Well we could go ahead and get started.

Um I think at least for my benefit, maybe a couple of other folks.

Same for you.

I think maybe some introductions would be good.

Um so I'll start.

Maybe we'll go this way.

So I'll have Jason Gordon, I'm mayor.

Ben Joven, six Ward Alderman.

Uh Erica Gunn, the executive director of the Humane Society.

I'm Kelly Eccles from the board of the Humane Society.

And Tyson Danner from the board.

Julie Gillespie from the board.

Kyle Grip, Alderman at large.

Tim Faney, we're on the board.

Jasmine Newton, Alder Woman at large.

Matt Lenin and Eighth Ward Alderman.

Mark Holloway, seven to autumn.

Tim Dunn, second.

Well about third board alderman.

Jade Bertholder, fourth board elder woman.

All right.

So I think I don't necessarily know how to proceed at this point.

So it doesn't have a set agenda, but I think you know, broadly speaking, we're coming up.

Um we're you know, trying to get our heads and arms around some of this these issues related to our contractual relationship.

So I I'll let you maybe say a few words if you'd like to get us started.

Yeah, I mean, I think it would be helpful for us kind of what questions to council have for us to help us know kind of where to go with the conversation because we've had a lot of conversation with staff, so just kind of wondering what questions are the same or different, and what can we answer for you guys about that, and then kind of what our path forward would be.

Sure.

I'm Randy Rockwell.

I'm on the uh board with the inmates today.

Thank you.

So yeah, um I'll what's the current proposal?

Yeah, we sent um the offer for what we would provide past June 30th.

Um staff asked us to provide that because there was the talk of them transitioning those services within the into Davenport so that they are providing shelter and animal control services.

So we provided what that would be of what we could do.

That would be an additional six months past the current June 30th contract, and then um Mr.

Gleason sent another proposal back on March 20th.

So that was just Friday afternoon, so we don't have a response for that yet because it's only been about four business days, so we haven't gotten to review all of that together as a group.

So was that a was that his counter um sort of beliefs on March 20th?

Tim, was that what that was?

It was and actually uh Mayor uh that that came um somewhat unexpectedly.

Uh I had requested a meeting, just to introduce myself.

Since I was now the permanent city administrator, I wanted to meet uh Erica, you know, regardless of uh you know where uh this relationship was gonna go.

Uh we're gonna be working together, you know, whether it's in the short term or or longer term.

And I think the uh vice chair of the board, uh Kelly, and I apologize for not knowing her last name or having a pulled up uh in that conversation uh probably two, three weeks ago, it came up uh that uh Humane Society was in fact expecting uh a possibility of uh a counter proposal of the letter that we received, I believe on February 4th, uh we definitely did not take it that way.

And I said something in that meeting about it, and uh thought uh you know it would be prudent for us to actually put pen to paper and submit a proposal, a counter in this case, uh, and see if we can't find something that uh helps both of us uh given the uh very important mission uh that uh that we're trying to provide the community.

So do you view that counter as a like a counter to remain in a contractual relationship for an extended period of time, or do you view that more as a we'll we'll buy some time as you guys separate and do your own thing.

How are you viewing that counter maybe?

Yeah, I mean I think after our discussion with Tim, which was great.

Tim, thank you for reaching out and doing that.

That was very nice.

Um I think for us, you know, we've been told since around January that there would be a transition of services.

So for us, when we expected a counter was more so when we sent that February 4th offer for what we could do past June 30th for an initial, was thinking that there would be some sort of some form of communication after that.

Um I let the city staff know by email that you know I was out of the office that Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Monday, and then I'd be back Tuesday so we could talk about what the next steps were and if there were any questions.

So we were kind of as surprised as a lot of people regarding the press announcement.

I definitely can see how our offer on February 4th would feel like a transition, but it is because that's what we were being told by city staff.

Was that that was the only option moving forward was a transition of services.

Um so we so we expected the counter to be and how we kind of take this is that transition of where do we go next with transitioning services from the Humane Society of Scott County for both animal control and animal shelter services to the city of Davenport, understanding that there's obviously a lot that goes into that.

And if I could provide additional clarity in through our board discussions, I think since that time we've we've thought about the trajectory of our organization and our own financial health, and that's uh that's exclusively the path that we're interested in exploring is a transition of services.

Um specifically with animal protection officers and services, whether there's maybe more discussion about the sheltering component.

I think uh the board is open to that conversation.

I think uh we're most interested in in that path forward and how we can do that responsibly for the animals and the community and for both organizations.

So the position of the humane society is we are separating.

It's just perhaps a matter of when, but it's happening in the next three years or less.

Yeah, I think our question would be how long does that transition take for you guys?

Because we don't understand from the city aspect how long it would take you guys for a facility, staffing, things like that.

And I mean that comes from our communication with staff recently, and the communication just kind of historically, it's been a really long ongoing thing.

I know many of you have been on the council for a long time, and I've been with the organization as the executive director for three years.

It feels like it's kind of a continual discussion, and I think there are ways that we move forward in which we can still ensure that services are provided for citizens in whatever way that is possible.

We make sure that happens together so that nobody is left without those services, and how can we kind of partner in the future to ensure that we're still getting really good animal welfare movements in this community moving forward?

So I will say, sorry.

I mean, if you want so the February 4th letter, the only reason you got a public statement from me was you put a deadline on this.

The Humane Society put a deadline on it.

We don't look at it as a deadline.

We were looking at it as we were asked what we would provide services for through June 30th of 2027 for the staff to use that essentially one more year past the current existing contract.

Um, how much that would be?

We know talking to staff that we've been told multiple times that the city cannot pay us more than the the offer at that time was eight hundred and forty thousand dollars.

We can't provide services for eight hundred and forty thousand dollars because it cost a lot more than that for that year, and so we wanted to provide an opportunity to say it's not a full year, but here's what we can do at a lesser cost since you've already said that 840,000 to a contractor is not possible, and so provided that six-month offer in that period.

