minutes of the section 223 submission ... of the section 223 submission committee hearing held –...

MINUTES OF THE SECTION 223 SUBMISSION COMMITTEE HEARING HELD – TUESDAY, 20 APRIL, 2010

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 10

REPORT TO Section 223 Submission Committee Hearing ITEM NO. 2.2

MEETING DATE Tuesday, 20 April, 2010

SUBJECT Special Charge Scheme (Promotions Fund) for Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre

PREPARED BY Stuart Williams, Business Liaison Officer

AUTHORISED BY Director – Sustainable Environment

FILE NO. 0235/200/070

ATTACHMENT(S) YES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to summarise the submissions received in response to the public notice of Council’s intention to declare a Special Charge to create a Promotions Fund for the Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre, and to facilitate the hearing of submissions in support of written objections and submissions lodged within the required period. Council, at its Meeting on 22 February, 2010, resolved amongst other matters the following: “ 1. That pursuant to Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), Council gives

public notice of its Intention to Declare a Special Charge to establish a Promotions Fund to defray advertising, promotion, centre management, business development and other incidental expenses associated with the encouragement of commerce in the Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre.

2. That the Special Charge remains for a period of five years from 1 July, 2010 to

30 June, 2015 after which the applicability and the success of the Special Charge will be reassessed.

3. The criteria for the declaration of the Special Charge is that the activities that may be

facilitated as a result of the implementation of the charge are considered by Council to be of Special Benefit to the properties and businesses within the designated area of the Scheme.

4. The Special Charge Scheme boundaries, and the land to be covered by the Special

Charge, are detailed in Attachment 1 to this report. 5. The land in relation to which Council considers a Special Benefit to the owner and/or the

occupier will be derived, and to which the Special Charge is to be declared, is listed in Attachment 2 to this report.

6. That the assessments will be a flat charge, with year one charges for each category as

follows:

• Main Street frontage (street level): $350; • Main Street frontage (above/below street level or set-back): $250; • Side street frontage (street level, including arcade): $250; • Side street frontage (above/below street level or set-back): $200; • Rear of Main Street (street level): $200;”

MINUTES OF THE SECTION 223 SUBMISSION COMMITTEE HEARING HELD – TUESDAY, 20 APRIL, 2010 Special Charge Scheme (Promotions Fund) for Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre (0235/200/070) ITEM NO. 2.2


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)

“ 6. (Cont’d)

• Rear of Main Street (above/below street level or set-back): $150; and • Enclosed corporate shopping centres

(30+ contiguous properties in single ownership and management): $1,000. 7. That the year one charges given in (6) above will be increased annually to reflect

Consumer Price Index increases in the previous year. 8. That Council adopt the manner of assessment as detailed in this report and

apportionment listed in Attachment 2. 9. That the owners of the land prescribed in Attachment 2 are to be made liable for the

respective amounts and that these owners, together with occupying businesses, be notified of Council’s intention to declare a Special Charge within three working days of the publication of the public notice.

10. That a Public Notice (Attachment 3) be placed in local newspapers in accordance with

Sections 163(1a) and 163(1b) of the Act. 11. That copies of the proposed declaration, including the map of the Scheme boundaries

(Attachment 1) and list of properties included in the Scheme, (Attachment 2) are made available at all Customer Service Centres of the Shire and on the Shire’s website, for a period of at least 28 days after the publication of the public notice in local newspapers and the mailing of the notice to landowners and occupiers.

12. That the Mornington Peninsula Shire agrees to absorb all administrative costs associated

with the implementation of Mornington Promotions Fund Special Charge Scheme. 13. That any person who believes that they may be affected by the implementation of the

proposed Special Charge, and who choses to make a submission or objection under Sections 163A, 163B or 223 of the Act, must do so in writing to the Manager – Economic Development within 28 days of the publication of the public notice.

14. That those who indicate in their submission/objection that they wish to be heard in

support of their submission/objection shall be notified of the date, time and location of the hearing.

15. That a Council Committee be convened after the conclusion of the submission period to

consider any submission or objection made in accordance with the Act. 16. That, following the hearing and consideration of submissions/objections received,

Council will decide whether to adopt or to modify, defer or abandon the Special Charge at its Council meeting on 17 May, 2010. *

17. If declared, the Special Charge will be payable by four equal instalments or by one

instalment payable each year in accordance with the Special Charge notices, and will be levied by sending notice to all property owners/occupiers who will be liable for the Special Charge.”



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)

“ 18. That non-payment of the charge will accrue interest in accordance with Section 172 of the Act and standard Shire practice on non-payment of rates and charges.”

NB: Amendment to Recommendation 16: ‘17 May, 2010’ becomes ‘24 May, 2010’ due to no Council Meeting being held on 17 May, 2010. BACKGROUND Mornington Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) has undertaken extensive study, analysis and review of the Mornington Shopping Precinct over the past few years in order to develop a realistic plan to improve the vitality and viability of the Mornington Shopping Precinct as a whole. The resulting Strategic Plan for the shopping centre outlines a program of priority actions to help achieve strategic directions identified in the areas of centre management and co-ordination, marketing and promotions, and business development. Identified priorities include: • Centre Management and Co-ordination – Appointment of a part-time marketing co-ordinator,

business newsletter and business directory;

• Marketing and Promotions – Centre branding, updated website, regular advertising and promotions, flags and entry signage; and

• Business Development – Networking events, training seminars, awards for store presentation and quality service.

A Special Charge on all properties within the shopping centre used for retail, commercial or professional purposes was proposed by the Chamber for the purpose of raising the required pool of funds to promote the Mornington Shopping Precinct (with a particular focus on Main Street Mornington). The submissions and objections to be reviewed by this Section 223 Submission Committee are all related to this proposal. Prior to writing to the Shire seeking notice of intention to declare, the Chamber consulted extensively with the Mornington business community, including: • A well attended public meeting on 22 July, 2008 to officially launch the proposal;

• A four page information brochure delivered to all businesses in the Shopping Centre; • Follow-up discussions with individual businesses by a Chamber-appointed Consultant; and • Periodic open Chamber meetings, culminating in the Chamber’s well attended Christmas

networking night on 15 December, 2009. As a result of this consultation the Chamber gained an indication of support for the introduction of the Special Charge from over 60% of businesses in the occupied premises in the Centre.



