Charlotte Varcoe
FOR the first time in almost a decade the South East Animal Welfare League (SEAWL) may have to compete for its annual funding through Mount Gambier City Council.
Last Tuesday, SEAWL president Trevor Twilley was informed by a council executive that its tri-party funding agreement would be dependent on a tender process.
SEAWL has been in a tri-party funding agreement with City Council and Grant District Council consecutively since 2014 with the review of the agreement scheduled for every three years.
In April 2019, City Council agreed to allocate a $60,000 conditional grant to the welfare league which was issued in four equal installments.
The funds supported the animal shelter’s operational costs with a number of key performance indicators attached to the funding.
Now, for the first time since the nine year funding agreement, the welfare league may have to compete against other organisations to provide cat and dog rehabilitation and rehoming services for the community.
Speaking with The Border Watch, Mr Twilley said despite meeting with council officials late last year and in January he was not aware the league would have to apply for its funds through the tender process.
“It was discussed about the council possibly going down the path of fee for service but there was no mention of a tender when I met the council previously,” Mr Twilley said.
“We weren’t even informed about what a fee for service would be.
“We have just been left in the dark.”
Calling on council for better communication and clarification moving forward, Mr Twilley said he wanted to know what the conditions were for the tender and when it would open.
“Our tri-party agreement expires on June 30 and I made an application for it to continue last year,” he said.
“I didn’t hear anything from council for some months outside a meeting in December and in January but last week was the first I had heard about having to submit a tender.”
Mr Twilley said he was told by council officials he would be given a copy of a report labelled Animal Shelter which was discussed in confidence at council’s January meeting, yet was still to be given the document.
“We have no idea what the service is expected to be and because we don’t know that we won’t know if SEAWL has the resources, finances or capacity to fulfill the tender process,” he said.
“If we don’t put in for tender or if we are unsuccessful for the approval then it will be up to the board as to what happens next.
“We have enough finances to keep running for another two years but after that we will either have to shut SEAWL or rely on the generosity of the community.”
Mr Twilley said operational costs for the welfare league was about $200,000 per year with the tri-party agreement critical for the league’s future.
He said more information was needed around the conditions of the tender with the league’s board scheduled to meet only twice until the tri-party agreement expires.
“We don’t have people on the board who are capable of preparing a tender process so it may be that we will need to engage with our lawyer to review the tender document and provide advice to the board,” Mr Twilley said.
“We are the only welfare league in the Limestone Coast and there may be a possibility that the RSPCA in Adelaide put in for the opportunity but I am not sure about the practicality of that considering its more than 400km away.
“If other leagues or the RSPCA do put in for tender and are successful then we also want to know what council is going to do with the animals until a facility is built down here in the meantime.
“If there are external tenders they would have to build their own facilities and with the building industry at the moment it could be a while until something is built.
“Bearing in mind the current tri-party agreement ends in June that doesn’t give council much time to get a facility up and running.”
Moving forward, Mr Twilley said he wanted more transparency from council in regards to the tender process, stating the league provides an “essential service” to council and the community.
“The welfare league is a not-for-profit charitable organisation and we don’t have any legislative requirements to accept cats or dogs from the council,” he said.
“Following my meetings with the council I am not happy with the correspondence.”
Mount Gambier City Council was unable to comment on the matter due to confidentiality.
