A City Farce
Neighborhood Council 7 heard last night a horrifying story of a Great Falls resident whose small yorkie was mauled and killed by a pit bull in the lower north side.
It was quite a tragic story. The victim had his dog on his porch, off his leash — one of those things that’s against the law though everyone does it anyway. A pit bull named Maniac, on its leash and with its owners, passes by — the yorkie runs down from the porch to greet it, the pit bull somehow becomes unleashed, and then grabs the yorkie in its jaws, running for several blocks, and literally “shredding” the smaller animal. $788 in vet’s bills later, there is nothing further that can be done. The yorkie dies. The pit bull escapes, and amidst half-hearted searching by animal control, which tells the victim that they’re “letting the pit bull’s owner handle it,” the pit bull isn’t retrieved for a week. Keep in mind this is a residential area near a school zone.
Now, this story in itself is a tragedy, but the real farce follows. Justifiably angry, the yorkie owner believes the pit bull owners have sicced their dog on his. He wants them to be ticketed for having an aggressive dog. It seems a simple designation, as the law states that any dog is an aggressive dog when it kills another domestic pet. So he calls the police in charge of animal control and what do they do? They ticket him, the passive and dead yorkie’s owner, with having his dog off a leash — on his porch. He’s fined $80.
He goes to municipal court to contest the ticket, where (he told NC7) ”I was treated like a dirtbig. I tried to explain my case, but whenever I attempted to say something, I was prevented from doing so.”
Meanwhile, the animal shelter — which took the pit bull — releases it to its owners: an animal that tore apart another dog.
Everyone last night seemed to have a story about the incompetence of animal control — a department which gets $500,000 from the city and still manages to provide mediocre service. One person at last night’s meeting said she’d called animal control after cornering a loose dog on her property. Their advice? Let it go. They told her that unless she wanted to keep it there until after 2 p.m., when they started patrol, there wasn’t anything they could/would do. The shelter’s director, meanwhile, was said at the meeting to be available only between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Is there any doubt that this facility was run better when it was in private hands?
I think it’s outrageous how this poor dog owner was treated by muni court and the animal shelter. I’ve heard other stories, too — like the guy who shows up to get a parking pass from the city garage at 3:45 p.m. (the hours are until 5 p.m.), only to be turned away because the employee “had already finished those up for the day.” There is a really serious attitude problem at some city offices. I think some of the City’s workers need to remember just how lucky they are to occupy relatively easy jobs with comparatively good pay and excellent benefits.
Without an employee review and retention system that weighs heavily customer satisfaction input, such attitudes will continue.
I am going to offer a guess about the Municipal Court incident. The fellow went down for his initial appearance on the ticket. He tried to plead his case. Judge Luth said “Guilty or Not Guilty.” He tried to plead his case. Judge Luth said, “Sir, Guilty or Not Guilty?” He felt chastened.
It happens frequently in Municipal Court. People want to argue their guilt or innocence at a time when they are merely to enter a plea.
I do not know that this is what happened, but it would not surprise me if it is what happened. In my experience, Judge Luth does a good job. It probably gets frustrating, though, when you are trying to accept pleas from 50 people, and each wants to tell you why he or she did not deserve the ticket. Time and place.
If that’s not what happened, he was treated wrongly.
Wait a minute, let me see if I’ve got this straight.
A yorkie owner has his dog outside, unleashed, which is in violation of local leash laws. A pit bull owner is walking his dog on a leash (actually obeying the law). The yorkie runs off the porch at the pit bull. The pit bull “somehow becomes unleashed” (the pit bull owner probably dropped the leash while he was attempting to separate the two dogs), and runs off with the yorkie. The yorkie dies. Is that right?
Don’t get me wrong here. I love dogs. I’ve pretty much had dogs my whole life, but based on your description, this whole incident was caused by the yorkie owner, not the owner of the pit bull. If the owner of the yorkie had bothered to obey the law, his dog would still be alive, and he wouldn’t have close to $800 in vet bills. He should have gotten a ticket for not having his dog on the leash.
Dogs approach other dogs, usually. The yorkie did so, and the guy was almost in tears last night telling how he regretted not having the dog on a leash (he frequently let the dog stay on the porch with him without a leash, and other people at the meeting commented that this was fairly common, albeit unlawful, practice). Apparently, the pit bull was completely unleashed at the time of attack — the leash not even attached, as it would be if the owner had just dropped it. Or so the story goes. Personally, I don’t regard the yorkie as having “instigated” anything; clearly it wasn’t in a killing mood. The pit bull, on the other hand, was apparently trained in such a manner that it thought nothing of hauling off and killing a smaller dog. Having such a dog is itself a violation of the law, Mihalis, and a much more serious one than keeping a perfectly benign dog off a leash.
This is what I love about discussing things with you Travis. The moving story line.
The pit bull was on the leash, then it wasn’t. Apparently the owner of the pit bull took the dog off the leash just so it would have the chance to maul the defenseless yorkie? Until the story changes to where the pit bull owner took his dog off the leash and the pit bull went up on the other individuals porch and ripped the helpless yorkie off it’s leash and ran off with it, the yorkie owner is still at fault, and without his violation of the law, none of this would have happened. I feel for him, really, but all this really is his fault.
