OPINION

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color:#A02F2F;”] A [/dropcap] compulsory traders levy to fund Commerce Warrnambool is poised for defeat on the back of a successful grassroots campaign to knock the idea on the head.

The votes have been collated by the Warrnambool City Council, and Bluestone understands that of the 1330 traders that would be affected by the levy, 688 – or 51.7% – took the time and effort to vote “no”.

As with any vote, not everyone filled the form out absolutely correctly, or on time, and after taking such things into account, the “no” vote settles at 49.2%.

While this brings the objections just short of an absolute majority, it would be a very brave (or foolish?) council to fly in the face of such strong opposition.

As such, it is not surprising that council staff have recommended that the levy proposal be dropped when the council meets next Monday (1/12) to vote on the issue.

In addition to a trader vote, anybody could put in a submission either for or against the levy – 36 people put in submissions against the proposal, while only five wrote in support.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color:#A02F2F;”] T [/dropcap]his is nothing short of a crushing defeat for the levy and a remarkable result for the Facebook-based Warrnambool Traders Action Group which marshalled the “no” vote.

Let’s not forget that the weird voting system applied by the Local Government Act meant that only traders who objected to the levy had to physically vote.

Those who didn’t respond were seen as being in support of the idea, even if, for example, they were interstate, sick, or may have been too busy or otherwise distracted by life events to put pen to paper.

Given this, 688 objections and 36 submissions against the levy is a huge show of dissatisfaction and an indication of how angry most traders are that the idea made it this far.

Because let’s be frank, the proposal never got off to a good start.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color:#A02F2F;”] B [/dropcap]luestone readers will recall that most traders only discovered the full extent of the levy after reading our story back in May, when it was revealed that Commerce Warrnambool wanted to raise $600,000 a year by applying a compulsory levy to all traders, including those in the industrial estate.

The levy would be in place for five years and rise by 5 per cent a year, with Commerce Warrnambool in charge of deciding how the money would be spent on promoting the city, encouraging people to shop local and lobbying on behalf of business.

Nobody doubts that local business needs a serious boost, but asking them to fund a newly formed body that had yet to demonstrate its capabilities in marketing, promotion or advocacy was ambitious, at best, and naive at worst.

After a trader backlash, led by the Warrnambool Traders Action Group, the levy total was halved to $300,000 a year and capped at $300 a year per business.

Despite this, the proposal failed to ignite any excitement and the revised Commerce Warrnambool business plan contained very little that had not been tried before, such as shop local campaigns, Christmas decorations and car raffles.

The talk around town – and we heard it everywhere we visited – was not how great the levy idea was, but how to get rid of it.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color:#A02F2F;”] G[/dropcap]iven the council has since received only five written submissions in favour of the levy, it appears that even the 12 members on the Commerce Warrnambool board have not been inspired to each write a letter of support.

And so the levy will – or should – be put out of its misery on Monday.

The question now is where to from here for Warrnambool business? As we wrote last week, the latest local business survey indicates these are glum times for many businesses, which is such a contrast to what we saw when travelling through Traralgon earlier this week.

This slightly smaller city than Warrnambool was jumping: a few empty shops, yes, but still bustling.

Traralgon is the biggest city between Pakenham and Canberra and Warrnambool is the biggest city between Geelong and Adelaide: they should both be thriving.

Could it be the free, timed parking in Traralgon that helps? Lower rents? A mix of big-name stores (Officeworks, Big W, Harvey Norman etc) and niche traders?

This is the conversation we are still yet to have.

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”]If you would like early access to Opinion pieces, please subscribe to Bluestone.[/button]

You can find earlier Opinion pieces here…

Sucking the wind out of Portland’s sails

Fun4Kids: the missing bits

Fun4Kids faces axe after cost blowout

We reveal the ‘mystery man’ behind $20m apartments

Granny’s Grave buried in bureaucracy

All words, no funding, for Fletcher Jones story

Grappling with the work of a predator

OPINION

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #DC943C;”] A [/dropcap]fter months of often acrimonious debate, Warrnambool traders will have an historic vote from next week on whether they want to pay a special levy for a chamber of commerce – and those against the move will have to work a lot harder than those in favour.

