The URL can be used to link to this page

2012, 09-04 Study Session Minutes MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington September 4,2012 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Torn Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir Ben Wick, Councilmember Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Arne Woodard, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Animal Control Proposals—Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Assistant Koudelka explained the history and process of issuing a Request for Proposals for animal control, and that we received two responses, Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. and invited people to speak.The following people spoke in support of SCRAPS: 1. Cheryl Mitchell, 28 West Augusta, Spokane, 99205: she had several handouts and spoke concerning the starting pay as noted on the information and of the difference in employees' benefits for SCRAPS and SpokAnimal staff; spoke of her concern with SpokAnimal not having an area for exotic animals and of not having people answer the phone"after hours;" and the difference between the two organizations in the way they handle dangerous dogs. 2. Kerry Masters, 23712 E 3`d Avenue, Liberty Lake: said she is the vice president of Animal Advocates of the Inland NW; and spoke of problems she has encountered with SpokAnimal that she does not experience with SCRAPS, and of his high regard of and trust in SCRAPS. 3. Chris Bowers, 23712 E 3`d Avenue: also a member of Animal Advocates and spoke of dealing with both organizations; said SpokAnimal would make an offer almost too tempting to pass up but the animals would pay in the process, whereas SCRAPS will never be about money but about taking care of the animals. 4. Janice Christianson, 9511 East Marengo Drive, Spokane Valley: said she worked for about 12 years for animal rescue and worked with SCRAPS on numerous occasions; said they have a high level of integrity and compassion and the officers attempt to get the people assistance as well as making sure proper charges are made when dealing with animal cruelty. 5. Lona Holm, Inland Small Dog Rescue, 123 E Wynot Dr., Nine Mile Falls, WA: said SCRAPS will drive anywhere to help an animal; that they have people who are very truthful; have clean shelters, and the dogs are well-taken care of said she never got a response when she called SpokAnimal; but always got a return call from SCRAPS. Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 6. Stephanie Kurtz, 16003 E Longfellow, Spokane Valley: said SCRAPS always answers their phone and gets back after people leave a message; but she has difficulty in getting a return call from SpokAnimal; spoke of the statistics in adoption and euthanizing; and in the future, SpokAnimal will have to add on and expand their size; said SCRAPS is already where they are; and they are in it for the animals. 7. Ragan Faller, 11006 East 43rd: said he is an animal protection officer with SCRAPS; his main concern is public safety; there is a multitude of years of experience with people and the animals, and we would lose all that history if we went with SpokAnimal; believes it puts the public in jeopardy as there would be a learning curve on knowing the animals and their owners. 8. Steve Salvatore, Spokane City Council Member: said he and Spokane City Councilmember Mike Allen are requesting Spokane Valley Council to defer this decision for perhaps thirty days; that Spokane City and Spokane Valley account for 75% of the customer base for regional animal control, yet the two cities have hardly spoken about the idea of regional collaboration and of the value to the citizens; he asked to get the two tasks forces or representatives together to discuss this; and he had copies of an "open letter" distributed to Councilmembers. There were no further public comments and Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. 2. Sidewalk Infill Project Bid Award,Phase I: Pines Road, 16`h to 24th—Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Sclrirrrmels and seconded to award the bid for the Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 1, #0149 to Wiry Winkler Company in the amount of$477,235.50, and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Senior Engineer Worley explained that two bids were received; that the first apparent low bidder did not meet the federal Disadvantaged business Enterprise (DBE) requirements and therefore, staff recommends awarding the bid to the second low bidder, Wm. Winkler. Mr. Worley also explained that some of the lateness in getting this project to bid was that it took longer than anticipated in getting approval of the right-of-way phase through the WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) process. Mr. Worley also explained that staff notified Cameron Reilly that they did not meet all requirements; that Cameron Reilly sent an e-mail response asking that the project be rejected and rebid, as noted in the attached e-mail, but that staff recommends moving forward as they hope to be able to get this project done as soon as possible so the school children can use the sidewalks during the winter months and next spring. Mr. Worley added that it was the School District who asked us to do this project; that this is phase 1 of 2 with phase 2 scheduled for next year. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimrrrels, and Councilmembers Hafrrer, Grassel, Grafos and Wick. Opposed: Councilmember Woodard. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. Outside Agency Funding Requests—Mark Calhoun Finance Director Calhoun explained the process of granting outside agencies funding; said tonight's presentation will be from the Economic Development Agencies, with the Social Service agencies scheduled for September 11. Mr. Calhoun also asked Council to submit their funding recommendation to him no later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, September 14, after which he will present combined information and allocation averages at the September 25th council meeting, at which time Council will make their final funding allocation determination. The following agencies gave their presentations to council: (1) Greater Spokane Incorporated, (2) Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, (3) International Trade Alliance, (4) Spokane Area Workforce Development Council, (5) Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners, (6) Spokane River Forum, (7) Spokane Valley Arts Council, (8) Spokane Valley HUB Sports Center, (9) Sustainable Works, and (10)Valleyfest. At 7:55 p.m., Mayor Towey called for a short recess, and reconvened the meeting approximately ten minutes later. Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 4.Future Transit Planning and Spokane Valley Corridor Potential Projects—Susan Meyer As one of the City's representatives on the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board, Councilmember Hafiier introduced STA CEO Susan Meyer, and Planning Director Karl Otterstrom; and said their "Moving Forward" program is unique. Ms. Meyer explained via her PowerPoint presentation of STA's work in adjusting their service as a result of reduced sales tax; and said STA received$23 million less in their portion of County and State sales tax since 2007, and that they have re-structured benefits and service, and eliminated approximately 10% of their service which they felt were unproductive routes; but that the remaining 90%is more productive and ridership has actually grown and is near record high levels of 2008, 2009 and 2010. She and Mr. Otterstrom explained the high performance transit network and of the difference in the blue, red, and green transit lines, and mentioned their planned "downtown to Liberty Lake via Spokane Valley"red line. 5. Animal Control Proposals, Staff Recommendation—Morgan Koudelka,Mark Calhoun,Mike Jackson Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that Council has requested staff to issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) for animal control services, and that two proposals were received: one from SCRAPS, and the other from SpokAnimal. Mr. Koudelka said that he, City Manager Jackson, and Finance Director Calhoun established themselves as a review team to meet and evaluate all the information received from those proposals. Mr. Koudelka said the team also visited each facility, conducted interviews, spoke to several jurisdictions that have been serviced by these providers, and met as a team several times. Mr. Koudelka said this was a lengthy process, and he extends the City's thanks to SpokAnimal and SCRAPS for responding and going through this very time-consuming process. Mr. Koudelka said that both entities responded to all requests and made staff feel the City would value their service in the future; he said both are qualified, well-run organizations, committed to animals and the safety of the community. Mr. Koudelka then explained the six evaluation components: (1) Level of Service: SCRAPS has been consistent since this City's incorporation; most comments received were very position; they are located within our City limits; have a high level of training; and the facility is intended for providing animal care and control; their facility was very user-friendly making it easy for the public to navigate through. SpokAnimal demonstrated a much improved service delivery; is located near the highway and bus stop; they have an on-site clinic to allow for immediate care for animals during clinic hours; and they have greater public hours for their facility. Overall, the team gave SCRAPS the advantage in this category. (2) Adoption and Housing: the live release rate is a little better for SCRAPS, but both show great improvement; SpokAnimal operated in a dense urban environment where the biggest issue is feral cats. SCRAPS uses retailers in advertising and partners with the Humane Society. SpokAnimal uses outreach and events. SpokAnimal is innovative in coming up with new programs like their farm program, and the team gave a slight advantage to SpokAnimal in this category. (3) Ability to Enforce Animal Regulations: SCRAPS has an excellent relationship with law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. The County and Spokane Valley's regulations are consistent, and SCRAPS is very experienced handling abuse,neglect, and dog fighting. SpokAnimal would require training to ensure compliance with regulations. The team gave the advantage to SCRAPS in this area. (4) Financial Stability: SCRAPS as part of the County had some over-expenditures in revenues in recent years; and overall is very stable. SpokAnimal has no debt and have consistently lived within their means and have a large fund balance, but one drawback is they have not been audited since 2008. The team gave a slight advantage to SpokAnimal in this area. (5) Professionalism: SCRAPS has extensive training, the law enforcement and the team heard consistently from citizens and animal organizations that SCRAPS is always professional. SpokAnimal has a code of conduct, and the team has heard some comments about past performance as well as some concerns about the way the service was provided. The team gave the advantage to SCRAPS. Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 (6) Cost: SCRAPS cost for the first year would be $295,691, fixed with an annual CPI (consumer price index) adjustment. SpokAnimal cost would be $250,000 without the City of Spokane participating, and $216,000 with the City of Spokane participating; so without is 15.4% less and with is almost 20% less than SCRAPS, which cost would increase over time, and that over ten years, this would represent a half million dollars, and over twenty years would mean about $1.2 million. The team gave the advantage in this category to SpokAnimal. Mr. Koudelka said the team considered all the information and realized there were additional considerations that deserved to be part of the process, such as transition time. He stated that the current service provider provides a high level of service and that there would be a transition with a new provider. He also stated that location is a factor; that we try to make a service as convenient as possible for citizens, but in this case, a regional service located in Spokane Valley would represent a huge benefit. Concerning regional effectiveness and consistency, the license fee and compliance programs to reach out to pet owners to enhance license revenues and having consistent license fees, is very valuable;he said consistent enforcement and laws are a vital component, and having a single location that people can visit or looking for an animal is a valuable resource. Mr. Koudelka said the team noticed in the site visits that both agencies are good facilities and had a lot of money spent on them; and said it is apparent that the current SCRAPS facility had been very well maintained and said SCRAPS has support from County departments that can provide immediate help when needed. Regarding repairs, Mr. Koudelka said if there were some serious repairs, the County has a large fund balance and capability to generate revenues quickly to make those repairs. He said SpokAnimal made efforts to ensure they are recovering the owner costs and they have assured us those efforts are completed and no such increase is contemplated for the future. He said over the last eight years, SCRAPS reduced our cost 28%. Regarding change; Mr. Koudelka said we have heard our citizens have an aversion to change when the provider gives a high level of service and said they heard from people that they voted for incorporation as they didn't want to be part of another city; but also wanted to keep things as they were and have control over their own destiny. Mr. Koudelka said there exists some confusion about direction if a change was made, but said after reviewing all the factors, the team reached a unanimous decision to remain with SCRAPS, with conditions. If this were a regional system we were a part of, it should include the City of Spokane; but said if Spokane doesn't participate, the County said they would go"back to the drawing board." Mr.Koudelka said SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill has greatly improved license compliance;yet he added that we have a lot of demands on our limited resources; that Council has to make difficult decisions every year and we don't know if we can accommodate their CPI adjustments, and he said those adjustments don't always reflect what's going on in the world;but said there have been discussions about alternatives and ways to improve. The next steps, Mr. Koudelka explained, is if Council is ready to provide a consensus on a preferred provider, then staff will negotiate the contract terms with a provider, and bring a draft contract to Council for Council's approval consideration. Mr. Koudelka said nothing is final until Council adopts a contract. Councihnember Grassel asked about Spokane Council Member Salvatore's request to delay this action. Mr. Koudelka said this has been an ongoing concept for four years; he said this joint concept of using both cities in a regional model was proposed several times; and Ms. Hill and County Commissioner Mielke's discussions with the Humane Society were unsuccessful;that efforts and attempts were made for a joint concept; but Spokane City's concept assumes the County would want to use their existing facility, and Mr. Koudelka said the County has said they will not invest any more money in their current facility, but want a new facility to accommodate the needs for the region in the next fifty years. Mr. Koudelka said in the latest discussions, there was a regional task force which included the City of Spokane, including joint meetings with our City and Spokane City's Council and that staff asked their council about a joint RFP and we were told they were not planning on issuing an RFP and were not interested. Mr. Koudelka said we have heard these requests before, they have been pursued, and our preference is to move ahead with the regional concept with SCRAPS. Mr. Koudelka added that since the time staff was told Spokane City was not interested in joining in our RFP, they have since issued their own, but said we Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 do not that know outcome, Mr. Koudelka said that Council Members Allen and Salvatore are participating in their review committee but they do not speak for their committee as a whole; and that the Mayor of Spokane submitted the recommendation to go with SCRAPS. Councilmember Grassel how this regional concept can occur without the City of Spokane and Mr. Koudelka said we operate under a timeline at the request of the County; the issue was fully explored; that they made a proposal;we spoke to the current providers; all parties have evaluated this concept before; and even though there may be new "players" on their side and on ours during all these negotiations, there was no indication by either provider to do something jointly. Again Mr. Koudelka said the County is not willing to stay in their current facility. If there was an advantage to waiting, Mr,, Koudelka said staff would be willing to do that; and said in our experience, waiting hasn't generated anything new or different, and we have an opportunity to move forward instead of backward to things that have already been visited. Mr. Koudelka said that Mayor Condon had a presentation and recommends his Council go with SCRAPS. Mayor Towey echoed the statement made by Mr. Koudelka, that there is no decision on the proposals presented; that we choose one provider to start negotiations; that this is not a formal decision but is Council moving staff to negotiate some terms to see if they are favorable to Council; and stressed that nothing is final until a contract is approved by Council. Mayor Towey said this method helps the County, helps us; that the County risks losing their property the longer this goes on; and that we want to continue to make headway. Mayor Towey recommended staff discuss this with SCRAPS and work out a mutual agreement; and if it comes to a point where there cannot be agreement, then Council can move to the second provider. Councilmember Wick said he also feels there are some benefits and would like to move forward to negotiate with SCRAPS, that he would like to get away from the CPI and achieve those future efficiencies. Councilmember Hafner agreed and said there is concern with this regardless of which way Council goes; he said the CPI is a concern but suggests moving forward. Councilmember Woodard agreed with the concern with the CPI; but said he has no objection to move foiward with SCRAPS, to start a dialogue and come back to Council as appropriate. There were no objections from Council. At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting one hour. 6.Proposed 2013 Property Tax Ordinances--Mark Calhoun Finance Director Calhoun went over the proposed 2013 levy, said that the levy is based upon a preliminary estimate of assessed property values, and the amount would also add to it, new construction, which will likely represent about $125,000. In response to Council's previous questions, Mr. Calhoun also explained "banked capacity;" he said this refers to the amount of the levy we could go back and assess, but that it does not preserve funds,just allows us to go back and take that percentage amount; but regardless of the levy rate per $1,000, he said the actual levy amount cannot increase by more than 1% over the previous year, plus taxes assessed on new construction. Councilmember Grafos said he is not in favor of the levy and is sure we can find $108,000 in the budget if we just look at vacant positions. City Manager Jackson said we will be making substantial reductions; but that we still try to keep up with inflation, and said that amount would not even cover inflation in our public safety budget; that the 1% does not keep pace with two or three percent inflation; and said it makes sense to take that increase; and Mr. Jackson recommended that after he presents his budget, and Council has had an opportunity to hear citizen input, that council can discuss that issue further; he said we are adding programs and projects, but that we can talk more next week about what we are squeezing from our budget. Mayor Towey said he favors letting this process continue through the ordinance readings so that we can get the citizen's input; that they must know we have quite a few projects going on as well as projects scheduled in the future; and to take the 1% property tax that was afforded us by the legislators would be to support those projects; that if we continue not to take the 1% while inflation keeps going up, then we would be losing money; and again said he would like to hear from the citizens. Councilmember Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 Woodward said that Initiative 747 was a people's initiative and that the legislature had nothing to do with this;he said just because it is available, doesn't mean you have to take it. Councilmember Wick said that he feels Council doesn't have enough information at this stage, and he prefers to wait until Council hears the budget proposal, then Council can have a more meaningful discussion. Councilmember Hafner agreed that waiting one more week doesn't hurt. Councilmember Grassel asked if the tax can be decreased, and Mr. Jackson said it can and this City did so previously. Councilmember Grasse] said she might want to reduce it by a percent or half-percent. There was further discussion about what the 1% would represent, with Mr. Calhoun estimating it would impact the average homeowner about $3.00 a year. Mr. Jackson added that it is appropriate to do what we can to maintain the city budget, especially with the fairly ambitious upcoming programs, such as the Milwaukee Trail, and a new park. Councilmember Hafner said he prefers looking at the broad picture; that Council has to determine what those basic services are and if Council feels we need to cut, then it does so; that Council has to consider what the people are willing to pay for and if we don't have the money, then we have to cut services. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he doesn't think"we're honest with ourselves if we start trimming a slight tax" while we look at more and more projects. Mayor Towey said these issues will be discussed again September 25 and October 9 for public hearings; that we will get a thorough covering of the budget next week; and that he personally wants citizen input. 7. Zoning Use Matrix—Christina Janssen, Scott Kuhta Planning Manager Kuhta went through the PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposed changes to the use matrix, after which Council discussed several other suggested changes. Councilmember Grafos suggested for the Building Supply and Home Improvement in the Community Commercial zone,to limit the size to 50,000 square feet; and to add caretakers to the Regional and Community Commercial zones. Golf Driving ranges were discussed with Mr. Kuhta explaining that he feels the intent is clear the driving range would be outdoors. Recreational vehicle sales and service was also suggested as an addition to the Community Commercial zone. Council and staff also discussed the city center zone and whether to keep it, omit it, or leave it in the matrix explaining it is a type of placeholder. Mr.Kuhta said there were also a question about parks and what's permitted so staff felt it would be advantageous to add that to the definitions. After brief discussion concerning office uses, and farmer's markets,there was no objection to proceed to a first reading at next week's council meeting. 