The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) allows individuals, groups and organisations to request information held by local government agencies. The purpose of the act is to increase the availability of official information to residents to promote accountability and enable more effective participation in local government.
We receive around 10 requests a month and must respond to each request “as soon as practical” and no more than 20 working days after receiving the request. Our current average response time is 7.5 working days.
All requests and responses are recorded in a working register that is saved in our Electronic Document Management System. When a request has been answered, we make it publicly available here on our website. We would recommend having a read through the questions below as you may find your question has already been answered. If you can’t see the answer to your question, you can submit a LGOIMA request by sending an email to [email protected] and referencing the Act or you can send a letter to PO Box 444, Masterton.
Planning and Building
Civic Facility Land Purchase and Scope
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.
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
William Donald Drive
Can you please provide us with the following information:-
- A copy of any officer reports or recommendations to the Council in relation to the new road through the local purpose reserve/park
- A copy of the Council resolution to allow the new road through the reserve, including any record of discussions and reasons for the decision
- 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
- A copy of the notification decision on the new resource consent application for the Solway Hotel site (if a notification decision has been made)
- 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
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:
- How many firing ranges in your Council area have both indoor and outdoor facilities?
- How many solely indoor firing ranges are there in your Council area?
- How many solely outdoor firing ranges are there in your Council area?
- How often are the firing ranges inspected by Council officers and/or Police?
- What is your Council’s regime for assessing shooters’ and range officers’ exposure to lead at the firing ranges?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- None that we are aware of.
- Council do not inspect the indoor firing range. We do not know about the Police.
- There are none.
Earthquake Strengthening Costs
- 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.
Town Hall/Civic Centre Reports
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.
Building Consent Processing Targets
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:
- 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/
- Excerpts from reports to Council’s Strategic Planning and Policy Committee, which provide an overview of the IANZ audit of BCA (PDF, 86KB)
- How many residential pools are there within the Masterton District Council region?
- What is the charge for a pool inspection?
- What is the fine for a failed pool inspection?
- How many pool inspections have taken place since the new rules came into force in 2017?
- How many failed pool inspections have there been since the new rules came into force in 2017?
- 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?
- How much money has the council collected in inspection fees since the new rules came into force in 2017?
- How much money has the council collected in failed pool inspection fines/fees since the new rules came into force in 2017?
- How many children have drowned in residential pools and spas since the new rules came into force in 2017?
- Approx 850 pools.
- $36 for first inspection.
- No fine, however follow-up inspections are charged at $151.
- Approx 600 inspections.
- Approximately 25 per cent of pools have failed initial inspections and required an additional inspection for compliance.
- There is no charge if inspectors cannot access a property.
- Pool inspection fees are charged to the same ledger code.
- In the Masterton district there have been no pool-related deaths since the new legislation was enacted on 1 January 2017.
Finance and Rates
For each year, please break this down into how much of each annual spend was used in each of the following categories:
- Facebook and Facebook-owned properties (Instagram, WhatsApp)
- Social media influencers
- Other social media (e.g. Snapchat)
- Search engine marketing (broken down by which search engine was used e.g. Google, Bing, Yahoo! etc)
- Other online advertising
- Radio, including podcasts
- Outdoor (e.g. billboards, buses)
Advertising Spreadsheet showing workings (XLS, 573KB)
Remuneration and Rating
- Average residential costs:
- The average residential costs of rates and other Council charges:
Average residential costs = (X + Y)/Z
Please ensure that the figures used (X, Y, and Z) are disclosed in the response.
X is the total of all rates (general and targeted) charged by the Council to residential rating units;
Y is the total amount of user charges or levies applicable to residential rating units (for example charges relating to metered water, infrastructure contributions, refuse collection, fire protection etc.); and
Z is the number of residential rating units (however defined by the Council) within the Council’s district or city. If the Council does not have a classification for residential, please use the closest definition (such as urban).
Please do not include Council charges that are not part of the rates demand (for example retail sales of Council rubbish bags).
Please exclude any amounts that are collected on behalf of a Regional Council.
- A list of the types of rates, user charges and levies used to calculate each of the figures above.
- Average residential costs (Regional Councils):
The average residential costs of rates and other Council charges collected by the Council on behalf of a Regional Council:
Average residential costs = (X + Y)/Z
Please interpret X, Y, and Z as per (a). Please only include sums collected by the Council on behalf of a Regional Council.
If the Council collects rates on behalf of more than one Regional Council, please disclose the average residential costs collected on behalf of each Regional Council separately.
