LGOIMA Requests

Date received: 24/08/2026

Requested information: MOU Information Request - A request for all records and communications related to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between five district councils regarding the regional response to the Government's Simplifying Local Government process.

Status: Cancelled

Date received: 23/08/2026

Requested information: Animal Control Funding - A request for detailed information regarding the funding of Animal Control activities by Manawatū District Council, and the current intended funding split for the 2026/27 financial year.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 11/09/2026

Response:

The information you have requested is below

1. Total Animal Control expenditure 

Please provide the total operating expenditure for Animal Control for each financial year, including any significant capital expenditure where relevant. 
Response: 

• 2023/24 - $799,686 

• 2024/25 - $774,538 

• 2025/26 - $778,808 

• 2026/27 budget/forecast - $868,279 


2. Funding sources 

For each year, please provide: 

• total revenue received from dog registration fees. 

• total revenue received from other Animal Control fees and charges. 

• total amount of Animal Control expenditure funded through general rates. 

• any other funding sources used to fund Animal Control. 

Please provide both dollar amounts and percentages where available. 

Response: 

• 2023/24 - total revenue received from dog registration fees : $459,843 

• total revenue received from other Animal Control fees and charges : $55,112 

• total amount of Animal Control expenditure funded through general rates : $334,719 

• any other funding sources used to fund Animal Control : $nil 

(Funding split 60% Fees and Charges, 40% General Rates) 

• 2024/25 - total revenue received from dog registration fees : $493,629 

   - total revenue received from other Animal Control fees and charges : $42,130 

• total amount of Animal Control expenditure funded through general rates : $154,368 

• any other funding sources used to fund Animal Control : $nil 

(Funding split 80% Fees and Charges, 20% General Rates) 

• 2025/26 - total revenue received from dog registration fees : $514,153 

- total revenue received from other Animal Control fees and charges : $49,706 

- total amount of Animal Control expenditure funded through general rates : $187,079 

- any other funding sources used to fund Animal Control : $nil 

(Funding split 80% Fees and Charges, 20% General Rates) 

• 2026/27 budget/forecast - total revenue received from dog registration fees : $607,579 

• total revenue received from other Animal Control fees and charges : $97,367 

• total amount of Animal Control expenditure funded through general rates : $176,236 

• any other funding sources used to fund Animal Control : $nil 

(Funding split 80% Fees and Charges, 20% General Rates) 

3. Public benefit / private benefit allocation 

Council's Revenue and Financing Policy identifies Animal Control as having a public benefit/private benefit allocation. 

Please provide: 
• the current policy allocation between public and private benefit. 

• the methodology used to determine that allocation. 

• any supporting report, assessment, analysis or calculation used to establish the allocation. 

• details of any changes to the allocation since 2023/24. 

Response: see Revenue and Financing Policy 2024-2027 in the link provided 

4. Application of the public/private funding split 

Please provide any financial calculations, models, reports or other documents showing how the public/private benefit allocation has been applied to the actual funding of Animal Control for each of the requested years. 

In particular, I would like to understand how the portion identified as providing a public benefit is funded through general rates and how the portion identified as providing a private benefit is recovered from dog owners or other users. 

Response: see Revenue and Financing Policy 2024-2027 in link

Dog registration fees and Animal Control funding 

Council’s dog registration fees form part of the funding of its Animal Control activity. 

The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires Council to have a Revenue and Financing Policy (policy). A Revenue and Funding Policy outlines how we fund operational and capital expenditure. 

Under Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy, the Animal Control activity has an indicative funding mix of 80% from user fees and charges and 20% from the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC). User fees and charges include dog registration fees, and impoundment fees. The policy can be found here: Policies | Manawatū District Council 

The rationale for the funding approach set by Council is that the wider community benefits from being protected from dangerous and wandering animals, and therefore 20% of the activity is funded through the Uniform Annual General Charge. 

At the same time, animal owners are responsible for managing their animals and should meet the majority of the costs associated with the activity. Accordingly, 80% is funded through user fees and charges, including registration, impoundment and infringement revenue. 