BACKGROUND (CONT’D) Pursuant to Council’s resolution of 22 February, 2010 to give public notice of its intention to declare a Special Charge for the purpose of raising funds to promote the Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre, notice was provided in the following manner: • Public notices were placed in the following local newspapers circulating in the Mornington area

– The Mail on 24 February, 2010 and the Leader on 2 March, 2010; • Individual letters were posted on 24 February, 2010 to both property owners and occupiers in

the area designated as affected by the proposed Special Charge Scheme. These letters included a map of the proposed Scheme boundaries, a copy of the public notice, and additional advice to both property owners and occupiers regarding the application of the Charge in particular circumstances;

• The details of the proposed Special Charge Scheme were also made available from 24 February,

2010 for viewing at the Customer Service Centres of the Shire for a period of at least 28 days following publication of the public notice; and

• The public notice and map of the Scheme boundaries were placed in the On-Exhibition section

of the Shire’s website from 25 February, 2010 for a period of at least 28 days.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS RECEIVED (As at the close of submissions – 31 March, 2010) As a result of this period of at least 28 days notice, a total of 49 submissions have been received, made up as follows. In Support of the Scheme • 36 written submissions – relating to 102 rateable properties; and • One letter from Mornington Chamber of Commerce, with an attachment of pro-forma notices of

support from 167 individual Mornington businesses collected earlier in the consultation process for the Special Charge Scheme.

Against the Scheme • Nine written objections – relating to 10 rateable properties; and • One written objection – relating to one residential property (exempt from Scheme).

Submissions from Landlords Raising Concerns (but neither for nor against the Scheme)

• Two written submissions – relating to 15 rateable properties. Requests to be Heard • Three against the Scheme – relating to three rateable properties; • One in support of the Scheme – relating to one rateable property; and



SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS RECEIVED Requests to be Heard (Cont’d) • One in support of the Scheme – on behalf of the whole shopping centre. Full copies of all submissions are attached to this report, in the format listed above: • Submissions in Support of the Scheme are shown as Attachment 1; and • Submissions Against the Scheme and Concerns are shown as Attachment 2. LIST OF SUBMITTERS Written Submissions in Support of the Scheme (shown in Attachment 1) Doc ID Reference 1. Ian and Meredith Horton, Farrell’s Bookshop (A61638) 2. John Wright, Watsons (A61644) 3. Unknown, Curry Printing (A66473) 4. Karen and David Pedley, Splash of Red (A68697) 5. Paul, La Casa del’Oro (A68703) 6. Unknown, Café 96 (A68704) 7. Andrew Southam, Brass Razu (A68705) 8. Ashley Lylak, Denor Hospitality (A68706) 9. Joy Crompton, Joie Bridal (A68707) 10. Pamela Koe, Mornington Village Shopping Centre (31 rateable properties) (A69802) 11. Edgar and Barbara Gambin, Gambin Jewellery (A70026) 12. Steve Conley, Conley Luff Real Estate (A71582) 13. David Young, Peter Young Shoes (A72629) 14. Peter Ross, Wattle Gardens (A72633) 15. Karen Macatangay, Emma-Marie (A72642) 16. Julie, Nicholas Design (A74082) 17. Kerry Debernardi, Bendigo Bank (A74803) 18. L. Michalik, Essential Stuff (A74085) 19. Douglas and Rhonda Gray, Houghtons Fine Food (A74117) 20. Shannen Young, Centro Mornington (A77739) (37 rateable properties) 21. Unknown, Queen Bee (A76840) 22. Annie Zaicz, Zen Living (A77736) 23. Craig Whitten, Harcourts (A77737) 24. Robyn Woodruff, Harvey World Travel (A77738) 25. Wendy, Yo-Ko Original, 12 Blake Street (A539035) 26. Elizabeth Woolcock, Lilly Belle (A539024) 27. Graeme Nash, Beachside Photos (A539030) 28. Jo Brady, The Cellar (A539051) 29. Gabby Figgins, 5 Figs on Main (A539019) 30. Victoria Maloney, Fiona’s (A539013) 31. Nadine Garrett, The Framer’s Workshop (A539040) 32. Unknown, Seasons of the Heart (A539045) 33. Alan Maguire, Tiare Black Pearl (A539185)



LIST OF SUBMITTERS (CONT’D) Written Submissions in Support of the Scheme (Cont’d) Doc ID Reference 34. Ken Cameron, Town and Country Menswear (A701330) 35. Sharon Thomas, Sportspower (A1040178) 36. Peter Thomas, Bianca’s (A1040183) 37. Elizabeth Woolcock, Mornington Chamber of Commerce (A540915) and Industry (includes 167 pro-forma notices of support) Pro-forma Notices in Support of the Scheme The 167 pro-forma notices (shown in Attachment 1) provided by the Chamber in support of the Scheme read as follows: “ I … am the business/property owner of … and would like to register my support for the

introduction of a Marketing and Promotions Fund in the Mornington Precinct.” Of these 167 pro-forma support notices collected by the Chamber earlier in the consultation process, 81 of these properties have subsequently made a written submission of support in this current submissions process (and are included in the list of Submitters above). The remaining 86 pro-forma support notices (representing 94 rateable properties) were from: 1. David Porter, ANZ Bank 2. Heidi Finti, AJF Service Co. 3. Karen Manuel, Beach Road Clothing 4. Ian Chapman, Bay Hotel and Social (two rateable properties) 5. K. Townshend, Big Chair 6. Cameron, Biggin Scott 7. Elio Giucastro, Biscottini (two rateable properties) 8. Millicent, Blue Illusion 9. Cheryl Mann, Body Essence 10. Karyn Fitts, Brown Sugar 11. Chris Jackson, Brumbys 12. Diane Furness, Carmel Whelan Chiropractic 13. Huong Ly, C.Lane 14. Wes Runciman, Cellpoint Communication 15. Sheena and Lauren, Charter House Bookshop 16. Nicole Cumberland, Chipps Children’s Boutique 17. David Panton, David Panton Pharmacy 18. Kellie Woolcock, Ella Bache 19. Wendy, Endota Day Spa 20. Elaine Mitchell, Flowergirls 21. Frances Menzies, FMPLLEN 22. Eileen Morehu, Footprints Coffee Bar 23. Ole Abildgaard, Frame Up 24. Barb Mackie, Granite Transformation 25. O. Goredy, Gala on Main 26. Janis Fowler, Geoff Bade 27. Tim Dunlop, Get Down Dog Pizza 28. Kristen Fleming, Glow Maternity 29. Brian Goodman, Goodman Jewellers 30. John Lanarus, Gourmet Embrace



LIST OF SUBMITTERS (CONT’D) Written Submissions in Support of the Scheme (Cont’d) Pro-forma Notices in Support of the Scheme (Cont’d)

