Agenda of Activities Performance Audit Committee

sdclogo

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Activities Performance Audit Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

9am

Council Chambers

15 Forth Street, Invercargill

Activities Performance Audit Committee Agenda

OPEN

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Lyall Bailey
Mayor	Gary Tong
Councillors	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	Rodney Dobson
	John Douglas
	Paul Duffy
	Bruce Ford
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive	Steve Ruru
Committee Advisor	Alyson Hamilton

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

Activities Performance Audit Committee

08 June 2016

sdclogo

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Procedural

1 Apologies 4

2 Leave of absence 4

3 Conflict of Interest 4

4 Public Forum 4

Murray Dowling will be in attendance to speak in support of his objection to a Dangerous Dog Classification.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items 4

6 Confirmation of Minutes 4

Reports

7.1 Objection to Dangerous Dog Classification 9

7.2 Results of the Community Housing Survey 2015/2016 59

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public 79

C8.1 Digitisation - Approval to negotiate with vendor 81

C8.2 Risk Register - Quarterly Update June 2016 81

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Leave of absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

3 Conflict of Interest

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Public Forum

Murray Dowling will be in attendance to speak in support of his objection to a Dangerous Dog Classification.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i) the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii) the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Meeting minutes of Activities Performance Audit Committee, 18 May 2016

sdclogo

Activities Performance Audit Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of Activities Performance Audit Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 at 1pm.

present

Chairperson	Lyall Bailey
Mayor	Gary Tong
Councillors	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	Rodney Dobson
	John Douglas
	Paul Duffy
	Bruce Ford
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive, Steve Ruru, Group Manager Policy and Community Rex Capil, Group Manager Environment and Community Bruce Halligan, Chief Financial Officer Anne Robson, Manager Communications Louise Pagen and Committee Advisor Alyson Hamilton.

1 Apologies

There were no apologies received.

2 Leave of absence

Cr Dobson requested leave of absence from the APAC meeting scheduled for 8 June 2016.

Moved Cr Harpur, seconded Cr Ford and resolved:

That leave of absence be granted to Cr Dobson for the APAC meeting dated 8 June 2016.

3 Conflict of Interest

Cr Duffy advised of a declaration of an interest in item C8.1 Curio Bay – Recommending Contract Award.

4 Public Forum

There were no members of the public seeking speaking rights in the Public Forum section of the meeting.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Dillon and resolved:

Confirms the minutes of Activities Performance Audit Committee, held on 27 April 2016.

Reports

7.1

Financial Report for the period ended 31 March 2016

Record No: R/16/4/6207

Report by Federico Alurralde, Management Accountant, regarding the financial report for the period ended 31 March 2016, was tabled.

Ms Robson, Chief Financial Officer, spoke to this item.

Ms Robson pointed out to the Committee 75% of the financial year is complete and that no significant issues have been identified that raise any concerns for Council.

Ms Robson then spoke on matters relating to the income, operating expenditure, capital expenditure, forestry revenue, roading and transport, chief executive’s business unit and the balance sheet.

Ms Robson commented that whilst the Council and Councillors business unit is $367,000 over budget this is a timing issue and is due to a quarterly accrual for Venture.

The Committee noted services and assets capital expenditure is under budget year to date with public convenience upgrades in Winton (Ivy Russell Reserve) and Dipton are under action with units to be delivered onsite in late May. Colac Bay toilets at Surfies Corner and Athol have been completed, with Waikaia upgrades being built as part of the museum rebuild.

The Committee was advised that harvesting of one of the forestry blocks is delayed due to weather issues.

Ms Robson informed Council has $10million invested in five term deposits ranging from three to four months maturities.

Cr Duffy queried interest rates in regard to Council loans to Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittee’s.

Ms Robson responded by stating it is timely the policy regarding how interest rates are set be revisited.

Resolution

Moved Cr Harpur, seconded Cr Baird and resolved:

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

Receives the report titled “Financial Report for the period ended 31 March 2016” dated 10 May 2016.

b) Requests staff revisit the policy regarding how interest rates are set.