The 80% funding allocation does not mean that an individual dog registration fee is calculated by applying an 80% formula to a particular service provided to that dog owner. Rather, it represents Council’s overall funding approach for the Animal Control activity, recognising that a significant proportion of the costs of the activity should be met by those who use or give rise to the service, while a proportion is funded more broadly in recognition of the public benefit provided by animal control activities. 

5. Dog registration fee calculation 

Please provide the calculation, financial model, report or other documentation used to determine the dog registration fees for: 

• 2024/25; 

• 2025/26; and 

• 2026/27. 

Please include the rationale for the current standard registration fee and any assumptions used in determining the amount. 

 
Response:  
• 2024/25; 
See link provided for Fees and Charges 2024_25

• 2025/26;  
See link provided for Fees and Charges Adoption of Animal Control Fees and Charges 2025_26

• 2026/27. 
See link provided for Report – Fees and Charges 2026_27 - Adoption

Dog registration fees are set through Council’s annual budgeting and fees and charges process, taking into account the anticipated cost of delivering the Animal Control activity. 

In addition, section 9 of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides: 

“All money received and retained by a territorial authority under this Act shall be expended only for purposes authorised by or under this Act.” Dog Control Act 1996

The registration fee therefore contributes towards the overall costs associated with Council carrying out its functions and responsibilities under the Dog Control Act. This includes the administration of the dog registration system, maintaining registration records and providing the required dog registration information to the relevant central government database administered by MCERT, as well as the wider costs of delivering dog control services such as compliance, monitoring, responding to complaints, roaming and dangerous dog matters, enforcement and impoundment activities. 

The registration fee therefore does not represent solely the administrative cost of processing an individual dog registration. It contributes towards the overall cost of Council delivering its statutory dog control functions. 


6. Cost of registration versus wider Animal Control 

Please provide any information held by Council that identifies or distinguishes: 

a. the cost of registering and maintaining the registration of an individual dog; and 

b. the costs of wider Animal Control activities that provide a broader community benefit. 

If Council does not separately account for these costs, please confirm that this information is not separately held. 

Response: 

Council does not calculate or hold a specific cost representing the standalone administrative cost of registering an individual dog. 

Under section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996, territorial authorities may prescribe reasonable fees for the registration and control of dogs. In setting different classes of registration fees, the Act also requires Council to have regard to the relative costs of registration and control associated with those classes of dogs. 

Accordingly, a dog registration fee is not based solely on the administrative cost of processing an individual registration. The fee contributes towards the broader costs of Council carrying out its dog control functions under the Dog Control Act. 

These costs include activities such as maintaining dog registration records and the National Dog Database, animal control staffing and operations, responding to complaints and incidents, investigations and enforcement, monitoring, education, and other activities associated with the registration and control of dogs. 

When setting its fees and charges, Council considers the overall cost of delivering the animal control activity, anticipated revenue from registration and other fees, and the appropriate allocation of costs between users of the service and general ratepayers. 

Council therefore does not hold a calculation identifying the cost of registering one individual dog as a discrete transaction. The registration fee reflects a contribution towards the wider costs of registration and dog control, consistent with section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996. 


7. Public-good activities 

Please provide the annual cost, where separately identifiable, of activities considered to provide a public benefit, including but not limited to: 

• public education; 

• responding to complaints; 

• responding to roaming dogs; 

• responding to dangerous or nuisance dogs; 

• enforcement; 

• patrols of public areas, reserves, parks and sports fields; 

• maintaining public safety and community amenity; and 

• any other Animal Control activity Council considers to provide a public benefit. 

Please also identify what proportion of these costs is funded through general rates versus dog registration fees or other user charges. 

Response:  

Annual costs as listed above are not separately identifiable 

All costs go towards the operation.  The Animal Control activity has an indicative funding mix of 80% from user fees and charges and 20% from the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC). User fees and charges include dog registration fees, and impoundment fees. The policy can be found here: Policies - Manawatu District Council

The rationale for the funding approach set by Council is that the wider community benefits from being protected from dangerous and wandering animals, and therefore 20% of the activity is funded through the Uniform Annual General Charge. 

