DOCSLIB.ORG

2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMUNITRAK™ SURVEY FEBRUARY 2016 COMMUNITRAK™ SURVEY PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF COUNCIL SERVICES AND REPRESENTATION PREPARED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK PROGRAMME FOR: SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL FEBRUARY 2016 National Research Bureau Ltd PO Box 10118, Mt Eden, Auckland, New Zealand P (09) 6300 655, www.nrb.co.nz CONTENTS Page No. A. SITUATION AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................1 B. COMMUNITRAK™ SPECIFICATIONS .....................................................................2 C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................6 D. MAIN FINDINGS .........................................................................................................18 1. Council Services/Facilities ................................................................................19 a. Satisfaction With Council Services/Facilities ........................................20 i. Overall Satisfaction ...........................................................................20 1. Control Of Animals ................................................................20 2. Footpaths ..................................................................................24 3. Condition Of Council Roads (Excluding State Highways) ................................................................................28 4. Sewerage System ....................................................................32 5. Stormwater Services, ie, Urban and Rural Drainage .........35 6. Water Supply ...........................................................................39 ii. User/Visitor Satisfaction .................................................................43 1. The Tidiness And Maintenance Of Cemeteries In The District ......................................................................................43 2. The Cleanliness And Maintenance Of Public Halls ...........46 3. Public Library ..........................................................................49 4. Appearance And Maintenance Of Parks And Reserves ...55 5. Weekly Rubbish And Recycling Kerbside Collection Service ......................................................................................58 6. Public Toilets ............................................................................61 2. Rates Issues ..........................................................................................................67 a. Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Provided By Council ........................................................68 3. Information ..........................................................................................................71 a. Do Residents Know How To Get Council Information If They Want It?........................................................................................................72 b. Main Source Of Information About Council .........................................74 c. How Would Residents Like To Receive Information From Council In The Future? .............................................................................76 CONTENTS (continued) Page No. 4. Local Issues ..........................................................................................................78 a. Which Town Do Residents Mainly Do Their Shopping Or Business In? ................................................................................................79 b. Council Consultation ................................................................................80 i. Satisfaction With The Opportunities Council Provides For Members Of The Public To Participate In Decision Making, If They Wish To .................................................................................80 ii. Does Council Make Decisions That Represent The Best Interests Of The Community? .........................................................82 iii. Satisfaction With The Amount Of Consultation The Council Offers ...................................................................................84 iv. In General Terms, Is Council Moving In The Right Direction? ..86 v. The One Thing Residents Would Like Council To Improve Upon ...................................................................................88 vi. Overall Are Residents Happy With the Service Council Provides? ............................................................................................91 E. APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................92 NB: Please note the following explanations for this report: Figures that are comparably lower than percentages for other respondent types. Figures that are comparably higher than percentages for other respondent types. Arrows, whenever shown, depict a directional trend. In general, where bases are small (<30), no comparisons have been made. For small bases, the estimates of results are not statistically reliable due to the high margins of error. Icons used in this report made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com 1 