LGOIMA Requests
Refine Search
Search results: 635
| Received | Subject | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22/07/2020 | Copy of Plans for remedial work | Complete | Details |
| 22/07/2020 | Complaints made to Council re Animal control functions | Complete | Details |
| 09/07/2020 | Does Council rehome dogs for research | Complete | Details |
| 08/07/2020 | Subdivision processing stats | Complete | Details |
| 01/07/2020 | ONFL Expenditure analysis | Cancelled | Details |
| 01/07/2020 | Consultation and process of Plan change 65 Outstanding Natural and Featured Landscapes | Complete | Details |
| 22/06/2020 | Corporate & Regulatory Org details | Complete | Details |
| 20/06/2020 | Councillor salaries | Complete | Details |
| 04/06/2020 | Nitrate-nitrogen levels in council water supplies. | Complete | Details |
| 24/05/2020 | Complaints of failing to provide proper care for dogs | Complete | Details |
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1931
Date received: 22/07/2020
Requested information: Copy of Plans for remedial work
Status: Complete
Date responded: 24/07/2020
Response:
You are welcome to come in and view the file, as requested.
We have no documentation on Council files that have your and Keith Tunnicliffe's initials.
The complete file is available for you to inspect at our offices at > any time that suits you.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1932
Date received: 22/07/2020
Requested information: Complaints made to Council re Animal control functions
Status: Complete
Date responded: 13/08/2020
Response:
Good morning Tim
Please see attached a copy of all complaints received against any of our ACOs, as you have requested. The file contains the actual complaints which have been redacted and made anonymous.
I trust this is the information that you require.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1930
Date received: 09/07/2020
Requested information: Does Council rehome dogs for research
Status: Complete
Date responded: 09/07/2020
Response:
In reply to your request, as you will have noted Manawatu District Council responded to the NZAVS request as follows:
Request SummaryRehoming of dogs, specifically to be used for research, testing or teaching Requested InformationI work for the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society and I am currently in the process of contacting all city councils in NZ to find out what the different policies are on the rehoming of dogs. Specifically, on the rehoming of dogs to be used for research, testing or teaching (RTT) methods.
This issue was brought to my attention recently when we found out that dogs had been rehomed from a pound in Christchurch and used in a secondary poisoning experiment (more info here). There was quite a lot of nationwide media attention on this so you may have already heard about this!
The Christchurch City Council couldn't confirm what pound the dogs were rehomed from as they said that didn't have that information. However, the Christchurch City Council now has a policy in place that should prevent this from happening again in the future.
Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) I would like to request a copy of your dog rehoming policy or any other policies that cover the rehoming of dogs to be used for RTT methods.
If you do not have a current policy on this but you are looking at creating one, we suggest using the following wording:
"No animal will be released from an animal pound or shelter into the ownership of any person or organisation for use in a scientific procedure or manipulation for research, testing or teaching purposes as defined by the Animal Welfare Act 1999."
I look forward to hearing from you,
ResponsePlease see our response to your request, below
Manawatu District Council has a memorandum of understanding in place with PAWS Animal Shelter for the purpose of rehoming dogs from the MDC pound to suitable dog owners.
PAWS Animal Shelter is a registered charity and has its own terms and conditions for responsible rehoming and adoption including temperament testing and assessment for suitability of homes.
The memorandum sets out the terms and expectations of this arrangement.
The terms also include the requirement for compliance with the Dog Control Act and the Animal Welfare Act.
We trust this assists you with your enquiry.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1929
Date received: 08/07/2020
Requested information: Subdivision processing stats
Status: Complete
Date responded: 04/08/2020
Response:
Hi Toni
Please find attached report as per your LGOMIA request (LG1929).
Do you require it to be updated each month, or is quarterly/six monthly ok? If you could please let me know so I can arrange with Councils IT Manager.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1927
Date received: 01/07/2020
Requested information: ONFL Expenditure analysis
Status: Cancelled
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1928
Date received: 01/07/2020
Requested information: Consultation and process of Plan change 65 Outstanding Natural and Featured Landscapes
Status: Complete
Date responded: 29/07/2020
Response:
Dear Angela,
LGOIMA Request – Proposed Plan Change 65 – Outstanding Natural Features & Landscapes
In response to your LGOIMA request dated 1st July 2020, please find below budget/cost information specifically related to Proposed Plan Change 65 – Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes.
Pre 2018 costs include:
- 2013 – 2015 Landscape Assessment Works
- 2016 draft provisions consultation, including site visits and public meetings (undertaken as part of Rural Zone Plan Change)
2018 costs include:
- Preparing Plan Change and Section 32 Report
2019 costs include: - Draft Plan Change consultation
- Updating Landscape Assessment Report
- Finalising Plan Change provisions and Section 32 report
2020 costs include: - Finalising Plan Change provisions and Section 32 report
- Proposed Plan Change notification
- Hearings preparation
A full analysis related to the provisions of Proposed Plan Change 65 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes can be found within the Section 32 Report on Councils website here: https://www.mdc.govt.nz/Services/Planning/District-Plan/Plan-Changes/Plan-Change-65.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1926
Date received: 22/06/2020
Requested information: Corporate & Regulatory Org details
Status: Complete
Date responded: 23/06/2020
Response:
Dear Milton
You are correct - I am helping you. Please find attached the Corporate & Regulatory Team Organisational Charts. The Corporate & Regulatory chart is the entire group, while the Regulatory chart has the details of the Regulatory Team. Positions in yellow boxes are contractors. The firm Master Business Systems provides our Information Technology Team, Palmerston North City Council provides our Building Officers and Rangitikei District Council provides our Animal Control Team.