It is the first time the Warrnambool City Council has used its power to introduce special rates and levies on behalf of a specific group – Commerce Warrnambool – and at this scale; 1337 traders will be affected.

The proposed levy will cost each trader up to $300 a year for the next five years and give Commerce Warrnambool an annual budget of at least $300,000 to spend on marketing the city, advocating for business and setting up networking opportunities and professional workshops.

Under the strange rules of the Victorian Local Government Act, those traders who don’t want to pay the levy will have to jump through hoops to make sure their vote is counted, whereas those who support the levy won’t have to do anything.

Here are the steps:

First, traders who object have to make sure they receive the notice that is coming in the mail from the council.

Second, they have to tick the “no” box.

Third, they have to attach evidence that they are responsible for paying the rates on their business premises, either by attaching a copy of their lease, a letter from the property owner, or a stat dec.

Fourth, they have to mail the letter back (postage paid).

And they have to do it all by November 3.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #DC943C;”] I [/dropcap]t’s a time consuming list of things to do while also running a business, a family and a life, but this is what dissenting traders will have to do if they wish to be heard.

Not only that, but almost 670 traders will have to make the effort if the “no” vote is to succeed, whereas the remaining 670 voters who might support the levy can sit tight.

It is a cockeyed system and reflects the history of this part of the Local Government Act, which was introduced in 1989 so that local councils could raise “special rates and charges” for all manner of things from footpaths and drainage works, to shopping centre promotions.

It seems when there is more ratepayer money to be made, the harder it is to object, the better!

Not surprisingly, given how the voting system works, the “no” campaign – aka The Warrnambool Traders Action Group – has been hitting both the pavement and social media for months to argue why the levy should not go ahead and how to vote against it. “No” posters have appeared in shopfronts across town, and its Facebook page has accumulated 477 followers.

By contrast, the “yes” campaign – aka Commerce Warrnambool – has been almost eerily quiet up until the last week, when it began to place ads in the local paper advocating for the levy.

There has been no doorknocking or poster pasting, but its Facebook page did reveal earlier this week that it intended to do an information mailout via the council, until the council said it could not be involved (for obvious reasons). The mailout will now come via Australia Post.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #DC943C;”] T [/dropcap]he difficulty for Commerce Warrnambool in trying to pitch the levy is twofold: first, it is trying to boost its membership by force.

In 2011, a year after Commerce Warrnambool began, it had only 80 members and an annual budget of $24,000. The levy is partly a backdoor way of making traders support an old-fashioned, traditionally male-dominated concept that perhaps has had its day.

Surely if so many traders were keen to support a chamber of commerce, they would just sign up? Meanwhile, new business networks are gathering strength, like the Young Professionals Warrnambool and Business and Professional Women South-West.

Second, despite the best of intentions, the ideas put forward by Commerce Warrnambool have failed to inspire those struggling under the weight of high rents, online shopping and a tired-looking CBD.

Christmas promotions, car raffles and shop-local campaigns are not new. Indeed a council-backed Christmas promotion, complete with Santa arriving by helicopter, ran in 2011 and yet shops are still closing down in the CBD.

Car raffles and the like are short-term, sugar-fixes when what is really needed is an acceptance that the Internet is the industrial revolution of our time and not all businesses will survive. Some will adapt, others will die and new businesses will emerge.

In my view, a new levy won’t make an inch of difference compared to the revitalisation of Liebig St that is underway at last, and a lowering of CBD rents to realistic, regional-based levels (this is in the hands of property owners) to inspire new businesses and support those in transition.

How many traders share this view remains to be seen when the votes finally come in – or not.

[box]Note: If less than 50 per cent of businesses object to the new levy, the council will make the final decision on whether it goes ahead at its December 1 meeting. Anyone can make a submission for or against the levy and can do so in writing by Nov 3 to the CEO, Warrnambool City Council, 25 Liebig St, Warrnambool, 3280. All submissions are public documents.[/box]

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”]Bluestone is aiming for 500 subscribers. If you enjoy Bluestone, please click here to become one![/button]

Read more Opinion pieces here…

All words, no funding, for Fletcher Jones story

Grappling with the work of a predator

Unravelling the mystery of art commissions

Lack of schooling a ticking bomb in south-west

What about more fun for grown-ups?

