REGIONAL DISTRICT CENTRAL OKANAGAN DOG CONTROL SERVICE REVIEW
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
REGIONAL
DISTRICT
CENTRAL
OKANAGAN
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
REVIEW
REPORT
This
Report
has
been
prepared
by
Neilson-‐Welch
Consulting
Inc.
(NWCI)
for
the
Regional
District
Central
Okanagan
(RDCO).
The
Report
is
presented
for
discussion
with,
and
for
the
sole
use
of,
the
RDCO
Board
and
staff.
No
representations
of
any
kind
are
made
by
NWCI
to
any
party
with
whom
NWCI
does
not
have
a
contract.
Neilson-‐Welch
Consulting
Inc.
1-‐600
Sherwood
Road
Kelowna,
BC,
V1W
5K1
October
2012
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
...........................................................................................
iii
INTRODUCTION
....................................................................................................
1
Focus
of
Review
..................................................................................................
1
Report
.................................................................................................................
2
Additional
Points
................................................................................................
3
1. EXISTING
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
..................................................................
4
Statutory
&
Bylaw
Authority
........................................................................
4
Service
Mandate
&
Scope
............................................................................
4
Service
Participants
&
Area
..........................................................................
6
Service
Governance
......................................................................................
6
Service
Delivery
............................................................................................
7
Service
Costs
&
Revenues
..........................................................................
10
Additional
Points
........................................................................................
12
2. ASSESSMENT
OF
SERVICE
............................................................................
13
Changing
Importance
of
Service
................................................................
14
Narrow
Focus
on
Public
Safety
...................................................................
16
Emphasis
on
Enforcement
..........................................................................
17
Dog
Licensing
..............................................................................................
18
Education
...................................................................................................
19
Cost
Recovery
.............................................................................................
20
Enforcement
Expectations
.........................................................................
22
Approach
to
Ticketing
................................................................................
23
Community
&
Stakeholder
Relations
.........................................................
25
Staffing
.......................................................................................................
26
Dog
Advisory
Committee
...........................................................................
29
Dog
Aggression
...........................................................................................
30
Dog
Euthanasia
...........................................................................................
37
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
REVIEW
3.
FOUNDATIONS
OF
A
NEW
SERVICE
MODEL
.................................................
41
REPORT
Vision
for
Dog
Control
................................................................................
41
Responsible
Dog
Ownership
......................................................................
42
Outcomes
Desired
......................................................................................
43
OCTOBER
2012
PAGE
i
4.
KEY
ELEMENTS
OF
A
NEW
SERVICE
MODEL
.................................................
45
Dog
Licensing
..............................................................................................
45
Education
...................................................................................................
50
Bylaw
Enforcement
....................................................................................
51
Community
&
Stakeholder
Engagement
....................................................
53
Dog
Aggression
...........................................................................................
56
In-‐House
Delivery
.......................................................................................
59
Fees
&
Fines
...............................................................................................
62
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
..................................................................................
64
Vision
&
Mandate
.......................................................................................
64
Dog
Licensing
..............................................................................................
64
Education
...................................................................................................
65
Bylaw
Enforcement
....................................................................................
65
Community
&
Stakeholder
Engagement
....................................................
66
Dog
Aggression
...........................................................................................
67
In-‐House
Delivery
.......................................................................................
67
Fees
&
Fines
...............................................................................................
67
Other
..........................................................................................................
68
Comment
on
Implementation
....................................................................
68
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
REVIEW
REPORT
OCTOBER
2012
Page
ii
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In
2011,
the
Regional
District
of
Central
Okanagan
(RDCO)
decided
to
commission
an
independent,
comprehensive
review
of
the
region's
Dog
Control
Service.
The
review
was
initiated
as
part
of
a
broader,
multi-‐year
process
that
began
in
2009
to
assess
all
major
region-‐wide
services
provided
by
RDCO.
Specific
concerns
with
the
level
of
taxpayer
funding
for
the
service,
and
with
the
number
of
incidents
involving
dangerous
dogs,
provided
additional
impetus
for
the
exercise.
Neilson-‐Welch
Consulting
Inc.,
a
local
government
consultancy
based
in
Kelowna,
was
selected
to
undertake
the
review.
