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?
Continue work on finding alternative location, funding and partnership arrangements. Performing Arts need to be supported as a valued and integrated part of Dn community
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?
$20 kiwi is cheap when currency conversion is considered. You can pay more when visiting similar sites overseas.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
As Councillors are aware, there is a sizeable portion of Dn ratepayers on fixed income. Further, this current Government shows no interest in supporting DN and the surrounding communities. eg 2nd Medical school located elsewhere, unforgivable delays in building Dn Hospital to original specifications. The flow on effects like lost medical R & D, increased visitors to the city is immense. Sadly, a return of this Govt will continue to see greater emphasis placed on AK. CHCH has reduced revenue opportunities for holding large sporting events. In short Dn needs to attract funding from other sources. eg Can DN lean more on gaming industry or any other industry as a basis for promotion and increase tourist dollars and events held in the city. Whatever, the challenges facing local body representatives are difficult and I suspect it won't be long till some things become more problematic like homelessness, greater reliance on social services support , due to the inability of many ratepayers and residents to meet day to day living costs. It a pity suitable arrangements with Govt can't be arranged to proved suitable social housing to ease some of issues. (I don't support the pause on community housing) All of the above issues you know of and sadly there is no easy fix. (especially singular ideology driven ones). All the best to you who are elected and are faced with the many issues you have to grapple with.
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?
Ownership of assets under the councils preferred model. From my prospective I was in favour of the previous Govts 3 waters proposals were ownership was not retained. The reasoning for this was that ownership is not that important. It is the availability of safe water to drink and assets to handle waste water and stormwater that is more important. Costs to the ratepayer disappeared. However under this proposal ownership becomes more important especially with the opportunities to deliver a more integrated service. Water meter charges look like a forgone conclusion whatever option, but under a 3 waters council-controlled organisation my thoughts are that they will increase more frequently and at higher levels.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Not sure under both options there will be a two tier charges like electricity. ie One paid for connection of ongoing supply of water and another based on usage.
Look forward to good Governance. Hopefully not limited to publicly elected officials voted in by a very small number of constituents. I have more faith in co-goverance, with some technical expertise supported representatives than the current system of elected officials.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1131891
Submitter name:
Organisation