Proposed Fees and Zones

over 3 years ago
There is a lot of interest about the proposed fees and zones. What are your suggestions to help Council get the balance right?

Consultation has concluded

  • Dimi almost 4 years ago
    I can see that there are many voices raising that there shouldn’t be any restrictions or hurdle on the operation of food trucks. But I am not too sure whether they actually know the reality of food businesses that are getting affected by the food trucks. Many people may say that it gives vibrancy or let people try new stuff but if you put yourself in the position of other food business owners who owns the business in brick and mortar stores, you wouldn’t be able to say about abolishing any restrictions on food truck. I work in Adelaide CBD so I see food trucks every week and whenever the food trucks operates I see that there are significantly less people in the restaurant or fixed food business and I thought it would be ridiculous if I put myself into that position. I also think the proposed fee should be increased because (I might be wrong but) I heard from the people who has friends owns the food truck that they don’t claim much tax on their income as there is no proof for tax office to find out how much they are making. Based on the fact that most food trucks are operated on cash basis, I see the possibility and I heard that food trucks are making decent average income compared to fixed food businesses with very low outgoings. I also see many negatives caused by food trucks such as disposal of waste in connection to fuel gas with non-compliance of regulations and non-purpose built use of decrepit caravans etc. I just think this is not fair. There are many good reasons for the council to allow the food trucks but I think there are more important reasons for the council to protect the fixed businesses. I am not too sure what will be best solution in terms of fees and trading distances for food truck but I am pretty sure that the current proposal will not have much impact on food truck compared to the difficulties that the fixed businesses suffers due to food trucks.
  • OB almost 4 years ago
    The proposed fee, zones and trading distances for MFVs will not solve the current issue. The issue is, what the council should do in order to have the vibrancy of Adelaide at the same time ensure that the fixed businesses have least effect on their business operation. MFVs are affecting the fixed businesses’ operation as the MFVs bring competition against fixed businesses which lead to decrease in their sale. I think most fixed businesses are already going through the difficult situations due to downturn in economy and other circumstantial reasons so I think they should be protected by council’s policy. Apart from MFVs, fixed businesses are also affected by other festivals and events in Adelaide (i.e. Fringe, Royal Croquet Club and Royal Adelaide Show). South Australia is festival state and various events should held but the council should also act on the best interest of fixed businesses and find a way to results a win-win situation between fixed businesses and MFVs. For that reason, I agree with the suggestion made by DJL in limiting the MFVs to trade once a week and I think MFVs should be highly promoted only during the festivals seasons. I think the current proposal on fees and trading distances will not have much effect unless there is increase in proposed fees and trading distances.
  • DJL almost 4 years ago
    I am not too sure about council’s policy on MFVs. To me personally, it feels like it is highly concentrated on MFVs benefits. I know that the MFV has started as part of Splash Adelaide with an aim to increase the vibrancy of Adelaide which is good thing. We need vibrancy and this is one of good way to allow people to have something different however I think it should be limited to participate only in parklands or other specific events. The other alternative is allowing the MFV to operate once a week in designated area. I think this policy doesn’t consider about fixed businesses’ situation, current economy is terrible with constant increase in unemployment rate and this MFV is taking an advantage against fixed business. There are competition directly in front of bricks and mortar stores at the pick time and they are paying far less of rates and permit fees compared to fixed businesses. The council’s proposed on new distance and new zoning is meaningless as this doesn’t affect MFVs and it will just keep the competition ongoing with fixed business.