I know, I know, I’m a moral pervert.
Umm, perhaps if you’d read the original post more carefully, you’d be more acquainted with the subtleties of the storyline. I said the pit bull “somehow became unleashed” after being on a leash in the original post. I don’t know how it happened; all I know is that, as I wrote above, the pit bull somehow was loose of its owners and ran down the street and then wasn’t found for a week. Just because you read the same thing twice and come up with different impressions does not mean I’ve changed the story; it means only that you’d score badly on the SAT or the LSAT’s reading comp sections.
I scored very well on my SATs, thank you very much Travis.
Note the timeline. Pit bull on leash, yorkie runs to pit bull, pit bull off leash, yorkie toast.
Note the timeline. Unless you’d like to claim that the owner of the pit bull took his animal off it’s leash sometime between the yorkie leaving the porch (which it wouldn’t have been able to do if the owner of the yorkie obeyed the law) and arriving at the pit bulls location, your story just changed.
Umm, duh — that is sorta the inference of what I’ve written. I mean, unless there are other explanations for the pit bull ending up off the leash.
There is no contradiction between the first statement, which says that the pit bull was leashed one moment and off the leash the next, and saying the “pit bull was completely unleashed at the time of attack”…
Really?
Actually Travis, there is. However, in the immortal words of GGS, I’m not “in the mood for your shit”. Spin your little tales and shed your tears for the poor yorkie.
You should talk to David over at Greater Falls. He has a very similar story over there. Of course, the variation in details makes it look like one or both of you has no idea what you’re talking about.
Ummm, sounds like that story and mine line up pretty well, actually. Thanks for the link.
I don’t believe the homeowner has to leash on their own private property if the dog is under direct control, could be an invisible fence or such. If their dog leaves the property to approach a passing dog on a leash there is this explanation from the city Frequently Asked Questions: Animal Ordinance -
“I was walking my dog and a dog running free charged us causing me to fear for the safety of my dog and myself, what can I do?
Call Animal Control immediately. City ordinances require pet owners to keep their pet in their yard or on a leash, and any animal running free and charging you could result in charges being filed against the pet owner for animal at large. Also, depending upon the circumstances, the owner could be charged with nuisance or dangerous animal violations as well. If you are in reasonable fear for your safety and took defensive action to protect yourself or your dog, the owner of the pet could be charged with dangerous animal. If the dog chased you and your pet, that could be a nuisance animal violation.”
Yorkie pick the wrong dog to go all territorial on. Sad result that would not have happened if the owner kept him under control. If not “greeting” another dog it could have easily been a FedEX truck running Yorkie over while he was greeting a passing squirrel.
The Yorkie owner has to live with their mistake and stop looking to blame others. Enough of the Pit Bull media sensation.
This feels kind of weird, but I agree with Mihalis. I had to re-read everything because that seems so impossible.
Sure, Mihalis is being a little pit-bullish toward Travis, but is right that the whole thing wouldn’t have happened in the first place if the Yorkie owner had had control of his pet. Sorry, Travis, but this isn’t something “everyone does.” Our dogs don’t leave the fenced backyard without being leashed, period. And our reasoning isn’t because of a slavish adherence to the rules, but out of concern for the safety of our pets and others. I don’t think I’m living in an ivory doghouse with that point of view, either. If I love my pets, I’m going to minimize the chances that they’ll run out into the street, or down the sidewalk after another dog.
No one ever accused Travis of letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
“let the dog stay on the porch with him without a leash,
Did the Yorkie go off the owner’s property, other than being carried off?
I don’t think I have to have my dog on a leash in my own yard, or on my porch.
From a public safety standpoint it’s hard to compare letting an aggressive Yorkie run free with letting an aggressive Pit Bull run free. Pit Bulls can easily kill children on the street and Yorkies cannot. The owner of the Pit Bull did not have their dog leashed and also the dog was not obedient enough to come on command while running down the street in a blood lust. This Pit Bull may be a fine dog but due to its potential for harming others and it’s demonstrated lack of obedience while in the proximity of its owner, it should be put down. Of course the Yorkie owner should get a ticket for his dog’s contribution but one dog off the leash doesn’t give a pass to other owners whose dogs are looking for a snack.
I agree with wolfpack.
If I were animal control, I would forgo the ticket against the yorkie owner, even if warranted by law. His dog is dead. He now knows the law and the risk of a seemingly innocuous violation. Where is the state’s interest in punishing him further? A little discretion and empathy ought to have been the order of the day.
On a scale of relative threats to humans and other pets, a Yorkie is a butter knife and a Pit Bull is a loaded gun with a defectively sensitive trigger. Owners of dangerous animals have a concomitant responsibility to take care and keep them under control. These pit bull owners failed to do so; they couldn’t even keep it on leash. They should be ticketed and the dog should be put down.
