Information Requests | Ngā amuamu me ngā tono pārongo

Request

All documentation, emails, notes, meeting papers, records in any form whatsoever whether analogue or digital relating to the decision not to purchase the land from Masterton Lands Trust, to focus on the northern end of the town including the areas currently occupied by the RSA, Golden Shears area, swimming pools/recreation centre and the adjacent green belts, all information post confirmation of the long term plan in June 2021 regarding changes to the design brief for the building, and all information on pricing including all indications given to Council by any party whatsoever that the budget or scope of the project would change from that proposed and then decided upon for inclusion in the long term plan in June 2021.

Response

The information and any reasons for withholding the information have been identified below.

With respect to the decision to focus on the northern end of the town, we understand this request to mean information subsequent to the decision not to purchase the land from the Masterton Trust Lands Trust (MTLT). The preferred location at the northern end of town was agreed at the 16 December 2020 Council meeting as part of the development of the LTP consultation and the development of the project has since reflected that decision.

With regard to pricing information, including indications given that the budget or scope of the project would change. As discussed in the reports to Council, the detail of the project scope has been developed since LTP approval, by working with subject matter experts and specialists to develop the reverse brief. This process is not considered a ‘change’ to the scope but rather a refinement of the high level scope included in the LTP. Information related to the development of the reverse brief has therefore not been included, but the brief itself has. This information is largely of an administrative nature, such as setting up meetings and clarifying points to be included in the brief. The only ‘change’ to scope was noted in the costings for additional items reported to the workshops of 19 April and 4 May 2022.

Information meeting the scope of the request:

Download LGOIMA Supporting Documents (PDF, 27MB)

1. Correspondence between the Council and its lawyers regarding the negotiation with the Masterton Trust Lands Trust (MTLT)

• This information has been withheld under section 7(2)(g) as the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege and the withholding of the information is not outweighed by the public interest in the making the information available.

2. Correspondence regarding the negotiation for the purchase of land

• This information has been withheld under section 7(2)(b)(ii) as the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the commercial position of the person who supplied the information, section 7(2)(h) to enable the Council to carry out commercial activities and section 7(2)(i) to enable the Council to hold negotiations, and the withholding of the information is not outweighed by the public interest in the making the information available. This is because it is important that Council’s commercial position is not prejudiced as the civic facility project progresses, including the ability to consider commercial land for purchase and to negotiate pricing.

3. Report to the Council meeting 2 March 2022 held with the public excluded (026/22PE)

• The information in the report relating to the negotiation with the MTLT has been withheld under section 7(2)(b)(ii) as the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the commercial position of the person who supplied the information, section 7(2)(h) to enable the Council to carry out commercial activities and section 7(2)(i) to enable the Council to hold negotiations, and the withholding of the information is not outweighed by the public interest in the making the information available. This is because it is important that Council’s commercial position is not prejudiced as the civic facility project progresses including the ability to consider commercial land for purchase and to negotiate pricing.

4. Minutes of the Council meeting 2 March 2022 (027/22PE)

5. AGENDA Extraordinary Civic Facility Project Committee meeting 9 March 2022

6. Powerpoint presented to the Extraordinary Civic Facility Project Committee meeting 9 March 2022 (Architectus – Architectural Update)

7. Report of the Extraordinary Civic Facility Project Committee meeting held 9 March 2022 to the Council meeting 6 April 2022 (032/22)

8. Memorandum to the workshop with the Civic Facility Project Committee 19 April 2022 including the reverse brief and associated costs for the Civic Facility project

• Cost information has been withheld from the cost estimate under section 7(2)(h) to enable the Council to carry out commercial activities and section 7(2)(i) to enable the Council to hold negotiations and the withholding of the information is not outweighed by the public interest in the making the information available. This is because it is important that Council’s commercial position is not prejudiced as the civic facility project progresses including the ability to consider commercial land for purchase and to negotiate pricing.
• Names and contact details for officers at the Quantity Surveyors have also been withheld under section 7(2)(a) to protect the privacy of natural persons and the withholding of the information is not outweighed by the public interest in making the information available.

9. Memorandum to the workshop with the Council 4 May 2022

10. Powerpoint presented to the Council workshop 4 May 2022

11. Report to the Council meeting 18 May 2022

• As the meeting did not consider this report until the Extraordinary Council meeting held 23 May 2022 it is included under 12. (see Report 062/22 in the 23 May Extraordinary Council meeting agenda below).

12. AGENDA Extraordinary Council meeting 23 May 2022

13. Unconfirmed Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held 23 May 2022 (067/22)

14. Report to the Council meeting 29 June 2022(083/22)

15. Recordings of the meetings held in public are available on Council’s Facebook page

 

I am representing the residents of William Donald Drive, Masterton regarding the proposed access for the retirement lifestyle village subdivision in our street. We would like to advise that all of the residents of William Donald Drive are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed development and should therefore be treated as affected parties when the Council makes its notification decision.

Can you please provide us with the following information:-

1. A copy of any officer reports or recommendations to the Council in relation to the new road through the local purpose reserve/park
2. A copy of the Council resolution to allow the new road through the reserve, including any record of discussions and reasons for the decision
3. A copy of the new resource consent application for the Solway Hotel site, including any associated drawings and reports, and any further information that has been provided since the application was lodged
4. A copy of the notification decision on the new resource consent application for the Solway Hotel site (if a notification decision has been made)
5. A copy of the notification decision on the Solway Hotel subdivision application

A copy of the resource consent(s) that resulted in the creation of the local purpose reserve, and any associated reports or documents that explain the reasons why the reserve was created.

