Contents

I Executive Summary............................................................................................5

II Overview............................................................................................................ 7

A. Introduction............................................................................................ ....7

B. Scope of the Service Audit.................................................................... . ...8

C. Animal Service Delivery in the City of Ottawa...................................... ......10

D. The Pound Service Agreement........................................................... ......12

E. The Ottawa Humane Society......................................................................13

E.1 The Facility.... .............................................................................….13

E.2 A Historical Perspective of Ottawa Municipal Animal Sheltering..... .14 Services and Service Compensation

E.2.a Stray Animal Handling .........................................................14

E.2.b Payment for Municipal Sheltering (Pound) Services...............15

E.3 Staffing ...........................................................................................16

III Service Audit......................................................................................................18

A. What we set out to do.............................................................................. 18

B. What we did..............................................................................................18

B.1 We examined documentation

B.2 Meetings

C. What we found..........................................................................................20

D. Specific Service Audit (items identified by the City)....................................21

1) Review of the Pound Services Agreement......................................21

2) Review of percentage allocation of shelter costs.............................27

3) Review of OHS Proposals to provide sheltering services..................31

4) Statutory City requirements re. injured strays....................................32

5) Review of OHS costs not covered by City funding.......................... 37

6) Identify benefits of a Communications Campaign.............................38

7) Identify OHS programs that may impact on animals numbers.......... 39

8) Propose a system to separate pound costs.......................................40

9) Review service levels against proposed funding.........................…. .41

10) Identify future impact of the new City Animal By-law....................... 43

IV Summary............................................................................................................ 44

1. Standards of Service...................................... ............................................44

2. Payment for Municipal Animal Services.......................................................44

3. Cost allocations......................................................................................... 44

4. The Facility..................................................................................................44

5. Current contract fees........................................... ..................................... 45

6. Line Items..................................................................................................46

7. Staff allocations...........................................................................................48

8. Disposal of cadavers................................................................................ 48

9. Sick and injured strays...............................................................................48

10. Per diem costs for municipal animal sheltering services.............................49

11. Current average costs…………………………………………………………..49

V Recommendations..............................................................................................50

VI Appendices

A Pound Services Agreement (July 10, 2002)

B Proposal to Provide Stray Animal Shelter Services for the City of Ottawa 2003 - 2005 (prepared by The Ottawa Humane Society, November 2002)

C Proposal to Provide Stray Animal Shelter Services for the City of Ottawa 2002 - 2004 (prepared by The Ottawa Humane Society)

I Executive Summary

Municipal animal sheltering (pound) services are contracted out by the City of Ottawa to the Ottawa Humane Society (OHS) under a Pound Services Agreement. The Agreement we examined covered the period from January 1, 2002 - January 31, 2003.

On January 8, 2003, Ottawa City Council deliberated the City’s 2003 budget, which included a proposal from the OHS to renew the existing Agreement with the City for 2003 for the purchase of municipal animal sheltering services at a cost of $533,500 without any reductions - the same amount as in 2002. The OHS request of $617,469 was based on a formula which was negotiated between the Ottawa area municipalities and the OHS in the late 1990's.

At the time of budget deliberations, City Council approved the following motion:

That Council approve the applicable Business Plans and Draft Operating Estimates as amended by the following:

That funding in the amount of $83,969 be added to the 2003 Humane Society allocation, conditional upon the results of a third party financial and service audit; and,

That City staff bring back a report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee as soon as possible on the results of the aforementioned audit.

In February 2003, the City of Ottawa contracted James H. Bandow & Associates to conduct a service audit of the Municipal Animal Sheltering Services (commonly identified as Pound Services), provided by the OHS, specifically to examine the efficiencies, effectiveness and the cost of such services currently provided by the OHS under the Agreement with the City of Ottawa.

As part of this Service Audit we have examined the contractual obligations of the OHS under the existing Agreement between the City and the OHS to determine which activities appropriately constitute services provided under that agreement, whether such services meet the legal requirements of provincial and municipal legislation, and whether the line items used in determining compensation for contracted services are appropriate. We were guided in our service audit by specific aspects which the City wanted examined, most of them having to do with costs and cost allocations.

No independent standards currently exist to measure the efficiencies of animal care and control agencies, and this makes it difficult to determine whether the municipal animal sheltering services (pound services) provided by the OHS are delivered efficiently.

Since the funding of municipal animal sheltering services was the key issue to be addressed by this Service Audit, we spent considerable time examining records and discussing cost allocations with the OHS.

We have reviewed the cost allocations currently used to determine the municipal share of the OHS animal sheltering operation and, with some exceptions, generally found them reasonable considering that:

i) more than 30% of the OHS shelter operation is used for the sheltering of municipal animals (pound services),

ii) approximately 60% of all the animals in the facility are municipal animals, being cared for.

We found that there is virtually no room to reduce or change services that will directly reduce service delivery costs. There are two primary areas that impact on service delivery:

i) stray animal redemption periods, and

ii hours of operation,

and for both there are legal obligations that make service reductions nearly impossible.

As well, the OHS currently responds to sick and injured stray animals, which is actually a municipal responsibility. Although it may be argued that the OHS has traditionally collected and cared for such animals, the fact that a straying animal - which would otherwise be subject to impoundment - gets injured does not change its status as a stray animal. The OHS should therefore be compensated for all costs incurred, including the pick-up of such animals.

Given the number of stray animals handled by the OHS, including responses to sick and injured stray animals, we believe - subject to a satisfactory accounting audit - that the OHS funding requests for 2003 and 2004 appear reasonable.

Such increases should however be subject to an addition to the existing Pound Service Agreement that would require the OHS to respond to all sick and injured domestic stray and injured wild animal calls in the City without further financial compensation from the City, and that the OHS be required to provide such animals with veterinary medical care as required by legislation.

II Overview

A. Introduction

On January 8, 2003, Ottawa City Council deliberated the City’s 2003 budget. Staff of the City’s By-law Services Branch of the Emergency & Protective Services Department, which is responsible for the provision of animal services in the City, proposed the renewal of the existing agreement with the Ottawa Humane Society (OHS) for 2003, for the purchase of municipal animal sheltering services at a cost of $533,500 - the same amount as in 2002. Although Council approved budget guidelines requiring all City Departments to reduce their respective budgets by 7% for 2003, the required reduction was not applied to the Service Agreement with the OHS.

The OHS had requested a two-year agreement with an increase of $83,500 over 2002, and a further increase of $76,310 for 2004, suggesting the need to bring annual City contract revenue shortfalls in line with what the OHS cited as revenue shortfalls that were directly attributable to providing municipal animal services as identified in the Pound Services Agreement, dated July 10, 2002 between the City of Ottawa and the OHS.

At the time of budget deliberations, Council approved the following motion:

That Council approve the applicable Business Plans and Draft Operating Estimates as amended by the following:

That funding in the amount of $83,969 be added to the 2003 Humane Society allocation, conditional upon the results of a third party financial and service audit; and,

That City staff bring back a report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee as soon as possible on the results of the aforementioned audit

In February 2003, the City of Ottawa contracted James H. Bandow & Associates to conduct a service audit of the Municipal Animal Sheltering Services (commonly identified as Pound Services) to examine the efficiencies, effectiveness and the cost of such services currently provided by the OHS for the City of Ottawa.

B. Scope of the Service Audit

Specifically, the City of Ottawa requested that the Service Audit include:

1) A review of the existing Pound Services Agreement (Appendix #A to this Report) between the City and the Ottawa Humane Society, to determine whether or not the actual services being provided by the Ottawa Humane Society fall short of, meet or exceed:

§ the requirements of the Agreement; and

§ the statutory requirements prescribed by the applicable legislation under which municipalities operate, and to what extent, as applicable.

2) A review of the percentage allocations (Appendix A to the Ottawa Humane Society's 2003-2005 proposal – Appendix #B to this Report) to determine the validity/applicability to the current services and operation.

3) A review of the Ottawa Humane Society's most recent two Proposals to Provide Stray Animal Services for the City of Ottawa - one for 2002-2004 and the other for 2003-2005 - and identify:

§ the rationale for the difference in the projections for 2003 and 2004 with respect to funding required from the City;

§ the nature of the veterinary services being provided in relation to impounded animals and their associated costs, and whether or not those services fall short of, meet or exceed the statutory requirements; and,

§ the validity of the line items being allocated in relation to the operation of the pound.

4) Identify costs to the Ottawa Humane Society functions/programs that it deems to be the responsibility of the City (e.g., injured stray dogs and cats) and review the validity of the Ottawa Humane Society position in that regard in terms of the City's statutory requirements and costs.

5) Identify costs to the Ottawa Humane Society generated by the pound and other City activities, regulations or the absence of same, but which are not covered by the funding provided by the City, as well as costs to the City generated by functions/programs of the Ottawa Humane Society which are covered by the funding provided by the City and should not be.

6) Identify any costs, consequences and benefits that may be precipitated by the City of Ottawa's and the Ottawa Humane Society's respective communications to the

public regarding the services contracted to the OHS and their impact, if any, on the Pound Services Agreement and associated funding.

Perceptions:

Municipal animal services have made great strides in recent years to quell the negative perceptions which pounds and dog catching have conjured up in the past by focusing on the positive contributions made by municipal animal services to life in communities, and by identifying the facility as the municipal animal centre rather than the pound. Unfortunately the word pound is still frequently used in legislation and by the press, and this perpetuates negative connotations. Having an animal welfare group such as a humane society shelter the stray municipal animals minimizes those negative pound connotations.

The Animals for Research Issue:

The requirement for municipal animal centres (pounds) to surrender unclaimed, impounded animals for research is no longer the controversial issue that it once was, since comparatively fewer pound-source animals are today being requisitioned from Ontario municipal facilities for research purposes. Regardless, for humane societies operating municipal animal centres (pounds) this has commonly not been a crucial issue, since most of them have traditionally not been requested to make eligible animals available for research.

Disadvantages:

Costs:

Although opportunities for savings exist (as identified in the section on advantages), in some municipalities - particularly larger ones - overlaps in some aspects of service delivery between the humane society and the municipality are possible, which can impact on service delivery cost.

Loss of Control:

Since municipal animal centre (pound) operations are considered by the public to be municipal responsibilities, and since the lines between enforcement of municipal By-laws and animal centre operations are often blurred, a written complaint procedure needs to be in place - particularly to address public complaints regarding animal handling, animal release etc. - to minimize the need for a municipality to address such issues. Such procedure is already in place in the City of Ottawa.

Potential for Conflicts:

Working relationships can become strained when disagreements arise on issues. Since municipalities have almost no control over the day-to-day management of the municipal animal centre (pound) facility when operated by a humane society, this arrangement requires significant cooperation between staff and management of the municipality and the agency contracted to provide municipal animal sheltering services.

D. The Pound Services Agreement

Municipal animal sheltering services in the City of Ottawa are contracted out by the City to the Ottawa Humane Society under a Pound Services Agreement, the most recent one was executed on July 10, 2002 and covers the period from the January 1, 2002 to January 31, 2003.

The Pound Services Agreement outlines the services to be provided by the Ottawa Humane Society and the Responsibilities of the City. The Agreement includes the rate of Compensation for Services, a Pound Activity Reporting Form, and an Enquiry/Complaints Procedure.

