Welcome to Ratepayers Victoria Incorporated. Our blog highlights the latest news and issues affecting ratepayers. Visit our Facebook
Welcome to Ratepayers Victoria Incorporated. Our blog highlights the latest news and issues affecting ratepayers. Visit our Facebook
A Parliamentary Committee was setup in 2015 to monitor, every six months, the outcomes of the State Government policy of local government rate capping on councils’ viability, service impacts on local communities and impacts on the provision of local infrastructure. Justification for this inquiry is mainly based on the concerns of (Parliament of Victoria, 2015)
These risks arise primarily because it is perceived that:
To date, there are 2 inquiry reports published so far.
The third review is underway, and Ratepayers’ submission is as follows:
Most ratepayers view the Fair Go rate policy is working successfully. However there are the few those, such as councils and their peak bodies, who perceive the policy is not working, because they lack the resolve to want and make the state policy work.
For decades, local government has been operating in its own vacuum, as the decentralised units of the Victorian State Government’s Local Government (LG) portfolio. The LG portfolio works under the discretionary operations of 79 councils, each with different appetites for budget and operating models for localising state services and managing local liveability.
A major overhaul of the LG Act took place in 1989, implying the Act is more than twenty years old. Since then, over 100 band aid amendments were added. We also observed many discretionary variations when councils interpret and practise compliance to the legislated rules, including handling non compliance.
Unsurprisingly, many councils and their peak bodies are still in the mind-sets of the eighties, their legacy to current practice norms cultivating:
These practice discretions explain why the current and legacy business models and work cultures of many councils are out of date and out of touch with today’s generations of ratepayers.
Today’s generation of ratepayers and their advocacy groups:
When councils and ratepayers disconnect, the “best” outcomes for local communities is easily dictated by those who hold decision making power and the capacity to ensure legislated objectives can be easily construed by discretionary and subjective decision arguments, politicised agendas and autocratic leadership styles.
The first and second inquiry reports focused to summarise the face value findings of submissions from stakeholders who primarily resist the rates capping policy, because it threatens the autonomy of status quo and/or because of politicised reasons. Conclusions are made on the basis of submissions’ summary highlights. The reports lacked deep analysis of the findings to investigate the motivation and causal drivers underpinning the strong consensus resistance against the rate capping policy. Neither do the reports address the prevailing systematic issues that require short to long term reform interventions, such the rate capping policy to contain current and sustain future rates affordability & equity for local communities. This example has trade-offs that councils and their peak bodies dislike, because the tradeoffs disrupt status quo domination of power in LG.
If there is optimisation of economies of scale and scope, there is no need for rate capping. A system that is guided by a rule-book (the LG act) that is more than twenty years old and especially when its compliance policing is discretionary, loose and subjective, resulting systematic inefficacy is a natural given, further worsen when there are 79 decentralised and autonomous councils doing what and how they like. Therefore, it is not difficult to see why systematic cost-shifting blames occurs, when operational duplications and decentralised autonomy are the real structural barriers to economies of scale and scope and they increase system management complexity.
Claimed uncertainties in budget planning is not due to rate capping, but competency gaps in zero based and scenario budget planning, risks management and total lifecycle cost of ownership in assets management, financial management alignment to councils’ strategy cycles and the lacking clear definition and hence integration of service management structures in councils’ charts of accounts.
When councils complain they have hundreds of services, their complaints reveal there is no understanding of service management and lacking capabilities, which affect the integration of service and financial management structures in charts of accounts that are crucial for effective management reporting.
Reforming systematic change is inevitable to improve the situation. The previous Liberal State Government started the journey of reforms, by introducing the development of LG Performance Reporting KPI framework (LGPRF) and making short term legislation changes to fix growing conduct issues. The present Labour Government is intensifying this change journey and the resistance to change is very real and strong, coming from councils and their peak bodies. Both previous and current State Governments have their heads and hearts in the right place, to reform the LG system in the interest of current and future communities.