---

 

Stage 11 of the proposed subdivision is presently on hold until the Council has all of the information required to make an informed decision.

A Notification report will be written for Stage 11 once all of the information has been supplied

• The report to the Council’s Strategic Planning and Policy Committee
• A certified extract of the resolution of the Ordinary Council Meeting
• The decision for Stage 1 of the resource consent
• A copy of the application for resource consent Stages 1 and 11
• Copy of the original subdivision consent for William Donald Drive granted in 2001
• Copy of the second subdivision consent 2002
• Draft concept plans for Stage 2

Supporting documents:

Notice of Decision PDF, 689KB

Notice of Decision PDF, 476KB

Proposed subdivision PDF, 3MB

Council agenda recommendation PDF, 3MB

Grant of road access PDF, 404KB

Resource Consent PDF, 4MB

Resource Consent Application PDF, 3MB

My request is about firing or shooting ranges in your Council area.

Could you please let me know:

1. How many firing ranges in your Council area have both indoor and outdoor facilities?
2. How many solely indoor firing ranges are there in your Council area?
3. How many solely outdoor firing ranges are there in your Council area?
4. How often are the firing ranges inspected by Council officers and/or Police?
5. What is your Council’s regime for assessing shooters’ and range officers’ exposure to lead at the firing ranges?
6. Does your Council require measures at firing ranges to mitigate the effects of lead exposure? What are these measures and how are they reported by the range and enforced by the Council?
7. What is the protocol for Council inspection of firing ranges, for example, is there a checklist or similar, used by the Council officers to assess the firing range? If so, could you please supply a copy?
8. Could you please supply copies of all reports relating to firearms and firing ranges written by or received by the Council over the last three years.

---

1. None
2. One 
3. None that we are aware of.
4. Council do not inspect the indoor firing range.  We do not know about the Police.
5. N/A
6. N/A
7. N/A
8. There are none.

• How much has been spent by the authority since 1 July 2017, (when the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 came into effect) on earthquake-related expenses – for instance seismic reports, engineering checks, building assessments, strengthening work already done etc.
• How much does the authority anticipate it will spend in the next ten years on earthquake resilience work. Please note this is not how much has been formally approved – but how much could be spent based on estimates (can be rough).
• How many buildings have been identified as needing money spent on them to bring them in line with the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act.
• How many buildings are still to be assessed by the authority.

---

Approximately $384,150 has been spent, please note this figure includes some works that incorporated earthquake strengthening as a part of larger projects.

Future spend will depend on decisions on options (e.g. demolition versus further quake resilience improvements). Broad estimate is between  $2 million and $28 million.

Seven buildings have been identified as requiring expenditure to meet requirements of the amended Act.

None.

What reports have been commissioned and/or received by Council, in relation to the Masterton Town Hall / Civic Centre proposals?

When will any reports be released publicly?

What are the fundings of these reports?

---

In reference to your request for information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, you can find the Market Demand and Financial Analysis report provided to Council as part of Civic Centre research on our website: https://mstn.govt.nz/update-town-hall-consultation/

As outlined in this update to our community, Council has also done some work on initial costings to inform decisions around what to do with the existing buildings and potential for a new civic centre or events space. There is still a small amount of work to do on gathering this information together before it can be shared publicly. However, we hope to share this information before the end of the month.

A formal consultation process is planned to start post the local elections in October.

Under the OIA  can I please request all reports and advice to the CEO and council on the performance of the building consents team. Most specifically I am seeking information around the building consents team meeting its targets in processing consents on time.

---

In terms of building consents our goal is to deliver a timely service and one of our performance measures is about ensuring consents are processed within statutory timeframes. More detailed information on this measure can be found in our 2018-28 Long Term Plan (pg. 117-118) https://mstn.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.-Our-Work-in-Detail.pdf

Here is a link to the 2017/18 annual report (pg. 77 to 80)  https://mstn.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Annual-Report-2017-18_Website-45-97.pdf . We are currently working on our 2018-19 annual report, which is scheduled to go to the Inaugural council meeting in October for adoption.

We have also attached the following documents:

1. The last non-financial report to the Audit & Risk Committee meeting on 21 August 2019. Update reports also go to the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meetings, these are available on our website https://mstn.govt.nz/council/meetings-and-agendas/
2. Excerpts from reports to Council’s Strategic Planning and Policy Committee, which provide an overview of the IANZ audit of BCA (PDF, 86KB)

1. How many residential pools are there within the Masterton District Council region?
2. What is the charge for a pool inspection?
3. What is the fine for a failed pool inspection?
4. How many pool inspections have taken place since the new rules came into force in 2017?
5. How many failed pool inspections have there been since the new rules came into force in 2017?
6. How many fines/charges have been imposed because inspectors couldn’t access the property for an inspection since the new rules came into force in 2017?
7. How much money has the council collected in inspection fees since the new rules came into force in 2017?
8. How much money has the council collected in failed pool inspection fines/fees since the new rules came into force in 2017?
9. How many children have drowned in residential pools and spas since the new rules came into force in 2017?

---

1. Approx 850 pools.
2. $36 for first inspection.
3. No fine, however follow-up inspections are charged at $151.
4. Approx 600 inspections. 
5. Approximately 25 per cent of pools have failed initial inspections and required an additional inspection for compliance. 
6. There is no charge if inspectors cannot access a property. 
7. $8,016
8. Pool inspection fees are charged to the same ledger code. 
9. In the Masterton district there have been no pool-related deaths since the new legislation was enacted on 1 January 2017. 