Seems to me there’s a lot of editorializing based off of Travis’s sketchy, second hand, one sided account. Has anybody bothered to talk to the owner of the pit bull before deciding that the evil animal in a “blood lust” snatching innocent yorkies away from their loving owners should be put down? Personally, I’d love to see some of the ever reviled “He said, he said”, instead of just the “He said and that’s all that matters” we’re seeing now.
Wolfpack,
Using “blood lust” and ” looking for a snack” shows your bias and desire to demonize the breed and does not help determine the facts here. When all you do is watch cable tv I can understand how the weak minded will form such an opinion.
Shall we use your limited thought process and assume all Muslims are a danger too.
Of course all Muslims are not dangerous. Just the ones who shoot people, blow things up, and fly planes into buildings are dangerous.
Duh.
The circumstances of this case are disputed. Since we weren’t there, we don’t know them. I know what the resident said last night. I really don’t know the other side of the story.
What I do know, however, is that this case has allowed us to highlight some problems over at animal control. They won’t take calls before 2 p.m.? Dispatch policy is to recommend that loose animals corralled before 2 p.m. be set free? And all of this taking up $500,000/year and the lion’s share of a police lieutenant’s time?
Travis, thank you for writing this post. As a city, we need to do better.
Thanks Aaron — that was the main point of my writing the post, not to get mired in the nuance of the pit bull-yorkie confrontation. I should also note that I feel comfortable providing ‘one side’ of the story — just like anyone at this particular public meeting heard it.
THANKS Travis for your article highlighting the serious problems with the city’s operation of animal control. (I will also add the poor operation at the animal shelter.)
As usual some of the more “learned” responders to your article chose to ignore the main theme of your article which is the “incompetence” by the city on animal control/shelter issues and instead decided to get into a hand-wringing scene on who is to blame for one or more dogs not being on a leash. Needless to say it appears that both dogs were not attached to a leash that was at least attached to an owner when the attack occured. One dog is dead; the other dog is home; the owner of the dead dog is fined $80.00 and evidently the owner of the dog that killed the other dog is not fined. I have to sympathize with the owner of the pit bull whose dog was obviously attacked by one of the meanest breed of dogs – the dreaded Yorkie. The nerve of the owner of the Yorkie to think he could have his dog on his own property, on the front porch of his own house without the benefit of a leash.
But now for the real issue of your article…………………..
The cost of operating the animal shelter and providing animal control is not well known. The cost to the taxpayers is well above the $500,000 stated. FY2010 adopted budget for animal control and shelter is $570,431. This is an INCREASE from FY2009 of $30,300 and an INCREASE from FY2008 of $138,138 (actual budget FY2008 $432,293). What one needs to put this in proper perspective is that when the city asumed operations from the humane society in early July, 2007, they had budgeted $115,000 for animal contol/shelter operatons. The total cost to the taxpayers since the city took over by the end of this fiscal year will be $1,542,000. Had the city continued to contract with the humane society the total cost would have been $487,000 which includes the increase to the contract as proposed by the humane society to $186,000 per year. The INCREASE COST to the city (and yes, you the taxpayer) is OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS! ($1,055,000). In other words, the city has paid out more than a million dollars over and above what the city would have paid had the commission/mayor decided to keep their contract with the humane society. If this isn’t enough to cause some people to question the use of taxpayer dollars then perhaps someone at city hall can explain why the cost operations went up over $30,000 from last year while at the same time the city REDUCED the number of animal control staff by 1 FTE and shelter operations by .5 FTE? Isit any wonder the person was told to wait until after 2:00pm to call for help. The city has one less person in animal control. Also please look at the city personnel budget for animal control/shelter operations. In FY2008 the city budgeted $253,856 for personnel. FY2009 the budget for personnel was $387,298. Now (FY2010) with 1.5 fewer staff the personnel budget is $420,412. This represents an INCREASE of $166,556 from 2008 to 2010 for 1.5 FEWER staff. It is no wonder the police department had to go to the voters in August for a special safety levy (failed). How many police officers would a million dollars have hired the past two years? I hope the new city commission is better at looking out for taxpayer’s dollars than what we currently experience; excluding Mary who remains a great voice for reason in what is otherwise a sea of incompetence!
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK TRAVIS!
Thank you voters for removing the last incompetent from the city commission.
Hopefully new oversight will straighten out this animal control issue. That ill-conceived “temporary” solution left behind by Stebbins/Lawton Rosenbaum is an ugly black-eye on the city.
A long post with lots of numbers that don’t tell the whole story. In their last proposal to the City, HSCC proposed $180,000 to run the shelter WITHOUT animal control. In addition, this is a net figure since HSCC got to keep revenues. Remember that revenues must be subtracted when making any cost analysis. Comparing the net paid to HSCC with the expense side of the equation only for the City is a blatant distortion of the facts.