  • strongman about 4 years ago
    I believe there are better ways to both increase revenue from MFV's and at the same time making it easier on a MFV's cash flow be it whoever they are. If you were to say keep the new zoning and map out designated areas with appropriate alloted parking spaces set aside for MFV's only you could then charge a daily rate for MFV to trade in each location. This may range from $10 - $50 per day it could also be broken down into time slots eg morning, lunch, dinner, Late trade for example. It would then be up to the MFV to book a location online possibly for a particular day and pay in advance for that shifts trade. It then falls back onto the MFV whether they make an income at that location or not. This may also allow for scaleability of the program based around locations, it should put an end to the bickering from fixed vs mobile business and would become a part of the Adelaide scene. I believe you could then increase the number of MFV considerably offering greater variety and hopefully over time with the constant massaging of locations, pricing, vendors etc the mix and values of sites will work themselves out. Currently most MFV's are used to paying a fee for a location which provides them with a return which is greater than what they pay. If they pay and do not see a return there they don't return to the location if they make a loss but can see potential they will persist with a location. The system may be designed so that a MFV could trade at the same location as often as they like so long as no one else of the same food category has booked that location, if someone else of the same food category chooses to book that location they will slot in automatically over riding the vendor whom previously traded there within the last 24 hrs or had booked the location for consecutive days. Different algorithms could apply and just about any programmer would be able to include this into a database or piece of software like an app. You should also find that you could automatically exclude particular food vendors from trading at certain sites if they could not co exist with current fixed business vendors. I also see this as giving council full control over where MFVs can trade and also allows council to investigate and revitilize whichever part of the city it sees fit and demand the correct fees for that zone. As if its always full means it is good trade therefore commands a higher price if it always empty then its free or very cheap to entice MFVs there or the council could investigate moving the location.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
      Hi Strongman,Thanks for your comment!A very interesting and well thought out suggestion in regards to permit fees and zones.I do wonder about what the costs of setting up an app like this or redeveloping the existing Street Eats App would be?What does everyone else think about this? Would love to hear your thoughts!Cheers,Kirsten
  • StartUpFuturist about 4 years ago
    What is ACC doing to support the existing bricks and mortar businesses so they can co exists with mobile food vendors.Everyone should be able to trade fairly and equitably.
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
      Hi there!Great question! This was something that was presented at our Committee meeting on the Review of the Mobile Food Vending Program. At Adelaide City Council we have the City Growth and Investment team who are currently committed to supporting fixed business in a number of ways. If you want to find out more details please jump on to the minutes from the 21 July E&CD Committee and have a read of Attachment B on pages 40-41 http://ncapps.adelaidecitycouncil.com/agendasminutes/files08/Agendas/ECD/2015/2015_07_21ECD.pdf Cheers,Kirsten
      Hide Replies (6)
      • StartUpFuturist about 4 years ago
        Hi Kirsten,Thank you for providing me with the minutes. I cant say that pages 40-41 would inspire many owners of any business , which raises the question again i raised above. However what i found was very damaging to the pro argument of the MFV. The publicly funded survey and results clearly demonstrate that MFV are taking core trade from bricks and mortar business at peak times. The absolute nail in the coffin is that less than 5% of city residence formed the respondents list which clearly demonstrates that MFV only benefit the city worker who doesn't contribute to additional economic benefit outside the day to day activities and therefore only erodes the available cash able to be spent at brick and mortar business during there normal hours of trade. "Vibrancy"In other parts of the minutes and its documents i found it very interesting that MFV where created for the purpose of entrepreneurship and to transition an MFV into a bricks and mortar business. It makes the assumption that this was a short term plan perhaps a year of test and measure the market to see if your concept has legs... Some of these MFV have been operating well outside that one to two or even in some cases three year window. ALARMING! I suggest anyone with an opinion on this matter take the time to read this document before they formulate a subjective opinion. Once again thank you for the information it certainly has crystallized my view on the matter and further cements the need for the ACC to support bricks and mortar business so that they can co exists with MFV in the present and future. Excuse the grammar I'm between meetings.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • posty about 4 years ago
          Who cares what the ACC's intent was for the MFV's - let the market see what works. What does it matter whether they transition to brick and mortar or not? the report you linked to talked about existing BUSINESSES trialling MFV right underneath! seems to me like they're trying to make them coexist? what's wrong with running a small business from a van? why can't mcdonalds maybe decide to do their own hipster food truck if they want? if it's profitable enough (which looks questionable) and the council is getting a cut - what's the problem? what would be the doomsday alarming scenario if MFV's were around forever all over the city? do you think the city would be overrun with roaming hordes of food vans? will Imperator Furiosa be required to despatch them all? *removes tongue from cheek* All I do know it adds further flavour, literally and metaphorically and that should be spread around as liberally as possible. (I'm not saying vibrant because that word gets used so much it has almost lost its meaning).The proposed fees are zones are confusing and needlessly complicated, let's just keep it one flat fee and let things be an even playing ground. stop meddling, the current structure works pretty well. I don't understand the need for the proposed changes.in addition I find it mildly entertaining that 'StartupFuturist' is the person dominating these threads saying to "THINK OF THE BRICK AND MORTAR BUSINESSES!" when 'startups' mostly aim to 'disrupt' existing industries in not always the best way.