I’m after statistics and details on the dog attacks that occurred during 2018 in your respective districts.

1. I would like the total number of dog attacks on each: people/pets/stock, accompanied with specific details of each event, such as when the incidents occurred, what happened, the extent of injury, whether medical attention was required, and whether prosecutions followed.
2. How much money was spent on prosecuting the owners of dogs that attacked during 2018, and which incidents did these relate to?
3. How many dogs were deemed menacing by deed that year, and what incidents did they relate to?
4. How many dogs were euthanised as a result of an attack.

---

All dog attack information contained in Dog Attack Spreadsheet (XLS, 16KB)

We are seeking information relating to the management of dogs by Council, dog registration and fees.   Specifically, could you please provide, with respect to each of the financial years (2013-2014) ,(2014-2015), (2015 -2016), (2016- 2017), (2017- 2018), the following information:

1. How many dogs have been registered (including multiple owner registrations).
2. How many applications have been made for a responsible dog owner licence.
3. The total revenue which has been collected from dog registration and/or responsible owner licences.
4. The number of fines and infringement notices issued to owners.
5. The total dollar value for the fines and infringement notices issued.
6. The amount actually collected from owners in relation to fines and infringement notices
7. The total number of dogs that have been re-homed.
8. The total number of dogs that have been brought into Council control and destroyed/ euthanised.
9. The total spend by Council from dog registrations on systems and processes necessary to on run dog control.
10. Any documents (including meeting minutes and communications) showing how decisions are made with respect to how dog registration fees are allocated and spent.
11. The total amount spent in each of the specified years on animal management/control.
12. If there is surplus funds from revenue collected from dog registrations, where that money is accounted for in the financial accounts, and how much in each of the financial years set out above.

---

Main response document (PDF, 86KB)

Dogs Fees (PDF, 167KB)

2015 Fees Council Paper (PDF, 802KB)

2014 Council Paper (PDF, 93KB)

2015 Council Paper (PDF, 115KB)

2016 Council Paper (PDF, 61KB)

2017 Council Paper (PDF, 133KB)

2018 Council Paper (PDF, 91KB)

1  How many EHOs does your local authority currently employ ?

2  When it employs EHOs does your local authority use the list of suitable qualifications on the Ministry of Health’s website to ensure EHO candidates are qualified?   YES/NO

3  For EHO appointments are the Regulations referred to in your local authority’s:

(a) recruitment policies?  YES/NO  

(b) job descriptions?        YES/        NO

4  Are the Regulations fit for purpose? YES/NO

5 Could the Regulations be improved on from your perspective? If yes, in what ways?

---

1. 3 plus a cadette EHO 
2. Yes
3. a. No policy for recruitment b. Yes
4. Yes
5. They are suitable

Would you be able to provide me what data you have readily available on the number of  infringements notices or tickets that your parking wardens (or other staff) have issued to vehicles each year for not having a current vehicle licence (also called ‘rego’)?

---

Police, NZTA and Local Authorities all have the legal ability to issue infringements for vehicles that do not have a current licence and / or have no evidence of current Warrant of Fitness, to the best of our knowledge Police issue infringements for these offences if they stop a vehicle for another reason. 

We do not know how NZTA enforce these offenses. 

Local Authorities have the legal ability to infringe vehicles for all stationary vehicle offences including licence and WOF offences, currently Masterton District Council choose to only enforce parking related offences.  This decision may be reviewed in the future.

Can I have all correspondence relating to Dog pounds between the Carterton Council and the Masterton Council staff, councillors and Mayors.

And the financial costings of a joint dog pound and a Masterton stand alone Dog pound.

Also the number of euthanised dogs in the last two years.

---

Thank you for your email dated 09/08/19 requesting information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. You requested dog pound correspondence between Masterton and Carterton District Council elected members and staff, costings of a joint dog pound and a Masterton District Council dog pound, as well as the number of dogs euthanised in the last two years.

Refer to Attachment 1 for a schedule of the most recent dog pound correspondence between Masterton and Carterton District Council staff and accompanying emails. We have no correspondence from Elected Members.
In the 2018-28 Long-Term Plan, one of our 10-year priorities in the regulatory services area includes upgrading the pound facility to better meet the needs of this service. Funding of $612,600 was budgeted for Year 2. This work has been carried forward in the 2019-20 Annual Plan, with only initial scoping work for a new pound facility planned in this financial year, with a provision of $100k set aside for this work. This scoping work will support the development of more detailed costings for this project going forward.

Carterton and South Wairarapa District Council’s have also included a pound upgrade as part of their 2018-28 Long-Term Plans. Carterton District Council subsequently confirmed in their 2019-20 Annual Plan that they will continue to explore the option of a shared pound with South Wairarapa District Council, and that following previous discussions, it has been agreed that a shared pound facility for all three Councils is not a viable option. We can confirm that sixty-four dogs have been euthanised within the Masterton District in the last two years (30 in 2017-18 and 34 in 2018-19). This information can also be found in a section 10A report on our website https://mstn.govt.nz/services/animal-control/ . Under section 10 A of the Dog Control Act 1996, all Councils are required to report annually to the Department of Internal Affairs on specified dog control activities.

