Information about dog control matters needed for the upcoming Annual Plan consultation
Karen Anderson made this Official Information request to Dunedin City Council
The request was partially successful.
From: Karen Anderson
Dear Dunedin City Council,
1. In meeting 13 March 2024 Council was advised additional information was available about Regulatory fees and charges as a consequence of an earlier December review and benchmarking against other Councils.
Please provide the parts of that additional information that relate to dog and animal control fees and charges, including a comparison between the services currently and previously provided to identify the additional services referred to in the statement in the agenda that “… costs have increased … due to increased Animal Control after-hours services …”
2. In relation to dog/owner numbers, please provide the following:
a) The total number of registered dogs and the total number of owners with registered dogs.
b) The number of dogs and owners by suburb. (Please provide this as a table or spreadsheet to avoid repeating the problems created in 2019 by using a list format.)
c) The number of dogs classified as working dogs, and the number of owners with working dogs.
3. Please provide the number of infringement notices issued or prosecutions taken by the Bylaw clause or section of the Dog Control Act 1996 for registration years ending 2021, 2022, 2023, and the current year to date.
4. Please provide the full costs of the recent advertising campaign entitled “Best Friend, Best Behaviour: Tips for Dog Owners”, in adequate detail for the categories of costs to be separately identified (including things like the costs of authoring the video scripts, social media, web-site and FYI copy; purchasing videos and photographs used in the videos; the social and print media advertising, etc), and identify which costs were charged to the dog control or the general rates budget.
5. Please provide the income and expenditure for dog control activities authorised by the Dog Control Act (including amounts received under the Dog Control Act, and general rate-payer contributions), and general "Animal Control" activities (that are not dog-related) for the years 2022-2023 and 2023-to date. (The format used to provide this information in 2019 is suitable.)
This information is needed to prepare submissions for the upcoming Annual Plan, so please provide it in a timely manner to avoid disadvantaging those submissions. Given the results of previous Ombudsman investigations, ignoring the request or refusing the information will be treated as refusing to provide it because it does not exist.
My preference is for the requested information to be provided by fyi.org.nz as there is no reason to send it by courier to my home address as Council has been doing.
Regards,
Karen Anderson
Sent request to Dunedin City Council again, using a new contact address.
From: Customer Service
Dunedin City Council
Kia ora Karen,
Thank you for your email.
I have forwarded this information to the Animal Services Team for their
attention.
Ngā mihi
Victoria Hooper
Customer Services Officer
Customer Services
P 03 477 4000 | E [1][Dunedin City Council request email]
Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
New Zealand
[2]www.dunedin.govt.nz
If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..
From: [FOI #26183 email]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 5:34 AM
To: [Dunedin City Council request email]
Subject: Official Information request - Information about dog control
matters needed for the upcoming Annual Plan consultation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dunedin City Council,
1. In meeting 13 March 2024 Council was advised additional information was
available about Regulatory fees and charges as a consequence of an earlier
December review and benchmarking against other Councils.
Please provide the parts of that additional information that relate to dog
and animal control fees and charges, including a comparison between the
services currently and previously provided to identify the additional
services referred to in the statement in the agenda that “… costs have
increased … due to increased Animal Control after-hours services …”
2. In relation to dog/owner numbers, please provide the following:
a) The total number of registered dogs and the total number of owners with
registered dogs.
b) The number of dogs and owners by suburb. (Please provide this as a
table or spreadsheet to avoid repeating the problems created in 2019 by
using a list format.)
c) The number of dogs classified as working dogs, and the number of owners
with working dogs.
3. Please provide the number of infringement notices issued or
prosecutions taken by the Bylaw clause or section of the Dog Control Act
1996 for registration years ending 2021, 2022, 2023, and the current year
to date.
4. Please provide the full costs of the recent advertising campaign
entitled “Best Friend, Best Behaviour: Tips for Dog Owners”, in adequate
detail for the categories of costs to be separately identified (including
things like the costs of authoring the video scripts, social media,
web-site and FYI copy; purchasing videos and photographs used in the
videos; the social and print media advertising, etc), and identify which
costs were charged to the dog control or the general rates budget.
5. Please provide the income and expenditure for dog control activities
authorised by the Dog Control Act (including amounts received under the
Dog Control Act, and general rate-payer contributions), and general
"Animal Control" activities (that are not dog-related) for the years
2022-2023 and 2023-to date. (The format used to provide this information
in 2019 is suitable.)