8. Fee-setting decisions 

Please provide copies of any Council reports, staff reports, committee papers, financial assessments, consultation documents or other supporting information considered when setting or reviewing dog registration fees for 2025/26 and 2026/27. 
Response:  

Please refer to link below for your reference 

2025/26 
See in link provided -10.2 Fees and Charges_Adoption of Animal Control Fees and charges 2025_26

2026/37 
See in link Report – Fees and Charges 2026_27 – Adoption 

9. Review of the funding model 

Please provide any documents or information showing whether Council has considered: 

• increasing the proportion of Animal Control funded through general rates; 

• reducing the proportion recovered through dog registration fees; 

• changing the public/private benefit allocation; or 

• reviewing whether the current funding model remains equitable. 

If Council has not considered any of these matters, please confirm this. 

Response: 

The Council considers all the above mentioned annually when reviewing Fees & Charges as well as making sure that registration fees set, reflect a contribution towards the wider costs of registration and dog control, consistent with section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996.  

10. Current position 

Finally, please confirm Council's current intended funding split for Animal Control for the 2026/27 financial year, expressed both as a percentage and dollar amount between: 

• general rates/public funding; and 

• dog registration fees and other private/user funding. 

The Animal Control activity has an indicative funding mix of 80% from user fees and charges and 20% from the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC). User fees and charges include dog registration fees, and impoundment fees. 

 
See the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024-2027 in the link provided 

• general rates/public funding; 20% - $176,236 

• dog registration fees and other private/user funding: 80% - $704,946 


Manawatū District Council may publish this response along with a summary of the request on our website.   Requests and responses may be paraphrased.

To protect your privacy, we will not generally publish personal information about you, or information that identifies you.   

If you wish to discuss this response with us, please feel free to contact the LGOIMA Response Team on 06 323 0000 or by replying to this email.  

Yours sincerely, 

Date received: 21/08/2026

Requested information: Rates Relief Request - A request for information on the total value of rates relief sought this year, the number and combined value of deferment requests received this year, and a comparison of these figures against the last five years, including changes in value and volume, with year-on-year comparisons presented in both absolute numbers and percentage terms.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 04/09/2026

Response:

I refer to your official information request dated 21/08/2026

Thank you for your request for information regarding rates relief and rates deferments.

For the purposes of this response, rates relief provided by Manawatū District Council is by way of the Rates Rebate Scheme.

The table below provides the number and total value of rates rebates for the current rating year and the previous five rating years, together with the year-on-year changes:

Date received: 20/08/2026

Requested information: Playground Safety Assessment - Further questions - Further questions following LGOIMA response - will Council obtain an independent assessment, and if not, why?

Status: Complete

Date responded: 11/09/2026

Response:

Thank you for your further questions, the information you have requested is below

Council does not agree that the matters set out in your opening paragraph necessarily lead to the conclusion that an independent timber and structural assessment is required.

Council has considered the information currently available to it, including the condition of the playground equipment, the matters raised regarding borer holes and timber deterioration, and the information provided by the supplier.

Council remains in discussion with the supplier regarding these matters. While those discussions are ongoing, Council does not presently intend to commission an independent timber or structural assessment of the playground, including the post bases and foundations.

This position is not intended to preclude further investigation. Council may reconsider whether an independent assessment is appropriate if additional information is received, if the outcome of discussions with the supplier warrants it, or if further deterioration or other concerns are identified.

The absence of a particular independent report or certification should not, by itself, be taken as evidence that the playground is structurally unsafe or non-compliant.

Decisions about the management, inspection and maintenance of Council playground assets are made through Council's normal operational delegations and responsibilities. Accordingly, Council does not consider it appropriate to identify an individual officer as personally “taking responsibility” for the decision not to commission an independent assessment at this stage.

Manawatū District Council may publish this response along with a summary of the request on our website.   Requests and responses may be paraphrased.    

To protect your privacy, we will not generally publish personal information about you, or information that identifies you.   

If you wish to discuss this response with us, please feel free to contact the LGOIMA Response Team on 06 323 0000 or by replying to this email.  

