ANIMAL RESCUERS: Columbia 2nd Chance announces amazing new HQ

COLUMBIA, 2/7/10  (Beat Byte) -- After 25 years of quietly plugging along on volunteer help and private donations, local animal rescue group Columbia Second Chance has done what the Central Missouri Humane Society, local government, and a so-called "Million Dollar Makeover" have yet to accomplish:  Purchased a shiny new headquarters on 38 scenic acres in neighboring Cooper County, about 12 miles from Columbia.

Starting Monday, Second Chance volunteers will start moving the organization from its current headquarters in the Brady's Glass building on Providence, where the group currently handles dog and cat adoptions.  

The new 6,000 square foot headquarters, which includes 1,800 square feet of finished office/living space with a kitchen, will serve as the new adoption center and house an innovative cage-free "cat habitat" where up to 50 cats will live "with plenty of stuff to climb on, scratch, and nap on" said Second Chance board member and former president Shannon Kasmann. "It will be a big, bright, inviting environment that should provide a great setting."   


The group will outfit eight 140 square foot rooms where the cats will live based partly on their personality traits -- outgoing, shy, active, older, or younger, Kasmann explained.  "We'll also have screened off outdoor areas, and a big, bright, inviting environment that should provide a great setting." 
Renting their present headquarters in the Brady's Glass building since 2007, Columbia Second Chance houses dogs at a 60-acre ranch in Moniteau County, complete with live-in, onsite caretakers "and plenty of space to roam," Kasmann said. 
The new Columbia Second Chance headquarters is located at 24687 Highway 179, one half mile from Interstate 70 at Exit 111.  It won't be open until March 1, so watch the group's website for further details before visiting.
0 comments Links to this post

VISIONING STINK: Memo spikes council candidate contract controversy

Also...
SHOVEL READY:  Industrial sites at issue in Visioning dispute
READ RESPONDS:  4th Ward council candidate on Visioning contract kerfuffle
 
VISIONING STINK:  Memo spikes council candidate contract controversy
 
COLUMBIA, 2/2/10  (Beat Byte) --  A City Hall memorandum forwarded to the Columbia Heart Beat has ratcheted up controversy over 4th Ward Columbia City Council candidate Sarah Read's 2008 contracts to write a so-called "Visioning Report" for city government.  
 
The memo reveals that Columbia city manager Bill Watkins allowed Read (above left, Columbia Missourian photo) and her firm, The Communications Center, Inc., to bypass conventional bidding and proposal requirements. 
 
Earlier criticizing Read's report in a January 5 letter to the City Council, Columbia Vision Commission (CVC) members protested "inequitable access to City administration," calling it "inappropriate, in our view," to treat the Read report "as an expression of the citizen's groups who drafted the 13 Vision Statements." 
 
Read received a first no-bid $150/hour contract in April 2008, a few months after leaving the Visioning Committee, a predecessor to today's Vision Commission.   To comply with laws governing competitive bidding and requests for proposal (RFP), Read's first contract was capped at $15,000.
 
But The Communications Center quickly met the contract cap, prompting Watkins to pursue additional contracts. Using so-called "non-fungible" contracting authority, he authorized a second $10,000 contract in August 2008 and a third $25,000 contract in October 2008. 
 
The three contracts totaled $50,000 without competitive bidding or formal proposals. 
 
"The city manager may enter into contracts for professional and other services without following a competitive bidding process or a request for proposals process when factors such as prior experience, skills, education, local knowledge or unique knowledge are considerations in selecting the contractor," reads Columbia Code of Ordinances section 2-460(d). 
 
Citing this authority, Watkins sent a June 19, 2008 memo to city communications director Toni Messina, whose department oversaw Read's contract.
 
"Sarah Read, president of The Communications Center, Inc., has provided communications and process consulting services for other clients in the past and continues this practice....As a former member of the community visioning committee...she has unique local relationships and specific, immediate knowledge of the intent of the vision plan not possessed by other firms." 
 
