SURPRISE SMBA AGM to be held on 28 DEC!!

TO BE HELD AT BELLS HOTEL, 7.30pm
157 MORAY STREET STH MELBOURNE

Did you get the SMBA email invitation to this meeting?

Many traders did NOT get this email.
Did you know the SMBA was about to hold an AGM at the presidents new hotel?
Did you know the SMBA is about to hold an election at this meeting?
Did you know YOU can be a candidate?
They will vote a new comittee to make decisions including about taxing you.
Will you be included?


Do you think the timing is reasonable?
28 December is, for most, a holiday from business.
Is the timing deliberate?

Doesn't the SMBA want any of the local traders to be there?.

They have scheduled the AGM for the 28th of December, just 2 days before New Years, 

when most people will be away having a hard earned break.

They would know very well that these days between Christmas and New Year

 are often the only break many get.

Are we in for more of the same poor consultation from the SMBA in 2013?
Talk to your neighbours,
Stay informed.

 http://www.concernedsthmelb.com/

 http://www.specialrateripoff.blogspot.com

Let them know the timing is appalling, they are not serving your needs, and tell the Council too! 

Here are the NEW councillor's contact details:

LOCAL WARD COUNCILLOR:  Anita Horvath:  ahorvath@portphillip.vic.gov.au

MAYOR: Amanda Stevens : mayor@portphillip.vic.gov.au or astevens@portphillip.vic.gov.au

SMBA & Council debate abandonment of scheme

It would seem that council (COPP) and the SMBA have finally realised they are not in sync with the local business community's needs and wishes and plan to abandon their special rate scheme.
Council's website lists their options as abandoning the special rate, or trying again later. (See agenda at:  http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_15_South_Melb_Special_Rate.pdf)

Trying again later will encourage the same reaction from the local businesses who are forced to fund the rate, so let's hope that sanity prevails and they abandon the scheme.

Meanwhile, what fate for the self-appointed SMBA? They are non-representative and non-transparent spenders of millions of dollars of community rates. What a junket!

Let's hope it over, and we can get on with the business of running and promoting our businesses and the local area in ways that are measurable, relevant and controlled by business owners who pay.

Well done and thanks to all who stood up for their rights to have a say about how they spend their own marketing dollars.

Stay in touch at www.concernedsthmelb.com

FORUM = FARCE, FIREWORKS, FIASCO!

 City of Port Phillip, SMBA and Cr Frank O'Connor had obviously planned a multi-coloured spin session for the  Forum, packed with powerpoints and consultants.

What was actually required was an opportunity for the community to finally be allowed to put their questions and for the SMBA to be answerable for their past activities.

What we got was self-serving spin from the SMBA, self-promotion from expensive consultants, legal basics from council's lawyers, and pro-SMBA bias from Council officers, all delivered with a patronising arrogance that beggars belief. (Especially when the community is actually better informed about the process, the requirements, the legal issues, the flaws, the history, the politics and the status quo than the SMBA.)

As there was no facility for the community to speak (other than a 20min question session relegated to the end of the 3 hour night),  an impatient crowd had soon had enough, and the meeting quickly descended into comments from the floor. Forced to abandon their script, the SMBA and Cr O'Connor set their expensive consultants aside and attempted to field angry questions from the community.
80+ people showed up, and in a show of hands over 80% of these VOTED AGAINST this useless, ineffective, unmeasurable, undemocratic Special Rate Advertising Levy. (This number would have been higher had Cr O'Connor allowed the request for a vote to occur when it was originally called for, and before many attendees had left in disgust after over 3 hours.)

So much for democracy.

Cr O'Connor advised that despite the overwhelming opposition, he would still accept a request to proceed and would consider restarting the Special Rate if asked to do so by just 8 people of the SMBA.

There are many questions that were not asked, because there was no time or facility for the public to ask them. How will Council ever be fully informed of the REAL issues if it insists on making no time for REAL consultation.

There should be another Forum held, this time one that the community can be properly heard at, instead of being forced to call questions from the floor. How about adding us into the top of the Agenda?

