November 19, 1998.

To:Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

From:City Clerk

Re:Reinvestment of Animal Licensing and registration Fees

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on November 18, 1998 recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that the transmittal letter (October 19, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations of the Board of Health with respect to the subject matter, be considered as part of the Budget Committee deliberations on the 1999 Operating Budget.

Background:

The Budget Committee on November 18, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter (October 19, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a report (September 28, 1998) from the Medical Officer of health regarding the reinvestment of animal licensing and registration fees.

City Clerk

Barbara Liddiard/cp

Item No. 2

Attachment

c.Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Director of Budgets

Medical Officer of Health

Committee Secretary, Board of Health

Carl Bandow, Animal Services Manager, North York Office

(Transmittal dated October 19, 1998 addressed to the

Budget Committee from the

City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Board of Health recommends to the Budget Committee that:

(1)current licensing revenues continue to be utilized to defray operating expenses; and

(2)any additional licensing and registration revenues be used to fund retroactive program initiatives, subject to the review and resolution of these and other amalgamation-related issues.

Background

At its meeting on October 13, 1998, the Board of Health gave consideration to the report (September 28, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health, recommending that:

(1)Toronto Animal Services continue to provide the current level of service with respect to reinvestment of animal licensing and registration fees pending a review and resolution of related amalgamation issues;

(2)the Board of Health recommend to the Budget Committee that current licensing revenues continue to be utilized to defray operating expenses; and

(3)any additional licensing and registration revenues be used to fund proactive program initiatives, subject to the review and resolution of these and other amalgamation-related issues.

The Board of Health adopted this report.

(Report dated September 28, 1998 addressed to the

Board of Health from the

Medical Officer of Health)

Purpose:

To establish a process for ensuring that revenues from animal licensing and registration fees are reinvested into animal services areas of educational programs and maintenance.

Source of Funds:

The revenue collected on an annual basis from licensing and registration of companion animals will be used.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Toronto Animal Services continue to provide the current level of service with respect to reinvestment of animal licensing and registration fees pending a review and resolution of related amalgamation issues;

(2)the Board of Health recommend to Budget Committee that current licensing revenues continue to be utilized to defray operating expenses; and

(3)any additional licensing and registration revenues be used to fund proactive program initiatives, subject to the review and resolution of these and other amalgamation-related issues.

Background:

The Board of Health held a special meeting on July 6, 1998, to receive a policy report on municipal animal care and control legislation, a report on an Animal Services Advisory Committee of the Board of Health, and correspondence recommending that a new city-wide animal education program be developed. Additionally, the Board of Health heard a number of deputations with respect to the drafting of new animal care and control legislation. As a result of the reports and information received, the Board requested the Medical Officer of Health to provide reports on a number of issues. Reinvestment of animal licensing and registration revenues is one such issue.

Comment:

More than 130 years ago, the Government of Upper Canada enacted legislation to impose a tax on dogs to provide for better protection of sheep. This Act mandated the licensing of dogs. The licence fees collected were used by municipalities to compensate farmers for sheep losses from marauding dogs. This compensation eventually evolved to include other livestock and poultry that were either killed or injured by dogs running at large. As urban municipalities grew, cities and towns hired "dog-catchers" to pick up straying dogs. Licensing revenue was used to defray the costs associated with providing a municipal animal services program.

Today, municipally operated animal services programs collect revenues for the purpose of defraying the costs of providing the program. They have evolved into a highly visible service with the majority of their work focussing on public relations and education. In most jurisdictions, education is done on a one-to-one basis by animal services officers with dog owners who are alleged to have violated the municipal by-law. In some programs, animal services agencies have taken a proactive approach to provide in-school education programs on responsible pet ownership and dog bite prevention.

Licensing and registration have also become tools by which proactive animal services agencies promote responsible pet ownership offering incentives to the pet-owning population through the fee structure. Some of the former local municipalities offer dog or cat licences for no fee where the animal has been microchipped and sterilized. The purpose of the incentives is twofold:

(a)they reward pet owners for taking responsible steps to ensure that their pets are identified and not contributing to an unwanted pet population; and,

(b)they identify animals that can be returned home which reduces the cost to the municipality of sheltering those animals.

The amalgamated Toronto Animal Services received $744,000 in licence and registration revenue in 1997. As stated earlier in this report, this revenue, with other revenue received for claimed animals, adopted animals and other services, is used to defray the cost of providing the municipal animal services program. Preliminary estimates on a conservative basis of potential increases in such revenues are in the order of an additional $600,000. This would be predominantly by harmonizing the licensing fees structure and more active promotion of licence sales.

Consolidated records show that Toronto Animal Services field personnel responded to more than 34,000 complaints or service requests in 1997. This requires virtually all available resources, leaving little opportunity for proactive initiatives.

In order to meet budget targets, most proactive programs have been suspended to allow reallocation of available resources to complaint investigations. As a result, only one full-time position in the North York District is currently dedicated specifically to the delivery of education of programs. This position is funded through the current Animal Services budget. There is interest among some Councillors in extending this program across the entire City.

Given the limited resources available for animal services education programs, some members of the Board of Health have suggested that any new revenues from licensing or registration of dogs

and cats be reinvested into expansion of the education program. Strategies for expanding the education programs and possible target groups are discussed in a separate report to the Board, entitled "Domestic Pet Public Education Programs".

On a separate note, ongoing maintenance is required of all municipal animal centres to ensure they remain in compliance with mandated provincial standards. The Board of Health has suggested that consideration be given to direct licensing revenues into renovating or expanding existing animal centres and to enhance proactive programs such as:

(a)dog bite prevention education;

(b)responsible pet ownership education;

(c)wildlife conflict education;

(d)a sterilization subsidy to assist low income pet owners with the cost of having their pets sterilized;

(e)reduced cost rabies vaccination clinics for dogs and cats; and,

(f)reduced cost microchip identification clinics for dogs and cats;

Conclusions:

Many animal services agencies throughout North America struggle with the common dilemma of increased service demands and shrinking resources. Few, if any, resources are allocated to education and problem prevention. An opportunity exists to change that without incurring new costs by recommending that all additional animal licence and registration revenues that exceed the combined 1998 intake be allocated to specific proactive programs. This would ultimately result in a reduction in request for reactive responses and, more importantly, would minimize incidents where public health and safety are compromised.

Contact Name:

Carl Bandow, Animal Services Manager

North York Office

Toronto Public Health

Tel: 395-7086

Fax: 395-7090