8. Truck Traffic Issues—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell went over the history of concerns about truck traffic including noise, fumes, and traveling through residential areas; and there were some suggestions about limiting or restricting the weight to a certain weight per axle. Restricted parking was also discussed but to exclude service trucks and/or construction trucks; not allowing idling for a certain amount of reasonable time was also suggested or to perhaps restrict the operation of reefers in residential areas, or to restrict them only at night. At 10:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting another thirty minutes. City Attorney Driskell urged Council to consider the ability to enforce and monitor whatever it is they wished to regulate; as we don't want to create something that won't work. Some councilmembers felt construction was the main issue, while others felt it was noise, and others mentioned traffic through residential areas, along with signage issues. Mayor Towey suggested allowing the trucks through the area, or removing the "no trucks allowed" signs. Mr. Driskell said staff will check on the exact wording on those signs; that they would need to analyze every neighborhood to make sure we are consistent; and said that represents a significant work program that would take a lot of time; or to proceed in phases; and it was agreed a plan for the future is needed. Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 9. Intergovernmental Purchasing Agreement—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained the process of "piggybacking" on another government's contract, as noted in his September 4, 2012 Request for Council Action. There were no objections from Council to proceed for motion approval consideration at next week's council meeting. 10. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Council suggested items for future consideration included the Sprague Avenue and Evergreen Project; and mention of Waste Management explaining recycling,with Mr. Jackson cautioning that we don't want to give the impression to the public that Waste Management is our service. 11. (a) Sidewalk and Transit Stop Accessibility Project, and the (b) Appleway Swale Update were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 12. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey Councilmember Grafos said the trees and grass on Sprague Avenue and that area in general needs to be dressed up. Mr. Jackson said staff will check about what we can do on City property and what the City's responsibility is. 13. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson said that Parks and Recreation continues working on the Gateway Project trying to get water to that site, and that a draft agreement with Water District#3 will be brought to council next week, and the cost to install water is approximately$6700. There were no objections to placing this on next week's council agenda for approval consideration. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. ATTEST: The nas E.Towe , Ma or Art _a . GAL phi ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 09-04-12 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council:09-25-12 AMENDED AGENDA ITEM 42 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 4, 2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration - Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 1 (#0149) Bid Award GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at 8/24110 meeting followed by an Admin Report RCA on 9/21/10 to review and receive consensus to move forward with the CMAQ funding application. Information RCA on 8/27/12. BACKGROUND: The Sidewalk Infill Project will construct miscellaneous sidewalk projects throughout the City. The projects focus on improvements within the walking radius of schools, high density housing, commercial districts and transit facilities. Phase 1 of the project includes sidewalk on Pines Road between 16th and 231d avenue. Also included with the Phase 1 bid is street preservation work and storm drainage improvements. Phase 2 will include sidewalk on Perrine, Farr and 6 bus shelter pads located at various sites throughout the city. Phase 2 is anticipated to be built next summer. Phase 1 bids were opened Friday, August 31, Two bids were received. The first apparent low bidder did not meet the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal requirements and is therefore considered non-responsive. Staff recommends award to the second low bidder. OPTIONS: 1) Award contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, 2) Not award contract to lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 3) Provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to award the bid for the Sidewalk Infill Project W Phase 1 #0149 to Wm. Winkler Company, in the amount of $477,235.50 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Sidewalk Infill project is funded with a $572,400 federal CMAQ grant and a 20% local match of $143,100. Awarding this bid for Phase 1 Schedule A results in using $273,337.40 in CMAQ funds and $68,334.35 in local match. The street preservation portion of the project (Schedule B) is funded 100% with Street Preservation funds (Fund 311), The stormwater improvements (Schedule C) is funded 100% with Stormwater Management funds (Fund 402). STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Map of Sidewalk Infill Project Locations, Bid Tabulations, Email from Jim Cameron gP{g. 8 p yL8 w ; w N3 '4„_____0„- --..._ (�`w2i. Amesam m..ama+ 1',.loam.-o`�`�,.a Ufa,—... immaw�Y h'o�ow�m�na w�u o mvmmaww ,,. ja°'Aqq yO � �I aaaAa vA$$�� wu�.+w n� aa7� ,o�^ � � vL 5 m --' w i B v oP ��2�f� ��v $6n T5�K QQ�e� ay O g O g�� g0c9+OpOZO v o = W °a a FN ! =1 S o ggg y y P g �' r grb66g$°g �� ao mad n a 3 o r - n '9 Kg m`n = 5 , L'8 WP ``ss�' i �n SSti �0 ,1 O Og n 3 y $ z$ r $ o i9y 1_ � Y myQlgi9 g 3. G 1111111" m➢ w ��r7,7n�iM”-”P <nm-7.7,9��'EF-, «-` 7,- 4v Div rri� v��n a y \1471 ° ,, f L. 8y $� �� s ppi o « e� N a«�; 18 � . s88 - ae : __ _ °88weme4"" m8s8sagae888'8mmm° 888888888eo n 0 0° oo aw5a s H sasmso s.0 as e ce sti Fov g8E 88 8 _ c',n _ .8 oaa e ° aasL"aBwSo9 _ ,# «.c,w v,,, �aoy kow8 8 U HO��n _ 88888-6 88888888808 8888 $0888 888888 % 1 N 8w 888 11' N t ova«s a P a ° ' d 8 8 -$o a as ss 8 8 88 e ' s o 8s"111111111111111111 111 C - m m eoa < o " E e s e000a sseossoo° 833. tt s�s.�ag u oa rvi Baas °moo'oe oo°m mm °smom°°° * 9 • E ' «ga .-6 m 2' ,°item«:N .'1"m ww naa„a cqV ,,«„aP,o c8 § R tgl as !Alit PAI ti, stii c 1Wnr° ghee «rs8M §,§ 22282112828888888 a:8888 88888888888888888 meama888888pmae°e°0008088888880°88888888888 ■ Steve Worley From: Jim Cameron <jim @cameron-reilly.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:06 PM To: Steve Worley; Erica Amsden Subject: Sidewalk Infill To both,we are in receipt of your correspondence regarding our lack of being able to meet the DBE goal on the above mentioned project. We would request rather than award to the second bidder at a cost increase of$64,364.30 that the project be rejected and rebid. Given the complexities of trying to meet a goal at the last minute this will allow both bidders the time to solicit other quotes. Please include this letter in the award packet so that the council has the opportunity to review. Thank you Jim Cameron 1 p Z ¢ 6 8 J -_I EK La)K W LA CC 1 J Q a< J L 4° } Dm z z to La ow La F Lili aj n N Zz - !. U7 F_Z ?5 J d Q I E- w O az l Q --iii -T -¢ Di- ,..rte z2: c 4r\ 3 WI-d' V)u (I m< ma ._j -±"22 C7 1 I w J 2 II O�01 I I II ., I �_j_ ; 11 L_ I u "L'�t- 'r� i N 327 LT _ '? i' T M T- ▪ �,i' )L�sti it 1 Y �v`� �i m„,0,.. , . ri•. -- �Ti T� _ • - EiTn I �t.f J.r,�i 11 z' �f.�'' s—i - _ fi �� Ira =-tt-1 E _ _ 1.4„..\,:,,,./y- ' �, �� viz 1)1'' ; E fnil- -1 � J � T 1� � j_ yr. ,�'N ° red � I,. i 4_ _ - k it L Uj 1! t �� p I �—o`—_ '11_ � - �W lid�ul� � � � ,CI,r7y .E. � 2 j`.r f"I i �;..N ET*][_i_iLioN "7I En 1-= - - — _.;• - - Ir-- i! t r_i j 1 x ,1;1 F-_ rn± ` , I v) rrmrr i Tom- ,- nira o -— - _1)- > :c S`�Vid 144, -Ir'�7y A - 1 2 I t.- I , zt-z- _; ,e Ltrir -.1�.a - •I S - 1 r a— 7 ! =�▪ � _ � � ';1t /r. r1L1, .1:5_-._ I. 11- �T - _ - °._ r ai ,ILI - rP4T =_A-Y-1 ,- CI - �`W - =i FIB' _ �_l�„ `a ! � til � ,:_—_T. i c, MR .'iTi-iU '11 -_all NAL ' I 41LiL 'HS{I f i Lr` 11 4�S il •J 7 tr I� , - I�■i q � t ! ''' -- 1 —1-'- i---11:2 =1- - ..,--1..Lif - -I”- i = ot.,SIT-TeliftiR164-- 10,1R- - ,n m m. 4..- 1 1- -- Arip-vil Er_ '41 7411E_ ,_ T i ' 1 ,27- 'RI ft14-1 papimmrjr1.4_mmRimR. 1 1119ft-- -PI. Thil2H411 3 - ,y. - -- -- :I 1 ■• i .6. 7t- J-D. ',1 if ••- —--7 '11 - Si - •zi I - N "Li}l jiJ1 ) / - rUitill 31Vill I i- kl _1_ ,-. r ri:-m lqeinffliBillair43-fttii-1:4"‘.ttgili,-ilita{;0_,Air_t:cf.sin,,j4...-EJ -.:::-.':,.. --1 S 1 ii___,:pli 1 4 j Fi:p:LN - f Vii,- [[ _: °�I ' I i II�GL�„}��-� � MSG f 11 : ij! -W6-1 i :,,..1-rj:1_i- ''BUY �� I' t • }1 `J~' 11 11], .1 ,n L Lit II1 �i ll t 0:1-1,--2.-:::.. L el, 1 J,41 �� Jl J iiirit IITh =7 7 , - -Z Li i WI,g,ko ESL 1 7 I^ =-)-A f7:I Try'If-F[:lll PtIlPIFT(R`1OTdl.v.P 7111L•fL-R°,DZ°6tmo,5)4 1I-1 NR+sl7afoa,{,»nsolo ro 1,altdE-I q-- Al ct.T.InAl'd SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, September 4, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET SUBJECT: Animal Control Proposal Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT 957l inAki tV?c) DR. 05 Lc. w R\p-t A L '11,(N 1(U S)rN ° y t Fv ` .0 ( C LI '7 3 -- �''cJ/C-✓C tJ /YL c4 Y-1(t) I (000'3 CtthitsCti "‘C't-el-ii S°) Ma6112 _ 23711 rte. 3''./AoQ ,C Loa 5. c i .55 `73`]V/ ei 11- ( Le (if AtActs i ( Clei)3027- 181 \- b—)Ank -ThaoVokAtdt Ao) -31-?=1 ept&t,t/ d (07Y cc'_ J � tjj 4i-6 S6?-2,55-cipri tt. ,` 1, 4firr ! `1 v^ / /-1_\ 6.