A. SITUATION AND OBJECTIVES The mission statement for South Taranaki District Council reads: "Council will lead with fairness and integrity, and work to inspire a vibrant and caring spirit of community, while remaining an efficient and sensitive provider of services and facilities." Council has engaged a variety of approaches both to seeking public opinion and to communicating its decisions and programmes to the people resident in the area. One of these approaches was to commission the National Research Bureau's Communitrak™ survey in June/July 1993, June 1995, June 1997, May 1999, May 2001, March/April 2003, April 2005, March 2007, October/November 2008, September/October 2009, November 2010, February/March 2012-2015 and now again in February 2016. The advantages, and benefits of this are twofold ... • Council has the National Average and Peer Group comparisons against which to analyse perceived performance, • Council introduced questions reflecting areas of interest particular to South Taranaki District. Communitrak™ sought to obtain the views of South Taranaki District residents on the specific issue of ... • Council consultation. * * * * * 2 B. COMMUNITRAK™ SPECIFICATIONS Sample Size This Communitrak™ survey was conducted with 402 residents of the South Taranaki District. The survey is framed on the basis of the Wards as the elected representatives are associated with a particular Ward. Interviews were spread as follows: Egmont Plains 100 Eltham 61 Hawera-Normanby 141 Patea 60 Tangahoe 40 N = 402 Interview Type All interviewing was conducted by telephone, with calls being made between 4.30pm and 8.30pm on weekdays and 8.30am and 8.30pm weekends. Sample Selection The white pages of the Taranaki telephone directory and the Waverley section of the Wanganui directory were used as the sample source, with every xth number being selected, that is, each residential (non-business) number selected was chosen in a systematic, randomised way (in other words, at a regular interval), in order to spread the numbers chosen in an even way across all relevant phone book pages. Quota sampling was used to ensure an even balance of male and female respondents, with the sample stratified also according to Ward. Sample sizes for each Ward were predetermined to ensure a sufficient number of respondents within each Ward, so that analysis could be conducted on a Ward-by-Ward basis. A target of interviewing approximately 120 residents aged 18 to 44 years was also set. Households were screened to ensure they fell within the South Taranaki District Council's geographical boundaries. Respondent Selection Respondent selection within the household was also randomised with the eligible person being the man or woman, normally resident, aged 18 years or over, who had the last birthday. 3 Call Backs Three call backs, ie, four calls in all, were made to a residence before the number was replaced in the sample. Call backs were made on a different day or, in the case of a weekend, during a different time period, ie, at least four hours later. Sample Weighting Weightings were applied to the sample data, to reflect the actual Ward, gender and age group proportions in the area as determined by Statistics New Zealand's 2013 Census data. The result is that the total percentage figures represent the population's viewpoint as a whole across the entire South Taranaki District. Bases for subsamples are shown in the Appendix. Where we specify a "base", we are referring to the actual number of respondents interviewed. Survey Dates All interviews were conducted between 19th February and 28th February 2016. Comparison Data Communitrak™ offers to Councils the opportunity to compare their performance with those of Local Authorities across all New Zealand as a whole and with similarly constituted Local Authorities. The Communitrak service includes ... • comparisons with a national sample of 1003 interviews conducted in November 2014, • comparisons with provincial, urban and rural norms. The survey methodology for the comparison data is similar in every respect to that used for your Council's Communitrak™ reading. Where comment has been made regarding respondents more or less likely to represent a particular opinion or response, the comparison has been made between respondents in each socio-economic group, and not between each socio-economic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Geospatial Assessment of Critical Infrastructure Impacts and Adaptations in Small Rural Towns Following the 14 November 2016 (Kaikōura) Earthquake, New Zealand
    Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication GIS and Geoinformation Zoning for Disaster Mitigation (GIZ2018) A geospatial assessment of critical infrastructure impacts and adaptations in small rural towns following the 14 November 2016 (Kaikōura) earthquake, New Zealand D. J. McKibbin i), D. M. Blake ii), T. M. Wilson iii), L. Wotherspoon iv), and M. W. Hughes v) i) MSc Student, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood Ave, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand. ii) Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood Ave, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand. iii) Assoc. Professor, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood Ave, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand. iv) Senior Lecturer, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. v) Lecturer, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood Ave, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand ABSTRACT Geographically remote, small rural towns typically rely on multiple critical infrastructure networks with limited redundancies to support key services. Additionally, facilities that people take for granted in larger population centres, such as supermarkets and schools, are more widely distributed in low population density regions. We adopt the 14 November 2016 (Kaikōura) earthquake in New Zealand as a case study to explore critical infrastructure challenges and impacts, service disruptions, and community adaptations in four small North Canterbury and Marlborough towns – Waiau, Culverden, Seddon and Ward. However, behavioural, infrastructure and legislative adaptations can be inherent or quick to evolve in small towns with frequent service disruptions. Despite these factors, small towns are often underrepresented in impact assessments and appear to have been a low priority for investigation in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission from the Canterbury District Health Board on The
    CDHB Consultation Submission to Hurunui draft Local Alcohol Policy 2013 Submission from Canterbury District Health Board (Community and Public Health (CPH) Division on behalf of the whole of Canterbury DHB) And incorporating the submission from the Medical Officer of Health for Canterbury, Dr. Alistair Humphrey July 2013 Hurunui District Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy 2013 1 CDHB Consultation Submission to Hurunui draft Local Alcohol Policy 2013 SUBMISSION DETAILS This document covers the Canterbury District Health Board’s (CDHB) written submission on Hurunui’s District Council’s (HDC) draft Local Alcohol Policy and it is the combination of multiple inputs from across the service including the Medical Officer of Health for Canterbury, Dr. Alistair Humphrey. The CDHB as a whole represents over 8300 employees across a diverse range of services. Every division of the CDHB is affected by alcohol misuse and alcohol-related harm. The CDHB response is based on extensive evidence for alcohol-related harm. It is important that evidence-based submissions are given a higher weighting than those based on opinion or hearsay in the final formulation of the Local Alcohol Policy. There are important evidence based issues, clinical issues and public health issues which need to be articulated by the CDHB and therefore requests two slots at the hearings . Name: Alistair Humphrey Organisation Name: Canterbury District Health Board Organisation Role: Medical Officer of Health for Canterbury Contact Address: Community & Public Health, PO Box 1475, Christchurch Postcode: 8140 Note: Please contact Stuart Dodd for correspondence (same physical address) as followss ee over for full contact details Phone Number (day): 03 379 6852 (day/evening): 027 65 66 554* preferred number Email: [email protected]* preferred email continued over….
    [Show full text]
  • Hurunui District Farm Case Studies Following the November 2016 M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura Earthquake
    Analysing Cascading Hazard Impacts and Recovery at Farm Level: Hurunui District Farm Case Studies following the November 2016 M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura Earthquake A thesis Submitted in partrial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Geology at the University of Canterbury By Jess McHale University of Canterbury 2018 Dry land, sudden shock Cascading earth, water, stock New course, same old farm ii Abstract Farming and urban regions are impacted by earthquake disasters in different ways, and feature a range of often different recovery requirements. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, most earthquake impact and recovery research is urban focused. This creates a research deficit that can lead to the application of well-researched urban recovery strategies in rural areas to suboptimal effect. To begin to reduce this deficit, in-depth case studies of the earthquake impacts and recovery of three New Zealand farms severely impacted by the 14th November 2016, M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake were conducted. The initial earthquake, its aftershocks and coseismic hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, surface rupture) affected much of North Canterbury, Marlborough and the Wellington area. The three case study farms were chosen to broadly represent the main types of farming and topography in the Hurunui District in North Canterbury. The farms were directly and indirectly impacted by earthquakes and related hazards. On-farm infrastructure (e.g., woolsheds, homesteads) and essential services (e.g., water, power), frequently sourced from distributed networks, were severely impacted. The earthquake occurred after two years of regional drought had already stressed farm systems and farmers to restructuring or breaking point.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission on Hurunui District Council Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028