E. The Ottawa Humane Society (OHS)

The OHS is a registered charitable organization which owns and operates an animal shelter at 101 Champagne Avenue in the City of Ottawa. Operating under the Ontario SPCA Act, the OHS’s primary focus is the prevention of cruelty to animals, investigation of alleged cases of animal cruelty, neglect and abuse, the rescue of animals in distress, and, where appropriate, prosecution of offenders. The OHS also provides education and community outreach programs to raise awareness about animal welfare and responsible pet ownership issues.

The OHS’s animal shelter forms an integral part of its mission. It is used to house and care for unwanted and abandoned animals and animals in distress, and 31% of the shelter building is designated as the Municipal Animal Centre, the area commonly referred to as the pound. This is the area to hold and care for stray and observation municipal animals. The operation of the Municipal Animal Centre (pound) has always been seen by the OHS as an extension of its sheltering activities. However, over the years providing municipal sheltering (pound) services has made increasing demands on shelter space and resources, and according to the OHS, it has had to use revenues that were donated to fund traditional humane society activities to subsidize the municipal shelter operation. A financial audit should identify to what degree municipal services have been subsidized from such revenues.

E.1 The Facility

The building of the OHS, at 101 Champagne Avenue in the City of Ottawa, is a two-storey structure, 332.5 sq. m’s in size. Of that, 169.5 sq. m’s (51%) are used for OHS activities, including adoption, housing of owner-surrendered and rescued animals, and for OHS administration. Another 103 sq. m’s (31%) of the space are designated as the Municipal Animal Centre (pound) for the City of Ottawa. The remaining 60 sq. m’s (18%), which represents a self-contained unit, are leased on a long-term lease to Bayview Animal Hospital. For this report we have only considered the 31% which is used to provide municipal service related animal housing and related activities.

The OHS shelter cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as a modern facility that reflects today's approach to shelter design and animal management. The current facility makes efficient and effective shelter operation and animal care difficult. The OHS agrees with our observation and with our suggestion that a well designed, modern facility would probably result in a notable reduction in shelter maintenance and more effective animal handling, which in turn would result in corresponding staff reductions.

Except for the area on the second floor, which houses most of the OHS administration and volunteer and outreach programs the building shows its age and is in real need of replacement or significant updating and improvement.

B.2 Meetings

Our review of relevant documents was accompanied by a site visit to the OHS Shelter. On February 24 and 25, 2003, we met with Bruce Roney, Executive Director of the Ottawa Humane Society. We made a cursory inspection of the shelter facility to determine what changes, if any, had occurred since our last site visit in 1997. Our discussion with Mr. Roney included:

§ The designation and tracking of municipal versus humane society animals;

§ Operational procedures for handling municipal animals;

§ Clarification of the OHS’s method of cost allocations;

§ Budget figures as they relate to the area covered by the Agreement between the City of Ottawa and OHS;

§ The budget deficit, and OHS’s plans to eliminate the annual operating deficit;

§ Aspects that may influence current and future sheltering costs, particularly those that affect animals that are handled under the Agreement between the City and OHS;

§ Plans to upgrade or replace the existing sheltering facility;

§ The OHS written comments in response to the City’s February 2003 Terms of Reference for James H. Bandow & Associates for the Service Audit of the OHS.

Following our meeting with Mr Roney, we subsequently solicited specific information items from Sheila Grant, OHS Manager - Finance and Administration.

We would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Roney and Ms. Grant of the Ottawa Humane Society for courtesies extended to us, and for promptly responding to our requests for specific records and information.

C. What we found

In reviewing the services provided by the OHS under the Pound Services Agreement with the City, one could argue:

The OHS is there anyway - it has the building, facilities, utilities, administrative staff, for the OHS’s animal welfare work - why should the City of Ottawa pay any more than the additional direct material and labour cost associated with the housing of pound animals?

The other side to that argument is:

If the City accepts that it needs to provide services related to the enforcement of municipal animal care and control legislation, and that animal sheltering (pound) services form an integral part of the City’s animal care and control program, the City will either need to contract those sheltering services out to someone else, or operate its own municipal animal centre, hire the necessary staff for such facility, and provide all the other functions many of which may currently being taken for granted.

It is likely that the City would need to provide some of the same, or similar services (e.g., animal adoption, reception of owner-surrendered animals, etc.), now provided by the OHS.

We have examined the OHS operation in light of those arguments. We have analyzed the OHS contractual obligations under the existing Agreement between the City and the OHS to determine which activities appropriately constitute services provided under that agreement, whether such services meet the legal requirements of provincial and municipal legislation, and whether such services are correctly identified in determining compensation for contracted services.

Unfortunately, some records, particularly statistical information about the OHS operation prior to 2001, were not always available or, in our opinion were not always deemed reliable enough for comparison use. We learned that this was primarily due to the fact that significant portions of the OHS record management systems were not fully automated prior to 2001. The lack of, or incompleteness of some data minimized our ability to undertake a full comparative analysis.

D. Specific Service Audit (Specific items requested by the City)

Item 1) Review the existing Pound Services Agreement between the City and the Ottawa Humane Society, to determine whether or not the actual services being provided by the Ottawa Humane Society fall short of, meet or exceed:

§ The requirements of the Agreement; and

§ The statutory requirements prescribed by the applicable legislation under which municipalities operate, and to what extent, as applicable.

Findings: We examined the records and current practices of the OHS operation in light of the Agreement between the OHS and the City and applicable legislation. The following refers to comparable numbered sections in the Pound Services Agreement.

Responsibilities of the Society

Receipt of Animals

#3 and #4 The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

General Care of Animals

#5a The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement (The OHS has been inspected under the Ontario Animals for Research Act on April 25, 2002 by Provincial Inspectors. All areas of the operation were deemed in compliance with the legislation except that the records identifying the time when an impounded animal is picked up needed improvements.)

#5b The OHS does not own facilities to house large livestock, but is able to arrange impoundment in compliance with Sections #7 and #8 of the Pounds Act.

#5c The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

#6 The OHS stated that it is meeting the terms of the Agreement.

No information was available to determine otherwise.

Care and Handling of Stray Animals

#7a The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

#7b The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

#7c The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

#7d The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

Care and Handling of Observation Animals

#8a-e The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

#9a-b The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

#10a-b The OHS meets the terms of the Agreement.

Hours of Operation

#11 The OHS exceeds the terms of the Agreement.

Our Comments:

According to the OHS, hours for intake and redemption of municipal animals currently largely mirror the opening hours of the OHS Adoption Centre. The opening hours identified in the Agreement, have been in place for more than five years.

Operating hours are posted as follow:

Shelter Front Door (Adoptions) Shelter Back Door (Stray Intake and Redemption)

12 noon - 7:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 12 noon - 7:00 p.m. Monday - Friday

10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday

Closed Sundays and Stat. Holidays 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Sunday

Closed Stat. Holidays

The OHS contends that current hours do not meet the needs of the public. We were told, when residents find the entrance door to the stray intake/redemption section closed, they will walk to the front of the building, knock on the front door and harass shelter staff until they receive or redeem strays. According to the OHS, the public wants to have the opportunity to conduct business at the shelter on the way to and from work.

This is a common problem for virtually all animal shelters. In our discussions with Mr. Roney we explored a number of options that might better accommodate the public.

To minimize conflicts between the public and shelter staff, one option might be to raise public awareness through the media about the role of the OHS in terms of providing municipal services and to raise awareness about the operating hours of the municipal shelter. As well, more precise wording of operating hours at the door of the municipal shelter area should be considered that makes it clear that those are the municipally contracted hours.

We would recommend that consideration be given to provide a self-service opportunity for individuals who have strays to drop off after hours. Some animal shelters provide a couple of small drop-of kennels with doors that can be secured after an animal has been deposited in such kennels. In some cases such kennels are inside a building with public access from outside, while others are secure, weather-protected outside kennels with gates that can be locked after an animal has been deposited. Such kennels also commonly have a weatherproof record dispensary that allows finders to provide appropriate information about an animal to shelter staff.

Following is an example how such formula might work:

§ 2004 Base Contract Fee: $693,310.

(Note: We stress that this fee is used as an example only. The actual fee used for such formula should be negotiated between the City and the OHS)

§ Number of municipal animals cared for: 6,708 animals.

(Note: This is the 3-year average from 2000: 7,858 municipal animals; 2001: 6,393 municipal animals; 2002: est. 5,873 municipal animals)

In future years, such formula could subsequently be adjusted by:

a) tying fees to annual rates of inflation; and

b) tying fees to annual animal intake fluctuations, with a fluctuation of +/-200 animals considered normal and not subject to fee adjustments.

Any changes in municipal animal intake annually that go beyond a fluctuation of

+/-200 animals could be subject to a fee adjustment in the following year. As an example such adjustment could be $80.00 per animal.

This would adjust the formula as follows:

An increase of 250 municipal animals handled by the OHS [50 over normal fluctuation] in a year would increase the base formula from 6,708 animals to a total of 6,958 animals, and this would increase the Agreement fee by $4,000.00 [50 x $80.00), while a decrease of 250 municipal animals handled in a year to 6,458 would decrease the fee by $4000.00 [50 x $80.00]

The foregoing should be considered an example only, and actual numbers should be subject to negotiation. This formula is our suggestion how it might be possible to have the sheltering agreement between the City and the OHS reflect significant changes in animal volumes.

We are not aware that such formula exists elsewhere. However, such approach would benefit both the City as well as the OHS. On one hand, it would permit the OHS to be compensated for cost increases directly attributable to an increase in the number of sheltered municipal animals, while on the other hand, the City would benefit as more aggressive licensing enforcement will result in more identifiable animals that can be directly taken home when apprehended, thereby reducing the number of municipal animals that need to be sheltered.

Statutory requirements prescribed by the applicable legislation by which municipalities operate

The current Agreement meets the applicable Standards for Pounds, as provided for in:

§ The Ontario Municipal Act 2001

§ The Ontario Animals for Research Act R.S.O.1990, Chapter A22 as amended - Section 20. (1) through (13)

§ Regulation 23 of the Ontario Animals for Research Act R.S.O.1990.

The OHS complies with statutory requirements.

Item 2) A review of the percentage allocations (Appendix A to the Ottawa Humane Society’s 2003-2005 proposal) to determine the validity/applicability to the current services and operation.

Our Comments:

We spent considerable time examining, questioning and reviewing the percentage allocation of shelter costs to the City and had a number of discussions about those percentages with the OHS. We were advised, that the percentages that appear in Appendix A of the OHS Proposal, are currently used to calculate the OHS quotations. We were further advised that those percentages were negotiated between the Ottawa area municipalities and the OHS in the late 1990's.

Following are the percentage allocations of sheltering costs that are applied to City costs:

1. Staff cost (Wages and Benefits) 50%

2. Statistics Collection (Database) 50%

3. Computer Network maintenance 50%

4. Staff Training and Development 50%

5. Veterinary Services and Medication 80%

6. Food and Litter 75%

7. Carcass Disposal 90%

8. Cleaning Supplies 50%

9. Uniforms 50%

10. Equipment Purchases and Repairs 59%

11. Office Expenses (Printing, Supplies, Phone) 59%

12. Identification 0%

13. Cat Carriers 0%

14. Microchips 0%

15. Small Animal Supplies 0%

Cost-wise, the most significant line items are: Wages and Benefits, Veterinary Services and Medication; Allocation from Central Services; Allocation from Premises; and Cadaver Disposal. We took a closer look at those five items.

Wages and Benefits

Since the City will be undertaking a separate financial audit of the OHS operations, we have restricted our review of the wage/benefit schedule only to the allocation of staff positions that are used to calculate the City’s share of sheltering costs.