31. Bernie Taylor, Grand Hotel 32. Jodine, Hair Generation 33. Arif, Handmade Afghani Rugs 34. Honor Baxter, Honor Baxter Real Estate 35. Paulina Bird, House of Bird 36. Mitch Brice, Ink Fix 37. Jane Higgins, Interior Packages 38. Beverley Garrow, Johanne’s Boutique 39. Kevin Wright, Commercial Real Estate 40. Unknown, La Cezanne 41. Jan Lawson, Lawsons Hairdressers 42. Susan Schemansky, Leisure Pets 43. Marco, M&M Peebles 44. Gavan Breen, Main Sail Café Bar (two rateable properties) 45. Shaun Rees, Main Street Travel 46. Paul Minzenmay, Minzenmay’s 47. Michael King, Mickey Blue 48. Bill Danis, Amcal Pharmacy 49. Mary Wade, Mornington Dry Cleaners 50. Steve, Mornington Newsagency 51. John Spyrou, Mornington Seafoods 52. Brad Massow, Mortgage Choice 53. Unknown, Natural Balance 54. Leah Pham, Napoleon Nails 55. Kayne Eramo, NAB 56. J. Nelson, Page 8 57. G. Martin, Party Trading 58. Lachlan, Peninsula Pilates Studio 59. Helen Gilbert, PYFS Salvation Army (four rateable properties) 60. Sue Clement, Pomme 61. Taryn, Pronto Picolo 62. Olwyn McLeod-Thorp, Pure Hair and Skin 63. Frank Grasso, Pure and Natural 64. Kym Johnson, Rivage Recycled 65. Charles Beckwith, Roberts Beckwith Partners 66. Di Walton, RSPCA (three rateable properties) 67. Bev Simpson, Scorpio 4 Adults 68. Jenny Ludlow, Seaside Accounting Service 69. Annie Hanson, Sea Saw 70. Rebecca Carey, Secret Garden 71. Kathy Dunbar, Shades of Green 72. Samantha Klimecki, Simply Bombonieres 73. Tia, Subway 74. Tara Keilty, SunSmooth 75. Pete Donlan, Super Pages 76. Janine Wood, Spiral Moon 77. Lazlo Toth, The Koko Lounge 78. Toni Cincotta, The Nailroom



LIST OF SUBMITTERS (CONT’D) Written Submissions in Support of the Scheme (Cont’d) Pro-forma Notices in Support of the Scheme (Cont’d)

79. Sue Mulcaire, The Whale @ Mornington 80. Melanie Schwarz, TS14+ 81. Razana, Warwick Jones 82. Craig Brown, Westpac 83. Peter, Wizard Loans 84. Jagvir Gill, Yabbies 85. Lobsang, Yantra Shop 86. Haydn and Carolyn, Yummo Ice Cream Written Objections Against the Scheme (shown in Attachment 2) Doc ID Reference 1. Robert Donato, Cappamachino (1736784) 2. Gaye Ferguson, Just Peachie (1739327) 3. Dianne Blair, The Interior Mornington (two rateable properties) (1739420) 4. Helen Balharry, Exerflex Body Toning (A701318) 5. Mr John Trantino, Mr John Top Hair Design (A1040174) 6. Michael Abicare, Winning Images (A1065446) 7. Richard Holloway, The Country Shop (A708153) 8. Jill Quigley, Gluten Free Foods (A708160) 9. Estrella Perry, Coin Laundrette (A884211) 10. Keith Spencer, 13/2 Ross Street (a residential property) (A701312) Submissions From Landlords Raising Concerns (shown in Attachment 2) (Neither for nor against the Scheme) 1. George Bazley (seven rateable properties) 2. Victor Jennings (eight rateable properties) Requests to be Heard Against the Scheme 1. John Trantino, Mr John Top Hair Design 2. Michael Abicare, Winning Images 3. Richard Holloway, The Country Shop In Support of the Scheme 1. Meredith Horton, Farrell’s Bookshop 2. The Mornington Chamber of Commerce and Industry



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED In Support of the Scheme 1. Ian and Meredith Horton, Farrell’s Bookshop (A61638)

Issue: The special charge is appropriate for the Commercial Centre and means that everyone (not the same few) contributes.

2. John Wright, Watsons (A61644) Issue: The promotions program is an important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping and business centre.

3. Unknown, Curry Printing (A66473)

Issue: Feel the levy is in best interests of traders.

4. Karen and David Pedley, Splash of Red (A68697)

Issue: Will attract more people and portray Mornington as a shopping destination.

5. Paul, La Casa del’Oro (A68703)

Issue: Feel levy is in best interests of Main Street traders.

6. Unknown, Café 96 (A68704) Issue: Feel levy is in best interests of Main Street traders.

7. Andrew Southam, Brass Razu (A68705) Issue: Feel levy is in best interests of Main Street traders.

8. Ashley Lylak, Denor Hospitality (A68706) Issue: We support the Mornington Marketing program.

9. Joy Crompton, Joie Bridal (A68707) Issue: Feel levy is in best interests of Main Street traders.

10. Pamela Koe, Mornington Village Shopping Centre (31 rateable properties) (A69802) Issue: Mornington Village Shopping Centre supports the Scheme.

11. Edgar and Barbara Gambin, Gambin Jewellery (A70026) Issue: Levy will improve the image of Mornington and keep the whole centre alive.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) In Support of the Scheme (Cont’d)

12. Steve Conley, Conley Luff Real Estate (A71582)

Issue: Important for traders as a group to work together to promote the delights of Mornington.

13. David Young, Peter Young Shoes (A72629)

Issue: Benefit in businesses in different parts of the centre working together to encourage the community to spend more in Mornington than elsewhere.

14. Peter Ross, Wattle Gardens (A72633) Issue: Will help to return Mornington to the busy shopping strip it once was.

15. Karen Macatangay, Emma-Marie (A72642) Issue: Levy will be in the best interests of Main Street traders.

16. Julie, Nicholas Design (A74082)

Issue: The program is an important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping and business centre.

17. Kerry Debernardi, Bendigo Bank (two rateable properties) (A74083)


18. L. Michalik, Essential Stuff (A74085) Issue: The program is an important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping and business centre.

19. Douglas and Rhonda Gray, Houghtons Fine Food (A74117) Issue: The program is an important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping and business centre.

20. Shannen Young, Centro Mornington (37 rateable properties) (A77739)

Issue: Centro Mornington supports the Scheme, and looks forward to working closely with the Chamber and supporting the local community.

21. Unknown, Queen Bee (A76840) Issue: It is an important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping centre.




22. Annie Zaicz, Zen Living (A77736)

Issue: The Charge is good for the commercial centre and every business contributes.

23. Craig Whitten, Harcourts (two rateable properties) (A77737)

Issue: The program is an important investment in our centre.

