Reasonable Request for the Animals

The Lynchburg Humane Society is operating the city animal shelter at a bargain for taxpayers. It’s too bad that several members of City Council don’t see it that way.

During a discussion last week of the humane society’s request for additional money for the shelter — and a contribution to a new shelter facility — some council members questioned whether the city should be supporting the humane society with tax dollars.

They are overlooking the fact the humane society is providing the invaluable service of taking care of unwanted and homeless pets that would otherwise be roaming the city’s streets.

For years, the humane society has squeezed nearly every ounce of life out of the city-owned shelter on Naval Reserve Road. It is undersized, under-equipped and just plain worn out. Yet society officials have persevered in maintaining it as a home for the animals that don’t have a home. They have done that for more than 50 years.

The estimated cost to the city of operating a city-run pound is $417,628 annually. The city’s annual support to the humane society for that same service is $139,050. That’s a bargain.

But the humane society wants to build a new shelter on property it owns on Old Graves Mill Road. So society officials have asked the city for a $675,000 contribution paid over five years. The estimated cost of renovating the current city-owned shelter to meet state standards is $725,000.

If the city wanted to take over the shelter operation, it would not only have the capital cost of renovating the building, but it would have the far higher annual operating cost.

Yet Councilman Turner Perrow said last week he questions whether “it’s the purpose of city tax dollars to support the humane society.” He said the city “can’t afford to do anything more” than what it’s doing now in terms of providing for the animals. At a minimum, state law requires the city to offer a public pound, which is what it pays the humane society to provide. But the pound only has to accept dogs and the dogs can be euthanized after five to 10 days. Cats have no chance under state law.

Is that the animal shelter policy that Lynchburg residents would find acceptable? Hardly. In fact, Makena Yarbrough, executive director of the humane society, is working to make the shelter a no-kill operation. The shelter succeeded in saving 89 percent of the animals that came through its doors last year. More than half of them were city strays.

We empathize with council members, who’re trying to find the money to pay for a number of needed projects in the city. But the shelter is just one more example of a capital need that has been allowed to fester far too long. And the longer the city waits, the higher the cost to fix the problem will be.

The better news from last week’s discussion of the humane society’s request for additional funds — funds it has more than justified the need for — is that a majority of the council generally support the request. They argued correctly that working with the humane society was still the less expensive option as the organization provides a service at a lower cost than the city could do on its own.

That’s the bottom line in this discussion. For the sake of the animals and the people of Lynchburg, it’s the one that must be followed.