Council has deferred a decision on selecting a new contractor to handle canine control in the township after several councillors expressed concerns over costs and service levels.
In a report at the Jan. 26 meeting, CAO Brad McRoberts explained the township’s current service provider, Jo-Alan Animal Care, has notified the municipality it is getting out of the business.
McRoberts recommended the township waive the normal procurement policy and support a proposal for animal control services from the Guelph Humane Society (GHS) as part of a joint agreement with the municipalities of Wellington North, Guelph-Eramosa, and Centre Wellington.
Under the proposed agreement, Mapleton’s fixed cost would be allocated for the first year on a representative population basis, at approximately $30,300.
The current provider was paid approximately $6,000 in 2015 for a standby fee, and $6,123 for other services. Revenues in 2015 were $16,350 in dog tag fees and kennel licenses and $1,095 in fines.
McRoberts explained Wellington North recently issued a request for proposal with only one bid being submitted in the amount of $48,000 per annum.
A joint quote was submitted by the Guelph Humane Society (GHS) to the municipalities of Centre Wellington, Mapleton, Guelph-Eramosa and Wellington North. The base fixed cost for Mapleton for 2016 would be approximately $30,300. The cost would increase in 2017 to approximately $36,000 when an on-line tag registration system is instituted by GHS.
“With the implementation of the on-line tag registration system it is anticipated the number of tags sold would increase. Under the GHS proposal all revenues would continue to be directed to the township,” the report states.
McRoberts suggested council had three options:
– enter into the joint agreement with GHS;
– issue an RFP for the provision of canine control services in Mapleton; or
– cease issuing dog licenses and not provide canine control services in Mapleton.
“Elimination of the service may not be viable in that there is an expectation that the municipality would address stray or dangerous animals,” the report explains.
“Without a municipal service there would be no alternative to canine control and likely the township would still be responding to residents’ concerns without being able to take any appropriate action. We would also continue to have kennel licensing responsibilities.”
The report also notes the “significant increase in cost” has been reflected in the current 2016 budget draft and “consideration should be given to increasing dog tag fees to be full cost recovery by 2017.”
McRoberts estimates a license fee of approximately $35 per animal would be required for full cost recovery. Currently the township charges $20 for the first dog in a household, $30 for the second and $45 for the third.
McRoberts told council improved service levels would be one benefit of the humane society program.
“It’s a bit more of a proactive approach to animal control,” he said. However, he pointed out the pricing would increase unless all four municipalities participate.
“I take it we’ve pretty well exhausted any other sources to do this for us?” asked councillor Dennis Craven.
McRoberts explained the recommendation to use the humane society service was based on the fact Wellington North had only one bid on their RFP. He added, “Whether we’d be successful or not going out for a bid I can’t say one way or another.”
Councillor Marlene Ottens asked how other area municipalities such as Minto and North Perth are providing the service. She also wondered if the service could be provided locally.
“What qualifications does a person need for this job? Is this something a local person could do?” she wondered.
“The cost seems ridiculous. One person getting $144,000 (total from the four municipalities) to do this job? I could do this job for that.”
McRoberts pointed out the bid “includes trucks and equipment, not just labour, but all the overhead and all that’s included with that.”
Ottens also expressed concern about an urban humane society handling canine control in a rural area.
“Dogs run around loose on farms. If it happens to be near the road someone could complain and it could end up in the city and me having to justify what we do,” she pointed out.
McRobert suggested such concerns might be handled in “a letter of understanding” with the society.
Councillor Michael Martin questioned whether the township even needs to provide animal control services. He also stated, “anyone who’s had an experience with the humane society knows the level of service isn’t necessarily very high.”
“This dog license thing actually goes back quite a piece,” offered Craven. He explained that in the past some dogs would “kill and maim and wound farm animals.
“If we didn’t provide this service, then if someone’s dog goes on someone else’s property it would give the farmer almost the right to shoot the dog as opposed to calling to have it picked up,” he added.
While pointing out the municipality pays a livestock evaluator and also pays claims out to farmers who have animals killed, Mayor Neil Driscoll agreed, “In the country I think they kind of deal with the dogs on their own.”
Martin stated, “It’s 2016, so the day of shooting a stray dog that comes on your property is long gone … if that’s still happening we’ve got bigger problems.”
Without canine control services, Craven asked Martin, “If you get a dog around your place in town, what are you going to do with it? Are you going to chase it away? Are you going to keep your kids inside?”
Council deferred a resolution on the recommendation pending receipt of further information, including the number of calls handled by previous service providers and options used by other municipalities.