I don't I I guess I've never heard our staff say that the number's not possible.

It's getting can I jump in?

Yes, sir, please.

Okay, thank you.

So I requested this meeting primarily because I am sick and tired of hearing multiple different stories.

Okay, so I said enough.

When I came on council, I was I was elected in 2023, so my first day was June of 2024.

Animal control was on the agenda item, my very first meeting as an elected official, sworn in, and then next thing you know, a crowd of very angry people regarding the issue.

I, along with several of my colleagues, I remember thinking at the time, Alderman Grip, Alder Woman Burkeholder.

We said, Well, take a step back, and we had an initial committee meeting where Grip and Burke Holder were a part of, and from that we had additional contracts.

But it's my understanding, the contract the city had, the humane society was a three-year contract that the humane society prior to the ending of those three years said we're no longer gonna move forward, correct?

And that's how essentially animal control ended up on the city's agenda in January of 2024.

Now, the council at the time was interested in making it work, and that was a direction of council is how can we make this work?

It was my understanding from our initial meetings with Humane Society that hey, if we make some changes to our ordinance, we'll be able to make things better, such as the whole time.

We changed it from 10 to 7 days, and there were other changes.

I mean, we have made several ordinance changes since then at the advice of the Humane Society, including the trap release, the CAT program that we just passed in December, haven't even had enough time to get it in.

And my understanding this whole time was that we had set an additional committee where Alder Woman Berkholder was a part of with city staff and humane society, and the sole purpose was figuring out a path forward, not a path, a separate direction.

And from my understanding, our initial contract was like 391,000, give or take, right?

And that when the Humane Society canceled that, they wanted more than double 800.

And we ended up moving, like we more than doubled our contract.

And then since then that number has escalated to essentially 1.4 was the initial ask, and then down to 1.2, correct?

I just want to make sure the facts are correct with what I've received, because I received a stack of stuff from staff and I have reviewed everything in detail.

All the correspondence that's gone back and forth, the proposed contracts, even the excel sheets that was provided by the Humane Society.

And my understanding was that this whole time staff is requesting a breakdown of the financials.

Like you are coming up with this number, show us how you obtain these numbers.

Which all day long, everyone in my constituents is saying well, they want transparency, they want accountability, they're yelling at me uh to get their streets fixed because we got potholes everywhere.

So when we're in government, there's only so much money to go around.

I think the council's position, and council correct me if I'm wrong, is we are absolutely willing to pay what is reasonable.

We were just asking for those numbers to be explained because how do I turn to a constituent say we went from 391 to 1.4 in the course of a couple years just because we were told it was more.

I mean, it's government, you guys understand that as a nonprofit, we were asking for the documentation, and to my knowledge, the requests for additional documentation were not received.

I have emails that were sent out as as early as after I requested the um the meeting, February 17th, there's five requests on there, and I have not to this date, unless you sent it to staff, and this is why I wanted it in-person meeting.

I have not received this information.

So if you sent it to staff, please tell me who you sent it to so I can address that because that's information that we still don't have.

Now I'm hearing that the goal is to move forward and that humane society has now decided it's no longer going to provide services.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Long term.

Yes.

Long term.

I just want to make it crystal clear because when a constituent calls me or sends me a nasty gram that they're gonna dump off all the dogs in my backyard.

I want to have the facts straight so I can say the city didn't decide they're not working with the humane society.

The humane society decided that they were gonna go different direction, and the purpose then of this meeting turns into how we're going to do so that animals, the welfare of animals is still something that we take care of together until that separation point.

Is that correct?

Okay, perfect.

One one clarification I might offer, and I appreciate I appreciate that.

For all the clarifications, I want it all out there because I am tired of misstatement, misfacts.

You guys put a post on social media after Alder Woman Berkholder made a statement saying you guys first heard about it.

I actually flipped out on our staff at a meeting because I agreed.

I got nasty emails from constituents saying that's ridiculous, they didn't even have notice, and I agree it would be ridiculous with no notice.

But then staff provides me a copy of the letter that you sent, and if you actually read the letter, you guys are the ones that are saying we're we're pretty much done.

I mean, any reasonable prudent person reading the letter sent by Humane Society on February 4th would take that as we're done, we got six months.

So we didn't provide notice.

True.

You provided notice, and because of that, I got a whole bunch of nasty email, and quite frankly, pissed off constituents, and I had to take heat, and I know all their woman birth holder took heat, and so did several several of us, and it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.

So I I think it's important that the facts be set forth for the public.

That is absolutely important.

And I think we are aligned in the sense of we need to figure out a path forward, even if that path forward is ultimately separate directions, because that's now what I'm hearing.

And I walked into this meeting thinking we're trying to figure out path forward together.

So that's news to me, but I appreciate the openness to understand that so that we can figure something out in that sense.

Yeah, so the clear uh two clarifications I might offer then is that the I think it it's understandable, and I think we both could have or both of our teams could have worked better on this element in that the humane society's desire was always to see the c the services fully funded through conver you know, so I'm talking three, six, nine years ago, right?

From coming from that three hundred, four hundred number all the way up to the final uh agreed upon payment appears to double.

That seems like a big increase, seems unreasonable, right?

In the context of we begin by asking for the full amount, and it's a step toward that.

The perception can be reality, right?

So I think that's important to note that um that the costs of the service aren't doubling every year.

And that would be irresponsible, I think.

Um but that uh the city's the city's success at paying for the full costs has has rapidly grown.

Um and that's been great progress that we've seen.

Um clarification on our uh both of our organizations handling of the public statements.

I think we were in a spot where um our offer as a suggestion, a negotiation was underway, right?

So I think to uh any public statement at that time might have been preemptive for either organization.

Are you saying you started out high intentionally?

No, we're saying we're started out service cost a certain amount, right?

I understand that.

So the nonprofit nature of our organization aside.

Say you're going to hire an electrician, right?