But CVC members claim they never knew about the arrangement.   Responding to an emailed request for comment about the Watkins-Messina-Read memo -- attached to the email -- CVC chairperson Dan Goldstein, Ph.D. told the Heart Beat, "your e-mail was the first time I saw this memo."
 
"I was not aware of the process and procedure either," CVC secretary Jan Weaver, Ph.D. told the Heart Beat.  "I do not know why we were not made aware," added Weaver, who directs the MU Environmental Studies program.
 
Also unaware of the arrangement, 3rd Ward Councilman Karl Skala, who said the City Council "gives the city manager broad latititude to decide such things.  Given Visioning's stated goals and purposes -- transparency, public involvement -- would it have been nice to have known?   Yes.  Nice, but under the law, not necessary." 
 
The newly-revealed memo fulfills an earlier CVC request that until now, has lingered without response.   

"We are working hard on gathering information for our Columbia Vision Commission (CVC) report," the group wrote assistant city manager and city staff liaison Paula Hertwig-Hopkins on December 19, 2009.  "One item we need to document is the Request for Proposal (RFP) process used in hiring the Visioning Consultant, Sarah Read.  Could you please provide the CVC with any and all documentation on this process?   We will need:

1. The RFP to hire the visioning Consultant.
2. Any application material or communications, from or to, any applicants for the visioning contract.
3. Communications of all forms between City Staff and the Visioning consultant (Sarah Read) which in any way were related to the Visioning consultant's contracts with the City of Columbia.

We do request that it be provided before the end of December, if at all possible, so we can complete our report to Council." 
 
But the Vision Commission never received a response, and submitted its report on January 19 without the requested information, Goldstein said.  "I have asked Paula for an explanation of why the Visioning Commission did not seem to have received the Watkins memo, either," he added. 
 
RELATED:
 
Letter from Vision Commission to Columbia City Council
 
Three City of Columbia contracts with Sarah Read's firm
 
Watkins/Messina/Read memo regarding bid procedure waiver
 
Vision Commission Report of 1/19/2010
 
Columbia Vision Commission
 
 
SHOVEL READY:  Industrial sites at issue in Visioning flap
 
COLUMBIA, 2/2/10  (Beat Byte) --  A conflict over who said what about so-called "shovel ready sites"-- turnkey land parcels some city leaders claim might woo manufacturing firms to Columbia -- is partly to blame for an ongoing dispute between Columbia Vision Commission (CVC) members and City Hall staffers.
 
Language urging shovel ready site development in Sarah Read's Visioning Report ruffled feathers because CVC members say they never made such a recommendation. 
 
But during a Dec. 12, 2009 "mini retreat," Columbia city manager Bill Watkins told City Council members, "the Vision Commission, independently, came up with this idea that we needed three 'shovel ready' sites." 
 
CVC chairperson Dan Goldstein videotaped Watkins' comment and posted it on Youtube.
 
"I have been on the CVC since its inception.  I was also a member of the original Visioning Committee, starting after the first citizens topic group meeting," Goldstein emailed fellow Commission members.  "In neither group did we discuss shovel ready sites.  I have been poring over the original Imagine Columbia's Future, City of Columbia Vision and Action Plan, and I can find no mention of shovel ready sites." 
 
Goldstein even turned his documents over to computer search tools.  "I have searched the term 'shovel' in the original report pdf, to no avail," he explained. 
 
Concerned that "a major policy initiative is being undertaken by Council partially based on the statement from the City Manager that 'the vision commission independently came up with this idea,'" the CVC again contacted assistant city manager Paula Hertwig-Hopkins, who said the shovel ready site reference came from a so-called "Vision Implementation Report."
 
But the CVC had earlier disavowed the Implementation Report, passing a motion at its February 12, 2009 meeting.  From the minutes:  "Motion 2 -- Dianne Drainer:  The CVC wishes to make clear that the proposed draft of the Vision Implementation Report, prepared by a consultant engaged by the city, is not a product of the CVC.  Seconded: Jan Weaver.  In favor: all. Opposed: 0. Motion passed." 
 