Public Excluded

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

	Resolution Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Kremer and resolved: That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting. C8.1 Curio Bay - Recommending Contract Award The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution
Curio Bay - Recommending Contract Award		s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

That the Chief Executive, Steve Ruru, Group Manager Policy and Community Rex Capil, Group Manager Environment and Community Bruce Halligan, Chief Financial Officer Anne Robson, Manager Communications Louise Pagen and Committee Advisor Alyson Hamilton

be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of the item Curio Bay - Recommending Contract Award. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant to those matters because of their knowledge on the issues discussed and meeting procedure.

The public were excluded at 1.07pm.

The meeting concluded at 1.15pm. CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Activities Performance Audit Committee HELD ON 18 MAY 2016.

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

Activities Performance Audit Committee

8 June 2016

sdclogo

Objection to Dangerous Dog Classification

Record No: R/16/5/7905

Author: Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To hear and determine an objection to a dangerous dog classification.

Executive Summary

2 Mr Murray Francis Dowling has objected to his dog being classified as a dangerous dog. The dog was classified because of an attack. He is entitled to appear before the Committee and speak in support of the objection.

3 The Dog Control Act prescribes the matters that the Committee is required to have regard to in considering his objection. The recommendation of the report is to uphold the classification.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Objection to Dangerous Dog Classification ” dated 31 May 2016.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d) Upholds the decision to classify “Duke” as a dangerous dog, owned by Mr Murray Francis Dowling, and gives notice of this decision and reasons for it to Mr Dowling.

Content

Background

Summary of previous attacks

4 The following summaries are extracts from Mrs Gillan’s report in Attachment A:

Summary of the Incident

5 On Friday, 22 April 2016 Council received a call from Jenni Alice Templeton reporting a dog attack on her the previous evening. The call was logged under RFS 68500 at approximately 11.30 am.

6 Mrs Templeton reports that on Thursday, 21 April 2016 at approximately 7.00 pm she was jogging along Railway Road, Tuatapere approaching Shooters Backpackers. Mrs Templeton advises that she saw a dog which she describes as small, fluffy and white with tan patches. She says that she recognised the dog as every time she runs past this location the dog races after her if it is around, sometimes as far as the fire station. Mrs Templeton reports that on this occasion the dog gave no warning but ran straight out and latched onto her leg. She goes on to say that after a while she was able to flick the dog off, however it immediately returned and latched back on. Mrs Templeton says that she once again flicked the dog off her leg and then ran off.

7 Mrs Templeton reports that when she came to a street light she examined her leg and on realising it was bleeding decided to run home. When there, she says that she took photos of the injury.

8 The following day, at approximately 1.30 pm, Mrs Templeton reports that she visited the local medical centre where she received a Tetanus booster.

9 On Friday, 22 April 2016 I applied for a Search Warrant from the District Court in Invercargill. This was approved and as per the requirements of a Search Warrant police escort arranged. We arrived at Mr Dowling’s registered address at 5 McFeely Street, Tuatapere to seize and impound Duke under Section 57(5)(a) of the Dog Control Act 1996, ‘Dog attacked a person, stock, poultry, domestic animal or wildlife’.

10 Mr Dowling was obstructive and abusive and would not hand the dog over. The search warrant was executed for 5 McFeely Street but the dog was not found.

Summary of the previous attack

11 On Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 11.45 am Rosemary Anne Kitchener rang Animal Control to report a dog attack on her in Tuatapere. Ms Kitchener reported that on Saturday, 19 March 2016 a small white and tan Papillon X dog attacked her whilst she was crossing the road to visit the manager of the Tuatapere Motel where she was staying as a guest.

12 The manager of the motel is Karl Whenua Barrington Tamou.

13 Ms Kitchener said that as she approached the property she saw the dog rush out to chase a car. Ms Kitchener goes on to say that she then became aware that the dog had circled behind her and bitten her on the back of her right calf. Ms Kitchener reports that she called out to Mr Tamou that his dog had bitten her, and that he replied the dog belonged to his father-in-law, Murray Francis Dowling.

Outcome of first attack

14 Council’s Dog Ranger, Stu Fairbairn, gave serious consideration to recommending a menacing classification after the first attack. He believed the dog may be territorially protective and as such may pose a threat to pedestrians.