To that end, we had OHS provide us with explanations on how the different positions impact on shelter operations. (See: Staffing -Section E.3 - Page 16 of this Report).

We would suggest, however, that Exhibit #3 is not a reflection of true emergency calls. Unless the wildlife concerns identified in Exhibit #3 were in response to injured wildlife, we would not consider them emergency calls. We understand that the City responds to sick wildlife calls when rabies-vector species are involved, so only responses to injured wildlife and sick non-rabies-vector wildlife should have been included in Exhibit #3.

Responses to properties of residents who report nuisance wildlife concerns are not emergencies and should be minimized by providing such residents with self-help guidance by telephone.

We recognize that emergency services are being provided 24hrs. per day. Nevertheless, we would argue that the majority of the calls identified in Exhibit # 3, particularly those in categories 4 and 5, as well as many in categories 1, 2 and 3 will have been completed during daytime working hours. As well, we would expect that after-hour emergency calls be handled by a staff member on stand-by.

The costs identified in Exhibit #4 suggest an average cost of $88.59 per call. We believe that this cost is excessive, given the number and the types of calls responded to. (As a comparison, prior to amalgamation, the City of Scarborough contracted out after-hour responses to injured animals to a Veterinary Hospital at a cost of $50.00 per call plus medical costs)

The costs identified in Exhibit #4 have been charged to the OHS - EAPS Section, a Section which is responsible for animal rescue and cruelty investigation and prevention. It would appear that the cost calculations have been arrived at by simply applying percentages of the EAPS budget, rather then actually costing out the specific calls identified in Exhibit #3.

We also question some of the allocations. For instance, how can mobile phone and telephone charges of $5,360.69 be justified against 1,870 response calls? As well, one would anticipate that the average medical costs for sick and injured animals would exceed those for routinely received strays. Yet, according to information supplied by the OHS, veterinary services for sick and injured animals in Exhibit #3 only amount to $8,870,52 (average cost per animal/call $7.61), while 2001 veterinary service costs for 6,393 routinely received strays amount to $83,630, or an average cost of $12.98 per stray.

We also question the average length of time to complete some of the identified calls. For instance, Transporting Shelter Animals commonly only involves the transportation of injured stray animals from the OHS Shelter - where they are assessed - to a veterinary clinic in the City, and picking up Confined Injured/sick Strays is also primarily only a transportation issue.

Exhibit # 4

2002 OHS identified costs to provide the responses in Exhibit #3

Management

$ 9,734.09

Non-Management

$65,885.04

Part-time Employees

$41,947.64

Statutory Benefits

$12,977.10

Pension

$ 292.02

Group Insurance

$ 5,079.26

Veterinary Services

$ 8,870.52

Professional Development

$ 314.70

Uniforms

$ 511.47

Purchases

$ 397.16

Mobile Phones

$ 4,717.22

Meetings/Travel

$ 146.65

Postage & Courier

$ 7.83

Printing & Copying

$ 192.35

Supplies

$ 485.46

Telephone

$ 643.47

Vehicles Gasoline

$ 7,853.63

Repair/Maintenance

$ 4.287.37

Insurance/License Fee

$ 1,361.76

TOTAL

$165,671.72

Using the wage and benefit allocation of non-management staff in Exhibit #4, and applying an hourly rate of $18.29 (wages plus benefits for the highest paid driver), this would suggest that the 1,870 calls took a total of 6,897 hours or an average of 3.7 hrs per call. Considering the geographic size of the City of Ottawa, the areas of major population densities, traffic movement in the City, and that in some cases calls may be doubled up, we suggest that allocating 3.7 hrs for all calls listed in Exhibit #3 is excessive. We believe that an average allocation of 3.5 hrs. for each police/by-law assistance call and an average of 2.5 hrs for all other emergency responses is more appropriate.

Although we recognize that each case is different, we question the OHS practice of returning all injured and sick stray animals to the shelter for triage before directing them to a veterinary clinic. It might be beneficial to the OHS, to the City, and most of all to severely injured animals, if staff responding to sick/and injured animal calls were Certified Veterinary Technicians who could be able make a determination in the field whether an animal showing obvious symptoms of severe injury or illness would be best transported directly to a veterinary hospital or to the OHS shelter for triage.

We understand that the City of Ottawa does not have designated Animal Service Officers, but delivers municipal animal field services with multi-task officers from the City's By-law Services Branch. To our knowledge, Ottawa is one of the very few cities of its size that does not have Animal Service Officers that are specifically assigned to animal service work. In fact, in many large urban animal service agencies, applicants for Animal Service Officer positions must now possess either a Veterinary Technician or similar Certificate in order to be considered for such job.

Although people skills rank high in qualifications to deal with the human element, thorough specialized training in animal handling is essential, particularly when responding to sick or injured animals or animals that are a threat to public health and safety. As well, there is no option for such Officers to gravitate to other preferred enforcement areas, as can be the case with Multi-task Officers. However, the City reports that there is a high level of expertise with respect to animal issues within the By-law Services Branch and given the large area that makes up the City of Ottawa, and the range of responsibilities assigned to the By-law Services Branch, the City has opted for the Multi-task or Generalist By-law Officer model, which it deems most effective under the circumstances.

Vehicles are another important consideration. Responding to sick and injured animal calls does not only require trained, skilled field staff who know what to do when they get to such calls, but also appropriate vehicles and equipment to take prompt and appropriate action.

The City reports that the majority of its Branch vehicles are fully equipped to handle animals. However, animal emergency vehicle need to carry equipment that goes beyond those found in animal control vehicles.

A similar situation confronted the City of Toronto. Until recently, the City of Toronto had a sheltering agreement with the Toronto Humane Society (similar to the Agreement between the City of Ottawa and the OHS), whereby the Toronto Humane Society responded to all sick and injured domestic strays and wildlife as part of its municipal sheltering contract. City Animal Services Officers were responsible for By-law enforcement and other animal-related fieldwork. When the sheltering agreement between the parties was ended, equipment in the municipal animal service vehicles needed to be updated to permit handling of animal emergencies, and municipal animal services officers of the City of Toronto had to take on the new and unfamiliar task of responding to sick and injured animals.

We believe that it is important to provide the most immediate response to sick and injured animals possible. In our opinion, in most cases such response can best be provided by field staff who are specifically trained and assigned primarily to animal service duties.

We are therefore recommending that the response to sick/injured animal calls in the City of Ottawa be part of the services contracted out to the OHS.

Item 5) Identify costs to the Ottawa Humane Society generated by the pound and other City activities, regulations or the absence of same, but which are not covered by the funding provided by the City, as well as costs to the City generated by functions/programs of the Ottawa Humane Society which are covered by the funding provided by the City and should not be.

Our Comments:

As we have already identified in other sections of this report, there are two areas that generate costs to the OHS for which they are not compensated. These are:

§ Providing after-hours intake and redemption of stray animals; and

§ Responding to sick and injured stray animal calls.

Although we were not able to specifically identify any function/program of the OHS which is covered by funding from the City and which should not be, we found that the system of credits and retention of some revenues collected (Medical cost recoveries; adoption licenses) to be very confusing. Although this falls within the purview of the financial audit, we suspect that it would be much easier to determine City revenues received and collected - whether derived from stray animals or from licensing - if all rebates and back-credits were eliminated, and all municipal revenues were credited to the City.

Item 6) Identify any costs, consequences and benefits that may be precipitated by the City of Ottawa's and the Ottawa Humane Society's respective communications to the public regarding the services contracted to the OHS and their impact, if any, on the Pound Services Agreement and associated funding.

Our Comments:

Whenever some animal services in a municipality are shared between a humane society and a municipality, there is frequently public misunderstanding about the responsibilities and services provided by each.

Although, we see no impact on funding, clarifying the exact roles of the City and the OHS, and identifying who provides what in animal service delivery, would foster greater public understanding.

Such public information program should highlight the distinction between humane society services (the focus is on the welfare of animals) and municipal services (the focus is on public health and safety), and should include such items as:

§ Municipal Animal Shelter/Centre Service Hours (Since the word pound has negative implications, it should be avoided wherever possible) for intake and redemption of strays;

§ Who responds to injured and sick strays;

Redemption fees, etc.

One of the advantages of having the OHS provide municipal sheltering services, is the fact that many unredeemed, adoptable animals are kept at the shelter by the OHS for adoption after their redemption period has been completed, saving the City the cost of otherwise having to dispose of such animals through duplicitous means or programs.

Item 7) Identify any OHS policies/programs that may contribute to an increase in the number of animals impounded (e.g., owner-surrender fee) and subsequent pound costs to the City.

Our Comments:

Surrendered owned animals are not in violation of municipal legislation and whether, and under what circumstance the OHS accepts such animals should be entirely within the jurisdiction of the OHS, and any revenues generated from surrender and adoption fees belong to the OHS.

During 2002, the OHS received 280 stray animals from outside the City of Ottawa. Any costs associated with those animals are currently not tracked separately from City strays by the OHS, and without an examination of the individual records of those animals would be impossible to ascertain. The OHS believes that some of those animals are dropped off at the OHS by commuters coming from outside the City's jurisdiction, while others may be taken to the City of Ottawa's facility from other jurisdictions.

In order to keep records and cost allocations simple, we would suggest that such animals continue to be treated like City strays in terms of holding time and redemption fees, and that such funds be considered City revenues.

It has been argued that some pet owners, knowing that they will be asked to pay surrender fees when they give up their animals at the shelter, will turn the animal in as a stray animal to avoid such charges. While this does happen occasionally, in our experience most individuals will pay the surrender fee, since they are much more concerned about the fate of the animals they are surrendering than having to pay such fees.

Item 8) Propose, if feasible, recommendations to provide for a system which will more clearly separate pound costs to the City.

Our Comments:

Given the design of the OHS shelter and the overlapping of staff, we are unable to make recommendations that will result in clear and accurate separations of costs attributable to either municipal or OHS shelter operation. The new accounting system and the hiring of a Manager of Finance and Administration should improve appropriate cost allocations, although complete and accurate cost separations can only be solved when there is a complete rebuilding or retro-fitting of the existing OHS facility, or construction of a new one in which the OHS and the City functions and activities can be functionally separated.

Item 9) Identify the level of service that could be provided:

§ for $533,500, and

§ for $617,000.

§ in what areas, if any, reductions and/or efficiencies could be realized and the likely consequences.

Our Comments:

We have carefully examined the Agreement between the City and the OHS, and find that there is virtually no room to reduce or change services that will reduce service delivery costs. There are three primary areas that impact on service delivery, and for all of them there are legal obligations. These are: Redemption Period, Operating Hours, and Staffing.

a) Redemption period

Municipal Councils of many municipalities in Ontario have established redemption periods that exceed the minimum period of 72 hrs required under the Animals for Research Act by as much as 48 hrs. The City of Ottawa continues to maintain the minimum redemption period of 72 hrs, which leaves no room for service reduction.

b) Operating hours:

While there may be some flexibility in operating hours, as we have already discussed under Hours of Operation (page 22), the OHS is already suggesting that there is public demand for service hours to be extended. If the City were to further reduce operating hours for stray animal intake and redemption - which we advise against - it needs to embark on a publicity campaign to inform the public why such reduction of services is necessary.

Legal Requirement - Animals for Research Act - Regulation 23

8(2) Subject to subsection (3), the operator of every pound shall post or cause to be posted a notice in a conspicuous location outside the pound stating the hours and days on which the pound is open to persons who wish to claim any dogs or cats impounded therein and every pound shall be open for such purpose at least once in every day while there is a dog or cat in the pound. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 23, s. 8 (2).