- Rating units
- The total number of rating units within the Council’s district or city.
- The total number of residential rating units (however defined by the council) within the Council’s district or city. If the Council does not have a definition for residential, please use the closest definition (such as urban, lifestyle, or similar).
- For each Regional Council that your authority falls under, please separately disclose the number of rating units and residential rating units in each region.
Please disclose the number of rating units and residential rating units as the number of separately used or inhabited parts (SUIP).
I request the following information for the 2017/18 Financial Year:
- Staff Numbers
- The FTE number of staff employed by the Council (excluding any staff employed by council-controlled organisations) as at 30 June 2018.
- The FTE number of staff employed by the Council (including any staff employed by council-controlled organisations) as at 30 June 2018.
- The total number of any severance payments made to staff (including payments to staff employed by council-controlled organisations). Please only include payments that are made above and beyond any payment that is required to be made under an employment agreement.
- The total dollar value of any severance payments made to staff (including payments to staff employed by council-controlled organisations). Please only include payments that are made above and beyond any payment that is required to be made under an employment agreement.
- The total number of staff dismissed due to poor performance.
- The total number of staff (including those employed by council-controlled organisations) receiving remuneration in excess of $100,000.
- The total number of staff (including those employed by council-controlled organisations) receiving remuneration in excess of $200,000.
- Contractor Numbers
- The total value of payments made by the Council (or any council-controlled organisations) to any company or individual contracted by the Council to provide a service.
- The FTE number of contractors (i.e. individual positions) the payments in (a) equate.
- The total number of contractors (i.e. individual positions) receiving payments totalling in excess of $100,000.
- The total number of contractors (i.e. individual positions) receiving payments totalling in excess of $200,000.
- CEO Remuneration
- The total remuneration paid to the Council’s Chief Executive.
- The total remuneration paid to the CEO of each council-controlled organisation. Please disclose the name of the CEO, the name of the relevant council-controlled organisation, and the annual remuneration the CEO received.
Please ensure that each remuneration figure includes any KiwiSaver contributions, mileage payments, and any other benefits. Please also break down the total remuneration figure into each of these components (base salary, mileage payments, KiwiSaver contributions, communications allowances, and any other benefits).
If the Council (or any CCO) had a change of CEO during the financial year, please disclose the CEO remuneration as an annualised figure, i.e. the amount the incoming (or interim) CEO would have received should they have remained in the role for the full year. Please disclose any severance payments made to the outgoing CEO separately
7. Elected Official Remuneration
- The total remuneration paid to the Council’s Mayor during the 2017/18 Financial Year.
- The total remuneration paid to the Council’s Deputy Mayor during the 2017/18 Financial Year.
- The sum of annual remuneration paid the Councillors (excluding the Mayor and Deputy Mayor) in the 2017/18 Financial Year.
- The total number of Councillors (excluding the Mayor and Deputy Mayor).
Please ensure that each remuneration figure includes any non-salary benefits, i.e. please disclose the total of each position’s base salary, hearing fees, mileage payments, communications allowances and any other non-salary benefits.
Please include any remuneration paid to elected officials who hold specific portfolios, and any remuneration paid to elected officials for sitting on various committees or subcommittees, or for attending hearings.
If the Council had a change of an elected official during the financial year, please disclose the remuneration as an annualised figure, i.e. the amount the elected official would have received should they have remained in the role for the full year. Please disclose any severance payments made to the outgoing elected official separately.
- Audit and Risk Oversight
- The number of members on the Council’s Audit and Risk Committee (or equivalent).
- The number of elected officials on the Committee.
- The number of independent members on the Committee.
- The number of lawyers (with a current practising certificate) on the Committee.
- The number of chartered accountants (with a current practising certificate) on the Committee.
- Whether the chair of the Council’s Audit and Risk Committee is an independent member.
- Whether the Council has an election year protocol requiring Council staff to act in a politically neutral or impartial manner. If so, please provide the wording of the provision(s).
- Whether the Council has a code of conduct (above and beyond an election year protocol) requiring Council staff to act in a political neutral or impartial manner. If so, please provide the wording of the provision(s).
- Payments to third parties
- The total payments made by the Council (or any council-controlled organisation) to any Chamber of Commerce.
- The total payments made by the Council (or any council-controlled organisation) to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).
- The total payments made by the Council (or any council-controlled organisation) to the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM).
In the 2017/18 financial year there were no staff dismissed (for any reason).
The Council’s Annual Report disclosure in Note 19 meets the accounting standards for disclosure of information relating to employee remuneration, however we confirm that of the eleven staff who earned over $100,000, two of those earned over $200,000.
