Ketchikan Animal Shelter's Assessment Report Released
January 14, 2015
The 40-page report was completed on December 30, 2014 and the report and recommendations were presented to the Ketchikan Assembly on January 9th during a public sessions meeting. In August 2014, the Ketchikan Borough contracted with Chava Lee to perform a comprehensive analysis of the Borough’s Animal Protection program. Lee served as Executive Director for the Gastineau Humane Society in Juneau for 13 years before she retired in June 2014. Lee was awarded a professional services contract in the amount of $9,950 in August 2014. As part of her work, Lee made several trips to Ketchikan and met with Borough staff, the Ketchikan Humane Society, former Assembly members, volunteers and other interested community members. Lee's report documenting her findings and recommendations was presented and discussed at a recent policy issues meeting held by the Ketchikan Assembly.
The Ketchikan Borough's Animal Protection Shelter is located at 1111 Stedman St., next to Bayview Cemetery.
Borough staff recommended to the Assembly in their summary report present on Jan. 9th, that, unless specifically directed otherwise, staff should move forward with implementing as many of the report recommendations as possible, even while waiting for final outcome of other decisions. For example, unless specifically directed not to fill the vacant position, the job description should be revised to focus more on customer service, humane education, and animal care and socialization while in the shelter. The FY 2016 budget should be drafted to include funds for spaying or neutering every adoptable animal as soon as it arrives at the shelter, and adoption fees should be equalized. (The exact fee level and costs to the Borough would be identified in the upcoming budget process.) The Director should be actively engaging with the public in events, humane education, etc. Current staff should all receive training in customer service in the shelter environment. Many of the recommendations require little to no money, and are more in the way of changes to operational focus. The most significant policy issues are 1) should the Borough contract for all or part of the Animal Protection program; and 2) if the Borough does not contract out sheltering services, should the Borough pursue a different building for the shelter, namely the Eichner building; and 3) how long should the Borough defer remodeling the existing building while waiting for the outcome of other alternatives? The report noted that the current building has deficiencies which are difficult to overcome, namely lack of parking, lack of outdoor space, and being on two levels. Staff has been unable to recommend renting the Eichner building because of the increased ongoing costs. The rent would be approximately $40,000 to $50,000 plus utilities, and moving the shelter would have to be a commitment to long term on-going costs. There would also be one time capital costs to make the building suitable for use as a shelter. A use for the Pat Wise building has not been identified that would offset the costs of renting the Eichner or any other building. Previously, the Assembly appropriated $150,000 in the FY 2014 budget for the purpose of remodeling the Pat Wise building. That work would have remodel the second floor for housing cats which would separate the cats from the dogs; fix some accessibility issues - namely the downstairs entry and bathroom; and make some minor changes to the downstairs which would allow for better food storage etc. If funding proved sufficient, an additive alternate would include adding exterior windows into the main viewing downstairs which would dramatically improve lighting. According to information provided by Ketchikan Borough staff in a summary report to the Assembly, staff has found it difficult to recommend moving forward with the remodel with so many pending questions about the future of the program. However, the delay in remodeling has also probably exacerbated the public image problems of the program. And, although the roof work is complete, there is probably other exterior work such as siding and improved lighting that should be done in the not too distant future. If the Assembly decides in the future to direct staff to explore relocating the shelter, staff would not proceed with remodeling the existing shelter. If the Assembly directs staff to proceed with an RFP for contracting out services, how long should staff defer proceeding with a remodel? For example, if the first attempt at an RFP does not result in a contract, should staff proceed with the remodel (subject to Assembly approval)? The Assembly will need to consider if staff, concurrently with the issuance of an RFP, at least proceed with reworking the remodel floor plans to take into account some of Lee's suggestions.
Edited by Mary Kauffman, SitNews
On the Web:
Source of News:
|
||