Email Correspondence (PDF, 1MB)

Under the Official Information Act, please supply all the fluoride measures of all water supplies under your jurisdiction for 2019, 2018 and 2017.

---

Kaituna Boost Pumphouse Figures

2019

Sampling Date	Determinand	Method	Result	Units
02/01/2019	F	IC	0.56	mg/L
07/01/2019	F	IC	0.52	mg/L
11/01/2019	F	IC	0.54	mg/L
18/01/2019	F	IC	0.18	mg/L
22/01/2019	F	IC	0.5	mg/L
25/01/2019	F	IC	0.59	mg/L
01/02/2019	F	IC	0.59	mg/L
04/02/2019	F	IC	0.55	mg/L
08/02/2019	F	IC	0.58	mg/L
15/02/2019	F	IC	0.63	mg/L
20/02/2019	F	IC	0.56	mg/L
22/02/2019	F	IC	0.69	mg/L
01/03/2019	F	IC	0.59	mg/L
04/03/2019	F	IC	0.59	mg/L
08/03/2019	F	IC	0.49	mg/L
15/03/2019	F	IC	0.54	mg/L
18/03/2019	F	IC	0.51	mg/L
22/03/2019	F	IC	0.54	mg/L
01/04/2019	F	IC	0.54	mg/L
05/04/2019	F	IC	0.54	mg/L
12/04/2019	F	IC	0.87	mg/L
15/04/2019	F	IC	0.62	mg/L
18/04/2019	F	IC	0.83	mg/L
26/04/2019	F	IC	0.73	mg/L
29/04/2019	F	IC	0.81	mg/L
03/05/2019	F	IC	0.42	mg/L
10/05/2019	F	IC	0.56	mg/L
13/05/2019	F	IC	0.55	mg/L
17/05/2019	F	IC	0.52	mg/L
24/05/2019	F	IC	0.56	mg/L
27/05/2019	F	IC	0.55	mg/L
31/05/2019	F	IC	0.64	mg/L
05/06/2019	F	IC	0.59	mg/L
10/06/2019	F	IC	0.56	mg/L
14/06/2019	F	IC	0.57	mg/L
21/06/2019	F	IC	0.47	mg/L
24/06/2019	F	IC	0.52	mg/L
28/06/2019	F	IC	0.55	mg/L
05/07/2019	F	IC	0.52	mg/L
08/07/2019	F	IC	0.77	mg/L
12/07/2019	F	IC	0.59	mg/L
19/07/2019	F	IC	0.55	mg/L
22/07/2019	F	IC	0.49	mg/L
26/07/2019	F	IC	0.49	mg/L
02/08/2019	F	IC	0.48	mg/L
05/08/2019	F	IC	0.47	mg/L
09/08/2019	F	IC	0.5	mg/L
16/08/2019	F	IC	0.33	mg/L
19/08/2019	F	IC	0.41	mg/L
23/08/2019	F	IC	0.43	mg/L
30/08/2019	F	IC	0.69	mg/L
02/09/2019	F	IC	0.38	mg/L
06/09/2019	F	IC	0.4	mg/L
13/09/2019	F	IC	0.08	mg/L
16/09/2019	F	IC	0.55	mg/L
20/09/2019	F	IC	0.66	mg/L

 

2018

03/01/2018	0.9
08/01/2018	0.59
12/01/2018	0.46
19/01/2018	0.71
23/01/2018	0.5
26/01/2018	0.51
02/02/2018	0.64
05/02/2018	0.58
09/02/2018	0.63
16/02/2018	0.64
19/02/2018	0.11
23/02/2018	0.21
02/03/2018	0.39
05/03/2018	0.32
09/03/2018	0.62
16/03/2018	0.34
19/03/2018	0.44
23/03/2018	0.7
29/03/2018	0.35
03/04/2018	0.59
06/04/2018	0.64
13/04/2018	0.51
19/04/2018	0.36
20/04/2018	0.6
27/04/2018	0.6
30/04/2018	0.38
04/05/2018	0.29
11/05/2018	0.48
14/05/2018	0.51
18/05/2018	0.22
08/06/2018	0.46
11/06/2018	0.43
15/06/2018	0.49
22/06/2018	0.5
25/06/2018	0.56
02/07/2018	0.54
06/07/2018	0.58
09/07/2018	0.05
13/07/2018	0.56
20/07/2018	0.58
23/07/2018	0.85
27/07/2018	0.52
03/08/2018	0.46
06/08/2018	0.23
10/08/2018	0.31
17/08/2018	0.3
20/08/2018	0.35
24/08/2018	0.46
31/08/2018	0.46
03/09/2018	0.39
07/09/2018	0.36
14/09/2018	0.58
17/09/2018	0.38
21/09/2018	0.39
01/10/2018	0.57
05/10/2018	0.7
12/10/2018	0.11
15/10/2018	0.4
19/10/2018	0.42
26/10/2018	0.05
29/10/2018	0.71
02/11/2018	0.62
09/11/2018	0.61
12/11/2018	0.05
16/11/2018	0.54
23/11/2018	0.04
07/12/2018	0.6
10/12/2018	0.64
14/12/2018	0.65
21/12/2018	0.59
27/12/2018	0.75

 