Staff Conduct Policy (PDF, 307KB)
LGOIMA Taxpayers Union (PDF, 186KB)
Expectations of Integrity and Conduct (PDF, 779KB)
Staff Protocols for Local Body Elections (PDF, 358KB)
Ratepayers Reports TOP (PDF, 66KB) and BOTTOM (PDF, 76KB)
Are you able to email me minutes and some financials around the costs and budget for Waiata House.
The original paper to Council is available here.The report is item 18 on the agenda. The minutes from that meeting were reported to the next Council meeting. The minutes reflect that the Council approved “expenditure of up to $655,000 for the Waiata House move, including the procurement of furniture and equipment via a contracted procurement arrangement and notes that this is an increase of $200,000 over the provisional project budget…”
The original budget included in the Plan for 2018/19 was an estimate prepared prior to taking possession of the building. The following information is contained in the report to council. The first line is the budget that was estimated, the breakdown under it was the projected costs including design and requirements based on that design as well as moving costs.
- 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.
- How much money was spent on prosecuting the owners of dogs that attacked during 2018, and which incidents did these relate to?
- How many dogs were deemed menacing by deed that year, and what incidents did they relate to?
- 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:
- How many dogs have been registered (including multiple owner registrations).
- How many applications have been made for a responsible dog owner licence.
- The total revenue which has been collected from dog registration and/or responsible owner licences.
- The number of fines and infringement notices issued to owners.
- The total dollar value for the fines and infringement notices issued.
- The amount actually collected from owners in relation to fines and infringement notices
- The total number of dogs that have been re-homed.
- The total number of dogs that have been brought into Council control and destroyed/ euthanised.
- The total spend by Council from dog registrations on systems and processes necessary to on run dog control.
- Any documents (including meeting minutes and communications) showing how decisions are made with respect to how dog registration fees are allocated and spent.
- The total amount spent in each of the specified years on animal management/control.
- 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)
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)
Environmental Health Officers
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?
- 3 plus a cadette EHO
- a. No policy for recruitment b. Yes
- They are suitable
Car Registration Infringements
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.
Shared Pound Facilities
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.
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
Noise Complaint Statistics
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:
- The cost you have incurred in dealing with the problem ?
- Tyre piles that you know of that are in your jurisdiction ?
- 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.
Waste and Sustainability
Waste Management and Minimisation
- We request information in relation to all grants made in the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years, including:
- the recipients;
- the amount;
- the date of approval;
- a list of the decision makers(s);
- any conflicts of interests declared during the decision making process;
- the date(s) of payment;
- the project summary;
- how the grant promotes or achieves waste minimisation;
- how the grant is in accordance with the WMMP – please refer to the strategic objectives or strategy in the WMMP the grant relates to;
- what follow up (post-implementation review) the Council has conducted to ensure the project was successful (or otherwise) in promoting or achieving waste minimisation (if any).
- We request the closing balances of the fund allocated to Waste Disposal Levy revenue for the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years.
- We also request a copy of the WMMP (or URL to where it is available).
The Council received Waste levy funding as follows:
All of the funds received have been spent/allocated to offset expenditure on waste minimisation activities in the years concerned. There is no unspent fund carried forward. The Council’s expenditure on waste minimisation activities runs in excess of $1m per annual.
The Council is part of the Wellington Region’s WMMP (PDF, 2MB).
External waste minimisation funding report (PDF, 62KB)
Can you please send me the total tonnage of recycling collected from transfer stations in your area for the past five financial years.
Building Energy Performance
The New Zealand Green Building Council is a not-for-profit, industry organisation working towards a more sustainable built environment. World Green Building Week is upon us and as part of our annual market review we would like to request information to gain a better understanding of the position of the local government sector. Please supply the following information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA):
1. During the next 12 months do you have plans to assess and certify the sustainability performance of your major property asset(s) or tenancies using 3rd party certified tools including the NZ Government’s NABERSNZ Office Energy Performance scheme or Green Star Performance certification tool for existing buildings?
2. How much grid supplied electricity (kWh) did your main Council Office building consume in the previous financial year (2018/19)?
3. How much gas (kWh or MJ) if any, did your main Council Office building consume in the previous financial year (2018/19)?
4. How much Diesel (litres) for non-backup purposes if any, did your main Council Office building consume in the previous financial year (2018/19)?
5. How much Coal (Kg) if any, did your main Council Office building consume in the previous financial year (2018/19)?
6. What is the floor area (m2) of this building?
7. a) Does the Council occupy the whole building or do other tenants occupy the building?
b) If other tenants are in the building does the energy use and floor area include them?
