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?
Removing this building from the asset list can enable a sale, which provides the opportunity for private enterprise to do something meaningful with the building.
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?
Not necessarily $20 as for families with children over 16, the total cost becomes a barrier.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I believe that having a city with excellent essential services of water supply and disposal, efficient roading and transport with well maintained road reserves and footpaths, secure energy infrastructure, and efficient refuse disposal are the only focus for the next nine years. These make a city more attractive to residents and visitors alike. Therefore I propose that the next nine years focus is solely on these services and infrastructure.
Costs to be removed:
Creation of new cycle ways on the Penninsula, destination playgrounds are ‘nice to haves’ that can be delayed for nine years.
I do not see any maintenance costing in the consultation document, but am aware that a see-saw in George St has already had to be removed more than once for repairs. Creating more playgrounds will increase this maintenance and I feel we are already well served with great playgrounds.
Creating a new landfill is an archaic method of refuse disposal when there are modern means, for example, incineration which can also be used to produce energy.
I feel the moving refuse to another site is preferable to enable investigation of landfill alternatives.
Festivals, music and other events are very much ‘nice to haves’ and organisations should be looking for grants elsewhere, not from rate payers. Being almost 10x the cost of verge maintenance, shows a distinct lack of focus on rates use for core infrastructure. There are no real footpaths where I live and I feel this work needs to come before a festival.
As a household, with the current high cost of living, economies need to be made to live within our means and not to extend our debt. The council should be modeling this and not increasing the pressure on ratepayers further with increasing debt and rates paying for vanity projects.
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?
A CCO will have a clear focus on their responsibilities and can be held accountable. In-house delivery is less transparent.
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: 1132688
Submitter name:
Organisation