"We decided at the February 12, 2009 meeting to frame our work in terms of the original 13 topics, instead of...the implementation report," CVC secretary Jan Weaver told the Heart Beat. 
 
"This motion was also shared with Council," Goldstein reminded.  "The Columbia Vision Commission has never endorsed the idea of shovel ready sites, and to the best of my knowledge, neither did the original citizens visioning report." 
 
Bill Watkins' Mini Retreat Comments (about 0:30)
 
 
READ RESPONDS:  4th Ward council candidate on Visioning contract kerfuffle
 
COLUMBIA, 2/2/10  (Beat Byte) --  Fourth Ward Columbia City Council candidate Sarah Read, J.D. spoke with the Columbia Heart Beat about the ongoing controversy over her firm's contract with City Hall to write the Columbia Visioning Report. 
 
Even at $150/hour, the contract was not profitable, Read said.  "We delivered far more hours than were paid for under the contract.  We produced an extensive report.  Without being involved and dedicated community members, we would not have taken this project."
 
The Columbia Vision Commission's (CVC) concerns over lack of transparency and favoritism are also inconsistent, Read explained, with a process that was "very public."
 
And though her firm, The Communications Center, Inc., has received other contracts with local government agencies, Read said she "did not seek out a contract with the City.  I was asked to help keep the process moving when Assistant City Manager [Paula Hertwig-Hopkins], who was shepherding the process, needed to take a personal leave of absence to be with her husband, who was terminally ill."   
 
Cited in city manager Bill Watkins' decision to award the no-bid contract, Read's experience with group facilitation and community involvement is well-known.  In 2008, she conducted a two-hour, $1,200 team-building exercise with the Columbia Public School district while also serving as president of Columbia Parents for Public Schools.  
 
And last year, had City Council members not defeated it, her firm was on tap to receive $9,500 to lead a two-day Get About Columbia mediation session between drivers and cyclists, to calm tempers heated over the bicycle harassment ordinance.  
 
"All of the above work was done or offered at a considerable discount," Read explained.  "Much of the actual work on the vision implementation plan was, in fact, pro bono." 
 
Finally, objections that Visioning groups and their citizen overseers were shut out of the process Read oversaw, voiced in the Vision Commission's January 5 letter to the Columbia City Council, were "incorrect," Read explained, directing readers to Hertwig-Hopkins response to the Council:    
 
 
"I assumed our work would be interpreted in light of my known dedication to the vision, and the need to keep the process moving," Read said, sentiments echoed by CVC member Dee Dokken, who earlier worked with Read. 
 
"Sarah served as the volunteer facilitator of the challenging Development topic group with skill, fairness, good humor and lots of her time," Dokken said.  "She was vital to the performance of the group."  
 
RELATED:
1 comments Links to this post

GOOD CITY/BAD CITY: Sewer law do-over/recycling bins

GOOD CITY:  Recycling bins on Monday's Council agenda
 
COLUMBIA, 1/31/10  (Beat Byte) --  Columbia City Council members will hear about an experiment with curbside recycling bins Monday night that will have 1,900 Columbia households receiving two plastic recycling bins in mid-February:  one for beverage and food containers, and one for paper and cardboard.
 
Mostly funded by a $22,800 grant from the Mid-Missouri Solid Waste Management District, the experiment should prove what I learned as a long-time Seattle-area resident -- curbside bins are a better alternative to plastic bags that actually add to waste and costs.
 
Gooood city!   Gooood City! 
 
RELATED:
 
 
BAD CITY:  Sewer law do-over on Monday's council agenda
 
COLUMBIA, 1/31/10  (Beat Byte) --  The Columbia City Council Monday night will also take a first vote on changes to the city's sewer ordinances that could give city manager Bill Watkins and his staff a sweeping new power:  "to enter into sewer service agreements with governmental users.  These agreements may provide for sewer charges that differ from the charges set forth in the ordinance." 
 
The changes would also mandate that only sewer users with a water meter would receive a base monthly sewer charge of $6.09. 
 
