Dog costs explained

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 12, Issue 562, 15 November 1994, Page 8

Dog costs explained

Bulletin reader Faith Wise shares the reply she received from Ruapehu District Council chief executive officer Cliff Houston on the matter of dog control costs: • I trust that you will find the following explanations satisfactory resulting in a better understanding of Council's motives. 1993/94 Income: You query where the "cost above fees" of '$73,926" comes from. In your calculations you compare fees (GST incl) with estimated income (GST excl) and omit income aside from registration fees. The estimated income and source for 93/94 (GST excl) was:

This 206,072, plus miscellaneous income, 12,300, plus surplus from 91/9243,374, plus rate input, 25,000, makes a total estimated income of $286,746 The $ 1 4,000 you refer to is the budget for Stock Control. | While this activity does come under Animal Control its cost is derived solely from rates apd incidental income | such as Impounding Fees. It is not funded in any way by Dog Registration Fees. Why does stock and dog ranging cost the council money? Under present legislation costs are not always recoverable from those who generate control activities. Where wandering stock is returned to the owner, or to his property, then, as you state in your letter, he may be charged for expenses incurred such as labour and vehicle running.

The cost of dog control is only recoverable when: A dog is impounded and the owner is identified and/or; An owner is summarily convicted for committing an offence However, this is not the case with the majority of dog control activity and the dog control component in the fee paid by an owner involved may not cover the cost of attending to a problem caused by their dog. As an example: Council receives a call that a dog is wandering in a certain area, perhaps getting into rubbish bags. An officer responds and spends some time patrolling the reported area. He eventually catches up with the dog as it returns to its property. The owner is spoken to. Upon returning to the office, a letter of warning is prepared and sent to the owner. Average costs, as charged by Council to the Dog Control Account might be; labour: 1 hour $38.00, vehicle: (10 km @ 00.60) $6.00. Total: $44.00. The average amount per dog for dog control costs for the current 94/95 year works out at $17.67. Under present legislation there is no mechanism which allows us to charge, directly to an offending owner the actual costs incurred in attending to complaints that their dog has generated. In many cases the actual owner of a problem dog is not identified. Naturally, at the time of paying registration fees, there is no way of identifying those owners whose dogs will give trouble in the ensuing year so that we could increase the fee payable accordingly. The funding of Stock Control (with the exception of recoverable costs) is met solely from rates due to the impracticality (and lack of legislation) of levying a fee upon just those who own stock. Should good dog owners pay The question arises, "is an owner of stock liable for contributing toward the control of another's animals simply because he happens to own animals as well?" That logically prompts the question: "Should a person be liable for costs incurred in controlling someone else's dog simply because he too may own a dog?" We talk about 'user pays". There are many dog owners who never "use" the dog control services provided by Council or, for that matter, necessitate anyone else to do so. One could compare the situation with that of people who misuse motor vehicles

and incur the activities of the police. To apply the policy of 'user pays' to this situation, as you do to dog ownership/control, it would mean that only vehicle owners should be responsible for funding traffic activities of the Police and not the general public through taxes, as is the case at present. There is presently legislation being considered by Parliament which, if passed, will result in a more direct apportioning of the costs of dog control to those who are at fault. We understand that a system of instant fines may be introduced so that constant offenders can be charged without the expense of taking them to court. Complex This is a very complex issue which has already been debated twice at meetings of Council' s Funding Review Committee. The matter will now go before Council for furtherdebate and I am sure that the making of any decisions will not be done lightly. While itistrue that Council has moved toward a 'user pays' philosophy, the issue presently before them will need to be thoroughly debated to enable any future policies to be introduced. I trust that the above goes some way toward answering your queries and assists you in understanding the situation which is presently under review.

CUff

Houston,

Ruapehu District chief executive officer.

6- Weekly. 300 @ 79. 1 1 23,733 Rural 3,320 @ 38.22 126,397 Urban 1030 @ 18.22 41,277 SOP 500 @ 29.33 14,665 Income from Fees: 206,072