8(3) A pound may remain closed on a holiday and on one day in every week that is not a holiday. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 23, s. 8 (3)

c) Staffing

Legal Requirement - Animals for Research Act - Regulation 23

8(1) The operator of every pound shall ensure that there is, in every day, on the premises on which the pound is located, an adequate number of persons competent in the care of dogs and cats to properly care for every dog or cat in the pound. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 23, s. 8 (1).

We have previously indicated that we believe, and OHS agrees, that a more efficient shelter layout and proper segregation of OHS and City services will result in staff cost reductions.

Other areas impacting on costs

From time to time animals are received by the OHS that show signs of disease that may potentially harm other animals in the facility. As the pound-keeper, OHS is required to take prompt action as required in Regulation 23 of the Animals for Research Act, which directs:

16. In any pound, the operator thereof shall take or cause to be taken all steps practicable to treat and prevent the spread of any disease found in any animal and to prevent distress to any animal. R.R.O. 1990. Reg. 23, s.16.

Such veterinary actions may include vaccination of any or all shelter animals, and will increase veterinary and medical costs.

Item 10) Identify any anticipated future impacts on the Pound Services Agreement and associated pound costs, precipitated by the policies represented by the new Animal Care and Control By-law, such as free lifetime registration for dogs and cats which are both microchipped and sterilized.

Our Comments:

It is important to realize that there are probably between 15% and 20% of pet owners who will always do the right thing without having to be nudged or reminded, and there are another 20% of pet owners who are generally the problem owners who are responsible for approximately 80% of animal care and control enforcement complaints. That leaves the remaining pet owners who are basically responsible, but who need to be nudged and reminded about the need for licensing and animal care and control legislation. Most of them will comply if asked to do so.

Experience in other jurisdictions has shown that those pet owners who always tend to be responsible and who are unlikely to be in contravention of municipal animal care and control legislation, also tend to be the first ones to jump on the free licence bandwagon. This means that there will be virtually no initial impact on sheltering operations.

It is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy when policy decisions such as providing free lifetime registration for dogs and cats that are both microchipped and sterilized will be reflected in reduced municipal sheltering costs. A lot of that has to do with the way such policies are promoted and enforced.

To be successful, such changes to the municipal legislation need to be aggressively promoted and be accompanied by an aggressive licensing compliance campaign. The fact that pet owners are rewarded by the animal licensing provisions for doing the right thing needs to be an ongoing, high-profile campaign if it is to achieve the desired results.

Impact on municipal sheltering costs will be minimal until approximately 75% of the dog and cat populations have been licensed in accordance with the municipal By-law. At that time there should be a notable increase in return-to-owner rates, which in turn will result in a reduction in the number of unidentifiable animals that require sheltering, and a notable decrease in municipal sheltering costs.

IV Summary

We have examined the handling practices of stray and impounded animals delivered to the OHS by municipal officials, by OHS staff, and by members of the public. We have also examined the OHS cost allocations for stray animal sheltering services under the Agreement with the City of Ottawa.

1. Standards of Service

2. Payment for Municipal Animal Services

Although some offsetting revenues are received from the sale of animal licenses and stray animal redemption fees, with very few exceptions, municipal animal care and control and animal sheltering (pound) services, like most other municipal services, need to be paid for from general tax revenues.

3. Cost Allocations

Since the funding of pound services was the key issue to be addressed by this Service Audit, we spent considerable time reviewing and discussing cost allocations with the OHS.

We have reviewed the cost allocations currently used to determine the municipal share of the OHS animal sheltering operation, and generally find them reasonable considering that:

§ better than 30% of the OHS shelter operation is used for the sheltering of municipal animals (pound services),

§ approximately 60% of all the animals in the facility are municipal animals, cared for in the pound.

4. The Facility

Our service audit is based on the current infrastructure of the OHS. The fact that the building is 40 years old and in considerable need of updating no doubt has some impact on the current and future maintenance and repair costs which are shared by the City. It is for this reason, and because building amortization is a standard consideration in arrangements such as the City has with the OHS, that the OHS now includes a line item of Amortization of Building in costs to the City.

In 1995/96 the OHS undertook alterations and additions to the shelter. This added additional animal housing space created a separate municipal shelter facility (pound) with a separate entrance. Although the expanded area has provided enhanced space and accommodations for municipal animals, this work was undertaken without any financial assistance from any of the municipalities which at the time used the OHS facilities as their sheltering facility (pound).

We pointed out in our 1997 assessment of the facility, although the new area and the new kennels were functional, and at the time met the legal requirements to house pound animals, the addition did not create an inviting atmosphere for the public and had the potential for early repair problems. Although we realized that financial constraints probably reduced the options we were disappointed with the design of the addition and the construction and finishing of the kennels.

Given the current condition of the entire OHS shelter, we believe that an early, significant retrofitting of the existing facility or construction of a new shelter is essential if operating costs are to be reduced.

Since the OHS has spent its own money to upgrade the pound area in 1995/96, it is understandable that it cannot commit more resources for further retrofitting while there is uncertainty about the future working arrangement with the City. Facility upgrading would no doubt be viewed differently by the OHS if it were only to be responsible for humane society animals and not municipal animals in the future.

5. Current Contract Fees

Given the number of animals handled, and including a requirement to respond to sick and injured stray animals, we believe - subject to an accounting audit - that the OHS requests for fee increases of $83,500 in 2003 and $76,310 in 2004 appear reasonable. In 2001 the OHS received 6,773 stray dogs and cats and 985 animal carcasses, and was paid $485,000.

Prior to amalgamation in the late 1990's, the former City of Toronto had a similar sheltering arrangement with the Toronto Humane Society, which included response to sick and injured stray animals by the Humane Society. With a human population of approximately 634,000, and a comparable number of animals handled (to the amalgamated City of Ottawa), the Toronto Humane Society received $728,000.00 plus an additional $48,000 for cadaver disposal annually from the City of Toronto, and retained all impoundment and redemption revenues ranging between $30,000 and $40,000 annually.

Line Items

Some line items in the OHS budget, such as feeding and care of animals, are unquestionably part of pound operations. For some other line items, like Office Expenses, Allocations from Central Services, Computer Maintenance and Veterinary Services for example, we asked the OHS to explain and justify their allocations to municipal shelter (pound) operation.

The allocations in Exhibit #5 are the result of a joint review with the OHS, and reflect which of the OHS services are included in cost allocations to the City. While we believe that most items are a fair representation of how such expenses should be allocated, we question whether items such as Board of Directors expenses and Board and Annual meetings should be in the percentage of administrative costs charged to the City. This is an area that requires clarification through the financial audit.

The excluded items represent those budget items that do not represent a justifiable municipal shelter (pound) expense and are totally paid from OHS charitable revenues.

Although expenses incurred by the OHS in its attempt to find new homes for unredeemed municipal dogs and cats through its adoption program have not been included, it should be noted that adoption of unredeemed municipal animals reduces euthanasia and cadaver disposal costs to the City.

Exhibit# 5

Operating expense items for allocation

Operating Expense Partially or completely included Excluded & Comments

Fixed Costs:

Building financing, insurance X X

Property maintenance & repair X

Hydro X

Fuel X

Kennel operation and maintenance X

Telephone X

Direct Labour Costs:

Animal receiving and redemptions X

Feeding and care X

Emergency/health care X

Answering lost & found calls X

Cleaning & maintenance X

Adoption X

Cruelty Investigation & inspection X

Ambulance operation X

Material and Services Costs:

Feed, and litter X

Cleaning supplies X

Drugs and veterinary costs X

Records, forms etc. X

Spay/neuter program supplies X

Garbage and litter disposal X

Cadaver disposal X

Animal sterilizations X

Shelter store X

Office supplies X

Uniforms and equipment X

Overhead Costs:

Administration/Supervision X

Accounting & Clerical X As part of Admin

Board of Directors X As part of Admin

Annual meeting, Board meetings etc. X As part of Admin

Accounting X As part of Admin

Legal X As part of Admin

Fundraising X

Humane Society Programming X

Volunteer services X Except Fostering

Data processing X Proposed-not paid

Training Proposed-not paid

Debt service X

Contingency X

7. Staff allocations

Given the type of operation and the outdated facility, it is impossible to compare the OHS municipal animal (pound) services with similar programs elsewhere. We believe that the workloads for individuals with responsibility for municipal animal shelter (pound) operations are generally reasonable, although we wonder why so many different position descriptions with specific job functions are needed. In an agency like the OHS, which has both municipal animal shelter operation and humane society functions, and where staff responsibilities frequently overlap, it is always difficult to measure staff efficiencies unless staff are specifically assigned to a particular area in the facility. We nevertheless agree that it is desirable, and often more efficient, to be able to shift staff between activities.

However, having too many job categories can result in too much specialization, and that can lead to pigeon holing and inefficiencies. In today=s organizations it is becoming increasingly important to strive for maximum flexibility and to specialize only in those areas where such specialization is essential. At the OHS, except for the Foster Attendant (1) in Animal Adoptions, there are currently nine different positions which serve either or both the municipal (pound) shelter operation and the OHS adoption section. These are: Shelter Manager, Lead-hand, Dispatcher, Kennel Attendant, Assistant Technician, Technician, Service Rep., Behaviourist, and ID Person. Without completing a time-motion study it is difficult to determine to what extent each position is fully utilized, and to what extent staff time is appropriately allocated to municipal shelter (pound) operations.

We therefore recommend that the OHS be requested to provide the City with a staff position review, outlining specific duties and time allocations for each position as they apply to municipal sheltering operations.

As we have noted previously in this Report, staff savings are no doubt possible in a more efficiently designed facility.

8. Disposal of animal cadavers

In addition to the need to dispose of animals that are euthanized at the shelter, the OHS also accepts animal cadavers from other City Departments and from City residents and disposes of those cadavers. The OHS pays for this contracted disposal service on a flat-fee-per-pickup basis and not by cadaver weight.

9. Sick and injured strays

Sick and injured stray animals are municipal animals and should be included in municipal stray animal counts. Although it may be argued that the OHS has traditionally collected and cared for such animals, the fact that a straying animal, which would otherwise be subject to impoundment, gets injured does not change its status as a stray animal.

The OHS should be compensated for all costs incurred, including pick-up of such animals. Any expenses, including veterinary fees and medications incurred on behalf of such animals should be recovered from owners when such animals are redeemed, and all such monies collected should be forwarded to the City.

All municipal animals, including those which are sick or injured and which have not been redeemed by their owners at the end of the redemption period or at the conclusion of the isolation/observation period are either euthanized or become humane society animals,. If they are accepted by the OHS at that time, they should no longer be considered for municipal shelter (pound) cost calculations.

10. Per diem costs for housing stray animals

From a costs calculation perspective, it would be preferable to establish per diem costs for stray animals housed at the OHS. However, given the OHS facility and the potential for unknown changes in animal populations resulting from the City’s amalgamation and new harmonized Animal Care and Control By-law, we agree that it is virtually impossible at this time to arrive at a reasonable per diem cost.

It is a given that the OHS needs to provide the basic space and the supporting staff to accommodate the established municipal shelter (pound) operating hours, regardless of stray animal fluctuations.