Date received: 19/08/2026

Requested information: Pedestrian Crossing Audit - Request for Council policies or frameworks governing how pedestrian crossings are audited and prioritised, including the use of crash data, geographic and crossing-type coverage, proposed changes, and confirmation where no such policies exist.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 03/09/2026

Response:

Official information request - Pedestrian Crossing Audit

I refer to your official information request dated 19/08/2026

The information you have requested is below

1. Integration of police crash data: Council does not have a formal process for cross-referencing crash data in the auditing of pedestrian crossing infrastructure.

2. Geographic scope (main roads vs. suburbs): Council does not have a policy for suburban areas.

3. Asset scope (formal vs. informal crossings): No crossings (formal or informal) have been proactively audited on Council roads.

4. Future corrective actions: There have been no proposals to amend future pedestrian safety audit processes to systematically include suburban or informal crossings.

Manawatū District Council may publish this response along with a summary of the request on our website.   Requests and responses may be paraphrased.    
To protect your privacy, we will not generally publish personal information about you, or information that identifies you.   
If you wish to discuss this response with us, please feel free to contact the LGOIMA Response Team on 06 323 0000 or by replying to this email.  

Yours sincerely, 

Date received: 18/08/2026

Requested information: Request for all council costs associated with the Government’s Head Start initiative from 5 May 2026 until the council’s response to the Government, including consultancy, consultation, meeting, workshop, and other related expenses.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 27/08/2026

Response:

1. What was the total cost to the council for of all activities and work undertaken to develop and finalise its response to the Government’s Head Start local government initiative? For clarification purposes, this request is for the total cost or the best estimate of the total cost to the council of the Head Start initiative. Points 2-5 below are for components of this total.

All items in response to the below questions are inclusive of GST.

Total cost (including GST): $13,778.85.

This figure does not include internal staff time, for the reasons outlined in response to question 5.

2. What consultants and contractors were engaged to advise or provided information or analysis for the council’s response to Head Start and what was the cost of each provider’s services? What were the titles of any reports provided by these consultants or contractors?

Morrison Low Advisory Ltd provided a report in June 2026 called “Head Start Pathway Horizons councils”. We contributed to the cost of this report, and work leading up to it, as below:

• $3,012.95 – relating to the facilitation of a Mayoral Forum on the Head Start pathway, and working on the scoping of a detailed report.
• $6,037.53 – direct contribution cost towards the completed report.

Little and Loud assisted with communication during a period of staff absence. They attended a regular Workshop meeting where the Head Start pathway was discussed, and drafted a public news item on it:

• $2,081.62

3. What was the total cost to the council for informing or consulting with local communities and how much was spent on surveys, advertising, informational publications (flyers, pamphlets, etc.), public meetings, websites and other such activities.

Newspaper adverts:

• $1,725

Radio advertising:

• $921.75

4. What was the total cost of any extraordinary or special council meetings or workshops held regarding Head Start or the council’s response to it?

No costs associated with these.

5. What other costs were incurred by the council under this initiative and what was the value of those costs?

No other direct costs have been identified. Council has not attempted to quantify internal staff time, as most roles do not record time against individual projects and the work associated with Head Start was largely undertaken as part of business-as-usual activities.

Date received: 17/08/2026

Requested information: Building Consents Request - Request for residential new-build consent data issued in the district from January 2022 to June 2026, including key consent, property, builder, and value details.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 19/08/2026

Response:

Thank you for your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) dated 17/08/2026, for information relating to residential new build building consents issued within the Manawatū District.

Please find attached the information held by Council in response to your request. The dataset covers the requested period and includes the following information:

building consent number;
date issued;
property address;
consent type;
builder/contractor name; and
consent value.

Manawatū District Council may publish this response along with a summary of the request on our website.   Requests and responses may be paraphrased.    

To protect your privacy, we will not generally publish personal information about you, or information that identifies you.   

If you wish to discuss this response with us, please feel free to contact the LGOIMA Response Team on 06 323 0000 or by replying to this email.

Date received: 10/08/2026

Requested information: Feilding Property Details - A request for addresses of all properties in Feilding that have backflow valves installed and all properties that are on water meters.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 03/09/2026

Response:

I am writing regarding your LGOIMA request which we received on 10 August 2026.