24. Robyn Woodruff, Harvey World Travel (A77738) Issue: The program is an important investment in our future as a vibrant centre.

25. Wendy, Yo-Ko Original (A539035) Issue: The levy helps to improve Mornington’s image and keep the whole centre alive.

26. Elizabeth Woolcock, Lilly Belle (A539024) Issue: The Scheme is important to stay competitive with our neighbouring towns.

27. Graeme Nash, Beachside Photos (A539030) Issue: An important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping centre.

28. Jo Brady, The Cellar (A539051) Issue: The whole community spending more here than going elsewhere is a benefit.

29. Gabby Figgins, 5 Figs on Main (A539019) Issue: Businesses in different parts of the centre working together is a real benefit.

30. Victoria Maloney, Fiona’s (A539013) Issue: All businesses contribute to the levy to improve the image of Mornington.

31. Nadine Garrett, The Framer’s Workshop (A539040) Issue: The levy helps to improve the image of Mornington and keep the centre alive.

32. Unknown, Seasons of the Heart (A539045) Issue: The levy will improve Mornington’s image and promote the centre.

33. Alan Maguire, Tiare Black Pearl (A539185) Issue: I support the levy because it will be in the best interests of Main Street traders.




34. Ken Cameron, Town & Country Menswear (A701330)

Issue: The levy will improve Mornington’s image and promote its business centre.

35. Sharon Thomas, Sportspower (A1040178) Issue: The program is an important investment in the future of our shopping centre.

36. Peter Thomas, Bianca’s (A1040183)

Issue: The levy seems to be the only way to ensure the whole centre is promoted.

37. Elizabeth Woolcock, Mornington Chamber of Commerce and Industry (includes 167 pro-forma notices of support) (A540915)

Issue: The charge is critical to provide for the marketing and promotion of the Mornington Business 1 precinct, and we are confident of a high degree of support.

Against the Scheme 1. Robert Donato, Cappamachino (1736784)

Issue 1: Threat by Mornington Chamber of Commerce staff that he will have to pay if Council subsequently passes the Charge. Officer Comment: This appears to have been a ‘throw away line’ made by a Chamber staff member in response to his lack of support for the Scheme. Issue 2: The Chamber of Commerce, and Council, know best how to advertise his business. Officer Comment: The Scheme is not about advertising individual businesses, but rather the shopping centre as a whole, to attract more people into the centre and increase the level of economic activity. Issue 3: Fed up with bureaucracy and its rules and costs. Officer Comment: The Scheme is not telling anyone how to run their business, and $200 is considered a relatively small annual cost (tax deductible) to increase the economic activity and vibrancy of the centre in which they operate, with potential flow-on business resulting.

2. Gaye Ferguson, Just Peachie (1739327)

Issue 1: This is a ludicrous charge on small business which is facing rising costs of operation, and street cleanliness issues. Officer Comment: $350 per year is considered a relatively small cost to increase the number of potential customers attracted to the centre, potentially increasing business. A more vital and vibrant centre should also act to deter revellers from thoughtless acts of vandalism in the centre, and could provide an additional focus for activities funded by the Scheme.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d) 2. Gaye Ferguson, Just Peachie (Cont’d)

Issue 2: Wants full details of planned marketing and business development activities. Officer Comment: The Chamber Business Plan has a broad plan of activities that has been used to promote the Scheme to local businesses. Should Council declare the Scheme, all contributors to the Scheme are entitled to have input into shaping the final list of activities to be undertaken in each year of the Scheme.

3. Dianne Blair, The Interior Mornington (1739420) Issue 1: The Charge will supplement the coffers of the Mornington Chamber of Commerce. Officer Comment: The Chamber is simply managing the Fund on behalf of Council, in accordance with a signed Management Agreement with Council. The Agreement imposes strong governance and accountability requirements on the Chamber. Before proceeds raised by the Scheme are passed over to the Chamber on a quarterly basis, an annual Business Plan/Budget of promotions and business development activities must be ‘signed off’ by Council, and quarterly reports on activities and audited accounts provided to both Council and contributors. Issue 2: Have noticed a steady decline in shopping centre ambience in recent years, and lack of faith in Chamber’s competence. Officer Comment: Here is an opportunity to address the decline by employing a professional (part-time) centre manager/promotions co-ordinator and putting forward new ideas and suggestions, because everyone who contributes to the Scheme is entitled to participate and vote for promotions and activities, as well as to stand for election, etc. Issue 3: It appears that all that is encouraged is the Market. Officer Comment: The Mornington Market is quite separate from the Promotions Scheme, with each being managed and funds accounted for separately. Note that Market profits will pay for the Chamber office and overheads, allowing a larger proportion of the Special Charge funds to be used for promotion and business development purposes. Issue 4: A business using two premises is penalised with paying two Charges. Officer Comment: This is incorrect – a single business operating from two or more adjoining properties only pays a single Charge. Issue 5: Why does a ‘one man show’ pay the same as a retailer employing more staff? Officer Comment: A Charge based on the number of staff in a business is impractical because of staffing variability over a year and the difficulties in determining staff equivalents (part-time, casual, etc). In addition, Council has no way of knowing staff levels of individual businesses at any point in time. There are similar difficulties with using other criteria for the Charge, such as floor area.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d)

4. Helen Balharry, Exerflex Body Toning (A701318)

Issue 1: How will my business benefit from the Charge and an influx of visitors into the centre? Officer Comment: $200 per year is considered a relatively small (tax deductible) cost to increase the number of potential customers attracted to the centre, potentially increasing business. The Chamber Business Plan has a broad plan of activities that has been used to promote the Scheme to local businesses. Should Council declare the Scheme, all contributors to the Scheme are entitled to have input into shaping the final list of activities to be undertaken in each year of the Scheme. Issue 2: The Charge proposed for my property is wrong, and the annual CPI increase is outrageous. Officer Comment: The property is not below street level as claimed, but nevertheless does have limited exposure because of its location at the rear of Barkly Square. Recommend that the five properties at the rear of the Barkly Square group of shops could be re-classified from Set-back from Side Street ($200) to Set-back from Rear of Main Street ($150). The annual increase in the Charge of CPI is not regarded as outrageous (with CPI in 2008/2009 being 1.5%, and in 2007 being 08 4.5%). Issue 3: There is a lack of parking on Market Day, and people get parking tickets if they overstay. Officer Comment: Timed parking was recently introduced into some previously all-day car parks. Recommend that a review of the altered parking times be undertaken by Traffic Management in the near future, with results being advised to traders. Issue 4: The landlord adds GST to my outgoings. Officer Comment: This issue has been raised elsewhere on the Peninsula, and requires a clarifying note to occupiers. The landlord/property manager should be charging GST on the value of the service they provide, and not on the value of the Council invoice. Issue 5: What am I getting for the Rates I already pay? Officer Comment: There appears to be justifiable concern over the lack of rubbish bins and rubbish removal at the rear of Barkly Square, and will be referred on to the cleaning contractors for review. A more vital and vibrant centre (as a result of the Special Charge promotions, etc) should also help to deter revellers from thoughtless acts of littering in the centre.