They say I'll do that service for you, it'll cost a hundred thousand dollars.

Um you can take or leave that offer, right?

We're in a unique situation where we're the only organization prepared with the capacity to do this work.

So I think over the decades, there's been a lot of give and take on on what the city could pay for those services, but they've always cost much, much more.

To your point, Jasmine, you know, starting out at 1.4 and getting down to 1.2, some of those code changes have actually created savings already, but it's a long process.

So if we start by saying we'd like to see these services that we're providing to you as an outside contractor paid for in full, I I think that's a fair place to start.

We just didn't always get there in the course of negotiation.

I don't think the city has an issue paying in full.

The issue is as we sit here today.

Yeah, I do not have the documentation to show me how you come up with those numbers.

That's that's my issue.

And when I asked staff, they provided me, like I said, allegedly everything that the humane society provided, and I have reviewed it thoroughly, and I still can't crunch the numbers of how you come up with your numbers.

As a matter of fact, even the one sheet, when it came to financials, you guys provided a one-page.

This correct?

Along with our audits for years, along with financial reports, along with our PL statement.

It wasn't just one page.

Yeah, yeah, PL statement.

It was three.

It was three pages.

Well, this is a this is a three-page attachment, correct?

But I mean, there's not much on on the other.

And we like we provided our audited.

Yes, our audited information yes.

We also provide the quarterly reports of how we how many calls for service and how many animals are intaked through the city, and that is how we determine cost.

We have explained that to staff multiple times and provided those numbers.

So the numbers, if you're talking about the Excel sheets, correct?

No, those are different.

That's um something staff requested so that they had uh a list of essentially the animal intakes for those years.

So let me understand this correctly.

When you're coming up with your numbers, you're basically saying we took in this many dogs, this many cats.

They were this many were from Davenport, it is blank percentage, let's say 60 percent.

Is that sound about right?

64.

64, okay.

I think that's the numbers you guys had.

And you're saying then our overall operation costs this much, 60 percent is Davenport, and therefore that's what Davenport's going to.

That's that's conceptually right, right?

Yeah, we don't do that.

Um, so we take our full budget, we remove everything that is part of our nonprofit mission, which means staff members that have nothing to do with our animal control contracts or even the animal shelter care inside.

Um, we also remove any major medical that we fundraise for that we say this is beyond the scope.

I worked for a county government animal shelter previously for six years.

So I understand what government shelters are generally looking for in the terms of what they'll provide, which is more so basic care.

The animal comes in the building is required to get vaccinations by state code.

Um, the animal, if it goes up for adoption, is required to be altered.

That's also state code.

So those are basics included along with the staffing, the building because the Humane Society owns it, so we're including cost of utilities, things like that is a shared portion of every city that utilizes our service.

We're saying you're utilizing our building, and so part of that utility cost is keeping the lights on for your portion of animals.

So we're taking that percentage to break that down.

So once we we remove all of the non-profit mission items, we then have about 600, 700,000 less of our total budget because we say that's our portion, that's our mission that we're going above and beyond to take care of these animals for as long as we feel is appropriate until they have a correct disposition, which is also the disposition is part of the ordinance of uh in our contract of following through for the disposition of the animal.

Um we also then we then take that amount that's left of our contract services, and we utilize how many calls for service from each city and how many animal intakes from each city, what percentage of that is of that budget that's left of actual contract services, and then that's how we determine what portion each location pays.

But arguably, if you're picking up a dog in Davenport and you're located in Davenport, that staff member is taking up less staff time than if they're picking up a dog in LaClaire or any of the other cities.

So if you're doing a strictly percentage analysis based on the number of animals, you're not accounting for the actual staff time taken into that.

Is that correct?

That would be the animal control time.

Yeah, and so we're we are just going by calls, and that is how we determine those expenses.

There are a lot of ways to do it.

Per capita is a way that some animal shelters provide a contract service for others.

We do not do a per capita because we actually explored that with the consultant that we hired because it would actually be unfair to other cities because they would essentially be out of that chunk of what it costs us to provide the service.

They would then be pro paying more than what their services are actually costing us.

Um, a comparison of that.

So, for example, if we said, well, we wanted everybody to pay an $8 per capita.

The difference is that those cities have different variations of the services that they require from us.

So a comparison that helps because every city provides a police department, is that for example, the Betendorf Police Department is roughly a $325 per capita cost to their citizens.

Um I mean 260.

The city of Davenport is then 325.

There's just a different need in services for what that is.

It's not necessarily that it's comparable by population, so that's why we don't go by per capita because the service needs are different.

And looking at the financials that were provided, it didn't look like the city was also receiving credit for things such as we provide a vehicle fuel, and the fuel is not just on our vehicle but on all your vehicles.

So if you're fueling your vehicle to go pick up dogs in all other cities in Scott County, Davenport is paying for that, and I didn't see anywhere where the city was credited for that either.

Yeah, so the two the vehicles.

So the city of Davenport provides one vehicle.

Um we currently utilize three vehicles to provide contract services, so that includes two animal control vehicles specifically for animal control calls, one van that is primarily used to take animals back and forth for their spending or appointments, that's also required as part of that animal's disposition.

Um, and so because Davenport is essentially two thirds of the service, one vehicle does not actually cover the Davenport service amount, so we don't utilize any sort of like we don't own that vehicle, that's not something that's given to us, so there's no financial value in that other than providing us a vehicle to provide the service.

So we're then not charging for the maintenance of that vehicle because you guys obviously do that, so that percentage is altered in that area because you guys aren't you're paying for one vehicle, it takes two to provide your services essentially.

So the humane society purchases, maintains, and registers and insures all through the other two vehicles, and we insure and uh registering.

But in the financial, you're still apportioning 60% to the city of Davenport.

For double paying for the two other two vehicles, correct?

So we're paying 60% of two other vehicles plus an entire vehicle plus gas in all the vehicles.

Yeah, I mean that's not accounted for, but I guess at the end of the day, it all becomes irrelevant at this point.

