Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.05.16 Public Comment Submission �������Z ���� . �v�.e�.;� I�I�.�I�C� �►��w�.�'S c�,l��,J How do the cities justify bypassing their own municipal codes regarding bidding requirements. Haw did the cities resolve the conflict of interest concerns that were provided in 2020 leading the city to not select BFHS. How is the city going to resolve the conflict that arises when public funds are being used for privately owned property,give example of past. The auxiliary shelter is being proposed as a emergency shelter with a memorandum of understanding. However, until the new shelter is built there will be no space to utilize because it will be used for TCAS. After which BFHS will use it as necessary for intake/holding of animals even if they are no longer part of TCAS,once again potentially being too full to accept emergency use Per the previous RFP's it is clear the cities only want to financial liable for the first three days of any animals' intake. After which time the animal's legal ownership is transferred into that of the contractor which makes the financial responsibility no longer with the cities. So why does is appear that the current contract of 1.5 million dollars the cities are now going to pay for not only the veterinarian but also steffing for both TCAS& BFHS. In your workshop Autumn White identified that BFHS had been looking for a veterinarian for nine months(before taking over the emergency situation),and it is BFHS intent to continue to staff a veterinarian even if they are no longer TCAS Last but not least you might ask yourself if Autumn White has not been able to secure full staffing levels over the last six months,what or where have the funds she was receiving for those positions been going to.