Cost, risk in tourist entry fees

Some of Dunedin's top cultural attractions could face a ''significant'' drop in visitor numbers if tourist entry fees are introduced, Dunedin city councillors have been warned.

However, any decision not to introduce the new fees could end up costing the council nearly $100,000 a year, a staff report has suggested.

Councillors would consider the idea of tourist-only entry fees for cultural attractions at a meeting of the council's finance committee on Monday, more than a year after the new system was suggested.

However, a report by Dunedin Public Art Gallery director Cam McCracken, to be considered at the meeting, recommended the proposed new charges be scrapped.

While such a move could generate an annual profit totalling $96,000 from year two, upfront costs - including new reception counters - would contribute to a loss of more than $300,000 in the first year, he said.

An even bigger blow could be felt by some the city's leading cultural institutions, including the DPAG and the recently redeveloped Toitu Otago Settlers Museum, he warned.

Both could expect ''significant'' drops in visitor numbers if the system was introduced, potentially by up to half, he warned.

That was in part because the Otago Museum - governed by a trust and outside council control - did not support the introduction of entry fees for non-residents.

It already received some council funding but also generated 40% of its revenue from ''value-added'' activities, which could be threatened by the introduction of an entry fee, he said.

And, without a uniform approach across the city, visitors would likely switch from visiting the DPAG and settlers museum facilities to the still-free Otago Museum instead, he said.

It was expected visitor numbers could fall by 35%-50%, which could threaten tenants running the settlers museum cafe and the revenue it generated for the museum, among other possible effects, he said.

The report was backed by market research - carried out by Ben Parsons and Associates for the council - which showed about half of all visitors to the facilities considered entry fees for non-residents to be a good idea.

However, a significant drop in visitor numbers would result, in part because some locals would no longer bring out-of-town guests to the attractions, the research also concluded.

The change would also mean a host of extra costs for the council, including $200,000 for the possible introduction of a new museum card identifying residents, changes to reception areas and extra staff, he said.

There would also be a drop in income from the Dunedin Chinese Garden, even as its visitor numbers increased, if its existing entry fee was cut to bring it into line with other council-owned attractions, he said.

In total, the new system would be expected to cost the council $415,000 in upfront capital costs in the first-year, and $550,610 in ongoing costs each year.

That would be offset by an ongoing jump in revenue from the settlers museum, DPAG and the Chinese Garden facilities, estimated to be worth $647,589 a year, Mr McCracken said.

That meant a total loss of $318,000 in the first year, due to upfront capital costs, followed by a profit of $96,978 the following year.

Mr McCracken's report also noted the idea of entry fees had been tried, and abandoned, by Dunedin's cultural attractions in the past, as well as elsewhere in New Zealand and internationally.


Entry fee costs
Capital cost of introduction:
$415,000- Includes foyer upgrades, signage, marketing and museum card.
Ongoing annual costs: $550,610- Includes loss of retail income, grant income and Chinese Garden admissions revenue, marketing costs and museum card costs.
Estimated annual income: $647,589- Annual fees revenue from DPAG ($204,450) Toitu Otago Settlers Museum ($361,800) and Dunedin Chinese Garden ($81,339).
Total (year 1): -$318,022
Total (year 2): $96,978


Unfair comments

I think our Art Gallery and Museums are fabulous.

The Stadium should be turned into a great medical marijuana facility thus giving our city mucho taxes and clearing the ratepayers debt.

It seems crazy but it would solve all our monetary woes when it came to city finances. But of course there is no way you could get it through the booze lobbyists and ignorance of the general public on marijuana matters. Oh well! Dunedin committed to gloom and doom for the rest of our lives.


Toitu Otago Settlers Museum an ambitous project when we already had a suitable museum - will in the long run be more detrimental to the city than the stadium. How this got through council governance and sign-off is another blight of the quality of council we've had to endure over the last 15 years.

A truly multi-use stadium

I reckon you could fit an olympic pool in there too, and high diving boards. Who knows? We might hit oil towards the deep end and all our economic problems will be over!

A ROI for the DCC ?

Max_Power: For once I do agree with you on charging everybody to visit the three nominated council owned facilities, except perhaps children under 16 or those over 65.
McCracken's comments are not based on research and are therefore irrelevant and cannot be substantiated by facts. The art gallery really does need a shakeup to attact more patronage. It's a shocker in comparison with many other small galleries around the world, and yes I have seen many of them and very few have free entry.
The Otago Museum should also be included as fee-paying for entry by all including Dunedin ratepayers. The figures stated regarding revenue loss and costs sound awful like the pre-stadium methodology - again.

Like that idea

I like your idea nightime. has merit if you really think about it. We could house everything apart from the pool in the stadium and then charge entry. The stadium might start paying for itself then. And think of the savings in upkeep the ratepayers would no longer have to pay for. Everything under one roof - great!

The solution

Tell you what Max, lets put the pretty pictures on the pool walls and kill two birds with one stone - health and efficiency and food for the soul all in one.

Pretty pictures

My point is why should one person's hobby see them get access to a public asset for free when another is charged for it?

If the gallery is free then should we not throw open the doors to the pool as well? In fact, having the pool free would encourage people to get out and do something to imporve their health, and I would see this as a priority over looking at pretty pictures.

Online art?

You don't really understand the arts, do you Max?

Fair is fair

If the stadium must pay its way then why shouldn't the rest? The galleries and museums cost Dunedin ratepayers more than the stadium.

Toutu was gifted a multimillion-dollar upgrade and didn't have to recover any of it, not to mention the yearly running costs. There are several bloggers in Dunedin that now showcase early Dunedin and Otago social history better than Toitu does. So why should we pay for professional historians to pursue their hobby every day.

And don't get me started on the Art Gallery - you can see better art works online.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Zelko NZAlexandraReal Estate Agents
Campbell & Sons Funeral ServicesMosgielSocial Services
Eftpos Specialists (Otago) LtdDunedinBusiness Services
Carbits Otago 2005 LtdDunedinParts & Accessories