Submission
9 year plan feedback
Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly the Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in the DCC Significance and Engagement policy?
Yes, remove 231 Stuart Street from the list of strategic assets (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about 231 Stuart Street?
No
Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?
Yes, introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about the entry fee for international visitors?
No
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Whilst the plan might be yielding a fairly quick surplus, the expectation that ratepayers like myself are expected to see rates increases for the next 9 years well over CPI is just unacceptable to me. I challenge council to do more to refine this plan further to (a) divest more non essential projects and responsibilities (b) look for ways (like Toitu & Art Gallery) to increase user revenue (NOT rates) (c) reduce spend and sharpen cost management. Right now I feel this plan is not acceptable to rate payers and needs further work
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
The Council’s preferred option: an in-house delivery model
Why did you choose this option?
Will be less wasteful. Increasing bureaucracy and duplication of more council systems is not the answer
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1128950
Submitter name:
Peter Cox
Organisation
N/A