MINUTES OF THE KENT COUNTY LEVY COURT SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING KENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX 555 BAY ROAD, DOVER, DE LEVY COURT CHAMBER, ROOM 203 Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Call to Order

The Special Business meeting ofthe Kent County Levy Court was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by President Banta.

Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance

The Invocation was led by Mr. Howell and the Pledge ofAllegiance was led by Mr. Angel.

Moment of Silence for our Troops

A moment ofsilence was observed for our Troops led by Mr. Sweeney.

Roll Call and Determination of Quorum

Bradley S. Eaby Vice President Allan F. Angel Commissioner Eric L. Buckson Commissioner Glen M. Howell Commissioner Terry L. Pepper Commissioner George W. Sweeney, Sr. Commissioner P. Brooks Banta President 177 07/3012013

There are seven (7) Commissioners present.

Adoption of the Agenda

M-154-13 Motion was made by Mr. Angel, seconded by Mr. Pepper and Mr. Eaby and carried by Roll Call vote seven (7) yeas to adopt the Agenda as presented.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Banta: 1. Dog Control Services Contract - Overview and Status Report by Safe Haven Board ofDirectors: President Lois Fargo

Mr. Banta reviewed the rules before proceeding with the topic ofthe evening.

(1) Subject matter is regarding the Safe Haven's contract only; (2) Commissioners will ask questions ofthe floor and respectfully grant time to receive responses from the people of Safe Haven; (3) All questions will pertain to continuing to uphold the contract as it is in written form; (4) Make every effort to get answers to your questions the first time you ask so we may move on to the next question; (5) Under the Public Comment section the public is invited to participate at the appointed time; (6) The public will be allotted one (1) minute at the podium; (7) Any comments will be in regard to Safe Haven contract and no other subject; (8) If you go beyond the one (1) minute timeline I will have to ask you respectfully to take your seat and let the next person speak; (9) We all need to be orderly and respectful ofour friends, neighbors and our constituents;

We thank all of you for coming this evening and finally we are elected to be good stewards ofthe taxpayers dollars; guardians of your money and make wise investments; that being said - Mr. Petit de Mange.

Mr. Petit de Mange began by reminding everyone that in April ofthis year Levy Court issued a request for proposals for dog control services for a one year initial contract with potential for a year two and three. We had respondents and ultimately a contract was awarded to Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary and that was executed June 25 in anticipation ofa July 1 start. Safe Haven has been in that capacity since July 1. Mr. Petit de Mange continued to review the happenings of the past month concerning issues with Safe Haven. This meeting was called to provide immediate infonnation and clear, concise infonnation particularly about the business management ofSafe Haven. Our obligation is to our citizens in Kent 178 07/30/2013

County that we provide a continuous and reliable service to them. We have invited Board members and new President, Lois Fargo, to address Levy Court on the matter. We ask for specific attention to the budgetary constraints, revenues, expenses etc. that are perhaps causing financial distress for Safe Haven. He then invited members of the Board to come to the front table.

Mr. Petit de Mange stated he wished Attorney Primos to swear in each ofthe members from Safe Haven that will be testifying tonight before they make comments. The following were sworn in:

Lois Fargo, 36161 Tarpin DR, Lewes, DE Rita Hughes, 603 West End Ave., Bethany Bch., DE David Hughes, 603 West End Ave., Bethany Bch., DE

David Hughes explained the packets that were handed to everyone. First, was the question as to whether or not they could sustain themselves based on the number of animals they were recovering from dog control. The first six months ofthis year they took in 324 dogs; two to shelter; 77 were returned to owners leaving 247 available for transfer or adoption. During the first six months they actually adopted or transferred 322 dogs giving them a net reduction of75 dogs. We feel we have ramped our adoption and transfer program so that we can handle the influx of animals from dog control on a net basis.

Mr. Sweeney asked if the 324 dogs in the first six months were all from Kent County and did not include any surrenders.

They are the ones taken to the shelter, said Mr. Hughes. There was another 110 dogs picked up that were actually returned to their owners and never arrived at the shelter.

Mr. Sweeney then asked how many dogs they started with in January.

The answer from Mr. Hughes was over 200.

At this point then, said Mr. Sweeney, you have a little over 125.

Right now we have about 170, said Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Eaby asked what would be a transfer and Mr. Hughes said it is where they make an agreement with another shelter that they will take one ofour animals and put it up for adoption at their shelter. There is a very good spay/neuter program in New England and we take dogs to Maine, Vermont and New York to shelters that have room and will take our dogs that fit their criteria ofwhat they can adopt.

Once that dog is transferred, asked Mr. Eaby, ifit cannot be adopted, does it come back? 179 07/30/2013

The only reason we ever take one back, said Mr. Hughes, is ifit should come up with a medical condition we had not identified.

Mr. Eaby then asked what had led to the success of the placement ofdogs in the first half of2013 versus 2012 year.