-z)? Zir 3 AN om. A mot. ." S S rt,t, t 90 et _ C-3;- V ce- Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. If It`s Not Broke Don't Fix It In the August 4th Valley Voice I learned that the City of Spokane Valley is considering using the City of Spokane based Spokanimal for animal control. I actually had to read the article twice because I could not believe this was even an idea that our Valley leaders came up with. SCRAPS has done animal control for the Spokane Valley since we incorporated and I can never once remember there being an issue with their service. Public safety is one of the top priorities for goverment and I would say SCRAPS exceeds the expectations set. Why gamble with public safety when you have a known entity that has a long history of doing an exceptional job. Secondly why would the City of Spokane Valley contract with a business not located in the Valley? SCRAPS is located in the Valley. I am guessing they do business with Valley businesses. I am sure the staff supports Valley businesses. Also my understanding is they are looking to purchase a building in the Valley and stay in the Valley. I would bet that Spokanimal doesn't spend a dime in the Valley. My tax money would be going to help support the City of Spokane! I voted for incorporation so that would not happen! Emily Faylor 11006 E, 43rd, Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 509-868-8355 Open Letter to the Spokane Valley City Council We share your desire for Regional Animal Control, making it easier for citizens to find lost pets or adopt new ones. We are also committed to a contract that maintains or improves our current level of service, while keeping costs at or below current levels. We believe there is value in negotiating jointly to obtain these services. Since we are both considering long term contracts of 10—20 years, we should explore every option to get the best value and service for our citizens because a small difference in annual cost ends up in significant savings when multiplied by 10 or 20. Spokane Valley and Spokane account for 75% of the market for Regional Animal Control. Since we share the same goals, should we consider a joint contract, with costs split according to our populations? This approach would ensure transparency, allow any benefits to be shared between our cities and eliminate questions of cross subsidization. Significant discounts might be available if we make a joint decision. During due diligence, we observed: Many citizens feel Enforcement and Licensing are core governmental activities. SCRAPS has regional expertise in Enforcement & Licensing but shelter facility is obsolete. SPOKANIMAL has adequate facilities, with room to expand. Will SPOKANIMAL and SCRAPS survive if one is not chosen? SPOKANIMAL has had Enforcement challenges in the past. SCRAPS has solid reputation, SPOKANIMAL has 28 year history with City of Spokane. If SCRAPS handled Enforcement & Licensing and SPOKANIMAL provided Shelter services, taxpayer money wouldn't be spent to buy and retrofit a new building, since we could use Spokanimal's facility and expand only as needed. Costs would be lower if SCRAPS bought trucks from SPOKANIMAL, instead of buying new ones. Can we ensure survival of both organizations with a contract for services that each do best? If there is resistance from either organization, would they be open-minded if we were united in our desire to be served in such a way? Regionalization should offer better service at the same cost, or the same service at lower cost. If we work together, we may be able to obtain BETTER service at LOWER cost. Will you join us in exploring this? Sincerely, Mike Allen & Steve Salvatori Spokane City Council Chris Bainbridge From: inlandsmalldogrescue@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:40 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: Fw: upcoming vote From: inlandsrnalldogrescue(@gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:41 PM To: ttowey@spokanevalley.org Subject: upcoming vote It is our understanding that on the evening of September 4th the Spokane Valley City Council will meet to determine who will get the Animal Control contract for your city, SCRAPS or Spokanimal. As a rescue organization, we would like to tell you how much we appreciate SCRAPS, and their entire team. When we have had to call them after hours, someone always responds,unlike Spokanimal. Working with them, we see the caring, and dedication to the animals, with fostering, transporting them to safety, using the Hope Foundation funds for vetting, if needed, their dedication surpasses any expectations. We have had to phone both SCRAPS and Spokanimal for violations, or an animal in trouble, SCRAPS responds. Also, SCRAPS does so much for the animals in it's care, always striving to make being in a shelter a better experience,the kennels are clean, music is played, the animals have access to the outdoors, and lots of caring employees and volunteers to see to their needs. IIere are some links for each entity, and their year end numbers for 2011. http:/Iwww.spokanecounty.org/data/animalcontrol/pdf%statistics/Copy%20of/o20Maddies2011.pdf http://www.spokanimal.org/pdf/2011%2O SpokAnimal%20Year%20End%20Report.pdf It is our feeling, being a rescue, and having some more inside information, that if we lived in an Animal Control jurisdiction, SCRAPS would be our choice hands down. Thank you for your time, and here is hoping the choice is made for the animals and not for the dollar. Sincerely, Ken and Lona Holm Inland Small Dog Rescue 123 E. Wynot Dr. Nine Mile Falls, WA. 99026 ( We are also sending a hard copy of this) i Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service SC IBS 2011 Year End Report Dog Cat Total A BEGINNING SHELTER COUNT 15 106 121 INTAKE(Live Dogs &Cats Only) B From the Public 2006 2868 4874 C From Incoming Transfers from orgswithinCommunity/Coa'ition 183 288 471 I) From Incoming Transfer from Gigs outside communitylCoa'ition 1 5 6 E From Owners/Guardians Requesting Euthanasia 176 119 295 F TOTAL INTAKE [B+C + D+ E] 2366 3280 5646 Owlwf/GLl irdian I:t;Elue,3lr;ct t utliateasia (Unhealthy& tJntreatahlo G Only) 17c. (19 795_ H ADJUSTED TOTAL INTAKE [F minus G] 2190 3161 5351 I TOTAL ADOPTIONS 796 695 _ 1491 OUTGOING TRANSFERS tocrgswithm Cornmunity/Coaltton Healthy 205 480 685 Treatable—Rehabilitatable 6 47 53 Treatable—Manageable 5 14 19 Unhealthy& Untreatable 0 0 0 J TOTAL OUTGOING TRANSFERS to Qrgs within Comma y/coastioo 216 541 757 OUTGOING TRANSFERS to Organizati nsoutsideCommunityfcoa'don Healthy 202 805 1007 Treatable—Rehabilitatable 9 4 13 Treatable—Manageable 7 12 19 Unhealthy& Untreatable 0 2 2 K TOTAL OUTGOING TRANSFERS toorgsoutsideCornmunity fcoaction 218 8231 1041 L RETURN TO OWNER/GUARDIAN 808 ' 93 1_901 ': DOGS&CATS EUTHANIZED I M Healthy (Includes owner/Cuarchan Requested Euthanasia) 14 185 199 N Treatable-- Rehabilitatable (includes owner/Guardan Requested Euthanasia) 12 125 137 O Treatable—Manageable (Includes Owner/Guardan Requested Euthanasia) 37 85 122 P Unhealthy&Untreatable (Includes OwnenGuarrEen Requested Euthanasia) 269 754 1023 Q TOTAL EUTHANASIA [M + N+ O + P] 332 1149 1481 ....., i/Gtr:31t11 11 ( :)t,t;mis(i Fu€lCttaasica . I:(7 . S ADJUSTED TOTAL EUTHANASIA [Q minus R] 156 1030 1186 SUBTOTAL OUTCOMES [I+J + K+ L+Si Excludes owner/Guerrlan — T Requested Eumanasia(Unheat by&Untreatable Onty) 2194 3182 5376 U DIED OR LOST IN SHELTER/CARE 7 7 14 TOTAL OUTCOMES [T+ U] Excludes ownerGuardiian Requested Euthanasia ✓ (unhealthy&Untreatable only) 2201 3189 5390 W ENDING SHELTER COUNT 4 78 82 LRR(I+J+K+L)I(T) X 100 92.89% 67.63% 77.96% In a perfect world,the Ending Count is equal to the Beginning Count(A)plus Total Intake(F)minus all Outcomes(R+V). ------> 4 78 82 If your reported Ending Count does not match these numbers,please go back through your data and be sure you didn't miss something(i.e.,animals in foster,adoptions,transfers,etc.). If all animals have been accounted for and the reported Ending Count is different,please indicate in the continent section. I agree that in completing this form,we have used the Matldie's Fund definitions of"Healthy,""Treatable-Manageable,""Treatable- Rehabilitatable,"and"Unhealthy&Untreatable"as set forth in the attached document titled,"Maddie's Fundg Categorizations/Definitions of Shelter Animals." Signature: Dianne Timoney Date: 2123112 C.A.R.E. 2011 Year E nd Report 5I'oIN I L YOUR INLAND NORTHWEST HUMANE SOCIETY T Dog Cat Total A Beginning Shelter Count 20 31 51 Intake(Live Dogs&Cats Only) 8 From the Public 2500 3915 6415 C From Incoming Transfers from Orgs within CommunitylCoalition 103 184 287 ❑ From Incoming Transfers from Orgs outside Community/Coalition 90 0 90 E From Owners/Guardians Requesting Euthanasia 0 0 0 F Total Intake (B+C+D+E] 2693 4099 6792 C Ov.n ':ilr,iii_i hl A;t1 1.(.111,-ii:73,;I Rifih eailhl;O_ly) U 0 H Adjusted Total Intake [F minus G] 2693 4099 6792 ADOPTIONS(Only Dogs&Cats Adopted by the Public) Healthy 1092 1427 2519 Treatable-Rehabilitatable 47 32 79 Treatable-Manageable 12 10 22 Unhealthy&Untreatable 1 3 4 I TOTAL ADOPTIONS 1152 1472 2624 OUTGOING TRANSFERS to Orgs within Community/Coalition Healthy 16 38 54 Treatable-Rehabilitatable 15 54 69 Treatable-Manageable 17 29 46 Unhealthy&Untreatable 2 7 9 J TOTAL OUTGOING TRANSFERS to Orgs within Coalition 50 128 178 OUTGOING TRANSFERS to Orgs outside Community/Coalition Healthy 33 9 42 Treatable-Rehabilitatable 6 2 8 Treatable-Manageable 2 1 3 Unhealthy&Untreatable 0 0 0 K TOTAL OUTGOING TRANSFERS to Orgs outside Coalition 41 12 53 L RETURN TO OWNER/GUARDIAN 1017 86 1103 DOGS&CATS EUTHANIZED M Healthy/Overpopulation(Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia) 0 44 44 N Treatable-Rehabilitatable(Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia) 13 825 838 O Treatable-Manageable (Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia) 279 526 805 P Unhealthy&Untreatable (Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia) 112 996 1108 Q Total Euthanasia [M+N+O+P] 404 2391 2795 R Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia(Unhealthy&Untreatable Only) 0 0 0 S ADJUSTED TOTAL EUTHANASIA [Q minus R] 404 2391 2795 T SUBTOTAL OUTCOMES [I+J+K+L+S] 2664 4089 6753 Excludes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia(Unhealthy&Untreatable Only) U DIED OR LOST IN SHELTER/CARE 8 14 22 ✓ TOTAL OUTCOMES [T+U] Excludes Owner/Guardian 2672 4103 6775•Requested Euthanasia(Unhealthy&Untreatable Only) W IN DING SHELTER COUNT(date) 12/31/11 41 27 68 41 27 68 LRR(/+J+K+L)/(T)x 100 84.83% 41.52% 58.61% In a perfect world,the Ending Count is equal to the Beginning Count(A)plus Total Intake(F)minus all outcomes(R+V) if your reported ending count does not match these numbers,please go back through your data and be sure you didn't miss something(foster,adoption,transfers,etc.).If all animal have been accounted for and the reported Ending Count is different,please indicate in the comment section. I agree that in completing this form,we have used the Maddie's Fund definitions of'Healthy,' Treatable-Manageable,'and'Unhealthy&Untreatable'as set forth in'Maddie's Fund Categorizations/Definitions of Shelter Animals.' Signature: Angela Scheres Date: 1/11/12 1 Non-Profit Organization Report:SPOKANIMAL CARE Page 1 of 2 Executive Pay Reports Nonprofit Pay Software Search Form 990's i I home E ° Nonprofit Salary Surveys Nonprofit Organization Information •) Nonprofit Exec Pay Software (i) Nonprofit Exec Pay Reports SPOKANIMAL CARE (t} Salary Survey Software Address Aliases O Salary Survey Finder Salary Survey Sources SPOKANIMAL CARE 710N NAPA ST SPOKANE, WA 99202-2867 Compensation Resources Financial Snapshot (0 Nonprofit Form 990s C Intermediate Sanctions 3,000,000 I (±1 Nonprofit Salary Courses (i) Charity Research Report 2,500,000 , (4) Comp Committee Cert ( 2'000'004 Revenue: $2,924,409 (6) Compensation Dictionary Et) Salary Laws and Regulations . $2,571,058 Contributions: $1,206,148 Testimonials 1,444,044 "ERI is the best investment I've 500,000 _ made all year." June DeLeo,SPHR 0 Principal,HR Response Lt-C Revenue Assets Contributions "Plotted dots and trend lines in executive compensation analyses Available 990s where you can audit the data, Including full proxies and 10-Ks. I've never seen anything that Year IRS Process Date Form Type Assets approaches the AssessorsP' i William A.Caldwell,CCP,CBP 2010 12/12/2011 990 Initial Return $2,851,846 Former WorldatWork President 2009 10/19/2010 990 Initial Return $2,571,058 "ASy subscription to ERI has been the VERY BEST investment of my 2008 12/22/2009 990 Initial Return $1,468,803 professional career,ERI paid for itself before the end of the first 2007 09/12/2008 900 Initial Return $1,167,440 month.The precision and detail of clients enhances my own data that I can my own now provide my cl 2006 12/11/2007 990 Initial Return $941,499 credibility as a consultant." Christine V.Walters,MAS,JD,SPHR 2005 09/15/2006 990 Initial Return $855,436 Independent Consultant,FiveL Company 2004 12/14/2005 990 Initial Return $836,118 2003 12/14/2004 990 Initial Return $646,215 Advertisements 2002 12/12/2003 990 Initial Return $485,162 $19 Cost of Living Report Cost of living data for one of 6,000 cities worldwide. ERI Economic Research Institute is constantly updating this Form 990 Library as new images are www.salariesreview.com provided by the IRS.The list of returns above may include ones marked with icon indicating Compensation that the image Is being converted for viewing and will be available within 2-3 weeks,so please Compensation survey data used by check back. Forms 990 from 2001 on are available for viewing on this site. Forms from years prior 85%of Fortune 500 companies. to 2001 are available through a subscription to ERI's Nonprofit Conmparables Assessor"'&Tax- For professional use. • k'nnv.erieri.com Exempt Survey. Employee Benefit Survey • Competitive employee benefits by IRS Business Master File Information • location-US or Canada.