Councils’ peak bodies rely on councils to bring in their revenues through membership fees that are calculated based on the financial capacities of councils. MAV also earns big money from councils outsourcing their procurements. The worldview is escalating rates are good, because they pay every provider stakeholders very well and always increase.
The LG Index was designed to justify ongoing uncapped rate increases, only supported by evidence of uncontested common practices, and ignoring good practice design and program logic evaluation principles.
This year, MAV also initiated an advocacy rates capping program for its members to contest the policy.
Self interests and preservation are the key providers’ motivators for resisting change, especially rate capping that hurt their real hip pockets badly.
If rates are not capped and councils are not made more accountable for increasing operating efficacy, ongoing and escalating rate rises will make owning properties unaffordable for most and exclusive to the rich, often overseas investors.
A fairer rate system that ensures rate affordability is not unreasonable but a social responsibility necessity.
Councils and their peak bodies are failing to meet their statutory obligations to ignore this growing ratepayers’ dilemma by insisting rate capping is detrimental to their operations and autonomy in local municipal service provisioning. We witnessed in a MAV meeting this year, one socially responsible Council, ie the Colac Otway Shire , asked other council attendees have they checked with their local communities if they want rate capping and many chose to ignore the question asked and supported the MAV lead rate capping program.
Most ratepayers, especially if they don’t work in the LG sector, will want rate capping to continue, even more having higher future rate caps until they can see KPI evidence that their councils have optimised their operating and service provisioning efficacy. Today service management and accounting is a dog’s breakfast and while LGV is working on improving KPI reporting and performance transparency, councils continue to winch about good governance and compliance obligations as bureaucratic waste of time tasks.
The first year of rate capping only applies to the general rate and municipal charges components of council budgets. Other expenditure areas of councils are not affected. We have received cost shifting reports from our members that some councils are reducing general rate and municipal charges to other expenditure areas, to be less constrained by rate capping. We also observed the sector wide trend in increasing fees and other charges, and differentiate rates, to compensate the financial impacts of rate capping.
Councils are now cost-shifting to their communities and yet they complain about costing shifting from the State Government. Cost shifting may be a contributor of insufficient funding of councils’ expenditures, but operational inefficacies and lacking systematic economies of scale and scope are the larger and higher impact causes.
Such practices are not kosher, especially when statutory financial indicators reveal many and often metro councils have large reserves of unrestricted case, over geared working capitals and long standing underperforming asset renewal ratios ( that have been prevailing for many years when rates were not capped). The patterns of news media reveal that there is implicit collaboration to use the media to discredit rates capping. The common media manipulation is publicly complaining that rate capping is hurting communities because councils have to cut services (selectively), such as school crossings. The tactic is when one lies enough and the lies become reality, often used by social engineering rogues.
The rate capping policy provides councils the choice of increasing rates above capped levels through a rate variation process. The process requires them to consider a strong business case, show good explicit decision making traceability and demonstrate genuine community engagement. This process integrates good governance principles - especially concerning transparency, accountability, community responsiveness and inclusiveness, efficiency and effectiveness. Accusing the rate variation process is bureaucratic and consumes unplanned and large resources and money, only reflects the real good governance competency of winching parties, also their capability-level to write business cases, or some other sinister reasons.
One would squirmed even to think the future fury reactions of councils and their peak bodies when future rate caps can be further increased and efficiency factors integrated in the rate capping formula. Does LG serves in the interests of councils and the peak bodies first before local communities – the new black in LG?
What this inquiry’s submissions and reports have not revealed are the legacy leadership cultures and systematic issues in councils and their peak bodies that are blocking the rates capping policy and compromising its implementation success. Concluding the inquiry findings, based on summarising the common themes of submissions (which are mainly from stakeholders who oppose rate capping) at face value, lacks substantiation of deeper analysis to identify the real causal barriers to rate capping and consequently system efficacy improvements.