A lot ofsuccess is due to the fact we are becoming more aware ofwho is out there that is able to help us, said Mr. Hughes. He talked a little more of the program.

Mr. Angel said they visited Safe Haven today and some other organizations were mentioned. He asked Mr. Hughes to expound on the one from Utah and the ASPCA and Faithful Friends.

Mr. Hughes said Best Friends were the people who took the Michael Vick dogs. They run a national program and have an east coast coordinator. They have been helping us locate shelters that are willing to take transfers and helping with other issues. Faithful Friends in NCC has sent us a letter officially documenting they are going to assist us by taking 12 dogs a month. Pet Rescue in NCC has taken some of our Pit Bulls. Georgetown animal SPCA has taken over a dozen animals from us recently and put them up for adoption. We are getting help to move some of the animals out.

Mr. Angel then asked how many dogs at the facility are from Kent County.

All ofthe dogs except for one, said Mr. Hughes.

Further questions were asked and care, adoption policies, and types ofdogs was discussed.

Mr. Hughes then moved on to Page 2 ofthe packet; this referenced suppliers required to keep the shelter open - contractors, electric, phone, propane for dryers, mortgages, disposal. Everything is listed along with our projected monthly cost for each ofthem.

Mr. Banta asked about their status with the satellite facility just south ofSmyrna.

We maintain spots there for dog control, said Mr. Hughes.

I am talking about money, said Mr. Banta.

This sheet does not have our outstanding bills on it, said Mr. Hughes. That is a different discussion. It is not a monthly expense; it is a past due bill. We are negotiating with past due creditors to come to a payment agreement. I do not have a hard number to put here. 180 07/30/2013

Mr. Banta asked ifthat was true for the Georgetown facility as well and Mr. Hughes said they were going to pull out ofthose facilities completely. We will not have any on going bills with them but will make arrangements to pay past due bills.

There is an outstanding invoice with the Georgetown facility and the one south of Smyrna, correct, asked Mr. Banta? That was correct. He then asked about the individual that built the building. What are your plans for paying that off?

Mr. Hughes explained there was still money from original mortgage which was a holdback until certain things on the punch list were completed. Once those are done the money will be released and it will go to the contractor and the balance will be negotiated for a monthly payment. We will work on fund raising to clear offback debts.

Mr. Banta is concerned about the taxpayers; he is looking at the big number­ how are you going to be able to resolve that indebtedness? It appears that is not a small amount ofmoney.

Mr. Eaby had more questions about finances and what software was used for bookkeeping and could they provide a balance sheet.

Mr. Hughes said they use J & J Bookkeepers and could provide a balance sheet and list of account payables.

Mr. Banta then asked Mr. Hughes what he knew about negotiations and how they were going to handle them. Mr. Hughes said he had worked with negotiations and they intend to start right away. There was further discussion on this issue. Mr. Banta explained the Commissioners and the County Administrator are responsible to 168 thousand people in Kent County of which probably halfpay taxes. Ifwe are not good stewards oftheir money we c,ould be in serious trouble as an organization. This Government has successfully operated over the past few years; have had a balanced budget; able to take care ofour employees. I will not support anything that is not solid and able to give me substantial evidence that things can happen.

Mr. Angel said he had asked how they got to this point and he was told there were three board members that had done this. There are seven on the Board; it takes a quorum offour. What was done by three was not a quorum ofclosing. When you realized that had taken place I guess you said no, we are not closing and started reorganizing. Is that what I got out of you today?

Mr. Hughes said when the four said they did not believe they should be closing the three resigned. 181 07130/2013

Mr. Angel said there was media present, they had an audience; he wanted the truth out. Along with other comments he said all Kent County money is going towards dog control; that is what you are paid for. The medical and everything else is based on your philosophy, correct? Negotiation wise, you are working with the people; you are keeping the one in Kent County open and trying to get the dogs back to their owners before taking them to Georgetown, correct?

Mr. Hughes said some come immediately to Georgetown for different reasons.

You are a whole new Board, said Mr. Angel, and still holding our contract. Can you tell us, so we all understand, where the money goes, what you are doing with our money and how you are going to operate and stay open.

The money will go initially for the dog control stafflisted in the document, said Mr. Hughes. The remainder will go for maintaining the shelter. More discussion followed on finances.

Mr. Pepper asked how many employees there were and how many were kennel staffand how many control officers.

Mr. Davis said all listed on the page under Dog Control were still employed, nine, one supervisor and the remainder dispatcher, control officers. At present there are currently six on staff being paid.

How many were on staffa month ago, asked Mr. Pepper?

Ms. Hughes stated some staffwas terminated maybe two weeks ago and over the week-end employees were fired by the interim Director. I believe it was five who were let go and seven just recently including the interim Executive Director and the vet tech.

Who is there daily to ensure the safe operation of the facility, asked Mr. Pepper.

Currently there is one working as interim Director and he is a great business manager, answered Ms. Hughes.

