SPCA funding could boom
The Daily Progress/Megan Lovett
mily Beichel (left) and Julie Nozynski perform spay and neuter operations at the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA. The organization is seeking a dramatic increase in funding from localities, from roughly $1.60 per capita to at least $4.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA is on track to have a different financial fate than its fellow community agencies, if elected officials approve a new contract this week.
Compared with the amounts approved for their budgets this fiscal year, the city and county governments might end up boosting their payments to the organization by hundreds of thousands of dollars within the next two years.
The two municipalities for the past several months have been renegotiating their contract with the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which had asked the localities to bump up funding from roughly $1.60 per capita, or the cost per resident, to between $4 and $7 per capita. The latter figures are what the SPCA cited as an industry standard for providing pound services.
“If this is approved, I think it’s going to be a very positive step between the city, the county and the SPCA and our partnership going forward,” said Kristen Smith Bain, president of the SPCA’s board of directors.
If the agreement is approved by the City Council tonight and by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, the governments would end up paying the SPCA $86,000 and $248,106, respectively, in the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. The SPCA’s most recent annual report, from 2008, said the agency had a budget of $2.9 million.
“We’ve been flooded with e-mails from people that want to see us increase our support for the SPCA,” city Mayor Dave Norris said.
But, in August, the two governments sent a letter to agencies, including the SPCA, saying it would be “very challenging” to fund existing programs at the same levels during the next fiscal year. The city’s budget director, Leslie Beauregard, said that if the new contract is approved and revenues are still down, she does not know where the money would come from, though it would likely be the only agency to see an upswing in financial backing.
According to the document received by councilors, the new formula would also mean that in fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012, city funding would increase to $166,000 and then to $207,500.
“It’s going to be a huge increase. There’s no doubt,” Beauregard said.
The totals come from increasing funding to $4 per capita in fiscal 2011 and to $5 per capita in fiscal 2012. For the county, the totals would be $369,248 in fiscal 2011 and $471,560 in fiscal 2012.
“Now with us hopefully getting to the $4 and $5 per capita range, we’re in the ballpark of where we should be,” Bain said.
In subsequent years, the backing would stay at $5 per capita but be adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.
Officials say they have long underfunded the agency. But the proposed increase is still coming at a time when the two localities’ financial pictures are far from rosy.
“It does not look good,” Beauregard said of Charlottesville’s end-of-the-year monetary projections. Beauregard declined to provide specifics because of the numbers’ volatility, but she said, “We’re not seeing [real-estate] assessments tracking the way they were, certainly, even a year ago.”
Real-estate tax revenue is the largest revenue source in both localities’ budgets.
Councilors will receive a long-term revenue forecast later this month. In September, Albemarle released revenue projections that expected it to be short $4.74 million by the end of the current fiscal year, which will be June 30.
“It’s going to hurt, because it is a tremendous increase,” county Supervisor Sally H. Thomas said of the SPCA monetary boost. But, she said, the localities must weigh the costs of contracting to the nonprofit compared with running their own pound, which would be required by the state should they abandon the SPCA’s services.
Over the course of last year, the no-kill facility took in 4,432 animals and adopted out 3,099. The rest were either transferred to other organizations, returned to owners, euthanized (due to severe illness), or died or were lost while being sheltered.
“There certainly may come a time when it is less expensive to run our own pound than to pay the SPCA, but that’s probably not true at least for the coming couple of years,” Thomas said.
With the new contract, Norris said he would like to see the SPCA step up its promotion of spaying and neutering, which could help decrease the number of animals that need shelter.
“Ultimately, that’s what’s going to reduce the problem in the long run,” he said.
The agency charges anywhere from $50 to upwards of $150 to adopt a dog or puppy, and $25 to $95 to adopt a cat or kitten. The fees include the cost of spaying or neutering, as well as other medical care. Bain said the SPCA completed nearly 6,000 spay and neuter surgeries last year and it will continue to expand the program.
“That’s what we’ve tried to do every year,” she said.
While specifics have not been figured out as to how spaying and neutering efforts would be increased, Bain said it would partly come down to hiring more veterinarians to handle more surgeries and getting the word out to area residents.
“We will continue to expand the reach of that as much as we can,” Bain said.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Since the SPCA is tax exempt and doesn’t pay real estate tax for the currently assessed 7.3 million dollar facility, one would think the county taxpayer is ponying up 54,000 dollars in addition to whatever is given by the city and county in their current budgets. Will the SPCA now pay real estate taxes since they seem to be operating as a for profit organization now?