Baaaaad City!  Baaaaaad City!   Even a staff report included indicates making these changes could cost the city  $150,000 lost revenue for the current fiscal year, which everyone says is tighter than ever already.  
 
But more importantly, emails regarding City Hall's "sewer billing scandal" show the impact of making these changes. 
 
Because they don't have separate water meters, the following sewer users would NOT be charged the base sewer rate of $6.09/month, leaving the rest of us with water meters to make up the difference:   
 
About 2,000 commercial units
3,149 apartment and duplex units
6,480 University units (dormitories and such) 
714 Columbia Housing Authority units
125 Lenoir Retirement Center units
 
Doing the math, the city will lose (3,149 + 6,480 + 2,000+ 714 + 125 units)  x  $6.09/month  X  12 months  =
a whopping $911,000 annually.  And the staff report says any annual loss may require an adjustment (read: hike) in the base fee in 2011.   That hike, of course, would only affect users with water meters.   People who use the sewer system but have no water meter would not be affected, which certainly doesn't seem fair. 
 
"Certain, Fair, Easy to Administer and Cost Neutral," says the city manager's report.  Not yet, it's not. (Perhaps MU could be persuaded to pass on its huge sewer savings in the form of lower tuition rather than admin pay hikes??)      
 
RELATED:
0 comments Links to this post

ZOOTOO 2? Local pet group readies big announcement


COLUMBIA, 1/31/10  (Beat Byte) --  Founded in 1985, local animal rescue agency Columbia Second Chance (CSC) will be celebrating its 25th anniversary this year with a big announcement that may even trump the ZooToo million dollar makeover.   
 
"What we're about to unveil is a dream come true for our organization," said CSC board member Shannon Kasmann.
 
In negotiations for months over what, at this point, can only be called "the Really Big Deal Amir Ziv Helped Negotiate," CSC members and supporters say the big news wil take them to an entirely new level of service. 
 
"For anyone who loves animals, this is big -- really, really big," said Ziv, a longtime CSC supporter and Kasmann's significant other.  "I wish I could tell you more about it, but we still have some i's to dot and t's to cross, so stay tuned. All will be revealed soon." 
 
0 comments Links to this post
Labels:

BOONE COUNTY COMMISSION: Kept in dark about sewer violations?

COLUMBIA, 1/31/10  (Beat Byte) --   Formal complaints about four uncovered RV dump station drains that allow rain water to enter the sanitary sewer at the Boone County Fairgrounds are among numerous City of Columbia stormwater and sewer violations prepared but never sent to violators.  
 
Addressed to Boone County presiding commissioner Ken Pearson (left), the December 2008 Notice of Violation about the fairgrounds has instead bounced from Columbia public works director John Glascock to Columbia City Manager Bill Watkins, according to emails released under a Freedom of Information Act request.

A March 5, 2009 email from Columbia Public Works operations manager Mary Ellen Lea asked Glascock if Watkins had talked to Pearson about the RV drains.  "He had not the last time I checked," Glascock replied.

Notices about unlawful storm water connections to city sewers at the University of Missouri Power Plant have also lingered.  On August 8, 2009, Lea emailed that "John [Glascock] said no" about sending a letter to the University informing them of the problem and requiring disconnection.

Even City Hall has been guilty.  Memos released document former Public Works Director Lowell Patterson's refusal to disconnect the Howard Municipal Building roof drains from the city's sanitary sewer.  
0 comments Links to this post
Labels: ,

PATTY FORISTER: Advice for local candidates and pet-loving voters

Final part of our 4-part interview with the former humane society director
 
As a role model for how to do animal welfare right, former Central Missouri Humane Society (CMHS) director Patty Forister says look no farther than Columbia Second Chance, the humane society's low-profile, privately-funded pet-rescuing cousin.  With no contracts from under-paying government agencies to worry about, and a decentralized administrative structure that has "every board member actually doing the day-to-day work," Columbia Second Chance "deserves kudos for going forward with a unified, workable vision," Forister told the Heart Beat.
 