If councils are tactically persistent to discredit and remove rates capping, they may as well include the LGPRF improvement program and cancel the modernisation of the LG Act. They can also consider restructuring the State Government, to remove the LG portfolio. These cancellations and state government restructuring would allow councils and peak bodies to:
Then the rule of law principle of good governance, which relates to complying to the LG Act, can be bent, not breached, to fulfil the wishes of the exclusive few before interest of local communities first?
Cutting to the chase, the policy is working now. If councils and their peak bodies redirect their energies and resources to ensure the success of the policy, there will be greater systematic improvements and many longer term benefits arising from rate capping.
When the rate capping policy was developed and adopted, all official communique and documentation were very clear upfront in stating that rates capping only apply to general rate and municipal charges. Other council service charges, fees, fines and differentiated rates, together with prevailing state levies (e.g. the fire levy) are excluded.
The Minister also specifically said that in some cases, ratepayers will find their rates bills would increase more than 2.5% (the capped level) because of the changes in their properties’ capital improvement value and other increases in municipal charge-outs that are not subjected to the rates cap. Most councils advocated for and changed to CIV rating system a few years back.
The Fair Go Rates policy is a real present and future threat to some councils, as it has taken away councils’ free reign of rates increases and require them to be more transparent and accountable in supporting and sustaining a fairer rating system that would deliver more visible value for money services and maintain rates affordability in the longer term. Because of this threat, most councils have come together with their peak bodies, even during the development of the rates capping policy, to defend their tuff. Their lobbying campaign is still continuing and growing strong despite the policy is now legislated and operating.
What MAV didn’t make it clear in its 30 June media release that rates capping can work if councils are committed to make it work. Influencing the public to think and eventually lead to believe that the rates capping policy does not work isn’t quite kosher.
The last two years of media stories clearly showed the lobbying resolve to campaign against and discrediting the Fair Go Rates policy. These stories, together with local ratepayer-advocates’ reports, revealed the use of:
Many people do not understand how their council rates, rates capping levels and fire levy are structured and calculated. It is easy to leverage this low community literacy and convince people that the State Government has mislead them, because their total rates payable for the next financial year is above the capped level of 2.5%. Now (just before the election) is also most strategically timely to leverage political pressure in any public communication broadcast.
Ratepayers are disappointed that some of their councils and their peak bodies are not willing to make rates capping policy work, eroding the opportunity of achieving longer term community and organizational improvement benefits for every stakeholder in Local Government.
Let’s cut to the chase, ratepayers would like councils and their peak bodies stop winching and continue resisting the rates capping policy. They should spend more time and effort in making the Fair Go Rates policy work, to increase efficacy in council operations and bring more visible best value outcomes in municipal service provisioning. Change is incremental and to expect full delivery of long term benefits in the first year of the Fair Go Rates policy is most misleading and laden with manipulative intents?
The ESC just released their decisions of the rates variation applications submitted by a number of councils. They are:
9 out of 79 councils (11%) applied and 67% of applicants received approvals. This shows at least 89% of councils have the capacity to lower rates - if we include the 3 unsuccessful rate variation applications, the real figure is 73 councils or 92% can afford lower rates for their communities.
The full report of the rational decisions and underpinning reasons are found in Overview-of-Local-Government-higher-cap-decis…pdf (159kb) and there is the Q&A resource Approving higher caps – Questions and Answers.
We anticipate several councils and highly possibility peak bodies will be spilling “blood” in the street, with ESC the main target. If and when this behaviour reaction realises, then a lot will be revealed about and confirm the good governance culture of our councils and their peak bodies.
The decision report is rational, of high professional quality and based on very clear decision criteria that were well communicated upfront before the rates variation process commenced. Applicants also had many opportunities to consult with the ESC, to ensure their applications meet the criteria.
It is AMAZING that the Casey Council submits an unusual business case for raising rates of 0.97% above the capped level of 2.5%, to cover a shortfall of $1.605mio in a $9mio new investment.