2017

06/01/2017	0.58
09/01/2017	0.51
13/01/2017	0.58
20/01/2017	0.57
24/01/2017	0.57
27/01/2017	0.57
03/02/2017	0.53
07/02/2017	0.55
10/02/2017	0.48
17/02/2017	0.39
20/02/2017	0.33
24/02/2017	0.44
03/03/2017	0.77
06/03/2017	0.61
10/03/2017	0.69
20/03/2017	0.11
24/03/2017	0.37
27/03/2017	0.23
03/04/2017	0.27
06/04/2017	0.45
07/04/2017	0.48
13/04/2017	0.72
18/04/2017	0.49
21/04/2017	0.37
28/04/2017	0.57
01/05/2017	0.6
05/05/2017	0.59
12/05/2017	0.58
15/05/2017	0.53
19/05/2017	0.56
26/05/2017	0.43
29/05/2017	0.49
02/06/2017	0.43
09/06/2017	0.46
12/06/2017	0.43
16/06/2017	0.59
23/06/2017	0.64
26/06/2017	0.64
30/06/2017	0.38
07/07/2017	0.49
10/07/2017	0.46
14/07/2017	0.5
21/07/2017	0.58
24/07/2017	0.78
28/07/2017	0.55
04/08/2017	0.56
07/08/2017	0.75
11/08/2017	0.5
18/08/2017	0.72
21/08/2017	0.56
25/08/2017	0.54
31/08/2017	0.76
04/09/2017	0.57
08/09/2017	0.76
15/09/2017	0.46
18/09/2017	0.35
22/09/2017	0.17
29/09/2017	0.48
02/10/2017	0.56
06/10/2017	0.49
13/10/2017	0.58
16/10/2017	0.55
20/10/2017	0.61
27/10/2017	0.55
30/10/2017	0.54
03/11/2017	0.46
10/11/2017	0.58
13/11/2017	0.54
17/11/2017	0.44
24/11/2017	0.49
27/11/2017	0.47
01/12/2017	0.06
08/12/2017	0.25
11/12/2017	0.48
15/12/2017	0.21
22/12/2017	0.55
27/12/2017	0.18
29/12/2017	0.39

• Number of noise complaints for 2019 (for the entire year)

Including:

• Type of complaint (music, etc)
• Street/road names
• Dates
• Equipment seized
• Fines imposed

---

• Total number: 613
• Fines imposed: None
• Equipment seized: 22

 

I would like to make an OIA request to your organisation for all of the information you have on car / motor vehicle tyres that you have had to deal with over the years.

The information I specifically seek is:

1. 1. The cost you have incurred in dealing with the problem ?
   2. Tyre piles that you know of that are in your jurisdiction ?
   3. The information I seek is from Year 2000 to current  ( 31/03/2019 ).

---

In response to your request on 4 February 2020 under the Local Government Official Information Act (LGOIMA) for information relating to disposal of car/motor vehicle tyres. Our responses to your questions are included below, noting your requested information from the year 2000 to 31/3/2019:

1. The cost you have incurred in dealing with the problem?
There were minimal legal costs to prepare and register a legal document, approximately $450. Other costs that have been incurred relate to staff time. Staff in our regulatory teams respond to a range of service requests as part of their roles so it is difficult to provide a specific figure for staff time. Based on the number of issues Council has dealt with, we expect Council would have incurred minimal staff costs over this period dealing with car/motor vehicle tyres related problems.

2. Tyre piles that you know of that are in your jurisdiction?
We have records of one issue in 2012 that involved a large number of tyres that were accumulated on a residential property in Masterton. In November 2012 Council issued an Abatement Notice after negotiations to have them removed failed. As a result, the tyres were removed at minimal cost to the Council. We do not have any knowledge of any other stock-piles of tyres in the Masterton District at the present time.

I 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

---

There is no Masterton District Council (MDC) policy for the rehoming of dogs, however we do have operating procedures for rehoming dogs from our care. MDC works very hard to rehome dogs that are suitable for rehoming to appropriate homes. We are proud of being able to find loving homes for the great dogs that have come into our care. We work closely with the SPCA and our preferred option is to transfer dogs/animals into their care for rehoming. If the SPCA are not able to take the dog because they don’t have the capacity or MDC has been approached directly about the adoption of a specific dog, then we will carry out the adoption directly. The direct adoption includes meeting the dog at our facility, an application form to be completed and approved and a property inspection to ensure that the dog will be suitably cared for.

Please see the attached copy of our Section 10 A report for Dog Control Activities (PDF, 839KB) which shows our rehoming figures, the application form to trial a dog directly from MDC and owner inspection sheet used by staff for property inspections. Please note we have updated the application trial form to include the wording your organisation has recommended.

Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, could I please have a copy of any documents received from other Councils, NZTA, Ministers offices, government agencies (including the Ministry of Transport and Treasury) or the Let’s Get Wellington Moving joint initiative, relating to the Let’s Get Wellington Moving initiative, or similar.

Please include documents that relate to the initiative as a whole, or any of the potential projects included in the initiative (mass transit from wellington city to wellington southern suburbs, either bus, bus rapid transit, light rail or trackless trams; extra Mt Victoria Tunnel; Basin Reserve Improvement; extra terrace tunnel; Te Aro tunnel and park (relocate southbound traffic from Vivian St into a tunnel under Te Aro); Ruahine St / Wellington Road widening).

Please also include in this request documents that relate to funding proposals for such projects.

---

Correspondence from the Regional Transport Committee including agendas and minutes can be found through accessing the GWRC website on the following link http://www.gw.govt.nz/regional-transport-committee-2/

Please note Upper Hutt City Council administer the Mayoral Forum and Wellington City Council the Chief Executives Forum. We could transfer the section of the request relating to the MF and CEF but due to the below the information is likely not to be released.

