The City of Columbia and Boone County are getting into the animal shelter business, and many questions remain.
On October 19, the Columbia City Council voted unanimously to purchase a building at 1300 Boone Industrial Drive for $995,000 to establish a city–county animal shelter. Columbia will pay $595,000, while Boone County will contribute $400,000. The decision represents a significant departure from the city’s longstanding relationship with the Central Missouri Humane Society, which has provided shelter services for years.
According to city officials, the decision followed a request from the Central Missouri Humane Society for $5.5 million to use for a new facility. The Humane Society has been providing animal care services under contract with the city and county. I can’t blame the city for rejecting that very large request from the Humane Society, but by ending the relationship with the Humane Society, Columbia has decided to purchase its own shelter.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the purchase is that the property reportedly had an earlier asking price of $675,000. A resident questioned why the city was now paying $995,000, but city officials did not provide a detailed explanation during the meeting. That’s a $320,000 difference that deserves an answer.
In my recent report for the Show-Me Institute on the topic of municipal public health operations, I examined how Missouri municipalities provide animal control and shelter services. The research demonstrates that cities have numerous alternatives to direct government operation. I give some credit to Columbia and Boone County for working together on this instead of operating separately, and according to reports they intend to seek outside contractors for veterinarian services and routine animal care instead of hiring more local government employees for those roles. Those would both be good decisions. They should further investigate working with other animal welfare groups and private veterinarians to replace the Humane Society before the city buys its own facility.
Other municipalities, such as Independence and Blue Springs, have long used nonprofit organizations to provide animal-shelter services. Nonprofit organizations can take advantage of private fundraising, volunteer labor, specialized expertise, and community involvement. Those are advantages that government agencies cannot always replicate.
Columbia’s decision to purchase the building raises serious financial questions, even if it uses contractors as much as possible for daily operations. City officials have suggested that purchasing the facility would reach a break-even point financially after approximately 30 years compared with the Humane Society’s original funding request. But such calculations are only as good as their assumptions. What will staffing cost? What about maintenance, insurance, utilities, veterinary services, capital improvements, and employee benefits? Will the city be able to raise private donations and recruit volunteers as effectively as an established nonprofit?
These questions should be answered before taxpayers are committed to decades of municipal shelter ownership. The proper role of government is not necessarily to provide every service itself. It is to ensure that essential public services are delivered effectively and economically. I repeat that Columbia and Boone County deserve credit for sharing services here and for, apparently, seeking to contract out shelter operations. Nevertheless, the two governments should reconsider whether owning their own animal shelter is really the best use of taxpayer resources.