$19 vn'nv.sa sari esrevie',w.com httn://www.erilonprofff sa]aries.com/index.ctin?ruseAction=NPO,Stimmary&E1N=9I!223929&Cobrandid=O 9/4/2012 Non-Profit Organization Report:SPOKANIMAL CA RE Page 2 of 2 Work Analysis FLSA Overtime&Disability The following Information comes directly from the IRS and is posted here without any changes. If Determination estimates, information for your organization Is not right, please contact IRS Customer Account Services at 1- For professional use. 877-829.5500 to correct it. www.paq.com FIN: 911223929 I Salary Guide I Salary survey data for 5,000 jobs Ruling Date: 04/1984 7,000 cities. For professional use. NTEE: D200-ANIMAL PROTECTION&WELFARE www,erieri.com ERI NTEE: D20-ANII4AL PROTECTION&WELFARE Group Exemption 0000 Number: SubSection: 03-Charitable Organizations Affiliate: 3-Independent-This code is used if the organization Is an Independent organization or an independent auxiliary(i.e.,not affiliated with a National,Regional,or Geographic grouping of organizations). Classification: 1 -Corporation Deductibility: 1 -Contributions are deductible. Foundation: 16-Organization that normally receives no more than one-third of its support from gross Investment income and unrelated business Income and at the same time more than one-third of its support from contributions,fees,and gross receipts related to exempt purposes. • • Filing Requirement: 01- Activity Code(s): 913 - Other Purposes and Activities 408 - Inner City or Community Activities III 000 � l ERI Economic Research Institute Is a leader in compensation information,providing salary survey and cost-of-living research reports and software used by 10,000 subscribers to set pay for more than 10 million employees. PRIVACY POLICY TERMS OF USE I l ABOUT US TESTIMONIALS NEWS ROOM FAQs AFFILIATES LINKS STAFF BIOS BLOG SITE MAP Copyright 02012 ERI Economic Research Institute,Inc.All rights reserved. ERI Economic Research Institute is an Authorized User of selected Statistics Canada data under Agreement Number 6184.ERI's intellectual property rights Include Patent Nos.6,862,596 and 7,647,322,"System and method for retrieving and displaying data,such as economic data relating to salaries,cost of living and employee benefits."Other Internet-related applications are Patents Pending. ERI's nonprofit executive compensation site provides executive compensation information on:Intermediate sanctions,IRS rebuttable presumption of innocence,factors In determining nonprofit executive compensation,nonprofit oiganizations.nonprofit organizations executive compensation,nonprofit executive compensation,nonprofit organizations executive compensation survey data,nonprofit organization maximum reasonable compensation,IRS intermediate sanctions,nonprofits reasorrabfe executive compensation,tax exempt organizations unreasonable compensation,nonprofits reasonable compensation,and tax-exempt executive compensation for nonprofits, • http:f/www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Summary&EIN=9I I223929&Cobrandid'0 9/4/2012 TILL.--1-2225 19:07 r ROM:SPOKAN:M L C.a.R.E. 535 9630 T0:4582728 P. 1/1 21 I rit � ��`` ((l� ��kk I1) `� 1��1 ll{� "'`r STERILIZATION CATS DOGS l 4 4 l U g q I D tt q rI q q u n a o q u s s B R U Y N B s1 g a o B o o S q U n o U 4[I l 4 4 Y 4 U n n n Ir g U a 9 n b r,[I U U g B D 4 4 4 4 4 Q R 4 l n U q q[r it a n g n n a Male: Female: ale: Female: Routine - $25.00 Routine - $47.50 Under 30 Ids -$47.50 Under 30 lbs- $52,50 in heat - $57.50 31 —50 lbs-$52,50 31 G 50 lbs-$57.50 pregnant 51 a 75 lbs $57.50 5i —75 lbs -$62.50 under 30 days-$67.50 76—100 lbs $62. 76 w 90 lbs- $77.50 over 30 days by quote over 100 lbs-$72.50 Over 90 lbs= $1. per lb *1-1*°10 additional if in heat***4* **".$10 —$20 addition if obese";*"'' 'r""$20 minimum if pregnant`r4"-* VACCINATION_S AND VETERINARY FEES Office.Exam-$22.50 Microchip Implant -$22 KITTENS PUPPIES 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 l l u 4 H l l 4 a l 4 e 4 4 4 4 U u u l l 9 l U s l 4 E 4 U B N 4 g q I q u s 44 4 4 4 4 4 II Y■l 4 4 a 4 D 4 4 4 4 u l 4 l 4 n a 4 4 a s l U U U U n ll g o FVRCP (distemper)--8 weeks- $11 DISTEMPER/PARVO —6 to 7 weeks - $11 FVRCPIFELV (leukemia)m 11 weeks - $17 PROGARD 7 --8 to 11 weeks - $11 FIP--- 12 weeks to 15 weeks -$15 PROGARD 7/CV— 12 to 15 weeks- $15 FVRCP/FELV— 14 weeks-$17 CV/RABIES - 14— 16 weeks - $22 [VRCPIRABIES m 17 weeks -$22 - DISTEMPERJPARVOICORONA-$15 BORDATELLA (kennel cough) - $11 CATS--yearly booster DOGS �, yearly booster !Iranian 4 4 4 l a 4 4 4 4 4 a l l■WAIN 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 d p 4.4 l 4 1 4 4 B a 4 4 4 6■U■A 4 a g q U a U U U D U U FA/RCP/FEW- $17 DISTEMPERIGV-$15 f-IABIES (1 yr. OR 3 yr.) - $11 RABIES (1 yr. OR 3 yr.)- $11 FIP -$15 BORDATELLA (kennel cough) a $11 *RECOMMENDED FOR DOGS: 2 PROGARD7, 2 CV, 1 RABIES, AND 1 BORDATELLA OWNER SURRENDER DROP OFF FEES There is a charge that varies_ CONTACT RECEIVING EUTHANASIA FEES ' DOGS CATS DISPOSAL FEES 144444B7l414444444 D 4 DBBnbaan ......„166.."..".uo44rq Under 25 pounds- $40 mall Under 25 pounds-$15 26 a 50 pounds- $55 Over 26 pounds-$20 51 —75 pounds-$65 7t3 and over-$754. a"°$20 CHARGE IF ANIMAL IS AGGRESSIVE, OR OVERWEIGHT*** ""b SER VICE FEE FOR ALL OWNED ANIMALS m$20;AFTER HOURS= $47.50*'* ***IF PET IS INVOLVED IN BITE CASE', MUST BE FIELD and 10 DAYS BOARDING PAID e$80 *** MISCELLANEOUS IMPOUND PEES VOUCHER REIMBURSEMENT VALUES U S1 NU UU gglilU IIIgq(D q 11 I D D U I O D B i I V U S N I U D a 111 IS I D g aq t Ba0 ad44I UI s44 Y I I B IU U B 0 0 0 lD II I B B N UI I BB 1 $GB FEMALE.DOG—$50 2so-$36 MALE DOG -$45 3R0-$56 (within a year or less) FEMALE CAT-$45 AIRWAY HEIGHTS IMPOUND = $50175/ 100 MALE CAT-$27.50 . MEDICAL LAKE same as ours STEVENS COUNTY IMPOUND m contact CITY PET LICENSES SES Stevens county sheriffs department qunaDa.....DDDaaDUbuq©abbe©.I.uDqu ..... 4. $6 per day boarding SPAYED OR NEUTERED 4$$12.00 $ 7.50 Rev.08/18/2004 NOT SPAYED/NEUTERED $23.00 $ 13.00 e County,q�9ro �� t �. �Q df REGIONAL ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION SERVICES �� L cotir rte ' Nancy Hill �� ,a�` �,� .1;�y•Director i� • :: ' Ci;).Q PS (509)477-2532 i'j N-a: a ri ,_ o„ANE ooh ��` : �� 2521 NORTH FLORA ROAD L v`!{II P PfOtQ��, SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99216 ': December 2, 2004 RECEIVED DEC 0 7 2004 Gail Mackie MAYOR'S OFFICE Executive Director-- Spokanimal CARE PO Box 3151 Spokane, WA 99220-3151 Dear Gail, Recently there has been some confusion regarding your agencies response to injured animals and it is causing me some concern. Animal Control Officer Carl Boyd was on call Thanksgiving Day—November 25, 2004. He received a call from Password Answering Service at 11:30 in the morning regarding an injured dog at 1406 E. 38th in the city of Spokane. The complainant -Stephanie Zoldak said a dog had been hit by a car in front of her residence and was injured. The dog was wearing a Spokane County pet license. Officer Boyd told the complainant that Spokanimal CARE was the agency that responded to injured animals in the city of Spokane. The complainant said she had already contacted Spokanimal and that they refused to respond. She had spoken directly with Officer Trambitas who said since it sounded like the dog was not bleeding and did not have any broken bones he would not respond. Additionally he told her that he would not go anyway as the dog was wearing a county license. Officer Boyd contacted the on call officer at Spokanimal—Ken Trambitas. Officer Trambitas told Officer Boyd that he would not respond to the complainant because it was not a dire emergency and it might just be "old dog syndrome". Officer Boyd tried to explain to Officer Trambitas that injured dogs could have internal injuries or other serious problems without showing outward signs. He reminded Officer Trambitas that a car in fact had hit the dog. Officer Boyd also stated that even though the dog was wearing a county license the incident _ happened in the city, which is Spokanimal's jurisdiction—not Spokane County's. Officer Trambitas said he would not respond. Officer Boyd recontacted the complainant and suggested that she take the dog herself to the Pet Emergency Clinic. Officer Boyd offered to call Pet Emergency and authorize treatment and care of the animal. The complainant took the animal to Pet Emergency Gail Mackie Page 2 December 2, 2004 and later that day Officer Boyd picked up the animal there and took it to Spokane County Regional Animal Care and Protection Services--- SCRAPS to house until the owner could be located. Officer Boyd notified the owner and they later were reunited with their pet at the SCRAPS shelter. This was above and beyond the call of duty for Officer Boyd. But due to his compassion for animals and his interest in serving the public he went the extra mile. Officer Boyd reported the incident to me as there might be costs incurred by SCRAPS from Pet Emergency and his overtime. Thinking this was an isolated incident I did not contact Spokanimal. Then Animal Control Officer Nicole Montano talked to me about an incident that occurred on November 28th, 2004 regarding an injured animal call that was given to Spokanirnal by Password Answering Service. This call was mistakenly given to Spokanimal by Password—as the injured animal was actually in Spokane County just outside the city limits at 8523 N. Freya. The call was given to the Spokanimal officer on call—Angela on Sunday November 28th at 2:04 in the morning by Password. The complainant, John Papuzynski, reported there was a dog lying on the side of a private road just off Freya going to the Tank Farm. He said the dog was "half frozen"but wasn't sure if it was hurt. The complainant left, thinking help was on the way after he called Spokanimal. It was at 9:54 Sunday morning when Spokanirnal advised Password that the dog was in the county. Animal Control Officer Montano of SCRAPS received a call from Password Answering Service late Sunday morning—November 28th regarding the "half frozen" dog. Officer Montano was unaware of the call even though she had been the on call officer for Saturday night and Sunday. She then called John Papuzynski and spoke with him directly about the animal to get a better location. John Papuzynski advised Officer Montano that the dog was still alive when he called Spokanimal at 2:04 arn. When Officer Montano responded to the location Sunday morning she found the dog still lying on the side of the road but now deceased. Officer Montano received another page from the complainant later that day. Papuzynski was calling to check the status of the dog. He was very upset to hear the dog had not been checked on until mid-morning Sunday. This lack of response by Spokanimal on injured animal calls is a concern to SCRAPS.