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?
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?
I agree with a charge but I think it should be $10. That amount will generate revenue but not be a deterrent to access. The amount of $20 a person adds up to a lot for a family of 4 adults. I think this amount should be re-considered.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I agree with the general direction of the 9 year plan - especially the focus on infrastructure, completing projects and honouring existing commitments to communities. I would prefer the rise to be under 10% if possible. I have noted in Council meetings that lack of information about the properties the Council actually owns. I see that 'City Properties' accounts for $11.06 of every $100. I would like like to see a comprehensive review of all DCC properties with a view of selling those that no longer fit the portfolio. This would generate income, reduce maintenance costs and staff time. I would also like the Council to invest in a better CRM system. I have sent in enquiries and never received a reply. This seems to be when the answer is probably 'no'. An improved system will provide you with better reports and trends for future planning.
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?
Better long-term oversight.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
I totally support the proposed expenditure on flood alleviation for South Dunedin and the water supply projects for outlying areas. These have been areas of neglect since the amalgamation in 1989. It is time the DCC sees Dunedin as a holistic entity and not a developed centrally populated area with a few satellite villages. Every ratepayer deserves access to the same level of services.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1131039
Submitter name:
Ruth Graham
Organisation