This information is needed to prepare submissions for the upcoming Annual
Plan, so please provide it in a timely manner to avoid disadvantaging
those submissions. Given the results of previous Ombudsman investigations,
ignoring the request or refusing the information will be treated as
refusing to provide it because it does not exist.
My preference is for the requested information to be provided by
fyi.org.nz as there is no reason to send it by courier to my home address
as Council has been doing.
Regards,
Karen Anderson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #26183 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:
[3]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[4]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 organisationʼs OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Dunedin City Council request email]
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
4. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
From: Lauren Riddle
Dunedin City Council
0.jpg
25K
Download
Response FYI26183 0d5843 dog control matters 19 April 2024.pdf
370K
Download
View as HTML
Kia ora Ms Anderson
Please find attached our response to the information request, received on
20 March 2023 via FYI, for information about dog control matters.
Ngā mihi
Lauren Riddle
Mana Whakahaere Kairuruku / Governance Support Officer
Governance Group
P 03 477 4000 | DD 03 474 3428 | E [email address]
Te Kaunihera a Rohe o Ōtepoti - Dunedin City Council
50 The Octagon, Dunedin
PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
New Zealand
[1]www.dunedin.govt.nz
[2]DCC - Annual Plan 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/
2. https://au-api.mimecast.com/s/click/XujA...
From: Karen Anderson
Dear Lauren Riddle,
2b) asked for dogs and owners by suburb. The DCC stated it can only provide dog numbers, but the provided information is incomplete.
As examples, it is not believable there are zero dogs at Taieri Mouth. On 22 July 2023 Council listed* Taieri, Caversham, Mosgiel East & St Clair as the most popular locations for registered dogs. None of those suburbs appear in the list provided even though the numbers must be available for that statement to be made.
That reflects other discrepancies in the information provided, such as using suburb names that are not recognised as suburbs, while failing to list or provide numbers for suburbs that are. Please provide the information requested, or state why it is not being provided consistent with the LGOIMA requirements.
*https://www.facebook.com/DunedinCityCoun...
Request 3) asked for infringement notices and prosecutions by the Bylaw clause or section of the Dog Control Act. The response did not provide the Bylaw clause or section of the DCA. That information is known to be held because it is required to be recorded, and can be proven to be held as a consequence of information compiled by the DIA at the end of the registration year. Please provide the information requested or state why it is not being provided consistent with the LGOIMA requirements.
I also note there is no requirement for myself, or other requesters, to provide a second opportunity to provide the requested information. What was provided was delayed until just a few days before the consultation closed. Please provide the remaining information with haste as there is no reasonable reason to require this to be taken to the Ombudsman.
Regards,
Karen Anderson
From: Lauren Riddle
Dunedin City Council
Dear Karen
I acknowledge receipt of your email today and apologise for the
typographical error in your question 2b) re the suburb of Taieri Mouth, it
should have contained the number “1”. I am following up on the other
suburbs you have raised as missing from the list provided.
I will follow up also on your other queries and will respond to you as
soon as possible.
Lauren
Lauren Riddle
Mana Whakahaere Kairuruku / Governance Support Officer
Governance Group
P 03 477 4000 | DD 03 474 3428 | E [email address]
Te Kaunihera a Rohe o Ōtepoti - Dunedin City Council
50 The Octagon, Dunedin
PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
New Zealand
[1]www.dunedin.govt.nz
[2]DCC Main Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karen Anderson <[FOI #26183 email]>
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2024 8:04 a.m.
To: Lauren Riddle <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to FYI request 26183-0d5d5843 - Official information
request about dog control matters
Dear Lauren Riddle,
2b) asked for dogs and owners by suburb. The DCC stated it can only
provide dog numbers, but the provided information is incomplete.
As examples, it is not believable there are zero dogs at Taieri Mouth. On
22 July 2023 Council listed* Taieri, Caversham, Mosgiel East & St Clair as
the most popular locations for registered dogs. None of those suburbs
appear in the list provided even though the numbers must be available for
that statement to be made.
That reflects other discrepancies in the information provided, such as
using suburb names that are not recognised as suburbs, while failing to
list or provide numbers for suburbs that are. Please provide the
information requested, or state why it is not being provided consistent
with the LGOIMA requirements.
