By Douglas P. Marsh
dmarsh@cherryroad.com
The announcement that Ogemaw County’s animal control officer is soon to resign led to a wider discussion about animal control at the county commissioners’ committee of the whole meeting June 20.
“Scott had a job opportunity that he felt he can’t pass up,” said Ogemaw County Sheriff Brian Gilbert, whose office has been overseeing officer Scott Friesorger. “He’s got another week with us. He’s put his two weeks in.”
Gilbert recommended posting the position to hire a replacement, but the board was reluctant in view of upcoming budget discussions and following the failure last month of a millage proposal for county animal program services.
“Because we’re talking our budget—that’s going to be the topic for the next three months—I think we should hold off and reevaluate whether or not we can afford it,” said commissioner Craig Scott.
“I would wait until—see if we have any funds to even afford to take animals to the animal shelters,” said commissioner Brenda Simmons. “Because it was voted down by the public, so if we can’t take animals to the animal shelter, we probably don’t need a non-mandated position of animal control.”
Board chair Jenny David said she considered animal control an important position. She asked Gilbert if the county had ever gone without and who would respond if the position were eliminated.
Gilbert replied that he was unaware of the county ever having gone without an animal control officer. He said that road deputies would have to respond to incidents of dog bite, and for animals running at-large, he was uncertain.
Simmons reiterated that voters rejected funding county animal services.
“My question is this: where do the animals go if we have no money to take the animals anywhere? Because the people voted it down,” she said.
“The ballot question was to provide an animal shelter,” said commissioner Craig Scott. “It wasn’t a specific one.”
“It wasn’t to provide an animal shelter,” said Simmons. “It was for us to take animals to a animal [sic] shelter.”
“The title of it was for animal shelter services,” county administrator/controller Tim Dolehanty said.
Dolehanty fetched a document on his digital device in order to recite the precise wording of the millage proposal on the May 7 ballot, which began, “For the purpose of supporting funding for County animal program services, including sanitary, humane, and efficient animal shelter services…”
“So it was just to pay for the services,” said Dolehanty. “It wasn’t for a specific building or a specific entity but to provide funding to provide those services.”
“What we’re doing right now, we’re collecting stray dogs and bringing them over to a shelter,” Dolehanty continued. “The purpose is to—we were saying the dollars would follow that dog. So whatever costs were at the shelter for feeding, sheltering, water, medical care, anything that came up for that dog, that this millage would cover that cost for the animal we brought.”
David asked Dolehanty the current personnel costs associated with the animal control officer position. She mentioned the county had recently purchased a new vehicle and other equipment for the animal control officer. Other commissioners noted that American Relief Plan Act (ARPA) funds were used for the purchases, to which David replied she was well aware.
“Animal control is a very important position,” said Simmons. “But if they don’t have any place to take the animal…”
“Is there any word since that millage got voted down that that current shelter that we have a contract with,” began David. “I understand they came to us; I understand they initiated this. Has there been any word since this millage got voted down that they were not going to maintain presence? That they were closing?”
“No, they’re not closing,” replied Simmons. “They just can’t pay for all of our animals.”
Simmons said the Rea Family Animal Shelter, currently under contract to receive animals captured by the county animal control officer, has been shouldering too many of the associated costs. Dolehanty broke in with personnel costs.
“The total budget for animal control is $45,430,” he said. “The total wages is $18,605. You’ve got other things that would tag onto that like workers’ comp, social security, and so on.”
“How much is the contract for?” asked Simmons.
“$7,500. That’s the 50-dog contract,” said county undersheriff Paul Frechette. “At the end of May we’re at 53. So everything over 50 is an additional $50 per dog.”
“That’s $150 per dog. Let’s say the vet bill comes in at $500,” said Simmons. “Who pays that?”
“The shelter does,” said Scott.
“The shelter doesn’t have the money,” said Simmons.
“I’m sorry, but they’re the ones that signed a contract with us and they should have known that when they signed it,” said Scott. “If there’s cost overages, it’s not our fault. They shouldn’t have signed it then.”
“The question is…the animal control officer position,” David said. “Are you guys in favor of posting this position? Commissioner Wiltse, yes or no or do you have something to add first?”
“I would want to see some data on his recent activity and I’d like to bring this back up for conversation at another meeting,” said commissioner Charles Wiltse.
Commissioners Scott and Simmons both said that Friesorger had done an outstanding job in the role but that they did not consider now an appropriate time to seek a replacement. David asked whether anyone had investigated grant opportunities and Gilbert responded in the negative.
“I am in favor of this position,” said David. “The timing is definitely off. I agree—we’re just discussing budgeting and where we’re at. I also agree with commissioner Wiltse. Get us some data as far as how many calls, complaints. I think this position is extremely important. We just spent a lot of money supporting that position.”