Please let me know if you have any questions
Kind Regards, Richard
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1925
Date received: 20/06/2020
Requested information: Councillor salaries
Status: Complete
Date responded: 23/06/2020
Response:
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to me for response.
The remuneration for Mayors and Councillors of all Councils in New Zealand is set independently by the Remuneration Authority.
The salaries payable to 30 June 2020 for Manawatū District elected members are as follows:
PositionNameSalaryMayor *less deduction for private use of carHelen Worboys$117,828.50*paDeputy MayorMichael Ford$46,403 paChairperson – Audit and Risk CommitteeStuart Campbell$39,774 paChairperson – Community Development CommitteeHilary Humphrey$39,774 paChairperson – Hearings CommitteeShane Casey$39,774 paChairperson – Nga Manu TaikoAlison Short$39,774 paHealth and Safety Governance RepresentativePhilson Marsh$39,774 paCouncillorsSteve Bielski, Heather Gee-Taylor, Grant Hadfield, Andrew Quarrie$33,145 paWe keep the remuneration details updated on our website to reflect any changes made by the Authority (see link below).
For example, from 9 July 2020 the Mayor's salary will be temporarily reduced for six months as a result of the Local Government Members (Temporary Reduction-COVID-19) Determination 2020 and we will show the reduced salary payable to the Mayor from that date.
https://www.mdc.govt.nz/About-The-Council/Governance/Elected-Member-Roles
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1924
Date received: 04/06/2020
Requested information: Nitrate-nitrogen levels in council water supplies.
Status: Complete
Date responded: 02/07/2020
Response:
Our Network Engiener has replied as follows to your request for information.
"Please find attached a spreadsheet with the Nitrate-Nitrogen sampling results for all the sources of Council Water Supply in the Manawatu District for 2017 or 2018. We are unlikely to be able to provide historical water samples as our earlier recording does not provide this level of detail.
The sources are:
Oroua at Barrows Road for Feilding
Newbury Line Bore for Feilding
Campbell Road Bore for Feilding
Rangitikei River (Ngaio Road) for Sanson until October 2019
Sanson bore for Sanson from October 2019
Rangitikei River (Pryces Line) for Halcombe-Stanway rural Scheme
Waituna West Bore for Waituna West rural Scheme
Rongotea Bore for Rongotea
Himatangi Beach Bore for Himatangi Beach
Regards
Catherine Clement
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1923
Date received: 24/05/2020
Requested information: Complaints of failing to provide proper care for dogs
Status: Complete
Date responded: 22/06/2020
Response:
The number of complaints received about each of a failure to provide a dog with proper care and attention, proper and sufficient food and water, proper and sufficient shelter, or adequate exercise.
MDC does not have a category "Failing to provide a dog with proper care and attention, proper and sufficient food and water, proper and sufficient shelter, or adequate exercise". These types of complaints are recorded under the category of "Animal Welfare". Animal Control will deal with "day to day" issues regarding the welfare of a dog (basic food, water, shelter), however if the owner is found to be seriously neglecting his / her dog(s) then we will forward to the SPCA. Numbers of RFS's that were forwarded to the SPCA are provided below:
Year20192018201720162015Number256511
Below is a reference table provided to our Customer Services staff to assist in correctly identifying whether Animal Control or the SPCA will deal with an issue.
OrganisationLack of FoodLack of ShelterLack of WaterStock On Road CatsAnimal DistressedAnimal MalnourishedAnimal MistreatedSPCA√√√ -√√√√Animal Control√√√√ ---
2. The number of each type of instance that are discovered by dog control officers (so are in addition to those identified by a complaint).
These figures are not recorded against "Animal Welfare" as the ACO would be attending the location under a separate Request for Service and if they happen to come across a minor issue, they will deal with it and note it in the RFS. If it is more serious then the ACO will contact the SPCA and hand the task over to them.
3. The number of prosecutions taken, or infringement notices issued for each type of instance.
MDC has not taken any prosecutions or issued any infringements for any animal welfare issues. If they are serious then the job is handed over to the SPCA.
4. If instances are dealt with by education, the nature of the educative process and the period and arrangements for monitoring to ensure compliance, and how many instances of each type were dealt with by education.
The education process would be conducted by the SPCA as they would be dealing with the errant owner.
5. If there is an arrangement to pass instances to the SPCA, Police or another agency for handling, how many instances of each type have been passed to each agency.
No arrangement exists to pass cases on to the SPCA or Police, it is a decision made by the ACO dealing with the complaint if they deem it serious enough.
6. How many instances of each type concerned owners already known as a consequence of previous similar failures.
MDC have not had any offenders that we have dealt with previously as we hand serious cases over to the SPCA.
7. On how many occasions has a dog control officer entered a property to provide a dog with food, water or shelter, or to seize a dog that was not provided with those things.
Occasionally an ACO may put water into a bucket or bowl if a dog they visit requires it however if the case is serious, the SPCA will be contacted to take over.
8. If a dog that was not being provided with food, water or shelter was seized, in how many instances of each type was the dog returned to the owner, or destroyed, or sold or otherwise disposed of.
No dogs have been seized due to Animal Welfare issues. These cases are handed over to the SPCA.