Mayoral Forum & Chief Executives Forum

Section 2 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 defines official information and specifically excludes categories of information under subsection (b)(i)-(iii) from the definition.  The documents you have requested fall into the exclusion category in subsection (b) (ii) because the Council holds the documents as an agent for the Mayoral Forum and Chief Executives Forum for the sole purpose of safe custody.  Therefore, for that reason the information you requested is withheld.

Email Mayor to Elected Members (PDF, 1MB)

LGWM email to Mayor (PDF, 1MB)

LGWM Vision (PDF, 1MB)

Letter to Phil Twyford (PDF, 201KB)

Email Mayor to CE (PDF, 748KB)

Email Phil Twyford to Mayor (PDF, 871KB)

Email from Infrastructure NZ to Mayor (PDF, 934KB)

Email from CE to MDC Staff (PDF, 247KB)

Email Mayor to Elected Members (PDF, 1MB)

Email Mayor Wellington to Mayor Masterton (PDF, 305KB)

As you may have heard, the Government is planning to move the responsibility for speed and red light cameras from the Police to the NZTA. The NZTA have commissioned WSP to collect information which may assist them with planning for that change.

In relation to this they are interested in how you deal with the processing of parking infringements, and the other infringements that are enforced along with parking.

In particular, they are interested in your answers to the following questions.

• How many infringements do you process per year?
• Approximately how many staff (FTEs) are involved in the processing?
• Are they processed in house or by an external provider?
• If an external provider, what is the nature of the contractual arrangements with the provider?

---

Masterton District Council can advise the following:

• Masterton District Council processed 3852 parking infringements for year ended 30 June 2019.
• Staff spend approximately 11 hours per week processing infringements.
• Infringements are processed in house.

Information Request

1. Can you please let us know how much has been spent to date, on all options of what to do
   with the Municipal building, Town Hall, library, archives and proposed new civic centre, from
   the day the Municipal building closed June 2016 ,to date.
   Costs would include, design option costs, consultants’ fees, council staff costs, engineers’
   fees, and legal costs etc.
   In other words ,all cost associated with the existing Municipal building site and all cost
   associated with the proposed Civic Centre.
2. Has any contracts been entered into, that the MDC are committed to paying ,as part of
   the proposed new Civic Centre . If so, how much?

Response

The information and any reasons for withholding the information has been identified below.

Information meeting the scope of the request:

1. How much has been spent to date on all options relating to the Municipal Building, Town
Hall, library, archives and proposed new civic centre from Jume 2016 to date? The following figures do not include internal staff or management time as these are not tracked against specific projects.

Relating directly to MTLT site 1 Queen Street:

• • $83,557 – includes geotechinical investigations, MDC legal fees, MTLT legal fees and valuation costs

Relating to Municipal buildings:

• • $210,860 – includes earthquake assessments, legal advice, valuations, design options, specialist advice, external
    project management and concept designs.

Relating to design work and consideration of alternative sites:

• • $347,139 Includes design options, bulk and density study, external project management and specialist advice, valuations and building assessments, both generic and specific to Recreation Centre land.

Total $641,558 (GST exclusive)

2. Any contracts that have been entered into, that MDC are committed to paying as part of the proposed civic centre and costs.

Council has entered into a number of contracts for delivery of professional services to support the project. These are on hold pending further decision-making by the Council.

These include:
• architectural services, including theatre and library/archive design
• quantity surveying
• engineering services, including structural and acoustic design.

An end of financial year invoice is anticipated from the architect, but no other commitments have been made at this time.

A resident came into the main office to enquire about the dog signs that are around Henley lake. He wants to know the cost of the sign and how many ducks and ducklings that have been killed in the last 5 years to justify how much money has been spent on the signage. 

---

The infrastructure housing the signs was part of an upgrade of our signage at Henley Lake and are multi-use. When the “Take the lead” campaign ends in November we will use the other signage infrastructure to communicate other events and Council projects.

The costs of installing the signage infrastructure was approximately $5,000, while the cost of the Take the Lead signs (encouraging dog owners to have dogs on leads) specifically was $273.

This campaign is a response to long-running concerns that Henley Lake users are not adhering to the bylaw that requires dogs to be on a lead around the wetlands area at certain times of the year. As is often that case with dead of injured fowl, it is very difficult to ascertain the cause. However, we have anecdotal reports that dogs are a large contributor: for the period from 1 January 2014 to 27 September 2019 we have received 14 calls specifically related to ducks at Henley lake. This included concerns about feeding of ducks, four reports of injured ducks and seven reports of dogs chasing ducks. Of course, we are aware that many people that witness attacks or harassment of wildlife do not call the Council to report it. Because of this, we strongly encourage all of our community members to be our eyes and ears on the ground so we can confirm anecdotal reports. There have been no prosecutions within the previous five years.

I wanted to ask how much Masterton District Council has spent on external catering:

During the 2019 year so far, during 2018 and during  2017.

---

Thank you for your email requesting information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 regarding how much Masterton District Council has spent on external catering during 2017, 2018 and the 2019 year so far. We have defined ‘External Catering’ as any externally provided food  (lunch or dinner) to elected members, staff or people attending meetings hosted by the Council. Tea, coffee, biscuits etc for morning teas during meetings or staff room supplies such as milk are not included. The figures do include the cost of morning tea ‘shouts’ where the Council has contributed to a farewell function for an employee and the food provided at welcome powhiri. Also included are the costs of food for lunches purchased externally and provided at council meetings. While these are not strictly externally catered costs, the food has been externally purchased. Other self-catered food provided at staff and management meetings has not been included. A Sister Cities function at Copthorne Solway Park in 2017 (costs $2,594.78) has been included as the cost went through the Council’s accounts.

