Too big to fail.

That was the way animal-rescue activist Deanna Lee described the state of San Antonio Pets Alive! — and its co-dependent relationship with the city — to me four months ago. At the time, SAPA was on the fiscal ropes, begging the city for a $500,000 bailout to keep it functioning for the rest of the year.

Lee, like many people in the local rescue community, supported SAPA’s stated mission (rescuing frail animals on the verge of being euthanized, and finding adoptive homes for them) but questioned the structural soundness of the nonprofit.

SAPA came into existence five years ago at the request of San Antonio’s Animal Care Services, quickly became the city’s biggest rescue partner and received major credit for helping S.A. elevate its live-release rate from 31 to 88 percent. That’s why Lee concluded that SAPA, no matter how poor its fundraising operations or how wasteful its spending patterns, would be protected by the city.

Well, if we can derive one message from Thursday’s City Council vote to take away the Paul Jolly Adoption Center lease from SAPA and hand it to the Animal Defense League, it’s that city leaders don’t want any rescue partners to ever again be too big to fail.

Diversification of the city’s rescue portfolio was the theme of the day, with ADL getting the Jolly Center, the San Antonio Humane Society getting the contract for the new spay/neuter facility that will soon open at Brooks City Base and SAPA holding onto its high-volume contract.

That contract calls for SAPA to take in 3,100 animals a year, and the city’s new stipend rates mean that its annual income from the city is expected to jump from $155,000 to $305,000. That should be comforting to SAPA’s leadership, given a May op-ed in which the organization’s founder, Dr. Ellen Jefferson, noted that SAPA saves the same number of animals as its sister organization, Austin Pets Alive!, but does it on half the budget.

In a way, the council’s new decision flips the script. SAPA will only be required to rescue about half the animals required by its old contract, but will get roughly twice as much municipal money.

The problem for SAPA is that the Jolly Center, a city-owned building which opened in 2013, was its primary base of operations, the place where it moved animals healthy enough for adoption. As Maureen O’Nell, SAPA’s new executive director, told me last week: “We don’t have the bricks and mortar that other organizations have.”

In addition, the loss of the Jolly Center will likely damage SAPA’s fundraising credibility, at a time when O’Nell’s hiring offered the possibility that the rescue group could finally get its infrastructure in order.

In retrospect, it’s clear that the city’s bailout for SAPA earlier this year was both a blessing and a curse for the organization. While the city didn’t give SAPA everything it wanted — the final total was $375,000, with a few strings attached — it enabled the rescue group to pay its 70 staffers and keep the lights on. But the funding request also served as a municipal alarm bell, and spurred the city to open up the bidding process for the Jolly Center.

Assistant City Manager Maria Villagómez was very diplomatic when she explained to me last week why city staff recommended ADL get the Jolly Center lease. She expressed her gratitude to SAPA for their animal-rescue work and said the organization would continue to be an important partner for the city. But she also indicated that financial stability was an important factor in the evaluation process.

“From our perspective, it’s important that we provide our taxpayers with an organization that is financially stable in the long-term,” Villagómez said.

There was no council opposition to the lease change, and only Ron Nirenberg expressed any discomfort at the thought of taking a contract away from a group that formed at the city’s urging.

Tommy McNish, chief operations officer for SAPA, questioned whether ADL would be able to match his organization’s adoption numbers at the Jolly Center, and he seemed unsure about his organization’s future viability.

“We have to figure that out,” McNish said. “We were never beholden to the city government, we’re beholden to the animals. Our mission is not to make San Antonio government proud. It’s to save the animals.

“Our ability to save animals has just been cut in half, or more, but it’s not the animals’ fault that this decision was made. So we’re going to fight, we’re going to save as many as we possibly can. The impact of today’s vote is yet unknown, but it’s definitely going to be dramatic.”

ggarcia@express-news.net

Twitter: @gilgamesh470