If humane society's position as of today is that we are not going to move forward long term, and the humane society only wants to do something short term, and if that's that's the position, I think we need to shift the conversation to what that looks like, because one of the other things that I personally have an issue with is how long this is had dragged out, like it is ridiculous.

I know government moves slow, I get that.

I don't like it.

I tend to push things, um, but we need we need to figure out some answers because the clock is ticking, and as you said, you're the only provider, so essentially the city of Davenport is in a really poor position because we have waited for response.

I know we wanted a response last year at a certain deadline and it wasn't met.

Can I speak to that?

Because I'm very confused about that.

Um the deadlines for the city were within our contract.

We were all hoping that we would get to an agreement by November 1st.

So that was the date set within the contract.

Um, we provided an initial offer to the city in August.

So that would have been August 25th.

We met in person and provided uh an offer.

Um, within that offer, so then so that was provided August 25th.

October 22nd is when Davenport countered with a letter for 840,000 and requested that we respond essentially within seven business days.

Um, so that was very difficult because they also then included two other localities, which we were under the understanding from the August meeting that that would be an effort to combine those contracts because maybe there were ways that the those three localities could pay for services and they work out how they're paying for those.

And so we were then provided a offers, except they were all separated still.

So in reality, those are still three separate contract negotiations.

Um, and so we were under the impression that okay, they were Davenport was essentially a spokesperson for the other two localities, which has been communicated to us that that was not exactly the case.

So there I think there's some confusion there.

Um but that's what we were told on our end of what we were receiving.

Um and so for us, that complexity of receiving three different offers within one takes a lot longer than seven business days.

So we said, hey, we need time to respond to this.

Um it took them about two months to respond to our initial offer.

Um I have to get all of our all of our board members together.

We work with the consultant saying what can we do?

And I think this is important in the the prior aspect too of talking about how you know the contract amount didn't actually increase each time.

The contract amount of what we know that services cost has been over 1.2 million since I've been involved with the organization at 2023.

Um, and so that was that initial you guys doubled that contract from four to eight, which we're very thankful for, and then we're under the impression that our task force was for bridging that gap.

Where the humane society continues to provide, you know, kind of you know what are we doing to change any of our operations with ordinance changes to reduce cost?

So that's where we went from a 1.38 cost to 1.233.

So within about two years, we reduced the city of Davenport's operational expenses by 150,000, but we have only been offered 40,000 more dollars since 2023.

But we increased like the licensees fees increased, and you guys keep all the licensing fees, and again, that's another number that I don't see it is there's one in here, but there's another number that's not even accounted for within the worksheet when I was running the numbers.

Like it's there's a number listed, but then when you add them up, it's not it's I'll show you right here, you're sitting right next to me.

One, two, three, four doesn't add up to that number.

So I guess my my concerns is I think the counting is an issue, right?

I uh I know you say there are different ways to do it, but when you talk about all just a percentage or I think a per capita or hey, you got this many people for Davenport, these many dollars, these many cats.

I think that would give us better confidence in the numbers.

If it was considered, I understand you have a larger area than Davenport, but we are a good chunk a good portion of it, and you are based in Davenport.

Uh you know, when we talk about the license fees and the gas and the fundraising and the other offers that we are provided, when you put it all together, the numbers to me don't add up, and that's what gives me the most concern.

I would I would like it if we could work with our financial department to come up with a accounting process, right?

They gave account for, and if that means that other locales had to pay more because they're not you're not located in those locales, you know.

Again, that that maybe we have to go to, but I think that is I think that provides everyone a level of um understanding of what the numbers really are with with all due respect.

Okay, if you've decided to separate, then a lot of that really doesn't matter anymore.

So I guess my question would be what do you think you need a month until we get to that point of separation?

I don't think it can put together no takes six months.

A year or two years.

What I'm saying is if if your goal is to separate, then a lot of this other stuff really doesn't matter.

Not that it's not important.

It's important, yeah.

We had contract negotiations, and Eric was right.

The number's been 1.2 since 2023.

Most that anyone's ever offered from Davenport was 840.

What do you think's gonna happen?

We can't run an organization in a 400,000 loss.

If it wasn't for donations, they would have they would have gone out of business.

So am I hearing you correctly?

400,000, two years in a row loss.

Then Davenport comes out with the same number plus 40,000.

Okay.

That's not negotiating.

That's asking us to lead.

But okay, so the number has been 1.2, but we have not there's a went from 800 to 840.

There's an that's the only number that's gone up.

Again, I think that the county that's why we want us to do the counting the game.

There's one there's an important fact that's missing here.

There was an agreement signed by all parties, a three-year contract for 391.

That the humane society in when that contract was in play before the end of the third year.

Actually, I think it was right at the first year.

Decided to say we're out unless you give us 1.2 million.

So that's an important factor because I understand what you're saying that the cost has been 1.2.

The cost has been 1.2.

It clearly wasn't 1.2 when the Humane Society came to the table and signed a contract for 391 with the city of Davenport for three years.

So from government perspective, the way we do our budgeting, like it's we just getting ready to approve 2027.

So when that came, that was hard for the city to come up with that.

400 is a lot for a city that's not because you're already in that budget was approved years prior.

That's one of the budget.

But the conversation is expressing the shortness of the timeline.

And I think it's a good thing.

Not only that, though, we're still willing.

If it's 1.2, I don't have an issue paying 1.2.

I don't think the council has an issue.

But how we get there, the county county.

In the context of finding our solution.

Solution forward.

It's important to know the level to which we have those conversations with staff.

I I handled a lot of that communication with prior interim city administrator, and I was clear in those conversations how much the service costs.

And so I understand that by the time it may make it to a vote, it's a different number, but we communicated that as clearly as we could that we needed to see a long-term trajectory to get there.

Um and I think based on those experiences and with with really good faith effort to figure out the intricacies of how we need to report these financials, all the differences between all these city contracts.