Mr. Pepper wanted to know how many would show up tomorrow morning for work as staff, not volunteers. When Ms. Hughes said there would be four Mr. Pepper wondered ifthat was sufficient to run the facility.

Ms. Hughes said they hired a new person today who would be starting tomorrow. He will be doing the night shift.

Mr. Pepper continued to question about workers - how many, what they would be doing. We want people there to pick up the phone. 182 07/30/2013

Mr. Hughes said none of the dog control has changed. Dog control operates the way it has for the last year. It has not been affected by this.

Mr. Petit de Mange had some questions related to monthly charges. The County's contract price for the year is $868,972; there was a breakout of that money; $113,772 was designated in the proposal for vehicle costs. I assume that is for purchaselmonthly payment on purchase, fuel, maintenance. Some ofthe basic operational costs are not jumping at me in this list. Are they in here? He wished to hear about the lump sum numbers in the proposal for vehicles and veterinary care. Are they reflected anywhere in a monthly fee?

Discussion followed.

Mr. Petit de Mange then talked about the kennel vendor in Kent County. This vendor has 35 spaces reserved monthly for Kent County and the cost is $10 thousand per month. You mentioned you were letting go the kennel spaces in Sussex. In our contract it is required that you have space in Kent County to hold dogs short tenn. He did not see the $10 thousand reflected as a monthly cost.

I had discussed that earlier with Mr. Banta, said Mr. Hughes. That number is not here because we will rationalize the 35 cells and we need to negotiate with them for their past bill and then see how we will do things from there. Not sure we want to keep all 35 cells; we are not experiencing 35 dogs a week; left out because not sure about re-negotiating that number; want to get a real number.

Mr. Petit de Mange asked him to state how many dogs were being processed per week.

Mr. Hughes said go back to the beginning; we have been running 40 to 60 dogs per month or 10-12 dogs per week.

With any business, you are concerned with income and expenses, said Mr. Eaby. You have a fixed amount ofincome from the County and we pay our bill. You have generated a large amount of accounts payable over one year so your expenses have, by far, exceeded your income. I find it hard for you to even break even let alone touch accounts payable. If you have addressed what has caused you to go in the hole and how you are going to fix it we need to hear how that will be done.

Mr. Hughes said the largest expense not planned for or anticipated was excessive medical costs and outside kennels. He went over again some things they are trying to do to help the situation.

Mr. Angel said he and others had visited the site today and there were volunteers there. He asked ifthere was a standard list ofvolunteers they could call for help or are they at random? 183 07/30/2013

Mr. Hughes said they had a list they could call on but many that were there today had heard about the issues and just showed up asking what they could do.

Mr. Angel had comments about medical expenses and things they could consider to help control them. Also, said Mr. Angel it seems you have an internal situation. How will you address that? We are all here tonight because ofwhat has taken place. There are three people that wanted to close and four that didn't. What are you going to do to keep these things from happening again?

Ms. Hughes stated they had just added a new Board member from Sussex and will be adding another from Kent. There has been some bad management and we are working hard to rectify that.

Mr. Angel then brought up something he had just learned. The law has changed and with any animal that comes in there are certain medical expenses involved. That is an unfunded mandate basically that will hurt budgets for you and all, including the SPCA, and any other dog facility. Do you think that is something you need to look at and maybe go back to General Assembly?

Mr. Hughes thought that was something you should already be doing if you are involved in this type of thing. Anyone who takes in animals should be doing a medical evaluation when they come in. It is part ofthe job. We are going to check the animals; they get a full set ofshots when they show up.

Mr. Sweeney brought up that it was mentioned Pit Bulls are a State wide, regional and national problem. Our perception here is t is not just Pit Bulls but dog control, care ofanimals after they reach the shelter. That has become a County and State wide problem. He asked if they had engaged with every other shelter! sanctuary in Kent County and the State in order to fix this problem. Are you ruling anyone out?

Not at this time, said Ms. Hughes. She spoke with Patrick Carroll from NC and he is willing to help; Faithful Friends is helping; recently Kent County brought some food supplies.

Mr. Sweeney then asked if there was any other regular stream ofrevenue other than Kent County's contract.

Mr. Hughes stated there is currently a $50 thousand per year grant that we are to get for the next four years. That comes in February.

Do you charge for adoptions, asked Mr. Sweeney? Mr. Hughes said they did but it is a nominal fee - $50, $100.

Fifty dollars times 322 adopted animals is $15,000, said Mr. Sweeney. I know 184 07/30/2013

they are not all adoptions but couldn't that be listed as a regular stream?

It is not guaranteed, said Mr. Hughes. I wanted to show guaranteed streams.

Mr. Sweeney said he would stand with Mr. Eaby asking that you go back to the accounting firm and get a trial balance, balance sheet, something that would more describe your position. He then asked where they would be without the Kent County contract.