15 He decided to issue an infringement for failure to keep a dog under control, and to monitor the property. His reasons were:

• Good recent history.

• The attack pack score.

• The dog was registered.

16 He advised that if Mr Dowling did not adequately control and contain his dog in future, he would have no hesitation in recommending either a menacing or dangerous dog classification; and/or probationary ownership or disqualification if the statutory criteria have been met.

Effect of a dangerous dog classification

17 Dangerous dogs are required to be kept within a fenced area that permits access to one door of the house, neutered, and muzzled and kept on a leash in public places. The registration fee for a dangerous dog is 150% of the level that would apply if the dog was not classified as a dangerous dog ($45).

The classification and objection

18 Mr Halligan resolved to classify “Duke” as a dangerous dog on 10 May 2016, refer Attachment B.

19 Mr Dowling has objected to the classification, Attachment C. He is entitled to appear before the Committee and speak in support of the objection. His objection acts as a stay of the decision to classify.

Issues

20 Section 31(4) of the Dog Control Act prescribes the matters that the Committee is required to have regard to in considering this objection. The matters are as follows:

The evidence which formed the basis for the original classification

21 A signed sworn statement from the victim, this is in the attack pack (Attachment D).

Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons and animals

22 Mr Dowling has not advised of any steps in his objection, and dog control staff are not aware of any steps.

The matters advanced in support of the objection

23 Mr Dowling has not raised any matters in support of his objection.

Any other relevant matters

24 Mr Dowling has advised in his objection that he has not been made aware of the accusations or occasions of the incident. The complete file will be sent to him with the notice of hearing.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

Section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides:

“(4) In considering any objection under Section 31(3) of the Dog Control Act 1996, territorial authority shall have regard to:

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the original classification, and

(b) Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons and animals, and

(c) The matters advised in support of the objection, and

(d) Any other relevant matters and may uphold or rescind the classification.

(5) The territorial authority shall give notice of its decision on any objection, and the reasons for its decision, to the owner as soon as practicable.”

25 The Committee may uphold or terminate the classification, and must give written notice of its decision and the reasons for it to the objector.

Community Views

26 The views of the community have not been sought for this objection as this is not required under the Dog Control Act 1996. Council’s Policy on Dogs 2015 may be regarded as being the community’s views on dog control in the District.

Costs and Funding

27 There are no financial considerations.

Policy Implications

28 Council’s Policy on Dogs 2015 has application to this objection. Extracts include:

“The intention of this policy is to strike the proper balance between the need to control dogs and the recognition of the overall benefits of responsible dog ownership.”

“The Council’s objective is to encourage responsible dog ownership that allows dog owners to enjoy their dogs without impinging on the enjoyment and safety of others.”

“The Council will use the full range of enforcement options available to it under the Dog Control Act 1996 and other legislation to ensure that dog ownership in the District is undertaken in accordance with this policy.”

29 The recommendation of this report is consistent with this Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

30 The legal options are to either uphold or terminate the classification.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Uphold the classification, and record reasons for doing so

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Risk minimisation by requiring muzzling, neutering, containment and leash.

· Maintenance of public confidence in the effectiveness of Council’s dog control service.

· Effective dog control promotes responsible dog ownership in the wider community.

· Dangerous dogs are monitored by Council officers.

· Consistent with Council’s Policy on Dogs.

• Containment may be a financial burden on the dog owner.

Option 2 - Terminate the classification, and record reasons for doing so

Advantages

Disadvantages

· None identified.

· Contrary to Council’s Policy on Dogs that advises that Council will use the full range of enforcement options to ensure that dog ownership is undertaken in accordance with the policy.

· The Committee would be indicating that it does not support dog classifications for repeat offending under the Act.

Assessment of Significance

31 This objection is considered to be not significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

32 To uphold the classification, and record reasons for doing so (Option 1). This option is recommended by officers because of the reasons in “Advantages” above.