I think after such a long time of trying to figure it out and not finding it, that's part of what helps our decision to say we're not going to find a path here, and we're not satisfied with the way the communication has happened.

Our obligation is to our mission and to the people and animals of the community.

So the best choice for us is to aid you in setting up your own services in a responsible way.

So I think that's how we'd like to move forward.

So that is one question that I have asked at every single task force meeting.

What question?

Where does your mission begin?

And what is it?

With an animal.

Yes.

Um, so for us is that relevant to our discussion on how to separate services at this point.

Well, it's like it was what never answered.

I mean, I think no different than like staff had sent out questions, and staff is was telling us there's information we need, there's information we need.

I have copies of email that's emails that staff had sent out, and as we sit here today, we never got that information.

Do you know which emails then we're gonna do it?

Like this one was February 17th.

It looks like the same questions were sent July, February 17th, 2026.

The same ones were at July 31st, 2024.

Oh, these questions.

Yes.

So these are the questions that we were asked in advance so that we could prepare to give them tonight.

Yes.

That's specifically.

But we've been asking since 2024.

I guess I just want to what I want to make clear, because I I think there's a misunderstanding in terms of what the city this isn't a situation where the city's saying no, we're not going to pay that.

The city is more than happy to pay their fair share.

Can I speak to that?

Because I think that is a huge miscommunication in this entire conversation, is that that is not what your city staff have been telling us since January.

So we are very confused why our communication with city staff seems that it has not been communicated to the council.

Our offer back in December was an amount that I think I I am wondering why it wasn't received and taken, and that was stated by Tim during the meeting, and it appears that I watched the council meeting which you asked for this meeting, and it sounds like you didn't even have that communication.

So, like for me, when the city provides me an offer that is a counter offer from the city of Davenport, it immediately goes to our board of directors so that they can review that and we can decide because that decision does not lie with me, it lies with the board.

And so we were very confused when we have only been told from staff since the beginning of January that there has to be a separation of services because they can do these services on their own because they can diversify the revenue in which it is funded.

I have had that conversation with staff.

I have been told that the city finance director is exact excited for the contract to end, not because they want it to end, but because they can fund this in different ways.

So when we're being told that, we're very confused then when we say, okay, we understand we respect that you you can fund this in a different way, and that would be what's best.

We understand that we would like to help that transition so that nobody is left without an animal shelter, without public safety of animal control.

We don't want that either.

So we're very confused why it then turned like we now have counsel saying we would pay it.

It's very confusing for us.

If you can provide the documentation as we sit here today, the number, the math is not mathing.

Again, that's all I'm saying.

I have to be able to do that.

That is our I have to be able to turn to a constituent and when they ask me why are you spending this.

But I also can't I came here today thinking we're gonna get it A information, we're gonna make it clear to the public what's taken place because I did not take too kindly to the public thinking that as council we're not attempting to work with with the humane society and trying to find a path forward at this meeting is the first time I'm hearing that the humane society has decided the path forward is to separate.

So and if that's the situation, other than clearing the this is where we work, because I don't want the people thinking like oh the city didn't want to pay their fair share.

No, the the city is more than always willing to pay their fair share.

We just needed the documentation, and as we sit here today, that was never received.

What was received didn't add up.

It's the math isn't mathing.

When you run the different calculations, you want to talk about per capita.

Davenport's paying what eight bucks or something like that per capita compared to what was it for the other cities.

I mean, a couple dollars, like a huge difference.

I can't justify that to my constituents, and I'm not going to subsidize animal control for others it's horrible enough when I have when you you have a contract with Scott County.

We are part of Scott County, we pay taxes to Scott County, yet we have our separate animal control contract with the humane society.

We have talked about we would have we in the past would have been very interested in combining the contract to be one countywide service because we run into this.

Our consultant has seen this a lot because when there are a different contract for every single little individual city within a county, but it is a countywide service that's difficult.

Um it's not too unsimilar from the kind of difficulty when medic was an individual entity.

Um we also with the financial question.

So we have sat down with our budget, tried to explain that, explained here's your percentage of animals intake, how we use that percentage to get it.

We also have hired that consultant because we said we clearly haven't been talking the same language, we're not on the same page.

We obviously can we figure out our finances different than a city figures out their finances.

I have said, can we have an RFP would be an option because then we would understand exactly what the city is asking for.

Because I think it's also important to note we are a contractor.

While we are a nonprofit, we are a business providing a service no different than a construction company, a local plumber.

So we have said, can we see what you want?

Can you give me a format?

I don't have a format that I've ever been able to answer to to say what format do you want it in?

I have received vague questions such as how much does a difficult case cost?

That was in that email from 2024 that you're mentioning.

Part of the reason we also hired a consultant because we're not talking the same language.

A difficult case could be a lot of things.

Um it was compared to filling a pothole.

This is not the same kind of service in which I can tell you that it costs the same amount no matter what you're doing, because it's a very specific job.

It is much more similar to a police department, in which we could go on a welfare check, and that welfare check could take two minutes because the animals are fine, or we could go on a welfare check and it's the same distance, but that welfare check could take three hours because it's a hoarding case of 27 animals that we have to pull.

So we hired that consultant to say, are we also one figuring out our financials in a correct way for us as a humane society to charge a city government?

Two, is our cost similar to other organizations?

Because I think that's an important factor because regardless of how we get those numbers, is that comparable for those service costs?

And it is, especially for the state of Iowa.

And so we were using that to say this is what our services cost.

We have understood and have wanted to work on this as a partnership, which is why we have been so willing to take less than what services cost.

These costs have not jumped 400,000 every every contract.

They have been over 1.2.

We have accepted less because we were under the impression that we were working together to try and continue for Davenport to increase their payment and for the Humane Society to make changes using the ordinance changes to improve operations.

So when we improve operations by 150,000, but the city only comes back with 40,000 more, it is very difficult because that was not a jump that we were asking for.

It has cost this amount the entire time.

