Information concerning updated signs.
Karen Anderson made this Official Information request to Dunedin City Council
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Dunedin City Council should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: Karen Anderson
Dear Dunedin City Council,
My preference is to receive the requested information by email.
The report of the Chairperson of the Dog Control Working Party states:
"Any dog behaviour signs that require updating, for example the one at Tomahawk Beach, have been replaced."
There is no record of this matter being dealt with by the Working Party however all signs at Tomahawk Beach were inspected and photographed on weekends 8-9 and again on 15-16 December 2018.
By comparison with photographs from the photographic diary maintained since 2016 no sign can be identified as having been replaced. Signs at other beaches that are incorrect have also not been replaced.
Accordingly I have been requested by members of the Dunedin Dog Bylaw Group to ask for:
(a) A list of the signs that were considered to require “updating”. You will know from my analysis that a name was printed on each sign. That name can be used to identify the signs as it is accurate, and makes it easy to compare with the records in the photographic diary.
(b) The reason these signs were considered to require “updating”.
(c) The costs of performing this “updating”.
(d) Whether the costs have been funded from money received under the Dog Control Act 1996.
Yours faithfully,
Karen Anderson
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
Karen Anderson left an annotation ()
DCC eventually provided the following response as part of an 8-page document emailed 8 March 2019.
(Note the Agency prints large documents as images which prevents searching or copy/pasting, and do not include an index or bookmarks. This seems to defeat the purpose of fyi and the usefulness of paperless documents. )
Response was:
a) A list of the signs that were considered to require “updating".
Following the introduction of the Dog Control Bylaw 2016, the DCC erected numerous signs across the city in places such as sports fields and beaches. I advise that a specific list of the signs considered to require updating is not available.
b) The reason these signs were considered to require “updating”.
The signs are required to inform dog owners of the areas that they are permitted to walk their dogs under the Dog Control Bylaw 2016. Signs with incorrect information are being updated. Many older signs that are still in good condition will not be updated if their content is still relevant.
c) The cost of performing this “updating".
Signs are being replaced on an ongoing basis, as required, and for this reason, it is not possible to calculate the amount for this updating.
d) Whether the costs have been funded from money received under the Dog Control Act 1996.
The signs are funded from dog registration fees and subsidised by rates.
The Response does not provide most of the information requested.
Link to this