Anon 7:28 pm. I find your comments interesting…….WRONG……..but interesting. The HSCC contract proposal to the city (May, 2007) was for $186,000 for BOTH animal control and shelter operations. This was the contract the city turned down while they assumed “temporary” control of animal control/shelter operations. Obviously the definition of “temporary” has a far different meaning to the commissioners than most people. If you want the facts regarding the terms and amount of the HCC proposal, I suggest you contact the City Manager’s office and ask for a copy.
I find your question regarding the net costs versus revenues with merit as long as we recognize the fact that had the city continued to contract with HSCC the TOTAL cost to the city would have been $558,000 (3 years). I was incorrect in my original blog as I did not correctly use $186,000 for the three years. I incorrectly used two years at $186,000 and inadvertently included the old contract amount of $115,000 when I should have used $186,000 for all three years.) The city will have spent $1,542,855 to deliver the same services by the end of the current fiscal year. Lets go ahead and look at revenues and expenditures for the city. The following nmbers are from the City’s website:
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 (projected)
Expenditures $432,293 $540,131 $570,431
Revenues $165,783 $190,473 $172,300
NET LOSS – $266,510 -$349,658 -$398,131
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ( 3 years ) $1,542,855
TOTAL REVENUES ( 3years ) $ 528,556
TOTAL NET LOSS ( 3 years ) -$1,014,299
I guess I owe you and the readers an apology! The actual loss to the city is $1,014,299. I incorrectly said the loss to the city was $1,055,000. I am not sure $40,701 would be considered a “blatant distortion of the facts” but I leave that up to you and the readers, especially since I must also pointed out my error stating the HSCC cost would have been $487,000 while it would have been $558,000.
Any way you want to add/subtract numbers, the City of Great Falls will have lost $1,014,299 operating the animal control/shelter.
Had the city contracted with the HSCC the city would have saved $984,855. Admittedly not the $1,055,000 I originally stated……….but never-the-less a very substantial amount of taxpayer dollars.
“If you want the facts regarding the terms and amount of the HCC proposal, I suggest you contact the City Manager’s office and ask for a copy.”
Good suggestion. Perhaps you should contact the City Manager’s office and ask for a copy of the amended HSCC proposal dated 9/4/07. HSCC withdrew their offer to run animal control. Apparently economic reality set in.
I am going to start leaving my wifes cat on the front porch……
http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=240
“Any way you want to add/subtract numbers, the City of Great Falls will have lost $1,014,299 operating the animal control/shelter.
Had the city contracted with the HSCC the city would have saved $984,855. Admittedly not the $1,055,000 I originally stated……….but never-the-less a very substantial amount of taxpayer dollars.”
Please help us with your math. Wouldn’t you take the $1,014,299 and subtract the $558,000 that HSCC wanted (ignoring for the moment that they apparently rescinded this proposal) and get a net additional cost of $456,299 over 3 years? That’s still a lot of money, but remember it assumes HSCC would do animal control (which they took off the table) and had the financial ability to continue to run the shelter at a loss.
Continuing saga of the city continuing to spend, spend, spend,, waste, waste, waste, lose, lose, lose……………..
First of all Anon 7:28pm (I assume the same person Anon 7:33am) had the city decided to accept the May, 2007, HSCC offer to provide ALL services for $186,000 the city would have saved just a little under one million dollars over the last three years. That is not a myth; it is fact. The city in the summer of 2007 made it very clear they did not want to operate the shelter except on a “temporary” basis but intended to provide animal control services no matter the outcome of shelter operations. Why in the world would the HSCC (September 2007) submit an offer to do animal control when the city hade made it very clear they did would not give up animal control? HSCC provided what was asked for by then City Manager Lawton – a proposal to provide serviecs operating the shelter. As far as I know, the city has never responded to the proposal from the HSCC that the city requested be submitted.
The current city budget makes it very clear they will maintain control of animal control operations while “working with the Animal Foundation to take over shelter operations”. This was the city’s intention in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and it remains the goal in 2009. I don’t begrudge the Animal Foundation from operating the shelter….whenever this century it is built, but lets at least be honest when it comes to what the past three years have cost the taxpayers of Great Falls. I think most people would agree that $558,000 for ALL services is a heck-uv-a lot better than $1,542,855 for the same services. On the bright side, I guess this loss of $984,855 is at least less than the millions the city has lost on the electric power/HGP fiasco and only about $400,000 over what the city lost on the Lewis & Clark fiasco. And we wonder why the city had to go to the people for a public safety levy for basic police and fire protection which by the way I voted for.
One can only hope that fiscal responsibility will again be the hallmark of our city commission once the new commission/mayor is sworn in this coming January. Time will tell but I have great expectations of Michael, Fred and Robert as they join Mary (and yes Bill) and set a new and positive direction for our city!
Somewhere in the discussion above it’s been left out that a major reason for the take back of the shelter was that HSCC had all but disbanded. They hadn’t hired a director for over a year, were down to 3 active board members and were clearly looking at some fundraising troubles that prevent them from operating. They refused the city’s offer to shore up their board in order to continue the relationship demonstrating a lack of concern for the HSCC’s unstable situation. Low bid from an entity that can’t perform is not the deal it’s been made out to be by the commenter above.