That would be REAL democracy.

SMBA/COPP FORUM or FARCE?

Despite letters and emails since February, and formal Questions asked at Council meeting,
the City of Port Phillip has refused to answer questions raised by the community.
Come along to the Forum on Wed 6 June, 6pm South Melbourne Commons cnr Bank/Montague Streets and bring your own questions.........

•What do YOU get for this rate? How does anyone benefit when all the activities happen outside a few businesses in and near Coventry Street - many of which are the businesses owned by the SMBA committee of 6 traders.
•If the SMBA benefits South Melbourne, why is the Market exempt? As the Council owns the Market, isn't this a conflict of interest?
•Why is 'retailers tax' - being levied on non-retail businesses?
•How could business-to-business, professionals, exporters, wholesalers and so on EVER gain any benefit from the SMBA's activities?
•Why is the Special Rate Advertising Levy NOT applied to all local business addresses inside the Council-designated boundary?
•Why are some lucky properties exempt? Is this incompetence? or favouritism?
•Why does the SMBA not have a correct address database?
•Will the president of the SMBA be at the Forum and answerable for the past expenditure of rate payers funds?
•Did the research report clearly recommend against The Block promotion? Did the SMBA president sign the deal anyway? Did the research report cost $10,000?
•Are the committee members resigning? Why does the President want a short 'retirement' from the role at this particular time?
•Who will be answerable at the Forum?
•Why is it that the SMBA can do anonymous polls, token research and blanket mailouts to unaddressed recipients, yet local objectors are forced to produce statutory declarations to prove they have a right to a voice?
•Why are the past financial records not being tabled by the SMBA?
•Who are the suppliers that have been gaining the contracts from the SMBA courtesy of ratepayers funds?
•Why are there 4 different Council-created lists of the rateable addresses? and which is the actual one? Is your property IN or OUT of the rated area? How can you find out?
•Shouldn't Council be asking these questions?
• When the community is desperately asking for help and good governance from it's local representatives, why do they seem so reluctant to be informed about the facts?
•Why are Councillor Frank O'Connor and Mayor Powning so determined not to answer these questions?
•Will the SMBA finally have a Business Plan? Was this commissioned just these last weeks, and how much did the SMBA pay to consultants to create it? 
• If the SMBA wants $1.8 million of our money, shouldn't Council have demanded a Business Plan FIRST not last and only after community pressure?

• Why do these unhelpful Councillors deserve our votes?
There is an election coming up soon. Remember when you vote, that Frank O'Connor wants this levy to happen.

This is where the SMBA has hidden the meeting:

South Melbourne Commons -  located at the Corner of Banks and Montague Streets,
MEL REF 2K A3.....possibly in the cafe or in the hall out the back?
No agenda has been provided, despite numerous requests.
Will it be just a spin session by the SMBA?

Hope to see you all there.

COUNCIL ANNOUNCES FORUM 6 JUNE

After the recent overwhelming community Protest Vote against the SMBA’s special rate and the objections put to Council on 24/4/12, the City of Port Phillip Council has
directed the SMBA to ‘pause’ the process and hold a community ‘Forum’.

Council has advised the FORUM will be held by the SMBA
 on Wed June 6, (time yet to be announced).

At this Forum, the SMBA will be required to explain why they want your $1.8 million
for the Advertising Levy Special Rate, and exactly what they will do with it.
This will be YOUR chance to ask questions directly of the SMBA
and ask how - if at all -  this advertising levy will benefit YOU.

•The SMBA had NO Business Plan when they petitioned Council for this rate in November 2011. It STILL has NO business plan but is required to reveal its plan at this Forum.
• Why are some central South Melbourne addresses (e.g.some York Street) excluded from this rate? Is this incompetence? or favouritism?
•Why are businesses from the Market exempt from this rate?
• Why won’t the SMBA provide their past Financial statements to YOU the members?
(YOU are a member if you are paying this rate.)
• Where has the past rate money been spent, with what businesses, at whose choice and for how much?
• How much has been spent on The Block promotion? Did the SMBA commission a report that actually recommended AGAINST the Block promotion?
• What are the ructions in the committee – are committee members resigning? Is the President ‘retiring’? Why?
•Why have Council and the SMBA refused to provide answers to many questions like these from the community?


