Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, I have a bit of a quiet time. First thing I noticed is that they use the cash basis of accounting. That means that money isn't noted until it is actually received - there is no grants receivable (think accounts receivable - or money they are owed)
That being said for the year 2007, they did receive $88,204 in donations (cash and otherwise) and spent $64,854 in expenses leaving a balance of $23,350 to be added to existing reserves going into 2008.
$9,917 of the contributions were cash. $18,287 were in noncash donations. Then there is $60,000 that is not noted as to it's origin, though it should be. I cannot say if this is cash, non-cash or where it originated from from this 990.
From what I see from their 990, this organization has paid all it's bills and has money or assets in reserve. If there are care issues of the animals, that should be raised, since this money is somewhere and should be used for the care of the animals.
If the safety of the animals and people volunteering is at risk, perhaps the ASPCA or other humane society should be asked to investigate? They have the funds and the interest in the animals well being over the politics that will rear their ugly head. For worker safety, there is OSHA or similar in PA. Being a 501(c)(3) does not allow people to be put in dangerous situations.
Thanks very much for looking at this!
I think I see what you mean about the $60,000 (I think you're referring to the breakdown of "Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received" attached to the main form-i.e. a breakdown of the $88,204 in 2007 revenue noted on p1. of the 990-EZ). I think (and maybe you can tell me if I'm right) that the $60,000 is probably from the city: there is a $64,854 grant from the city listed on p.2, and I think the city also gives them some noncash contributions related to the city-owned building the GWC is using. (I could be wrong, but I think the city pays utilities and maybe some other building-related expenses and charges them little or no rent.) Add the unidentified cash contribution and a reasonable value for noncash city contributions together and you would probably have something in the neighborhood of the $64,854 that is listed as a "grant" from the city.
(Of course, all of this should probably be listed clearly in the breakdown, but it isn't.)
Ok, I have a bit of a quiet time. First thing I noticed is that they use the cash basis of accounting. That means that money isn't noted until it is actually received - there is no grants receivable (think accounts receivable - or money they are owed)
That being said for the year 2007, they did receive $88,204 in donations (cash and otherwise) and spent $64,854 in expenses leaving a balance of $23,350 to be added to existing reserves going into 2008.
$9,917 of the contributions were cash. $18,287 were in noncash donations. Then there is $60,000 that is not noted as to it's origin, though it should be. I cannot say if this is cash, non-cash or where it originated from from this 990.
From what I see from their 990, this organization has paid all it's bills and has money or assets in reserve. If there are care issues of the animals, that should be raised, since this money is somewhere and should be used for the care of the animals.
If the safety of the animals and people volunteering is at risk, perhaps the ASPCA or other humane society should be asked to investigate? They have the funds and the interest in the animals well being over the politics that will rear their ugly head. For worker safety, there is OSHA or similar in PA. Being a 501(c)(3) does not allow people to be put in dangerous situations.
Re safety of people and treatment of the animals: some time back a number of us tried contacting various places to get help. As far as the animal care is concerned, the bottom line is that as long as the facility passes its USDA inspections, there's not a lot that can be done. Unfortunately, the USDA standards are pretty low (definitely lower than the standards an animal facility must meet to get accreditation from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums). The other problem is that the USDA inspectors are not around most of the time, and so they miss a lot of what is going on. I believe USDA inspectors have already reprimanded the GWC for feeding the animals inappropriate diets and for being careless about safety around the big cats. The GWC's response to this seems to be to clean up its act when the inspectors are there, but not the rest of the time.
I think someone (not me--a friend) approached the APSCA (or maybe it was the HSUS) and found that resources there were stretched so thin that they didn't want to take on another huge problem. Legally, I think there's only so much that any animal organization could do unless the USDA rules are broken.
OSHA is an interesting idea: might be worth a try.
Thanks for your suggestions, and thanks again for taking a look at the 990!
They are regulated by the USDA, which is about the bare minimum required to keep exotic animals. As long as they are in compliance with the USDA, there really isn't much you can do. I would imagine if the city kicked them out, without stated reason, or with a stated reason that is not governed under the USDA codes and statutes, the city would be liable or Genesis would be granted an injunction to block the city.
