Residents press council on animal shelter contract, ask for safety fixes at Glove Park

Residents at the April 23 Niagara Falls City Council meeting urged elected officials to revisit the city’s temporary animal‑holding arrangements and to address safety and blight concerns in neighborhood parks.

Why it matters: Speakers told the council the temporary kennel contract approved in recent special meetings does not meet the city’s needs, raised questions about how developers and the city followed environmental review procedures for a proposed municipal shelter, and warned that unfenced Glove Park poses a danger to children.

Animal shelter and kennel concerns

Multiple speakers criticized a contract for a temporary “holding facility” that, according to public comment, provides only 10 kennels for the city and carries a monthly price described in testimony as “just over $10,000.” Tanya Barone told the council she and others see the contract as inadequate to meet the needs of residents and animals and criticized the perceived speed of special meetings and contract awards. Barone said she believed the new permanent shelter would not open this year and noted the city’s current animal services budget she cited as “just over $270,000.”

Janine Gallo, who spoke from Cayuga Drive and said she had submitted a higher bid for RFP work, told the council her proposal included three dedicated dog control officers (DCOs) and more kennel capacity than the contract the council has discussed. Gallo told the chamber she had proposed staffing and capacity that she said would reduce the strain on police and city personnel.

Vincent Cawley raised a procedural question about environmental review. He cited Article 8 of New York’s Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 (commonly referred to as SEQR) and asked whether the city had completed the required discretionary environmental review and made that paperwork available to the public for the proposed shelter project; he said capital improvements and site approvals are among actions subject to SEQR. Cawley said he expected a public reply on whether SEQR had been conducted.

Jennifer Pittoressi identified herself as president of the board of the Nygrass PCA (as stated in her remarks) and said the SPCA remains willing to help if asked; she noted municipal shelters commonly operate in coordination with local SPCA organizations and said the SPCA had limitations on taking overflow animals.

Speakers also referenced a proposed future shelter reported elsewhere as a 60‑kennel facility with a construction cost that residents cited as $4,500,000; some said the city budget did not appear large enough to operate a facility of that scale without additional resources.

Parks, property upkeep and Glove Park safety

Helen Coleman, who gave her address as 1502 South Avenue and said she lives across from Glove Park, urged the council to install a fence around the park and described multiple vehicle incidents at the park edge. Gloria Dawson also pressed the council to require businesses and property owners to maintain exterior trash receptacles and to enforce yard and junk removal rules; she said poor property appearance affects the city’s image for visitors and residents.

Other community remarks

Eunica Lewis announced a community cleanup scheduled for May 10 and described locations with heavy trash and overgrown vegetation, asking the city to coordinate better with DPW. Lawrence Blaber Jr., a local realtor, said business recruitment is hampered by broader civic challenges and urged civic leaders to attend school board meetings with the same intensity they bring to council meetings; he discussed reading and education outcomes affecting workforce development.

What residents asked for: Several speakers asked the council for greater transparency in contracting and procurement, fuller staffing for animal control, disclosure of any SEQR/SEQR paperwork for shelter development, fencing and safety improvements at Glove Park, and stronger enforcement of property maintenance rules.

Next steps: Comments entered the public record during the meeting’s public‑comment period. Council members did not take formal action on the shelter or SEQR during the April 23 meeting; questions about environmental review and contract details remain outstanding in public testimony.