So we've actually reduced it.

So I think it's important to note that we are a business providing what this cost.

We don't change our operation or our mission to fit what a customer would like it to be.

Like if you want to remodel your bathroom and you have $8,000, but I tell you that it costs me 10,000 to do it.

I don't wheel and deal with you to say, well, let's do it for a little less.

So we have been doing that because we find the mission important.

We have held the contract for decades on.

When is your mission take over?

I mean, that's the million dollar question that has not been answered by anyone.

Yeah, I've yes.

Go ahead, Matt.

Matt, go ahead.

I'm sorry about horrible names.

I mean, this gentleman's saying there's zero percent chance we're moving forward, and you're almost making an argument that there might be a path forward.

I don't think we are now.

I think my concern is that it is it is being taken as if the Humane Society is coming out of nowhere saying that we aren't continuing services.

Our problem is that we have been told since January that staff have said that there is no continuation.

There's been a bunch of miscommunication.

I'm asking you now, is there is a zero percent chance we're moving forward together, or is it higher than zero?

Because if it's zero, we're spinning our wheels here.

We I don't really care how we got here.

The chance is zero.

Now, if it's one percent, then then I'm not gonna listen.

But if it's zero, then let's all go home.

We're not asking you to have a board meeting right now.

No, no, no.

So this is a conversation.

But at the same okay, if it's zero.

If it's zero, the question, we're not going home right quite yet, sir.

Because I mean, the people of Davenport still want the animals taken care of, and I think that's something that everyone around the table unanimously agrees on.

We all agree, yes, yes.

We're making progress.

So we gotta figure out how what that looks like.

The city sent forth a proposal on March 20th.

Um you're not prepared to make a final decision.

We need a a reason like a reasonable timeline because for us the clock is ticking, and our contract ends what June?

Right?

Yep.

Three months, yeah, no, three months anything.

So I mean, either we figure it out or there's animals that are not going to be taken care of in the city of Davenport with which none of us want to happen.

So the conversation needs to shift to what does that look like?

So I'll ask the Humane Society.

What are you willing to do?

Are you willing to engage in a let's say a two-year contract?

What does that look like so that we can transition services?

Let me lead into that based on our board conversation.

Um, and I think that the challenge of the conversation we've had here is reflective of the tension we felt for 20 years in trying to figure this out, which is what led us to say we don't feel like there's a productive relationship to build here in the future.

And given our mission, that's why we're deciding correct 0% chance.

We're solely focused on finding a responsible transition plan.

Um by responsible, we mean two things.

We mean it's fully funded at the amount it's gonna cost us, and that two it allows the city time to adequately build these services in a way that'll be safe for the public and the animals.

Okay.

So are you willing to the numbers, make them add up and provide them?

Well, we've given you the number that our our full service costs.

If you need more detail that we already have, but we can't, we're not going to hire two, three additional staff to track every mile in every case, it's not possible.

If you'd like to talk to our consultant again, who's a respected professional in in the industry who's worked with other cities, I think that would be useful.

But we've got our number.

What is that number?

Same as it's ever been.

Well, it's actually it's changed a couple of times, especially within the correspondence that I reviewed.

Our full cost is directly broken down 1.2.

It's 1.23.

1.23.

Okay, and that obviously includes the animal, every animal from the moment you pick up the animal until complete that's disposition, correct?

So so I'm understanding correctly, your mission does not take over whatsoever on any of those animals.

I understand what you're asking.

We've had this question a lot.

A lot of cities say, Well, why are we responsible for the animal after the stray hold period?

It's a common question that animal shelters are asked across the country.

Um, the answer to that is one if you were running your own animal shelter, your mission, because you will have a mission of some form running an animal shelter, also does not stop with the disposition of an animal after the stray hold period.

Any animal shelter I've worked for a county government and other shelters I have seen visited that are city or county ran, they continue to move forward with those animals.

They may not do as much medical, they may have to euthanize more often because they can't do that medical, but they still bring that animal to a point of adoption.

So currently our length of stay for dogs is I wrote it down.

It's a 20 significantly less than Scott County or other cities.

24 days is currently our length of stay.

For us, that is an average.

That is what's being paid for is the average amount of time that an animal takes to get to a disposition required.

So for us, 24 days is there is no animal whose life is not worth a 24-day stay.

And so we do not change our mission to meet the financial ask essentially of a customer.

So our mission is to remove the nonprofit portion, such as programs that no city would ever pay for, foster programs, volunteer programs, our fundraising staff.

No, we're not asking cities to pay for that.

That is part of our mission as an organization as a nonprofit to have staff like that and programs that go above and beyond a contract agreement.

However, the basic care of an animal is something we would consider everybody's responsibility to provide that service for citizens through the animals disposition.

But that's not exactly how the Davenport code reads in your whatsoever.

That's the service we're choosing to provide based on our mission and values.

But you're not in the city of Davenport.

Support like pay for the entirety of the mission.

Like at no point in time does your mission like I'm not saying the seven-day hold, but not even at the 20 days for the it might help us understand and have a clear communication.

And I'm not it's gonna sound accusatory, but I'll ask this in the frame of reference.

If you're bidding out for a cement company to lay new a new sidewalk, what kind of level of financial detail are you asking?

Because if we could align with that, I think we'll understand.

Or if you're asking us different kinds of information that may bring us some clarity.

Because it would be if it's 0%, why do you need to understand?

I guess.

Well, I think we're trying to determine what the contract looks like.

I'm not trying to be an asked, but okay, so it's 1.23 million a year.

Can you do it for 100 grand a month until we can get another program in place?

I think that'd be a decent proposal.

I think we do need to ensure that there is an amount of time of no transition because if we have less than 30-day notice, do you guys go we're yep, we're we're ready?

I understand.

Then we also don't have a transition period.

We do give a six-month amount.

I don't I know that.

I'm just saying it it's 1.23 million a year, so if it's it's roughly 100 in change a month, if we need 15 months or we need seven months with whatever out clause you need, I understand that.