5. John Trantino, Mr. John Top Hair Design (A1040174)

Issue 1: If the Scheme goes ahead as proposed the whole town would benefit, yet not all would contribute. Officer Comment: The experience from similar Schemes elsewhere suggests that a more compact area of similar type businesses is more effective. There is no reason why a separate Scheme/s could not be established for other sections of the greater Mornington Activity Centre in the future.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d) 5. John Trantino, Mr. John Top Hair Design (Cont’d)

Issue 2: Unlike Mount Eliza, Mornington Chamber does not need a Special Charge because it has the Wednesday Market. Officer Comment: The Market funds are already being used for other long-established purposes, including the funding of the Chamber office and its overheads. This means that a much higher proportion of the funds raised by the Special Charge would be available for promotions and business development activities for businesses. Issue 3: Do not believe that the Mornington Chamber has carried out a thorough survey of the shops prior to seeking implementation by Council. Officer Comment: The Chamber has consulted extensively with properties in the Mornington Business 1 Zone over the past two or more years.

6. Michael Abicare, Winning Images (A1065446) Issue 1: Lack of fairness and even spread of the cost. Officer Comment: It is difficult to find a perfectly equitable basis for apportionment of the Special Charge across the whole shopping centre. Alternatives considered for Mornington included a flat charge, and charges based on floor area, number of staff, and property valuation. The scale of flat charges proposed was considered to be the most reasonable method in the circumstances. Issue 2: Areas should cover all commercial retail areas. Officer Comment: Experience from other Schemes shows that successful Schemes require a relatively compact geographic area, with relatively homogeneous business types. There is no reason why a separate Scheme/s could not be developed for other areas of the Mornington Activity Centre, or perhaps the present Scheme might be expanded at a subsequent renewal. Issue 3: Concerns of no real plan of expenditure of the collected funds. Officer Comment: The Chamber has had a draft Strategic Plan and Budget for promoting the concept of the Special Charge Scheme Promotions Fund. If the Scheme is subsequently declared, all who contribute to the Scheme are entitled to provide input, etc prior to the Promotions program getting under way. Issue 4: Lack of accountability of funds collected from the Wednesday Market. Officer Comment: The Chamber is required to account for the Market funds on an annual basis, and have its accounts audited and made available to its members.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d) 7. Richard Holloway (A708153)

“We are not against marketing Mornington but just want it to be fair for all” – so a number of issues are raised to that end: Issue 1: The charges not being fair and equitable. Officer Comment: It is difficult to find a perfectly equitable basis for apportionment of the Special Charge across the whole shopping centre. Alternatives considered for Mornington included a flat charge, and charges based on floor area, number of staff, and property valuation. The scale of flat charges proposed was considered to be the most reasonable method in the circumstances. Issue 2: The area proposed is not large enough. Officer Comment: Experience from other Schemes shows that successful Schemes require a relatively compact geographic area, with relatively homogeneous business types. There is no reason why a separate Scheme/s could not be developed for other areas of the Mornington Activity Centre, or perhaps the present Scheme might be expanded at a subsequent renewal. Issue 3: Not enough information in regards to where the special charge is to be spent. Officer Comment: The Chamber has had a draft Strategic Plan and Budget for promoting the concept of the Special Charge Scheme Promotions Fund. If the Scheme is subsequently declared, all who contribute to the Scheme are entitled to provide input, etc prior to the Promotions program getting under way. Issue 4: Where does the present income from the Wednesday Market stalls and our Chamber membership fees go to market Mornington? Officer Comment: The Chamber is required to account for the Market funds on an annual basis, and have its accounts audited and made available to its members.

8. Jill Quigley, Gluten Free Foods (A708160)

Issue 1: Believe it will be of little or no benefit to my business because of its location at the rear of the Barkly Square shops. Officer Comment: $200 per year is considered a relatively small (tax deductible) cost to increase the number of potential customers attracted to the centre, potentially increasing business. The Chamber Business Plan has a broad plan of activities that has been used to promote the Scheme to local businesses. Should Council declare the Scheme, all contributors to the Scheme are entitled to have input into shaping the final list of activities to be undertaken in each year of the Scheme.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d) 8. Jill Quigley, Gluten Free Foods (Cont’d)

Issue 2: Lack of all-day parking is a huge problem (especially on Market days) because of the deliveries that need to be made by the business. Suggest that all-day ‘permit parking’ be made available for the five shops at the rear of Barkly Square. Officer Comment: No parking spaces are provided on title for these five properties, though the tenants believe that this was ‘inferred’ by their landlord when they leased their premises. It is proposed to raise this question of reserved/permit parking with Traffic Management for a report back to the five Barkly Square business owners affected. Issue 3: Believe that $150 is the appropriate Charge for the property; not $200. Officer Comment: The property does have limited exposure because of its location at the rear of Barkly Square. Recommend that the five properties at the rear of the Barkly Square group of shops could be re-classified from Set-back from Side Street ($200) to Set-back from Rear of Main Street ($150). Issue 4: Believe that lifting the two hour parking restrictions (and associated fines) would be a more cost-effective promotion for Mornington than the Scheme. Officer Comment: Timed parking was recently introduced into some previously all-day car parks. Recommend that a review of the altered parking times be undertaken by Traffic Management in the near future, with results being advised to traders.