There are lots more questions the SMBA should be forced to answer.
Remember, it is the majority who do NOT agree with this rate.

Bring your questions and be ready to come along to the SMBA's Forum
WED JUNE 6th and put your own questions to them.
What do YOU get for your money, and WHO decides that?

Please ask your neighbours if they are plugged into this information loop, and if not, plug them in. They can send their email addresses to: http://www.concernedsthmelb.com/

COUNCIL MEETING PROTEST STALLS SPECIAL RATE

We put our Protest case to Council on Tuesday night's City of Port Phillip Council meeting.

Congratulations to all the Speakers against the SMBA's special rate scheme - well done!

Although the process was again truncated (Questions were moved to Comment time, and then speakers were limited to a ridiculous 3 mins, effectively meaning Questions were NOT allowed in the time, and speakers could NOT put all their points.)

RESULTS:

The Protest point was made and Council has undertaken to do something.

Councillors suggest:

1. A 'Pause' on the striking of the rate ( NOTE: if they decide to eventually go ahead it could well be implemented retrospectively).

2. A 'Forum' so all involved can have a fair say about this rate.

Council advised they would not run this Forum, that SMBA should set it up, and it be independently moderated. (Who is that independent moderator???).

This begs the question AGAIN, who will be invited? because seeing as Council and SMBA DO NOT have a correct database, how will we know everyone has been contacted?

3. Council will then review the results of this forum and decide whether to "modify, reduce, expand or abandon" the scheme.

HOWEVER, the councillor who suggested this - Cr Frank O'Connor, stated adamantly that although he thought this review was now required in the light of our protests, that he was totally IN FAVOUR of the special rate and thought it should go ahead.

The Councillor who seconded this motion - Cr Serge Thomann, stated he also wanted the special rate to happen. So no objectivity there.

4. After the Forum is held, the Council proposed to POSSIBLY re-advertise the rate and start again, meaning we would all have the chance to vote again.

5.This is not certain however. If they try to modify the scheme and we are still not happy, remember we have OVER 300 signed objections.

ALSO Remember this - NOT ONE OF YOUR OBJECTIONS was included in the 'Consideration of Submissions Report to Council, Report 4'.

Not one.

They distorted the evidence, cut short our speaking time, many many points critical were not even put and ALL our questions remain unanswered.

A very diminished democracy indeed.

CITY OF PORT PHILLIP REJECTS LOCAL OBJECTIONS

Unbelievably, the City of Port Phillip council has decided to ignore the growing opposition to its Advertising Levy.

348 objections were received at Council. These are the very people who create the fabric of the village itself - the small business owners.

WHAT TO DO:

Council now requires every single business objector to prove they will be required by their landlord to pay the levy. (What landlord would be willing to pay for its tenant's marketing?)

That means each business will need to produce a written document  - either their lease or a letter from their landlord stating the tenant will be the one required to pay.

Council has added another unfair and undemocratic deadline of 17th April for this information, despite there being an easter holiday closure/break absorbing much of that time.

Important NOTE: Council officers signed an agreement to keep the objectors submissions private, BUT Council has now recklessly published the private information of these objectors directly to the SMBA, despite our written request not do so, and despite its own officers signatures to that request.

MAJORITY VOTES AGAINST COMPULSORY MARKETING LEVY 'SPECIAL RATE' RIP-OFF

Hopefully Council is listening to the massive protest vote of 330+ written submissions 

submitted by its deadline last Tuesday 20th. That's over 51% which is legally enough to stop this rate from proceeding.

This 'special rate' exploits the small business majority that can least afford it, and delivers $1.8m to the SMBA. 

It forces wholesalers, exporters, business-to-business professionals, and those far from the centre of the precinct to fund the retail promotions of the few.

