By Jeremy D. Wells
Carter County Times
The stray dog issue in Grayson moved one step closer to a resolution during a special session last Thursday. That’s when councilman Troy Combs took advantage of an agenda loophole to successfully move for the city to add a position responsible for animal control.
The special meeting was called to discuss nuisance properties. (See “Cleaning up properties” in this issue.) But when one resident of the Little Sandy Lane neighborhood complained that cleaning up did no good when dogs tear up garbage – and noted that one violent dog in the neighborhood had chased an elderly neighbor into her home – the animal control issue took center stage.
When Combs revisited his previously defeated motion to add a position to handle dog complaints council came down split on the issue, with Combs, Bradley Cotten, and Pearl Crum voting in favor of adding the position, and Jerry Yates, Terry Stamper, and Sudy Walker voting against the measure. With council evenly divided the issue went to Mayor George Steele, who voted with Combs to create a new position within the street department, responsible for handling animal complaints.
Steele had initially opposed Combs’ attempt to bring the issue before council, noting that the agenda items for the special meeting were related to specific nuisance properties, and that animal control was not on the agenda. Combs, however, pointed out that item four on the agenda was, “Council action related to any or all components of Agenda Item 3.”
Item three was discussion related to the listed nuisance properties, or “Other unidentified properties within the same neighborhood not listed above.”
Because the aggressive dog, and the dogs tearing up garbage, were issues related to other property owners or tenants in the same neighborhood, Combs was able to bring the issue to the table.
Although Combs’ motion adds a new position, under the street department, the position will not be filled right away. The city will also need to take other actions before anyone can pick up dogs.
Combs motion was to add another part-time position to the street department, responsible for animal control calls as well as other street department duties. Street department head Bub Messer, however, asked council to reconsider that wording when they codify the position. Messer asked council to instead add a part-time position to the department, but to change street department duties to include animal control. This way, he said, any available street department employee could respond to animal control calls. If the city instead hires one position within the street department responsible for handling animal control, they wouldn’t be able to respond when that individual wasn’t on duty. They might also have to pull him out of another job to handle animal control calls if the job duties were restricted to a single position. Messer said it would sometimes be better for the city, and the department, if the new part-timer could continue whatever task he was on, and another street department employee could respond to a nuisance animal call.
Yates emphasized that he wasn’t opposed to handling problem animal calls, but that he wanted to be fiscally responsible. He noted he had spoken with fiscal court recently about the county animal control officer responding to calls from the city, and he still believed the county was responsible for handling these calls.
“We already pay taxes for it,” Yates said.
He also pointed out that, in his discussions with fiscal court, they indicated their lawyers with the Kentucky Association of Counties held that counties were not responsible for doing any more than providing access to an animal shelter, while the Kentucky League of Cities held that the counties were responsible for all animal control duties. He said he would like to see if lawyers for those two organizations could come to some sort of consensus on the issue before abandoning attempts to have the county dog warden enforce existing county regulations within the city.
Steele said he still wasn’t abandoning hope the issue could be resolved with the court, and still felt the county was responsible as well, but that citizens needed help now.
Before they can get that help, though, the city will need to fill the new position created by Combs’ motion. Before they can do that they also need to amend the budget to allocate funds to pay for the position. They will also need to add back previously repealed animal control ordinances before they can be enforced. For instance, the city currently has no leash law on the books.
Those animal control ordinances were repealed at the request of the county, Steele said, so county ordinances could be enforced instead.
County animal control ordinances have not been enforced inside the city limits of Grayson or Olive Hill since the two cities rejected a reciprocal agreement from the county that would have had the cities share a portion of the operating cost for the new county animal shelter. The mayors of both cities contended, at the time, that the county was already responsible for handling the issue because city residents also pay county taxes and are eligible for county services.
Contact the writer at editor@cartercountytimes.com