The Herald Sub’s news story (29 May 2016) below confirms that the council is poised to spit the dummy if and when the ESC rejects their rates variation application.
It is no rocket science to clearly see through Casey council’s behaviour, which is part of an ongoing collective groupthink campaign by many councils and their peak bodies to discredit the rates capping policy and to attempt social engineering a strong a public opinion that the rates capping policy does not work. This campaigning of course works beautifully for the opposition party’s politicising, conveniently using councils’ foul cries to claim the rates capping regime is a shambles. It is all but a poor attempt to enact a Monty Python show.
Street warfare is not only between the anti-Islam and anti-racism protesters. VLGA leaked letter is also revealing that councils and their peak bodies are using street warfare tactics in their social engineering and media propaganda to publicly fight their opponents, especially targeting at ESC, accusing them they lack understanding of how local government works. The key difference is the anti Islam and racialism folks use physical violence and councils and the peak bodies use psychological warfare. Both cases are unacceptable, especially more so for council and peak body insurgents.
The naked truth is that how local government currently works now is NOT acceptable and councils and their peak bodies are working hard to defend their legacy empires when eminent and positive changes are rolling out to clean up the system to be more efficacious and community centered. They do NOT like the change, full stop. Anyone involved in implementing the change is an enemy.
What they apply for? They want to increase rates to 3.47%, not 2.5%, to raise $1.605mio to build $9 mio worth of new infrastructure amenities.
While they ask for $1.605mio extra, they are also making profit equivalents for the next few years . Presently, they are making profits / surpluses which are significantly above their peers and all councils average.
The dubious budget games: While enjoying excessively high liquidity, Casey is also maintaining excessively:
Its financial performance indicators also revealed the Council has ample capacity to:
In 2015, Casey happily spend thousands of dollars on paying ratepayer attendees $120 each to attend a community engagement forum for gauging support for rates increase higher than 2.5% (Berwick Leader, 2015). Obviously, bribe is so blatantly open and public in council practice as well.
It is a no brainer why ESC or any financially literate person would not question Casey’s application for increasing rates above 2.5%, which only asks for a mere $1.605mio. In previous years, it has grabbed more than is needed from its ratepayers excessive rates to build up its over geared liquidity position and any forward explicit and implicit spending for a good number of future years.
Furthermore, the large unrestricted cash and over-geared prudential reserves (eg working capital) would already inflated total revenue, which added significant “fats” in general rates calculation to grab even more from its rate payers. As Casey’s budget methodology is incremental, this deliberate “fat” will be permanently sealed and infused into future budget plans – a new concept of inter-generation budget obesity trend in LG.
One wonders whether the real intention of the rates variation application is to smear the rates capping policy and discredit any party that is committed to make it work.
We need to remind ourselves that LG is not in Wall Street, where the culture is “greed is good”. It is a subordinate entity to the state portfolio of LG under the management of the Minister of LG, as confirmed in the Victorian Constitution, not MAV and/or VLGA.
Greed has no place in property taxation and municipal service charging. Time to downsize councils and get them operating community centered and like the real world, where lean and best value should be the new black in the land of local government.
Whether it is an oversight or politically incited process, the current legislative inquiry into the rates capping policy has allowed more opportunities for councils and their peak bodies to engage in political leverage to:
Ratepayers Vic, via one of our members, presented insights of why do we have rates capping. The key contributing reason comes from councils’ common budgeting approach, which discourages collaborative community engagement and participation in budget planning. It is no wonder why ratepayers have no confidence that their councils are making the right financial decisions every year. This is how the budget planning process typically work in your council:
This process is the primary reason we have rates capping today. Moving to a participatory and zero based budgeting process will improve community confidence in council’s financial planning, while removing the need for rates capping.
It is better late than never. Finally, we have the Minister’s responses to last year’s conference’s attendees’ questions to the Minister. There had been a chance of senior staff in the Minister’s office, which partially contributed to the delay.
Click here to access the Q&A information.