I don't think the GWC should be immediately kicked out. Obviously, they would need time to find places for the animals and move them out in an orderly fashion. But I do question the wisdom of the city continuing to give the GWC a grant each year. As for bad PR, if someone gets mauled by a tiger that's not going to look great either.
I'm also wondering if there may be any code violations at that old zoo building; it's certainly packed full of animals and it's a very old building. It was renovated a bit when the GWC moved in, but it certainly did not get a full makeover. They also had a small fire at the old zoo building, after the GWC moved in. (I don't have the exact date of the fire handy right now, but it was covered in the Times/Trib). If a larger fire were to occur, there could be a real disaster. Trying to handle just those four big cats would be a huge problem.
I'm also wondering about the board of health; it seems to me that there are a number of health violations at the GWC.
I think at some point mention was made of a contract between the city and the GWC, but as I recall, that was in the context of making the GWC responsible for a new, multi-million-dollar facility that was being discussed for a while. There may, however, be an existing contract between the GWC and the city. Does anyone know if there is such a contract? (If there is a contract, I'm wondering if the GWC is holding up its end of the agreement.)
Another important point--Anyone who sees anything at the GWC that seems wrong (e.g. things like the problems reported in Ms. Heveran's letter: GWC workers feeding the animals sugary treats like cookies, GWC workers failing to shut a gate separating animals from volunteers and/or visitors, animals kept in cages that the public can access, etc.) please do contact the USDA and report what you've seen! Maybe if the USDA gets a ton of reports about the GWC, they will start to look into the situation there more carefully. Contact info for the USDA is available at:
The GWC has already had a number of violations noted by USDA inspectors; I would imagine that multiple violations of a rule as serious as the one about observing reasonable safety precautions around big cats (like tigers and cougars) would lead to serious problems for the GWC.
Last edited by mbs7; 02-19-2009 at 07:26 PM..
Reason: Wanted to add the final paragraph re previous inspections
I think I see what you mean about the $60,000 (I think you're referring to the breakdown of "Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received" attached to the main form-i.e. a breakdown of the $88,204 in 2007 revenue noted on p1. of the 990-EZ). I think (and maybe you can tell me if I'm right) that the $60,000 is probably from the city: there is a $64,854 grant from the city listed on p.2, and I think the city also gives them some noncash contributions related to the city-owned building the GWC is using. (I could be wrong, but I think the city pays utilities and maybe some other building-related expenses and charges them little or no rent.) Add the unidentified cash contribution and a reasonable value for noncash city contributions together and you would probably have something in the neighborhood of the $64,854 that is listed as a "grant" from the city.
(Of course, all of this should probably be listed clearly in the breakdown, but it isn't.)
The $64,854 on page 2 is not a grant from the city but is the expenses associated with meeting the requirements of the granted funds not the amount received for that particular project. Since a 'project' can have more than one grantor, the amount of money received does not go in that space, just the expenses associated with it. They lumped all of their activities into one project. My organization has several projects on this page with each of their associated expenses. Grants for those projects are not listed in this section, just the expenses incurred. If they were required to file a 990 instead of the 990EZ, the expenses would be broken out.
The $60,000 listed under "Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received" could be from the city, but should have been listed as a government grant in an above line - as that refers to any gov't, be it federal, state, or city. I'm not sure why it's listed on the line by itself.
The $64,854 on page 2 is not a grant from the city but is the expenses associated with meeting the requirements of the granted funds not the amount received for that particular project. Since a 'project' can have more than one grantor, the amount of money received does not go in that space, just the expenses associated with it. They lumped all of their activities into one project. My organization has several projects on this page with each of their associated expenses. Grants for those projects are not listed in this section, just the expenses incurred. If they were required to file a 990 instead of the 990EZ, the expenses would be broken out.
The $60,000 listed under "Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received" could be from the city, but should have been listed as a government grant in an above line - as that refers to any gov't, be it federal, state, or city. I'm not sure why it's listed on the line by itself.
Thanks again, very much.