Personally I would rather the several hundred thousand they are telling us to pay up go to the foodbank and help people in need…ESPECIALLY TODAY.
The SPCA should tell us what is needed not what others are doing!
Antiboyd, Sally Mead was a petty, tyrannical nanny who always thought she knew better than anyone else what was good for YOU and animals. Though Jack Manahan and Anastasia were local eccentrics, what she did to that couple was enough to earn her infamy forever, not sainthood.
As for the SPCA, it is taxpayer-supported by virtue of its non-profit status, “services rendered” notwithstanding, and accountability is most definitely appropriate and required as a matter of law.
Great post, antiboyd, and I agree with almost all of it. Unfortunately though, I feel that in this particular instance, we do have the right to ask reasonable questions of the SPCA regarding how the money is spent. I hesitate to go into the reasons why because I respect what the SPCA does, and they have some amazing people working in the trenches there.
If I had it in my power to do so, I’d see to it that they have every dollar they need to accomplish their goals. In return, all I’d want to see is a greater willingness from some of their leadership to collaborate more with the city and county in solving the root cause of homeless and abandoned pets. We need more far-reaching solutions and ideas, and this is what the SPCA, under its current leadership, has been resisting. They are now seen as a very successful organization, and I think, to a certain extent, that they are victims of that success.
I am with bufgal on this one, for the most part.
I think one of her points was that this is not “funding” per se, but payment for services rendered. Accountability for the entire operation to the BOS, or taxpayers, as unreasonable, if not inappropriate. We already see this mindset in Washington, and in some sense, ‘accountability’ sounds to me more like ‘control’.
I am unaware that the SPCA does not do enough presently in re spay and neuter, or is being dishonest. That’s left hanging out there… I wonder how their Board would respond, and I also wonder what the facts are to base that inference on… not saying that WQ is wrong.
My own interaction with the SPCA has been modest—about five adoptions in the 29 years I’ve lived in Albemarle—two years volunteering a few hours a week to walk dogs and clean kennels. I remember Sally Mead—don’t know what she ever did wrong, and don’t know that I care, since she is dead and it seems tacky to carry on a grudge to this day (hint)—and I remember a staff that was overworked, had some inconsistency in training, and way too much volume for its meager resources.
Ah yes, the almighty “taxpayer”. That seems to be the other bone of contention, and while I never like to part with my money, I don’t choose to let my money own me, which by inference, may be at play here in this County. By all accounts we are wealthier, more highly educated, more actively involved—those are demographic facts—than much of the state, let alone our neighboring counties. Yet I’d submit that the posts reflect almost the opposite, on all three counts—for which I’ll now be attacked as an arrogant, liberal, who looks down on people, and wants it both ways. LOL
[OT: Well, I do post often. You got me on that. And I am not in lock stop with either the left or the right—if that’s what you mean by ‘both ways’. And I am decidedly a dad, not a mom, and both a landowner and a homeowner, FWIW, and a life-long Republican who worked the Goldwater campain, and a former CFO and consultant who knows more than a little bit about business and accounting. And, yes, Chicago taught me to trust no politician, nor any pokitician’s friend.]
Back on topic: The SPCA “funding” issue is the tip of an iceberg, IMO. The County has gone a long time riding on the backs of volunteers, donations, etc. to deal with public issues, which probably works in a tight-knit, rural, monolithic community. But we passed 1971 38 years ago. We don’t do ourselves any good by pretending that now was then, and that this is a little town any more. Or that some of us count more than others. Or that ‘outsiders’ don’t live here, or that those who do don’t deserve a say. My point being, yes, times are tight, but you cannot count on getting something for nothing anymore, and if its nothing you want, well, send everyone away.
I dunno, maybe that’s the strategy?
bufgal, I greatly appreciate your comments and also am frustrated by the nastiness I see here against socially-minded individuals. However, I’d like to point out that in this particular case, the community needs to see their pound come up with more creative and effective ways to solve pet overpopulation. They need to see their pound, which they are helping to fund after all, make far more of an effort to direct some of its funding to spaying and neutering pets, especially for the poorest of the poor. This is the only way we’re going to get away from the harmful mindset of putting bandaids on every problem rather than achieving real and lasting solutions.
I say give them their funding, but make sure that they remain open and accountable to all of us, and allow the city and county to worth WITH them on finding solutions to overpopulation and pound overcrowding. And they need to be 100% honest with people about the spay/neuter and euthanasia rates. To do otherwise only harms this fine organization.