33 This attack was entirely preventable. The second attack would not have happened if Mr Dowling had responded responsibly after the first attack. His obstructive response to the second attack was also irresponsible; for example his verbal abuse of the dog control officer and using his spade to push her feet away (refer officer notes in the attack pack). The classification is reasonable and necessary.

34 The public expects to be able to walk in a public place without being attacked by dogs, and has low tolerance towards irresponsible dog owners.

Next Steps

35 Staff will give written notice of the Committee’s decision to Mr Dowling, with the reasons for it.

Attachments

a Memo to GM View

b Classification View

c The objection View

d Attack pack View

Activities Performance Audit Committee

08 June 2016

300/15/5/9431

AN 55108

10 May 2016

M F Dowling

PO Box 11

Tuatapere 9642

Dear Sir

Dangerous Dog Classification - Duke

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 Mr Bruce Halligan (Group Manager Environmental Services) considered a report concerning the dog attack incident that happened on 21 April 2016, involving your White/Tan Papillon X named ‘Duke’.

Mr Halligan resolved the following:

1. To classify ‘Duke’ as a dangerous dog; and

2. To issue infringement notices for failure to keep a dog controlled or confined, and for obstructing a dog control officer or ranger

Accordingly, enclosed is the notice of classification and infringement notices.

The Dog Control Act 1996 requires of all dog owners:

“52A Control of dog on owner’s property

(1) This section applies when a dog is on land or premises occupied by its owner.

(2) The owner of a dog must, at all times, ensure that either—

(a) the dog is under the direct control of a person; or

(b) the dog is confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises.”

Please ensure that your dog is contained on your property when not under direct control of a person, such as a leash or fenced area.

Council’s Dog Control Officer and/or Rangers will monitor compliance with the classification.

Please contact me if you have any queries.

Yours faithfully

Julie Gillan

Dog Control Officer

Activities Performance Audit Committee

08 June 2016

To: Murray Francis Dowling

Address: PO Box 11, Tuatapere 9642

Dog: White/Tan Papillon X named Duke Microchip Number 982000363559104.

This is to notify you* that this dog has been classified as a dangerous dog under Section 31(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

This is because Council has, on the basis of sworn evidence attesting to aggressive behaviour by the dog on one or more occasions, reasonable grounds to believe that the dog constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife; as a result of the attack on a person on Thursday, 21 April 2016 at Railway Road, Tuatapere.

A summary of the effect of the classification and your right to object is provided below.

Signature of officer of Southland District Council:

Date:

*For the purposes of the Dog Control Act 1996, you are the owner of a dog if—

• you own the dog; or

• you have the dog in your possession (otherwise than for a period not exceeding 72 hours for the purpose of preventing the dog causing injury, or damage, or distress, or for the sole purpose of restoring a lost dog to its owner); or

• you are the parent or guardian of a person under 16 who is the owner of the dog and who is a member of your household living with and dependent on you.

Effect of classification as dangerous dog

Sections 32 and 36A, Dog Control Act 1996

You are required,—

(a) within 1 month after receipt of this notice, to ensure that the dog is kept within a securely fenced portion of your property that it is not necessary to enter to obtain access to at least 1 door of any dwelling on the property; and

(b) not to allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or in any private way (other than when confined completely within a vehicle or cage) without—

(i) the dog being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog from biting but to allow it to breathe and drink without obstruction; and

(ii) the dog being controlled on a leash (except in a designated dog exercise area); and

(c) to produce to the Southland District Council, within 1 month after receipt of this notice, a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying—

(i) that the dog is or has been neutered; or

(ii) that for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

(d) where a certificate under paragraph (c)(ii) is produced to the Southland District Council, to produce to the Southland District Council, within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph (c)(i); and

(e) in respect of every registration year commencing after receipt of this notice, to pay dog control fees for that dog at 150% of the level that would apply if the dog were not classified as a dangerous dog; and

(f) not to dispose of the dog to any other person without the written consent of the territorial authority in whose district the dog is to be kept.

You will commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 if you fail to comply with all of the matters in paragraphs (a) to (f) above. In addition, on conviction the court must order the destruction of the dog unless satisfied that the circumstances of the offence were exceptional and do not justify the destruction of the dog.

