The Most Efficient Department in Salisbury Government
Salisbury city employees, on the taxpayers’ dime, are trying to convince citizens that they should be willing to accept a tax increase to continue footing all of the bill for the Salisbury Zoo. Don’t get me wrong. Shelly and I have always loved the zoo. Our kids enjoyed the zoo. That’s not the issue.
If we accept the argument that the Salisbury Zoo is regional in nature and a “treasure” to be protected at all costs, why then should the Salisbury taxpayer continue footing the whole bill? Do citizens of Fruitland enjoy the zoo? How about Delmar? Willards? Pittsville? The rest of Wicomico County? The incorporated and unincorporated portions of Worcester County? I don’t see these folks lobbying Greg Olinde and the Fruitland Town Council.
Even if they did, the fiscal arguments for blindly funding the Salisbury Zoo are shaky at best. No one is advocating the shuttering of the zoo. However, most citizens expect value for their tax dollars. Here are some examples of the Zoo’s stellar fiscal management:
In 1997 the budget for the zoo was $497,182. The Mayor’s proposed budget for this year - $968,780. That is an increase of 94.85% over ten years.
During that same period of time, the number of zoo staff has risen 75% - from 8 persons to the current budget of 14. Of course the Mayor and her staff may argue that there’s SO MUCH more work to do. As a comparison, Police staffing has only risen 7.14% over the same period.
Has the land area of the zoo increased? NO. How about the number of animals that need to be cared for? I don’t have any definitive numbers for 1997, but several sources have stated that the zoo had approximately 400 animals back then. In 2001, the zoo cared for 280 specimens (not including insects). In 2003 that number had dropped to 262. In January of 2007 the number of animals cared for by the Salisbury Zoo had dropped to 257.
To recap - The zoo spends TWICE AS MUCH MONEY, with 75% MORE STAFF to manage the same area, BUT with FEWER ANIMALS.
Does the Salisbury taxpayer have to keep funding an obviously inefficient organization, at ever increasing levels, in perpetuity? or … Will the Director, Curators and Board of the zoo be forced to begin to take responsibility for a greater portion of the funding?
Technorati Tags: Salisbury, politics, salisburypolitics, zoo, SalisburyZoo, fiscalpolicy, taxation
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
If Mr. Rapp had not already announced his resignation as the zoo director, he should be fired for his comment in today’s Daily Slime about Ms. Campbell and Ms. Cohen, who should be praised for declining to do the rubber-stamp routine that has become the habit of the City Council in adopting the City’s budget.
It was interesting to hear Rick Pollitt on the Reddish show — the County Council is doing a line-by-line review of his proposed budget.
If someone doesn’t “micro-manage” the budget, how do mistakes that have been found ever get corrected?
Personally, I would expect the department heads to come up with these cuts or look for more gainful employment. Of course here in Barryland, FOB’s don’t get their hands dirty.
In other words: To all departemnt heads, this is how much money we have for you this year, you decide where to make the cuts or the council will have to do it for you~!
Ms. Campbell and Ms. Cohen deserve credit for taking a position that exposes them to castigation but is appropriate and necessary under the circumstances.
We elect members of Council to protect the public interest, not to impose taxes for everything that someone might want, and the Zoo is truly “nonessential.†The situation in Salisbury requires that the budget, staffing and future size of the Zoo be reduced to levels that can be sustained with less taxpayer funding if other sources of revenue are not augmented.