Work
began
on
the
assignment
in
April
2012.
This
report
presents
the
results
of
the
service
review.
The
report
begins
by
profiling
the
existing
service,
then
identifies
and
examines
a
set
of
key
issues
and
concerns
with
the
service.
Chapter
3
of
the
report
puts
forward
the
case
for
a
redesigned
Dog
Control
Service
built
on
the
foundation
of
responsible
dog
ownership.
A
vision
for
the
new
service
is
presented,
and
a
set
of
desired
outcomes
to
achieve
is
outlined.
Some
of
the
key
elements
of
the
new
service
are
identified
in
Chapter
4.
Finally,
recommendations
for
the
RDCO
to
consider
are
presented.
EXISTING
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
RDCO's
existing
Dog
Control
Service
exists
to
"increase
the
safety
and
protection
of
the
public
from
the
negative
impacts
caused
by
dogs."
The
service's
scope
of
activities
includes:
·∙ enforcement
of
RDCO's
Dog
Regulation
and
Impounding
Bylaw
·∙ dispatch
of
Dog
Control
Officers
·∙ sale
and
tracking
of
dog
licenses
·∙ operation
of
the
Regional
Pound
Facility
·∙ destruction
of
impounded
dogs
that
are
unable
to
be
adopted,
or
whose
destruction
has
been
ordered
by
the
Provincial
Court
·∙ destruction
of
dogs
that
are
deemed
by
their
owners
to
be
dangerous,
and
that
are
surrendered
by
their
owners
to
the
Regional
District
·∙ (minimal)
delivery
of
public
safety
education
·∙ prosecution
of
bylaw
offenses
and
dangerous
dog
files
under
the
Community
Charter
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
REVIEW
Population
control
services
are
provided
in
the
region
primarily
by
the
SPCA.
The
SPCA
also
provides
a
dog
adoption
function
for
the
Regional
District.
REPORT
All
member
municipalities
and
electoral
areas
participate
in
the
service.
Westbank
First
Nation
receives
dog
control
support
on
a
fee-‐for-‐service
basis.
RDCO's
Board
of
Directors
is
the
primary
governing
body
and
ultimate
decision-‐making
authority
for
the
service.
The
Board
is
assisted
in
governance
by
the
Dog
Control
Advisory
Committee.
The
service
is
delivered
in-‐house
using
Regional
District
staff
and
OCTOBER
2012
PAGE
iii
resources.
Staffing
consists
of
a
Chief
Bylaw
Officer,
two
full-‐time
Pound
Keepers
and
five
full-‐time
Dog
Control
Officers.
The
service
receives
about
one-‐third
of
its
revenue
from
the
sale
of
dog
licenses,
impound
fees
and
bylaw
violation
penalties.
The
remaining
two-‐thirds
are
provided
in
the
form
of
taxpayer
contributions.
The
tax
portion
of
the
service
is
allocated
across
participating
jurisdictions
on
the
basis
of
converted
assessment.
ASSESSMENT
OF
SERVICE
The
consultant
identified
a
number
of
issues
with
RDCO's
current
service
based
on
interviews
with
Board
Directors,
comparative
research
of
animal
control
services
in
other
jurisdictions,
and
the
review
of
various
reports
on
different
aspects
of
dog
control.