    Submission on Hurunui District Council Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028 To: Hurunui District Council Submitter: Community & Public Health A division of the Canterbury District Health Board Attn: Kirsty Peel Community and Public Health C/- Canterbury District Health Board PO Box 1475 Christchurch 8140 Proposal: Hurunui District Council is consulting on their long-term plan to ascertain views on how best to manage infrastructure and services in the district over the next 10 years. Page 1 of 7 Template File Pathway: Y:\CFS\CPHGroups\RMC\HDC\LTP\2018\HurunuiLTPSubmissionFINAL180503.docx SUBMISSION ON HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN Details of submitter 1. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) 2. The CDHB is responsible for promoting the reduction of adverse environmental effects on the health of people and communities and to improve, promote and protect their health pursuant to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Health Act 1956. 3. These statutory obligations are the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and, in the Canterbury District, are carried out under contract by Community and Public Health under Crown funding agreements on behalf of the Canterbury District Health Board. General comments 4. Health and wellbeing (overall quality of life) is influenced by a wide range of factors beyond the health sector. These influences can be described as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and are impacted by environmental, social and behavioural factors. They are often referred to as the ‘social determinants of health1. Barton and Grant’s Health Map2 shows how various influences on health are complex and interlinked.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquefaction Hazard in the Hurunui District
    LIQUEFACTION HAZARD IN HURUNUI DISTRICT Report for Environment Canterbury & Hurunui District Council Report prepared by GEOTECH CONSULTING LTD Contributors: Ian McCahon - Geotech Consulting Ltd Prepared for: Environment Canterbury report number R11/61 ISBN: 978-1-927146-31-6 Liquefaction Hazard in Hurunui District Page 2 of 19 The information collected and presented in this report and accompanying documents by the Consultant and supplied to Environment Canterbury is accurate to the best of the knowledge and belief of the Consultant acting on behalf of Environment Canterbury. While the Consultant has exercised all reasonable skill and care in the preparation of information in this report, neither the Consultant nor Environment Canterbury accept any liability in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss, damage, injury or expense, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising out of the provision of information in this report. The liquefaction potential maps contained in this report are regional in scope and detail, and should not be considered as a substitute for site-specific investigations and/or geotechnical engineering assessments for any project. Qualified and experienced practitioners should assess the site-specific hazard potential, including the potential for damage, at a more detailed scale. Geotech Consulting Ltd 4154 September 2011 Liquefaction Hazard in Hurunui District Page 3 of 19 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD IN HURUNUI DISTRICT Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Building Resilience in Transient Rural Communities – a Post-Earthquake Regional Study: Scoping Report
    Building resilience in transient rural communities – a post-earthquake regional study: Scoping report Jude Wilson David Simmons November 2017 RNC Report: RNC032:04.01 DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure that the information herein is accurate, neither the authors nor Lincoln University accept any liability for error of fact or opinion which may be present, or for the consequences of any decision based on this information. Cover image sourced from New Zealand Transport Agency – Plan your Journey (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/plan-your-journey/) Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 1 LIST OF BOXES ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Bird Population Monitoring in New Zealand: Proceedings of a Workshop
