Randy O. Colbry
Prosecuting Attorney
Shiawassee County
Michigan
LEGAL OPINION
RE: DOG LICENSE FEES
In 1973 Section 29a was added to the dog law of 1919. MCL 287.29a provides as follows:
Sec 29a. The board of county commissioners by ordinance may establish an animal control agency which shall employ at least 1 animal control officer. The board of county commissioners any assign the animal control agency to any existing county department. The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have animal control ordinance. The county’s animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expense incurred in animal control. The ordinance is subject to sections 6 and 30.
There is no MCL 287.29a. There is a Sec 29a and that would be MCL 287.289A.
Because of this amendment to the dog law, the 1955 attorney general opinion provided by Ms Lauro indicating a county board of commissioners did not have the power to adopt regulations pertaining to dog kennels is, in my opinion, obsolete.
Well, his OPINION IS WRONG!
MCL 287.29a specifically directs; however, that a county animal control ordinance is subject to section 6 of the dog law (MCL 287.266). MCL 287.266(5) provides in part: “The county board of commissioners may set license fees in the county budget at a level sufficient to pay all the county’s expenses of administering this act as it pertains to dogs.”
This section applies to individual dog licenses and license fees.
This would, indeed, be the provisions of sec 29a and sec 6(5) as it pertains to individual dog licenses.
It is my opinion that dog license fee revenue must reasonably relate to county expenses for animal control programs, facilities, and personnel involving domestic dogs.
I would even agree with that.
It is obvious such costs go well beyond the animal control budget and include costs incurred by the courts, the prosecutor, the treasurer and the county clerk as well costs related to the operation, maintenance and depreciation of the animal shelter.
However, if it is so obvious such costs go beyond the animal control budget why does the county’s accounting system not account for such costs? Such obvious costs should be readily available for review and support of whatever license fee is charged.
Costs incurred by the courts are borne by those who are charged with violations. How can we justify including that cost in the license fee and then charging the violator for that cost, too?
Costs incurred by the treasurer are minimal, not accounted for and the treasurer could do a better job of accounting for license fees. He cannot tell you how much is for kennels, how much for altered dogs or how much for unaltered dogs. It really isn’t that difficult to record. Nobody can tell you they have a record of a dog’s license and rabies vaccination. That was what the original idea behind licensing dogs was all about. Assuring immunization for rabies and keeping a record of it. So that in the event anyone is bitten by a dog, they can know the dog was vaccinated and they will not have to go through treatment for rabies.
Costs incurred by the clerk are also minimal and are not accounted for.
The animal control budget would include the operation and maintenance costs.....but for everything, not just dogs and not just the dog law of 1919. The cost of administering the dog law of 1919 as it pertains to dogs is not even close to being accounted for. NOT EVEN CLOSE!. I believe those costs need to be accounted for, if the dog license fee is to be based on them.
It is further my belief that in determining an appropriate dog license fee the county is not limited to the budget year in question but could consider several years of costs in arriving at an appropriate fee structure.
That may be true, but I should think there should be a reasonable accounting of those costs. As it is, the license fee is an arbitrary wild guess (as much as the traffic will bear) based on arbitrary wild guesses.
Section 10 of the dog law (MCL 287.270) provides for the inspection and licensure of dog kennels and requires a fee of $10.00 for 10 dogs or less and $25.00 for more than 10 dogs.
Provides for the inspection of a NEW kennel, provided the county accepts this provision. Which this county has not. In which case the kennel is not even subject to inspection AT ALL..
MCL 287.29a does not direct that a county animal control ordinance is subject to section 10.
Since there is no MCL 287.29a I will assume he is talking about MCL 287.289a sec 29a.........and why would it direct that the ordinance is subject to section 10?
Since he states “This section applies to individual dog licenses and license fees.”
This section has nothing to do with kennels (sec 10 deals with kennels).
Sec 29a was added by Act 349 eff immed Jan 9, 1973. This same act also amended MCL 287.280 sec 10 referring to kennels and MCL 287.270b sec 10b referring to a kennel ordinance that a city, township or village may adopt providing it has the same terms, conditions and fees as section 10.
Nothing is stated about a county creating their own regulations pertaining to kennels.
If there were to be any changes for a county, I believe such changes could have been easily made at the same time by Act 349 eff immed Jan 9, 1973.
In my opinion, the county is free to regulate kennels and provide an appropriate fee structure under the terms of its animal control ordinance, and is not bound by the fee structure set forth in MCL 287.29a.
MCL 287.29a does not exist. If he is referring to sec 29a, there is no fee structure in sec 29a. Sec 29a says the county ordinance is subject to sec 6 and 30. Sec 6 (MCL 287.289a). MCL 287.266 Dog licenses; application; resolution; provisions; proof of vaccination. Sec 6 (5) does say the county may set the fee....etc (individual dog license) and sec 30 provides:
287.290 Municipal animal control ordinances; certificate of vaccination.
Sec. 30.
A city, village or township by action of its governing body may adopt an animal control ordinance to regulate the licensing, payment of claims and providing for the enforcement thereof. A city, village, county or township adopting a dog licensing ordinance or ordinances shall also require that such application for a license, except kennel licenses, shall be accompanied by proof of vaccination of the dog for rabies by a valid certificate of vaccination for rabies, with a vaccine licensed by the United States department of agriculture, signed by an accredited veterinarian.
History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- Am. 1921, Act 310, Eff. Aug. 18, 1921 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 329, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 5275 ;-- Am. 1933, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 28, 1933 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- Am. 1943, Act 209, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1943 ;-- CL 1948, 287.290 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 22, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 125, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 172, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1953 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 211, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 195, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 229, Eff. Mar. 30, 1972 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973
Sec 30 was also amended by Act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973 and still left “except kennel licenses” as part of the provisions, which would make no reasonable sense if AG Opinion 1897 were to be made obsolete by act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973.
In my opinion act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973 does not make AG Opinion 1897 obsolete. All of the issues addressed by Ag Opinion 1897 are still contained within the Dog Law of 1919, the county is not free to regulate kennels, and the county is bound by the fee structure for kennels set in section 10. This the county has accepted and acknowledged by lowering their kennel license fees to comply with state law in 2005.
Further, it is my opinion that a reasonable accounting must support the fee designated by the county for an individual license fee, be it for one year or more than one year.
