Quoted from 147

Silly, they're gonna depend on "self-pooping-patrol". But, no word yet on what happens if you DONT.

the town has relied for years on the users of the park to clean up after themselves  -- it has relied on
the baseball and softball leagues to maintain their fields ---  the dog park would be no different .... the
dog owners would have to have a permit or pass to use the dog park -- and would have to clean up after
their dogs  --- the cost (if any) of the permit or pass would depend on the dog owners cooperation in
maintaining the dog park.   If it gets out of control messy and costs the town more to maintain it -- then
the dog park permit/pass fee would have to go up to cover the additional cost.  If the dog owners are able
to maintain it on their own -- then the permit/pass fee would either be very low or just nominal.
also -- at this time we are looking into putting down a rakeable material --- in the industry they call it
"woof fiber" --- bassically it is a mulch like material.    That makes it easy to rake under under any
"deposits" that may accidentally be left behind.

oh....it'll be a nice podium puck to use the license fees to "KEEP OUR DOGGIE PARK CLEAN".....and someone will be hired as a damn obligation and
feel me-feel you-feel good crap.....

Quoted from senders

oh....it'll be a nice podium puck to use the license fees to "KEEP OUR DOGGIE PARK CLEAN".....and someone will be hired as a damn obligation and
feel me-feel you-feel good crap.....

The local dog license fee $6 -- that the Town currently charges -- will NOT even cover the cost of
maintaining the  dog licensing program ---  so it is a blatant lie to say that dog license fees will be
used to either build or maintain a dog park.

No one is being hired to maintain a dog park - either.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The local dog license fee $6 -- that the Town currently charges -- will NOT even cover the cost of
maintaining the  dog licensing program ---  so it is a blatant lie to say that dog license fees will be
used to either build or maintain a dog park.

No one is being hired to maintain a dog park - either.

Cool - I imagine that we can count on the dog license fee going up. Thanks Rotterdam.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The local dog license fee $6 -- that the Town currently charges -- will NOT even cover the cost of
maintaining the  dog licensing program ---  so it is a blatant lie to say that dog license fees will be
used to either build or maintain a dog park.

No one is being hired to maintain a dog park - either.

no but on another thread I believe it was you, who talked about NYS recinding its $$ to uphold the mandated license....which can
quickly turn into a political podium puck called "well, since we have to pay it we might as well add to it." .........

Quoted from 147

Cool - I imagine that we can count on the dog license fee going up. Thanks Rotterdam.

Currently -- the town gets $6 -- the state about gets $3-4 depending on some variables .. and an
additional fee is collected and passed on to the spay/neuter program at the local animal shelter.

My estimate - based on research that I did during part of my 3 1/2 days working in the Town Clerk's office
(volunteer work)  this past August --- was that the cost of maintaining the licensing program (that is the
cost of maintaining the records, paying for the mailing of renewal notices, the cost of the actual dog tag,
and the cost of maintaining the Town Dog Control Officer  -- could all be covered by a $12 fee per each
dog currently scheduled for renewal in 2011.  
The local Dog licensing fee of $6 has been the same since at least  2003.   Residents over 65 get a 100%
waiver on the local fee currently.

Given the actual real cost of the licensing program to the town  (what it will cost the town in 2011) and the
cost to the town of the Dog Control Officer   (which is a stipend of $5,000)   ...  I would think it would be
fair to charge   $12 for a dog license with a 50% waiver for residents over 65.    That would cover the new
costs to the town  and still give the senior residents a break.

As I am not a member of the Town Board or Administration --- I don't know what course of action that they
will take on the matter ..  but that is my recommendation.


I think this is a very conservative approach --- the user fee paid by the actual beneficiaries of the service
bearing the cost of the town providing the service.

How about considering getting a whole bunch of money from the county and adding the dog park as part of the brand new little league fields we're supposed to have by the spring down by the sewage treatment facility.  I mean, if they're clearing the land, why not go a little farther and make a specific area there for the dogs?  We can ask the County for some more of those tax dollars that we can get other parts of the county to pay for the dog park, reducing the tax load on Rotterdam residents and finally getting something for the money we send down the hill into the city?

Quoted from Kevin March

How about considering getting a whole bunch of money from the county and adding the dog park as part of the brand new little league fields we're supposed to have by the spring down by the sewage treatment facility.  I mean, if they're clearing the land, why not go a little farther and make a specific area there for the dogs?  We can ask the County for some more of those tax dollars that we can get other parts of the county to pay for the dog park, reducing the tax load on Rotterdam residents and finally getting something for the money we send down the hill into the city?

We have space in either Juracka, Carmen, or Esposito Park -- all of which are easily accessible to residents,
have running water already, and parking facilities.
I have absolutely no idea when the little league fields will be ready on Burdeck St .. could be years .. and
if we can do this dog park next year IN an existing town park that would be better.
Also, I am quite serious in my stating that no dog park will be recommended UNLESS we can get private
donations to cover the start upcosts --- that is my public position on the issue -- of course, the Parks
Commission and the Town Board could out vote me on that matter .. but that is where I stand.

I am hoping that when it comes time to develop Bicentenniel Park that we can work jointly with the County
since it would adjoin the Mabee Farm and Franchere Center.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

We have space in either Juracka, Carmen, or Esposito Park -- all of which are easily accessible to residents,
have running water already, and parking facilities.
I have absolutely no idea when the little league fields will be ready on Burdeck St .. could be years .. and
if we can do this dog park next year IN an existing town park that would be better.
Also, I am quite serious in my stating that no dog park will be recommended UNLESS we can get private
donations to cover the start upcosts --- that is my public position on the issue -- of course, the Parks
Commission and the Town Board could out vote me on that matter .. but that is where I stand.