The Herald Sun’s editor’s opinion column (15 Feb 2016) reported:
ANDREW JEFFERSON reporting in the Herald Sun (15 Feb 2016):
” COUNCILS are threatening to stop funding vital services provided by the State Emergency Service, childcare centres and school-crossing supervisors if their rates are capped.
But at the same time, they continue to splurge millions of dollars on curious projects.
Most of Melbourne’s 31 councils, and many regional councils, say State Government caps to limit rate hikes to inflation are unsustainable, and they are contemplating scrapping funding for what they consider “state” services.
But ratepayers, calling the threats unethical, are demanding councils control spending.
Rate rises will be capped at 2.5 per cent from July 1.
The Herald Sun has found:
KINGSTON, which is considering ditching SES funding, spent $340,000 on a Kingston Green Wedge Plan in 2014;
MORELAND is spending $73 million a year in wages for its 1000-strong workforce and last year splurged $2500 on a documentary on its $500,000 campaign with Yarra Council to halt the East West Link;
CENTRAL Goldfields, which is scrapping funding for SES units in Dunolly and Maryborough to save $26,000, spent $70,000 in 2012 to cover legal costs of a councillor found guilty of a conflict of interest;
HUME, which spent $50,000 on art made of blackboards in 2014, is reviewing services; and
NORTHERN Grampians, which sent ex-mayor Wayne Rice to China three years ago as part of a government trade mission, closed a childcare centre in Stawell in December.
The SES said Wellington, Central Goldfields, Mitchell, Campaspe, Buloke, Loddon, Darebin and Kingston had all flagged a review of support.
Other “state” services that councils are considering for cuts are home and community care, aged care, disability services, libraries, and maternal and child health services.
Moreland councillor Oscar Yildiz said the council would struggle to sustain all of its current 100-plus services. But he conceded council probably wasn’t as efficient as possible.
“I don’t want to see people lose their jobs, but I reckon I could save each council in Victoria about $20-30 million in efficiency savings,” he said.
Hume Mayor Helen Patsikatheodorou said council was reviewing all of its services.
“Over the years, we have been contributing more and more and receiving less and less from the state,” she said.
Boroondara, whose chief executive Phillip Storer earns up to $390,000, estimates the cost of school-crossing supervisors, maternal and child services, libraries and home and community care services in 2014/15 was $11.3 million.
Greater Dandenong Council chief executive John Bennie has said the “impact of successive years of rate capping will require us to reduce service levels in future years”.
But Ratepayers Victoria’s Chan Cheah said councils were playing a “blame game”.
“Using the safety of schoolchildren as budget negotiation tactics is not exactly ethical, and reveals a lot more about … governance quality in local government,” Ms Cheah said.
Northern Grampians Mayor Murray Emerson said councils got 3c in the tax dollar compared to states’ 16c and the Commonwealth’s 81c.
“For local government to be sustainable, this needs to change immediately. Each service this council provides has been subject to a stringent review, and services which are not the mandatory responsibility of council will (be) subject to a subsidy decrease,” he said.
Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins said councils had the capacity to tighten their belts and she would be surprised if any stopped funding popular local services.
The threat: Considering ditching funding, including for SES
What they’ve spent: $340,000 on a Kingston Green Wedge Plan in 2014.
Threat:Reviewing all services
Spent:$73 million a year in staff wages in 2015 and splurged $2500 on a documentary glorifying its $500,000 campaign with Yarra Council to halt the East West Link.
Threat:Reviewing all services
Spent:$50,000 in 2014 on a piece of art made from old blackboards.
The cut:Closed a child care centre in Stawell in December
Spent: Sent former mayor Wayne Rice to China three years ago as part of a government trade mission.
Threat:Estimates the cost of providing school crossing supervisors, maternal and child services, libraries, and home and community care services on behalf of the state in 2014/15 was $11.3 million.
Spent:Chief executive officer Phillip Storer is one of the highest earning in the state with salary up to $390,000 a year.