It also mysteriously exempts certain lucky businesses in the heart of South Melbourne, for which no explanation is offered.

The scheme can never deliver fair, equitable, relevant and appropriate representation to each business that's forced to fund it. 

This compulsory district marketing levy is a flawed 1980s idea, and unnecessary in the face of the internet and our own marketing plans.

Participation should be voluntary, it's that simple.

COUNCILS OUT OF TOUCH

In South Australia, the local councils are trying to prevent people from recording or taping them. (http://www.news.com.au/councils-move-to-censor-meetings/story-e6frea83-1226305744168)

Why?
Maybe be it's because  - as a rule - local councillors refuse to answer requests in writing. They are focussed on avoiding any written evidence that could be used in FOI or otherwise hold them to account.
So they refuse to answer queries, and they certainly don't write anything down.

Here in the Victoria its the same. We write to them, they respond with a receipt email, and include no actual information that could constitute an answer.
If we insist on a reply, they phone back, avoiding written evidence of any kind.
Where's the proof of what they said?
No wonder people want to tape them.

How did Councils get so out of touch with their community? Seems they have completely forgotten their role is one of ADVOCACY and REPRESENTATION.

HOW TO FIGHT A "SPECIAL RATE"

Council's are levying special rates for everything from road sealing to bike paths to advertising.

This is ON TOP to normal collected rates.

People may or may not want the works or activities proposed by council, but the 'special' rate means the charge will be COMPULSORY.

Unless you know how to stop it. (SEE BELOW)

The rates are levied in this way usually because council has no funds to do the work, 

or feels it can out-source the cost of certain activities to a group with a 'perceived benefit'.

The benefit is often impossible to measure, and often comes down the the opinion of a council officer. Sometimes, all monies levied are handed over to a private association, like a trader's association, which is then not monitored by council very closely at all, and which also can claim 'commercial in confidence' when ratepayers ask to see the financial records, expenditure or other details of activities.

Example 1:  COMPULSORY PAVING of PARADISE: In a rural shire, even if a sealed road is unwanted by over 85% for residents in a peaceful beach-side back street,  council can force residents to pay $10K+ per household 'special rate' for kerb and channel, sealing and paths.Surely this should come from rates? And if no residents actually want the works, why does council insist of raisng money on top of rates to execute these works?

Example 2: COMPLUSLORY ADVERTISING LEVY: In a city shire, a local advertising campaign that lumps a business in with all kinds of irrelevant local connections can be a detriment for many, even completely irrelevant to many who are wholesalers, exporters, business-to-business operations, but if council says you'll benefit, there can be no argument.

Compulsorily levied, the 'special rate' can be then given to a non-transparent entity like a trader's assocation, committeed and controlled byjust 6 traders with a vested interest of  their own.

Levied $500 minimum per business - and all you get is a listing on a lame 'Council-sanctioned' website - a negative association for many businesses. Participation in street fairs requires a further spend of up to $600 for the stall alone, excluding staff, set-up, etc. This is effectively a hike in rates of $1000+ minimum per year. Unwanted, unmeasured, unnecessary, undemocratic. The bulk of the collected 'rate' goes to the committee who do as they please with it.

These schemes favour the self-interested, greedy few over the vast majority of stakeholders 

who are too confused, busy or ground-down by this sort of scheme/scam to defend themselves. The real benficiaries are the consultants to whom the projects are given, often known to those commissioning the works, and council officers or committee members employed in the scheme. 

How to stop a special rate.

1. You will need 51% of rated entities to object BEFORE the rate is declared by council. Act as soon as you get a 'proposal letter'.

2. Council will strike a short deadline for objections, making it almost impossible for you to succeed.

3. So request an extension to the deadline for objections asap. and keep requesting.

4. Create a flyer explaining the issue and the need for 51% objectors and the date for cut-off.

Explain that objections are useless unless there are 51%. Those who do not object will unwittingly make others pay. Add an objection slip, naming the scheme, notice of objection, facility for name, signature, date and importantly a 'reason why'. This last indiviualises each objection slip and therefore makes it NOT a petition.