2. The Council administration was spread across fours sites due to the earthquake-prone status of our main office building. The electricity usage provided is for all four sites for the 12 months to 30 June 2019. 258,992 kWh
6. Floor area of the four sites occupied 1,885 m2
7. a) In three of the four sites, yes other tenants.
b) No & No.
“I would like to request an up-to-date Geomap of all known landfill sites (closed and operating) in the Greater Wellington Region please.
Also, can I please have a list of types of plastics that can be recycled in Greater Wellington, the locations of plastic recycling sites open to the public, and the extent of reach of kerbside recycling collection services in your region?”
Masterton District Council currently supports recycling for plastics numbered 1 and 2.
Masterton District Council currently collect recycling (including plastics) from approx 9200 households and business. This is a reach of over 21,000 people,
Masterton District Council has three (3) sites open to the public for plastic recycling, they are;
All Masterton recycling is transferred to Masterton Recycling Centre (1 Nursery Rd, Homebush 5810) for processing .
Waste Statistics and Acceptance
1. What is the diversion rate for your district?
2. What is your volume of waste per capita to landfill?
3. What is your recycling rate per capita?
4. Where is your closest landfill?
5. Where is plastic, glass, metal and paper sent once collected?
6. Do you offer a kerbside service for both rubbish and recycling (urban/rural)?
7. Do you accept drinking glasses or pyrex in recycling?
8. Do you accept plastic plant pots?
9. Do you accept soft plastics? (If yes, what happens to them?)
10. Do you accept Tetra Pak cartons?
11. Do you accept plastic milk bottle lids? (If yes, what happens to them?)
12. Do you have a food scraps and/or garden waste collection? (If yes, what happens to it?)
- MDC diversion rate for 2018/19 is 24.5
- 0.56t per capita or 560kg per capita per year.
- 0.182t per capita or 182kg per capita per year.
- MDC does not have any open landfills. All MDC waste is sent to Bonney Glen landfill site near Marton.
- Glass goes to O-I Glass based in Auckland, Paper and cardboard heads to OJI in Lower Hutt, Plastics and Metals go to various NZ based processors
- We offer a kerbside council service for both Rubbish and Recycling in the following areas. Masterton Urban, Tinui, Castlepoint and Riversdale townships.
- No, our glass processor does not accept Pyrex style glass.
- No mainly due to the amount of contamination.
- No we currently do not accept soft plastic.
- No we do not currently accept Tetra Pak cartons
- MDC accepts plastic milk bottle lids although we discourage the lids as they are too small for our recycling machines.
- MDC does not currently have a green waste kerbside collection, though this is available at our transfer station and a private collection is available. MDC does not currently operate a food scraps collection.
Let's Get Wellington Moving
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)
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)
Parking Fine Processing
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.
Staff and Governance
All trips taken by the Mayor to China in the past 5 years. Please include where the Mayor travelled to during the trip, officials the Mayor met during the trip, how long the trip was, purpose of the trip and who paid for it.
If it was Council funded, how much did it cost?
Masterton District Council can advise that The Mayor of Masterton travelled to Masterton’s Sister City Changchun, China, in May 2016 at the invitation of the Mayor of Changchun. The Mayor met with the Mayor of Changchun, Foreign Affairs officials, business leaders, school principals and officials from education, and visited the Sculpture Park for a tree planting ceremony to commemorate our twenty-year relationship. The Mayor of Masterton was in Changchun for four days for official business.
The trip was self-funded by the Mayor of Masterton with Council contributing $680.00 for gifts to the hosts.
Note: These questions are copied and adapted from the select committee questions to govt agencies, and as such can re considered fair and reasonable and within the bounds of the info that your council would have to hand
- How many public relations and/or communications employees staff were employed* by your council for the periods**:
- in the last financial year;
- in each of the previous four financial years;
- How many public relations and/or communications contractors or consultants or providers of comms/PR professional services were engaged by your council;
- broken down as per same periods in Q1
- what was the total salary budget for employed staff, broken down for same periods in Q1?
- what was the total salary/fee/etc budget for contractors or consultants or providers of professional services
- How much were these staff paid broken down by salary band?
- broken down as per same periods in Q1
- How much were contractors, consultants, providers of professional services paid broken down by salary band?
- broken down as per same periods in Q1
- Where contractors, consultants etc were paid by project, pls specify the total cost of such projects
- broken down as per same periods in Q1
- Noting any projects that cost the council more than $100,000
- How much in total did the council spend on advertising, public relations/comms campaigns or publications in the last financial year?
