Committee weighs bill to add tax refund donation option for spay/neuter funding; debate centers on oversight

House Bill 148, which would create a Companion Animal Fund (a voluntary income-tax refund donation option to support spay and neuter services), received its third hearing in the Ohio House Agriculture Committee.

Proponents, including Peggy Kaplan of the Ohio Pet Fund and Dr. Leanne Bertani (board president, Ohio Pet Fund), said the organization has administered spay/neuter grants for about 20 years using revenue from specialty license plates and that adding an optional tax-refund checkoff would expand funding without affecting the state general fund. Kaplan said the Ohio Pet Fund is a 501(c)(3) established in statute and files annual IRS Form 990s and that HB 148 requires reporting to the Attorney General and to the General Assembly on fund use. “Adding this donation option is a simple, responsible and compassionate way to give Ohio taxpayers the opportunity to support spay and neuter at no cost to the state,” Kaplan said.

Opponents urged caution about who would administer the voluntary donations. Beth Sheehan testified in opposition and said she had concerns about the Ohio Pet Fund’s governance and transparency; she described board overlaps among animal-plate organizations and questioned whether significant plate proceeds have been invested rather than immediately granted. Sheehan cited LSC projections that contributions could total $100,000–$300,000, compared the Ohio Pet Fund’s license-plate revenue (discussed in testimony as roughly $280,000), and urged the committee to consider Department of Agriculture administration instead.

Proponents explained how grants are allocated and overseen. Dr. Bertani said the Pet Fund maintains a grant-review process that aims to reach shelters and low-income pet owners across counties and that the fund provides grantee utilization reports and files 990s; she added the fund keeps a modest operating reserve to avoid year-to-year disruption given the seasonality of plate proceeds. Committee members asked for documentation and for links to the Pet Fund’s publicly available filings; Representative Miller requested that the Pet Fund provide links to its website, 990 filings, and reporting for committee distribution.

Members asked how the program ensures funds benefit low-income pet owners. Proponents said eligibility and grant use are governed by existing statute and by the Pet Fund’s grant criteria; funds may be used for shelters, nonprofit clinics, and care for low-income owners and disabled veterans. Witnesses said average spay/neuter costs vary (testimony cited ranges from around $300 up to $800 at private veterinary clinics), and that the Pet Fund funds high-volume programs and educational efforts to expand capacity, including a veterinary education fund at Ohio State University to train students in high-quality spay/neuter techniques.

Other proponent witnesses—Jim Trakos and Tony Segers—testified to the organization’s 20-year track record, volunteer governance, and public transparency (990 filings and grantee lists available online). Committee members asked staff to collect written materials and financial documentation for review. No committee vote occurred at the third hearing.