Column: Contract troubles must be addressed

When you work for government and you make a mistake, you run the risk that mistake will be made in public, for all the world to see.

The city finds itself in this unenviable position at the moment, not once, but twice.

In case you missed it, in the past six months city staff botched the contract for animal control services and failed to get an emergency homeless shelter up and running on Larch Street before the weather turned foul.

Let’s look at animal control.

At the end of 2013, the city held consultations to determine what the public would like to see changed with animal control services, which is a good idea. Animal control has been a contentious issue for years, and it appeared the city was trying to tackle it head on.

Findings from the consultations were rolled into the new tender, which council OK’d in February to go out to bidders in March.

The new tender included a number of new provisions. These included that those employed by the contractor must be trained in both animal control and — wait for it — public relations, even though these workers can’t speak with media or give public presentations without city approval.

The contractor would also have to enforce other city bylaws related to animal control, but outside the provisions in the animal control bylaw. A veterinarian would be required to assess an animal before it’s put down. As well, shelters would have to operate seven days a week, keep stray animals for longer grace periods and offer free adoptions.

Reasonable and humane changes, but what isn’t reasonable — at least not to me — is the city expected to get all of this for the same price as the previous contract.

Expecting to get around four bids, the city was surprised — yes, surprised — it only received one.

Because the bidding was such a failure, the city had to extend the current contract with Rainbow District Animal Shelter twice since the contract expired July 1.

The new two-year contract is $600,000 a year (compared to the $423,000 previous contract) and contains none of the items the public said it wanted. Plus, the city is hiring a consultant to help it figure out how to do better next time, which, of course, costs more money.

And then there’s the downtown emergency homeless shelter.

There are dozens of homeless people in Greater Sudbury who deserve to sleep somewhere warm on a winter’s night. That’s what living in a just society is all about.

The city knew last winter it would need to put something in place after the Elgin Street Mission was forced to restrict its overnight service to periods of extreme cold. But here again, we find the tendering process broke down.

On Nov. 4, the city was still saying it needed two more weeks. Gail Spencer, who is the city’s co-ordinator of shelters and homelessness, told council the delay was partly caused because a bid didn’t meet the requirements in the tender.

Namely, the Salvation Army had the willingness, but not the location to run it. So the city offered a location and brought in an architect — again, just two weeks ago — to plot out what work needed to be done. Last week, the city said renovations were taking longer than expected and it wasn’t sure when the shelter would be ready.

What was staff doing about this issue for the last six months? Winter comes at about the same time every year. Why wait until it’s upon us to get going on a service you knew last winter you would have to provide?

Here’s a suggestion. Offer a reasonable contract for a reasonable price. If you want more services, expect to pay more. And don’t leave things until the last minute — poor planning costs money.

Once our new city council is sworn in next month, let’s hope at least one of those new faces has the wherewithal to seek an explanation from CAO Doug Nadorozny for what happened to these contracts.

Mark Gentili is the managing editor of Northern Life and NorthernLife.ca.