The
examination
of
these
issues
points
to
an
existing
service
that:
·∙ is
in
need
of
more
active
leadership
than
in
past
years
from
elected
officials
and
senior
management
in
providing
clear
vision,
policy
direction
and
operational
support
·∙ requires
a
more
nuanced,
multi-‐faceted
mandate
that
recognizes
a
variety
of
goals
alongside
of
public
safety
·∙ needs
to
balance
an
emphasis
on
enforcement
with
greater
attention
to
"front-‐end"
activities
·∙ requires
a
strong
focus
on
efforts
that
aim
to
increase
the
number
of
dog
licenses
sold
each
year
·∙ needs
to
recognize
the
value
of
education
in
promoting
responsible
dog
ownership
and
preventing
injury
from
dog
aggression
·∙ has
the
potential
to
improve
its
level
of
cost
recovery
·∙ is
challenged
by
unrealistic
participant
expectations
related
to
the
level
and
potential
efficacy
of
enforcement
of
dog
access
in
public
spaces
·∙ needs
to
embrace,
wherever
possible,
the
Bylaw
Notice
approach
to
ticketing
·∙ must
develop
stronger
relations
with
the
dog
owner
community
and
key
stakeholders
groups
·∙ needs
to
be
delivered
by
staff
who
share
a
common
philosophy
regarding
dog
control
DOG
CONTROL
·∙ needs
to
build
on
existing
efforts
aimed
at
handling
dog
aggression
incidents
SERVICE
REVIEW
·∙ must
make
full
use
of
all
resources
—
including
the
SPCA
—
to
mitigate
the
need
for
euthanasia,
but
must
also
not
refrain
from
euthanasia
where
it
is
REPORT
warranted
FOUNDATIONS
OF
NEW
SERVICE
MODEL
A
suggested
new
service
model
is
centred
on
the
concept
of
responsible
dog
ownership,
and
features
key
best
practices
from
similar
models
in
jurisdictions
that
OCTOBER
2012
Page
iv
are
recognized
as
leaders
in
the
field.
The
vision
for
the
new
service
speaks
to
the
following
points:
·∙ Dogs
are
valued
in
the
Central
Okanagan
for
their
intrinsic
value,
and
for
their
potential
to
enrich
the
lives
of
their
owners,
families,
and
the
broader
community.
The
Dog
Control
Service
works
to
promote
dog
ownership
and
the
benefits
that
dogs
offer.
·∙ Dog
owners
have
important
rights
in
the
community,
including
the
right
to
enjoy
the
use
of
public
spaces
with
their
pets,
and
to
participate
in
discussions
aimed
at
promoting
healthy
human-‐dog
interactions.
The
Dog
Control
Service
works
with
dog
owners
to
help
them
understand
and
exercise
their
rights.
·∙ Dog
owners
have
key
responsibilities
to
the
community.
Owners
are
responsible,
in
particular,
for
ensuring
that
enjoyment
of
their
pets
does
not
create
difficulties
for
others
in
the
community,
or
place
others
at
risk
of
harm.
The
Dog
Control
Service
works
with
dog
owners
to
help
them
understand
their
responsibilities.
The
service
works
as
well
to
hold
owners
accountable
for
fulfilling
their
responsibilities.
The
concept
of
responsible
dog
ownership
is
central
to
the
new
service
—
along
with
the
vision
it
forms
the
foundation
of
the
new
service.
Responsible
dog
ownership
recognizes
that
the
potential
for
dogs
to
play
a
positive
role
in
the
community
is
dependent,
almost
entirely,
on
the
attitudes
and
actions
of
dog
owners.
The
concept
recognizes
that
local
government
on
its
own
cannot
effectively
manage
human-‐dog
interactions.
Dog
owners
must
be
active
partners
in
working
to
prevent
problems
from
occurring,
and
in
holding
other
owners
accountable
for
good
dog
behaviour.
The
concept
recognizes,
finally,
that
when
owners
care
properly
for
their
dogs,
train
their
dogs,
and
develop
a
good
understanding
of
their
rights
and
responsibilities,
the
number
and
severity
of
dog-‐related
problems
and
the
need
for
enforcement
decrease.
Based
on
the
experiences
of
other
jurisdictions
it
is
possible
to
identify
outcomes
to
expect
in
a
dog
control
service
that
is
designed
around
responsible
dog
ownership:
DOG
CONTROL
·∙ a
significant
increase
in
compliance
with
licensing
requirements
(i.e.,
more
SERVICE
REVIEW
licenses
sold)
·∙ a
significant
increase
in
the
level
of
service
cost-‐recovery
(and
a
related
REPORT
decrease
in
the
level
of
taxpayer
contribution
required)
·∙ a
decrease
in
the
number
of
dog-‐related
complaints
·∙ a
decrease
in
the
number
of
bylaw
violations,
and
a
related
decrease
in
the
number
of
tickets
issued
·∙ a
decrease
in
the
number
of
dog
aggression
incidents
·∙ a
significant
improvement
in
the
level
of
support
for,
and
confidence
in,
the
Regional
District's
dog
control
service,
as
expressed
by
the
dog
community
OCTOBER
2012
Page
v
and
dog
stakeholder
groups
through
surveys
and
day-‐to-‐day
contact
·∙ an
increase
in
the
number
of
dogs
adopted
·∙ a
decrease
in
the
number
of
dogs
impounded
and
dogs
destroyed
Achieving
these
outcomes
will
require
the
Regional
District
to
introduce
a
variety
of
opportunities,
incentives
and
disincentives.