- How does this compare to the cost of this in the previous four financial years?
Communications is a growing area because peoples’ desire for information, and speed they expect to get this information, is increasing. Our team’s role is to ensure our ratepayers receive information in a timely, transparent and efficient way.
As an example of increasing expectations, the number of people following Masterton District Council on social media has grown 13 per cent in the last 12 months alone; we now have almost 8,000 followers on social media. This is a significant number for a district with a population of around 25,000.
For a long time, many Councils have not been well resourced to ensure residents receive up-to-date, direct and regular information. This was certainly the case for Masterton; earlier this year we asked our ratepayers what they thought of our communication; a quarter were dissatisfied with how well they were informed about Council and its services. To help improve these results we are now bringing our resourcing up to a level which enables us to get information out to our community proactively.
Examples of how we’re doing this include introducing regular publications that are emailed direct to residents’ email inboxes, online updates on significant Council projects and, as referred to earlier, continual communication through social media.
The scope of work our communications team covers is significantly broader than communications teams in other organisations. In addition to the disciplines outlined by PRINZ, our communications team is also responsible for marketing of Council services and events, stakeholder engagement around capital projects (over and above communicating with ratepayers), developing plans for engaging the community (both in formal engagements and ‘pre-engagement’ to support policy development) and event management. Typically, media relations accounts for about 30 per cent of the communications team’s time.
Finally, it’s important to express that our communications team is committed to working in line with PRINZ’s Code of Ethics: https://www.prinz.org.nz/About/Code-of-Ethics
I was after some data under the OIA if available please.
- How many people are making “fix it requests” via mdc website versus by phone, in person, and by post (not sure if that is still applicable)?
- Of those standard “fix it requests” made (not classified as urgent), what is the average time frame of response to the person – whether a phone call or email back, and the average time frame of that problem being fixed?
- How many “fix it requests” problems are left as is for various reasons?
Masterton District Council can advise the following;
- 126 fix-it-forms were received during the period 1st July 2018 to 30 June 2019 compared to 7,051 service requests for that period. Service requests can be received via phone, face to face, email or post.
- The average response to the person who submitted a fix-it-form is 2.5 calendar days and the average time for the issue to be fixed was 18 calendar days. The average includes some complex requests and days counted include weekends. The majority of fix it forms are responded to within 1 day and over half the issues are resolved within a week.
- There is one fix-it-form that has not yet been resolved and this fix-it-form remains open from April of this year. This request has been placed into a work schedule for action.
Staff Salaries over 250K
The job titles of staff, ordered by seniority, with a total remuneration of equal to or more than one quarter of a million dollars annually, as at 30 September 2019.
As a separate request (request 2):
The amount each of those persons is remunerated annually.
If you refuse request 2, please nevertheless provide the information requested in 1.
Masterton District Council can advise that we have no staff who’s total package is more than $250K.
Elected Member Demographics
- Names of all Elected Members and the date of their terms (for the period/elections between 1989 to 2001)
- Elected Members Gender (if possible, during this period)
- Ethnicity (if possible, during this period)
- Whether your Council utilised STV or FPP, and if you’re STV, when did this commence?
1 & 2.