Maybe it's 12 months minimum, and then on you know, on the 13th month we take over, but maybe we need 18 months.

Is it 100 grand a month?

And that would give us more time in case it we can't get this done by December 31st.

You're asking for the last offer we sent, which was a six month extension of full cost.

So if we need to sort of break that down into different time periods, our board's comfortable.

I'm not gonna beg my wife to stay married to me if she doesn't love me anymore.

So let's hope she doesn't.

You were thinking in a similar way because that was our offer that was on the table.

So we're just what is the number per month?

Is what I would ask.

That's my question.

Yeah, so what was the six-months next?

Okay, you're right, though, divide by twelve.

I mean, we well, we're just frustrated that you buy a fire truck, you go to the maker of the fire truck and say, you know, I think you're putting too many costs in there of building the other fire truck.

And you can other stuff.

It's like give us the whole thing.

We gave you the audited financial documents.

Um do you have do you ever go to your uncle fire truck and say we want more information?

I negotiate for a living.

Okay, yeah.

When I sign a three-year deal, it's a deal.

You it's a deal.

That's where I'm frustrated.

Well, we would have been we would have been gone if we didn't have a money.

But it was a deal.

Joe's a little bit.

There is a six-month cancellation clause in that.

Like, I understand when you sign a contract, you're looking for I do just want to say that there also is a cancellation clause within the contracts that were provided by Davenport.

So with a cancellation clause, everybody has within their legal right to cancel that contract at any point with that amount of notice, which is what we did.

And sorry, just please remind me.

So the we'll just round numbers.

So the 1.2 million per year, that is Davenport's percentage of your cost, right?

Not the full freight.

Just making sure there that wasn't that complication.

And from that, do we subtract fuel and the vehicle?

I think so.

For the vehicle licensing fees.

The licensing fees we do attribute to the city of Davenport already.

So in that revenue, that is already considered revenue that we're receiving as part of the Davenport contract along with boarding and impound fees that are associated with the city of Davenport.

We also associate portions of our adoption revenue to each individual city based on the amount of the animals we brought in.

We say if you were 68% of the animals brought in, then we're gonna attribute 68% of our adoption income to your cost that you don't owe because we're saying that it was revenue already.

Yeah, but for the city, the city, for example, looking at the city tax, you have 20,000.

I know it's gone up significantly.

It has not.

It originally was 12,000, we've doubled it to about 24,000 so far.

So the numbers are still different than what's on the sheet.

Probably because those numbers also changed.

So you mentioned something that thought was intriguing.

You had mentioned the RFP process.

So like if you receive like a request from poll or from the city of Davenport on what it is we wanted, that that that would maybe give you all a bit of clarification on what you want it needed to provide us.

It would have.

I I think our concern is that we have had these conversations and tried to hash this out with city staff members and have not received the same, I think, level of how do we get there that we're receiving right now through a council.

So I think during the transition period, I I think it would be prudent to for us to really come up with what do we want and what do we need to have provided from our vendor, as we would any other vendor.

Well, if we're a transitioning, there's not another vendor, we're doing it in-house.

Well, the we we haven't that onto deciding.

So as we go through that, I think to set up that um R I think RP would be a good to just find out what exactly we were gonna get in whatever form may come up next.

Because we may do it or we may find another person.

I think I want to mitigate these issues for our next generation, whatever that may be with or without you.

Is that makes sense?

Well, is I understand it again, okay?

Zero chance of continuing the contract.

Okay, step one, right?

All right.

So then you're and again, you're one point two three, whatever it is, million.

So are are you telling us that you're gonna take that, divide that back by month if you want to put it that way?

And then that's what the payment will be until per month.

The separate yeah, per month until the separation's completed.

It won't be an example.

What I'm hearing is what I'm hearing is a six-month with month to month thereafter, I think is what I'm hearing from the council.

Yeah, I'll I don't think we want to negotiate in a public forum too specifically.

Uh what I'll say is that if you look at the last offer we sent you, you're you're almost basically describing it.

So if you have to reference 650,000 for six months to extend it to December 31st.

I mean, I guess we're in the public forum, but this is government and my constituents want transparency.

So they actually want this to take place.

Well, so the question is if we accept the only the only change we're requesting we're asking about right now is make it longer.

If we do the six months and then month to month thereafter at a hundred thousand dollars a month, with we can do a sixty-day notice.

I think based on the discussion we've already had that would be reasonable.

We can talk a little bit about the length of the timeline we'd need before cancellation.

We've got staff ramped down to handle, we want to be responsible in that way.

But I think you're on the right track.

Okay.

Because ultimately would would people would lose their jobs.

Well, we can just hire them.

That's why question zero is you can hire them at union wage, and that's why.

That's why question is zero or zero.

I mean, we got very often if you lose Davenport's business.

I'm sure union wages are something higher than that.

We haven't figured that completely out because there's also other ways that we may perform services.

It doesn't mean that their services are just contract services.

I think we we will have some experienced staff that would be interested in in working and passing along to Davenport that and that I think that's part of what we talk about when we talk about responsible transition planning.

So we're hiring your people.

Well, a lot better benefits, probably.

So I guess timeline.

Yeah, to me.

On it on a decision being made, like it sounds like the if I'm hearing correctly, you though your board still needs the meat to give us back a final, right?

On the transition, is that correct?

Okay, which I make sense.

Um looking at the calendar clocks ticking, what time do you need, like by what date can we expect a response, and then we will put a same response on the city to accept or I think it may be a little easier for us to know how much time I I've never set up animal control in my life, so I could not tell you what that takes.

I mean, no idea.

You guys tell us, you're the experts.

What's it how long does it take to set up animal control in a shelter?

We've had a building for so long.

We haven't built from scratch, so I don't know.

Um sorry, hi.

This is Katie Barnett.

I just wanted to step in because I have done this before.