9. Estrella Perry, Coin Laundrette (A884211)

Issue 1: The Charge is really of no benefit for my business; I promote my own business and pay for an A-frame sign. Officer Comment: $200 per year is considered a relatively small (tax deductible) cost to increase the number of potential customers attracted to the centre, potentially increasing business. The Chamber Business Plan has a broad plan of activities that has been used to promote the Scheme to local businesses. Should Council declare the Scheme, all contributors to the Scheme are entitled to have input into shaping the final list of activities to be undertaken in each year of the Scheme. Issue 2: Believe that the applicable Charge should be $150; not $200. Officer Comment: The property does have limited exposure because of its location at the rear of Barkly Square. Recommend that the five properties at the rear of the Barkly Square group of shops could be re-classified from Set-back from Side Street ($200) to Set-back from Rear of Main Street ($150). Issue 3: Finding a car park can be stressful, and would like a reserved car space for each of the five rear shops in Barkly Square



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d)

9. Estrella Perry, Coin Laundrette (Cont’d)

Officer Comment: No parking spaces are provided on title for these five properties, though the tenants believe that this was ‘inferred’ by their landlord when they leased their premises. It is proposed to raise this question of reserved/permit parking with Traffic Management for a report back to the five Barkly Square business owners affected. Issue 4: Pays rates and high rent, but do not get rubbish removal like domestic ratepayers. Officer Comment: There appears to be justifiable concern over the lack of rubbish bins and rubbish removal in the vicinity of Barkly Square, and will be referred on to the cleaning contractors for review. A more vital and vibrant centre (as a result of the Special Charge promotions, etc) should also act to deter revellers from thoughtless acts of littering in the vicinity

10. Keith Spencer (a residential property) (A701312) Issue: Believes it is the businesses that should incur the Charge; not residential properties. Officer Comment: Residential properties are exempt from the Charge; it only applies to properties used for retail, commercial or professional purposes.

Submissions Raising Concerns (but neither for nor against the Scheme)

1. George Bazley (A74084)

Issue 1: Concern at the lack of Chamber consultation with property owners prior to the public notice stage. Officer Comment: The early stages of a Promotions Fund Special Charge Scheme are Chamber-driven, with Council not becoming involved until the Chamber seeks a notice of intention to declare. The Chamber does not have access to a detailed list of property owners, so can only ask tenants to pass on notices to the property owner. However, the desirability of earlier consultation with property owners is worthy of note for future Schemes. Options presently being considered for this Scheme include a Council letter to property owners asking them to provide their contact details if they wish to ‘opt in’ to a periodic Chamber newsletter. An annual Property Owners Newsletter from the Economic Development Unit is also being considered. Issue 2: Because landlords were not consulted, the Charge should be directly addressed to the tenant. Officer Comment: Being a charge on the property, legislation requires that the Special Charge is billed in the first instance to the property owner, even though it is likely to be passed on to the tenant as outgoings under the usual terms of commercial leases. There is no legal obligation for Council to be notified of a change in a property’s tenancy (only in a property’s ownership), and Council is not privy to an individual tenant’s lease arrangements regarding responsibility for outgoings.



DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Submissions Raising Concerns (but neither for nor against the Scheme) (Cont’d) 2. Mr Victor Jennings (A701324)

“I support the general idea of a Promotions Fund”, but raise a number of issues: Issue 1: He sees as inconsistent that his eight contiguous properties under single ownership will pay more than the enclosed corporate shopping centres of 30+ contiguous properties in single ownership and management, and seeks a reconsideration of the Charges on his properties. Officer Comment: These eight contiguous properties do not fit the general understanding of ‘single management’ as it is used in corporate shopping centres. Additionally, the $1,000 for enclosed corporate shopping centres of 30+ contiguous properties in single ownership and management is their direct ‘cash’ contribution to the Special Charge Scheme. However, these centres are also co-ordinating/co-operating with the Mornington Chamber of Commerce to fund a range of Mornington Shopping Centre-wide promotion and business development activities in their own centres from their own funds; thus allowing the Special Charge Fund to be spread further. Development of this close working relationship between Mornington’s three main shopping ‘hubs’ (Main Street, Centro and Mornington Village) is seen as of great benefit to Mornington as a whole. Issue 2: Different charges apply to main street and side streets, and not charged on a similar basis to general rates. Officer Comment: It is difficult to find a perfectly equitable basis for apportionment of the Special Charge across the whole shopping centre. Alternatives considered for Mornington included a flat charge, and charges based on floor area, number of staff, and property valuation. The scale of flat charges proposed was considered to be the most reasonable method in the circumstances.

DISCUSSION Generalising the issues raised across all submissions/objections received reveals the following. From the 37 Submissions in Support Issues raised in support of the Scheme variously emphasised: • An important investment in our future as a vibrant shopping/business centre;

• Will attract more shoppers and portray Mornington as a shopping destination; • Will improve the image of Mornington and keep the whole centre alive; • Businesses across the centre working together will benefit Mornington; • Will help return Mornington to the busy centre it once was; and • Important to stay competitive with our neighbouring centres (Frankston, Karingal, etc) and

reduce escape expenditure.



DISCUSSION (CONT’D) From the 10 Submissions Against, and Two Raising Concerns There was a fairly evenly split between issues related to the Special Charge Scheme and those not directly related to the Scheme (such as parking issues, rubbish collection, and the Wednesday Market). Issues concerned with the Scheme were more about the distribution (apportionment) of the Charge in specific situations rather than with the quantum of the Charge itself. In apportioning a Special Charge across the Scheme area Council need only ensure that the distribution of the Charge is reasonable; it does not need to be the most reasonable or best possible – as evidenced by recent VCAT decisions, for example: • It is not whether the Council has achieved the optimum or the fairest possible outcome, but that

the basis of the distribution is reasonable. (VCAT 23 March, 2005 – Giuffrida v. Manningham CC – 42); and

• The question is not whether there are other bases that could have been adopted that would be

reasonable, or even more reasonable, but only whether the one adopted is unreasonable. (VCAT 23 October 2007 – Integrity Properties v. Monash CC – 12).

As regards ‘special benefit’, VCAT made the following points in the appeal against Council’s 2008 Mount Eliza Special Charge Scheme renewal: • Special benefit refers exclusively to the benefits conferred upon land (for example, increased

land value or better letting opportunities), whether or not the owner or occupier of a property is able to avail themselves of a benefit conferred; and

• The burden of showing no special benefit lies with the applicant for review, and the test is

objective, not subjective, i.e. the test is ‘benefit’ and not ‘need’. Where a business does not rely on passing traffic for its patronage it may nevertheless benefit from being located in a successful centre, as a more vibrant centre encourages more business. The proposed Scheme establishes a new Promotions Fund with a draft Business Plan. If it proceeds, all contributors to the Scheme are entitled to participate in development and approval of plans on an annual basis, as well as management of the Fund. Promotional activities proposed for the Scheme are not restricted to a particular type of promotion, particular time of the week, nor to a particular part of the centre. Attracting new customers from nearby towns or further afield is only one aspect of a much wider program of promotion, business training and development, and centre enhancement activities planned for the Fund. Retaining Mornington residents and attracting back those who currently shop elsewhere are also important aspects. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST No person involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest requiring disclosure.



