WASILLA -- The cost of the city's contract with Houston Animal Safety and Protection has ballooned over three years, leaving one city councilman wondering if Wasilla should look elsewhere for service.
The City Council agreed unanimously last week to renew Houston's contract for $60,000 through June 2007. That's $10,000 more than the city paid for animal service in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In 2004, the city paid only $26,000.
Councilman Mark Ewing said Thursday he's distressed that the city pays Houston $5,000 a month, regardless of how much service is provided. In May, animal protection handled only 35 calls, he said. The call volume went up through the summer, reaching a high of 153 calls in July.
Ewing said the city might get animal service for less if its code compliance officer, who writes citations for parking in handicap zones and other property-related violations, also handled animal calls.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials, who used to handle animal calls for the city, say they would have liked the opportunity to bid on the service. The borough offers comprehensive animal care services, more than Houston can provide, Mat-Su Animal Care chief Dave Allison said.
"A citizen's view of the whole thing is our facility offers a vet five days a week, a vet on staff. We're able to handle a variety of species," Allison said. "We have trucks and equipment for trained, certified officers and all the stuff to deal with it."
Dennis Lords, chief officer at Houston's two-man department, said he and his deputy officer Rick Molburg don't have formal training but know how to work with animals. They also work with local veterinarians and get a lot of help from rescue groups and other agencies to give the best care they can, he said.
In the 1980s Lords worked for a private company that provided animal care service in Anchorage. Molburg learned dog care by growing up in a mushing family and, more recently, working at a musher's kennel.
"We're planning on working in training; we're just not to that point yet," Lords said. "We're still brand new, really."
Houston has been in the animal care business since July 2002, after local residents pressed city councilors to add the service. Wasilla's contract was a shot in the arm for the fledgling service. Today, Lords said, 70 percent to 80 percent of the department's calls come from Wasilla.
Lords said he believes the city would try to continue offering animal service if Wasilla cut the contract, although the department would see deep reductions.
So far, however, there's no indication Wasilla city officials want to consider other services. From Wasilla Police Chief John Glass to the city clerks, everyone at the city remarks on how few complaints they get about Houston's response to animal calls. Several, including deputy city clerk Jamie Newman, said the happiness is in stark contrast to three years ago, when Mat-Su Animal Care fielded loose-dog calls for the city.
"We had so many animal control issues," Newman said. "We got complaints continually."
Money was the root of the contract cancellation in 2003, Wasilla deputy administrator Sandra Garley told City Council members Oct. 9. For 10 years, Wasilla had paid the borough about $26,000 annually for animal care services. In 2003, borough officials asked for significantly more money: $150,000, Garley said.
Borough officials two weeks later brought back a lower number -- $90,000, she said. But by then the city had another option in the works.
Meanwhile, Houston offered to handle the city's animal calls for $26,000. Houston's was a fledgling department, with one year in operation, one officer and no animal shelter. Their price nearly doubled the next year, said Wasilla finance director Ted Leonard.
"The volume was just larger, more than they thought and more than we thought," Leonard said.
A $60,000 contract with Houston puts the contract within sight of what the Mat-Su Borough originally asked, Ewing said. He researched the 2003 negotiations and found the borough's second offer was actually $69,980, not $90,000.
Garley wasn't working at the city when the contract was discussed in 2003 and no one at the city was able last week to explain the $90,000 figure.
Reference:adn
No comments:
Post a Comment