Taxed twice, but fewer services?

THIS ARTICLE IS COMMENTARY AND PUBLISHED IN OUR EDITORIAL SECTION.

County should carefully consider pushback of denying town residents same service as county residents when it comes to animal control

By Randy Arrington, publisher

When we pay our fair share of taxes — at the federal, state or local level — we expect our fair share of services, but it doesn’t always work out that way. While state and county tax revenue goes into supporting the local school system, not everyone paying those taxes has a child attending classes. This is a reality that many have grown to accept — that sometimes our tax dollars simply go to support the greater good, the community as a whole, even though there may not be a direct, individual benefit. However, we still expect those “blanket services” to be provided equally, not selectively, across the community.

With this form of tax distribution (dare we say “socialism”) existing at all three levels of government — roads, schools, national defense, Medicare, parks, law enforcement, emergency services, etc. — these functions of government are expected to be implemented equally and mutually available to all residents, even if some don’t utilize them. In fact, there are regulatory policies and actual laws — even U.S. Supreme Court decisions — in place that prevent the exclusion of certain people from access to a public education, or access to public parks, or protection by law enforcement, or to have an ambulance come to you when you dial 911.

So, when the Page County Board of Supervisors states publicly that they are considering only offering animal control services to those “who live in the county” and not to those who live within the corporate limits of the county’s three towns, it seems an awful lot like discrimination… selectively providing a “blanket service” to one group, and not to another.

The first thing that should be pointed out, is that town residents are also county residents. Town residents pay county taxes — both real estate and personal property (vehicles) — at the exact same rate as their neighbor who’s home sits just across the corporate limits. So, why should animal control services be provided for one home, but not for another… particularly when they both paid into providing that service at an equal rate?

Town residents are taxed twice when it comes to real estate and personal property, receiving a bill every six months from both their respective town and the county treasurer. Each town’s two biggest responsibilities — water and sewer — are handled as “enterprise funds”, meaning the revenue collected from monthly billing pays for those services. That leaves levies collected on things like real estate, personal property, meals, lodging, park rentals, etc. to pay for things like park maintenance, law enforcement, building sidewalks, and fireworks on the 4th of July. Can you imagine the pushback if the Town of Luray routinely kicked county residents out of Lake Arrowhead or Ralph Dean Park? Or what if the Town of Stanley only allowed Stanley residents access to Hawksbill Pool? That’s the equivalent of what the county is imposing with animal control. There are numerous town services, paid for by town residents — in all three towns — that benefit all county residents.

The Labor Day deadline imposed by Sheriff Chad Cubbage is fast approaching. Now in his third term, Sheriff Cubbage told supervisors in July that he will no longer manage animal control services for the county for free. Nothing in state law requires the sheriff’s office to provide animal control services, but it does make such a mandate of the county. Nearly two decades ago, county supervisors asked then-sheriff Daniel W. Presgraves to take over animal control services. He did so for an additional $4,000 tacked onto his salary, which then totaled $97,198. In fact, many sheriffs receive additional stipends to manage animal control services — from a whopping $30,000 in Orange County, to $12,000 in Warren County and $7,000 in Rockingham County. Sheriff Tim Carter in Shenandoah County does not receive an additional stipend, and former Page County Sheriff John Thomas turned down the additional stipend, stating that it was simply part of his job and his $89,459 annual salary.

Sheriff Cubbage is not unjustified in requesting an additional $18,000 to manage animal control because he’s also subject to the liability that accompanies that service — and he’s certainly familiar with being the target of a civil lawsuit. However, keep in mind that these funds go directly to the sheriff’s salary, and not to the individuals actually doing the work on the ground. That work has increased greatly, from about 285 calls for animal control in 2017, to more than 1,600 in recent years. Most of those calls are for “barking dogs, or dogs running wild, loose,” and Animal Control Officers (ACOs) only deal with domestic animals — wild animals fall under the jurisdiction of state game wardens.

The sheriff, however, made a misstep in trying to give himself a raise by making the request just weeks after a new county budget took effect on July 1, rather than a few months earlier during the actual budgeting process. In addition, he will probably receive little empathy from the community at large, when his current $130,000 salary is nearly 2.5 times the average household income in Page County of $56,760 (2022 estimate). Once again, that’s household income — not individual income.

More recently, Sheriff Cubbage has said that he will settle for a $12,000 pay raise to continue managing animal control. He knows he’s got the county over a barrel because they don’t have the staff to handle an immediate transition — and he also knows that the easy decision is for the supervisors is to pony up another $12,000 for his bank account, rather than rebuild a department.

In one breath, the sheriff says “I’m not trying to argue with anyone,” before then stating, “but it will be a disservice to the citizens [if the county takes it over]… There is no way they can cover it the way the Sheriff’s Office can… They may take the position, but they can’t take my people.”

Again, he knows he’s got the board over a barrel, and the easy decision is to give in and “pay the rent.”

“If current ACO certified staff were to choose not to transition to county employment, the county would have to hire new staff, enroll them in the ACO training (limited availability) and get them certified before they can do their job,” County Administrator Amity Moler told PVN in July.

If supervisors don’t give in to the strong-arming, and they decide to accept some temporary deficiencies until they can get the department up to speed… then they also need to make a commitment to provide that service to all residents. They should not charge towns an additional fee to provide the service — thus taxing those residents, theoretically, a second time for the same service.

If the county is going to takeover animal control services, then own it, fund it, and provide the best service possible equally across the county. Dip into the $25 million reserve fund and make it happen. If not… can we expect that town residents will soon not be allowed to use the landfill, that sheriff’s deputies will stop providing back-up and 24-hour coverage inside any town limits, that town residents will have to build their own schools, or that town residents won’t be allowed to participate in county basketball leagues?

At an Aug. 5 work session, supervisors stated they had three choices — give the sheriff a raise, takeover animal control, or charge the towns for the service. We offer that they only have two choices — takeover animal control or pay the sheriff his money.

When the government provides a service, we expect it to be equally accessible and equally provided to all residents within its taxable jurisdiction. Selective implementation should only come with adjusting the tax levies accordingly. So, since we know we’re not getting a tax break… how about just doing the job the state has mandated… and do it for everyone, equally.

•••

RELATED ARTICLES

Sheriff demands 14% salary increase to continue managing animal control