Pet food surcharge raises hackles among owners.

Byline: Randi Bjornstad The Register-Guard

A campaign to quash one of the Animal Regulation Task Force's primary revenue-producing proposals has already begun, with local pet owners writing county commissioners form letters against a surcharge on sales of dog and cat food.

The Pet Food Institute, a trade association based in Washington, D.C., is also involved in the anti-surcharge campaign, contracting with Conkling Fiskum & McCormick, a well-known Portland lobbying and public relations firm.

It in turn has subcontracted with the Eugene-based Ulum Group to help defeat the proposal.

Jenny Ulum, head of the local agency, said her group's participation will be relatively minimal, "mostly attending meetings and monitoring the local scene."

Pat McCormick, a principal in the Portland agency, said Lane County should look for other revenue-producing ideas - primarily greater enforcement of dog licensing fees - to offset substantial cuts in the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority's budget.

If low-income people have to pay a surcharge on dog and cat food, "they might resort to feeding their animals (unhealthy) table scraps," said McCormick.

"The overhead costs of administering a pet food tax and the logistics of collecting it also can be a problem," he said.

McCormick's firm helped defeat a similar pet food surcharge proposal in Multnomah County in 1999. The agency's Web site boasts of "sending the pet food sales tax to doggie heaven."

The agency activated pet owners, retailers, guide dog users and the Oregon Veterinary Medical Association to help defeat the surcharge proposal, the Web site says.

The local task force drafted its proposal with the intent of addressing concerns raised by the pet food industry, Chairman Scott Bartlett said.

The recommendation, based on a study by a local economics consulting firm, ECONorthwest, estimates that Lane County pet owners spend about $61 per year to feed a cat, and just under $100 per year for a dog.

At that rate, a retail pet food surcharge of 1 percent would cost 61 cents per cat and about $1 per dog each year. The corresponding annual fees for a 5 percent surcharge would come to $3.05 per cat and about $5 per dog.

ECONorthwest estimates that a 5 percent surcharge at the wholesale level could raise more than $550,000 for the county's animal welfare programs, based on estimated populations of 76,500 dogs and 103,000 cats. At the retail level, a 5 percent charge could bring in nearly $700,000.

To minimize the effect of a surcharge, the task force recommends rebates for qualifying low-income households, those training or using service animals, animal rescue groups, animal shelters, and dog and cat owners feeding their pets prescription food for medical reasons.

ECONorthwest researcher Kristen Lee said in her report that surcharges targeting certain products - such as cigarettes and beer - have been levied in Oregon for years at the wholesale level.

Lane County currently assesses two retail taxes, on car rentals and hotel and motel charges.

Elsewhere, the city of Ashland collects a 5 percent food-and-beverage tax at restaurants, generating nearly $1 million a year at an annual administrative cost of $50,000.

Exemptions to a pet food tax would be easier to administer at the retail level, either through rebates or at the point of purchase, Lee's report said.

Bartlett said he's frustrated by outside influences such as the pet food industry trying to dictate what happens in Lane County, where budget shortfalls already have slashed animal welfare programs and could result in even more cuts.

"They've managed to kill this idea in many places around the country, but we think we've proposed something that answers the objections they've stated," Bartlett said.