In Feilding and close proximity to Feilding we have 453 Active Meters of which 94 have backflow prevention, listed in the table below:

MDC Category

Meters

Backflow Prevention

Manawatu District has 461 Active Water meters in the wider district of which 96 have backflow prevention.

Your request for a list of all properties in Feilding that have backflow valves and are on water meters is declined under section 7(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons.

Under section 27(3) of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review any decisions made under this request.  The Ombudsman may be contacted by email at: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz or by calling 0800 802 602.

Date received: 08/08/2026

Requested information: A request for Council to review the property’s rates increase and provide, under LGOIMA, the information and rationale supporting the increase despite a significant decline in the property’s valuation.

Status: Complete

Date responded: 27/08/2026

Response:

1. The basis and methodology used to calculate the recent rates increase for my property.
   See pages 21-37 of the Annual Plan 2026-27 for the methodology of how Council charges each category of rate - MDC-Annual-Plan-2026_Final-Web.pdf
2. Any policies, models, or formulas applied that explain how rates can increase despite a reduction in property value.

Council rates are not inherently a tax on property value. Property value is often used as a method for distributing part of the rates requirement between properties, but it does not determine how much money a council needs to collect overall.

The distinction is:

• Council first determines how much revenue it needs from rates to fund its activities, after accounting for other revenue such as fees, subsidies and grants.
• It then decides how that rates requirement will be allocated across properties, using the rating tools available under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
• Some rates are based on capital value meaning property value affects a property's share of that particular rate.
• Other rates can be fixed charges, such as a Uniform Annual General Charge, or targeted rates based on factors such as the services provided, location, land use, or other characteristics.
• As a result, an increase/decrease in a property's value does not automatically mean Council receives more/less rates revenue. If every property increased/decreased in value by the same percentage, the relative distribution of a value-based rate would broadly remain unchanged.
• What matters for a value-based rate is generally a property's value relative to other properties, rather than the value in isolation.

3.  Documentation or reports used by Council to justify rates increases for the current rating period.

See Annual Plan 2026-27 for how Council intended use of collected rates for the 2026-27 year - link above

4.  Any internal or external advice received regarding the relationship between property valuations and rates setting.

Council has received no advice on this specific matter, aside from following legislative requirements in the Local Government Rating Act 2002.

Date received: 07/08/2026

Requested information: Noise complaints information - Request for noise complaint information for the period September 2025 to date

Status: Complete

Date responded: 14/08/2026

Response:

Official information request - Request for noise complaint information for the period September 2025 to date

I refer to your official information request dated 07/08/2026The information you have requested is below 

Council records show that, from 3 July 2026, four complaints of excessive noise have been received in relation to (withheld due to privacy), Sanson:

Two complaints were received on 3 July 2026 (CCR 97944 and CCR 97945).
One complaint was received on 21 July 2026 (CCR 98233).
One complaint was received on 31 July 2026 (CCR 98416).

A search of Council records has not identified any complaints of excessive noise relating to this property prior to 3 July 2026.

Two Directions to Abate Excessive Noise (END notices) have been issued in relation to the property.

The first END notice was issued on 4 July 2026. Following the issue of this notice, Council sent a warning letter to the occupants of the property and wrote to the property owner advising that an END notice had been issued.

The second END notice was served on the occupants on 1 August 2026. This was followed by a further warning letter to the occupants and a further letter to the property owner advising that an END notice had been issued.

Copies of the four CCR records, the two END notices, and the associated correspondence sent to the occupants and property owner are attached to this response.

Personal details (names, addresses, contact details, etc) of third parties, which have been withheld under section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA, to protect their privacy. 

I do not consider that those persons’ privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in the information’s release. Information withheld pursuant to this section will be redacted in the relevant documents.

Manawatū District Council may publish this response along with a summary of the request on our website.   Requests and responses may be paraphrased.    

To protect your privacy, we will not generally publish personal information about you, or information that identifies you.   

If you wish to discuss this response with us, please feel free to contact the LGOIMA Response Team on 06 323 0000 or by replying to this email.  

Yours sincerely,