I am hoping that when it comes time to develop Bicentenniel Park that we can work jointly with the County
since it would adjoin the Mabee Farm and Franchere Center.

Wasn't it earlier this year that we were at County meetings where Supervisor DelGallo personally stated that he would go down and do the work for the Little League fields to help to reduce / remove the costs as much as possible?  And how much of this work is complete to date?  If the fields aren't going to be ready for years, what is the Little League supposed to do when Mr. Larned finally starts building?  Just forget about the Little League until someone comes and tells us that it's time for the ribbon cutting ceremony?  People were storming town hall at the time when Wal-Mart wanted to go in where the Little League fields are.  They fought until Wal-Mart pulled up stakes and called it quits because there's so much of a history of them not doing what they were supposed to, even when promised.  Now, instead, Little Leaguers will have the carpet pulled out from under them by one of Rotterdam's own?  Somebody thought that through long and hard, but at least the person got the approvals they wanted to put in what they wanted on the land.

Quoted from Kevin March

Wasn't it earlier this year that we were at County meetings where Supervisor DelGallo personally stated that he would go down and do the work for the Little League fields to help to reduce / remove the costs as much as possible?  And how much of this work is complete to date?  If the fields aren't going to be ready for years, what is the Little League supposed to do when Mr. Larned finally starts building?  Just forget about the Little League until someone comes and tells us that it's time for the ribbon cutting ceremony?  People were storming town hall at the time when Wal-Mart wanted to go in where the Little League fields are.  They fought until Wal-Mart pulled up stakes and called it quits because there's so much of a history of them not doing what they were supposed to, even when promised.  Now, instead, Little Leaguers will have the carpet pulled out from under them by one of Rotterdam's own?  Somebody thought that through long and hard, but at least the person got the approvals they wanted to put in what they wanted on the land.

I am not sure what Mr. Larned's timetable is for building his project.   Originally, I had heard they were
going to have the ballfields ready for the 2011 season .. but that doesn't look possible.    That is why I am
saying .. it is not a good idea to link the dog park to that project.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I am not sure what Mr. Larned's timetable is for building his project.   Originally, I had heard they were
going to have the ballfields ready for the 2011 season .. but that doesn't look possible.    That is why I am
saying .. it is not a good idea to link the dog park to that project.

Because the dog park takes precedence over the Little League?  I personally think that if government wants to get involved in it (I don't think they should have, but we're in waist deep now), that they should have a plan of action.  Which is more important?  Will you do it for the dogs first?  Or will you do it for the children first?

Quoted from Kevin March

Because the dog park takes precedence over the Little League?  I personally think that if government wants to get involved in it (I don't think they should have, but we're in waist deep now), that they should have a plan of action.  Which is more important?  Will you do it for the dogs first?  Or will you do it for the children first?

Rotterdam Little League has not asked the Parks Commission to help with their proposed ballpark.  They
are working with the County and Mr. Larned.  
Residents came to a Public Forum held by the Parks Commission and requested that we look into a dog
park.   So we are looking into a dog park.
So .... long story short .... the dogs and their owners are coming first  because they ASKED for our help
in the matter.     If Rotterdam Little League comes to the Parks Commission and asks for our help .. we
would certainly respond appropriately to their request.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Currently -- the town gets $6 -- the state about gets $3-4 depending on some variables .. and an
additional fee is collected and passed on to the spay/neuter program at the local animal shelter.

My estimate - based on research that I did during part of my 3 1/2 days working in the Town Clerk's office
(volunteer work)  this past August --- was that the cost of maintaining the licensing program (that is the
cost of maintaining the records, paying for the mailing of renewal notices, the cost of the actual dog tag,
and the cost of maintaining the Town Dog Control Officer  -- could all be covered by a $12 fee per each
dog currently scheduled for renewal in 2011.  
The local Dog licensing fee of $6 has been the same since at least  2003.   Residents over 65 get a 100%
waiver on the local fee currently.

Given the actual real cost of the licensing program to the town  (what it will cost the town in 2011) and the
cost to the town of the Dog Control Officer   (which is a stipend of $5,000)   ...  I would think it would be
fair to charge   $12 for a dog license with a 50% waiver for residents over 65.    That would cover the new
costs to the town  and still give the senior residents a break.

As I am not a member of the Town Board or Administration --- I don't know what course of action that they
will take on the matter ..  but that is my recommendation.


I think this is a very conservative approach --- the user fee paid by the actual beneficiaries of the service
bearing the cost of the town providing the service.

So, you'd condone raising seniors rates 100%? and you're seriously ok with that?

Quoted from 147

So, you'd condone raising seniors rates 100%? and you're seriously ok with that?

No, he's condoning a raise to 50%, which if the current rate is doubled as expected, would just be 100% of the current rate, but it would still be 50% of the "current" rate, in case the town decides they haven't dug far enough into people's pockets.

Quoted from 147

So, you'd condone raising seniors rates 100%? and you're seriously ok with that?

Seniors already pay a license fee to the state  -- it is only the $6 LOCAL fee that is waived for seniors.
The state has collected its portion of the fee to cover their costs of running the dog licensing program ...
since the town will now be responsible for that program and its costs --- it is only fair that all dog owners
help cover the cost of the dog licensing program.
Also -- part of the $6 that the seniors would pay -- is mandated by the state to go to the spay/neuter
program --- and the seniors are responsible for that now .. and would still be responsible for that part
in the future.
Technically -- it is NOT raising the fee --  do owners pay  a local fee, state fee, and the neuter fee when
they renew --- seniors only get the local fee waived.