    Development of Bird Population Monitoring in New Zealand: Proceedings of a Workshop Eric B. Spurr Landcare Research C. John Ralph US Forest Service Landcare Research Science Series No. 32 Development of Bird Population Monitoring in New Zealand: Proceedings of a Workshop Eric B. Spurr Landcare Research C. John Ralph US Forest Service (Compilers) Landcare Research Science Series No. 32 Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand 2006 © Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd 2006 This information may be copied or reproduced electronically and distributed to others without limitation, provided Landcare Research New Zealand Limited is acknowledged as the source of information. Under no circumstances may a charge be made for this information without the express permission of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION Spurr, E.B. Development of bird population monitoring in New Zealand: proceedings of a workshop / Eric B. Spurr and C. John Ralph, compilers – Lincoln, N.Z. : Manaaki Whenua Press, 2006. (Landcare Research Science series, ISSN 1172-269X; no. 32) ISBN-13: 978-0-478-09384-1 ISBN-10: 0-478-09384-5 1. Bird populations – New Zealand. 2. Birds – Monitoring – New Zealand. 3. Birds – Counting – New Zealand. I. Spurr, E.B. II. Series. UDC 598.2(931):574.3.087.001.42 Edited by Christine Bezar Layout design Typesetting by Wendy Weller Cover design by Anouk Wanrooy Published by Manaaki Whenua Press, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand. 3 Contents Summary ..............................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Marlborough Economic Development, Toruism and Events
    REVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND EVENTS SERVICES Final Report for Marlborough District Council March 2018 CONTENTS Review of Economic Development, Tourism and Events Services 1 Preface 7 Executive summary 8 Introduction 15 Scope 15 Approach 16 Current situation 21 Economic development services and investment in Marlborough 21 1. Are the right economic development activities being delivered? 28 1.1 What services/activities should be delivered? 30 1.2 Are there any gaps in economic development services? 50 2. Are services effective and providing value for money? 55 2.1 What outputs are being delivered? 58 2.2 What is known about the impact and effectiveness of existing services? 68 2.3 The overall effectiveness of economic development activities 101 2.5. Are services delivered cost-effectively? 103 2.6 Assessing whether the benefits of economic development activities exceed the costs 107 3. How should the services be delivered? 112 3.1 Does the existing model need to change? 114 3.3 What arrangements could be effective and efficient options for delivering economic development activities in Marlborough? 119 3.4 What is the recommended option? 125 3.5 What are the key benefits and costs of change? 126 4. How should the improvements be implemented? 128 4.1 Key opportunities and recommendations 128 4.2 Sequencing 132 APPENDICES Appendix 1 : Marlborough economic and industry trends 133 Appendix 2 : Determining a clear rationale for local government in economic development 138 Appendix 3 : Economic development services in other regions 141 Appendix 4 : Summary of national evaluation evidence 145 TABLES Table 1. Council economic development areas of focus, activities and resourcing 21 Table 2.
    [Show full text]
  • CB List by Zone and Council
    ZONE COUNCIL COMMUNITY BOARD 1 Far North District Council Te Hiku Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Kaikohe-Hokianga 2 Matamata-Piako District Council Matamata Morrinsville Te Aroha Opotiki District Council Coast Otorohanga District Council Kawhia Otorohanga Rotorua District Council Rotorua Lakes South Waikato District Council Tirau (names only – no contact details) Taupo District Council Turangi- Tongariro Thames-Coromandel District Council Coromandel-Colville Mercury Bay Tairua-Pauanui Thames Whangamata Waikato District Council Huntly Community Board Ngaruawahia Community Board Onewhero -Tuakau Community Board Raglan Community Board Taupiri Community Board Waipa District Council Cambridge (names only – no contact details) Te Awamutu (names only – no contact details) Western Bay of Plenty District Council Katikati Community Board Maketu Community Board Omokoroa Community Board Te Puke Community Board Waihi Beach Community Board Whakatane District Council Murupara Ohope Beach Rangitaiki Taneatua Whakatane 3 Hastings District Council Rural Community Board Horowhenua District Council Foxton New Plymouth District Council Clifton Inglewood Kaitake Waitara Rangitikei District Council Ratana Community Board Taihape Community Board Ruapehu District Council National Park Waimarino-Waiouru South Taranaki District Council Egmont Plains Eltham Hawera-Normanby Patea Tararua District Council Dannevirke Eketahuna Wanganui District Council Wanganui Rural (go to ‘about council/community board’) 4 Hutt City Council Eastbourne Community Board Petone Community Board
    [Show full text]
  • HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL 2019 NOMINATION PAPER Nominations Must Be in the Hands of the Electoral Officer/Official Before 12 Noon, Friday 16 August 2019