*[3]https://www.facebook.com/DunedinCityCoun...
Request 3) asked for infringement notices and prosecutions by the Bylaw
clause or section of the Dog Control Act. The response did not provide the
Bylaw clause or section of the DCA. That information is known to be held
because it is required to be recorded, and can be proven to be held as a
consequence of information compiled by the DIA at the end of the
registration year. Please provide the information requested or state why
it is not being provided consistent with the LGOIMA requirements.
I also note there is no requirement for myself, or other requesters, to
provide a second opportunity to provide the requested information. What
was provided was delayed until just a few days before the consultation
closed. Please provide the remaining information with haste as there is no
reasonable reason to require this to be taken to the Ombudsman.
Regards,
Karen Anderson
show quoted sections
From: Jenny Lapham
Dunedin City Council
Dear Ms Anderson
I am writing in response to your request for provision of more detailed
information as you found the response issued on 19 April 2024 as
incomplete.
I apologise for the error found in the table of the number of dogs per
suburb. The number for Taieri Mouth should read “1” which was omitted in
error. I advise the that suburbs you have noted as missing from the list
(Caversham, Mosgiel East and St Clair) are included in the Dunedin numbers
and the Mosgiel numbers respectively. The data we hold is not collected
or held in the subsets (suburbs) that you have requested.
The “https” link you provided to the DCC Facebook page for the promotion
of the 2023 dog registration period which stated the suburbs of Taieri,
Caversham, Mosgiel East or St Clair was offered as an indication of
popular areas of the city where dogs reside only. We apologise for any
misrepresentation of the statistics offered.
With respect to request (3) for provision of the number of infringement
notices issued or prosecutions taken by the clause or section of the Dog
Control Act 1996 for 2021-2024, I advise that the information is not held
in a format that allows us to provide you with the information requested.
This request is therefore refused under section 17(f) of LGOIMA, that the
information requested cannot be made available without substantial
collation or research. Providing the clauses or section of the Dog
Control Act 1996 would require us to undertake a review of each individual
action and collation of the data. I note that under section 10A(2)(e) of
the Dog Control Act, we are required to report on the number of
infringement notices issued, but there is no requirement to report on the
clause or section of the Dog Control Act used.
As we have declined to provide some information you are advised that you
have the right to seek a review of this decision by the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Please accept our apology that this full response was not provided in our
response to you of 19 April 2024.
We hope that this clarifies the response provided.
Kā mihi
Jennifer Lapham
Mana Whakahaere Kairuruku/Governance Support Officer
Governance Group
P 03 477 4000 | E [1][email address]
Te Kaunihera a Rohe o Ōtepoti - Dunedin City Council
PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
New Zealand
[2]www.dunedin.govt.nz
[3]DCC Main Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karen Anderson <[4][FOI #26183 email]>
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2024 8:04 a.m.
To: Lauren Riddle <[5][email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to FYI request 26183-0d5d5843 - Official information
request about dog control matters
Dear Lauren Riddle,
2b) asked for dogs and owners by suburb. The DCC stated it can only
provide dog numbers, but the provided information is incomplete.
As examples, it is not believable there are zero dogs at Taieri Mouth. On
22 July 2023 Council listed* Taieri, Caversham, Mosgiel East & St Clair as
the most popular locations for registered dogs. None of those suburbs
appear in the list provided even though the numbers must be available for
that statement to be made.
That reflects other discrepancies in the information provided, such as
using suburb names that are not recognised as suburbs, while failing to
list or provide numbers for suburbs that are. Please provide the
information requested, or state why it is not being provided consistent
with the LGOIMA requirements.
*[6]https://www.facebook.com/DunedinCityCoun...
Request 3) asked for infringement notices and prosecutions by the Bylaw
clause or section of the Dog Control Act. The response did not provide the
Bylaw clause or section of the DCA. That information is known to be held
because it is required to be recorded, and can be proven to be held as a
consequence of information compiled by the DIA at the end of the
registration year. Please provide the information requested or state why
it is not being provided consistent with the LGOIMA requirements.
I also note there is no requirement for myself, or other requesters, to
provide a second opportunity to provide the requested information. What
was provided was delayed until just a few days before the consultation
closed. Please provide the remaining information with haste as there is no
reasonable reason to require this to be taken to the Ombudsman.
Regards,
Karen Anderson
show quoted sections
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