So the solution was high bid from a city is the finical toilet. Really solved that problem. A union shift mentality for a problem that is 24/7. Euthanasia at an alarming rate. Calls unanswered from brain dead 9-fivers.
Hand off from one fumbler to a chronic fumbler. Some great fix that was huh wolfpack.
I don’t mean to let facts get in the way of hyperbole and vitriol, but following is a quote from the 9/4/07 HSCC proposal:
“…HSCC submits this amended proposal to perform animal shelter services. HSCC believes code enforcement services are more appropriately performed by the Great Falls Police Department than a humane society and declines to submit a proposal to perform code enforcement services for that reason.”
This is confusing to me but it appears that the Humane Society submitted a propossal to run the shelter but not animal control. What does that mean financially for the total budget? It cannot mean the city lost a million dollars because it is not a fact that the society was bidding on animal control. The city would have to pay for all the animal control workers and equipment plus pay the society $186,000. Anyone know what animal control would cost? And under the proposal, who would keep money for the licenses and other fees that are charged? Doesn’t that have to figure in somehow, somewhere?
Wolfpack: I am not sure where you are getting your information unless you are looking at the agenda report #5A (July 3, 2007) written by city staff. “The HSCC has not had an executive director for over a year…..” The fact is that HSCC did hire an interim director followng the resignation of the previous executive director. The interim director was employed between September 2006 and March 2007. Considering the eventual actions by the city, HSCC wisely decided to delay hiring a executive director until it had a contract with the city.
Wolfpack, regarding your statement the city tried to “shore up the board”. John Lawton’s proposal was that all HSCC Board members resign and the city then handpicked members for the HSCC board. HSCC is a private non-profit organization and the proposal from the city amounted to nothing less than the city taking over a private organization. Surely Wolfpack you cannot be serious that the proposal by the City Manager amounted to “shoring up? I assume you were not aware of the details of Lawton’s proposal.
The fact of the matter is that the city wanted to take over operations as early as 2006. In the same document the city mentions a “variety of complaints from employees about mismanagement and wrongdoing”. It is interesting to note the same employees who complained about HSCC called a press conference in Decemer 2007 (6 months after the city police department took over operations) and made public their complaints against the police department’s operations related to animal control and the shelter. Same employees – only difference – their complaints were against the city’s operation of the shelter and animal control. You may recall the city eventually had to spend several thousand dollars to hire a lawyer to investigate the complaints. In fairness to the police department, I think most of the allegations made against the police department were not substantiated by the investigator. But honestly, doesn’t it seem a little strange the same employees had many of the same complaints against the police department?
Lastly! Anon 1:59 pm. The proposal you reference (September 2007) the HSCC obviously recognized the desire of the city to maintain animal control operations. The desire by the police department was very clear then (just as it is now) to keep animal control. Why would HSCC offer to do something the city had already made clear they were going to keep? HSCC was asked by the city to submit a proposal and HSCC submitted a proposal as requested. You miss the point. HAD THE CITY AGREED TO THE ORIGINAL OFFER (MAY 2007) BY HSCC TO PROVIDE ALL SERVICES FOR $186,000 PER YEAR, THE CITY WOULD HAVE SAVED ALMOST A MLLION DOLLARS. Considerng the loss by the city ($1,014,299) operating the shelter and providing animal control, HSCC must be extremely grateful they were not selected!
Wolfpack and Anon: I wish you both well! It has been a pleasure discussing this issue. I probably have not changed your position nor have you mine….but it has been a good exchange and I do appreciate keeping the comments on a civil level!
Anon 10:34am: My figures stand. Over the past three years (including the urrent yer) the city will have spent $1,542,855 to provide the same services HSCC offered to do for $558,000 during the sametime frame. What you are proposing is subtracting $558,000 twice from the cost of the city operations.
$1,542,855 MINUS $558,000 EQUALS $984,855. There is no reason to subract the cost of HSCC providing services twice. I sincerely thank you for your question! I hope this answers your question.
Anon 4:00pm. I agree it s confusing. In May 2007, HSCC submitted an offer to provide animal control and shelter operations for $186,000 per year. It was the decision by the city to take over animal control operations and shelter operations for what eventually created a situation of a loss of about one million dollars. Had the city accepted HSCC’s original bid, the total cost to the city for animal control and shelter operations would have been $558,000 over the past three years. The city will spend $1,542,855 by the end of this year to provide the exact same services – animal control and shelter operations. The proposal submitted in September 2007, did not include animal control because the city had made it very clear they did not want a proposal that included animal control.
“Anon 10:34am: My figures stand. Over the past three years (including the urrent yer) the city will have spent $1,542,855 to provide the same services HSCC offered to do for $558,000 during the same time frame. What you are proposing is subtracting $558,000 twice from the cost of the city operations.
$1,542,855 MINUS $558,000 EQUALS $984,855. There is no reason to subract the cost of HSCC providing services twice. I sincerely thank you for your question! I hope this answers your question.”
