Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge delay on animal‑control decision after concerns about vendor and officer
Summary
During public comment, residents asked Lambertville council to delay action on an animal‑control contract after they said a new vendor was selected at a sharply higher cost and that a town animal‑control officer had not been given an opportunity to respond to alleged complaints; council later adopted routine agenda items by roll call.
Lambertville — Multiple residents at the council’s reorganization meeting urged the council to delay final action on an animal‑control contract and to provide more public information about alleged citizen complaints against the town’s animal‑control officer.
Lori Stago of Lambertville Animal Welfare told the council she and others have “fought against” a private vendor, Animal Control Solutions, and questioned why the town would choose that company at an apparent cost of “$24,000 plus” when Officer Carolyn Murphy had offered a contract for about $11,500 with costs included. Stago asked the council to delay the resolution while the public reviews the vendor selection and related complaints.
Kathy Williams read a letter on behalf of a resident that asked for delay, saying the fees cited for Animal Control Solutions were “more than double” the $1,508 figure previously cited for town coverage and that there was no public justification available for the increase. Williams asked that the public be given time to learn whether complaints against the animal‑control officer exist and, if so, to allow the officer an opportunity to respond.
Speakers presented differing views. Luc Mahalic described a personal experience in which his dog was severely injured and said his interactions with the animal‑control officer were “horrendous,” supporting the council’s deliberation. Chris mhart said the town should not “pay more to get less” and urged supporting Officer Murphy while due process runs its course.
Council members closed the public‑participation session and proceeded with appointments and the consent agenda. The consent agenda (resolutions 01‑2025 through 30‑22) was adopted by roll call. The transcript does not make explicit whether the animal‑control contract referred to in public comment (called in public testimony “resolution 24”) was included in the consent agenda or handled as a separate vote; the timing suggests residents requested a delay before the council completed routine business.
The council took no additional public action on the complaints during the meeting; residents asked for transparency and for the council to ensure any officer under review is informed and given an opportunity to respond.
