Trader levy deal…and the Jennifer Lowe factor

Share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Sale-signs
The controversial Warrnambool traders levy is set to be revised and relaunched in late September as a compromise.

OPINION

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] A [/dropcap]s the proposed Warrnambool traders levy rolls into another month without a resolution between the two sides, there is a burning question that remains unanswered: why is the council persisting with it?

Bluestone has been looking for clues.

As we know, more than 100 angry traders crammed into the Warrnambool City Council chambers for its last meeting and demanded that it quash moves to raise $3 million over five years for Commerce Warrnambool via a compulsory levy on businesses.

Despite this show of dissatisfaction, Mayor Michael Neoh used his casting vote to give Commerce Warrnambool more time – until the end of September – to try and negotiate a deal with traders.

What this means is that, behind the scenes, the push is on to split the levy between traders and the council and call it a “compromise”.

As we wrote last month, instead of traders paying the full $600,000 a year, they will be asked to pay less –  say, $450,000 – and the council will chip in the remaining $150,000 because it has decided it really wants to help Commerce Warrnambool along.

The council’s enthusiasm is where we have our first clue about what we believe is really going on.

It is a rare day that the council finds a group that is willing to tax its own members to pay for things that the council should be doing, ie. supporting businesses and promoting the city.

If this $3 million fund goes ahead, the council can justifiably shift the bulk of the cost (and responsibility) of marketing, promotions and supporting businesses on to Commerce Warrnambool and have the traders fund it.

Initially, the council thought it would not have to pay a cent (more about that in a moment), but even if it contributes $150,000, all it needs to do is cut a couple of people from its marketing department and “voila!”  it has broken even.

 

city warrnambool
It’s a rare day when a lobby group agrees to tax its own members to raise funds for work previously done by the council.

 

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] F [/dropcap]or the council’s beancounters, this is a sweet deal in the making, even if not quite as sweet as the traders being hit with the full $600,000 a year, it is an excellent start.

Angry traders, of course, will be told that they can still vote “no” to stop the levy, but if the pressure on opposing traders is considerable now, I can only imagine what it will be like when they are seen to be objecting to a “compromise”.

Given the levy idea has created such a toxic split in the business community, why didn’t Commerce Warrnambool just ask the council for $150,000 in the first place and start small? Well, it did.

Bluestone has learned that since Commerce Warrnambool began in 2010, it has approached the council many times to see if it would provide seed funding (something like $80,000-$100,000 a year for three years) until it found its feet and became financially independent.

At that time, Commerce Warrnambool was primarily a business advocacy, network and support group, which is what chambers of commerce are all about, rather than focussing on the much larger role of promoting and marketing the whole city.

It was knocked back each time.

So what has changed?

We believe the clues lie in a series of events late last year.

 

jennifer lowe
Former outspoken Warrnambool City Councillor Jennifer Lowe, who was a key player in Commerce Warrnambool.

 

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] B [/dropcap]y that time, Commerce Warrnambool had in its hands a proposal prepared by consultants Peter McNabb and Associates which, in the face of the council’s persistent knock backs, detailed how a business levy could not only fund its activities, but widen them substantially.

The business levy would not be a seed fund for Commerce Warrnambool until it attracted memberships and corporate sponsorships, but virtually its entire fund. Its budget would no longer be around $300,000 over three years, but $3 million over five years.

Some (but not all) members of Commerce Warrnambool got very excited and now the council was also listening – for the cost-saving reasons mentioned earlier. But there was still a sticking point.

Commerce Warrnambool, at that time, was still operating under its original board of management including secretary Jennifer Lowe.

It’s no secret to those who have watched the council for a long time that Ms Lowe, who is a former city councillor, was not universally embraced by fellow councillors and council staff during her term (that ended in 2012) because of her outspoken stand on many issues.

Imagine if Commerce Warrnambool learned that the council liked its big, bold levy idea to raise $3 million from traders, but it didn’t like Ms Lowe holding a key role in an organisation that was set to become much more influential. The money, or the secretary?

Whatever the scenario, Ms Lowe suddenly stepped down in late November, together with two other founding board members in Darren Harris and Peter Watson.

From there, the levy proposal was rolled out in something of a rush.

Within a few months, a new Commerce Warrnambool board of management was elected – with Tony Herbert replacing Richard Montgomery as president – a business plan went to council, the levy was ticked off at its May meeting, the public notices were being prepared…and then an increasing number of traders realised that they would have to pay for it and the wheels began to fall off.

As it stands, the traders are holding off on their threatened legal action pending more discussions which may or may not see Ms Lowe back at the negotiating table.

It is understood that, privately, she has made her feelings about the levy debacle well known to her Commerce Warrnambool colleagues, but is also among those keen to see the impasse resolved.

Whether somebody left outside the tent can now clean up the mess within it, remains to be seen.

[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]

Stones Smile newsletter Read more Opinion pieces here…

 

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

Community vision should extend city wide: Julie Eagles

Flagstaff Hill at $15 million crossroad

Scrap trader levy and start over

 

11 thoughts on “Trader levy deal…and the Jennifer Lowe factor”

  1. Wow! I am so grateful that Bluestone dig into the layers of this ordeal. It feels like a B Grade tele-movie sometimes!
    Why it is more important to some Councillors to see this tax applied to business than it is to ensure a seat for themselves after the next election is beyond me. This whole saga has exposed a side of some of our elected Councillors that may have been somewhat unknown to a lot of people. If I were one of those Councillors I would wish I never backed this whole thing in the first place…but then again, I would never have supported shafting the business community under any circumstance.

  2. Ha ha Paul. Isn’t it great that we have our own intrepid investigative reporters who are getting to the bottom of the story (debacle?) in a way that The Standard wouldn’t dare/be bothered with? Thanks – I feel a lot better informed.

  3. Remember that infamous saying about “never getting between a premier and a bucket of money”? Just substitute “council”!

  4. No councillor comments yet. Perhaps some of them are not supporting one of our new Warrnambool businesses? All the more reason to find a way to publish in the Standard.

  5. It should become very clear to all who read this excellent article exactly why a number of Councillors including the mayor refuse to allow Live Streaming of ordinary council meetings. I have been told on many occasions that,” I ask too many questions” When Jennifer Lowe was and elected councillor she was a huge threat to the “Club “. The most disturbing issue to me is, that a reporter sits in on every ordinary council meeting but citizens read very little of what really goes on during the meetings.

  6. I would invite those people who have never been to a council meeting to go and actually see what goes on . You can see before anything has been debated the wall come up and it’s three councillors against the rest and it’s those in favour passed. I don’t know how many times you have to give comm w’bool more time to get their act together. They have had since May – when it’s bought up at council again, and if it looks like the vote is not going their way will they defer again or have the decency to pitch it out. It might be Christmas by then.

Comments are closed.