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?
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?
We should be focused on reducing costs more than tinkering with increasing revenue. Introducing an entry fee risks undermining the welcoming and inclusive spirit of our cultural institutions, potentially alienating visitors and creating logistical challenges around enforcement.
On a practical level, how would this work? Requiring proof to differentiate between locals and tourists raises significant privacy and practicality concerns, and could lead to uncomfortable or exclusionary experiences at the front door. This move may also conflict with the broader goals of promoting Dunedin as a culturally rich and visitor-friendly destination and so have flow on effects for tourist spending.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Dunedin City Council’s Draft Long-Term Plan. I appreciate being able to contribute to the conversation about the city’s future.
I have serious concerns about the direction and priorities reflected. In particular, I question both the level of community engagement and the approach to spending at a time when many residents are facing significant financial pressure.
Accountability to ratepayers must sit at the heart of any long-term planning process. It is disappointing to see that, across a nine-year planning horizon filled with major projects and financial decisions, only two points of formal feedback are being sought—and neither appear to have meaningful influence over the proposed rate increases. This risks reducing public consultation to a box-ticking exercise, rather than a genuine effort to co-design the city’s future with its residents. Effective planning requires not just transparency, but dialogue.
I believe the Council must show greater financial discipline. In the current economic climate, where households across the city are tightening their belts and many are in a position of going without essentials, it is simply not responsible to raise rates while continuing to fund a suite of discretionary or “nice to have” projects. These include:
• Destination playgrounds – $11 million
• Peninsula Connection – $18.5 million
• Peninsula Boardwalk – $3.5 million
• Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan – $7 million
• Festivals and Events Plan
• Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan
While these initiatives may have merit in the right context, now is not the time to press ahead with projects that sit outside the core responsibilities of local government. This aligns with the clear signals being sent by central government: local authorities are expected to prioritise essential services and exercise financial restraint.
Part of that restraint must include taking a hard look at internal costs. As outlined in the supporting documents, personnel and operational spending is forecast to increase year-on-year across every activity. At a time when many organisations are scaling back and reassessing their budgets, Council must be prepared to do the same. Reducing headcount and operational expenditure is not easy, but these are the kinds of decisions responsible leadership requires in difficult times.
This submission is not a call for austerity—it is a call for accountability, and for Council to match its ambitions with the financial realities faced by the community. Fiscal discipline is not just a financial necessity—it’s a sign of respect for the people who fund this city. Many in our community simply cannot absorb further increases. Ignoring this reality will erode public trust and deepen the divide between Council decisions and the lives they affect.
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 can balance local control with the benefits of operational independence and greater long-term financial sustainability.
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: 1132713
Submitter name:
C Stuart
Organisation