The Lancaster Town Board passed a resolution Monday evening that will reduce the holding period of seized dogs from seven days to three days provided the dog is identified as the owner’s and proof provided that the dog is unlicensed; except where the dog is unlicensed and a notice is given to the owner by mail to get the dog licensed and then the holding period is extended to seven days.

A public hearing was held on the matter on November 5th and the holding time then was suggested to be reduced from seven to five days. At the work session It was made known that resolution sponsor Council member Matt Walter was going to pull the resolution because of the language discrepancy but Dog Control Officer (DCO) Jean Karn requested its submittal.

At the regular meeting, during the public comment session on the pre-file resolutions, resident Debbie Lemaster questioned the board on the new language. Lemaster asked what precipitated the change to three days when in fact at the public hearing the targeted holding time was five days. Councilman Walter replied that it was to bring into conformance with the ordinance other municipalities have in place.

Lemaster then questioned whether the condition of the shed-like facility influenced the decision to shorten the holding period. “I understand the dogs are chewing the floors and walls to the point where they had to be repaired / replaced. Tarps had to be put up to prevent some dogs from being stressed by more aggressive dogs. When Councilman Walter replied that was a different matter, Lemaster disagreed pressed on and declared that she believed the shed facility would be temporary and asked, “When are we going to get a brick and mortar building?”

Walter answered with, “That’s a good question.” Lemaster responded that the other departments seem to get whatever they need to do the job and that DCO Karn should also get the tools to do her job efficiently. She then asked about the availability of a grant that could also offset the cost for improvements.

Walter responded that unfortunately there was a grant available, that he reached out to the town board on the matter, they had questions, he reached out to DCO Karn on the pursuit of the grant and the application time ran out. Funds are not available in the town’s budget for DCO operation improvement and they will pursue the grant next year.

Lemaster closed by stating that as a fiscal conservative she should not be saying it, but that the town has a healthy fund balance, a public hearing should be held and that we should get this operation in order.

At the public comment session DCO Karn that the current facility does not provide enough kennels to house the dogs. So far this year 143 dogs have been retrieved. There was overflow in 12 days. When kennels are in disrepair and or being repaired, she loses kennel availability.

Supervisor Coleman declared the town is in negotiation with the Town of Clarence to provide backup service for the Town of Lancaster when overflow conditions exit.

Karn also stated that she went above and beyond what was required to fill out the application grant appropriately and to get the town board apprised appropriately in pursuit of the grant money. Walter responded that he did not receive an email in time.

Comments

Thank you, Mrs. Lemaster, for bring this matter before the town board.

After the four-kennel shed was constructed you and I visited the site to observe the operation – the heating and cooling system, general shed construction and program set in place to feed, monitor and waste disposal / sanitation process. We voiced concerns then that the interior floors were made of wood and not suitable for sanitation and damage control. We were led to believe this was a temporary setup and a brick and mortar facility would be provided in the future. We have been informed that the wooden floors of two kennels were chewed and damaged to the point of needing replacement and some wallboard damage has also occurred. Why the damaged floors were replaced with wood and not with tile or concrete is both puzzling and troubling.

Considering the increase in housed dogs, the kennel damage taking place, the unsanitary wooden floors, poor sight lines, the town should consider moving the operation into a brick and mortar building; and if so is to seriously pursue the grant money available to offset the cost of doing so.

Does anyone wonder whether the individuals who retrieve unlicensed dogs after licensing them get a court appearance ticket and pay a fine?