With hindsight and reflection since she left the post last November, Forister has spoken candidly with the Columbia Heart Beat about the humane society's past, present, and future.  We first interviewed Forister in August 2008, for a story called Dog Days: Humane Society Faces Closure.  This installment concludes four parts. 

Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):  What is it about Columbia Second Chance that makes their business model work so well? 
 
Forister:   Passion is certainly part of it.  You won't find people more dedicated to animal rescue and welfare.  Everyone works.  They have working board members, for instance, actively engaged in daily activities.  They've also put together an impressive group of shelters, like their Dog Ranch and Catty Shack.  Just as importantly, though, they don't have that quasi-public function, like CMHS does.   They can control which animals they take and the quality and quantity of those animals.  That's a lot harder for CMHS because it has contracts with local government.  Columbia Second Chance functions more like a private humane society, while CMHS functions more like a public animal control facility. 

Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):  But CMHS also has plenty of passionate, committed people. 
 
Forister:   Absolutely!  And several working board members.  Maria Furey was the president and worked with animals a lot.  Tiffany McBee, another board member, was very active in animal care.  CMHS had board members work as animal receivers and animal rescuers in the shelter, patting us on the back when we needed it.  But they also weren't there all the time because they do play a management role.  There's a fine line between engaging and micro-managing, and I think our board was always conscious of that.

Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):  We have local elections coming up in Columbia and Boone County.  What would you advise candidates who want to win the support of Columbia's many animal lovers and pet owners? 
 
Forister:  First, add meaningful engagement with CMHS and other animal care groups to your platform.  That's been one of the biggest issues with trying to get local elected officials to understand what CMHS is all about.  When I was there, we offered two board seats to both the county and city, but I never once saw any representatives attend.  And those seats were never filled. 
 
[Boone County Commissioner] Skip Elkin seemed very interested and engaged at first, then -- nothing.  We never heard from him again.   [Columbia City Councilman] Jason Thornhill also seemed interested.  He wanted an audit of CMHS.  But he didn't join the board to my knowledge and I don't recall that he had any interaction with CMHS, but I don't know if that's changed since I left. 
 
Second, candidates should suggest adding a "cat ordinance" to city law.
 
Columbia Heart Beat (CHB): What's a "cat ordinance?"
 
Forister:  A cat ordinance guides what the city does with its largest population of stray animals: cats.  Remember all the cat controversy, about people feeding feral cats and taking care of strays?  That kind of problem will continue until Columbia gets serious about a cat ordinance.  Most cities have them.  The city I live in right now, which is smaller than Columbia, has a cat ordinance.  Right now, no one is serving Columbia's cat population. 
 
CAT ORDINANCES AROUND THE NATION
 
 
Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):  Why are cats such a big problem?  Why not dogs? 
 
Forister:  There's a big misconception that cats are independent, that they don't need vet care, food, and shelter.  But that's simply not true.  If you think about what "independent" means for an animal, it really means "wild."  So cats end up being treated like squirrels, raccoons or other wild animals.  Cities don't consider them in the same light as dogs.  I mean, think about a big feral dog population roaming the city.  There would definitely be action. 
 
Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):   Wow!  I never thought about it that way before.  But if other cities have these cat ordinances, why not progressive Columbia?
 
Forister:  I think it all comes back to the funding issue.  The not wanting to recognize a problem.  Underfunding breeds dysfunctional relationships and hampers education.  If animal control in Columbia were properly funded, things would move ahead.  The lack of a cat ordinance is merely a symptom of a larger problem. 
 
Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):  Given all this, do you have any final thoughts for this election year?
 
Forister:  Yes -- I have a message for all the candidates.  Animal care in Columbia and Boone County needs and deserves a full, fair, and equitable partnership with the government agencies that use animal care services.  For too long, that simply hasn't been the case. 
 
Columbia Heart Beat (CHB):  Thank you so much for spending time with our readers.
 
Forister:  It's been my pleasure.  Columbia and Boone County are filled with loving, caring people.  I've tried to articulate what I think they want and need. 
 
RELATED:
0 comments Links to this post
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)