Um and I can tell you that the um transition from animal controlly can take months.

Um, but you also don't want it to take too long because we are just talking about people's livelihood, and when there's uncertainty, animal control officers, police officers, um enforcement officers will look for other jobs, and then you will have the humane society with one animal control officer because everyone else has left because they don't want to wait month for month to see if they have a job.

Um so while you want a lengthy transition, it can't be too long, otherwise you'll lose you know the public safety aspect of the job.

Um, so I just want to insert that in.

Um, and I think also there if you are only wanting the field services model, then there is also a shelter model um and a budget that needs to be considered, um, you know, of course, for the city of Davenport.

So that that would be a whole nother contract negotiation, um, which certainly would be ongoing with the transition.

Um, but your transition time depends on whether or not you're just taking officers, or if you think that you're going to build your own animal sheltering facility.

I think it's it's made clear that it's done because we can't get an answer on when the mission takes over.

That's a that's a that's the question I still don't have an answer to.

So I mean if the humane society sheltering is done.

Yeah, what's the city?

You take a dog in.

What's the city's responsibility for that dog?

What is your responsibility for that dog if you're running your own animal shelter?

That hasn't been determined yet.

That's to us.

Well, for us, this is how we run.

Disposition, aka adoption, euthanasia for severe behavior or medical or transfer to another shelter.

Yeah.

I mean that may be just a difference we'll never overcome, right?

There's more conversation, I think, that needs to take part on the city's behalf because we were in this exact point in January a year ago, right?

That actually this exact point and could have moved forward.

But there's a couple of different ways we could go about this as a city if if there's an agreement that the humane society saying we're not moving forward, okay.

We could run just the animal control portion and put out an RFP for somebody to run a shelter.

Okay, or you could try to do both.

It was my understanding a year ago, we were going to run the animal control portion of it, and we were going to try to contract for somebody else to do the sheltering.

And I don't know if that's changed from a staff perspective or not.

Um, but that's a decision, and there's a big difference between doing the control portion and doing the sheltering portion.

I'm comfortable that we could do the control portion.

I'm not as comfortable that we can do the sheltering portion.

And so the city really needs to consider which option we're gonna do in that regard, right?

And if we said, okay, we're gonna be in control, we can do that.

It fits within things that a city can do.

Um RFP for a shelter, that very likely you guys would at least consider that and look into it, or maybe you won't, maybe I'm wrong.

Um, but if not, who who is going to do it?

I mean, so I I don't think we have an answer on our end for that.

That we need that we need to come up with an answer to that, and that will be up to to Tim and the staff to figure out what the best option is or to propose a solution, and then the council needs to make a decision.

Which is why we're saying the six month, but then month to month, because I don't know how long, depending on what direction the city takes, how long it'll take to city to get there, because it does depend on that direction, and that's gonna be something that our administrators gonna have to discuss with staff and then bring back to the council.

Can I ask a question?

Um so back to the timeline.

Okay, just so that when can we get a response on what we just discussed here?

Sounds like generally the six months that was contained in the February 4th letter stands, and it sounds like there's a general acceptance of 100,000 per month on a month-to-month basis.

The one thing was the what what type of notice would be required for the cancellation of that.

I had said 60 days, and it sounds like that's one of the things that the board needs to talk about, but so when would we have a a firm response from Humane Society?

By the time we get everyone to get a couple weeks, we're gonna take two or three.

Organizing 10 or 12 schedules, we just want to be safe.

Yeah, I can understand.

So we have pretty much there's next week.

Um, I just want to jump in real quick because I'm a stickler for the record.

Um I just want to be clear.

Um I'm sure that the city has seen the October 22nd letter that you all sent the Humane Society, but I just do want to put it on the record that the city did present three options on money, and one of the three options was that services are discontinued um on June 30th at the end of Davenport's contract term.

And that was something that was a surprise certainly to the Humane Society, but that was the first mention of the contract ending if an agreement could not be made.

So I I just don't want it to be put on the Humane Society on the record that it was always just the Humane Society's intention to terminate this relationship.

Um the city did bring it up in that October letter.

And then my sorry, my only other part that I wanted to bring up is I do have a chart of per capita um costs for shelter services and field services run by the government and run by private contractors in the Midwest.

So we're talking Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, um, and then a few in North Carolina.

But um for shelter and field services, the average that governments are paying either themselves or which is always slightly higher, um, or privately contracted, is 12.48 cents per capita.

Okay, good.

So I think by by April 10th, we're we're confident we can get everybody together and be able to have that conversation.

Just okay, hold on.

Two things.

What day did you just say?

How far out is that from two Fridays now?

One, two, okay.

Tim, are you still there?

Yes, I am.

Um, the Humane Society is going to confirm the discussions um on April 10th.

Would how long would you need from that date to provide the final response?

April 10th is a Friday.

So it's two weeks and one day from today.

I think older woman uh Newton, if if it's not something that's drastically different than what I was hearing during this meeting, I think I can provide a short turnaround.

Give me a week.

One week, okay.

That's April 17th.

Yep.

No allow me to talk with staff and then uh make counsel aware of an email or a couple of email updates, but I think uh a week would work.

Perfect.

And then just for clarifications, I'm looking at the letter that was being referred to from October that the city sent on October 22nd, 2025.

Because I too am a stickler, so making sure the record is clear, and the city said the city desires to extend our longstanding partnership so long as a financially responsible to the taxpayers.

And the only mention of ending the term is if an agreement cannot be reached.

So from the city's perspective, that wasn't a here's option B.

It's just done.

It was if an agreement cannot be reached, which I think goes goes without saying if we can't meet numbers that you know add up or that are substantiated by documentation.

So I think that's important for the public to know the facts, and of course the FOIA's can roll out, we have them ready.

If you guys want to see a copy.

No, I appreciate everybody's time and let's make it work.

Hopefully, this would put out the way, and we don't want to we want to get along as a community partner.

Yes.

So appreciate everyone's time.