11. Current average costs

We averaged current municipal animal services costs by applying the 2002 projected municipal shelter (pound) costs of $652,031 as calculated by OHS, less the reported redemption fees of $41,744, for a total of $610,287, against the number of stray dogs and cats for 2002 of 5,873 as reported (estimate) by the OHS. This provides us with an average cost for handling and housing each municipal stray of $103.81 in 2002. Using the same formula, the average handling/sheltering cost per municipal animal in 2000 was $56.74.

If the financial audit confirms that the OHS cost allocations for 1999 to 2002 to handle municipal animals are correct, the OHS would have subsidized each municipal animal in 1999 by $10.13, in 2000 by $18.17, in 2001 by $35.43 and in 2002 by $20.18.

V Recommendations

Following are our recommendations arising from this service audit. Some of the recommendations are interrelated. The recommendations have not been numbered in order of priority.

We recommend:

1. That the OHS continue to operate the Municipal Animal Shelter (Pound).

2. That the City and the OHS consider entering into a multi-year agreement for municipal animal sheltering services to provide stability to the municipal sheltering issue, and to permit the OHS to start planning for improvements or replacement of the existing OHS shelter.

We recognize the difficulties of negotiating such agreement. In the event that a multi- year agreement can not be concluded, we recommend that the City advise the OHS of its intentions about the future role of the OHS in providing municipal animal sheltering services for the City.

3. Subject to any recommendations from the financial audit, that the current practice of line by line negotiation of the Pound Service Agreement be replaced by a Flat Service Fee.

We believe that it might be more expedient for the City to simply outline which services are to be contracted out, and to negotiate a flat-fee with the OHS for the entire package without having to examine and determine how each line item of service cost impacts on the quoted fee.

We understand that in 1998, during negotiations between the area municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton and the OHS to arrive at a sheltering agreement, the OHS tied the contractual requirement to specific budget lines. However, in a facility with the layout and design of the OHS shelter, there are no definitive lines that separate the City from the OHS operation. When such services are provided in a joint facility, it is virtually impossible to track exact expenses for allocation.

We recommend that a basic formula be developed for the calculation of municipal contract fees. Such formula could become effective in 2004, and could be based on 2004 contract fees and a recent three-year average intake of municipal animals.

Following is an example of how such formula might work:

§ 2004 Base Contract Fee: $693,310.

(Note: This contract fee is used as an example only. The Base Fee should be determined through negotiations between the City and the OHS.)

§ Number of municipal animals cared for: 6,708 animals.

(Note: This is the 3-year average from 2000: 7,858 municipal animals; 2001: 6,393 municipal animals; 2002: est. 5,873 municipal animals)

In future years, such formula could subsequently be adjusted by:

a) tying fees to annual inflation; and

b) tying fees to animal intake fluctuations, with a fluctuation of +/-200 animals considered normal and not subject to fee adjustment.

In addition to inflationary increases, any changes in animal numbers in any year that go beyond a fluctuation of +/-200 animals could be subject to a fee adjustment in the following year. As an example, such adjustment could be $80.00 per animal.

This would adjust the formula as follows:

An increase of 250 municipal animals handled by the OHS in a year [50 over normal fluctuation] would increase the base of the formula from 6,708 animals to a total of 6,958 animals, and this would increase the agreement fee by $4,000.00 [50 x $80.00), while a decrease of 250 municipal animals handled in a year to 6,458 would decrease the fee by $4,000.00 [50 x $80.00].

This formula should be considered an example only, and actual numbers should be subject to negotiation. This formula is our suggestion how it could be possible to have the fee in the sheltering agreement between the City and the OHS reflect significant changes in animal volumes.

We are not aware that such formula, or any similar one, currently exists anywhere. However, we believe that such approach would benefit both the City as well as the OHS. On one hand, it would permit the OHS to be compensated for cost increases directly attributable to an increase in the number of sheltered municipal animals, while on the other hand, the City would benefit as more aggressive licensing enforcement results in more identifiable animals that can be taken home directly

when apprehended, thereby reducing the number of municipal animals needing to be sheltered.

4. That, subject to confirmation from the financial audit that the expenses allocated to each of the line items are correct, the OHS be granted the increases it is seeking for 2003 and 2004.

Granting such increases should be subject to:

i. A requirement for the OHS to respond to all sick and injured stray domestic animals, and to provide such animals with veterinary medical services as required by legislation;

ii. A requirement that the OHS provide the City with a protocol of how it will provide the services identified in 4i, including an outline how it will track costs associated with such services;

iii. A clarification in the Agreement when, and under what circumstances the OHS is required to respond to wildlife calls, and what subsequent services the OHS is expected to provide for such animals;

iv. Confirmation that the services identified in 4i and 4ii be provided by the OHS without further financial compensation from the City;

v. A requirement that the OHS specifically track all veterinary fees and medications for all stray animals, including those picked up sick or injured, for a period of one year and to supply such information to the City;

vi. Confirmation from the OHS that all permanent and part-time staff positions relating to the fostering of animals be deleted from the complement of staff used to calculate staff time devoted to municipal animals;

vii. A requirement that the OHS provide the City with a specific position review together with a more precise breakdown of the actual time allocations for sheltering staff, for which the City is paying 50%. (i.e.: How much of the following positions is devoted to municipal services: Dispatcher; Manager and Lead-hands; Behaviorist; ID Person and ID/Behaviorist).

5. That the current arrangements of partial credits and/or retention of any revenues collected as redemption/release fees, fees for veterinary services or medications, etc. and all other revenues collected by the OHS for municipal stray animals during the stray holding period be discontinued, and that all such funds collected be remitted to the City at intervals to be established. Where there are outstanding accounts for non-payment of veterinary medical fees, such accounts should be turned over by the OHS to the City which can decide whether to invoice the owners of animals on whose behalf such expenses have been incurred.

6. That the OHS be asked by the City to develop a Business Plan, that will identify:

§ the OHS long-term interest in municipal sheltering;

§ the OHS plans for stabilizing costs;

§ the OHS plans for improvement or replacement of the existing OHS shelter;

§ any capital costs to the City associated with improvement or replacement of the existing OHS shelter.

7. That all stray animals received from outside the City of Ottawa be treated the same as City of Ottawa stray animals, and that all redemption/release fees and any other fees collected on behalf of those animals be remitted to the City of Ottawa .

8. That a self-service opportunity be provided at the OHS shelter for individuals who have stray animals to drop off after hours, by providing a couple of secure, weather-proof drop-off kennels with doors that lock automatically and securely after animals have been deposited in such kennels.

9. That prior to considering a change to the current municipal sheltering hours, the OHS be requested to track the times when City residents request municipal services (stray intake or redemption) for a minimum of one month.

10. That the current municipal shelter (pound) hours be clearly posted at the entrances and other appropriate places at the OHS with an appropriate notation that they represent the contracted hours for the City Municipal Shelter.

POUND SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Agreement made in triplicate on the 10^th day of July, 2002

BETWEEN:

CITY OF OTTAWA

hereinafter called the “City”

-and-

OTTAWA HUMANE SOCIETY

hereinafter called the “Society”

WHEREAS the City was established on January 1, 2001 pursuant to the provisions of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999;

WHEREAS the old municipalities of the Township of Cumberland, the City of Gloucester, the Township of Goulbourn, the City of Kanata, the City of Nepean, the Township of Osgoode, the City of Ottawa, the Township of Rideau, the Village of Rockcliffe Park, the City of Vanier and the Township of West Carleton have enacted by-laws to provide for the regulation of animals within the City of Ottawa;

AND WHEREAS Section 5 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 provides that every by-law of an old municipality is deemed to be a by-law of the City;

AND WHEREAS the by-laws provide that animals may be delivered to the pound for purposes of impoundment or for observation;

AND WHEREAS the Ottawa Humane Society at 101 Champagne Avenue South in the City of Ottawa operates a pound that complies with Provincial legislation governing the certification of animal pounds;

AND WHEREAS the City wishes to purchase the pound services provided by the Ottawa Humane Society subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out (the “Pound Services”);

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the premises, covenants and agreements herein contained and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out, the parties hereto agree as follows:

DEFINITIONS

1. In this Agreement:

(a) "Contract Administrator" means the Director of By-law Services of the Emergency and Protective Services Department of the City of Ottawa, or his or her designate;

(b) "Euthanize" means the administration of drugs by injection with the intention of terminating life;

(d) "Municipal Officers" means the municipal staff authorized to act on behalf of the City for the purposes of administering and enforcing by-laws respecting animal control;

(e) "Observation Animal" means an animal that has been ordered by the Medical Officer of Health to be confined by the Ottawa Humane Society for observation to determine if it exhibits symptoms of rabies;

(f) "Observation Period" means the period of time in which an Observation Animal is ordered to be confined for observation by the Medical Officer of Health;

(g) "Pound" means the facility within the premises of the Ottawa Humane Society designated for the impoundment of Stray Animals and the confinement of Observation Animals and located at 101 Champagne Avenue South in the City of Ottawa;

(h) "Stray Animal" means any dog or cat that has been delivered to the Pound by the City or by any resident of the City of Ottawa who is not the owner of the animal;

(i) "Society" means the Ottawa Humane Society, its agents, officials and employees.

PURCHASE OF SERVICE

2. The City hereby agrees to purchase the Pound Services of the Society as hereinafter set out subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOCIETY

Receipt of Animals

3. The Society shall receive at the Pound in an expedient manner causing the least stress reasonably possible to the animals,

(a) every Stray Animal, except where the Pound is full and does not have the capacity to accept a Stray Animal,

(b) every Observation Animal, except in cases of extreme emergency resulting from zoological or epidemiological outbreak, under which circumstances the Society may, at its sole discretion, refuse an Observation Animal.

4. (a) The Society shall notify the City in writing forthwith when the Pound does not have the capacity to accept a Stray Animal, and shall outline the extenuating circumstances, if any, that have caused the Pound to be at capacity.

(b) When a notice has been issued pursuant to (a) above, the Society shall notify the City in writing forthwith when the Pound has the capacity again to accept Stray Animals.

General Care of Animals

5. The Society shall provide facilities and care for Stray Animals and Observation Animals in accordance with:

(a) the provisions of the Animals For Research Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 22 and its Regulations,

(b) the Pounds Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chap. P. 17 and its Regulations, and

shall, upon the City’s request, provide access to such facilities for purposes of inspection by the Contract Administrator or agent(s) appointed by him or her.

6. The Society shall report forthwith to the Medical Officer of Health any instances of animals:

(a) with a zoonotic disease passing through or being kept in the Society's facilities;

(b) biting humans of which the Society has knowledge.

Care and Handling of Stray Animals

7. The Society shall:

(a) make all reasonable efforts to identify and contact the owner of every Stray Animal, living or dead, received by it;

(b) except as provided for in (c), keep every Stray Animal for 72 hours, excluding the day on which the Stray Animal is impounded and any day on which the Pound is not open to the public, at the end of which period, unless claimed by the owner, the Society may keep or dispose of the animal at its sole discretion;

(c) despite (b), euthanize and dispose of any Stray Animal prior to the expiration of 72 hours if, in the opinion of a duly licensed veterinarian, it is advisable to do so and where reasonable efforts to locate the owner of the animal have failed;

(d) provide veterinary care to Stray Animals as required.