          Hide reply (1)
          • StartUpFuturist about 4 years ago
            Posty you raised a great point. If the y are not profitable why dilute the market any further especially when we are experiencing high unemployment and rising costs of living! I will spare you the economist view but it seems counter productive to let the market cannibalise itself for the benefit of the customer does it not? Also you cannot dismiss the ACC's intent as that formed the frame work around the program. It would be naive to think we can simply say "who cares". The purpose of MFV was to improve "flavour" in inactivated spaces and lane ways.... I guess the small bars have done a better job of that dont you think? it is compellingly clear that everyone pro MFV is providing an opinion strongly governed by emotion and self interest. "more flavour", more vibrancy, more me.... From history we know hoe this ends..I am also glad you are "mildly entertained" however you should quote correctly i never said think of the brick and mortar business but specifically "What is ACC doing to support the existing bricks and mortar businesses so they can co exists with mobile food vendors." I love our city and i want to see it grow and thrive but for this to happen policy needs to be reviewed particularly in the current and future economy.
      • Wayno about 4 years ago
        Thanks Kirsten, i studied the entire set of minutes. phew!I'm curious about the survey process used by Hudson Howells. Interviewing people on consecutive Fridays between 11:30am and 2pm netted a majority of city worker respondees. It's likely the results under-represent city residents and suburban visitors who are otherwise occupied (work/study outside the city) mid-week. The survey should have also incorporated timing to collect feedback from footy/cricket weekend and evening matches.It's interesting that 50+% of MFV patrons planned in advance to visit a particular vendor. 45% state the taste/flavour/quality of food as a key driving reason. That's customer expectations and demand in action!Also interesting is the age profile showing that younger folk are those more interested in food diversity. This is no surprise and should not be discounted. This is truly food for thought - especially for the less creative fixed location businesses.Appendix C (Savills report) again highlights that MFVs have not had a significant financial impact on brick/mortar businesses, yet there almost appears to be fevered panic within the ACC (at least among certain councillors) from this perspective. The Savills report also talks at length about the social, cultural, tourism, and local community benefits that arise from combining food and fresh air. The report also highlights that food creativity begets more creativity and competition.Lastly the Savill report makes the valid case that MFV schemes operate successfully in many cities and that Adelaide should be no different. Has the ACC looked at how other city MFV schemes operate?This report has made my opinion crystal clear. People are voting with their taste-buds, and fresh air is preferred over enclosed space. This is not an argument of MFVs versus brick/mortar businesses. This is simply competition and creativity in action.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • StartUpFuturist about 4 years ago
          Greetings Wayno,To dissect data to perpetuate your argument is a little self serving don't you think? The customer is not always right as you have stated in a past post which i am reading with interest. Friedman would pose a strong argument in this area. All stakeholders must be considered in any free market and your view is very one sided. You are so pro people power its very concerning. Remember the people destroyed Rome, Babylon and most structured and civilized societies. The entitled generation lives strong in you, and unfortunately that is not what founded our amazing city. It was sweat and tears, sacrifice and collaboration. Taste buds are not just active at lunch times during the week, so perhaps lets test your theory out with MFV only being allowed to operate from 3 to 8pm Monday to Friday and see if they will still "voting with their taste buds, and fresh air over enclosed space" particularly in winter. I value your opinion as i am sue you do mine however i remain pragmatic and my focus as a futurist is to flip the conversation upside and continue to ask what will ACC do for bricks and mortar business so they can co exist with MFV.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
            Hi guys,I appreciate you taking the time to have a read through of the minutes!To answer a few questions; Hudson Howells undertook this survey under a restrictive deadline with the best opportunity to be on a consecutive Thursday and Friday.We have benchmarked the MFV program in Adelaide against others in Australia and compared similarities and differences, as was presented to Council as a workshop in April 2015. Please see pages 20-27 of the minutes from the April E&CD Committee http://ncapps.adelaidecitycouncil.com/agendasminutes/files08/Agendas/ECD/2015/2015_04_21ECD.pdf As each capital city is unique they are all quite varied in their fee/permit structure.Just to reiterate, Council is seeking to find a balanced outcome for the Mobile Food Vending Program. This is why we have gone out to public consultation to seek how the community, key stakeholders, fixed business, mobile food vendors, customers and general public feels about these proposed changes, taking into consideration the background work that has been undertaken. This will then assist Council to make an informed decision about how the MFV Program will move forward into 2015/16. Cheers,Kirsten
  • nicktyschnick about 4 years ago
    Increasing the regulatory requirements on tiny independent MFV businesses will not help other small B&M businesses. The proposed changes seem to be aimed at pushing MFV out of business entirely. Increasing your neighbour's rent doesn't reduce yours. If I had a burger joint that made great burgers, I'd want Burger Theory to set up next door and market the hell out of a Burger-off. If you're proud of what you do, tell the world, don't just try to kneecap others with a dream.