Sorry, but you still need to subtract the revenues the City collected that HSCC would have retained as part of the $558,000. The mathematically correct amount is $456,299. While that amount is mathematically correct, we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not it is subtracting apples from oranges.
I know that many are happy to believe the worst about the City, but the $984,855 figure just isn’t realistic.
Anon 6:21pm: I actually like most of the people at City Hall. I respect the commission members and while I do not agree with some of their decisions, including animal control/shelter and ECP, I would never take my disagreement to a personal level. I believe the commissioners try to do the best they can and I am never happy if the city looks bad.
Regarding your mathematics versus my mathematics (apples/oranges). I see what you are saying. Your number is only off by the difference of adding animal control fines to HSCC when those fines were always retained by the city and not counted as revenue by HSCC.
HSCC provides services (animal control/shelter) for $558,000 (3 years)
GFPD provides services (animal control/shelter) for $1,542,855 (3 years)
DIFFERENCE $984,855
HSCC receives $495,011 (revenue) 3 years.
GFPD receives $528,556 (revenue) 3 years.
(The difference regarding revenue is the city wuld have retained all animal control related fines even if HSCC had been awarded the contract.)
DIFFERENCE OVER THREE YEARS IS $489,844. Still a significant amount of money BUT no where near the $984,855 I mistakenly calculated.
Thank you! I still have ask how many police officers could have been hired with the $489,844? Obviously not as many as I originally thought, but perhaps at least 2 or 3.
Your figures simply make no sense to me. I have ALWAYS been led to believe that the HS was going to run the whole operation but that IS NOT what their proposal says and I very surprised to learn that what is being said and what was proposed are completely different.
The Humane Society’s proposal was NOT to run animal control in their proposal: cited by another anonymous above: “…HSCC submits this amended proposal to perform animal shelter services. HSCC believes code enforcement services are more appropriately performed by the Great Falls Police Department than a humane society and declines to submit a proposal to perform code enforcement services for that reason.”
The bottom line is that the Humane Society was going to receive $558,000 for three years and the city was going to have to foot the bill for animal control. So the cost is $558,000 plus $_____ for the city to run animal control for three years. To argue otherwise simply flies in the face of the proposal.
“…HSCC submits this amended proposal to perform animal shelter services. HSCC believes code enforcement services are more appropriately performed by the Great Falls Police Department than a humane society and declines to submit a proposal to perform code enforcement services for that reason.” [Code enforcement = animal control.]
These are the HSCC’s exact words without spin. I think they stand on their own.
HSCC unilaterally withdrew their original proposal and that makes any analysis based on that original proposal irrelevant. Remember, this revised proposal was for $180,000 per year with the City retaining all animal control costs.
I stand corrected. The HS was going to receive $540,000 for 3 years (paid by the city), and the city would pay an additional $_______ for animal control.
Anon 7:01 am: “I have ALWAYS been led to believe that the HS was going to run the whole operation but this is NOT what their proposal says and I (am) very surprised to learn that what is being said and what was proposed are completely different.” PERHAPS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO REVIEW THE FACTS.
Anon 7:35 AM: “HSCC unilaterally withdrew their original proposal and that makes any analysis based on that original proposal irrevelant.” PERHAPS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO REVEW THE FACTS!
FACT: April 2007 – City of Great Falls requests (RFP) proposals to provide animal control services and shelter operations.
FACT: May 2007 – HSCC submits a proposal to continue to provide BOTH animal control and shelter operations for $186,000 (plus shelter generated revenus). The proposal was specific as to the cost to the city.
FACT: May 2007 – Great Falls Police Department submits a proposal to provide both animal control and shelter operations. Their proposal did not include what specific costs would be incurred by the city. (See March 18, 2008, City of Great Falls Agenda Report regarding buget amendments regarding the need for the city take $191,000 out of reserves to balance animal control/shelter costs which at that time demonstrates expenditures of $422,000 and revenues of $136,000 plus the budgeted amount for services under the old contract of $115,000. The $115,000 was the amount already contained in the city budget for contract services.)
FACT: June 19, 2007 – City of Great Falls announces they need more time to review poposals from the only two entities to submit proposals – HSCC and the Great Falls Police Department. City puts off final decision. (See minutes of the June 19, 2007, City Commission meeting.)
FACT: July 3, 2007 – City of Great Falls declines the proposal from the HSCC to provide animal control services and shelter operations. City of Great Falls accepts the proposal by the Great Falls Police Department. Great Falls Police Department assumes control of animal control and shelter services on July 5, 2007, on an “interim” basis. (See minutes of the July 3, 2007, City Commission Meeting.)
FACT: September 2007 – Jim Donahue, President HSCC, submits a proposal to provide services for shelter operations in response to the city’s stated desire to find an entity to assume shelter operations. (The City of Great Falls had previously made it clear the Great Falls Police Department would continue to be responsible for animal control services.)
FACT – AGAIN: In May the Humane Society of Cascade County offers to do ALL services for $186,000 (plus animal shelter revenue).
FACT – AGAIN: The City of Great Falls in July DECLINES the HSCC proposal.