So let me correct what I said above (in my first post about the finances) about the $64,854 received in 2007 being a grant from the city. I don't know what they got from the city in 2007, because the GWC did not list any grants for that year--but they do have $60,000 listed as revenue on a blank line with no explanation for where it came from. I have now double-checked the 2006 and 2005 forms, and on those forms they did list grants, as I noted in my earlier post. In 2005 there is a grant of $60,000 listed, and in 2006 there is a grant of $70,000 listed. Both of these grants are listed specifically as grants, not as expenses. I will try to find out what the situation was in 2007--I can't tell right now if they did not get a grant that year or if they got a grant and neglected to indicate that it was a grant when they filled out the form. My guess is that the $60,000 received in 2007 was a city grant, since it is about the same size as the grants they received from the city in 2005 and 2006. The 2005 and 2006 forms do not state specifically that the grants received were from the city--they're just listed under "Grants"--but I think they are from the city, since, as I recall, those amounts are in line with the amounts reported elsewhere (I think Miller said she got about $50,000 from the city, and I think there may be news articles stating similar amounts--I will try to check this). Directly above the $60,000 grant amount listed in the 2005 form, in a section where the GWC was supposed to describe the services it provided, it says: "Provide for the supervision and management of the City of Scranton's Nay Aug Zoo and Wildlife Sanctuary." Directly above the $70,000 grant received in 2006, it says "Manage and maintain the public zoo and wildlife center in Nay Aug Park for Scranton, PA 18503." On the 2007 form, where the "Grants" area is left blank and the $64,854 expense figure is listed, it says "Maintain and manage the public Zoo and Wildlife Center in Nay Aug Park for the City of Scranton."
And again, the main point is that what is on the Form 990's--a total of $186,728 in assets by the end of 2007--does not match what Ms. Miller has been telling the public.
Because, as we saw earlier, the GWC's Form 990's are not very specific about where the GWC's grant money came from, I took a look at Scranton's operating budgets for the years 2005-2007. The operating budgets can be downloaded in PDF form at:
When I looked at the budgets I found the following amounts allocated to the GWC:
In 2004: $20,000
In 2005: $50,000
In 2006: $50,000
In 2007: $50,000
In 2008: $50,000
As I said in an earlier post (with some help from lialleycat), according to the GWC's Form 990's, in 2005, the GWC received "government contributions" totaling $60,000; in 2006, the GWC received "government contributions" totaling $70,000; and in 2007, the GWC left blank the "government contributions" line and listed a $60,000 contribution, without specifying where it came from (the space beside the amount was left blank). (I have no figure for 2008 because the GWC's Form 990 for 2008 probably won't be available until early 2010.)
I don't know what accounts for the discrepancy between the amounts allocated by the city in its operating budgets and the slightly larger "gov't contributions" listed in the 990 forms. It's possible that the GWC got additional grants from somewhere and/or that they were including an estimate for the value of noncash city contributions related to the GWC's use of the old Nay Aug Zoo building.
The GWC's total expenses listed on the Form 990's were:
In 2005: $55,942
In 2006: $61,045
In 2007: $64,854
Note that even if we use the lower figures for the city's contribution as reported in the city's operating budgets, in 2005-2007 the city still covered a substantial portion of the GWC's annual expenses: about 89% in 2005; about 82% in 2006; and about 77% in 2007. This is not the picture that the GWC gives to the public. As I noted above, on the GWC's website we are told:
"We [the GWC] are always in need of donations for our animals, it costs approx. $150,000 yearly to run our facility. The city gives us $50,000 plus the buildling to house the animals. Ms. Miller has spent more than $100,000 on food, cleaning supplies, and some employees salaries yearly. The Center needs donations to compensate for the lack of money for other expenditures out of Ms.Miller's pocket. She is retired and takes no salary from the Center."
Note that the above quote uses the correct figure (i.e. $50,000) for the city's contribution, but then implies that that amount covers only a third of the total expenses. Again, it is possible that I am somehow misreading the GWC's Form 990's, but I could find no indication on any of those Form 990's that Ms. Miller is personally contributing $100,000 per year to the GWC, although it is true that she does not draw a salary.
Last edited by mbs7; 02-22-2009 at 04:39 PM..
Reason: Added quote from GWC website re Miller taking no salary
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