    MAYOR HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL 2019 NOMINATION PAPER Nominations must be in the hands of the Electoral Officer/Official before 12 noon, Friday 16 August 2019 A: CANDIDATE to fill out after reading important information on reverse I (candidate’s full name), accept the nomination and confirm that I have read and understand the Eligibility and Candidacy notes on the reverse of this form and certify that I am qualified to be a candidate under section 25 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and regulations and that I am not disqualified under section 58 of the Local Electoral Act 2001. In particular, I am a New Zealand citizen and a parliamentary elector and I am not a candidate for election to the Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury). Address (as listed on the parliamentary roll): Email (EO’s preferred first point of contact): Mobile phone: Home phone: I understand that the details provided on this nomination paper will be publicly available for election purposes. Please advise the Electoral Officer at the time of lodging your nomination if there are contact details that you would not like to be published. Note: Section 55(5) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that this nomination form be available for public inspection at the Hurunui District Council office located at 66 Carters Road (SH1), Amberley. Please note that candidate and nominator details provided on this form may also be made available from the Hurunui District Council website. I submit with this nomination Evidence of NZ Evidence of Profile Photo (please tick appropriate circles): citizenship deposit ($200) statement I understand that, in not providing a profile or photo, the words“Profile/Photo not supplied” will appear below my name in the profile booklet that will be sent out with the voting paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Waters
    FOR DECISION MŌ TE WHAKATAUNGA TO Mayor and Councillors AUTHOR Adrian de Laborde Group Manager Engineering Services FILE REFERENCE Document: 2807302 Appendix A: Three Waters Reform Programme M2807311 Appendix B: 3 Waters Stimulus Funding Agreement M2807309 Appendix C: Simpson Grierson Advice SOLGM on MOU M2807308 Appendix D: Notional Funding Allocations M2807307 Appendix E: Eater Stimulus Delivery Plan M2807305 Appendix F: Grant Funding Guidance M2807248 PORTFOLIO HOLDER/S Councillor Ross Harris 3 Waters portfolio MEETING DATE 12 August 2020 SUBJECT Department of Internal Affairs 3-Waters Review Memorandum of Understanding SUMMARY | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTANGA This report provides an update on the Governments reform programme for 3 Waters and seeks approval for the Council to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Crown. The decision is not considered to be a significant decision. Whaarangi 1 | 8 M 2807302 RECOMMENDATION | TE WHAIKUPU THAT the report be received. THAT the Council agrees to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Crown, thus agreeing to participate in the initial stage of a central/local government three waters service delivery reform programme THAT the Council authorise the Chief Executive to enter into the Funding Agreement, to accept a grant from the Crown to spend on operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery THAT the Council considers these decisions to be insignificant under its Significance and Engagement Policy 2017. THAT the Council informs the community that the Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into. 1 PURPOSE | TE ARONGA This report provides an update to the Council on the Government’s progress on the reform of 3-Waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Turnout Statistics for Local Authorities Using Fpp for the 2013 Elections
    VOTER TURNOUT STATISTICS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES USING FPP FOR THE 2013 ELECTIONS Total Overall Electoral voters turnout Area Authority ward Type system (N) (%) ASHBURTON DISTRICT ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 6,810 53.3% AUCKLAND AUCKLAND COUNCIL All CC FPP 292,790 34.9% BAY OF PLENTY REGION BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL All RC FPP 78,938 41.0% BULLER DISTRICT BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 3,694 62.4% CARTERTON DISTRICT CARTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL AT LARGE DC FPP 2,880 45.7% CENTRAL HAWKE'S BAY DISTRICT CENTRAL HAWKE'S BAY DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 5,151 55.2% CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 6,722 52.9% CHATHAM ISLANDS DISTRICT CHATHAM ISLANDS TERRITORY COUNCIL AT LARGE DC FPP CHRISTCHURCH CITY CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL All CC FPP 103,467 42.9% CLUTHA DISTRICT CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 2,707 59.8% FAR NORTH DISTRICT FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 18,308 48.9% GISBORNE DISTRICT GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 14,272 48.3% GORE DISTRICT GORE DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 3720 41.7% GREY DISTRICT GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 3,193 45.3% HAMILTON CITY HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL All CC FPP 37,276 38.3% HASTINGS DISTRICT HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 19,927 47.8% HAURAKI DISTRICT HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 5,375 40.4% HAWKE'S BAY REGION HAWKE'S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL All RC FPP 51,524 47.7% HOROWHENUA DISTRICT HOROWHENUA DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 11,700 52.9% HURUNUI DISTRICT HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL All DC FPP 1,327 44.7% HUTT CITY HUTT CITY COUNCIL All CC FPP
    [Show full text]