  • Moe about 4 years ago
    Fees really need to be low enough to encourage new food ideas into the city, and the increases for existing vendors need to be low enough to allow them to save for a bricks and mortar outlet.
    Hide Replies (10)
    • Glen about 4 years ago
      A good business plan by an emerging MFV should already accommodate for any built in or future rises in fees. I don't think any new business should be given a helping hand or 'concession' by council. A strong and appealing product or service will survive on its own. One simple fee for everybody - therefore lessening the need for more regulation and bureaucracy by council. If the MFV is successful based upon this, then they will establish a bricks and mortar to further progress their business. I don't know if I agree with the argument that increases in council fees to MFVs will completely burden them as to diminish any further business opportunities, so far as those fees are reasonable.
    • SteveMcClure about 4 years ago
      Whether a business decides to be bricks and mortar or mobile is a business strategy decision, not necessarily one being a predecessor to the other. Now that Food trucks are on the roads, the ACC should concern itself with regulating their operation, but not the business model that they use.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Glen about 4 years ago
        Agree, and we cant assume that all MFVs will want to go on to establish bricks and mortar businesses, though this seems to be the natural progression. The examples given of various MFV going to B&M pretty much negates the opinion that MFVs have an unfair advantage. If they had an unfair advantage Burger Theory would still be just a food truck, and would have not established a shop front.It is innovative business and appealing products and services that create success, not protected noncompetitive markets and burdening regulations.
        Hide reply (1)
        • SteveMcClure about 4 years ago
          Absolutely. And the market environment has shifted with the introduction of food trucks - lifting the bar on appealing products and services. I completely agree that this innovation should be promoted ( with competitors urged to lift their game) rather than discouraged.
    • Wayno about 4 years ago
      I don't agree that fees should be low enough to encourage moving to a bricks/mortars outlet at a later date. All businesses need to be treated equally. No favours for existing brick/mortar businesses, no favours for mobile food vans. The Council's job, as with all levels of government, is easy - set a loose framework that fosters ever increasing levels of activity and competition, and step waaaay back - let innovation happen. Yes, some existing businesses will fail, as will some mobile vendors. That's life. That's progressive western-world economics. That's democracy in action.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Frank about 4 years ago
        Thats an economy waiting for disaster, we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, think about what your saying.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Wayno about 4 years ago
          We have the highest rate of unemployment because SA has repeatedly tried, and failed, to rely on government protected and supported industry. Time to break free,
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Frank about 4 years ago
            Wayne, you should run for premier, seems like a liberated state is what you are after.
          • StartUpFuturist about 4 years ago
            So Wayno you do realise that this MFV scheme is a ACC protected and supported program right? Established to test the market for a food idea not to become the major business operation....
        • mshagg about 4 years ago
          So your solution is to put MFV vendors out of operation? The ACC assessed the total impact of all MFVs at $600,000 per annum. That's 0.15% of the $403 million fast food/café/restaurant sector.