Council’s racing hospitality bill hard to swallow

 OPINION

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] I [/dropcap]t has been a long and often heated battle, but the proposed compulsory traders levy to raise funds for Commerce Warrnambool is now fully transparent and more realistic in it aims – purely through the power of grassroots action.

In a revised motion to go to the Warrnambool City Council on Monday (Sept 1), the annual levy – which will operate for five years – has been halved from $600,000 to $300,000 and no trader, be they commercial or industrial, will be asked to pay more than $300 per year, compared to up to $6000 in the initial plan.

Commerce Warrnambool President Tony Herbert had hoped the council might kick in the remaining $300,000 from general revenue, but this has not happened. Instead, Commerce Warrnambool has gone through its budget and emerged with a more modest plan to promote and market Warrnambool.

For starters, the budget for a full-time executive officer, support staff and other management and communication costs has been cut from an initial $200,000 to $95,000, with a suggestion that the executive officer could be either full or part time.

This does away with concerns that the levy would do little more than pay for the salary of someone sitting behind a desk, enjoying a very nice job for the next five years.

Advertising has been cut from $120,000 a year to $75,000 and plans to take on the Warrnambool Business Awards and attend the Regional Living Expo – both of which are currently handled by the council – have been scrapped.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] I [/dropcap]mportantly, Commerce Warrnambool has also set down – for the first time – very clear projects that will be funded by the levy.

They include three promotional activities in the first year for a total cost of $80,000: a shop local car giveaway; a spring produce promotion and a Christmas promotion.

It also includes projects for business support, education and networking: four professional development workshops (total cost $20,000) and four networking activities (again $20,000).

The strange idea of raising $100,000 each year toward “an infrastructure project” has also vanished, thank goodness, because this was fraught with difficulties around who would decide what project was worthy and how it would be chosen.

Will those traders who were heavily opposed to the levy warm to the revised plan?

Perhaps not – remember they never asked for a levy in the first place – but at least now there is air and light around what Commerce Warrnambool will do with the funds. This is far better than its “trust us” approach that came with its first plan that asked for $3 million over five years, despite having no runs on the board in terms of delivery.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] T [/dropcap]here is also, in the paperwork before council, a very clear process outlined for the first time as to how traders can object to the levy.

Traders no longer have to worry that they won’t be notified (they will, as will landlords) or that they will miss out on lodging an objection.

The documents tell us that, once the notification is given, they have until November 3 to make an objection or written submission (or both) and, if so inclined, can have a say at the council meeting on November 17.

See all of this information above? This is how transparency works; this is proper process, and if all of this detail had been laid out clearly from the very beginning, then perhaps the levy idea would not have fallen into a ditch.

For this we can thank the tenacious grassroots lobbyists within the Warrnambool Traders Action Group for doing their bit to ensure democracy is alive and well in Warrnambool: that when it comes to public funds and accountability, everyone has a right to ask questions, no matter how prickly or how “annoying”.

This is not an easy thing to do in a regional city, where networks are tight and long in the making.

It takes great courage to risk falling out with friends, or customers, or business colleagues because you dare to challenge an idea that you are being told is “good for the city”.

For what its worth, we have had a small taste of the consequences of running against the grain here at Bluestone.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] R [/dropcap]eaders will know that, last week, I launched my small book “Warrnambool: This is home” and that this book, written before Bluestone began, features 30 iconic Warrnambool places and faces, including Kermonds, Mack’s Snacks, the Materia Bros, Ryans Removals etc.

More than 80 people crammed into the launch at the Last Coach, including members of these wonderful Warrnambool families, but was there a word about it in the local newspaper? No, despite, ironically, two of the paper’s longest-serving reporters being featured in the book.

Why was this so? Because I am part of Bluestone Magazine? Or because we occasionally question the newspaper? (Just as the newspaper’s reporters occasionally challenge us: we consider it healthy debate). I don’t know, but we find it deeply troubling that the only newspaper in a major regional city appears to have a blacklist.

This is why what the traders action group has achieved over the past six months is so important – and its impact goes well beyond what you might think of the levy.

By using grassroots activism – social media, shoe leather, door knocking, posters on windows and whatever else it takes – it has refused to be silenced and has, under considerable stress and strain, won the battle for transparency, accountability and due process.

