Separating needs from the wants

It’s Wednesday, so let’s talk about perception.

First, I’m a little reluctant to get into this today. I’ve had a few bad Deb days, so I’m cautious. That stuff can creep into my writing if I’m not careful.

So, we’ll just see where this goes.

---

Tuesday’s County Commission agenda has the bids for the new animal shelter. The recommended low bid is $18.8 million. That’s $6 million more than the absolute bottom line number that the County Commission had discussed before.

To say there is anxiety about this is a wild understatement. Not just the taxpaying public. I mean…have you visited the Animal Shelter recently? That place is cramped and outdated; it’s a sin that the County Commission has employees working under such conditions.

I can rage all I want about how poorly planned this new shelter was right from the beginning, how the County Commission never knew how to pay for the thing, and how unfair this is to taxpayers who truly want a new Animal Shelter but are freaked out by the escalating cost.

I can rage on all that, but it doesn’t get us anywhere.

No solutions here, man. I haven’t a clue what the County Commission does about this. With 10 percent contingency, it’s $20.7 million. Coupled with $4 million in donations, plus revenue from other sources, the county is recommending a $15 million bond.

I know. Cringeworthy. But…necessary. Got it? We can’t do without an animal shelter, and the one we have fails in every respect.

Now.

On the same agenda where we must agonize over spending millions of dollars on a service vital to employees, taxpayers, and innocent critters, the County Commission will talk about the sales tax.

Wow. Who didn’t see this coming? The greenprint study for conservation lands is — SHOCKINGLY — recommending a sales tax referendum to buy such lands. This after the County Commission said the greenprint and sales tax were not related. Oops! They are.

(This is the part of the blog where I must pause.)

(Breathing slowly.)

(OK. Better now. Thanks for waiting.)

Truthfully, I did not read the 94-page report from North Florida Land Trust. Kinda wished they had a summary page, but that’s just me. I skimmed it. The report is quite thorough.

It cost $43,000, paid for by community stakeholders. They got their money’s worth. Same for the 605 folks who participated. Again, if we ever decide on a land conservation program, a plan is expertly mapped out.

However, coupled with that is another report from a similar group, Trust for Public Land, that suggests different funding options for buying land, including a sales tax. It suggests the county measure public sentiment for a referendum, which is surprising because the county thought the group was already doing that.

So unnecessary.

What have we said from the beginning? As mentioned numerous times, including by the County Commission itself, the only chance for voter success is a referendum that is community driven. If the County Commission ties “greenprinting” to a sales tax, voters will see they’ve been misled. This plan isn’t theirs at all. 

What really bugs me, though, is the lack of perception. 

Again…needs vs. wants. We need an Animal Shelter. It’s not a want. The square footage cost is comparable to animal shelters across the state. Delaying it another day is irresponsible on so many levels.

(That’s not to say we’re done with this sales tax topic. I think a 90 percent roads, 10 percent conservation split is worthy of discussion. Let me ponder that for a few days.)

I feel a little better. Tell me I’m wrong. Please read the links, especially to the agenda. 

Regardless of what happens, it’s good conversation.

— Our photo is from the day I first met Bunny at the Animal Shelter before bringing her home. She's still the cutest one in the house.

Have a great Wednesday, friends.
​
Join the discussion on our Facebook page.
​
Enjoying the blog? Please consider supporting it at Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.