Gimme Shelter – Part 1
by John Weckerle
(Editor’s Note: Chuck Ring contributed substantially to this article)
In a January 22 article on outlining financial problems faced by the Moriarty-Edgewood School District, Mountain View Telegraph writer Lee Ross reports on apparent consternation among the local school board members regarding the new Estancia Valley Regional Animal Shelter proposed to be located in Edgewood’s Section 16, south of Edgewood Middle School. According to the article, Moriarty-Edgewood School Superintendent stated: “I honestly did not have any idea that this was going into place.”
Excuse me?
As pointed out by former Town Council member and animal friend Chuck Ring, the regional animal shelter has been the subject of at least 13 articles in the Telegraph alone, all but one of which mentions Section 16 as the location for the facility. One would expect that elected officials would keep abreast of issues affecting the interests of the District, and that District personnel would be scanning the news for such issues and reporting back to the school board. Further, a naming contest was held in coordination with the school district, and Ms. Couch reportedly participated directly in that effort.
In an e-mail to the Edgewood Town Council, Mayor Bob Stearley states:
I spoke with Karen Couch today about locating the animal shelter on section 16. She reported that the school board has some concerns. She was told by the State Land office that they have other lands which would be more suitable for an animal shelter. I understand that Santa Fe County has concerns about locating the shelter next to the fire station.
I am attaching drawings of the proposed shelter. It is based on a design taken from the catalog from Houndquarter’s Inc. We have requested a cost estimate from Houndquarter’s Inc.
Concerns on the part of Santa Fe County seem nonexistent. In a January 30 e-mail message to Mayor Stearley, Santa Fe County Constituent Services Liaison Jennifer Jaramillo clarifies:
On behalf of Commissioner Anaya, he has always and still remains in total support of the location of the animal shelter. He has been on board with the project since day one and is asking for all involved to keep moving forward. Santa Fe County is not in opposition of this location. We will be in attendance at the next meeting.
Part of the problem appears to arise from some sort of confusion about the scope of the proposed project. Apparently, the Town of Edgewood provided the State Land Office with proposed plans for the facility and, again apparently, the plans are for a scaled back, indoor/outdoor facility.
On the issue of the facility design, in a January 30 message to Mr. Ring, Mr. Stearley elaborates:
The reason I attached the drawings was to bring forward the current concept for the facility. The concept is for an in-door/out-door design, versus the entirely in-door facility (which cost $10,000,000). These need to be reviewed by the regional animal shelter committee, and a vote taken by that committee on the design concept.
In the same message, Mr. Stearley states: “Newspaper reports are not sufficient for us to communicate with the affected parties.
We are at a loss to understand why the Town of Edgewood would submit to the State Land Office a plan that had not been approved by the the regional animal shelter committee. While Edgewood is acting as the fiscal agent for the project, this does not confer the right to make unilateral and significant changes to the project plan (which requires the approval of the committee, as Mr. Stearley pointed out) and transmit them formally to the State Land Office. Without that approval, the drawings simply cannot be considered “the current concept for the facility.” At the very least, the Town of Edgewood appears to have made a very serious error in this regard.
We agree with Mr. Stearley’s statement on the sufficiency of newspapers as a communication tool: the town should have notified the school board of its plans and coordinated directly rather than waiting for the official notification from the State Land Office, which is at best an eleventh-hour approach.
The animal shelter fiasco follows a series of similar catastrophes associated with Edgewood projects. The sewer (initially opposed by Mayor Stearley and other public figures) suffered a serious setback as the result of an “error” in the contracting process. Other projects associated with Section 16 – including construction of a new public library, Town offices, public works building, and athletic fields all seem to be riding the administrative equivalent of “the train they call the City of New Orleans”, and seem to be suffering from the “disappearing railroad blues” (with a nod to Arlo Guthrie). Mr. Stearley’s support for these initiatives has been questioned by some local residents. In the case of Edgewood’s involvement with the animal shelter project, Mr. Stearley’s opposition is a matter of public record; in an April 30 e-mail to the Town Council and other officials, Mr. Stearley states:
I met today with the regional animal shelter committee. I told them that from my perspective as mayor, I did not see the Town of Edgewood taking the lead in obtaining the $10 million for the shelter, and would also not be likely to be the fiscal agent to be responsible for operating it, at an estimated cost of $739,208 per year. We currently have 3 dogs at our shelter, which is providing humane care for them.
The entity with the greatest need should be the one taking the lead, not the entity with 3 dogs. Of course, we may have 12 dogs next week, but it will not be hundreds. They have the most to gain, not us. Why should we use our legislative financing for a facility which will benefit them?
In one of his messages, Mr. Stearley states “I have added this item to our council agenda on February 4, 2009.” This item is not on the proposed agenda and, as of 9 a.m. the day before the meeting, a final agenda including the item has not been issued. Given the likely public interest in the issue, the Town should provide reasonable public notice that the issue will be discussed. Interested parties should contact the Town office at 286-4518 for more information and to find out whether the subject will be considered at tomorrow night’s meeting.
(to be continued)
2 Responses “Gimme Shelter – Part 1”
Excellent research! ExcellentArticle!
Mr Weckerle adds more weight to the premise raised in the article titled “Section 16? Again? (see next article) It would almost seem that the current town government wants to leave Section 16 undeveloped.
I wonder why? Wake up Edgewood!
I was very involved in the shelter committee for some time. I can attest to the statements made by Mayor Stearley in those meetings. I was there when he disbanded the original group. I was there when it came together again. It was made clear to me that community involvement was not wanted at that point. I was not included in the email list (although I signed in) and never heard another word about it.
I don’t know what the mayor has planned for section 16, but it certainly does seem to be a secret from most of us!