KEY
ELEMENTS
OF
A
NEW
MODEL
Opportunities,
incentives,
disincentives
and
other
changes
for
the
Regional
District
to
consider
in
its
effort
to
shift
the
Dog
Control
Service
from
its
current,
enforcement-‐based
model
to
a
new
model
focused
on
responsible
dog
ownership
are
organized
and
explored
under
the
following
headings:
·∙ dog
licensing
·∙ education
·∙ bylaw
enforcement
·∙ community
and
stakeholder
engagement
·∙ dog
aggression
·∙ in-‐house
service
delivery
·∙ fees
and
fines
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
information
and
suggestions
presented
in
the
report
point
to
some
specific
recommendations
for
the
Board
to
consider.
Vision
&
·∙ It
is
recommended
the
Board
embrace
and
promote
a
vision
Mandate
that
promotes
dog
ownership
in
the
community,
supports
dog
owners
in
their
efforts
to
enjoy
their
pets,
and
holds
dog
owners
accountable
for
the
behaviour
of
their
dogs.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
embrace
the
concept
of
responsible
dog
ownership
as
the
foundation
for
the
DOG
CONTROL
redesigned
Dog
Control
Service.
SERVICE
REVIEW
REPORT
Dog
Licensing
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
embrace
an
approach
to
dog
licensing
that
features:
– new,
additional
information
materials
to
apprise
all
dog
owners
of
the
requirement
for,
purpose
and
benefits
of
purchasing
a
dog
license
OCTOBER
2012
Page
vi
– the
ability
for
dog
owners
to
purchase
all
new
and
renewal
licenses
online
– based
on
the
success
of
online
sales,
review
the
need
to
sell
licenses
through
third
party
agents
– develop
a
licensing
incentives
and
rewards
program
similar
to
the
City
of
Calgary's
"I
Heart
My
Pet"
initiative
– introduce
two
new
categories
of
dog
license,
including
a
Responsible
Dog
Owner
License
(reduced
rate),
and
an
Aggressive
Dog
License
(double
rate)
– adopt
a
policy
of
zero
tolerance
and
a
significant
fine
for
failure
to
have
a
license
– charge
a
significant
fee
at
the
Regional
Pound
for
reuniting
an
unlicensed
dog
to
its
owner
Education
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
develop
a
strategic
and
robust
education
program
that:
– targets
dog
owners
with
information
and
instruction
on
how
to
be
a
responsible
dog
owner
– targets
elementary
school
children
in
grades
3,
4
and
5
with
information
and
instruction
on
dog
safety
– produces
a
variety
of
user-‐friendly
information
materials
on
responsible
dog
ownership,
the
new
Dog
Control
Service,
dog
care,
dog
safety
and
other
topics
for
hand-‐out
at
presentations,
information
kiosks
and
in
parks
throughout
the
service
area
– makes
extensive
use
of
volunteers
to
develop
and
DOG
CONTROL
deliver
the
program
SERVICE
REVIEW
Bylaw
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
invite
municipal
partners
REPORT
Enforcement
to
work
with
the
Board
in
giving
municipal
bylaw
enforcement
officers
the
authority
to
enforce
Regional
District
dog
regulations
in
municipal
parks.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
adopt
an
enforcement
policy
that
features:
OCTOBER
2012
Page
vii
– very
low
tolerance
for
violations
of
dog
regulations
other
than
those
relating
to
dog
aggression
and
failure
to
have
a
license
– zero
tolerance
for
all
dog
aggression
violations
and
for
failure
to
have
a
license
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
communicate
changes
to
penalties,
fines
and
enforcement
policy
clearly
and
far
in
advance
of
implementation.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
join
the
Southern
Interior
Bylaw
Notice
Program
and
instruct
staff
to
begin
using
Bylaw
Notices
for
all
violations
except
those
relating
to
dog
aggression.
