to maintain local animal control services in conjunction with Jefferson County. Though the county retains primary authority over animal control, the city contributed $667,942 to the jointly held contract during the shelter’s fiscal year 2001, as opposed to the county’s $384,498. Smith’s tenure has also been controversial, with many questioning the practicality in allowing a “for-profit” business to retrieve and care for stray animals. An October 2001 National Animal Control Association (NACA) evaluation of Jefferson County animal control services was critical of Smith’s daily operations, which included euthanizing animals without first sedating them. The report also criticized euthanization of dogs in front of other animals in the holding area, missing drain covers in pens (puppies and small dogs can become easily trapped), and the absence of line-item budgeting for shelter operations. Smith has reportedly taken steps to address most of the complaints.

Councilor Joel Montgomery had previously expressed dismay at local television news reports of euthanasia procedures at the shelter. But after a recent tour of the site, the councilor told Smith, “I do not see any indications of animal abuse in your facility. I’m an animal lover, and I don’t see [abuse] going on.” Nonetheless, Montgomery promised he would continue to visit the facility unannounced. “I am going to come back spontaneously to see what’s going on . . . because this will come before the Public Safety Committee [which Montgomery heads].” Montgomery was also concerned that Smith did not respond to NACA criticism that Smith did not disclose any information regarding his budget history or current budget allocations. The councilor quoted the NACA report: “Oddly enough, the agency does not even offer a line-item budget. Instead, expenditures for equipment and training occur on an as-needed basis. This is only the second time in a NACA evaluation that an agency-government, non-profit, or for-profit-was found to conduct business in this manner.” Montgomery surmised that the Council had no way to determine whether or not animal control was operating at a deficit that is being carried over from year to year. Smith responded that he planned to follow a line-item budget in conjunction with an audit currently being conducted by a local CPA firm at the county’s request. Preliminary findings show expenses to be about the same as those for Mobile. Councilor Montgomery expressed concern that $55,000 per month for animal control seems excessive. “We ought to be picking up dogs on the moon for that much!” growled the councilor.

Councilor Valerie Abbott called the NACA report “quite horrifying.” Condemning the contract as “severely lacking,” Abbott said, “I’m disturbed that this is a for-profit operation, because any smart businessman knows that the less money you spend on your business, the more you get to keep.” Only Abbott and Councilor Roderick Royal opposed the contract extension. Royal, who is on the Greater Birmingham Humane Society board of directors, said he could not support the contract in light of the NACA report. Noting his respect for animals, the councilor had stated at last week’s meeting, “I don’t believe a dog should be tied to a tree, I don’t believe in fighting dogs.” Council President Lee Loder, arrested four months ago on animal neglect charges, recused himself from the item. (Among the charges against Loder were that he had tied his dog Stokely to a tree in a backyard pen in the rain out of reach of shelter.) Council President Pro Tem Carole Smitherman presided over the issue in Loder’s place. Interestingly, when the item first came up for discussion during the January 14 meeting, Loder left the room for the duration of the discussion.

After the council meeting, Steve Smith noted that Animal Cruelty Officer Dana Johnston comes by the shelter several times a week and has made no complaints. “The only allegations of cruelty that we ever heard were those voiced by a certain T.V. station. They haven’t come from the NACA study, they didn’t come from the Birmingham cruelty officer, or the Jefferson County cruelty officer, they didn’t come from any of the members we’ve had from HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), any members of the County Commission or the City Council,” said Smith. He added that his most vocal critics have never set foot in the shelter. Smith said the NACA study “was an opportunity to find out the things that we were doing wrong and do better. And even though we’ve assured them that we’ve done these things that NACA asked us to do, and gladly did them, they just say, ‘Too little, too late.’ They don’t want us in there to begin with, for whatever reason.” Smith acknowledged the Council’s vote as a show of support for his services. He said that in the early 1990s, the city was paying the Jefferson County Health Department, which formerly ran animal control, almost what he is being paid at present. Smith noted that the private contractor before him was running only two trucks at a total yearly cost of over $400,000, while his company runs 12 trucks at a cost of $667,000. Smith said that seven of the trucks are committed exclusively to the city (four and a half trucks) and county (two and a half trucks), with the other five owned by Smith for private animal control contracts he holds with other municipalities in the county. &