Hamilton City Council could bite dog owners in pocket
Dog owners could face a hike in dog registrations fees in a bid to cut costs.
The idea was floated by Councillor Ewan Wilson at an elected members briefing at Hamilton City Council yesterday.
Councillors were being briefed on the proposed amendments to the Animal Nuisance Bylaw, Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy, one of which was urgently overdue.
Council’s proposed scope of amendments included the introduction specific accommodation requirements, introduction of timed off-lead shared dog park areas at places such as sports fields and making it clear animals were not to be housed on berms.
A number of councillors expressed confusion about which recommendations fell under the Dog Control Act or the Dog Control bylaw, with council staff saying they had chosen to combine all three reviews to save on costs as well as because the two policies and bylaw were so closely linked.
At the briefing, Wilson asked if council’s statutory obligation to undertake policy and bylaw reviews every three to five years had been factored into the cost of dog registration fees.
“When we set the dog registration fees each year in the calculation for those fees is there acknowledgment that every 3 to 5 years we’ve got to do the significant consultation? Which can in theory cost ninety-odd thousand for the three elements if you did them separately or up to $45,000”.
The $90,000 figure Wilson referred to was potential cost of under-going three separate reviews, which council had chosen to “bundle” together to save money, making the potential cost up to $45,000.
“So my question is; is that calculated in our fees and charges because ultimately comms [communication team] will do what comms need to do and they’re the experts. But our opportunity as governance is to make sure that the actual costs and fees and registration that dog owners pay reflect the entirety of the task we’re given to manage.”
City safety manager Kelvin Powell said he didn’t believe that was the case. When pressed further by Wilson about who would know, Powell replied that responsibility sat with him.
Powell said they used councils across the country to set a benchmark and went through charge by charge to see if there is anything they are able to leverage a fee for.
“So are you saying other than checking what other councils are charging... you must have your own internal cost-analysis and my questions is, is this every few years included in that?”
Powell said no, not to his knowledge. “So rather than governors trying to down into the finer details of how we communicate, shouldn’t we be ensuring you’re setting a charge system that truly reflects what the cost is?
“And so maybe a takeaway from this meeting is council needs to give a clearer instruction that says actually, when you set your fees and charges it’s reflecting actually the cost... or are you saying a statutory that we’re not able to do that?
“I am minded towards the latter, but I don’t have a legal opinion to give clarity on that. My gut feel is I’m minded more towards the latter.”
Councillor Tim Macindoe questioned if there was a way to email all 9000-plus dog owners during the consultation period rather than posting a letter as a way to cut down on costs.
Animal education and control manager Susan Stanford told councillors it was a combination of both post and email with dog owners given the option to opt for email during the registration process.
Councillor Emma Pike asked if sending out information via text message could be an option.
Stanford said, as someone who sends out reminder texts as part of the registration process, she could tell them there was still a significant number of people who don’t have mobile phones.