A dog control officer or dog ranger may seize and remove the dog from you if you fail to comply with all of the matters in paragraphs (a) to (f) above. The ranger or officer may keep the dog until you demonstrate that you are willing to comply with paragraphs (a) to (f).

You will also commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 if you sell or otherwise transfer the dog, or offer to do so, to any other person without disclosing that the dog is classified as a dangerous dog.

As from 1 July 2006, you are also required, for the purpose of providing permanent identification of the dog, to arrange for the dog to be implanted with a functioning microchip transponder. This must be confirmed by making the dog available to the Southland District Council in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the Southland District Council for verification that the dog has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed location.

You will commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 if you fail to comply with this requirement—

• within 2 months from 1 July 2006 if your dog is classified as dangerous or menacing on or after 1 December 2003 but before 1 July 2006; or

• within 2 months after the dog is classified as dangerous or menacing if your dog is classified as dangerous or menacing after 1 July 2006.

If the dog is in the possession of another person for a period not exceeding 72 hours, you must advise that person of the requirement to not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or in any private way (other than when confined completely within a vehicle or cage) without the dog being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog from biting but to allow it to breathe and drink without obstruction. You will commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500 if you fail to comply with this requirement.

Full details of the effect of classification as a dangerous dog are provided in the Dog Control Act 1996.

Right of objection to classification

Section 31(3), Dog Control Act 1996

You may object to the classification by lodging with the Southland District Council a written objection within 14 days of receipt of this notice setting out the grounds on which you object. You are entitled to be heard in support of the objection and will be notified of the time and place at which your objection will be heard.

Activities Performance Audit Committee

8 June 2016

sdclogo

Results of the Community Housing Survey 2015/2016

Record No: R/16/5/7432

Author: Kevin McNaught, Strategic Manager Property

Approved by: Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Background

The purpose of the Community Housing targeted survey is to identify areas for improvement in the Community Housing activity, and to monitor whether levels of service (as outlined in the Council’s 10 Year Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 are being achieved.

The Community Housing Tenants’ Survey was undertaken in February and March 2016 by the Strategy and Policy Department.

The Council owns 69 housing units, which are distributed in Edendale, Lumsden, Nightcaps, Ohai, Otautau, Riversdale, Riverton, Tuatapere, Winton and Wyndham. The units offer good quality, affordable housing to groups with specific needs who are mainly elderly residents. This means residents can remain living in their local community when changes in their circumstances may have otherwise meant they could no longer do so. Council has a responsibility to ensure rentals are safe and fit for residents to live in.

Sixty two of these community housing units were occupied at the time of the survey. All occupied community houses were sent a survey by post on 12 February 2016 along with a freepost return envelope. The closing date was 11 March 2016. The survey was coded on a per township basis when it was posted out to assist with the analysis process. A total of 62 surveys were sent out and 26 returned giving a response rate of 42% which is similar to the response rate of the last survey conducted in 2014. The margin of error is +/- 15%.

Tenants who wished to be contacted about their comments were contacted when their survey questionnaire was received. However it is noted that many of the issues identified have already been addressed and resolved.

Results

1 The performance measures that relate to this survey can be found in the Community Services activity group in the 10 Year Plan 2015-2025.

2 The first performance measure is “The percentage of tenants who believe that the housing facilities are maintained satisfactorily and are suitable for use.”

3 The result for the 2015/2016 financial year is 97% for suitability and 77% for maintenance. The suitability result meets the performance measure target of 80% in the 10 Year Plan but the maintenance result does not.

4 The next performance measure is “Percentage of residents who feel safe and secure when living in the Community Housing building.”

5 The result for the 2015/2016 financial year is 100%. This result meets the performance measure target of 80% in the 10 Year Plan.

6 There is a futher internal performance measure that relates to the survey. This measure is “Percentage of tenants who are satisfied with the surroundings in which they live.”

7 The result for 2015/2016 is 96%. This result meets the internal performance measure target of 80%.

8 The full survey report is attached.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Results of the Community Housing Survey 2015/2016 ” dated 31 May 2016.

Attachments

a Community Housing Tenants Survey Results Report View