Care and Handling of Observation Animals

8. The Society shall:

(a) keep every Observation Animal for the Observation Period as follows:

(i) dogs shall be kept in a fully enclosed room, which is not accessible to the public unless authorized and accompanied by a staff member of the Society and which shall be accessible to a run which is suitable for the exercise of very large dogs;

(ii) cats shall be kept in a fully enclosed room which is not accessible to the public unless authorized and accompanied by a staff member of the Society;

(b) euthanize and dispose of an Observation Animal in accordance with the direction of the Medical Officer of Health if, in the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health, it has contracted rabies;

(c) arrange for the release of an Observation Animal to its owner at the Society's facilities if, at the end of the Observation Period, it is the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health that the animal has not contracted rabies;

(d) keep, euthanize or dispose of an Observation Animal at the Society's sole discretion if, at the end of the Observation Period, it is the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health that the animal has not contracted rabies, and the Observation Animal is a Stray Animal whose owner has not been identified;

(e) at the request of the Medical Officer of Health, euthanize any Observation Animal and arrange for the removal of its head for transport to Agriculture Canada for rabies testing within 24 hours of receiving the Medical Officer of Health's request.

9. (a) The Society shall not euthanize an Observation Animal without the concurrence of the Medical Officer of Health.

(b) Where the Medical Officer of Health has concurred, the Society shall euthanize the animal and arrange for the removal of its head for transport to Agriculture Canada for rabies testing within 24 hours of receiving the Medical Officer of Health’s concurrence.

10. (a) The Society shall keep treatment and cost records in respect of all Observation Animals in accordance with the College of Veterinarians of Ontario standards.

(b) The Society shall provide the Medical Officer of Health with copies of said records upon request.

Hours of Operation

11. (a) Except as provided for in (b), the Society shall ensure that the Pound is open to receive Stray Animals and Observation Animals from the public and from Municipal Officers, and to return Stray Animals and Observation Animals to their owners, on the following days and at all the times following:

• Monday to Friday, 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m.

• Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

• Sunday, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

(b) Despite (a), the Pound may be closed to the public on statutory holidays, and under exceptional circumstances such as fire, flood or power failure.

(c) The Society shall grant Municipal Officers access to the Pound at all other times to deliver Stray Animals and Observation Animals in accordance with mutually acceptable arrangements that may from time to time be made.

Sale of Dog Licenses and Collection of Other Revenues

12. The Society shall:

(a) sell:

(i) City of Ottawa dog licenses to all persons who claim an unlicensed dog or who adopt a dog through the Society’s Adoption Centre;

(ii) City of Ottawa cat identification tags, upon client request;

(b) collect the pound release fee set by the Council of the City from all owners of claimed Stray Animals, except where the Society has asked the City and the City has agreed to waive or reduce the pound release fee payable, or where the Society has made all reasonable efforts to contact the City and has not been successful in doing so but, has cause to waive or reduce the pound release fee;

13. The Society shall submit to the City:

(a) by the last day of each month:

(i) a completed Pound Activity Report, as set out in Schedule A or as otherwise agreed to by the City, for the preceding calendar month;

(ii) all license fees, pound release fees and boarding fees collected on behalf of the City during the preceding calendar month, with the exception of license fees collected for dogs adopted through the Society’s Adoption Centre, which may be retained by the Society but, which must be reflected in the Pound Activity Report identified in (a) and will be considered to be a contribution by the City towards the cost of pound services;

(b) at the end of the calendar year, a report of the veterinary and medical costs recovered from owners of claimed Stray Animals for the year, one-half of which is collected on behalf of the City. Although the Society may retain those funds, they will be considered to be a contribution by the City towards the cost of pound services.

Access to Pound by Municipal Officers

14. The Society shall grant to Municipal Officers:

(a) access to the Pound including reception, ancillary and administrative areas;

(b) access to Society staff for information relevant to the services provided under this Agreement, including animal identification databases, animal reception and disposition records, and point-of-service information;

(c) the use of specialized equipment while at the Pound which the Society may have available, including microchip scanners, restraint equipment, and clean-up supplies.

Financial Statements and Accounts

15. (a) The Society shall keep, in accordance with accepted accounting practice, such proper accounts, records, receipts, vouchers, and documents as will verify to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator the information provided in Pound Activity Reports, and the remittances of license revenues, release fees and boarding fees in accordance with this Agreement.

(b) The Society shall make such accounts, records, receipts, vouchers and documents available to the Contract Administrator on request.

(c) An Auditor designated in writing by the Contract Administrator may audit, inspect and copy accounts, records, receipts, vouchers, and other documents relating to the services provided under this Agreement, and the Society shall make available said materials for such audits and inspections until the expiration of two (2) years from the date of termination of this Agreement.

(d) The Society shall submit to the Contract Administrator:

(i) a copy of its audited financial statements for 2001 by the end of March, 2002

(ii) a copy of its audited financial statements for 2002 by the end of March, 2003.

Indemnification

16. The Society agrees to save harmless and indemnify the City, its officials, employees, successors and assigns, from and against loss or theft of money or securities; all claims, demands, causes of action, loss, expenses, costs or damages that the City may suffer, incur or be liable for resulting from the obligations and performance of the Society, its directors, officers and employees, as set out in the agreement.

Insurance

17. The Society shall during the term of this Agreement, at its own expense, provide and maintain the under listed insurance coverage:

a) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance subject to limits of not less than $2,000,000 inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property including loss of use thereof. Such insurance shall be in the name of the Society and shall name the City as an additional insured thereunder;

b) Motor Vehicle liability insurance subject to limits of not less that $1,000,000 inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property including loss thereof;

c) Professional Liability Insurance coverage to limits of not less than $50,000 per claim, to an annual aggregate limit of $250,000. Such insurance shall insure against claims for damages arising out of or by reason of any acts, errors and omissions directly or indirectly, which are provided by the Society, as set out in the Agreement;

d) Crime Insurance to include; Employee Dishonesty insurance in the form of a Commercial Blanket Fidelity Bond (Form A). The fidelity bond shall provide indemnification resulting from the fraudulent or dishonest acts of the Society and all its employees in relationship to the services provided by the Agreement. The fidelity bond shall be in the amount of $20,000.00 for any one loss and shall include a third party indemnification clause; and Broad Form Money and Securities insurance in respect to loss or destruction of money and securities inside the premises to a limit not less than $20,000 per incident;

e) such insurance policies shall contain an endorsement to provide all named insureds and additional insureds with thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation;

f) evidence of insurance satisfactory to the Contract Administrator shall be provided prior to the execution of the Agreement.

Change in Operations or Status

18. The Society shall notify the Contract Administrator in writing immediately upon any change in the operation or status of the Society during the term of this Agreement which may adversely affect the fulfilment of the Agreement, including but not limited to:

(a) the bankruptcy or insolvency of the Society;

(b) a proceeding for the dissolution, liquidation, or winding up of the affairs of the Society;

Sole Cost to Society

19. The Society agrees to supply at its sole cost and expense all staff, equipment, accommodations and technical assistance necessary to perform the services to be furnished by it under this Agreement and to assume all overhead expenses in connection therewith.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY

Administration

20. The City shall:

(a) determine the pet license/identification fees and pound release fees that are to be collected by the Society from owners of Stray Animals claimed from the Pound, and authorize the Society to collect such fees;

(b) accept and verify, on a monthly basis, the fees collected on their behalf by the Society, and report any discrepancies to the Society within thirty (30) days of receipt;

(c) make available to the Society any relevant municipal reports, background information, data, and other materials relevant to the services to be provided under this Agreement which are in their possession and, at reasonable times, staff members for the purposes of any necessary consultation.

Handling of Observation Animals

21. The City shall:

(a) prior to delivering an owned animal to the Society as an Observation Animal, endeavour to have the owner confine the Observation Animal at home or at a private veterinary facility;

(b) upon the delivery of an Observation Animal to the Society, provide, where possible, the history of the animal, to the extent known, together with written documentation describing the circumstances resulting in the animal's confinement for observation.

Indemnification

22. The City agrees to save harmless and indemnify the Society, its directors, officers and employees from and against all claims, demands, causes of action, loss, expenses, costs or damages that the Society may suffer, incur or be liable for resulting from the obligations and performance of the City, its officials, employees successor and assigns, as set out in the agreement.

Compensation

23. (a) The City shall pay to the Society, for the year 2002, Five Hundred and Thirty Three Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($533,500.00), said amount to be paid in twelve equal monthly instalments of Forty-Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty-Eight Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($44,458.33) with payments being due on the first day of every month during the term of the Agreement.

(b) For the month of January 2003, payment shall be in the amount of Forty-Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty-Eight Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($44,458.33). Any change in the negotiated total amount for the Pound Service Agreement for the year 2003, or beyond, shall be retroactive to January 1^st, 2003.

24. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is subject to the availability of funds within the 2002 budget approved by the Council of the City of Ottawa.

JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES

25. The City and the Society agree to make the Public Enquiry/Complaints Procedure set out in Schedule B available to any party who has a complaint about the Pound.

26. The City and the Society agree to meet on a quarterly basis, or at the call of the Contract Administrator or the Society, to discuss and resolve any issues arising from the fulfilment of this Agreement.

TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

27. (a) The City may terminate this Agreement by giving four months’ written notice to the Society, provided that, if there is a breach of any provision of this Agreement by the Society, the City may terminate the Agreement upon one month’s written notice to the Society.

(b) The Society may terminate this Agreement by giving four months’ written notice to the City, provided that, if there is a breach of any provision of this Agreement by the City, the Society may terminate this Agreement upon one month’s written notice to the City.

NOTIFICATION

28. (a) Any notice herein required to be given under this Agreement shall be delivered by hand, fax, e-mail or pre-paid courier to:

FOR THE CITY:

Director

By-law Services

City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

FOR THE SOCIETY:

Executive Director

Ottawa Humane Society

101 Champagne Avenue South

Ottawa, Ontario K1S 4P3

(b) Either party may give notice to the other of a change of address and thereafter such changed address shall be substituted for the address set out in (a).

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

29. (a) This Agreement shall jointly and severally enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Society hereto, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns.

(b) This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City, its successors and assigns.

TERM OF AGREEMENT

30. Subject to Section 24, this Agreement shall be in force and effect from the 1st day of January, 2002 to the 31st day of January, 2003.

SHORT TITLE

31. This Agreement shall be known as the Pound Services Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto affixed their corporate seals attested to by the hands of their respective proper signing officers in that behalf duly authorized.

