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?
The DCC should be invested in Dunedin's heritage buildings to demonstrate leadership and encouragement to the private sector to maintain their buildings. Selling the Fortune Theatre would seem hypocritical. It could be a precendent for others to say 'my building is in the too hard basket, look what Council did with the Fortune Theatre - neglected it for years, flogged it off and it was demolished'. Are you going to be the Council remembered for allowing this to happen?
Theatre space is needed. A heritage building adds to theatrical ambience. The location is ideal. Create a Performing Arts Hub to complement the Dunedin Business Hub.
A refurbishment and operation plan is available and costed with positive cashflow.
This attractive gothic revival style stone building adds significantly to Dunedin's Heritage City credentials being heritage category 1. It is prominently located near the Octagon for easy visitor inclusion in a walking Commercial Heritage Precinct appreciation tour of similar buildings eg Dunedin Railway Station, Law Courts, First Church, and The Town Hall.
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?
All fee to be reinvested in each entity
Do combo tickets at discount.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Greenfield Development Contributions should achieve fairness and market competitiveness for highly serviced land. DC differentials discourage fully serviced developments. Structure DC's to avoid under-serviced areas benefiting from low DC's while highly serviced areas bear excessively high DC's. Implement value uplift sharing so that land value increases due to rezoning or infrastructure improvements are partially recouped as DC's. DC's should reflect actual infrastructure benefit and cost recovery, rather than a flat or generalised fee. DC's should be indexed to never exceed 5% of the new Title value. For infill development, ancilliary buildings and dual occupancy's should contribute as if stand alone, pro-rata by bedrooms.
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?
Timing - get critical infrastructure work done sooner by accessing funds through higher debt facility. Work done sooner is better as costs will go up disproportionately with time.
Scale - scale projects up - larger scope done sooner is always less risk, more efficient and will save long term.
Ratepayer stress - Ratepayers have had big hits lately, can't continue. Less financial burden on ratepayer in initial years. Long term graphs trend together either way, so take the cheapest option for ratepayers. The modeler's confidence or lack there of in prediction is not inspiring.
New blood - New experienced heads in governance and technical matters. Infrastructure delivery should be apolitical, with the freedom to be totally focused on LWDW delivery, and free of the 3yr circus. Infrastructure is not house building - keep separate from building department - horses for courses.
Proviso on CCO choice - Keep existing staff - transfer in-house knowledge across; minimise consultants; Train staff (Engineers) to document and manage better to contain costs. Retain skills. Dunedin made is Dunedin best.
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: 1133016
Submitter name:
Rennie Logan
Organisation