Even the most biased person would have to go a long way to somehow spin that the HSCC did not propose to provide ALL animal control/shelter services. It is
also disingenuous to claim HSCC “unilateraly” withdrew their proposal. The City of Great Falls DECLINED TO ACCEPT the original HSCC proposal to provide ALL SERVICES. Following the July 3, 2007, decision by the City of Great Falls declining the HSCC proposal there simply was no proposal left for the HSCC to “unilaterally withdraw”. Analysis of the HSCC proposal is certainly valid since that is the proposal the city had requested and eventually declined to accept.
ONE ADDITIONAL FACT: Had the City accepted the HSCC proposal, taxpayers would have saved $489,844 plus an additional $20,000 the city spent for a special investigator regarding allegations made by (at the time) one city employee and one former city employee alleging about poor animal control/shelter operations performed by the Great Falls Police Department.
The City never said that the GFPD would continue to be responsible for animal control services before the HS’s September 2007 proposal. Where is this FACT stated in any record? Is in a letter to the HS? City Commission minutes? HS Board of Director’s minutes? Police Department records? Is it in the RFP? What is the source of this “FACT.”
Besides, the “FACT” is directly contrary to what the HS said in its proposal. If did not state, “Because the city has made the decision to retain animal control, the HS makes the following proposal…”
Instead, the HS said: “…HSCC submits this amended proposal to perform animal shelter services. HSCC BELIEVES code enforcement services are more appropriately performed by the Great Falls Police Department than a humane society and declines to submit a proposal to perform code enforcement services FOR THAT REASON.” [Code enforcement = animal control.]
Your statement that the,“(The City of Great Falls had previously made it clear the Great Falls Police Department would continue to be responsible for animal control services.)” is simply false. You are playing word games and, to repeat, the HS’s own words stand on their own. Readers of this blog understand a clearly written sentence.
To the last Anonymous poster — Obviously there is a dispute over the facts here, and I really am unqualified to wade into it. I will say, however, that the mere record of a city commission meeting can never be used as the “definitive” word. We all know that conversations are had, understandings reached, decisions made, well outside the public eye and the public record. I, for one, do not regard what the HS in the end proposed to the Commission as dispositive of the question that the other Anonymous poster is raising.
Either way, the inference remains – the city is providing fewer services at a substantially greater cost. Yay.
One can only fondly remember the 90s, when CCHS Director Linda Hughes was one of the most visible personalities in the community, education and public outreach were at a high (and concomitantly, so were donations), capital improvements and services were slowly but steadily being made.
By the way, did the Margaret Maclean memorial shelter ever get built, or is that roll-off Animal Foundation of Great Falls still sitting on $1.5+ million of assets dedicated to sheltering dogs?
Anon 8:36am: “Readers of this blog understand a clearly written sentence.” I could not agree more with your last statement. The readers of this blog are indeed well informed and possess the ability to look at issues and develop their opinion based on facts.
The fact is the city requested proposals to provide animal control and shelter operations. The fact is the city reviewed both proposals and after review of the proposals from the HSCC and the GFPD, the GFPD took over animal control and shelter operations July 5, 2007. The fact is the City could have saved almost a half a million taxpayer dollars over the past three years had the HSCC proposal been accepted – which is my point.
You are entitled to ignore those undisputed facts. Obviously you and I do not agree on the issue regarding whether the city did or did not make its intentions to maintain animal control available to the community or at least the HSCC. Unlike you, I do not have a copy of the September 2007 letter from the HSCC to the city. I am curious how you have a copy of the letter since it is not available on line? I would point out that following take over by the Great Falls Police Department (July 5, 2007) all animal control officers were given raises and benefits commensurate with their city employee status and were issued police uniforms which I was told by a city employee are identical to the informs worn by other police officers. Hard to believe the city would spend that kind of money for people they did not plan on keeping as employees. John Lawton on July 3, 2007, communicated to the City Commission that the city had budgeted $115,000 for animal control for FY08. (This was the amount the city had budgeted the previous five years for the contract with the HSCC.) John Lawton pointed out on July 3, 2007, the city would have “plently of time to evaluate budgetary needs well before we would have a budget problem”. John Lawton evidently had a good understanding that the amount already in the budget and expected revenues would be sufficient for “plenty of time” before there would be a budget problem. That “budget problem” first appears 8 1/2 months later (March 18, 2008) in Resolution 9732 requesting the City Commission set a public hearing to amend the city budget by increasing the appropriation authority by $316,000 of which $191,000 of that amount was to cover animal shelter expenditures and the cost of a special examiner to investigate the report prepared by the GFPD concerning animal shelter operations.
If you still doubt the city’s intentions please note the current “Priority Goals and Objectives” from the FY2010 City of Great Falls Budget: “Continue to work with the Animal Foundation to turn the shelter operations over to them.” Interesting priority/goal considering the city has not requested any proposals related to the operation of the shelter since April, 2007. Keepin mind shelter operations and animal control functions are two separate issues. The City of Great Falls recognized this separation in their April 2007 RFP as they required the proposals be segregated: (1) animal control and (2) shelter operations. The September 2007 HSCC letter offering to provide shelter operations recognized the fact the city’s original request also separated the two functions.