- Citizens judge the quality of animal control services by the response that they receive. Few citizens realize the differences between SCRAPS and Spokanimal. So, lack of professionalism and concern for animals by Spokanimal is often credited to SCRAPS and Gail Mackie Page 3 December 2, 2004 vice versa. It is important that we all handle our citizen contacts in a professional manner and provide a reasonable level of service to the community. Additionally,we cannot over look the humane treatment of animals. How humane is it to leave an animal half frozen by the side of a road overnight—only to find it dead the next morning? How humane is it to not respond to a call for help when a car has hit an animal? We owe both the animals and the community a compassionate and prompt professional response—after all don't we set the standard? Please provide me with a copy of your written policy regarding your after hours response to injured and sick animals. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Respectfully, Nancy Hill • Director NHJdt Ce: Mayor Jinn West Commissioner Kate McCaslin Marshall Farnell- CEO • - A .._... Your Inland Northwest Humane Society =o SpokAnimal C0A.R. N. .710 Napa 1_,. P.O. Box 3151 • Spokane, t, f— ._. p , WA 99202 ' _ (509) 53.4-8133 °%� �: www.spokanirnal.org cj4+ S - 'Teaching Kindness Through Education* December 19,2004 TO: NANCY HILL. RECEIVED sci ps JAN 0 3 2005 FROM: GAIL MACKIE AYR'S OFFICE RE:your letter of 12-2 Dear Nancy, Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns in the letter that you'd sent me earlier this month:However,I am very disappointed.that you chose the letter venue rather than a telephone call to voice your concern in these two cases, I have to assume that you were not in possession of the Password call tags"on-either case,or the Pet Emergency Clinic chart for the first dog you mentioned.I am sure-that if you'd had that information,the officer's actions would have been clear to you.For this reason,I have also'included reports on each call. ' Ken Trambitas, Supervisor of the Field Department,has been in animal control for over 18 years,and is well versed in handling on Call duty. He was the officer on call on Thanksgiving and received the first call you'd mentioned.As you can see from the Password report,the caller had not seen the dog hit by a ear,but had reported a•lump onitis leg when Officer Trambitas called the complainant and talked with her about the dog. She agreed to hold the dog and to contact your office for owner-information. SCRAP's Officer Boyd got the.call from her,and instructed her to take the dog to Pet Emergency clinic.As you can see from their record,the dog had no abrasions,no abnormalities were found,not lame,and was in fact ."up,looking around,with tail wagging.He did;however,have a mass on the leg. Furthermore,according to the chart,PEG had the dog owner's name and telephone number.PEC determined that this was not an emergency,and felt it had been handled properly. - Officer Angela Johnson received the other call at 2am-on the morning of the 28th.According to the Password record,the caller was not sure if the dog was hurt or not,and could see no injuries:Password assumed the call to be ours and Cleared it = to Angela. She was not told the address, and the caller could not identify injuries. There was no'one in attendance withthe ' dog, so she was unable to get any further information.Later that morning,our officer realized it was a county call and let Password know to forward to you We receive literally hundreds of telephone calls each g•month wonderin why.we are open and SCRAPS is not,and we • handle those calls courteously and professionally.While we do agree with,you that people often confuse our conununity's animal organizations,we reseat the allegation that SCRAPS officers have more concern and professionalism in the eommunity..Nancy,you knowhow"hard all.of our animal control officers and staff work in both of our organizations to - maintain the level of compassion that our community deserves.We don't want to get into a shouting match with you over this,and we hope you are open to reviewing the information attached. If you have any further questions or concerns,please - feel free to giye'me a call, - - ' ' Thanks again for giving us the opportunity-to shed seine light on your concerns. Sincerely; G !I ail aclsie - • • Director-` _r ss Cc: tsldfz/kklcs t 1% Printed on Recycled Paper MITCHELL LAW OFFICE Alm West 28 Augusta Spokane, Washington 99205 AApril 19, 2005 (509) 327-5181 P Fax (509) 327-2979 Mayor James West City of Spokane 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Fifth Floor Spokane, Washington 99201-3333 Mr. Tim Szambelan Assistant City Attorney 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Fifth Floor Spokane, Washington 99201-3333 Ms. Gail Mackie Executive Director SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. 710 N. Napa St. Spokane, Washington 99202 RE: SPOKANMMAL'S REFUSAL TO SERVE THE PUBLIC Dear Mayor West, Mr. Szambelan and Ms. Mackie: I recently spoke to Ms. Hannah DiPaula, who lives in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, about a situation that took place on Sunday, March 13, 2005. Ms. DiPaula's cousin, who lives in Spokane, attempted to commit suicide and was taken to the hospital. Ms. DiPaula came to Spokane to attend to her cousin's affairs. I understand that her cousin had a dog and a cat. Because of her cousin's hospitalization, there would be no one to care for the animals. Ms. DiPaula called SpokAnimal and explained the situation to the person who answered the phone. She asked if SpokAnimal would send someone out to pick up the animals. She was told that the charge for this would be $80. When Ms. DiPaula said that she did not have $80, the SpokAnimal employee said, We don't do this for free." When Ms. DiPaula asked what she should do with the animals, the employee said, "I don't know what to tell you." } MITCH F;LL/WEST & SZAMBELAN & MACKIE April 19, 2005 Page 2 Ms. DiPaula then told the SpokAnimal employee that she would have to leave the animals in the house with no one to attend to them. The SpokAnimal employee then told her that if she (Ms. DiPaula) left the animals, SpokAniral would charge her with animal abandonment. As I previously advised the City Council at the meeting in February, 2004, I have spoken with individuals who have told me that SpokAnimal is charging the public for animal control services. My neighbor was charged $25 by SpokAnimal when she found a stray cat and took it to SpokAnimal. The woman who cuts my hair was charged $20 to take in two stray cats she found in her neighborhood. Apparently, the City is aware that SpokAnimal is charging the public for animal control services. These fees are in addition to the money that is paid to SpokAnimal by the City of Spokane. I am requesting that you provide me with a list of the fees charged by SpokAnimal for specific services and the dates these fees were adopted. I will appreciate your response to this letter at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, CHERYL C. MITCHELL Attorney at Law pc: Ms. Hannah DiPaula CM/CORR/DINA W EST.I.TR MITCHELL LAW OFFICE West 28 Augusta Spokane, Washington 99205 (509) 327-5181 March 19, 2004 Fax (509) 327-2979 Mr. Ken Trambitas Supervisor, SpokAnimal CARE 710 N. Napa St. Spokane, Washington 99202 RE: DOG AT 2903 E. BOONE Dear Mr, Trambitas: I am writing on behalf of Animal Advocates of the Inland Northwest. Animal Advocates has received a number of phone calls from individuals who were concerned about a chained dog at 2903 E. Boone. I have gone out to see the dog for myself and found that the dog had a short, heavy chain which is putting a strain on her neck. She appeared to be underweight and her long fur was dull and uncombed. She was chained to what appears to be a plastic DogLooTM that had no dog bedding or other material in it. The dog also had what appeared to be a healing sore on her neck, under the collar. On February 25, 2004, I called SpokAnimal to ask that an animal control officer be dispatched to that location to investigate the situation. On Thursday, March 4, 2004 you called me back regarding the dog. You told me that you had been out to the property to see the dog and based upon your examination of the dog, it appeared to have an ear infection. You said you had talked with the owner of the dog and had told him to take the dog to a veterinarian for an examination. You also told me that the dog had been taken to the SpokAnimal veterinarian for an examination, but as of the date we spoke, you did not yet have the results of the examination. We discussed the fact that the dog may be pregnant. I told you that the dog appeared to be underweight and that I had learned that some good samaritans were feeding the dog, You said that you asked the owner if he was feeding the dog and he said he was. You further said that you did not have the resources to monitor the dog on a 24 hour basis, and that you would therefore accept the owner's statements that he is feeding the dog. I told you I had spoken with several other people who were concerned about the dog and it appeared the dog was not being fed by the owner, but by other people. Various volunteers have been MITCHELL/TRAMBITAS March 19, 2004 Page 2 going by to check on the dog's situation. One volunteer took some straw by for the doghouse. You also said that you could not see the dog's ribs and therefore, the dog was receiving adequate nutrition. I said that since the dog had long hair, you would probably not be able to see her ribs regardless of how thin she was. You made it clear that SpokAnimal was not going to take any further action regarding this dog. I said that all I could do was to write a letter to Dave Mandyke at the City as well as Cherie Rodgers and other City Council members. Apparently you spoke to Chris Anderlik, the President of Animal Advocates of the Inland Northwest, about the dog,during the week of March 15, 2004. Mrs. Anderlik advised me that you told her that the SpokAnimal veterinarian had examined the dog and she did not find any evidence of an ear infection. I continue to receive messages about this dog. The latest message I received informed me that the dog has a cough and is sneezing. (That was as of March 17, 2004.) During our conversation on March 4, 2004, I asked about another matter that had been brought to my attention. I inquired if SpokAnimal had investigated the situation which had been called in by a man named Kelly. Kelly called me to tell me about a dog that had been running loose in his neighborhood. Apparently the dog is a pitbull. Kelly knew where the dog lived and approached the neighbor to advise him that the dog was running at Iarge. The man told Kelly that he (Kelly's neighbor) beats the dog, but it doesn't do any good. Kelly called SpokAnimal to report what the man said about beating the dog. Kelly felt that the person to whom he spoke was not very interested in the dog's situation. When Kelly had not received a return call from SpokAnimal after several days, he contacted Animal Advocates and me. You said you were unaware of the situation, but that the owner's statements that he beat the dog were hearsay, and would be inadmissible. I did not know that you have a legal background, and