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?
I support this, but in the hope some progress is made towards a replacement venue.
Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?
No, do not introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST)
Do you have any comments about the entry fee for international visitors?
I don’t support introducing an entry fee for international visitors, because the very arguments put forward by the DCC to justify the proposal actually make a stronger case against it.
"Our priority is to make all visitors feel welcome to our cultural institutions and ensure accessibility is paramount."
Yet, you also acknowledge that visitor numbers will drop if a fee is introduced. If accessibility and making people feel welcome are truly priorities, then it makes no sense to introduce a policy that will discourage visitation.
"Introducing fees will increase our revenue... with an estimated income of $150,000 per year... Rates will reduce each year by the amount of revenue received."
At first glance, $150,000 per year sounds significant—until you break it down. Spread across more than 50,000 ratepayers, that amounts to a mere $3 per household annually, or around 6 cents per week. The suggestion that the entry fee will result in meaningful rates relief is misleading. In reality, the financial benefit to individual ratepayers is negligible.
"There are no additional costs."
That’s simply not true. There are costs involved in collecting, processing, banking, and accounting this new revenue. There must be also be operational changes required, which carry both direct and indirect costs. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
A Three Waters Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO)
Why did you choose this option?
Water is fundamental to human existence. Everyone has the right to clean, safe drinking water and to live in a clean, dry, and sanitary environment.
(I'm told) Dunedin’s 3-waters network is in poor condition due to years of neglect, mismanagement, and short-term political decision-making.
My hope is that a Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) delivery model will offer enough independence from the DCC to allow for long-term, strategic planning—looking ahead to meet Dunedin’s water-related needs 100 years from now, not just until the next local body election.
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: 1131616
Submitter name:
Alex Wallace
Organisation