Engagement
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
establish
a
Dog
Service
Resource
Group
as
a
sounding
board
and
source
of
advice
for
staff.
– The
membership
of
the
Resource
Group
should
be
similar
to
that
of
the
existing
Dog
Advisory
Committee,
with
representation
from
responsible
dog
owners
and
stakeholder
groups
who
embrace
the
Board's
vision
for
the
service,
as
well
as
the
concept
of
responsible
dog
ownership.
– The
Resource
Group
should
not
include
elected
officials.
– The
Group
should
meet
bi-‐monthly,
or
more
frequently
as
required
by
staff.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
eliminate
the
existing
(select)
Dog
Advisory
Committee.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
host
annual
public
open
DOG
CONTROL
houses
on
the
service,
and
additional
open
houses
to
help
SERVICE
REVIEW
the
public
learn
about
the
proposed
changes
to
the
existing
REPORT
service
model.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
develop
a
volunteer
program
and
recruit
volunteers
to:
– assist
with
the
care
of
impounded
dogs
(where
safe)
– assist
with
development
and
delivery
of
educational
programs
OCTOBER
2012
Page
viii
– work
as
Dog
Service
Ambassadors
to
engage
and
help
educate
dog
owners
in
public
parks
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
hold
annual
meetings
with
dog
service
providers
to
understand
their
concerns,
and
to
support
them
in
their
role
as
de
facto
ambassadors.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
conduct
annual
satisfaction
surveys
of
responsible
dog
owners
throughout
the
service
area.
Dog
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
retain
two
tiers
of
dog
Aggression
aggression
(i.e.,
"aggressive
dogs"
and
"dangerous
dogs"),
but
that
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
reserve
the
higher,
"dangerous
dog"
tier
for
dogs
that,
in
the
Regional
District's
view,
should
be
seized
under
section
49
of
the
Community
Charter.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
adopt
a
"three
strikes"
policy
to
deal
with
repeat
offender
aggressive
dogs.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
deal
with
long
stay
dogs
in
the
Regional
Pound
by:
– continuing
existing
efforts
to
make
the
facility
comfortable
for
long
stay
dogs
– continuing
to
pursue
Consent
Orders,
wherever
possible,
as
an
alternative
to
trials
in
the
Provincial
Court
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
lobby
the
provincial
government
to
amend
the
Local
Government
Act
so
that
regional
districts,
in
addition
to
municipalities,
have
the
authority
to
use
the
cost
recovery
mechanism
in
section
48
of
the
Community
Charter.
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
REVIEW
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
explore
the
potential
to
include
in
Consent
Orders
a
condition
related
to
REPORT
the
payment
of
a
portion
of
the
Regional
District's
legal
costs
and
staff
time.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
work
with
legal
counsel
in
determining
whether
existing
or
future
RDCO
prosecutions
may
be
deemed
as
test
cases
for
the
purpose
of
obtaining
in-‐kind
or
financial
assistance
from
OCTOBER
2012
Page
ix
Crown
Counsel.
In-‐House
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
deliver
the
redesigned
Delivery
Dog
Control
Service
in
house,
using
Regional
District
staff
and
resources.
Fees
&
Fines
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board,
as
a
general
guide,
keep
fees
and
fines
imposed
on
responsible
dog
owners
at
a
minimum
in
order
to
encourage
and
reward
responsible
dog
ownership.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board,
as
a
general
guide,
impose
high
fees
and
fines
on
owners
of
aggressive
dogs
and
dangerous
dogs
in
order
to
discourage
dog
aggression
and
irresponsible
dog
ownership.
Other
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
make
available
the
(modest)
necessary
funds
to
make
the
telecommunications
improvements
required
to
enable
Dog
Control
Officers
to
maintain
contact
with
others
throughout
the
entire
service
area.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
no
longer
respond
to
RCMP
calls
for
assistance
with
"drug
busts".
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
direct
staff
to
develop,
as
a
priority,
formal
practices
and
procedures,
including
ones
to
guide
staff
in
dealing
with
dog
aggression
incidents.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
continue
to
contract
the
SPCA
to
perform
dog
adoptions
for
the
Dog
Control
Service.