RC Francis (Mayor) Elected 1989 1989‐2004 Male
DW Adams Elected 1989 One term Male
RC Cameron Elected 1989 Retired 1992 Male
GE Daniell Elected 1989 1989‐2010 Male
JE Duncan Elected 1989 Resigned Sept 1991 Female
HR Loader Elected 1989 Retired 1992 Male
JBK McCombie Elected 1989 1989‐1992 Retired 1995 Female
GA McDonald Elected 1989 1989‐1992 Retired 1995 Male
RT McKenzie Elected 1989 1989‐2007 Retired 2010 Male
RA Southey Elected 1989 One term Male
JF Tatham Elected 1989 Retired 1992 Male
AI Vallance Elected 1989 1989‐1995 Defeated 1998 Female
RL Wagg Elected 1989 1989, 1995‐1998 Defeated 2001 Male
JW Woodhouse Elected 1989 1989‐1992 Defeated 1995 Female
JR Wardell Elected 1989 Retired 1992 Male
B Wilmshurst Elected 1989 Died January 1991 Male
PJ Taylor From 25/3/1992 25/3/1992‐1998 Defeated 2001 Female
JM Harris Elected 1992 Defeated 1995 Female
GG McLachlan Elected 1992 1992‐2001 Retired 2004 Male
WA Hargreaves Elected 1995 Retired 1998 Male
FR Long Elected 1995 Retired 1998 Male
C Peterson Elected 1995 1995‐2019 Male
ER Gosse Elected 1998 1998‐2001 Defeated 2004 Female
CJ Mills Elected 1998 1998‐2001 Resigned October 2002 Male
DH Payton Elected 1998 1998‐2001 Defeated 2004 Male
GW Welsh Elected 1998 Retired 2001 Male
BL Goodwin Elected 2001 2001‐2007 Defeated 2010 Male
RJ Hooker Elected 2001 2001‐2016 Defeated 2019 Male
LA Toloa Elected 2001 Defeated 2004 Male
3. Unfortunately we are unable to supply the Elected Members ethnicity as this wasn’t recorded
4. Between 1989-2001 Masterton District Council used FPP.
Civic Facility Expenses
- 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.
- 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?
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.
- $210,860 – includes earthquake assessments, legal advice, valuations, design options, specialist advice, external
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.
• 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.
Henley Lake Signage
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:
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).
- the total spend on all domestic flights flown by your Council in the 2018/2019 financial year.
- the total number of domestic flights flown in the same period. (One flight means one way, return flight = 2 flights)
- the total spend on all international flights flown in the 2018/2019 financial year;
- 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;
- 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.
There were no international flights
Parks and Open Spaces
I’m interested to know how much Council spends on roadside spraying per annum. Are you able to provide information for the different chemical herbicides used? If possible, I’d also like to know the annual calendar of weed control, for example: how often are culverts and roadsigns sprayed and how often playgrounds and parks.
1. How much does council spend on roadside spraying per annum? $63,000 , excluding GST (in urban areas).
2. Chemical used in urban areas? In relation to Parks and Reserves and urban street spraying is prominently Glysophate 360 and Organo Silicon, which is a surfactant, used when rain is possible.
3. Frequency of spray regime for urban areas? This equates to 6 x per annum for all chemical edge/weed control, and includes urban parks and reserves and street spraying.
1. How much does council spend on roadside spraying per annum? Cost in 2018/19 was $48,088.44, excluding GST (in rural areas). There is also a cost centre for noxious plants, 2018/19 costs were $18,480.54, excluding GST.
2. Chemical used in rural areas? Glyphosate 510 with Metasulfuron added. For the spring application Valzine is added to extend the period of control.
3. Frequency of spray regime for rural areas? There are two applications per year in the rural area; autumn and spring on water channels/drains/culverts
1. What guidelines does the Council use for the application of glyphosate-based herbicide (eg Roundup products) on Council owned land, by both council staff and contractors?
2. Does the Council limit the use of glyphosate in areas that children play?
3. Has Council formally considered a spray-free streets and parks policy in the last 5 years? If so, what was considered and what decision was made?
4. Does the Council use steam weeding, hot water/foam, ‘natural’ spray products, and/or mechanical alternatives to glyphosate-based herbicides, and if so what percentage of weed control by each of the alternatives is used?
5. Does the Council or its contractors have the equipment to carry out steam, hot water/foam weeding? What is owned by Council and what by its contractors?
6. Does Council keep records of pesticides including herbicide volumes used annually, if so could these be supplied. If more comprehensive records are not maintained, what quantity of glyphosate-based herbicides does the Council and its contractors use each year on Council owned land?
7. Does Council differentiate vegetation control methods between areas open to the public and other Council owned land?
8. Does Council use glyphosate-based herbicides for aquatic and surrounds vegetation control? What other herbicides are used in aquatic and surrounds vegetation control?
9. What monitoring of herbicides residues is undertaken by Council or other agencies in public residential areas, aquifers, drinking-water source points and water supplies controlled by Council? Please supply results of all such monitoring.
- Applications follow the code of practise for all agrichemicals, we don’t have any specific rules that apply directly to glysophate.
Yes. We don’t undertake spraying around playgrounds.
No, but we have had informal discussions with our contractor regarding trialling organic herbicides in the CBD. We have a system whereby residents can opt out of our road spraying program.
Minimal usage. We undertake mulching where we can in key parks to reduce the total area of ground that requires spraying.
Recreational Services owns two foam steam units but these are not in use in Masterton at this time. I can also confirm that on 30/01/2020 we will be receiving a Recreational Services owned Foam Machine for the eradication of weed plants for a trial. We have already trialled steam weeding but this was not met with satisfactory results. MDC own no spray equipment.