Well right back at you with your own words, twin. I post once in a blue moon, but you and others of your ilk post here incessantly complaining about anything and everything that relates to taking care of the community, and if saying so hurts your feelings “just because you disagree” then I am pleased to have struck a nerve.
Completely unfounded and false? This particular thread is just a sampler. The weblog for the Daily Progress has become a massive wailing wall for radical complainers, for everything from the UVA football team, to the SPCA, to police investigations of missing persons, to enforcement of speeding laws, to organizations that take care of the homelss like PACEM, to organizations that promote social justice like IMPACT, to incessant name-calling of anyone who advocates for the poor, or encourages others to do the same. The only seemingly sacred word here seems to be “taxpayer”. Happening to be one myself, I may now and then take it upon myself to speak out.
So, please, share your point of view, but read what you and others post from the other perspective now and then—in this thread it speaks to disposal of unwanted animals—and it wasn’t too long ago, when opining on the city’s efforts to house the homeless, there was a post (and considerable hoorahs) for disposing of them also.
No, sister, I stand by my “Christian” comment. And if that offends thee, amen.
Thanks so much for the follow up on my post. The SPCA is accountable for its expenditures and it publishes its financial accounting in its annual report - the Annual Report is on the web site (www.caspca.org). The SPCA takes in approximately $5,000 animals per year. The SPCA was not getting along just fine with the money provided by the City and County. It has scraped along for many years based on donations and grants from other charitable organizations, but now that those have dried up, the SPCA is about to go broke. The SPCA has a very good relationship with the Wildlife Center and they do share tips on operations but it is not feasible to compare the two organizations. I don’t know the exact number of animals taken in by the Wildlife Center each year but I am certain that it is a small fraction of those taken in by the SPCA. Also, the Wildlife Center is not performing a statutorily mandated function. I know it is difficult to think that the SPCA is getting more funding when County agencies and citizens are doing with less but the SPCA is not asking for a windfall. It is merely asking for enough to support itself while it continues to take in ALL the animals in the community that otherwise would go to a non-existent City/County Pound. I think it is reasonable for the City and County to look at surrounding localities in determining what it might take to run such a Pound and to decide, at least for now, instead to use the money that it would need to build and operate a Pound (which would likely be a high-kill facility) to fund the facility that already exists. This makes sense to me. As for specific questions about “revolving door” pets of college students, I don’t know how to answer that. I don’t even know that it is a big issue at the SPCA ... perhaps it is. What I do know is that the director and staff at the SPCA are constantly and continually trying to figure out ways to make things work based on changing circumstances.
H K Cross’ comments are correct. The SPCA has been underfunded by both city and county for years. The homeless animal population is a public responsibility, one that needs to be addressed by government and the community at large, not just a “like minded” group of volunteers. This funding will simply help keep the SPCA facility running and allow them to continue caring for the city’s unwanted animals. Let’s hope it will free up some of the organization’s other resources to focus on reducing the number of animals coming into the shelter through education and affordable spay/neuter services.
Bufgal-
Your accusations (“ the DP remains the repository of gripes for the stay-at-home whiners who treat humans like dogs, and dogs like cockroaches. And the beat goes on. Schools, old folks housing, jails—all human warehouses, because, well, that’s somebody else’s responsibility.“) are completely unfounded and false, and certainly everything but “Christian”. Maybe you could stick to the issue being discussed, be more respectful, and stop slinging mud at people who happen to have an opinion different than yours?
HK Cross- thanks for clarifying the issues. I agree that the SPCA is the best choice for the County and city, rather than having their own pounds. But what still has not been explained is what the SPCA needs the dramatic increase for. They seem to have survived quite nicely up until now with the small amount of taxpayer money and donations. Yes, in this economy, donations will be down and abandoned pets will increase in number, so they will need some extra money. But almost triple? And without spelling out what their projections are, or how they plan to spend the money? C’mon, that is just not reasonable. They have to be accountable to the taxpayers. Just because the smaller rural facilities in the region have gotten a certain amount is no justification for them getting a raise. Their are unique factors and circumstances that dictate what each facility ‘s operating costs are. The attitude of “he got a raise, so I need a raise” doesn’t cut it with me. As a taxpayer, and as someone who has supported the SPCA with donations, I would like to know where their money goes, and what they plan to do with the windfall if their demands are met.
EG, how are they addressing the UVa students revolving door approach to animal ownership - that is, the students who adopt an animal for a few years while they are here in school, and then return them when they graduate?
The Wildlife Center of Virginia seems to be able to exist without taxpayer support, and they handle hurt animals from all over the state. Maybe the SPCA could learn a few pointers from them on how to run efficiently.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement