From:
Lauren McDonald
To:
"Rachael Nicoll"
Subject:
RE: Official Information request - Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practises
Date:
Tuesday, 8 December 2020 10:39:00 a.m.
Dear Ms Nicoll
Thank you for your official information request of 23 November 2020. Having reviewed your
request we estimate that it will take approximately 3 hours to collate and research the
information requested. Pursuant to section 13 (1A) of the Local Government Official Information
and Meetings Act 1987 the Council is entitled to impose a charge for requests that require
substantial collation. The Council’s charging policy detailed in the link below.
https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/187606/Charging-for-LGOIMA-
requests-policy.pdf
As your request exceeds the one hour free we intend to impose a charge. The work is estimated
to take 3 hours to research and collate, which equates to a charge of $152.00, which would need
to be paid in advance. If the time taken were to exceed this, we would let you know, and if less
time was taken, a refund would be payable to you. Alternatively you may wish to refine your
request.
As we will impose a charge on this request, you are advised you have the right to seek a review
by the Office of the Ombudsman (
[email address]) or 0880 802 602.
I await your instruction in regard to the processing or refinement of this request.
Yours sincerely
Lauren McDonald
Governance Support Officer
CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP
P 03 477 4000 |
DD 03 474 3428 |
E [email address] Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
New Zealand
www.dunedin.govt.nz
From: Rachael Nicoll <[FYI request #14186 email]>
Sent: Monday, 23 November 2020 12:56 p.m.
To: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practises
Dear Dunedin City Council,
My preference is to receive the requested information through the fyi.org.nz platform.
On 22 September 2020 Customer and Regulatory Services made the report “ANIMAL SERVICES
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS” to the Planning and Environment
Committee.
1. At paragraph 10 the Report states:
“Each of the dog exercise parks has a unique design and has been built to maximise the use of
the topography of the area. The surrounding areas are regularly maintained and upgraded. The
ratio of dog exercise parks to known dogs (registered and unregistered) is 1:2,071.”
Please provide evidence to substantiate the following:
(a) The parks have been designed to “maximise the use of the topography”. For example, the
reports from the experts involved such as the topographer, animal behaviourist, expert in the
design of public spaces, design options that were considered, etc.
(b) The statutory authority that makes the dog control activity responsible for maintaining the
surrounds of dog parks but not the dog parks, especially as all surrounds have access restrictions
that mean they cannot be used by dog owners and their dogs.
(c) The reason maintaining surrounds takes priority over maintaining dog parks when the parks
have been shown to fall below minimum legal levels for accessibility, usability and safe use for
many years.
(d) The mathematical formula used to produce the 1:2071 park/dogs ratio given the majority of
the dog population is prohibited from using the three “small dog/breed” parks which produces a
different ratio when ordinary mathematics is applied to the disclosed numbers.
(e) The mathematical formula used to deduce the total number of dogs given analysing the
stated dog/park ratio produces the precise number of 450 unregistered dogs, but applying
reverse percentages to the figure of asserted known dogs produces only 371.
2. Paragraph 26 states a total of 11,012 dogs have been neutered under the neutering
programme. Analysis of past reports produces an average of 227/annum which means it has
taken approximately 49 years to neuter that number of dogs.
(a) Please explain why the Council is reporting a running total without identifying it is the result
of accumulated numbers spanning almost five decades and what meaningful information that
provides given the current Act has been in force for ½ that period and there was no equivalent
focus on neutering in the previous legislation.
(b) Please confirm the numbers relating to neutered dogs are correct given:
- The total number of dogs neutered under the programme is the same as the total number of
neutered dogs in Dunedin, yet it can be proven many owners neuter their dogs outside of the
Dunedin City Council neutering programme
- The percentage of neutered dogs given 11012 of 18190 dogs is 61%, not 64% as stated.
- The change in percentage given the figures provided to the DIA show a percentage of 60% for
the previous reporting year which means the number increased rather than remaining the same
as stated.
3. Paragraph 27 states 92% of registered dogs are microchipped and that is the same as last year.
However paragraph 27 of the 2019 Report states 91% of registered dogs are micro-chipped
while the numbers provided to the DIA for 2019 produce a total of only 90%. Please identify
which number is correct.
4. The Dog Control statistics record that 5 dogs were designated dangerous due to owner
conviction, but only three prosecutions were taken during the reporting period. Please confirm
the number of dogs designated dangerous, and the number of prosecutions. Please also provide
copies of the relevant judgements.
5. Paragraph 22 states 29 dogs were classified as menacing in the last 12 months, and 19 were
due to behaviour. Please identify how many were classified due to displaying aggressive
behaviours, and how many received that classification due to being considered a threat because
of reported or observed behaviours such as roaming.
Note I expect this information will be easily to hand given the Report has has only just been
complied and presented.
Yours faithfully,
Rachael Nicoll
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #14186 email]
Is [Dunedin City Council request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to
Dunedin City Council? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?body=dunedin_city_council
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our
privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to
link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARGING FOR LGOIMA REQUESTS POLICY
Approved by:
Sponsor:
Manager, Governance
Department responsible:
Governance
Date approved:
Reviewed: 30 November
2012
Next review date:
DOC ID:
BACKGROUND
LGOIMA aims to make official information held by local authorities more freely available. It
allows for effective participation by the public in actions and decisions of the local authority
and promotes open and public transportation of business of the council. It also promotes the
accountability of council members and staff. There are protections from disclosure where
non-disclosure is in the public interest or to protect personal privacy.
If the reply to a request for information is likely to take a significant amount of research,
col ate and copy, the Dunedin City Council is entitled under LGOIMA, to impose a charge for
the provision of information.
POLICY
1. Key guidelines
1.1. This policy details the amount that we may charge for the supply of information and is
based on the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines for Official Information Act
Requests.
2. Charges
2.1. The first three one (13) hours of time spent on fulfilling official information requests will
be free; and then al additional time will be charged at $38/half hour;
2.2. The first twenty (20) pages of black and white photocopying wil be free, with a charge
of 20c per page for all additional black and white pages.
2.3. All other charges incurred shal be fixed at an amount that recovers the actual costs
involved. This includes:
2.3.1. Producing a document by computer or other like equipment;
2.3.2. Colour photocopies
2.3.3. Reproducing a photograph, film, video or audio recording;
2.3.4. Arranging for the requestors to hear or view an audio or visual recording;
2.3.5. Providing a copy of any maps, plans etc.
2.4.
NB: These rates are as outlined in the Ministry of Justice Guidelines and this policy will be
amended to reflect any changes in the Ministry Guidelines.
V:
Charging for LGOIMA requests policy
Page 1 of 2
2.5.
We will notify the requestor of the estimated cost of their request before we begin working
on the request. The requestor then has the option of proceeding, withdrawing or refining
their request.
2.6.
In accordance with section 13(4) of LGOIMA, we may require that the whole or part of any
charge be paid in advance. A deposit will only be requested when the decision has been
made to release the information.
2.7.
Requestors are able to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman in regards to the
proposed charge.
2.8.
Charges may be waived in whole or in part at the discretion of the Principal Administrative
Officer. This will general y be in a situation where there is an agreed public interest in the
disclosure of the information requested. This policy will be formally reviewed every three
years beginning in 30 November 2012.
Relevant Legislation:
Local Government Official Information Meetings Act
Associated Documents:
V:
Charging for LGOIMA requests policy
Page 2 of 2
Document Outline