when I attempted to say that the owner's statement would be a declaration against interest, you cut me off. I am not sure where you received your legal training, but I am certain you will remember that the hearsay rule is subject to many exceptions. You said you wanted me to call you back and give you the dog's address, but since it was clear that you believed there was no legal basis for any further investigation, I felt it was futile to call back. In addition, Kelly had already called SpokAnimal and provided the address where the dog Iived several weeks before our conversation. MITCHELL/TRAMBITAS March 19, 2004 Page 3 You told both Mrs, Anderlik and me that the dog on East Boone was taken to the SpokAnimal Vet Clinic to be examined for a possible ear infection. As you are aware, the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington State Administrative Code changed last year with regard to veterinary practices operated by Humane Societies. Under current law, Humane Societies and animal control agencies are only permitted to provide limited services to low income residents. RCW 18.92.260 is as follows: (1)(a) Subject to the limitations in this section, animal care and control agencies as defined in RCW 16.52.011 and nonprofit humane societies, that have qualified under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code may provide limited veterinary services to animals owned by qualified low-income households. The veterinary services provided shall be limited to electronic identification, surgical sterilization, and vaccinations, A veterinarian or veterinary technician acting within his or her scope of practice must perform the limited veterinary services. For purposes of this section, "low-income household"means the same as in RCW 43.185A.010. Therefore, the dog on East Boone should have been seen by a private veterinarian, and not the SpokAnimal vet. Many of us remain concerned about the health of the dog on East Boone, and if she is pregnant, the health of her unborn puppies. Yours truly, 11 1 1 1 11.1LC CHERYL C. MITCHELL Attorney at Law pc: Mrs. Chris Anderlik, President, Animal Advocates of the Inland Northwest Mr. Dave Mandyke, Director of Public Works Ms. Cherie Rodgers, Spokane City Councilwoman Mr. Dennis Hessian, President, Spokane City Council Mr. Joe Shogan, Spokane City Councilman CM/CORRDO3/C SPOKANI,LTR MITCHELL LAW OFFICE _ FILE U f !�[�IfIIEEII West 28 Augusta Spokane, Washington 99205 (509) 327-5181 April 19, 2005 Fax (509) 327-2979 Mayor James West City of Spokane 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Fifth Floor Spokane, Washington 99201-3333 Mr. Tim Szambelan Assistant City Attorney 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Fifth Floor Spokane, Washington 99201-3333 Ms. Gail Mackie Executive Director SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. 710 N. Napa St. Spokane, Washington 99202 RE: SPOKANIMAL'S REFUSAL TO SERVE THE PUBLIC Dear Mayor West, Mr. Szambelan and Ms. Mackie: I recently spoke to Ms. Hannah DiPaula, who lives in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, about a situation that took place on Sunday, March 13, 2005. Ms. DiPaula's cousin, who lives in Spokane, attempted to commit suicide and was taken to the hospital. Ms. DiPaula came to Spokane to attend to her cousin's affairs. I understand that her cousin had a dog and a cat. Because of her cousin's hospitalization, there would be no one to care for the animals. Ms. DiPaula called SpokAnimal and explained the situation to the person who answered the phone. She asked if SpokAnimal would send someone out to pick up the animals. She was told that the charge for this would be $80. When Ms. DiPaula said that she did not have $80, the SpokAnimal employee said, "We don't do this for free." When Ms. DiPaula asked what she should do '�, with the animals, the employee said. "I don't know what to tell you." MITCHELL/WEST & SZAMBELAN & MACKIE April 19, 2005 Page 2 Ms. DiPaula then told the SpokAnimal employee that she would have to leave the animals in the house with no one to attend to them. The SpokAnimal employee then told her that if she (Ms. DiPaula) left the animals, SpokAnimal would charge her with animal abandonment. As I previously advised the City Council at the meeting in February, 2004, I have spoken with individuals who have told me that SpokAnimal is charging the public for animal control services. My neighbor was charged $25 by SpokAnimal when she found a stray cat and took it to SpokAnimal. The woman who cuts my hair was charged $20 to take in two stray cats she found in her neighborhood. Apparently, the City is aware that SpokAnimal is charging the public for animal control services. These fees are in addition to the money that is paid to SpokAnimal by the City of Spokane. I am requesting that you provide me with a list of the fees charged by _ SpokAnimal for specific services and the dates these fees were adopted. I will appreciate your response to this letter at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, C CQ6A, LeLe CHERYL C. MITCHELL Attorney at Law pc: Ms. Hannah DiPaula CM/CORR/D/04A WEST.LTR Richman, James From: West, James Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:58 PM To: Richman, James Subject: FW: City Animal Control Here's another email. James E. West Mayor City of Spokane W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane, WA 99201-3335 (509) 625-6250 www.spokanecity.ord <http:f/www.spokanecity.org> This e-mail contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the addressee. Do not read, copy or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. if you are not the addressee, please permanently delete it without printing and call me immediately at (509) 625-6250 From: Simonet, Patricia Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:15 PM To: West, James; 'editor @spokesman.com" Cc: 'Psimonet©petalk,org' Subject: City Animal Control 12 August 2004 Mayor James E. West 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201. Dear Mr. Mayor: Recently, I found a lost dog on a very busy intersection in Spokane. Here is my saga of placing that dog in the city's animal control system. I took the animal to Spokanimal and arrived to the shelter a 6:35pm. Spokaniinal closes at 6:30pm. Many staff members were still there as I saw many cars in the parking lot. I knocked and received no reply. I walked to the back of the building and there before me were three women emerging from the building. They saw me and retreated back inside the building. I walked up to the door and they stood there looking much like deer in the headlights of a car. I suppose they were bewildered by my bold move so I spoke, "Where is the after hours receiving area?" "We don't have one," was the feeble reply. The woman who answered stood 5 feet from the door. Apparently I was a menacing image of five-foot-two-ness. "Then where do I leave this dog?" I continued with my queries. "You can bring it back tomorrow." She yelled through the door. "No, I cannot keep the dog overnight. I have a dog that will worry this dog." Worry was a polite and brief way of saying,"My dog will bark at this dog,relentlessly harassing him as a stranger to his home." "We are closed."A concise reply to be sure. Long Pause "I will wait."At this point I decided to wait as I was magically preventing them from departing. When they saw me they retreated into the building, now I would be as obnoxious as they had been, I would wait them out. Finally, after a few minutes one of the women said, "Someone will meet you at the front entrance." They neglected to tell the person meeting me at the front entrance that she would be receiving a dog,therefore, the woman was surprised when I said"Don't you want the information on where I found the dog?" "Oh, you are leaving the dog?" she puzzled. "Yes." When I was allowed to bring the dog inside a good ten minutes had transpired. Hnun.. I think to myself, this would have gone much faster had they not been so silly about talking through the door. "We don't get paid to do this,"was their greeting as I entered. "That is nonsense,you have a contract with the city for animal control,"I retorted. "I mean we don't get paid after 6:30pm," was the first woman's corrected reply. "Well, then do this out of the kindness of your heart,"I implored. Silence "We have to take a donation," the first woman quipped "Then it is not a donation if you require it,"I quipped back. Silence "Why don't you have an after hours receiving area?"I again queried. "We can't afford it. The city doesn't pay us to have one."The second woman interjected. "Why not use the revenue from license sales?"I ask. "Because that is what pays for the shelter." "Then what about the approximately$250,000 you get for your contract with the city?" 2 Silence Then the reply, "We just get mad when we have to stay and not get paid." "Well,I just get mad when I pay for licenses and you won't even enter my pets' microchip numbers into your computer system. For the last two years,twice a year, I have given this information to your agency in two different formats,by voice and in writing. Each time the information is not entered." "We can check on that for you," she curtly replies. She does check on that and guess what?My pets' microchip information was not listed in the computer. I was not surprised and neither was the womaan. She then began some mumbled speech about how they have a new person now to enter this information,blah,blah, blab. But at that point I didn't care I was thinking,I needed to move to the county so my pets' information would be reliably logged. My mind drifted back to the scene at hand. They were still blathering about how they won't be paid for taking in this dog.I interrupted, "Yes, but presumably you love animals and that is why you work here. And because you love anixnals you will take this dog... out of the kindness of your heart." "Yes; out of the kindness of my heart, because I won't be paid." The women did take the dog in that evening. They took 15 minutes as opposed to the actual 3 minutes it would have taken. I timed how long it took me to complete the paper work and hand the leash over to the second women. I don't believe that anyone who is unwilling to stay three minutes after closure should be working at any of the local animal shelters. Also, I believe that Spokanimal needs to add an after hours receiving area to their facility. Otherwise,the only options for Good Samaritans who rescue dogs from traffic are to turn them loose or take them home.Turning a stray dog loose is not an option and sometimes taking a found dog home is not an option. Patricia Simonet Applied Animal Behaviorist& Cognitive Ethologist PeTalk - solving problem behaviors one pet at a time P.O. Box 19429 Spokane, WA 99219 509-456-8970 simonet r i etalk.or_ <mailto:i simonet • .etalk.or'> www.petalk.org<http://www.petalk.org> 3 MITCHELL LAW OFFICE West 28 Augusta Spokane, Washington 99205 327-5181 November 9, 2005 Fax(509)(509) 327-2979 Ms. Gail Mackie Executive Director SpokAnimal CARE 710 N. Napa Street Spokane, Washington 99202 RE: DOG BITE CASE INVOLVING THOMAS JONES ON OCTOBER 11, 2005 Dear Ms. Mackie: I am writing in response to your letter dated November 2, 2005 regarding the aforementioned case. I am enclosing an Authorization to Release Information signed by Ms. Sandra L. Jones, the mother of Thomas Jones. I have spoken with Ms. Jones regarding your letter. As you know, her son was bitten on October 11, 2005, while he was walking home from school. In your letter, you wrote, "We made