Last week, the village board seemed to have its mind made up about an animal care shelter. It’s been a long time coming?#34;seven years?#34;so it’s a relief that the trustees finally seem to be taking some action.
The problem is the proposal trustees embrace?#34;a contractual partnership with the Animal Care League?#34;is, in the long run, a poor one compared to that of a village-owned and operated facility. Perhaps if the board had given the other side the chance to present its information, trustees would understand why this is so.
The village staff presented details on projected costs for the village-owned facility. These costs seem inordinately high and out of line. Architect and former trustee Gus Kostopoulos has already expressed an interest in costing out what changes need to be made to the Oak Park pumping station. Why hasn’t he been allowed to do so?
Should the Animal Care League take over, they would receive an estimated $375,000 for construction at their present facility to accommodate strays and $100,000 for operating costs. Not a paltry sum. This money would be handed over to the Animal Care League director, Tom Van Winkle, who, when asked by one of the trustees, couldn’t come up with a figure for the operating cost of his own organization. This is the fellow trustees want to entrust with the budget for the shelter for the whole village?
In an article in the Oak Leaves last week, Village President David Pope is quoted as saying that the $375,000 “would likely be shared between the two sides.” How is this possible? The Animal Care League doesn’t have this kind of money.
It’s common knowledge that until recently, the Animal Care League wanted nothing to do with taking on village strays. Many are convinced the only reason the league is so interested now is that members of the league board are interested in expanding its facilities, and village funds would give them the chance to purchase the building next door. Who’s to say that once the village handed over this money, the league wouldn’t decide, several years down the line, to end the contract with Oak Park? Then we’d be right back where we are now, still in need of a place to house strays and many, many dollars poorer.
Also, Van Winkle mentioned he would have no problem presenting village strays alongside his Animal Care residents to prospective adoptees. Yet anyone with any sense can see that the village strays would be “second class citizens” in an operation like this, an afterthought to the preferred population. A village shelter must accept all strays. Would this mean that more animals would be euthanized?
It seemed apparent from Van Winkle’s responses that this situation was just recently dropped in his lap. He had no specifics on how money would be spent. Village residents expect more than this before handing over hard-earned tax dollars.
Trustees are concerned about a government entity running a shelter. Health Department Director Georgeen Polyak had little information about other governmental bodies that do this successfully. If she’d done a little more research, she would have found an excellent example in the Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal Control Commission, an intergovernmental commission created under Wisconsin State Statute in 1997 (www.madacc.com) that operates a highly successful facility.
Another problem Dr. Polyak was concerned with is the dearth of veterinarians interested in taking on the health needs of the animals at a village shelter. Had she called the veterinary school at the University of Illinois, she probably would have found ample interest. The Trailside Wildlife Foundation has already made inquiries about working with the veterinary school to provide services at Trailside Museum. The school responded favorably when asked about working with Trailside. One would think that the vet school would have a similar interest in working with the village on a cooperative basis.
The key is to hire a director for the village shelter that has the kind of experience and expertise that running such a facility calls for, both in dealing with the animals and in setting policy and finding funding.
I know that it would be easier to hand the problem over to the Animal Care League. But trustees should weigh all the facts before they make such a decision. Do we want to hand over control of shelter needs to a group that could decide to walk away when it no longer suits their interests? A village-owned shelter would keep control of our strays and control of funds in village hands. Not so with the Animal Care League. The easy solution now could well mean disaster down the road.