Yes our contractor is required to keep records for the application of agrichemicals, specifically we have used 206.2 litres of glysophate 360 and 510 in the past 12 months, with approximately 85% of this being used in the street environment and the balance in reserves.
Yes for surround vegetation control only. No other herbicides are used in aquatic or surrounding areas.
We do not monitor herbicide residues in our parks. We test the raw water at Kaituna Water Treatment Plant for a full range of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) once a year. There are approximately 650 different substances that we test for. The results are consistently less than the detection limit.
1) Does your Council protect trees in its District Plan using Section 76 of the Resource Management Act?
2) What term does Council use to describe trees protected within the District Plan? Councils use terms such Notable, Heritage and Significant.
3) What evaluation process or method does Council use to determine whether trees are of sufficient importance to be protected within the District Plan?
4) If your Council uses the Standard Tree Evaluation Methodology (STEM), does it differ at all from the original 1996 mode and if so how?
5) If your Council uses STEM what is the threshold STEM score used to determine whether a tree should be protected in the District Plan? If your Council has no record of the STEM threshold last used, please supply the lowest STEM score for a District Plan protected tree.
6) If your Council uses another method or process to protect trees what is the threshold score for inclusion and/or any other requirement?
7) Is a landowner’s consent required to protect a tree under any circumstances? If yes, please explain?
8) Under which provisions of the District Plan are trees protected, Heritage, General, or something else?
9) Are District Plan protected trees catagorised within a list, if so what terms are used and how?
10) What year did the protected trees provisions of your District Plan become operative?
13) Please supply the position title, name and contact details for the person who deals with protected tree issues at Council?
- District rules are applied under section 76 of the Resource Management act to protect scheduled trees in the Wairarapa Combined District Plan. For example: section 21. 1.1 Notable trees and street trees.
- The Wairarapa Combined District Plan Identifies protected trees as Notable. Defined as: A tree that has been identified and assessed as a tree of significant botanical and/or for historic, cultural, spiritual, landmark or other community reasons and is listed in the schedule of Notable Trees in the plan.
- STEM is used as a method to identify notable trees important to the Wairarapa community (section=10.3A(g)).
- Not to the best of our knowledge.
- The Wairarapa Combined District Plan does not specify a STEM score. Council engages an arborist with technical expertise to assess any trees using the STEM method and advise Council regarding whether they should be protected.
- This will relate to an affected parties assessment on a case by case basis.
- Historic Heritage.
- These are categorised into a list assigning each tree with a: notable tree number; tree type; location; legal description (where known) and map number.
- 25 May 2011
13. Masterton District Councils Planning Department [email protected]mstn.govt.nz
Rogue Tree Cutting
– Over the last five years, how many rogue tree cutting incidents were reported to council?
– When and where did these incidents occur?
– What types of trees were felled?
– Were there any reports of damage to property?
– Were any charges laid in relation to the tree fellings?
1. In the past five years the council has received 11 reports of unauthorised cutting of/damage to council trees.
2. When and where did these incidents occur?
08/12/2019 Tree felled Masterton Castlepoint Road, 500m east bound from intersection from Te Parae Road
22/10/2019 A newly planted tree snapped off at base and tree stakes removed Reserve at Masters Crescent
22/10/2019 Two branches approximately 3m long cut off large mature tree and shrubs also cut back and the green waste left South west corner of playground at Judd’s Road
28/08/2019 Street tree snapped off at base and tree cage bent 23 Cole Street
26/01/2019 Street tree felled Church Street
26/01/2019 Four oak trees cut down overnight Henley Lake, Castle point Road entry
23/01/2019 Damage to tree Queen Elizabeth Park near the Paddle Boat Shed
24/01/2017 Uprooted tree and cage surround dumped into empty section on Essex Street Lower Essex Street
06/12/2016 Four street trees snapped Kirton Street
09/11/2016 Two street trees topped Perry Street
01/06/2016 Tree felled Memorial Drive Skate Park
3. What types of trees were felled?
Location and Type of Tree
Masterton Castlepoint Road: Pinus radiata
Reserve at Masters Crescent: Liquidambar styraciflua
Playground at Judd’s Road: unknown, several species pruned
Cole Street: Tilia europaea
Church Street: Tilia europaea hybrid
Henley Lake: Quercus palustris
Queen Elizabeth Park Boat Shed: Quercus sp
Essex Street: Tilia europaea
Kirton Street: Melia azedarch
Perry Street: Michelia cv
Memorial Drive Skate Park: Liquidambar styraciflua
4. We have no reports of damage to property.
5. Insufficient information on the incidents did not allow for charges to be laid. The two incidents on 26/01/2019 were reported to the Masterton Police.