·∙ It
is
recommended
that
the
Board
continue
to
support,
through
the
memorandum
of
understanding,
the
SPCA's
efforts
related
to
the
control
the
local
dog
and
cat
DOG
CONTROL
population,
the
provision
of
education
on
the
care
of
SERVICE
REVIEW
animals,
the
investigation
of
animal
cruelty,
and
other
activities.
REPORT
The
recommendations
to
the
Board
fit
together
as
a
package.
Their
potential
to
be
effective
in
changing
the
service
will
be
increased
if
they
are
implemented,
ultimately,
as
one
package.
Implementation
of
the
full
package
of
recommendations
will
take
time
and
will
require
the
sustained
commitment
of
the
Board
and
staff.
OCTOBER
2012
Page
x
The
Regional
District
will
need
to
develop
a
detailed
implementation
plan
that
places
the
various
changes
in
an
appropriate
sequence.
Finally,
the
Board
must
be
patient
in
its
desire
to
achieve
desired
service
outcomes,
including
an
increase
in
cost
recovery.
The
experiences
of
places
like
Calgary
suggest
that
progress
toward
the
outcomes
will
occur.
Progress,
however,
will
take
time.
DOG
CONTROL
SERVICE
REVIEW
REPORT
OCTOBER
2012
Page
xi
INTRODUCTION
The
Regional
District
of
Central
Okanagan
(RDCO)
provides
a
Dog
Control
Service
for
the
entire
region,
including
the
municipalities
of
Kelowna,
West
Kelowna,
Lake
Country
and
Peachland,
as
well
as
Okanagan
East
and
Okanagan
West
Electoral
Areas.
In
late
2011,
the
Regional
Board
instructed
staff
to
commission
an
independent
review
of
the
service.
The
review
was
initiated
as
part
of
a
broader,
multi-‐year
process
that
began
in
2009
to
assess
all
major
region-‐wide
services
provided
by
RDCO.
Specific
concerns
with
the
level
of
taxpayer
funding
for
the
service,
and
with
the
number
of
incidents
involving
dangerous
dogs,
provided
additional
impetus
for
the
exercise.
Neilson-‐Welch
Consulting
Inc.,
a
local
government
consultancy
based
in
Kelowna,
was
selected
to
undertake
the
review.
Work
began
on
the
assignment
in
April
2012.
FOCUS
OF
REVIEW
The
terms
of
reference
for
the
review
called
for
a
comprehensive
assessment
of
the
existing
Dog
Control
Service,
including
the:
·∙ potential
for
contracting-‐out
the
service
or
parts
of
it
·∙ situation
regarding
dangerous
dogs
in
the
Central
Okanagan,
and
the
measures
in
place
through
the
service
to
deal
with
dangerous
dog
issues
·∙ regulations
in
the
Dog
Regulation
&
Impounding
Bylaw
·∙ volume,
types
and
handling
of
complaints
about
dogs
·∙ impoundment
of
dogs
·∙ sale
of
dog
licenses
·∙ costs
and
revenues
of
the
service,
and
the
service's
reliance
on
significant
taxpayer
contributions
·∙ level
and
use
of
staffing
resources
·∙ model
of
governance
for
the
service,
and
in
particular
the
role
of
the
Dog
Control
Advisory
Committee
·∙ role
of
partner
agencies
—
namely
the
Kelowna
Branch
of
the
Society
for
the
Prevention
of
Cruelty
to
Animals
(SPCA)
—
in
the
service
The
consultant
examined
each
of
these
elements
as
well
as
a
number
of
others
not
DOG
CONTROL
identified
explicitly
in
the
terms.
Over
the
course
of
the
assessment,
however,
the
SERVICE
REVIEW
consultant
was
guided
by
the
reality
that
certain
elements
are
considered
more
important
than
others
to
the
Board
and
service
stakeholders.
The
most
important
REPORT
elements
are:
·∙ the
service's
relatively
low
rate
of
cost
recovery
·∙ the
number
and
handling
of
dog
aggression
incidents
·∙ the
low
level
of
community
confidence
in
the
service
OCTOBER
2012
PAGE
1
You can also read
