Investigations into Western Bay of Plenty District Council's finances have come up clean following allegations of siphoning funds from excessive dog registration fees.

A two week independent review by Tauranga accountants KPMG finds no cause that council's dog registration fees are either unreasonable or that there has been any misapplication.

Allegations of WBOPDC siphoning funds from dog registration fees have been cleared.

The review was into allegations council has charged excessively for dog registration fees and that some of the money council receives from dog registration fees is not being applied in accordance with the Dog Control Act.

The review follows an anonymous email to SunLive last month outlining allegations of council fraudulently siphoning more than $2million from dog owners for other council services.

SunLive understands WBOPDC animal services team leader Andrew Hope on August 20 was suspended and marched off the premises having blown the whistle on senior staff.

The email alleges Bay dog owners were ripped off to the sum of about $2 million – at $20-$25 per dog for more than a decade. In the Western Bay there are 8277 dogs.

People in the Western Bay registering dogs before July 31 pay a discounted fee of $77. Anyone who registers after 1 August must pay $115.

The email also outlines councillors voting for animal services to receive 20 per cent funding, never applied this with money instead being spent elsewhere.

Western Bay of Plenty District Council chief executive Miriam Taris says council engaged KPMG to undertake the independent review of the amount being charged in dog registration fees and the application of those funds by the council.

'KPMG's findings give the council no cause for concern that its dog registration fees are either unreasonable or that there has been any misapplication of money received by it.

'Council is satisfied that it is complying with the requirements of the Dog Control Act, and that the allegations made against it in the anonymous email are without foundation.”

Miriam says the employment relationship issue with Andrew has since been resolved as he is no longer employed by council.

She will not go into further detail as council does not comment publicly on employment matters relating to its staff.