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.
- 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
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
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:
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.
Tinui Water and Sewer
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.
Community Sports Grants
- The options provided by Council to the community to apply for sports and recreational funding and the Council Committee/s involved in decision-making.
- Through the available options the funding requests made to Council during the past 5 years for sports and recreational funding from community organisations/sports codes.
- Decisions (i.e. approved/declined/deferred) relating to those funding requests and the community organisations/sports codes they relate to.
- For the funding approved by Council, the amount approved, and the community organisation/sports code that received/benefited from the funding.
- Confirmation on whether Council have a specific Sports & Recreation Strategy available for the public.
- The Council budget provided for sports and recreation during the time period.
- Masterton District Council is the owner of a number of sports and recreation facilities in our district and supports the provision of sport and recreation in our community through the maintenance and up-keep of those facilities. The value of that support is significant; however we assume the intent of your question relates to opportunities for sporting clubs to apply directly for grant funding from the Council. This Council runs an Annual Plan process each year where submissions are received and considered. Any group or organisation can use that process to request funding. We also run three grant funding allocation processes. The first of targeted to fund the arts, the second to community well-being and development, the third to community events. As a general rule, sporting clubs and groups are encouraged to apply for grants from local trusts, not from the Council’s specific grant funding pools. Sporting and recreational organisations can meet the criteria for funding from the Community Events Fund if the application of the funding will result in increased economic or community development in the district. The budget for this fund is set through the Annual Plan process each year. Prior to October 2019, the Council’s Community Wellbeing Committee reviewed and allocated funding (with staff recommendations) to organisations that have applied through the annual application process for funding. This recommendation was then reviewed and adopted at a Full Council Meeting. Since October 2019 a change to Council’s committees has introduced an Awards and Grants Committee that will assess and allocate funding (with staff recommendations).
- In responding to this question, we have not assessed applications via the Annual Plan process or Community Development process, only the Community Events Fund.
- 2015/16 = 8
- 2016/17 = 12
- 2017/18 = 12
- 2018/19 = 11
- 2019/20 = 10
- There is no publicly available Sports & Recreation Strategy document for Masterton District. A Regional Spaces & Places Facilities Plan has been developed by Sport Wellington/Wairarapa over 2018 & 2019. The report’s detailed analysis included sporting facilities in the Masterton District, but the summary level report is light on analysis of the adequacy of Masterton’s facilities.
- Council sets an annual budget and identifies Sports fields as an activity and the Recreation Centre (pools & stadium) as another activity. The annual operating expenditure budgets for these activities are set out below. The Council provides numerous other recreation facilities and opportunities for our community (e.g. recreation trails) so the spending on sports and recreation is not limited to the figures below.
Council sets and provides a budget each year for the Community Events Fund, to which sporting clubs/organisations can apply to if they are running an event There is no specific portion set aside for sports and recreation events.
- 2015/16 = $100,000
- 2016/17 = $130,000
- 2017/18 = $130,000
- 2018/19 = $130,000
- 2019/20 = $120,000
I’m looking for exact figures/data of total incidents on any council-owned or council-operated premises over the past five years to date (ie 9 February, 2015– 9 February, 2020, present day) of any abductions or attempted abductions –including abductions of any person(s) and/or child(ren). For each incident, would the council please be able to list a description of the event if possible, along with the date/time if known, how many person(s)/child(ren) it involved, how council came to be aware of the situation, and whether or not police were informed of the matter. By council owned/operated premises this could include, but is not limited to: council owned parks/reserves; council operated facilities like libraries/pools/other facilities; council buildings and their surrounds ; and so on. By ‘abduction’, I mean the attempted or actual unauthorised and/or illegal/criminal taking/grabbing of any person(s) and or child(ren) at any relevant location.
Would the council, in addition to the above information, please be able to provide me with a statement/explanation on what policies and procedures –active as at today’s date 09/02/2020 — it has relating to any abduction or attempted abduction–which council staff/employees may have to follow when dealing with/responding to any such event. Would it also please be able to explain why/why not these policies/procedures are in place, and for how long. If there is no specific policy/procedure, would the council please be able to explain why, and whether it plans to introduce any, and if so, the details of that.
Masterton District Council records do not contain any reference to behaviours of this type. Any such behaviour would be a Police matter in the first instance. Council policy is to refer any potentially criminal behaviour on council-owned or council-operated premises to the Police. The Council has not made any referrals or reports to Police about this type of behaviour.