It has shown that you can speak out, and up, and while it can be exhausting and wearing, you can be heard.

This is what makes it an important victory for us all.

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”] Did you enjoy this Opinion piece? Please subscribe for the full benefits of Bluestone.[/button]

Read more of our Opinion pieces…

Unravelling the mystery of art commissions

Lack of schooling a ticking bomb in south-west

Trader levy deal and the Jennifer Lowe factor

What about more fun for grown-ups?

Council’s racing hospitality bill hard to swallow

Trader levy shaping for for legal showdown

Forget cover ups: roll right over Rolf

OPINION

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”]P[/dropcap]lans to hit traders with a compulsory levy to raise $3 million over five years for Commerce Warrnambool are headed for court unless the Warrnambool City Council puts a stop to the levy immediately.

Commerce Warrnambool and the Warrnambool Traders Action Group agreed to not talk publicly about the levy while negotiations were underway between the two, but don’t think for a moment they have struck a deal.

In fact, it is the opposite.

In a hard-hitting letter sent to all councillors and council Chief Executive Officer Bruce Anson last week, the traders are asking the council to withdraw the levy proposal at its meeting next Monday (21/7), or it will take legal action against Commerce Warrnambool to prevent it from acting outside its legal powers.

The first step in that process is an injunction issued by the Magistrates’ Court.

Before delivering this ultimatum out of sheer exasperation, the W’bool Traders Action Group spent a lot of time identifying where it believes Commerce Warrnambool has breached its legal requirements as an incorporated body and hoped that something would be done to address these concerns.

It also, despite weeks of discussion between the two groups, is still waiting for answers to its questions about how the levy has been justified.

It appears the traders have finally run out patience.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”]W[/dropcap]ith their gloves firmly off, the traders have, in their letter, accused Commerce Warrnambool of making “false and misleading” claims about the level of support for the levy, which would raise $600,000 in its first year and rise by 5 per cent each year.

In arguing why the levy should go ahead, Commerce Warrnambool said its consultant, Peter McNabb, had visited more than 900 businesses to explain how the levy would work and that this resulted in signed support from more than 150 traders.

The W’bool Traders Action Group says it has since spoken to more than 300 businesses and found less than 20 who were formally consulted: most found out about the levy through the media.

(As an aside, Bluestone asked the council if it had seen the 150 signed forms of support and was told that they had been “viewed by council staff”, but presumably not the elected councillors.)

Similarly, Commerce Warrnambool said its consultant received verbal support (ie. via telephone) from 150 corporate businesses who have their head offices outside of Warrnambool – a claim the traders describe as “fanciful” because finding the right person to speak to in corporations is difficult, let alone gaining their “verbal support” for anything.

And it doesn’t stop there.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”]T[/dropcap]he Traders Action Group goes on to reveal in its letter that the “purpose” of the Commerce Warrnambool Strategic Business Plan – as stated in the business plan – is actually the “purpose” of the Swan Hill Incorporated plan (which Peter McNabb and Associates also developed) and has nothing to do with the objectives of Commerce Warrnambool.

There are also allegations of threatening, potentially libelous emails being sent from a member of Commerce Warrnambool to two members of the Traders Action Group.

Put simply, the levy proposal is a mess and, as a result, Commerce Warrnambool is in a mess.

This is a shame, because the city needs a robust Chamber of Commerce – something the W’bool Traders Action Group also agrees on – but how that body is funded, and what it does, needs more investigation and discussion.

I have written previously about how chambers of commerce in other regional cities use memberships and corporate sponsorships to survive and how they are primarily focussed on lobbying, networking and professional development: not things like Christmas decorations, ‘buy local’ campaigns and promoting the local football finals.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”]I[/dropcap]n addition, we still don’t know – if the levy was to go through – what Commerce Warrnambool will deliver in its first year, beyond some very broad-brush goals that require a huge leap of faith that the $600,000 will be well spent.

Our elected officials have an opportunity, next Monday, to put the brakes on the whole levy proposal and Commerce Warrnambool has an opportunity to start over, with a view to building a robust plan for its future that has solid – rather than fractured – support.

The most likely result, however, is that the council will vote to defer the levy process until later in the year, which really helps neither side and only extends the war.

The council might prefer to stay in limbo, but the traders have made it clear that they will not.

