February 17, 1999
To:Board of Health
From:Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health
Subject:Anticipated Revenues and Expenditures Resulting from By-law No. 28-1999, A By-law Respecting Animals
To report on the impact of the By-law Respecting Animals upon anticipated revenues and expenditures within the 1999
Source of Funds:
1999 Operating Budget for Public Health, with the potential for additional revenue generation to be pursued during the
course of the year for incorporation into the Year 2000 budget cycle.
It is recommended that this report be referred to Budget Committee for consideration when reviewing the proposed 1999
Operating Budget for Public Health.
At its meeting held February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, Toronto City Council passed a motion directing the Medical Officer of
Health to report to the City's Budget Committee, in time for City Council's consideration of the 1999 Operating Budget, on
anticipated revenues and expenditures resulting from the passage of the By-law No. 28-1999, A By-law Respecting
Animals (attached for information).
The By-law Respecting Animals was adopted at City Council's meeting held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999. Council debated
and ultimately passed fourteen motions including requests for reports and amendments to the by-law. A review of the
resolutions and amendments to the By-law Respecting Animals suggests the following impacts on anticipated revenues and
The revenues generated from impoundment fees are intended to offset direct costs of impoundment, however this does not
cover the ongoing cost to house unclaimed animals. The fees are not significantly different from the average amounts
previously charged and the total revenue received is not anticipated to change significantly.
Revenues gained from services provided at the owner's request, such as surrender fees, sterilization fees, pick-up fees and
cremation fees, approximate the average of the fees charged in the former six municipalities. It is not anticipated that these
revenues will significantly change.
Revenues generated through the licencing of dogs and the registration of cats is very difficult to predict as the number of
currently micro chipped animals in the City of Toronto is unknown. It is anticipated that due to the mandatory registration
of cats there will be a slight increase in revenue, however it is difficult to estimate what the amount may total and any new
revenues generated are to be used towards the sterilization of animals prior to their adoption from the City's municipal
animal centres. The revenue generated by dog licencing is expected to be approximately the same as budgeted in 1998, that
Additional measures to offset expenditures through corporate sponsorships and the promotion of animal licensing and
registration will be explored during the course of 1999 and incorporated into the year 2000 budget submission.
The cost to administer and enforce the new by-law uniformly across the City of Toronto will be impacted by the potential
for further budget cuts in 1999, combined with growing public and political expectations regarding levels of service. There
will be a net increase in workload due to the implementation of by-law provisions that were not previously in place in all of
the former municipalities (e.g. the Notice to Muzzle Order existed only in the former community of Toronto). The
community of Etobicoke did not have a muzzle by-law and the other communities implemented the muzzle order upon
second bite or only after receiving an affidavit from the victim. The new harmonized by-law will increase the number of
cautions and muzzle orders implemented on first bite and subsequently the number of hearings requested by dog owners to
remove the notice to muzzle or notice of caution. Based on the experience of the former community of Toronto when
extrapolated across the new city, there will likely be approximately 3,100 cautions and muzzle notices issued per year, of
which 33% (or 1,033) will be appealed. With preparation time averaging 2.5 hours per appeal plus tribunal time, total
workload will increase by 1.6 FTEs in staff time and 0.4 FTEs in tribunal time (usually management). These estimates are
considered to be conservative. When drafting the by-law, it was assumed the current staffing levels would be maintained
and that muzzle orders would be issued only after the second bite if it occurred on the owner's property.
The other additional enforcement requirements include the prohibited animals section which was not enforced in the former
community of Scarborough. This impact was considered to be minimal, but when combined with possible reductions in
FTEs and the added workload, there will be an impact on response times. Also related to the prohibited animals section of
the by-law was the amendment by Council to grandfather in the keeping of prohibited animals which were lawfully kept
prior to passage of the by-law combined with registration of these animals by September 1, 1999. The establishment and
implementation of this registration program will take an unknown amount of staffing and management time as the numbers
of such animals in the community is undetermined.
As well, it should be noted that Animal Services may have to pick-up additional responsibilities through service
re-alignment with other departments without a corresponding budget transfer. This will include response to barking dog
complaints (which were dealt with under Noise by-laws in Etobicoke and Scarborough) and cadaver pick-up (which was
handled by Works in North York).
Toronto Animal Services has 33 FTEs dedicated to field service, which includes seasonal staffing for park patrols. This
means on average the City of Toronto has one FTE for every 80,000 people. The recommended ratio for fully effective
by-law enforcement according to National Animal Control Association in the United States is one FTE for every 16,000
people. The City of Calgary has 18 FTE field service staff for a population of approximately 700,000, or an average of one
FTE for every 38,800 people. Toronto has less than half the staffing support of the City of Calgary for animal related
by-law enforcement and less than one fourth the recommended staffing allocation for fully effective by-law enforcement.
Some increase in response times are a likely outcome of the need to dedicate staff time and energies to administration and
enforcement of the new by-law and other responsibilities.
It is estimated that the overall revenue will not be significantly increased by the change in the implementation of the new
By-law Respecting Animals. It is expected that the expenditures will not directly be affected although response times will
increase to compensate for the additional workload. Further staffing reductions would significantly impact the ability to
deliver services at the approved level.
Manager, Toronto Animal Services
Dr. Sheela V. Basrur
Medical Officer of Health