  • mshagg about 4 years ago
    Although I dont support the increased fees, the idea of increasing fees itself probably has some merit - so long as those fees remain reasonable. Im sure, like any other aspect of their business, MFVs accept that things will become more expensive over time.The proposed system of zones and categories is unnecessarily complicated. This represents a compliance burden for MFVs and an administration hassle for the ACC (are you going to have MFV inspectors that check everyone has the right license and is in an appropriate zone?). The categories are poorly defined ("sometimes" offers a meal?) and would act to prevent an MFV from experimenting with their offering (e.g. a Cat 3 MFV which may wish to try their hand at offering a small meal, which would bump them into a Cat 2).If the council (and i stress "if") can demonstrate a need for increased fees (for example, to cover administration costs which arise from the program), then why not just propose a simple increase to the fees charged? There's ample merit in offering resident fixed food businesses a discounted fee structure, but I think they've clearly shown they have little interest in innovating their product/service offering and simply want this form of competition removed from the city.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
      Thanks for your comment Mshagg!Very interesting comments and you've definitely provided some food for thought. Cheers,Kirsten
  • Llessur about 4 years ago
    I'm concerned that the proposed changes will discourage mobile vendors, decrease vibrancy and therefore CBD visitors. At the end of the day, if a "fixed" establishment is struggling then it's quite likely because they're not offering something that 21st century Adelaidians want. take The Stag for example - it was a rubbish hotel in a prime location which should have re-thought its business model years ago. It didn't recognise that it needed to move with the times, became stagnant and unappealing and, accordingly, could not remain open as a viable business. Did the owners acknowledge their mistakes and poor business decisions? No - they loudly blame mobile operators and Fringe venues instead (despite the Garden of Unearthly delights bringing thousands of potential patrons to their front door each year - a situation they still couldn't capitalise on). So, should we curb modern, innovative and attractive businesses to prop up aging dinosaurs like The Stag? No, of course not. Keep the mobile vendors, let the public decide where/how to eat and encourage fixed vendors to take a long, hard look at their offering and what is expected of an eating/drinking establishment in 2015. If any business fails to move with the times then they deserve to close and shouldn't be propped up by silly rules imposed by ACC on those who have identified a successful business model.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • marcus about 4 years ago
      I am concerned that the current policy discourages fixed businesses, which provide services I enjoy on a daily basis. While I am an advocate for competition, it appears quite unfair the disparity between the cost to enter a fixed business compared to a mobile business. I would propose the fees for a mobile business be directly linked and proportional to that of a fixed business
      Hide reply (1)
      • Llessur about 4 years ago
        Not sure I agree - if a 'bricks and mortar' business with a fully-equipped kitchen, heating/cooling, tables, music and service can't find a way of competing with a caravan parked out in the gutter then there's a problem with their business model. There's a place for both types of establishment in the City and Adelaidians are clever enough to decide whether they fancy eating indoors or grabbing something quick and easy outdoors (although it just so happens that the overall quality of food is often higher at the mobile vendors - perhaps due to establishing their business more recently and serving food better suited to a developed nation in 2015). They are two different kettles of fish so should pay different fees accordingly. Many mobile vendors aspire to own a 'bricks and mortar' business and use a food truck/van/caravan as a way of testing their business model and building up a reputation for themselves. Increasing their fees will reduce the number of people who find it financially viable to start such an enterprise in the first place and therefore, eventually, will have a knock-on effect on the number of quality 'fixed' establishments and we'll just be left with the same old places who will lack any real reason to think on their feet and move with the times. Although perhaps that's the reason why Mr Haese and his colleagues have dreamt up this vibrancy-killing barrage of red tape and regulation for these fledgling businesses.
  • marcus about 4 years ago
    In the current atmosphere it does not make sense to be asking for minimal or no fees; then at the same time expecting food safety, maintained roads, the streets being cleaned and other facilities that are provided by the council and payed for by the fees its charges fixed businesses (the cost of a food truck is trivial).Anti Competitive behavior is the last thing the city needs!What needs to happen is that policy is introduced to support all business regardless of mobility and provide a consistent licencing structure which gives the same costs and benefits to all kinds business as well as new styles which may open in the future.
  • SteveMcClure about 4 years ago
    The South side of Victoria square should be a fee-free zone.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
      Hi Steve,That's a very interesting proposal. I'm wondering if you can tell me a little more about this and why you chose the South Side of Victoria Square as an area to be fee-free?Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
      Hide Replies (3)
      • SteveMcClure about 4 years ago
        Hi Kirsten, Here's a few of my assumptions that I started with: Policy should be used to create the city we want, not just reflect it; Food trucks add vibrancy to their immediate vicinity; a critical mass of anything is needed to attract a steady clientele; there are no food outlets in the immediate vicinity; I work nearby; the south side of the Park is simultaneously kinda lame ( missing out on being developed, half finished fountain, wide exposed area) and my favourite part because of the grass and trees. So, in order to enliven a rather boring place, food vendors could do the job. Add to this waiving fees for non amplified buskers and we've got a lively little spot on the grass under the trees.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
          Thanks for your feedback. This is a great way of looking at it and of identifying a space that needs activation in the city!If you're interested in activating underutilised spaces in the city you should check out Splash Adelaide http://splashadelaide.com.au/
        • marcus about 4 years ago
          There are plenty of food outlets in the immediate vicinity of Victoria Square, there is the Markets, Gouger Street, the little string of shops on the north-west side and plenty of little cafes within 50m
    • StartUpFuturist about 4 years ago
      Realised my question was answered.