Ms. Hughes said she believed they would have to shut the doors. Today we received donations of$650. Recently we received $2500 with a promise of getting another $2500 next week.

Ms. Fargo stated they had done well with grants in the past. There are some now in the pipeline. We will step up writing grants; that is a good source ofincome.

Mr. Sweeney verified Ms. Fargo was now President ofthe Board. He asked her what she would do if she were sitting on the dais listening to these comments.

She said she would think about their performance in the past and feels they have performed very well for Kent County and will continue to do so. Honest opinion.

Mr. Banta had a concern about a comment made about Kent County Levy Court and ifwe didn't renew the contract it would cause the demise of the organization. I attest, ifthe organization does fail, it is because ofmismanagement not because ofthis Body, which you implied. That was the feeling I got that ifyou didn't have that contract there would be a major issue. We are in no way going to be intimidated by any comment from anybody in the way we handle our funds and in this case which is become somewhat insurmountable over time. I won't say any ofyou are responsible for that but somebody has been misappropriating funds, have been spending money unwisely and has not managed the funds they have.

Ms. Hughes apologized for that comment. The question asked was whether or not we would be able to succeed and I don't want to say anyone here did anything but ifthat implied something I am so sorry; I was trying to make an answer to a question that was asked. I am being perfectly honest about that; whether or not you keep us on the dogs are still going to need treatment and be cared for. I am sorry for the way you took it; it was not meant that way.

Mr. Howell asked ifthere were any outstanding construction costs on Safe Haven and Mr. Hughes answered yes, believes it is about $100,000.00.

Mr. Howell said he believed it was around $148,000 and some change.

Mr. Hughes said there was some escrow to cover part ofthat from County Bank. 185 07/30/2013

How are you paying it back, asked Mr. Howell? Are you current? That is a lot of money.

Ms. Hughes said they have been in contact with the builder and he is willing to help out.

In reference to vehicles, said Mr. Howell; are they in good shape; are you maintaining them with tires, etc.?

They are maintained at Hertrich Nissan, answered Mr. Hughes.

Are they all safe, asked Mr. Howell? And Mr. Hughes' response was oh yeah.

Mr. Pepper apologized for the long interrogation but, he said, when dealing with money belonging to the people ofKent County we need to know where it is going and be sure all questions are answered. Having had Kent County's Dog Control contract for a few months and considering the number of animals you take in and how many are not returned to their owners, is Safe Haven's philosophy conducive to having a dog control contract ofthis type?

That is difficult to answer, said Ms. Hughes, but believes it is. It is difficult for any shelter in this state ifyou take in a lot ofPits who have been given a bad name.

Mr. Hughes said the technical answer is on the first page. We have figured out how to make it work over the last six months. We are pulling the numbers down even though we are taking those kind ofdogs. That is basically to the credit of our adoption people. They are figuring out to market those dogs to people and getting people to take them. The common thought is, no, if you are a no kill shelter you do not take a dog control contract. We knew it would be difficult but we have figured out to physically make it work.

Ms. Fargo added some comments about the Pit Bull situation. She felt they needed a good trainer on staff, one who can train the dogs as well as our volunteers.

Mr. Buckson said he appreciated the time spent at Safe Haven today. I see two constants: I would suggest everyone in this room is a fan of animals and dogs and want to see the best for them. The other seems to be a consistent desire to somewhat work, maybe not against, but certainly not together and that is a problem. We need to make big decisions tonight. Ifwe decide the contract is problematic and needs to be re-visited or cancelled how, Mr. Petit de Mange, would we go about that?

The contract was awarded by a vote by Levy Court, said Mr. Petit de Mange and it would need to be cancelled by a vote ofLevy Court. There is provision in the 186 07/3012013

contract for either party to terminate without cause; it requires a sixty (60) day written notice. There is also provision for breach ofcontract. If a vote were made in that direction written notice would be served to Safe Haven infonning them ofthe cancellation and the clock would begin upon receipt ofit. I would think it would be sent certified mail.

Ms. Hughes believes all should be working together towards a common goal for the dogs going forward, to get them adopted, for a shelter. We need to sit down and talk with whoever is not happy with us and decide how we can best go forward and possibly with their help.

Looking at the numbers, said Mr. Banta, it seems to be around $225,000 debt. I have not yet heard a way out ofthat to make me comfortable enough to satisfy the people in Kent County. So, beyond the fifty you get in February and the $72,000 you get a month from us, how are you going to pay these bills; how are you going to get out ofdebt; what are your intentions. You have not laid out a plan. Tell me about it.

The plan, said Mr. Hughes, is the grant writing and the patrons we approach for donations ofa large enough number to pay those people off in a much more reasonable time than trying to pay every month.

Grants are a delicate issue, said Mr. Banta. They take time and effort and expertise in order to get money. Do you have someone on board ready to do that?

Yes, we do, was Mr. Hughes' answer.

