One of the key reasons people give up their pets is the realization of how much properly caring for a dog or cat can cost. Would-be pet owners find it almost impossible to resist the attraction to a furry friend, but once they realize the time and financial commitment involved, they're ready to back out.
At times, that scenario also seems to describe the Washington County Quorum Court's relationship with the county-run animal shelter opened in the fall of 2012. Except in this case, Washington County didn't gleefully accept the charge of caring for stray or lost animals. For years, the city of Fayetteville took animals from county areas and the smaller cities, but in 2010, the city's officials closed the door on continuing that 14-year-old practice. Fayetteville's shelter was crowded, to city leaders decided to make it a city-only shelter.
What’s The Point?
The costs to run the Washington County Animal Shelter have caused frustration among Quorum Court members, but adequate staffing for the job is a basic service they need to fund.
Ever since, it seems the Quorum Court has held a bit of a grudge about having to devote its money to the care of animals. The first proposed budget for the 9,000-square-foot facility and staff, covering 2013, was about $603,000. The Quorum Court slashed it to $457,000. It was, at best, a guessing game trying to figure out what the actual costs would be, and should be. Seven employees worked 125 hours of overtime in less than a month's time. Any employee issue -- sick days or vacation days, for example -- strained the remaining staff's capacity to cover the work necessary to care for animals seven days a week.
For 2014, shelter officials sought $647,054, nearly $50,000 more than it originally sought for 2013 and $200,000 more than the Quorum Court had provided just a year earlier. Even with that new spending, county Chief of Staff Dan Short recently told the Quorum Court the demand for services exceeds the staffing the Quorum Court has been willing to fund.
"We don't have the people to do the job we're required to do," Short said. "This was talked about and explained, and we're still talking about it and explaining it. Our folks work hard down there."
The shelter handled about 2,000 dogs and cats in 2013.
The ongoing clash between administrators trying to handle the task of caring for animals 24/7 is the result of penny-pinching among Quorum Court members who seem frustrated they have to spend money at all on animal control. They're to be credited for spending the money to develop the shelter to begin with, but seeing no political gain in adding operational funding, they've done a disservice to the county employees they so often talk about valuing above all else.
Hopefully, the administration and Quorum Court can eventually reach a consensus everyone is comfortable with. It's important for all to remember this isn't so much about the animals as it is about animal control within the rural areas. That's a service that's desperately needed, and it should be handled as humanely as possible.
While it's unfortunate that it costs money to get that job done, it's a just that needs doing, and it should be done right. If they won't staff at adequate levels, they should cut back on the shelter's capacity, then answer to the public when there's no room to adequately handle stray animals within the county.
Commentary on 05/09/2014