The city council on Monday night will vote on a recommendation to scrap the proposal which has divided community opinion for most of the year.

Of the 1330 letters sent out in September with proposed bills varying between $100 and $300, there were 688 objection responses representing 51.7 per cent of the total.

However, 7 per cent of these were technically invalid or too late.

Although the official figure is shy of the 51 per cent of objections required under the Local Government Act for such a proposed scheme to be rejected, senior officers have advised the council not to proceed with the proposal.

There were also 36 written submissions objecting to the scheme and only five in support.

“While the level of valid objections did not represent a majority it has been a very strong response,” the officers’ report says

“When late and invalid objections are considered, the overall response is 49.2 per cent and given the overall level of objection it is recommended that council not proceed with the proposal.”

The result leaves the council without a clear mandate to enact the levy on behalf of business representative group Commerce Warrnambool, which wanted to generate a funding pool for a five-year city-wide promotion campaign.

Commerce Warrnambool had last year engaged a consultant to formulate a strategy aimed at lifting the city’s statewide and national profile, in the hope of boosting the customer base and balance sheets for business operators.

Its first levy proposal of bills varying between $300 and $6000 to generate $600,000 annually was whittled back mid-year after a backlash.

Now it seems to have been all for nought and a win for opponents rallied by the grassroots Warrnambool Traders’ Action Group (WTAG).

Several objectors were medical practitioners, others were from the industrial estate, while some were non-residents. 

Twenty-two submissions contained the same dot-point list of objections.

Objectors claimed the levy would subsidise underperforming businesses, that operators in the industrial areas would see no return on their payment and that there was already city council money towards Great Ocean Road promotion and business support.

The five who supported the proposed levy said it was a fair way of sharing the cost of promotion.