5. Get/buy/borrow a realestate data base of all rate-payers/property owners/ businesses whichever is relevant and do a mass maildrop of your flyer and an objection slip.

6. Doorknock and explain, get objection slips signed and collect these. Councils will NOT tell you how many people have objected, citing 'privacy' laws, so you will need to keep your own tally.

7. Study the Local Govt Act, Section 163 (1) of 1989 and make sure the council and their agents have acted FULLY in accordance with the law.

8. Write letters to council objecting and include a request in your letter to be heard at the Council hearing which they will hold on the matter.

9. NOTE: once the scheme is "declared" as a special rate, it is out of Council's hands. They will be powerless to undo the declaration, by law.

They will abandon you and your complaints to VCAT.

By this stage, it's too late for you. Your only recourse is VCAT, which MUST rule on an obscure equation of works/proximity/vallue=benefit, and cannot really evaluate your individual situation. Few succeed here.

10. Tell as many other ratepayers in as many other shires as you can.

Council should be there to advocate for the ratepayers

Council should allow 3 months for objections, use plain English in their letters, and clearly explain the 51% mechanism for objections, which they do not do.

Email your objection to:

Council has advised it will accept emailed objections, so email your objection to:

dknight@portphillip.vic.gov.au,

rpowning@portphillip.vic.gov.au, 

foconnor@portphillip.vic.gov.au, 

jbolitho@portphillip.vic.gov.au, 

jtouzeau@portphillip.vic.gov.au, 

jmiddleton@portphillip.vic.gov.au,

 jklepner@portphillip.vic.gov.au, 

sthomann@portphillip.vic.gov.au

UNFAIR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE

The thing about the way this rate is structured is, by not objecting, some businesses can force other businesses to pay. And if those other businesses are blocks and blocks away from any 'activities', they are paying for nothing.
That's just unfair.

We all need to object, and start again. This scheme should be OPT-IN.
Those who choose to collaborate can do so freely.
It just should not be compulsory.

We don't ask you to pay for our advertising, please don't ask us to pay for yours.

Object before the 20th.
Have your say or we all pay.

Fight Compulsory Advertising Levy

If you want to object to this compulsory advertising levy, you MUST object in writing before the 20th of march.
Council has made it extremely difficult to object, which is highly unfair.
316 business owners and property owners will need to object in writing.
If you don't object, we all pay.

The South Melbourne Business Association only needed to collect a small number of supporters, but objectors are subject to a totally unfair system of rules, deadlines and regulations.

This is the kind of thing that polarises councils and communities.

If there organisations were TRULY interested in helping local business, they would stop treating them with such contempt.

Council and the SMBA have set this up so it is really hard to overturn.
But it is possible.
51% of the businesses must object - that's 316 of us.

Have your say, or we all pay.

Taxing Small Business AGAIN

The new thing in town is the SPECIAL RATE SCHEME - whereby councils can levy ratepayers (and therefore businesses or residents) hefty unexpected fees and charges for just about anything - bike paths, roads, drainage, marketing, district promotion - you name it.
Out of the blue, council can simply levy rate payers, whether the ratepayers directly benefit from or want the works or not.

Firstly, council's works programs should come from rates, we all pay rates and seem to get precious little for them.

Secondly, it is undemocratic to force these fees on ratepayers and small businesses for works they do not want and perceive no benefit from.

Thirdly, if councils have enough of ratepayer's funds to rebuild their own lavish headquarters, how can they possible justify upping our rates by stealth like this?

Finally, these Special Rates Schemes are more and more prevalent. Raising money like this could prove as addicitive as pokies funds for councils. Having experienced TWO such rates schemes levied on us in the past TWO months, we believe they will kill off the businesses they should be serving.

There are ways to fight it, but it is difficult and time consuming.
Learn more here:
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/guide-to-local-government/planning-and-finance/special-rates-and-charges