Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment
January 17, 2008

Dear Mayor and Council;
A)
What exactly are you being asked to vote on today?
Part 2 of the motion reads: “Bring forward a request to the 2009-2011 capital plan for a new animal services facility”. However:
• in 2004 the Pound spent $300,000 to expand its existing facilities.
• in 2005 the Pound requested $15 million to build new facilities but Council refused to allocate funds out of the 2006- 2008 Capital Plan because the Pound did not provide a breakdown of costs, a business plan, or a design for the proposed new facilities.
• instead, Council allocated $500,000 to identify a new site and to allow for planning and design work for the proposed new facilities;
• the $500,00 was intended to allow the Pound to put forward a complete proposal for the 2009-2011 Capital Plan;
• the Pound has not yet produced the planning and design work.
So where is the plan? In the absence of the plan, what are you voting on? What is the meaning of Part 2 of the motion beyond the already existing decision of Council to allow $500,000 for site identification and for planning and design of new facilities for consideration in the 2009-2011 Capital Plan?
Certainly the Pound has not provided support for the preamble to the motion which states that the existing facilities are “ inadequate for the current needs of the city” as:
• the current facilities are operating at only 20% capacity.
• there is no reason to build a new animal control facility.
• there are usually fewer than 20 dogs on hand on any day at the facilities.
• in 2004 the 16 new kennels were built, increasing the number to 48 kennels. Dogs are pack animals and like to be together. When I visited the Pound last week 3 of the 19 dogs were together in one kennel because they were all buddies and another two were together so only 15 kennels of the 48 were in use.
• the same number of dogs, 1400, were handled by the Pound in 2006 as was handled in 1998. However there were only 15 employees in 1998 compared to 23 employees in 2006.
• in 1998 with 15 employees, there were 466 dogs adopted - all from Vancouver; 17,117 licences sold and a deficit of $530,000
• in 2006 with 23 employees, there were 254 dogs adopted – 64 of these dogs coming from other municipalities and the USA; 16,866 licences sold and a deficit of $820,000*
• Council has been made aware that documents are being destroyed that could verify the individual dogs being handled by the Pound. No records of dogs transferred out of the Pound are being kept. It is outrageous to allow this lack of records to continue.
• (It is very difficult to obtain Animal Control documents. The Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner is involved in the complaint I made. Hopefully this will soon be resolved as there are many more questions that need to be answered before Council goes ahead with this project.)

Nor has the Pound provided support for the view that a new site is needed:
• One of the reasons to build a new $15 million facility given in the Administrative Report to Council was a need for more land. Council was informed that the land adjacent to the Pound was not for sale, and if it were it would cost $5 million dollars. However that report neglected to mention that the vacant land adjacent to the other side of the Pound was owned by the City and was already being used by the Pound for dog playground and training and family get acquainted with the potential adoptee areas.
• The combination of these two pieces of land is in excess of 38,000 square feet – almost an acre –more than adequate to handle animal control needs.

B)
Parts 1 and 3 of the motion address two separate matters and read:
“1) Develop and pursue a self-sustaining funding model for dog licensing, urban animal education, by-law enforcement and related programs; “

“3) Consider community partnerships which may assist in the City’s delivery of animal services.”

You do not have any information concerning the proposed “community partners”. The press has suggested that one such community partner would be the SPCA. However:
• the proposer of this motion, Councillor Capri, was employed by the BCSPCA; and
• even though Councillor Capri obviously works well with the SPCA, would it not be wise for Council, before endorsing any joint projects, to investigate why so many other municipalities have recently severed their ties with the BCSPCA
You may not be aware of what harsh bylaws are required for a self-sustaining funding model such as Calgary. For example: Dog not on right side of Pathway $75 fine; Animal left unattended in vehicle $100; Open gate, door or opening allowing Animal to run at large $500.
• you should consider the political repercussions of such a self sustaining model before agreeing to adopt such a model.
• Council should be prepared for a backlash of disapproval for this model as it will be seen as another tax grab. The San Francisco SPCA warns “The costs of passing coercive, punitive mandates are high. Communities that take this approach may not see substantial decreases in dog and cat deaths, and in some cases these deaths may actually increase. And adopting these measures can drive a deep, sometimes irreparable, wedge between the community and the shelter”
• In any case, the existing pound is more than adequate to handle the task of a self sustaining model. There is no need to confuse building new facilities with implementing the model. There is nothing to prevent the Pound from implementing a self sustaining model immediately if counsel approves.
You do not have any of the historical information on licences to enable Council to make a decision concerning a licensing model:
• in 2002 –with still only 15 employees; 17,117 licences were sold leaving an operating deficit of $530,000.
• in 2006 – with 23 employees; 16,866 licences were sold, increasing the operating deficit to $820,000.*
• Even though the actual number of licences sold in 2006 was less than the number sold in 2005, it was reported to Council that the 2006 Strategic Plan income revenues for dog licences had surpassed budget projections. Council then allotted $500,000 for the proposal to be prepared for the 2009-2011 Capital Plan for the proposed new $15 million facilities.
• The allocation of the $500,000 was done without any statistics or facts regarding the numbers of dogs being handled, number of licences sold or a breakdown of revenue income from animal control even though in 2003 and 2004
• I brought to attention of the then Council ( that included Mayor Sullivan, and Councillors Ladner, Louie, Stevenson, and Cadman) that before expanding the Pound and implementing the Strategic Plan the facts and figures should be examined because the actual data did not support the proposed expenditures.

Respectfully submitted by,
Donna Liberson
Animal Rights Coalition
Vancouver BC

*This amount is obtained by adding in the transfer of $108,128 from “transfer from reserve”to the $712,000.