Letter to members of the Animal Welfare League and interested parties

As most of you know, discussions about the future of our shelter are again taking place. A few years ago, the AWL signed a Memo Of Understanding (MOU) with the POA which spelled out general operating guidelines between the two parties. There is a provision in the MOU which allows either party to void the agreement. In 2010, the AWL BOD decided that we could no longer work under the severe restrictions of the MOU and voted that we re-negotiate the MOU with the POA. BEFORE WE COULD DO THIS, the POA called me, as AWL President, and stated that it was obvious that the MOU was not working for either party and asked if the AWL would consider taking over the shelter. This was not the first time that the POA has asked the AWL to operate the shelter. After speaking with the AWL BOD we decided to listen to the POA's proposal.
There have been many meetings between the POA and AWL discussing the possible terms and conditions of an offer. Once a final offer had been received, our plan was to inform all of our membership of the potential terms and conditions of that offer and to vote on how to proceed. We believe that we now have the final offer and those details will follow later in this note.
So why is there talk about closing the shelter? About a month or so ago, while we were in negotiation talks about the shelter, the POA informed us that they asked Hot Springs Animal Services for a bid to accept all Animals picked up in the Village. The POA could save money by closing the shelter and Hot Springs has agreed to take the animals for a fee. We immediately voiced our displeasure at this option and told the POA in writing that we would vigorously protest this idea if the POA management became serious about it. Later, in another meeting, POA management confirmed to us that if we do not take over shelter operations, POA management will recommend to the POA BOD that the shelter be closed. Consequently, at the 3/2/11 POA BOD meeting, we advised the POA of our opposition to the Hot Springs option and of our intent to inform all of our AWL members and interested Village residents of that proposal. We have scheduled the 3/14/11 meeting for this purpose.
The AWL BOD knows that the current operating situation of the shelter is not tolerable. We cannot continue to subject our volunteers to the whims and moods of Animal Control. Animals are often used as pawns to quiet us and stifle progress. We lose too many volunteers because of these conditions. Secondarily, we DO NOT WANT the shelter closed under any circumstances. We need to continue our work with animals and the community. We also have over $60K of capital investment in the shelter building itself.
PROPOSAL DETAILS:
The POA's budget for 2011 is $133,590. If we take over the shelter they will give us 80K per year, plus what we can raise via pet registrations. Currently the POA is receiving about $8K for pet registrations. Under this proposed scenario, Animal Control still reports to the POA and they pay one officers salary. Animal Control will be dispatched to pick up strays and all strays will be given to the AWL for disposition.
We would be responsible for all utilities & building repairs etc. and would have to hire Professional staff to operate the shelter. The POA sees these savings for them under this scenario to be $3,050.00. The AWL now spends around $80K a year for animal related expenses under our now current situation. If the AWL takes over the shelter as stated above, we think that we will have to raise another $30K or so to effectively run the shelter. This number could be higher.
If we don't take over the shelter, the POA will close the shelter but will still have one Animal Control Officer to pick up strays (50K). The POA will deliver all strays to Hot Springs at an estimated cost of $31K. Total outlay of cash to the POA around $81K for a savings to the POA of around $50K.
Also, we have been told that if we do not take over the shelter another option is, we can lease the building for $1.00 per year plus we must pay all building operating costs. We can then use the building for our own purposes. There would be no 80K payment to the AWL. Animal Control would let us have right of first refusal on animals that they picked-up but the rest would be sent to Hot Springs.
Sorry about the length of this note but it is a complex situation. Hopefully, you now have a better understanding of what we are facing.We hope to see you at the meeting ! Bring your friends !
Jerry Jamrich
AWL President