Ms. Fargo stated they had received in the past grants of$600,000 and $400,000; it is not out ofthe realm ofpossibility and we have some ofthem in the pipeline. That would help us get out ofour debt.

Mr. Angel asked ifthere was a possibility to do a re-finance to get a payment plan and the response was they have not looked at that.

Out ofthe 170 dogs you have probably seven that no one will take, correct, asked Mr. Angel?

Mr. Hughes said one was to be transported this week and you are correct; some we anticipate will be ours for their entire life.

I do not fully agree with my esteemed colleague about mismanagement of funds; my observation is this is due to the philosophy of a no kill facility or shelter. When you have so many animals and you keep taking more and the bills etc. keep adding up that is what hurts you. That is my observation. Is that kinda what took place, asked Mr. Angel? 187 07/30/2013

That is fair, said Mr. Hughes.

I certainly don't agree with you, said Mr. Banta, but that is OK.

Mr. Petit de Mange discussed the reason the State, General Assembly has passed the laws they have passed. They are basically rooted in two primary functions that tend to be governmental functions. One is public safety and the other is animal welfare. Going back to the point Mr. Eaby made regarding the estimated monthly costs for veterinary services and to annualize that it is less than $5,000. We are talking about 500 to 600 dogs per year. Your budget and proposal said you were going to spend at least $125,000 a year on veterinary services. I don't know how you cover the costs ofthe inoculations required for the dogs only spending $5,000 a year on medical. I am at a loss how to explain that. Tell me what I am missing.

Mr. Hughes said the numbers are there. Unless we didn't get invoiced and I missed it, these are the numbers we have.

Ms. Hughes said they actually did owe more than that. This is part ofour unpaid bills report we have had in the past. That is part of inoculations, medications needed on a daily basis or whatever. That will be reflected once we get the unpaid bills report to you. That is the cost for the Vet who is being paid per diem. Right now costs are being paid on a cash basis so the dogs can be treated and medicated. A lot of it is coming out ofour pocket until we get this under control.

Mr. Petit de Mange feels the cost ofrequired inoculations when a dog is brought in should be reflected as a monthly charge. I don't see it and am concerned about it not being reflected as a monthly operational expense.

Mr. Buckson stated this is a tough situation. We have been dealing with this for some time. We awarded a contract to Safe Haven expecting the dog control services to be provided for x amount of dollars. A short time ago we had indication there may be some financial difficulties. A week ago we got the news you were closing and would abort our contract. That came from reputable people. A day later we got notice that was a mistake and you were back and alive. That is a problem. The Mission Statement is noble but there is a problem. The problem is your business model. It does not work and will not work. Numbers do not lie. You cannot plan a budget around what you hope to have. The debt is a problem. Many have explained what happened last week. It was what was required, what had to happen. You had to take a time out and re-organize and talk about things you do not have all the knowledge ofyet. That is where we are. I believe the biggest contributing factor right now, and it won't be the cause of you going under unless you continue to hang onto it, is the contract. The contract combined with your Mission statement does not work. You cannot bring in x amount of dollars and say that is our biggest revenue if it is also your biggest expense. It doesn't work. I do not like doing this in public; I'd rather talk personally but we 188 07130/2013

are here because ofit. I think this is an emergency and for that reason I think we need to give serious consideration to exercise in our way to send notice to Safe Haven that we are going to terminate the contract in sixty (60) days and work from there. Wait, please! This is not a good situation; I do not see any reason for anybody to applaud; we have animals at stake; we have good people trying to do M-155-13 their best. So, I put it out there; I make that motion and I do this for one reason. I don't see another option; don't see delaying the inevitable and that is what we are going to do. Ifwe delay this it will build on itself and continue to hurt Safe Haven; continue to keep them from doing what was described as their only way out - a restructuring and come back better than they were. That is where I am and that is the motion I submit.

Mr. Pepper asked it there would be a public hearing or comments and Pres. Banta said public comments would come after Infonnational Items, so, no.

Mr. Pepper then asked Mr. Buckson ifthat was his fonnal motion and Mr. Buckson responded it would be the one he would offer up ifit has support. Mr. Pepper then seconded the motion based on the facts presented by Mr. Buckson and he would present more when the vote is taken.

Motion by Commissioner Buckson, seconded by Commissioner Pepper, to co­ ordinate with the County Administrator to detennine the methodology in tenninating the contract with Safe Haven, states Pres. Banta.

Mr. Angel had questions before voting. Are the dogs being taken care ofunder our contract? Yes, from what I have seen. Should the new Board be allowed or given the chance to bring forth and given a time frame to come back before us in 60 or 90 days to see ifit is workable? I feel yes. Ifwe are part of the problem for their issue because of the no kill philopohsy that is something they need to deal with and have time to look at it. I believe the contract is being administered to the best oftheir ability from what I have seen; the medical as well as adoption and what they are trying to do. I think that is true with any facility; it goes along with their contract and what we asked ofthem. Their financial issue is not based on our contract per se. I really can't support unless we give them some time to work it out. I will not be voting for it based on those reasons. I still feel this facility needs some time; they are a new Board and come back and give us some answers. We have always given second chances so why not let them have a second chance? That is my feeling.

Roll Call:

Mr. Angel - no, reasons I stated

Mr. Buckson - yes

Mr. Eaby - a briefcomment; all ofyou are a good people doing a great thing and 189 07/30/2013

it is a difficult thing, very hard; it is hard under the philosophy you have and it is hard under the State law so we, even though we sound like we have been beating you up, commend you for what you are doing and what you have done. This is very difficult and unfortunately I believe it is a little too late to save it and the plan presented through no fault of your own, I don't think can save it. For that reason I vote yes to terminate the agreement.

Mr. Howell- yes, but would like to say this as gracefully as possible; it is my impression from a distance, that Safe Haven has managed itself more from a perspective ofsentiment as opposed to fiscal sensibility and it is for that reason that I have to vote to sever it at this point; however, as a note of encouragement and appreciation, this is not eternal; the contract is a year so I wouldn't have any problem with entertaining some future agreement but in the meantime because ofwhat I said I vote yes

Mr. Pepper - would like to echo Mr. Howell's sentiments to the Board and members representing Safe Haven; I admire you for the task you have taken on; it is huge; in addition to Commissioner Buckson's comments and the reason for the motion I would like to add I see no substantial means for paying offdebt or financing monthly operations; I see no clear, viable plan for continued operations; ifthe contract is continued for this year and not renewed for next year I think we would just prolong the inevitable; in light ofrecent mixed signals as to the continued viable operations and leadership I don't have any confidence in a continued relationship with Safe Haven at this time; I would have to vote yes

Mr. Sweeney - Lois, Rita, David, thanks for coming up; I appreciate it; you shared as much information as you could; it seems for the last five years we have had dog control on our docket at some point or another; it is very heartfelt reasons why we have to consider dog control; I believe my biggest concern is dog control in Kent County; that is what the State mandates us to do; from my discussions with you it seems you are very committed to that dog control in Kent County; you are committed to caring for the dogs; tough position and costly and wish money would just start flowing in from contracts, grants or donations; at this point I am willing to give you the benefit ofthe doubt to move forward so I would vote no.

Mr. Banta - based on comments by Commissioner Buckson and other Commissioners and plus the fact this is a very passionate situation and dog control is extremely critical but as elected officials it is important that we use logic and a basic plan of action that I think is sustainable; I vote yes.

Roll Call on the motion reveals five (5) yeas, two (2) nay (Angel, Sweeney). 190 07/30/2013

President Banta stated five (5) affirmative votes direct the County Administrator to begin the process of terminating the contract with Safe Haven.

INFORMATION ITEMS

None

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Donna Watson, 6 Springlake DR, Newark, DE - Has a dog in this fight; was at every animal welfare task force meeting; rallied for statewide lost and found pet registry and suggests, when you talk about misappropriation, and I don't know if it was that or mismanagement; when you pay anyone to do dog control they should also be making an effort to re-unite those found dogs with their owners; perhaps the expenses would not be so high; perhaps the grieving process ofa lost dog owner such as myselfwould not be as difficult; every major shelter in the State ofDE maintains a pictorial list and description ofthe animals they have in their custody; Kent County who is the lost and found ofrecord for white male and dog control for the rest of the State ofDE does maintain a lost and found pet registry; please find a way to get these dogs pictures out there so ifthere is a possibility they can reunite with an owner before these people move them out of state.

Kate Hungerford, 10 Wood Circle, Ocean View, DE - thanked the Board for voting logically; I know you are here because ofthe money; however, this whole issue should be about the animals; they have not been taken care of; would have loved to ask out ofthose animals they adopted out how many were picked up by other recues and shelters either in state or out and how many they had actually adopted; also those volunteers scooping poop are from shelters around the State ofDE that you have bad mouthed for the past ten years

Pres. Banta stated it is important we stay on the subject ofthe contract and interview ofSafe Haven. We do not need to bring in other organizations or other issues; we need to stay the subject. You have one minute.

Marlene Edsel, 70 Ivy LN, New Castle, DE - in case you do not know this, it is not appropriate to put dogs outside in the summer which is what they are planning on doing; I would like to say because ofyour probing questions and their answers - great.

John Pats, 430 A Kings Hwy., Dover - Mr. Angel said the Council is about second chances; there was a guy near where SPCA used to be who got umpteen chances from you people in order to come into compliance with the zoning but you couldn't give these people sixty (60) days? Shame on you! All ofyou! Shame on you! A society is judged by how they treat their pets and you treated the dogs in their care like crap. Shame on you. 191 07/30/2013

Kathy Samarzda, Kent County DE in Commissioner Howell's district - sent an e­ mail yesterday to all Commissioners and Commissioner Buckson asked what I was trying to insinuate; we have since cleared our communications problems but I would like you to know, Eric, you are the first person who has ever considered me sutle enough to insinuate anything; Safe Haven is in trouble; they have problems; it was quoted in the paper today that Safe Haven is a relatively new organization and others have faced this financial hurdle and overcome it; I would like to know if you are going to do your next vendor with this same sort of catechism because in 2011 one organization announced they were $450,000 in debt; they were your dog control vendor and you did not ask them here for this kind ofcatechism; I agree with Commissioner Angel; you should have given them a chance to fix this before you threw them to the curb

Ricky Shehorn, 1181 Fords Cor. RD, Hartly, DE -I want to say to each and everyone ofyou, shame on you. Mr. Banta, several times during tonight's proceedings sat there and said that the Kent County Levy Court is stewards for the taxpayers ofKent County; along with that includes not only how our tax money is spent but how we are treated; all you have to do is look at the history of previous dog control vendor and the packet ofcomplaints I know each and every one of you have seen and whether or not you have read it I know you have seen it. I would like to mirror what Kathy said about the same catechism these people were put through tonight.

Mr. Buckson told Mr. Shehorn he was invited any time to the office so they could review all the information he had that clearly identifies the financial difficulties and the lengths they have gone to to deal with and work with Safe Haven; ifwe disagree to disagree OK but until then I am not accepting your criticism. You got it?

Don Ayotte, 20501 Gravel Hill RD, Georgetown, DE - would like to address something Pres. Banta brought to the issue - the accountability ofthe funding; I know you don't want to hear it and may cut me offbut I attended the Kent County SPCA's July 8 meeting and found the Treasurer's report completely unacceptable; for a public organization's treasury report to be valid it must account for its expenditures; this organization reports its cash flowing percentages ofmonies receivable and percentages ofmoney expenditures with no exact amount stated; since when is the cash flow ofa publicly funded organization defined by percentages instead of actual quantities ofcash? This practice infers perception of corruption; you want to talk about misappropriation of funds how easy do you think it is when you report it like that? It was brought up by a Board member to Mr. Usilton's attention and he stated

Tyler Mock, 20336 John J. Williams Hwy., Lewes, DE - ifyou decide to re-visit the issue there are a couple things I might want to hear; they mentioned they had a previous Board and the current Board and the decisions they had recalling that I 192 07/30/2013 might ask for a roll call ofthe current Board when they are reviewed both staff for fund raising as well as on Board staff and whether they plan to have more folks added; be sure the volunteers they use are documented as far as that list whether they consider volunteers either paid or unpaid as well as paid or unpaid staff; like to confirm they are considering themselves a no-kill shelter, no-kill sanctuary in the sense that ifthey are sending their animals to kill shelters I do not believe that is technically the same philosophy.

Wolfgang on Baungrat, State Chairman ofthe Independent Party ofDE, 37 Comanche Circle, Millsboro, DE - wished to go on record as stating it is our belief that the public opinion tonight has been effectively marginalized by the fact the Levy Court has taken a vote before public commentary; we would request you review and possibly change that procedure in the interest ofmore just and democratic society.

Mr. Banta interrupted to say those are Rules ofProcedure; we set those at the beginning of each year in January and the procedure is what we presented here before you tonight.

Mr. on Baungrat continued: accordingly, the problem with animal control goes beyond mere business models and finances; it is an essential public health and social service; it is essentially a government function; accordingly under the principal ofpeople protection under the law I would request that the same degree ofscrutiny as exemplified tonight for Safe Haven be extended to any other potential entity; Kent County Levy Court should look long and hard before establishing principal agency relationship with other organizations

Jane Perantuzi, Exec. Diy. ofFaithful Friends Animal Society, Wilm., DE - we partner with Safe Haven; we would like to have seen you give them sixty more days; the new Board is very committed and we have had good dogs come from them and a good relationship with them; in terms ofnot being in line with dog control, we disagree with that; bigger places like Austin, TX and Reno, NV are no- kill communities and they have dog control; I hope you will look to bring in someone from those communities that could help you make Kent County a no­ kill community; they are offering consulting services through the Humane network.

Mr. Buckson wished to clarify his statement; at this particular time, given the circumstances we are involved in is the issue at hand; re-visiting that is something I would encourage and agree; maybe that can work but at this given time that is why the statement was made.

Brittney Anthony, New Castel, DE - Manager ofVolunteer and Community Affairs ofFaithful Friends Animal Society -I believe Safe Haven is in a prime position to help the animals with or without the animal control contract but not despite their Pit Bulls but because oftheir Pit Bulls; they make great family dogs 193 07/30/2013

and I believe with support oflocal shelters, a transfer program in place and a wonderful adoption program these animals will be successful and find homes; I urge that whoever takes over the contract is pro Pit Bull and promotes them in a way that benefits the dogs because that is what it is really about.