FOR THE CITY OF OTTAWA

Steve Kanellakos

General Manager

Emergency and Protective Services

I HAVE AUTHORITY TO BIND THE CITY PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 50 OF 2000

FOR THE OTTAWA HUMANE SOCIETY

Bruce Roney

Executive Director

I HAVE AUTHORITY TO BIND THE SOCIETY

Proposal to Provide

Stray Animal

Shelter Services

for the

City of Ottawa

2003 to 2005

The Ottawa Humane Society

Our Mission is: “To encourage people to take responsibility for their animal companions, to provide leadership in the humane treatment of all animals, and to provide care for neglected, abused or exploited animals”

Prepared and Submitted by

Bruce Roney 725-3166 ext. 232

November 2002

A. Benefits Derived by the City of Ottawa

B. Issues raised by the City of Ottawa

1. Pound Facilities Inspection………

C. Ottawa Humane Society Issues

1. Shelter and Capital

2. Database and Statistics

3. Public Information…

D. Statistical Report

E. Costs, Cost projections and Proposed Budget for 2002

1. Discussion and Budget Background

a. Staffing costs

b. Statistics collection

c. Computer network maintenance

d. Staff training and development

e. Veterinary services and medication

f. Food and litter

g. Carcass disposal

h. Cleaning supplies

i. Uniforms

j. Equipment purchases and repairs

k. Office expenses (printing, supplies, telephone)

l. Allocation from Central Services (Administration)

m. Allocation from Premises

n. Contingency

o. Amortization of Buildings

p. Funding Received or Requested

2. Historical Costs and Proposed Budget

F. Appendices

a) Negotiated percentages of Shelter Budget

A. Benefits Derived by the City of Ottawa

Beyond the public association with a respected organisation that enjoys the direct support of over 30,000 residents, and the goodwill of many more, the stray animal shelter contract with the OHS provides the City of Ottawa with numerous fiscal benefits:

ü Staffing costs at the OHS are a fraction of those at the City

ü Over 30,000 hours of volunteer time supplement the Society’s services for the City in areas such as dog walking

ü The Society is a major vendor of City dog licences and cat identification tags

ü The Society is able to generate in-kind donations of goods and services by individuals and corporations that would not likely be available to the City

ü Owner surrender of over 2,000 animals annually that might otherwise end up as stray

ü The purchase of service agreement provides the City flexibility to address changing needs on an annual basis

ü Economies of scale

In addition, the Society currently performs a number of services for the residents of Ottawa. Among them are:

ü Animal cruelty investigations

ü Emergency response services for injured strays, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

ü Wildlife transportation for the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre

ü Bird transportation for the Wild Bird Care Centre

ü Public information and education

ü Professional adoption services

ü On-call for Medical Officer of Health 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

ü Held in trust for Sheriff evictions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for over 500 animals annually

ü Companion Animals Program for seniors

B. Issues raised by the City of Ottawa:

1. SAS Facilities Inspection

In our 2001 documents, the OHS informed the City that provincial government no longer conducts SAS inspections. We subsequently corresponded to correct that information. Though only minimally active, we received an inspection in the Summer of 2002. No concerns were raised. A copy of the report is attached.

C. Ottawa Humane Society Issues

1. Shelter and Capital

2. Database and Statistics

The Society is incurring a significant one-time license fee and annual renewal/maintenance contract to upgrade our database. Providing the City reliable information is one reason for the expenditure. The City needs to assume some of the cost, either directly or through a realignment of administrative funding. Fifty percent of the costs of the system are reflected in our cost estimates for 2002 forward.

3. Public Information

We believe the City and the Society must work more co-operatively on a public information program on such important messages as: Where to look for lost pets; what to do if they find a lost pet; that rabies vaccinations are mandatory; that cats should be under control and have identification. As well, a number of years ago, either the former region or former City of Ottawa placed a sign on Carling Avenue. (since removed) It represented the shelter as a ‘dog prison’ and was not acceptable. The City should post more signage directing the public to the shelter. The Society will incur the design costs.

D. Statistical Analysis

Year	Stray and Impounded Dogs	Stray and Impounded Cats	Dogs and Cats Combined	Overall Euthanasia Rate*
1995	2225	3614	5839	42%
1996	2507	4431	6938	46%
1997	2390	4006	6396	44%
1998	2312	4303	6615	38%
1999	2505	4880	7385	33%
2000	2857	5001	7858	34%
2001	2638	3755	6393	39%
2002 (Est.)	1750	4123	5873	40%

* Includes owner surrender and owner-requested euthanasia. Before 2002, we were unable to track euthanasia separately for strays

E. Discussion, Budget Background and Proposed Budget for 2003-04

1. Discussion and Budget Background

a. Staff Costs

The Society’s staff are represented by the same CUPE local as the City and the former region. The OHS signed a new collective agreement with the union two years ago. The new agreement added six percent to our staffing costs in 2002. (The 2002 increase is 4%, in addition to a 2% unfunded increase for 2001) The current agreement expires on January 1, 2003.

b. Statistics collection

Statistics collection has been rolled into administrative costs.

c. Computer network maintenance

Computer network maintenance is rolled into administrative costs.

d. Staff training and development

The Society has developed a standard budgeting formula for staff training to ensure that staff across the OHS receives an appropriate level of training and professional development. Traditionally, this has been seriously underfunded.

e. Veterinary services and medication

Rising standards in animal care at the OHS and animal service providers in general as well as significant increases to the cost of medications have led to increases in our costs for equipment, medication and veterinary care. This said, the OHS has negotiated more favourable arrangements with a number of suppliers.

f. Food and litter

Food and litter are increasing at a rate consistent with inflation and increased numbers of animals. Reductions in cost through community partnerships are not reflected. This is because:

· they are not permanent

· the development of the partnerships themselves has a cost

· these savings are, to a great extent, the reason the Society can offer the City the SAS at below cost.

g. Carcass disposal

Carcass disposal costs are increasing at a rate consistent with inflation.

h. Cleaning supplies

Cleaning supply purchasing has been rationalized between premises and the stray animal shelter, resulting in the SAS portion being reduced.

i. Uniforms

A union grievance regarding footwear and the implementation of name badges resulted in increased uniform costs for 2001. Only a portion of this increase carried into 2002 and beyond.

j. Equipment purchases and repairs

Under-budgeting in this area has resulted in a need to ‘catch-up’ with needed equipment purchases and repairs for such things as mops, buckets, carts, medical equipment etc.

k. Office expenses (printing, supplies, telephone)

This expense is an amount directly related to the Shelter. This has historically been severely under budgeted. Telephones throughout the Society have been allocated by department, rather than paid through central services.

l. Allocation from Central Services (Administration)

Historically, the budget supporting our agreements with the City add 10% of the Society’s total administrative costs and includes separate line items for ‘computer network maintenance’ and ‘statistics collection’. It is more customary in purchase of service agreements to simply add 10% to the total service cost for administration. This method is better for both the City and the Society. This way, the administrative costs are tied directly to the amount of service purchased, protecting the City from excessive increases and the Society from an erosion of the percentage over time.

Please note that the Society has purchased Chameleon as our new database software. It is used to track animals for lost and found, care, investigation and statistical purposes and produces statistics and reports that the City requires. It is costly, not only for the initial installation and licence fee, but also on an annual basis. If the City does not accept the principle of a straight percentage for administration, one-third of the annual fee needs to be reflected in the contract.

m. Allocation from Premises

The stray animals shelter portion of our premises has been fixed at 30 percent which represents the percentage of square footage of building allocated to SAS, less property taxes, as in previous years. “Premises” refers to the cost of building repair and maintenance only – no capital improvements or amortization are included on this line.

n. Contingency

In past years, the Society has considered contingencies related to the SAS a part of the City’s responsibility and therefore a part of its ‘account’’ when calculating our costs. The Society now feels that it should either absorb or discuss any exceptional circumstances or contingencies with the City as they occur, as is more common in a purchase of service contract.

o. Amortization of Buildings

The OHS has never received funding to cover amortisation of that portion of the building housing the SAS, but it should have been doing so as the building requires substantial capital improvement annually in order to meet minimal standards and will need replacement in the future. For these reasons, amortisation of buildings is shown below the subtotal line to enable comparability between funding years. Amortisation of our building is calculated at 2.5% per annum on a straight-line basis. Our building is 30% amortised. Currently, the City provides a property tax credit on the Shelter portion of the building only.

p. Funding Received or Requested

Prior to 2002, the City had not negotiated a fee increase for SAS services in 3 years.

2. Historical Costs and Proposed Budget

	EXPENDITURE	ACTUAL 1999	ACTUAL 2000	ACTUAL 2001	PROJECTED 2002	ESTIMATED 2003 *	ESTIMATED 2004 *

a.	Staff cost (Wages and Benefits)	352,700	375,970	441,188	388,957	404,515	420,696
b.	Statistics collection (Database)	9,500	10,000	0	10,880	10,880	10,880
c.	Computer network maintenance	6,000	8,000	0	0	0	0
d.	Staff training and development	1,128	2,356	4,799	2,852	2,909	2,967
e.	Veterinary services and medication	77,068	101,088	85,732	72,065	73,506	74,976
f.	Food and litter	11,099	15,168	19,800	17,354	17,701	18,055
g.	Carcass disposal	16,151	17,885	21,926	24,419	24,907	25,406
h.	Cleaning supplies	2,919	2,747	1,501	1,659	1,692	1,726
I.	Uniforms	2,092	1,655	4,376	1,460	1,489	1,519
j.	Equipment purchases and repairs	1,441	2,255	2,227	1,626	1,659	1,692
k.	Office expenses (Printing, supplies, telephone)	4,520	7,785	15,020	11,134	11,357	11,584
l.	Allocation from Central Services	25,776	30,542	58,163	53,021	54,081	55,163
m.	Allocation from Premises	25,824	36,276	40,768	50,558	51,569	52,601
n.	Contingency	7,515	0	0	0	0	0
	SUBTOTAL	543,733	611,727	695,500	635,985	656,266	677,264
o.	Amortization of Buildings (50%)	16,046	16,046	16,046	16,046	16,046	16,046
	TOTAL	559,779	627,773	711,546	652,031	672,312	693,310
p.	Funding Received or Requested	485,000	485,000	485,000	533,500	617,000	693,310

q.	SAS-Related Shortfall	(74,779)	(142,773)	(226,546)	(118,531)	(55,312)	(0)

* 4% added to salary and benefits annually to cover committed, 2% added to all other lines for inflation.

Appendix 1: Negotiated percentage allocation of shelter costs: (Negotiated in the late 90’s)

	EXPENDITURE	City %

a.	Staff cost (Wages and Benefits)	50%
b.	Statistics collection (Database)	50%
c.	Computer network maintenance	50%
d.	Staff training and development	50%
e.	Veterinary services and medication	80%
f.	Food and litter	75%
g.	Carcass disposal	90%
h.	Cleaning supplies	50%
I.	Uniforms	50%
j.	Equipment purchases and repairs	59%
k.	Office expenses (Printing, supplies, telephone)	59%
l.	Identification	0%
m.	Cat Carriers	0%
n.	Microchips	0%
o.	Small Animal Supplies	0%

Proposal to Provide

Stray Animal

Shelter Services

for the

City of Ottawa

2002-2004

The Ottawa Humane Society

Prepared and Submitted by

Bruce Roney 725-3166 ext. 232

A. Benefits Derived by the City of Ottawa

B. Issues raised by the City of Ottawa

1. OHS Stability

2. Pound Facilities Inspection

3. Notification of the Ministry of Health, Regional Medical Officer of Health

4. Identification and Contact of Animal Owners

5. Hours of Operation

6. Reports Submitted to the City

7. Access to Databases

8. Quarterly Meetings

C. Ottawa Humane Society Issues

1. Shelter and Capital

2. Database and Statistics

3. Public Information

D. Statistical Analysis

E. Costs, Cost projections and Proposed Budget for 2002

1. Discussion and Budget Background

a. Staffing costs

b. Statistics collection

c. Computer network maintenance

d. Staff training and development

e. Veterinary services and medication

f. Food and litter

g. Carcass disposal

h. Cleaning supplies

i. Uniforms

j. Equipment purchases and repairs

k. Office expenses (printing, supplies, telephone)

l. Allocation from Central Services (Administration)

m. Allocation from Premises

n. Contingency

o. Amortization of Buildings

p. Funding Received or Requested

q. SAS- related Shortfall

2. Historical Costs and Proposed Budget

A. Benefits Derived by the City of Ottawa

ü Staffing costs at the OHS are a fraction of those at the City

ü Over 30,000 hours of volunteer time supplement the Society’s services for the City

ü The Society is a major vendor of City dog licences and cat identification tags

ü The Society is able to generate in-kind donations of goods and services by individuals and corporations that would not likely be available to the City

ü The purchase of service agreement provides the City flexibility to address changing needs on an annual basis

ü Economies of scale

In addition, the Society currently performs a number of services for the residents of Ottawa. Among them are:

ü Animal cruelty investigations

ü Emergency response services for injured strays, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

ü Wildlife transportation for the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre

ü Bird transportation for the Wild Bird Centre

ü Public information and education

ü Professional adoption services

ü On-call for Medical Officer of Health 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

ü Held in trust for Sheriff evictions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

ü Companion Animals Program for seniors

B. Issues raised by the City of Ottawa:

2. OHS Stability

The Society has taken many steps to ensure our corporate stability in the areas of governance, management and finance:

To ensure board stability, a major review of our corporate by-laws was undertaken in 2000. The resulting revisions, passed in February of 2001 ensure that we are in full compliance with the Corporations Act. The term limits of Directors was changed from one year to a maximum of two 2-year terms on a staggered re-election schedule. Thus, only one-half of the Directors stand for re-election in any given year.