Calendar years results as follows:

2017                                                   $22,655

2018                                                   $17,650

2019 (9 months to 30 Sept)               $ 9,012

I am looking for information regarding how much the Council spent, and what sort of initiatives went into promoting turnout and voter engagement, for the recent council elections in October, compared with previous elections? Please supply the following information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).

In particular, I am looking for:
• The total amount spent by the Council that went into promoting the election, and increasing voter turnout – for every council election since 2000
• A breakdown of the spending that went into promoting the election and increasing voter turnout (e.g. through comms, publicity campaign, education campaign) – for every council election since 2000 (- if the information exists. If it is too time-expensive, then can I request the information just for the 2016 & 2019 election).
• An outline of the strategy that was used by the Council to promote voting in this election
• A list of new initiatives thought up by the Council this year that would promote voter turnout and voter engagement
• Evidence of efforts made by the Council to encourage and increase voter engagement e.g. a “meet the candidates” event, a Mayoral debate, working with local news outlets to increase election coverage

---

Download the full Council election costs (PDF, 228KB).

This is a request for official information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings (LGOIMA) Act 1987 regarding flights and international trips for the 2018/ 19 financial year. It is being sent to all councils. (It is the same request that was sent last year which you answered).

Domestic travel

1. the total spend on all domestic flights flown by your Council in the 2018/2019 financial year.
2. the total number of domestic flights flown in the same period. (One flight means one way, return flight = 2 flights)

International travel

1. the total spend on all international flights flown in the 2018/2019 financial year;
2. a list of each international itinerary flown in the same period, including the:

• • destination (s);
  • reason for travel;
  • travel class flown;
  • the number of travellers on each trip;

3. costs for each international itinerary, please also provide details of all associated:

• entertainment expenses;
• food;
• accommodation (including the number of nights stayed in each place);
• conference costs;
• transport and transfers;
• (including any expense reimbursement);

4. For each international itinerary, please tell us if a domestic partner also travelled with the official, and what the council paid for, if they paid for anything.

---

Domestic

1. $6,524
2. 46

International

There were no international flights

 

1.  Who recommended an aeromagnetic survey to the Council to search for Groundwater?

2.  Please supply a copy or copies of correspondence in support of this recommendation.

---

Thank you for your request for information email dated 21 December 2019, for the following information.

1. The concept was presented to the Water Resilience Committee on 19 September 2019 by Greater Wellington Regional Council. Extract from the minutes of meeting: “[GW staff member] provided an overview of the Aerial Hydrogeology Survey application,
   which was submitted on Monday (16th September).

• • Hawke’s Bay successfully obtained funding to bring equipment over from Perth to undertake the surveying work and the PDU have asked Wairarapa to coordinate with HB to utilise the equipment while it is here. The machinery is in the Waikato at the moment, HB will start using in the New Year and Wairarapa expect to utilise around March/April 2020. The timing is also weather dependent and there are many logistics to sort including comms and ensuring councils are briefed to ensure support and address any issues.
  • Equipment can survey as deep as 500m, but will probably survey up to 200m – 300m since we expect the greater the depth the less the accuracy of information. The surveying will provide a breakdown of the water elements (e.g. nitrates etc.) and can discern water losses and gains (where it goes in and where it goes out). The model has also been used to better identify the exact location of ground water so the bores can be targeted more accurately and a larger amount obtained. The surveying will help to calibrate the aerial survey data. The survey data will help inform where geological structures, suspected of containing ground water exist.
  • There is a possibility of flying over Lake Wairarapa to ascertain what is going on underneath and making a connection between the surface and ground water. Tend to look at a set of cross sections across the lake rather than continuous.
  • It takes about a year, after the raw information is obtained, to interpret, decode and model to build a 3D representation (mid 2021). There are few people in NZ that have the expertise to analyse the data obtained by this technology.
  • The $1.5m funding sought will pay to survey half of the zones not the whole. The committee asked what it would cost to fly the whole valley. [GW staff member] estimated that it would be in the order of a further $1m would be required to survey all the groundwater zones. If PGF funds 50% of this survey extension, then it would potentially require co-funding of half a million. To date, the project has prioritised which zones to survey locations according to the expertise of freshwater hydrologists.
  • The group agreed that it was worth pursuing the additional $1m funding to survey the whole zone, given the on-balance benefits. The group also agreed to look for co-funding support from industry groups given the benefits the industry sector, job generation and given it will save money in the long run. It was noted that time is of the essence given we will need to amend the PGF application and given the application is currently on track for a decision in a month. [GW Chair] noted that GW has already contributed all the funding it is able to give to this project
• Action: [GW staff member] to send Aerial Hydrogeology Survey PGF application to the group for information. [GW staff member] also to estimate the extra cost of flying the remaining portion of the valley floor and report back to WEDS.
• Action: [WEDS Programme Manager] to work with [Farming Representative] and council CE’s to pursue the extra $0.5m PGF funding and the required $0.5m co-funding to conduct Aerial Hydrogeology Surveying of the whole region rather than half.
• Action: [WEDS Administrator] to put the Aerial Hydrogeology Survey high on the agenda for the next meeting

Correspondence
The original funding request went to Masterton District Council (report written by Masterton District Council CEO) on 25 September 2019 – the report is publicly available (pages 283-289 of the Agenda). The recommendation of the CEO was: That Council

1. approves up to $130,000 of unbudgeted expenditure to complete an AerialHydrogeology Survey for all the Ruamāhanga groundwater zones, subject to cofounding from the other Wairarapa councils and commercial / industry interests
OR
2. declines to contribute funding to complete an Aerial Hydrogeology Survey for all the Ruamāhanga groundwater zones.