CONCLUSION Any late submissions/objections received up until the Section 223 Submission Committee Hearing will be included in an Addendum to this Report. The role of the Section 223 Submission Committee is to consider all written submissions received, and hear verbal presentations that have been requested to be made in support of written submissions. The role, in this part of the statutory process, is not to make a decision on the substantive matters. A further Report will be provided to the Ordinary Meeting of Council scheduled for Monday 24 May, 2010, together with a Report from this Section 223 Submission Committee Hearing, so that Council is fully informed of the views expressed by affected property owners and occupiers prior to making its decision on whether to declare the Scheme as proposed, or to modify, defer or abandon the Scheme. RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Section 223 Submission Committee receive the report titled ‘Special Charge Scheme (Promotions Fund) for Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre’ and note all submissions received.

2. That a report addressing the issues raised in the submissions at the Section 223

Submission Committee Hearing be provided to the Council Meeting to be held on Monday, 24 May, 2010.

Addendum – Supplementary Report and Additional Submissions

Circulated Friday, 16 April, 2010

SUMMARY OF LATE SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 1 AND 13 APRIL, 2010 During this additional period a further eight submissions and one further request to be heard were received, made up as follows: • In Support of the Scheme

Four written submissions – relating to four rateable properties.

• Against the Scheme

Four written objections – relating to four rateable properties.

• Requests to be Heard

One in support of the Scheme – relating to one rateable property.



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) SUMMARY OF LATE SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 1 AND 13 APRIL, 2010 (CONT’D) Full copies of these additional submissions appear as Attachment 1 to this Addendum. Updated Totals Adding these late submissions and objections to those already received during the submission period gives the following totals for the Mornington Special Charge Scheme Promotions Fund: • In Support of the Scheme

− 40 written submissions – relating to 106 rateable properties; and

− One letter from Mornington Chamber of Commerce, with an attachment of pro-forma notices of support from 167 individual Mornington businesses collected by the Chamber in the earlier consultation process for the Special Charge Scheme. Of these 167 pro-forma support notices, written submissions on behalf of 81 of these properties have been received in the current submissions process.

• Against the Scheme

− 13 written objections – relating to 14 rateable properties; and

− One written objection – relating to an exempt residential property.

• Submissions from Landlords raising concerns (but neither for nor against the Scheme)

− Two written submissions – relating to 15 rateable properties.

• Requests to be Heard

− Three against the Scheme – relating to three rateable properties; − Two in support of the Scheme – relating to two rateable properties; and − One in support of the Scheme – on behalf of the whole shopping centre.

All 57 submissions are from ‘eligible’ submitters: • 56 as occupiers and/or property owners within the declared area; and • One as ‘a person/group who will be affected by the Special Charge’ – the Mornington Chamber

of Commerce. Within the Scheme boundaries (the Mornington Business 1 Zone) there are 452 rateable properties, of which 38 are presently exempt from the Scheme because they consist of Residential use or Vacant Commercial Land. The balance of 414 rateable properties represents the initial property base for the Scheme.



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) LIST OF ADDITIONAL SUBMITTERS Additional Written Submissions in Support of the Scheme Doc ID Reference 38. Paul Minzenmay, Minzenmays (A1712205)

Received 1 April, 2010

39. John, The Boyz 4 Breakie (A1712207) Received 1 April, 2010

40. Unknown, Old Bank Café (A1043873) Received 1 April, 2010

41. Karen Manuel, Beach Road (A1711380) Received 7 April, 2010

Additional Written Objections Against the Scheme Doc ID Reference 11. Dr. A.J Finti, The Dentist’s Chair (A1043868) Received 1 April, 2010 12. Kirsten Jorgensen, Pilates of Mornington (A1710885) Received 5 April, 2010 13. Lynda Thomas, Mornington Wool Centre (A1711383) Received 8 April, 2010 14. D. Ayton, Denture Clinic (A1714410) Received 12 April, 2010 ADDITIONAL REQUESTS TO BE HEARD In Support of the Scheme Doc ID Reference 3. David Pedley, Splash of Red (A1706052) Received 1 April, 2010 DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED

In Support of the Scheme 38. Paul Minzenmay, Minzenmay Jewellers (A1712205)

Issue: One of the real benefits is that businesses in different parts of the centre will be working together to promote Mornington, and reduce escape expenditure.



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) In Support of the Scheme (Cont’d) 39. John, The Boyz 4 Breakie (A1712207)

Issue: Support the levy because every business contributes to the marketing and promotion of Mornington.

40. Unknown, Old Bank Café (A1043873)


41. Karen Manuel, Beach Road (A1711380)

Issue: One of the real benefits of this program is to get the whole community spending more in Mornington rather than going elsewhere.

Against the Scheme 11. Dr. A.J Finti, The Dentist’s Chair (A1043868)

Issue 1: Business is located at rear of Barkly Street shops facing a car park and believes that should only pay a reduced rate of $150 (not $200).

Officer Comment: The property does have limited exposure because of its location at the rear of Barkly Square. Recommend that the five properties at the rear of the Barkly Square group of shops could be re-classified from Set-back from Side Street ($200) to Set-back from Rear of Main Street ($150).

Issue 2: Due to lack of car parking on Wednesdays clients have difficulty obtaining a parking space, and risk almost $60 fine if their appointment goes beyond 2 hours. Suggest investigate a permit system for the five car spaces near the Laundrette for the five businesses at the rear of Barkly Square, and the car parks directly in front of the five rear shops be reserved for Barkly Square customers only. Officer Comment: It is proposed to raise this question of reserved/permit parking with Traffic Management for a report back to the five Barkly Square business owners affected. Timed parking was also recently introduced into some previously all-day car parks. Recommend that a review of the altered parking times be undertaken by Traffic Management in the near future, with results being advised to traders.

12. Kirsten Jorgensen, Pilates of Mornington (A1710885)

Issue 1: Already pay more than enough in leasing and council charges, and cannot see how this will benefit our business when we already have so many people coming through each day for parking.



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) DETAILS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS LODGED (CONT’D) Against the Scheme (Cont’d) 12. Kirsten Jorgensen, Pilates of Mornington (A1710885) (Cont’d_

Officer Comment: $200 per year is considered a relatively small (tax deductible) cost to increase the number of potential customers attracted to the centre, potentially increasing business. The Chamber Business Plan has a broad plan of activities that has been used to promote the Scheme to local businesses. Should Council declare the Scheme, all contributors to the Scheme are entitled to have input into shaping the final list of activities to be undertaken in each year of the Scheme.

13. Lynda Thomas, Mornington Wool Centre (A1711383)

Issue 1: Already pay a huge amount in rates and other business expenses, and paying the special charge will create more hardship.

