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?
No, keep 231 Stuart Street as a strategic asset
Do you have any comments about 231 Stuart Street?
Open up submissions for community groups, arts oganisations, business support organisations etc for proposals on how this asset can be used. Provide then with costs they need to cover to enable the council to cover maintanence etc so it is not a white elephant, but also supports the values and mission statements of various policies of the council.
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 support charging a fee. However $20pp is steep. Reconsider to charing $10pp. Otherwise visitor numbers could drop.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
The priorities of 'whats in' and 'whats out' is not in keeping with the councils Strategies for the city. Zero carbon plan must be implemented as soon as possible. Removing all actions from the budget will only result in much higher costs in the mid and long term, during which rates will only need to be further raised while quality of life in the city continues to be diminished.
The Smooth Hill landfill should be reviewed and alternatives such as waste diversion and reuse prioritised. If $92 million was spent on community resource recovery centres and education, there would be no need now or in the future for a new landfill.
Consultation with local communities and organisations on playground renewals could result in lower cost and equally attractive options to reduce maintenance and renewal costs.
Grass verge mowing could be reduced by planting native wild flower meadows instead of grass that needs to be mowed, while maintaining beauty and biodiversity.
New efficient community housing made using sustainable practices, such as utilizing commercial building waste, is a priority that should not be removed. Housing insecurity affects us all, not only those we blame for their own lack of options. Reviewing building codes and zoning to generate opportunities for re-relocatable tiny homes, and mixed density centrally located housing is urgently needed.
If council stopped commissioning reports for long term they only intend to ignore anyway, that would save a lot of money too... or you could resolve to agree with the experts you pay to advise you and respond accordingly, and start working together efficiently.
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?
Reduce the middle-men who benefit personally from council of funds and often fail to employ and mange their staff to deliver consistent and quality services.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Management of waste water and storm water will be increasingly under pressure in coming years and needs to be planed in line with the expert assessments from engeneers, climate scientists etc as well as other predictable changes to population, high density population areas (such as green island, mosiel etc). We need to turn our 'waste' into an asset that can support energy generation, biodiversity and sustainability as well as reducing costs to households that comes from regular flooding.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1132578
Submitter name:
Fiona Jenkin
Organisation