several attempts to reach the alleged victim's mother, by telephone and by leaving a tag on her door, and were not able to make contact. To clarify, we are unable to proceed unless we are able to make contact with the alleged victim's parent or guardian, and, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to speak to Ms. Jones." Immediately after Thomas was bitten, Ms. Jones has informed me. that she called SpokAnimal. She was told that she would have to speak with Officer Johnson and that no one else could assist her. Ms. Jones left a message for Officer Johnson but her call was not returned. When Ms. Jones called SpokAnimal again, after not hearing from Officer Johnson, she was told that Officer Johnson was off work for several days. Ms. Jones advised me that she called SpokAnimal approximately eight times in the weeks after her son was bitten. Her calls were not returned promptly and in fact, the majority of calls were disregarded. It was this failure to respond to Ms. Jones that necessitated my letter to you. MITCHELL/MACKIE November 9, 2005 Page 2 In fact, Ms. Jones' calls were not responded to until well after the ten day period for administration of a rabies vaccination had expired. As you will recall, I requested a copy of the certificate showing the dog had been vaccinated for rabies. This was not provided to me until you included it in your letter of November 2, 2005. I noted that the certificate was apparently faxed to SpokAnimal from Dr. Landkammer's office on November 2, 2005, the same date you wrote to me. Thus, it is appears that SpokAnimal did not obtain proof that the dog had been vaccinated until well after the ten day period for quarantine had expired. Ms. Jones has a telephone answering machine, yet she states that she did not receive any messages from SpokAnimal. She also says that she has not received any "tag" from SpokAnimal on her door. As of this date, Ms. Jones has completed the paperwork with Officer Johnson, who did contact Ms. Jones after I wrote to you concerning this matter. This, of course, was not done promptly after the dog bite. SpokAnimal's delay in handling this matter has caused both Mr. Jones and her son a great deal of unnecessary distress. In your final paragraph of your letter, you state, "Your letter requests a copy of any report completed in this matter. Please clarify whether you are attempting to request this document pursuant to the Washington public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17. As you know, SpokAnimal is a non-profit corporation that contracts with the City of Spokane to perform certain services related to animal control. As such, SpokAnimal does not constitute an "agency" or "local agency" within the scope of the Public Disclosure Act. If you are requesting records pursuant to (sic) Public Records Act, the proper party of whom to make such a request is the City of Spokane." MITCIIELL/MACKIE November 9, 2005 Page 3 In response to your question, my letter requested information under the Public Records Act. I assume that your letter of November 2, 2005 is a denial of my request for a copy of the report made in this case. If I have misconstrued your letter as a denial, please inform me in writing within the next ten days. Yours truly, L) y ( -)T L -c ILLLC CHERYL C. MITCHELL Attorney at Law Enclosure: Authorization to Release Information pc: Ms. Sandra L. Jones Mrs. Kim Kamel, Attorney for SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. Mr. James West, Mayor, City of Spokane Mr. Dave Mandyke, Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Spokane Mr. Tim Szambelan, Assistant City Attorney, City of Spokane Mr. James Richman, Assistant City Attorney, City of Spokane CM CORR,DO3B M.1C 2-B 1T.LTR SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. 710 N Napa Spokane, Wa. 99202 509-534-8133 November 2, 2005 Cheryl Mitchell Mitchell Law Office 28 W Augusta Spokane, Wa. 99205 RE: Alleged dog bite case involving Thomas Jones-October 11, 2005 Ms Mitchell: We are in receipt of your letter of October 19, 2005, faxed to my office on October 20. I returned to work from vacation on October 31, 2005. As per your request, we are enclosing a copy of the rabies vaccination record for the chow, brown male dog belonging to Jim Blair, 1111 W Spofford. As you can see, it is current. The dog was quarantined as required by the Spokane Regional Health Department, and a copy of the Health District form letter was given to the owner. SpokAnimal is unable to issue a citation or a notice of Potentially Dangerous Dog or Dangerous Dog without completion of the form required by City Legal. SpokAnimal is required to complete this form in the presence of and with the assistance of the alleged victim or, in this case, his parent or guardian. We made several attempts to reach the alleged victim's mother, by telephone and by leaving a tag on her door, and were not able to make contact. To clarify, we are unable to proceed unless we are able to make contact with the alleged victim's parent or guardian, and, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to speak to Ms. Jones. We will once again try to reach her and proceed with the issuance of the Potentially Dangerous Dog determination. The form reads: "You have the right to appeal the potentially dangerous do declaration by requesting a hearing before the director of the animal control authority within fourteen days of service of the notice. ...Absent a request for a hearing, the notice of the potentially dangerous dog declaration constitutes a final determination that the dog is a potentially dangerous dog". Because of the potential conflict of interest in this case, we have been advised that the hearing, should the alleged victim wish to proceed, should be done in a different realm. To that end, we have contacted the Spokane City Hearings Examiner who hears aft Dangerous Dog appeals, He will listen to testimony on this case should it go forward. Your letter requests a copy of any report completed in this matter. Please clarify whether you are attempting to request this document pursuant to the Washington Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17. As you know, SpokAnimal is a non-profit corporation that contracts with the City of Spokane to perform certain services related to animal control. As such, SpokAnimal does not constitute an "agency" or "local agency" within the scope of the Public Disclosure Act. If you are requesting records pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the proper party of whom to make such a request is the City of Spokane. Sincerely, ,•' Gail B)ackie ..Exective Director cc: Tracy N. LeRoy SR.cotn: No room for stray cats at many shelters Page 1 of 2 SPOKESMANREVIEW.COM Sunday, August 31, : SPOKANE No room for stray cats at many shelters Meghann M. Cuniff Staff writer May 15,2008 When Kat Biggs found a pregnant cat off the Interstate 90's Liberty Lake exit, she knew she'd have no trouble finding the feline and her kittens a home, A volunteer with a German Shepherd rescue in Washington, Biggs says she has the - -- ._•connections needed to match stray animals with loving homes in no time But the Newman • Lake resident wanted to make sure the fat and friendly grey and white cat didn't have an owner, ._, • so she dropped it off at the Harvard Gentle Care Animal Hospital. 1 - ,--;: 1. • "4 She returned the next day to learn the cat had been taken to SpokAnimal C.A.R.E the night before. SpokAnimal policy prohibits employees from revealing the fate of cats brought to the shelter, and Biggs fears the worst. "I'm not even a cat person... but I love animals." says Kat Spokane County, as well as Spokane and other cities, have repealed local ordinances that Bi9gs of Newman Lake who used to mandate a three-day holding period for unlicensed stray cats. That means cats like the tried to save a stray cat she'd D n e Biggs found have little chance of survival when they're brought to the packed shelter. found by taking it to Harvard animal hospital last week, only to find it had gone missing the Had she known that, "I would never have brought her in,"Biggs said. "I'm furious." next day.She helps place rescued German Shepherds 3iggs's story underscores what officials say is a general lack of community awareness about with good families. Her dogs :he feline overpopulation problem across the Inland Northwest. are Chloe, left, and Sam. (Rajah Bose / The Spokesman-Review) 'We're all working together to get a handle on this, but we don't have one right now,'said Gail Mackie, executive director of SpokAnimal. n Kootenai County, cities don't regulate cats and lack cat shelters. There, stray cats have no where to go. The Kootenai Humane Society is a no-kill shelter and has a waiting list of about 75 people waiting to drop off their cats. That list will grow to over 500 by the end of next month,"Executive Director Phil Morgan said. "It's a huge problem." 5,nd with cat shelters in Spokane and Spokane County crawling with unclaimed cats, pregnant strays aren't tops on the list of cats to Save, officials say. We have problems with bringing more into the world when we're euthanizing, in our community, thousands of others"Mackie said. The sad fact is we are adopting less than 50 percent of the cats that come into our care." 3ggs' situation stemmed from miscommunication, said Darryl Clark, co-owner of the Harvard shelter. Employees didn't relay the nessage to the woman who oversees animal care in Liberty Lake that Biggs had dibs on the cat, so the cat was sent to SpokAnimal )efore its three-day hold period was up. It just seemed like the case of'here's another pregnant stray kitty cat, what do you do?'"said Bobbi Anderson. "With the info I had, hought that was the best decision."The cat hadn't had its shots and didn't seem well cared for.Anderson said she knew the chances 3f it being adopted were slim, It's just kind of a fact of life with this job," she said. "We have an amazing amount of feral cats." ittp://www.spokesmanreview.comltools/stoiy breakingttews_p£asp?1D-14951 8/31/2008 3R.com: No room for stray cats at many shelters Page 2 of 2 3iggs said she doesn't want to point fingers and knows no one acted maliciously when deciding the fate of the pregnant stray. But she vents to make sure such miscommunication over what could happen to the cat doesn't happen again. She's worked with dozens of Inimal shelters across the region and had never heard of one not having a hold period for stray cats until she called SpokAnimal to nquire about the fate of the pregnant feline. Is the public aware that cats pretty much aren't safe anywhere?" she said. "I just think the epidemic of the overpopulation of cats and he lack of places for them to go in this region is just terrible." Mackie said the lack of a hold period for stray cats was driven by the overpopulation epidemic and the need to bring policies in line vith the county. It's quite simply the numbers"she said. "We're handling 5,000 cats a year and less than 300 of them are being reclaimed by the miner." _ike most shelters, SpokAnimal's goal is simple, Mackie said:find homes for stray animals, educate the public on solutions to the >verpopulation problem and prevent more animals from coming to the shelter. 3ut the overpopulation epidemic complicates that already enormous task. Everybody tries to do their best, but sometimes the problem is so overwhelming,"Clark said. Weghann M. Cuniff can be reached at(509) 459-5534 or by e-mail at meghannc jspokesman.corn hap;//www.spokesnianreview.corn/tools/story_breakingiiewspf.asp?1D 14951 8/31/2008