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?
This is an important building and a theatre - this needs more discussion. I believe the public should know more about efforts the council is putting in to maintain this facility while it is mothballed. There was always demand for the events in this building when this was a theatre, and the public greatly misses what the Fortune had to offer. It was also ideally placed near restaurants and bars. I do not support any moves that could result in demolition of this building. Much more analysis of this issue needs to be done.
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?
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
The creative and cultural vibrancy budget and the vibrant economy budget could be combined and turned into one more effective unit that is better funded to look at city/community partnerships and events. Creative and cultural vibrancy done extremely well feeds our economy. The two are interlinked and there could be administrative efficiencies in ensuring these areas are joined up. I would like to see a review of the effectiveness of the Dunedin economic Development unit and also Destination Dunedin to ensure these are achieving the results intended, and to set more transparent and accountable measures of success for spend. Also, in the infrastructure for wastewater, landfills and transport - the city's roading network - as many millions of ratepayer funding is proposed, the 9 year plan seems to omit assurances about good design, close oversight, ensuring work is completed on time and deadlines are met. These may seem like basics, but we know issues of poor design and inefficient construction such as delays and overruns have impacted the city in recent years. Ad hoc and poorly designed 'temporary' roundabouts and kerb and footpath construction (eg the Knox Church George St turn/ the see saw) have taken businesses and communities by surprise. Some important work impacting businesses eg cycle lane proposal for Albany St, appears not to have been well consulted. This in turn stresses our community. There needs to be more recognition of the need for better community involvement in the Draft. Re Smooth Hill, I submit council should review and revisit this decision. Serious questions have been raised by mayoral candidate Andrew Sim and we need to review this decision given the enormous planned capex. Municipal Chambers Planned restoration is very vague. This plan needs firm dates and goals for completion of that project. Not stretch this out into 2030, but complete by 2027. Surely this is possible? I fully support all initiatives in the Heritage Act Plan, but would like a second phase of this after all the exploring, commissioning and database work is done. Heritage building owners forum is urgent. Please put timeframes on all these ideas. Set goals and achieve them. The public expect this for the money being spent.
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?
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: 1132697
Submitter name:
Jo Galer
Organisation
individual