Council approved funding.

On 18 December 2019 a subsequent report went to Council once it was ascertained that industry could not provide co-funding. The CEO’s recommendations were: That Council
1. notes that it previously (25 September 2019) approved up to $130,000 of unbudgeted expenditure to complete an Aerial Hydrogeology Survey for all the Ruamāhanga groundwater zones, subject to co-funding from the other Wairarapa councils and commercial / industry interests
2. agrees to remove the condition of funding that required co-funding from commercial / industry interests
3. approves up to $130,000 expenditure to enable the survey to cover all of the Ruamāhanga groundwater zones subject to co-funding to enable the Aerial Hydrogeology Survey for all the Ruamāhanga groundwater zones to proceed being secured

Council approved the CEO’s recommendations.

There is correspondence between CDC, SWDC and MDC, where the MDC CEO shared a copy of her paper to Council (which is publicly available) and the CEOs discussed unbudgeted expenditure, it being opex for the Wairarapa Councils, efficiencies of scale and each council’s delegations policy/manual re who had delegation to approve any funding. This information is covered in the final report to Masterton District Council on 18 December 2019 referred to above. We have had the benefit of reviewing the LGOIMA response prepared by Carterton District Council and consider that they have provided all the internal correspondence and inter-Council correspondence we hold. We have therefore not included duplicate copies in our response to you, however we can do if you would like this.

I trust this information satisfies your request, however you have a right to seek a review, under section 27 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, regarding the information we have provided.

• How many bridge assets is the council responsible for in the district? What is the description of these bridge e.g. two lane, one lane, year built, etc.?
• Of theses bridges how many are approaching their estimated end of life and will need to be repaired/replaced within the next year?
• How much is this work estimated to cost?
• How much money has council put aside to contribute towards these works? Under what category does this funding come from?

---

Council has 161 bridges, of which 87 are single lane, and 98 larger culverts of which 6 are single lane. Larger culverts are those with a waterway area greater than 3.4m2 which are considered bridges for inspection and funding purposes.

The build date for the bridges is:

1920s: 10
1930s: 40
1940s: 32
1950s: 30
1960s: 31
1970s: 6
1980s: 8
1990s: 1
2010s: 3

27 of the bridges have timber decks which have a shorter life. 19 of these timber decks will require replacement within 30 years which will be funded from the normal subsidised renewal programme.

There is one bridge to be replaced due to being at the end of its service life programmed for 2021/22 with a cost of $330k, and another in 2030/31 for $150k. Three further bridges are due for programming in the 2040s. All other bridges would be up for replacement beyond 2050.

Replacement dates are based on assumed rates of deterioration and presumes normal maintenance is achieved which could either extend or reduce the expected life. Costs are based on average construction rates and may not reflect specific site conditions.

Funding for the low cost component renewals in 2020/21 will come from within existing Low Cost, Low Risk subsidised and rates funded budgets. Larger projects are funded from depreciation funds and NZTA subsidy. The Council is building funds each year, to the extent of 43% of the depreciation (or value decline). The amount funded annually is currently approximately $300,000.

A provision has also been made in the Council’s budgets for the replacement of the south bound Colombo Rd bridge in 2021/22. This is due to scour issues in the Waipoua River requiring the bridge to be replaced 20 years prior to its planned replacement, rather than age related issues.

A number of residents on this supply have been asking me about the status of our water supply in terms of the dry summer we are having, ie, are we running out?  Use by those on the supply, apart from Tinui School and the Tinui Pub, is very modest.

We understand that the current aquifer may be running low and attempts are being made to locate an alternative source. This is hearsay only.

We are paying a small fortune for water out here – $422/year for a very low-tech water system. This is a huge cost.  Better information for water users would be helpful.

We’d also like to know how sewerage scheme, which continues as an expensive millstone round the necks of residents, some of whom are still paying off the capital cost, also costs exactly $422/unit, while some properties were able to continue on individual septic tanks.

A breakdown of the actual costs of running both the sewerage and water schemes would be appreciated.

---

In response to your question about the aquifer, we can advise that the aquifer is not running low but that Council has been investigating alternative water sources for security of the supply and general resilience planning.

Re the properties connected to the sewerage scheme, the upgraded scheme replicated the old scheme which flowed to a septic tank near the hall with an overflow to the river. The scheme now includes treatment and disposal to meet new resource consent conditions. There are properties in Tinui village which were not connected to the old scheme and were allowed to remain on their own septic tanks when the new scheme was built. In relation to the costs of the schemes, the Tinui water supply and sewerage scheme costs are identified separately in Council’s ledgers. Costs include repairs and maintenance, power, water quality testing and resource consent compliance, debt servicing and depreciation. Set out on the next page are costs of 2018/2019 actual and the 2019/2020 budget (on which the current rates have been set). It should be noted that operating costs for both schemes on a per connection basis are well in excess of the rates being charged to users.