide a work order on selected projects that he feels justified in requesting? I would think he is in the position to make those decisions.

[gorja]

Will the facility users reimburse the Parks and Recreation department for the Rec Fees used - I don't think so

From the other thread-http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/showthread.php?511028-Town-approves-bids-for-baseball-training-facility

Fudoli declared what was decided was that counsel Swiatek was going to draft an agreement where the baseball league is going to agree to pay the town separately for the soft costs, and where the money will come from the town’s Parks & Recreation filing fee funds.

When are they going to pay back is the question. Is the league going to pay back the recreation fees used concurrently as the bond payment?

[WNYresident]

Why did you make the statement they were hiding the money? I think it was just there from collecting it.

[4248]

"Hiding" holding - reserving - stashing whatever its called - its charged to home owners. While my descriptive words may seem strong - the message should be clear. TAX DOLLARS are involved.

Its used by Government - as far as I see it its over taxation and should routinely be used to offset the tax burden - if theres a "Surplus" reduce the fee or don't charge it - it should not be stashed away until its politically advantageous to shuffle it around.

Surplus = over taxations.


Parks Departments once was a small Town crew with lawn mowers - they striped ball diamonds and cut grass. Now its a "Department" with $60-70-80,000.00 dollar a year careers with tax funded checks,vehicles,cars,four wheel vehicle and more.

Never mind its only a percentage of the overall Town Budget - no big deal.

[WNYresident]

"Hiding" holding - reserving - stashing whatever its called - its charged to home owners. While my descriptive words may seem strong - the message should be clear. TAX DOLLARS are involved.

Yet they weren't purposely hiding it so no reason to mislead people.

I'm curious, are there any plans/drawing that the public can review? I'm just curious what you get for over a million... There has to be some ongoing maintenance and utilities on something that large.

That is something the private sector should build if there is a need and charge for the usage. How many years has the Lancaster little leagues played baseball outside?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee you stated that the recreational fee funds are used in capital projects. Is it just recreation and parks capital projects or could the funds be used for capital projects in other departments?

No other use than for capital improvement debts accrued in the parks/recreation department.

[Lee Chowaniec]

WNYresident;1157732]

Wait until a few "town employees" start to be needed for what ever reasons at the facility. You think you have added cost now?

There is no such plan in place.

So are there any plans on what this "facility" will look like?

Yes and they were exhibited at one of the meetings where they presented detailed plans on ho they were going to meet their financial obligation.

It could be a good lesson for other towns on how not to spend property owners money.

You mean like in Cheektowaga?

[WNYresident]

Any town in Erie County including Cheektowaga. I think the controlling political party in Cheektowaga has caused property taxes to increase faster in our town than your town.