By Commissioner Robert Carroll
As I think about the animal shelter budget controversy, I am reminded of the man we have that comes to almost every commission meeting and most committee meetings and almost always speaks during the “Comments” section. He always says in relation to voting on important issues that “you throw something up in the air and shoot at it, and have to figure it out later.” That is exactly what has happened with the animal shelter. The County Commission voted for the shelter, some of the same ones who voted for it are still on the commission and are now opposed to the funding. The city likewise “wanted” the shelter, as it would solve a problem for their “animal control” ordinance, and at the time they agreed to a 50/50 funding split with the county. They say now they will cut funding because of the difference between the number of people living in the city verses the people living in the county, using those numbers to say the county uses it more than the city. It is likely that the city uses it as much, maybe more. There’s probably not as much need in the very rural county as there is in the city. Those numbers can be tracked, but have they? The reasoning puzzles me anyway. The population numbers haven’t changed hardly any, if at all since the agreement was made, so if the funding split was good then, why isn’t it still good?
The truth is no one did any research on what the “true” cost of operating an animal shelter would be, nor did anyone develop a plan on “correct” management of a shelter. To quote my friend they “threw it up in the air, shot at it,” and now the time has come to figure it out. Mistakes that were made have “caught” up with those who are responsible. Where I come from we call that “hindsight management.” Foresight management always works better. Ultimately the taxpayer is responsible for these mistakes which brings me to the last thing here.
We have 5 to 6, maybe more, county commissioners who encourage/support the city in their decision to cut funding. A strange thing about this is the fact that they don’t even live in the city and therefore do not pay city taxes. It seems to me that when they encourage the city to cut funding they are selling out the county people that they are elected to represent. A little simple math will show the truth of what I am saying. Let’s say using “hypothetical” numbers that the funding figure is $400,000. They (the county commissioners) agree with the city that their share should be $100,000. That leaves $300,000 for the county taxpayer to pony up for. Your county commissioner should stand up for you and demand that the city pay what they agreed to pay — 50/50 — instead of saying “The people I represent will be happy to pay the $300,000.” Does that make you wonder who he is representing?