Officer Comment: $250 per year is considered a relatively small (tax deductible) cost to increase the number of potential customers attracted to the centre, potentially increasing business. Further, Economic Development can sponsor a no-cost one-on-one session with a small business mentor if business viability is a problem. Where hardship becomes a problem, Council does have a hardship policy for payment of rates and charges.

Issue 2: Allowing businesses to remain viable and keeping Main Street interesting will bring more people to Mornington.

Officer Comment: This is the basic idea behind the Special Charge Scheme Promotions Fund being proposed for Mornington. All contributors to the Scheme are entitled to have input into shaping the final list of activities to be undertaken in each year of the Scheme, in order to maximise benefits for the whole centre.

14. D. Ayton, Denture Clinic (A1714410)

Issue 1: Totally opposed to being forced to participate in a special charge scheme, and expect my objection to be noted. Officer Comment: Objection has been noted.

DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS Including the eight late submissions, a total of 57 submissions were received in response to the public notice program required by the Local Government Act 1987, 16 against (or with concerns) and 41 in support. An analysis of the 16 submissions relating to objections or concerns with the proposed Mornington Special Charge Scheme reveals the following issues and their frequency:



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS (CONT’D) Concerns with the Amount of the Charge • Charges based on location (Main/Side streets) and not similar to General Rates (one); • Eight adjoining shops in single ownership are treated differently to enclosed corporate centres

of 30+ shops (one); • Charge should be based on the number of staff (one); and • The annual CPI increase is outrageous (one). Concerns with Distribution of the Charge • Located at rear of Barkly Square – need five parking permit spaces and reduced Charge from

$200 per annum to $150 per annum (four); • The area for the Scheme is not large enough – include all outlying retail areas (three); and • The Charge not fair and equitable (two). Concerns with Administration of the Fund • Lack of accountability for Wednesday Market funds (two); and • Lack of confidence in Chamber’s ability to administer Fund and have suitable promotions (one).

Concerns with the Process for the Special Charge • Insufficient information on where/how the Fund will be spent (four); • Don’t believe businesses were thoroughly surveyed at start of process (one); and • Lack of consultation with landlords prior to start of process (one). Misconceptions About the Charge or Fund • Unacceptable that a business with two shop fronts pays two Charges (one); • My residential property will not benefit from the Charge (one); and • The Charge should be directly addressed to the tenant (one). Miscellaneous Issues/Comments • Will be of little or no benefit to my business (four); • The Charge will create financial hardship when added to other business expenses (four);



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS (CONT’D) Miscellaneous Issues/Comments (Cont’d) • Charge implies that Chamber and Council know how best to advertise my business (one);

• I promote my own business (one); • Mornington Chamber doesn’t need a Scheme because it already has the Market (one); • At my absolute limit with bureaucracy and its rules and costs (one); • The landlord will add GST on to the Charge when passing it on to tenant (one); and • Opposed to Scheme – no reasons given (one). Matters Unrelated to the Special Charge Scheme • Lack of parking on Market Days (three); • Impact of reduced parking times – concerned with more active enforcement (three); and • What do I get for the Rates that I already pay? (one). In reviewing the above issues there is one considered to be of sufficient merit to warrant a variation to the original Scheme as proposed; namely the re-classification of the five premises located at the rear of the Barkly Square group of shops from $200 per year to $150 per year. Barkly Square is located at 53-55 Barkly Street Mornington, and five of the premises are located at the rear of the complex, facing into the car park and therefore are not visible from Barkly Street. The five affected properties are: • Shop 4/55 Barkly Street – Exerflex; • Shop 5/55 Barkly Street – Funky Lula’s; • Shop 6/55 Barkly Street – The Dentist’s Chair; • Shop 7/55 Barkly Street – Gluten Free Foods; and • Shop 8/55 Barkly Street – Coin Laundrette. The initial property base for the proposed Mornington Special Charge Scheme consists of 414 rateable properties. The total of 16 submissions either against or having concerns with the proposed Scheme represent a total of 30 properties, well below the ‘majority’ of properties (208) required by Section 163B (6) the Local Government Act 1989 to prevent Council making the proposed declaration.



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS (CONT’D) Further, of those 16 negative submissions, one refers to an exempt residential property, and a further three (representing 10 of the 30 properties) specifically say in their submission that they are ‘not totally opposed to the proposal’, or that they ‘support the general idea of the Fund’. Deputations Meredith Horton – Farrell’s Bookshop • Supports the Promotional Scheme as a Special Charge as all are then contributing; • Provides a consistent base for marketing Mornington; and • Has seen other centres blossom under Promotional Schemes. David Pedley – Splash of Red • Supports the Promotional Scheme and the Chamber; • There is apathy in businesses joining the Chamber and a collective levy will involve all; and • Will get more people coming to Mornington which will benefit all. Elizabeth Woolcock – Mornington Chamber of Commerce • Original Special Charge Scheme concept was presented in 2006; • Discussion on area to be included and the basis for the proposed levy considered. Agree a set

amount in a tiered arrangement is appropriate; PROCEDURAL MOTION Extension of Speaking Time Moved: Cr. Smith Seconded: Cr. Colomb That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Elizabeth Woolcock in

relation to the above matter.

Carried • All funds received will be used for the marketing scheme; • Benefit to both traders and tourism; and



ADDENDUM (CONT’D) Deputations (Cont’d) Elizabeth Woolcock – Mornington Chamber of Commerce (Cont’d) • Will bring Mornington into line with other towns on the Peninsula. John Trantino – Mr John Top Hair Design • Not in support of Scheme and Mornington is different to other towns with Special Charge

Schemes; • Market could be enhanced; • If Special Charge Scheme goes ahead other businesses should also contribute; • The levy is not considered equitable for all and could be better charged; • Special Charge Scheme is not for 12 months, but for five years; and • Chamber should be doing more for traders and that would attract members. Michael Abicare – Winning Images • Special Charge Scheme should extend beyond the businesses in Business 1 Zone; • All businesses should contribute including those on outside of Main Street area; and • Needs a better plan and management for the Special Charge Scheme. Richard Holloway – The Country Shop • Area included in Scheme is not broad enough and should be extended to other businesses in and

around town; and • Charges not fair and there should be various criteria or loading applied. Perhaps should be

based on property rates.



COMMITTEE DECISION Moved: Cr. Colomb Seconded: Cr. Smith

1. That the Section 223 Submission Committee receive the report titled ‘Special Charge Scheme (Promotions Fund) for Mornington Main Street Shopping Centre’ and note all submissions received.

2. That a report addressing the issues raised in the submissions at the Section 223

Submission Committee Hearing be provided to the Council Meeting to be held on Monday, 24 May, 2010.

Carried

minutes of the section 223 submission ... of the section 223 submission committee hearing held –...

Documents