This time, time has run out.

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”] Did you enjoy this story? Please subscribe here to help Bluestone thrive.[/button]

Read more Opinion pieces here…

Forget cover ups: roll right over Rolf

Community vision should extend city wide: Julie Eagles

Flagstaff Hill at $15 million crossroad

Trader levy takes a new twist

Scrap trader levy and start over

Traders are right to be asking questions

New levy to raise $600k for what?

What is holding Portland back?

OPINION – CAROL ALTMANN

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] P [/dropcap]lans to introduce a new trader levy to raise $3 million over five years for Commerce Warrnambool have taken a dramatic twist.

A Facebook post by Commerce Warrnambool (CW) president Tony Herbert has revealed that CW is no longer seeking $600,000 a year from the trader levy, but $300,000 – with the remaining $300,000 to come straight from the Warrnambool City Council coffers.

This new idea is central to the negotiations between CW and the Warrnambool Traders Action Group – with Mayor Michael Neoh sitting in the middle – to try and reach a compromise, after the initial levy proposal sparked an angry and rolling protest.

It might look like an attempt at a compromise, but to me it sounds like policy on the run and former Labor leader Kevin Rudd is living proof of where that can lead: disaster.

Commerce Warrnambool no doubt has noble intentions in trying to raise funds to spend on promoting Warrnambool, but its proposals continue to raise more questions than they answer.

Shifting half of the cost burden from traders to general ratepayers does not change the need for a full and robust discussion on how the funds will be spent.

It also raises the question of whether this is the best use of $1.5 million of public funds. (Especially when the council is already spending close to $1 million a year on propping up Fun4Kids and Flagstaff Hill).

Indeed this new idea, if it is accepted, only widens the discussion – from traders to the general community – and we should now all be invited to have a say.

Bluestone Magazine is not alone in its concerns.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] A [/dropcap]s it so happens, not only did we stumble across Mr Herbert’s Facebook post today, but the council sent us a wad of documents in response to a Freedom of Information request we lodged in late May regarding the levy.

We are still working our way through these documents and will reveal more over time, but email correspondence between the council’s Director of City Growth, Bill Millard, and Commerce Warrnambool as recently as April this year indicates that both councillors and Council Chief Executive Officer Bruce Anson wanted to see much more detail on how the first $600,000 would be spent.

“I think one of the things you guys do need to work on is answering the question that Bruce asked Richard (Montgomery, from CW) ie. what is the $600k going to spent on in year one, remembering that council needs to sign on to the quantum and the KPIs,” Mr Millard wrote on March 6.

“Personally, I think you need to be definitive here. It will hurt your overall push if the councillors don’t know what the money will be spent on.”

You were not wrong there, Bill!

Mr Millard wrote another email dated April 1 – just weeks before the levy process was approved by the council – indicating councillors were still seeking critical details.

The email is too long to reproduce in full here, but it summarises the questions from councillors, including, again, the need for some firm details on how the money will be spent in the first year, how Commerce Warrnambool decided on the figure of $600,000 as an annual total, and what was the level of support for the levy among traders.

I would strongly argue that these questions still stand.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] I [/dropcap] spoke to Mr Herbert today and he said he was hopeful of reaching some middle ground, although he did not wish to go into any further detail because the negotiations were at a critical stage.

“Members of Commerce Warrnambool and Warrnambool Traders Action Group are working together with the council to try and get an outcome that is hopefully more suitable,” he said.

The trader action group has put forward a compromise of their own which, I understand, has already been knocked on the head by Commerce Warrnambool.

Their suggestion was to withdraw the levy proposal, have key members of the action group join the Commerce Warrnambool board and start from scratch as a united group.

This united group would review the business plan, look at how other towns run their Chambers of Commerce and come up with a fresh approach to council by November.

Perhaps that would provide the breathing space that this whole messy proposal so desperately needs.

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”] Did you enjoy this story? Please subscribe here to help Bluestone thrive.[/button]

You can find more Opinion pieces here…

Forget cover ups: roll right over Rolf

Community vision should extend city wide: Julie Eagles

Flagstaff Hill at $15 million crossroad

Scrap trader levy and start over

Motor museum to revive Fletcher Jones

Traders are right to be asking questions