Alan, I agree that Linda was a great community member!
The Maragret Maclean Memorial Shelter has not been built. The Animal Foundation has raised around $1.5 million and they have asked the City of Great Falls for an additional $1.5 so the shelter can be built. I believe they plan on breaking ground next spring assuming the city contributes the extra $1.5 million.
The question isn’t whether the HS bid was lower than the Police Dept. The question is whether the HS was a viable entity to provide the services it bid. It was well published in the Tribune that the HS was falling apart at the top. No director and only three active board members alone is enough to question any non-profits ability to fund raise and provide core services. It is also worth asking what caused the formation of a seemingly parallel shelter organization to pop up? Why have so many leading citizens pulled away from HS to form the Animal Foundation? Did they get a sense of something well before the dust up between the city and the HS?
Yes, Linda was a wonderful community leader and I heard that her leaving her job with the HSCC was a bitter parting.
Wolfpack, you are so right on point. There is more to operating a successful business than hiring someone who merely gives you the lowest bid. The Humane Society used to have a website and when I went on line, it’s gone!! Check out hsccshelter.org/ Then check out the http://www.theanimalfoundation.org
So, what has the HSCC done with the money that people have given to it over the years? Anyone know? At least from searching the web, it doesn’t sound like much has changed from when the city didn’t renew the contract with them to operate the shelter. They appear to have disappeared!!
To Anonymous on November 13 at 5:08 pm:
You comment, “Obviously you and I do not agree on the issue regarding whether the city did or did not make its intentions to maintain animal control available to the community or at least the HSCC.”
It isn’t a question of disagreement. I merely asked you where you got your facts that the city “had made it very clear they didn’t want a proposal that included animal control.” My post of 11/13 at 8:36 a.m. You didn’t answer the question so one must assume that you have no facts.
You state on November 11 at 11:13: “The proposal submitted in September 2007 [by the Humane Society], did not include animal control because the city had made it very clear they did not want a proposal that included animal control.”
Then on Nov 13 at 5:08 you say, “Unlike you, I do not have a copy of the September 2007 letter from the HSCC to the city.”
How can you speak about the contents of the September proposal to the city if you don’t have a copy of it?
Anon Nov 14th 12:59 pm
“So, what has the HSCC done with the money that people have given to it over the years? Anyone know?
What has the Animal Foundation done with the money IT has raised over the past 7-8 years? Interesting as they told everyone the funds were to build a shelter for the HUMANE SOCIETY of CASCADE COUNTY, then switched in mid-stream–and didn’t inform donors of it.
Cats and dogs being put down in great numbers, neither of these got help from the ANIMAL Foundation. The City is over budget and the AF wants us to pay for their new shelter? First the AF said it would be 1 mil, then2, then 3 mil to build. Behind-the-scenes ‘deals’. The City giving $5000 to the AF as a donation, but not voting on it or asking the people. The dog park land being given to the AF, but not allowing the tax payers to vote on that–we had to vote on the skate park. The Parks & Rec Dept doing the dog park maintenance (tax payer dollars–again), but when the soccer field was done, THEY didn’t get maintenance by the City, they were told no. Passing off half the cost of a new shelter to the City when the AF is private non-profit organization.
Lots of talk, but the only thing moving is money. Money to the few & special from a budget that won’t balance and we’re asked to give up basic services.
If people want to paint the HSCC black, they should use the same brush on the Animal Foundation if the point they are trying to make is that the former didn’t ‘do’ anything. Neither has the latter.
Anon 5:09. I don’t have a copy of the September 2007 letter. However, I can read and I based my comments on your statements (perhaps others?) and what had been quoted from the letter. I believed the comments accurately reflect the contents of the letter. If my assumption that you and/or others had a copy of the letter and it that was therefore quoted correctly and it was not quoted correctly, then I am at fault. Your comment did not explain how you have a copy. I assume you either are an employee of the city with access to such correspondence or a member of the HSCC. The latter (HSCC) does not seem likely given your comments.
I have to agree with Anon 6:41 regading thev question of where is the new shelter that has been promised by the Animal Foundaton the past 37 months? AF has been working behind the closed doors at city hall trying obtain $1.5 million to help construct the shelter. Anyone attend a city commission meeting in the past two years remember ever hearing about the “deal” involving the taxpayers giving $1.5 million to a private organization? Anyone hear of any public vote on such expenditure? Of course not; another example of the city making sweetheart deals out of sight while putting public safety issues up to vote that individually are about half of what the city is going to give ($1.5 million) for a new shelter. If the police/fire departments are subject to a vote why not the shelter?
I’m frightened that the Pit bull desires a particular type of owner…these pet dogs, no matter how ‘trusting’ still have teeth, are nevertheless creatures not having moral concepts and when they DO bite, won’t let go. As in all creatures…some have a tendency to be a lot more suseptable to instinctual behavior and time and time again, this breed tends to try and do just that.