In 1999 and 2000, the Society developed clear policies regarding the roles, responsibility and authority of the board versus the Executive Director. The strategic and other planning that the Society engages in will ensure a vision and direction that is not dependent on that of the incumbents in any role.

The finances of the Society have been stable for a number of years. The operating fund has shown a surplus or deficit of less than 2% for 3 years running.

In addition, the Society recently signed a two-year collective agreement with CUPE Local 531.

3. SAS Facilities Inspection

The provincial government no longer conducts SAS inspections. The Ottawa Humane Society engaged the services of the Humane Society of the United States to provide a comprehensive assessment of all of our services early in 2001. The report, which was received in August, is expected to be a major tool in our planning for the next several years.

Should the City require additional service reviews and/or outcome measurement beyond SAS statistics, the associated costs must be borne by the City.

4. Notification of the Ministry of Health, Regional Medical Officer of Health

No concerns have been raised regarding our reporting or record keeping regarding disease.

5. Identification and Contact of Animal Owners

Substantial progress has been made in increasing the number of dogs reunited with their owners. The return rate went up from 46 percent in 1998 to 56 percent so far in 2001. In the first quarter of 2001, our lost and found matched 62 dogs to their owners prior to the dog’s admission, resulting in significant cost savings.

Despite efforts, the number of cats reunited with their owners remains at 4%. The passage of progressive by-laws in this area would be expected to dramatically increase this percentage.

The City could assist the community in increasing both the number of dogs and cats by partnering in the Society’s microchipping programs by providing such things as publicity and locations.

Further access to the City’s database for dog licences would assist us in improving further. At minimum, when an officer apprehends a dog with a licence, he/she should obtain a name and telephone number from City dispatch prior to admitting the animal to the shelter.

6. Hours of Operation

The Stray Animal Shelter operating hours are a significant concern to the OHS and the public. The current contract hours are 12 noon till 7 PM weekdays, 10 AM to 5 PM Saturdays and 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM Sundays.

The OHS studied the hours that OHS staff was providing services in a one-week period in September. Eighteen percent of customers served were outside the contracted hours. Only one individual was known to have left without being served.

This is a major public relations problem for the Society and the City. The City must take responsibility for either funding the service in the busy 8 AM to 12 noon period or must take responsibility with the public for the decision not to provide the service.

It is important to note that the number of stray animals received from by-law has fallen to only 30% of dogs and 16% of cats. Clearly, investment in supporting the OHS and those good citizens among the public who are reducing the work of by-law is crucial.

7. Reports Submitted to the City

The Society acknowledges that reporting has been late or deficient and that some licence and claim fees have been significantly delayed.

The Society is taking a number of steps to improve our systems by upgrading our accounting software in the summer of 2001 and upgrading our database in November of 2001. Other improvements are currently underway to our practices for tracking and reporting both the fees and the animal statistics. The changes are expected to produce enhanced results in early 2002.

It is important to note that some former municipal payments to the Society have also been delayed by as much as 6 months and amalgamated city payments by 2 months.

8. Access to Databases

The Society welcomes access and integration of City and OHS databases. The needs of the community and the animals are better served with multiple access to one registry.

The Chameleon software that the Society is moving to in November allows remote access either by a landline or mobile modem.

The Society strongly recommends that the City’s use of its own lost and found database be discontinued. Two lost and found registries will serve only to frustrate the public and result in fewer, not greater numbers of animals reunited with their families. Alternatively, the City and the Society should meet in early 2002 to discuss integration of databases and technology.

There is a possibility to partner with the City in a “Volunteer Action On-line” proposal the Society is developing.

9. Quarterly Meetings

The Society strongly feels that since amalgamation, our relationship with the City is greatly enhanced.

Formal quarterly meetings should continue to be scheduled but cannot take the place of the excellent day-to-day working relationships that City and Society staff now enjoy.

F. Ottawa Humane Society Issues

4. Shelter and Capital

Owing to age as well as animal and staff space pressure, it is clear that the Society requires a new shelter. This becomes a significant burden, as the City has never compensated the OHS for capital depreciation on our building. While we recognise that the City has both budget and political concerns, the Society believes that there can be creative solutions found as has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions.

5. Database and Statistics

6. Public Information

We believe the City and the Society must work co-operatively on a public information program on such important messages as: Where to look for lost pets; what to do if they find a lost pet; that rabies vaccinations are mandatory; that cats need to be under control and have identification. As well, a number of years ago, either the former region or former City of Ottawa placed a sign on Carling Avenue. (since removed) It represented the shelter as a ‘dog prison’ and was not acceptable. The City should post more signage directing the public to the shelter. The Society will incur the design costs.

G. Statistical Analysis

The numbers of stray and impounded animals at the Society have increased by an average of 5.5% over the last six years:

	Stray and Impounded Dogs	Stray and Impounded Cats	Dogs and Cats Combined	% Increase
1995	2225	3614	5839	-
1996	2507	4431	6938	8.4 %
1997	2390	4006	6396	(9.2%)
1998	2312	4303	6615	9.7 %
1999	2505	4880	7385	8.5 %
2000	2857	5001	7858	9.4%

H. Discussion, Budget Background and Proposed Budget for 2002

2. Discussion and Budget Background

f. Staff Costs

The Society signed a new collective agreement with our staff and their representatives, CUPE Local 531. The new agreement will add six percent to our staffing costs in 2002. (The 2002 increase is 4%, in addition to a 2% unfunded increase for 2001)

In addition, increases in contagious disease and industry-wide rising animal care standards, combined with the increased numbers of animals in our care has resulted in the need for one additional F.T.E. in cleaning and kennel support and 0.5 F.T.E. for veterinary technician support.

The staffing costs for 2002 also include providing services to the public between the hours of 8 AM and 7 PM weekdays.

g. Statistics collection

Statistics collection has been rolled into administrative costs.

h. Computer network maintenance

Computer network maintenance is rolled into administrative costs.

i. Staff training and development

j. Veterinary services and medication

Rising standards in animal care at the OHS and animal service providers in general as well as significant increases to the cost of medications has led to increases in our costs for equipment, medication and veterinary care.

f. Food and litter

Food and litter are increasing at a rate consistent with inflation and increased numbers of animals. Reductions in cost through community partnerships are not reflected. This is because:

· they are not permanent

· the development of the partnerships themselves has a cost

· these savings are, to a great extent, the reason the Society can offer the City the SAS at below cost.

q. Carcass disposal

Carcass disposal costs are increasing at a rate consistent with inflation and increased numbers of animals.

r. Cleaning supplies

Cleaning supply purchasing has been rationalized between premises and the stray animal shelter, resulting in the SAS portion being reduced.

s. Uniforms

A union grievance regarding footwear and the implementation of name badges resulted in increased uniform costs for 2001. Only a portion of this increase will carry into 2002.

t. Equipment purchases and repairs

Under-budgetting in this area has resulted in a need to ‘catch-up’ with needed equipment purchases and repairs for such things as mops, buckets, carts, medical equipment etc. These costs are expected to stabilize over time.

u. Office expenses (printing, supplies, telephone)

v. Allocation from Central Services (Administration)

The budget supporting our current agreement adds 10% of the Society’s total administrative costs and includes separate line items for ‘computer network maintenance’ and ‘statistics collection’. It is more customary in purchase of service agreements to simply add 10% to the total service cost for administration. This method is better for both the City and the Society. This way, the administrative costs are tied directly to the amount of service purchased, protecting the City from excessive increases and the Society from an erosion of the percentage over time.

Please note that the Society has agreed to purchase Chameleon as our new database software. It will be used to track animals for lost and found, care, investigation and statistical purposes. Eventually it will allow remote public access through the internet for adoptions and lost and found. It is costly, not only for the initial installation and licence fee, but also on an annual basis. If the City does not accept the principle of a straight percentage for administration, one-third of the annual fee needs to be reflected in the contract.

w. Allocation from Premises

x. Contingency

y. Amortization of Buildings

The HSOC has never requested funding to cover amortisation of that portion of the building housing the SAS, but it should have been doing so as the building requires substantial capital improvement annually and will need replacement in the future. For these reasons, amortisation of buildings is shown below the subtotal line to enable comparability between funding years. Amortisation of our building is calculated at 2.5% per annum on a straight-line basis. Our building is 30% amortised.

z. Funding Received or Requested

City funding for SAS services has not increased in 3 years. The agreement was extended in 2001to allow for amalgamation to be completed.

aa. SAS- related Shortfall

The amount paid by the City for the SAS agreement has remained the same while Society expenses have increased, the shortfall has risen considerably in the last three years. This cannot be sustained. The Society is proposing 10% annual increases each year of the life of the agreement to return the Society’s SAS-related shortfall to just below the 1999 level.

2. Historical Costs and Proposed Budget

	EXPENDITURE	ACTUAL 1999	ACTUAL 2000	PROJECTED 2001	2002	2003	2004

a.	Staff cost (Wages and Benefits)	352,700	375,970	392,560	445,928	445,928	445,928
b.	Statistics collection	9,500	10,000	10,000	In Central	In Central	In Central
c.	Computer network maintenance	6,000	8,000	8,100	In Central	In Central	In Central
d.	Staff training and development	1,128	2,356	5,800	6,200	6,200	6,200
e.	Veterinary services and medication	77,068	101,088	82,240	84,000	84,000	84,000
f.	Food and litter	11,099	15,168	19,800	19,800	19,800	19,800
g.	Carcass disposal	16,151	17,885	18,900	19,850	19,850	19,850
h.	Cleaning supplies	2,919	2,747	1,593	1,600	1,600	1,600
I.	Uniforms	2,092	1,655	4,050	3,000	3,000	3,000
j.	Equipment purchases and repairs	1,441	2,255	2,625	3,400	3,400	3,400
k.	Office expenses (printing and supplies, telephone)	4,520	7,785	10,808	7,500	7,500	7,500
l.	Allocation from Central Services	25,776	30,542	29,619	61,481	61,481	61,481
m.	Allocation from Premises	25,824	36,276	38,652	40,000	40,000	40,000
n.	Contingency	7,515	nil	nil	removed	removed	removed

	SUBTOTAL	543,733	611,727	624,747	692,759	692,759	692,759

o.	Amortization of Buildings (50%)	16,046	16,046	16,046	16,046	16,046	16,046

	TOTAL	559,779	627,773	640,793	708,805	708,805	708,805

p.	Funding Received or Requested	485,000	485,000	485,000	533,500	586,850	645,535

q.	SAS-Related Shortfall	-74,779	-142,773	-155,793	-175,305	-121,955	-63,270