  • zzymurgy about 4 years ago
    The new zones are confusing and arbitrary, and they restrict operators to just one part of the city. I don't see the point of this, surely the whole point of a food truck is free movement around the city and not just the same old food outside your office every day.An operator who has paid more for a better zone will be under more pressure to arrive earlier and get the best spot so they can maximise their investment. But what if no spots are available? What if they're full or blocked by roadworks? They can't predict what will happen on any given morning.While I agree with the previous comment that the south side of the city needs more food trucks, I don't think zones are the way to provide an incentive, as they will require a huge amount of extra red tape and planning for operators.Food trucks are innovative. When you make their operations more difficult, you are creating a disincentive both to new operators and visitors from interstate.
    Hide reply (1)
    • marcus about 4 years ago
      Any business takes a risk when they open, if you are worried that a food truck might luck out by a blocked road or the street being full; why then are you not worried for the fixed business who cannot move when the swarm of trucks come past?
  • Frank about 4 years ago
    My CPI increases on top of my rent per annum are more than what MFV would pay with the current rate and proposed rates added together. To be honest, if rents were reasonable around the city, I could promote MFV, however with escalating costs how can business owners be expected to promote MFV. I am in a business that is innovative and adapts to the climate it is in, not all operators are in this position and it isn’t fair or reasonable, that MFV paying $3 a day for rent is comparable to $250 per day.
  • caitsith01 about 4 years ago
    The fee/zone structure, as published, is clearly designed to try to reduce food trucks to essentially selling coffee and cake rather than actual food. There is absolutely no justification for using Council revenue to assist existing business owners to pay licence fees to start food trucks. The only fair solution is to require anyone who runs a truck to pay the same fees. The entire food truck concept would be greatly harmed if it ends up being run by a cartel of existing restauranteurs who are given fee relief by the Council for no apparent reason. People don't want more franchised, generic food - they want independent, varied options which is why the food trucks are so popular in the first place.Fees should be nominal, and cover any actual costs the Council experiences (NOT including adminstrative overheads caused by the imposition of needless rules and regulations...). There should be a fair system to ensure that new entrants can start operating food trucks, and a system which strictly limits the number of trucks that can be operated by any one entity or group of interests.The "zones" proposal must continue to allow food trucks to be easily accessible to anyone who wants to access them throughout the city. Anything else would amount to banning them.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Wayno about 4 years ago
      Agree strongly with the 'cartel' comment. Do not legislate to protect existing businesses. The customer is always right.
  • Glen about 4 years ago
    When I first looked at the newly proposed tables of complex fee structures, categories and zones both for new and existing MFV my immediate reaction was to think of the poor soul who probably spent a good 3-5 hours in excel creating those towering monstrosities.Let me be clear: The newly proposed tables of fees, categories, and zones for new and existing MFV is a completely outrageous, complex, and mind boggling bureaucratic proposal. Not only only in concept and delivery of information, but I can definitely see this adding unnecessarily to cost of operations both for business and council.Keep it simple and easy, much like the current fee structure for winter and summer.Keep the zone to one only, for Adelaide. (therefore, no zones!)Eliminate categories and do not discern between new and existing.That would be very easy in concept and execution. That would be indicative of a council attempting to be world leading and creating business opportunities and vibrancy for its city.The new proposal is completely ridiculous.(I am not a business owner, I work, shop, play in city and go to occasional food trucks and many fixed vendors).
  • Hamish about 4 years ago
    There should be no zones at all. Restricting the food trucks operations with such a complex and multi-layered zoning framework can only be designed to limit the amount of business they can do. It serves no economic value or public benefit. Let them go where they wish. This is just adding red-tape as part of a multi-layered process to destroy the embryonic food trucks industry; protect the existing brick and mortar businesses; and employ of a few more council workers which will help justify the ever increasing budgets the council says they need.
  • Kirsten at ACC about 4 years ago
    Hi everyone!Thanks for all your comments so far! Please continue to voice your suggestions and ideas, or any questions you have that will help us find a balanced solution to the proposed fee and zone structures.I’d like to introduce myself and Kim @ ACC who will be facilitating this forum, and will try our best to answer any questions about the Mobile Food Vending program and the proposed changes. Cheers,Kirsten