Clarification of 'pulling the plug'

The Comet needs to clarify why it believes it is necessary to close Carroll Manor. It is not that the Comet wants to see residents turned out with nowhere to go. Nor is it that the Comet believes the facility is not first class with caring staff.

There is only one reason - plain and simple - Carroll County taxpayers can no longer afford to provide a facility to care for the aged.

It is not the responsibility of county taxpayers to provide a place for the aged to live, and subsidize them to live there, when they can afford to live somewhere else. But, that is what county taxpayers have been doing.

The county has been providing approximately $10,000 per person, per year for each resident to live at the Manor. That is over and above the fees residents pay. County taxpayers might as well write each resident a check.

When the county has to sacrifice sheriff's deputies and ambulances and staff, we obviously cannot afford to subsidize a home for the aged, even with fee increases.

Carroll Manor's director recently reported that all but one of her 19 residents can afford the increase to $56 a day (from $28) which the county council believes will help make the facility self-sustaining. With the completion of the ongoing elevator project, she proposes to work diligently at filling the Manor to capacity (40+).

But what no one has addressed is that with increased capacity, there will be a need for more food, more utilities usage, and more employees. That $56 a day will then not cover expenses, so fees will need to be increased again.

It is feasible to expect residents would be able to secure suitable alternative housing within two to three months. When the Indiana State Department of Health closed the former Brethren's Home in Flora, those families only had one or two days to move their loved ones.

But it might not be necessary to move loved ones, that is, if the county commissioners explore other options. They are the county entity that has the responsibility to maintain county property, and they could choose to privatize the Manor.

Let the county lease the building and grounds to a private company. Residents could go on residing there, but someone else would be responsible for making the place financially sustainable. Perhaps the people who work there could even keep their jobs.

That would be a win-win solution, not only for the county, but for Manor residents and staff.

However, if privatizing is not feasible, then pulling the plug on a facility that is a financial drain is what has to be done. Within two years the county could repay the $500,000 obligation for the elevator grant through recouped funds that were previously budgeted for the Manor.

The building could then be used for other county purposes, leased or sold. Taxpayers would not be subsidizing a home for the aged that they no longer can afford.