Bob Wasserbach, Board Pres. ofFaithful Friends - here as a State ofDE resident; wished to thank the Commissioners; I know it was a tough decision; you asked a lot ofgood questions; my full time job is a CPA and deal a lot with numbers; appreciate the deliberations you went through tonight; would ask when you put out a new RP for a new dog contract that you would ask the question whether the entity plans on being in compliance with State and County law.

Doug Beatty, Meadowbrook Acres, 50 N. Draper Cir. -last week I said I loved you and it was true at the time; understand this has been a difficult decision; will not try to second guess you; philosophically I have never been in favor ofthe no­ kill having a dog control contract and since there are people in the room I haven't upset it is not about the animals, it is about public safety and your duty is to the citizens; we want to take care ofthe animals because we are decent people but it is about the people; going forward I am going to demand the same level of scrutiny for any vendor that we have.

Karen Flores, Dover, DE - former employee of Safe Haven; pro no-kill; think we should be a no-kill state; want to thank you for the vote you made and for those who wanted to give Safe Haven a second chance did the two dogs I witnessed die from lack ofmedical care in Safe Haven over the past year have a second chance? No they didn't.

Les Confer, New Castle, DE - came as an impartial observer; my company is considering providing assistance to a shelter such as Safe Haven; need to make recommendation to Executive Management on how to proceed; would like to know ifthe Commissioners have contingency plans on offering further assistance to the dogs and other animals that have already been taken in to Safe Haven under the contract.

Mr. Banta said to Mr. Petit de Mange we still have two months on the contract;

That would be correct said Mr. Petit de Mange.

So, said Mr. Confer, you are saying two months continued support and then these dogs have to be out ofthere. Is that correct?

That is correct, answered Mr. Banta.

Eshel Austin, Dover, DE - concerned about who will be the eventual recipient of th this contract; referenced something happened to him leaving KCSPCA on the 8 . 194 07/30/2013

Mr. Banta interrupted to remind him SPCA is not on the agenda.

Mr. Austin had been threatened to have a Pit Bull released on him by the KCSPCA without a muzzle; ended with his back locked up and you do not seem to think that important; this is a public safety issue; I have more references to Pit Bulls than anything else; my concern is ifwe are turning this over to whoever that they have employees trained to not threaten members ofthe public with unmuzzled Pit Bulls; that is my concern.

Todd Clyde, 403 Walnut CT, Dagsboro, DE - own one ofthe kennels Safe Haven has used to board dogs; currently I have 47 dogs that are Safe Haven; we have not been paid in several months; my question is what am I supposed to do with these 47 dogs? Some of you have been to Safe Haven; I would say 45 ofthem are Pit Bulls and cannot run together; they will kill each other.

Mr. Banta said there will still be two more checks cut for them; hopefully in that time they can compensate you; we have no control over their finances.

They can't said Mr. Clyde; they can't take them; they don't have the facilities to take them; they are dog control animals; I have them; out ofmy own pocket I have paid my kennel help; I have fed them; some x Safe Haven people still come in and walk them.

Mr. Buckson said based on e-mail correspondence and conversations with the leadership and part ofthe reason why we came to the decision we did tonight, I think the goal and the hopeful goal is there is supposed to be some type of national adoption which then alleviates a lot ofthe pressure and then allows you to move your dogs in. That is the ultimate goal. That is what was explained to me.

Cathy Hughes, Lewes, DE - my concern is being as they are dogs from the Kent County program at the end ofthe sixty days those dogs however many are remaining, and they will be, there is only one part time adoption person there now, the bottom line is, however many are remaining, they are a Kent County problem; that is where they originated; what is going to happen to them?

Mr. Banta assumed, without any authority, that a new vendor through due process, would be able to accept those dogs back in Kent County.

Mr. Buckson believes they have raised a valid point. We have somewhat of a moral obligation to at least review that situation ofthe dogs being present there for a long time. I encourage us to have a conversation because we really do not have an answer.

Mr. Banta said he would agree and in negotiations, hopefully, we can have a resolution and get that accomplished. 195 07/30/2013

Paul Peterson, Dover, DE - visiting animals Safe Haven has now, 1believe under the contract five to seven days if they are not returned to their proper owner they become the property of Safe Haven; they are no longer under preview of the taxpayers ofKent County

COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS

None

ADJOURN

M-156-13 Motion was made by Mr. Angel, seconded by Mr. Buckson and carried by Roll Call vote seven (7) yeas to adjourn the meeting.

Loretta L. Wootten Kent County Clerk of the Peace

NOTICE: This Special meeting has been called in accordance with the provISions of Levy Court Rules of Procedure due to recent announcements pertaining to the continuity of Dog Control Services by the County Dog Control Services provider, Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary.

29 Del.C. §10004(e)(2). The Agenda items as listed may not be considered in sequence. This Agenda is subject to change to include additional items including Executive Sessions or the deletion of items including Executive Sessions, which arise at the time ofthe meeting.