Threat:SES says the council is considering ditching funding, council says it’s analysing the impact of rate capping.
Spent: $100,000 taxpayer-funded grant aimed at countering violent extremism among Muslims to help deal with traffic issues during the religious festival of Ramadan.
Threat:Warns successive years of rate capping will require it to reduce service levels in future.
Spent:$486,332 on parking ticket machines across Dandenong in 2014, which were later vandalised.
Threat:Says rate capping may influence decision making in the future.
Spent: Staff gorged their way through almost $30,000 worth of cakes and slices between 2012 and 2014.
Threat:Says long term rate capping could force it to prioritise services.
Spent:Ratepayers forked out $8000 last year for councillor Fiona McAllister’s childcare fees, including bills for a private carer.
The cut:Scrapped funding for two SES units in Dunolly and Maryborough from July to save $26,000
Spent: $70,000 in 2012 to cover the legal costs of a councillor found guilty of conflict of interest.
SES staff fear for the future
STATE Emergency Services staff say they fear for the future of the vital service if councils ditch funding.
It comes as a fight is brewing over the future of crossing supervisors.
Wellington, Central Goldfields, Mitchell, Campaspe, Buloke, Loddon, Darebin and Kingston have all flagged a review of SES support.
SES Maryborough controller Jesse Wright said he was “pretty concerned” about the branch’s future.
“Our volunteers train for 48 weeks of the year but are we now going to ask them to spend that time shaking donation tins, as well?” he asked.
Central Goldfields, which has ditched SES funding, is also in “serious discussions” with local schools and VicRoads about whether it could continue to fund school crossing supervisors.
“I’m extremely sympathetic to the SES but we don’t subsidise the CFA or Ambulance Victoria, so why should we pay for the SES?” Mayor Geoff Lovett said.
Several rural councils are considering following Northern Grampians Shire, which pulled the plug on school crossing supervisors to save $45,000 a year. “
Journalist Andrew Jefferson’s story is a hilarious ripper (Herald Sun, 15 Feb 2016):
“A person dressed up as a banana forced a council meeting to be abandoned.
Last night’s (Monday) Mitchell Shire Council meeting was interrupted by a large banana entering the council chamber towards the end of the meeting.
The banana handed out bananas to members of the gallery and councillors.
Mayor Sue Marstaeller was not amused and after a struggle closed the meeting.
An onlooker, who wished to remain anonymous, said it was the strangest thing he had ever seen at a council meeting.
“It was quite comical when a person in a banana suit started handing out bananas but the mayor failed to see the funny side,” he said.
The banana entered the chamber just as the council’s councillor expenses policy was about to be discussed.
Cr Marstaeller was involved in controversy in January when she took the mayoral car to Coffs Harbour, which features the big banana as an icon, over Christmas.
Cr Marstaeller said she was not impressed by the sudden nterruption.
“It was pretty disrespectful,” she said.
“I asked this person to stop but they continued to hand out bananas to people so I was left with no choice but to adjourn the meeting.”
Last night’s meeting has been rescheduled until next Monday.
The banana escaped out of council chambers into a waiting car.”
Hello, happy new year and trust everyone had a great festive holiday.
It was a great finish to 2015 – the year of great milestones, when Ratepayers Victoria (RV) was able to accomplish several great achievements for Victorian ratepayers and residents.
We successfully engaged with the Local Government Minister (Natalie Hutchins) and Shadow Minister (David Davis) , Local Government Victoria (LGV) and Essential Services Commission (ESC) to advocate for rates capping, which is now in the LG Act, effective for next financial year’s council budgeting. RV was invited to be on the Fair Go Rates committee, a new precedent where ratepayer representation is made official in a state’s LG program committee.
We also hosted a successful seminar in November 2015, which was over booked, and well commended by attendees, including the Minister and guest speakers. For the very first time, we had able to have a LG Minister engaged in conversion with a state-wide group of ratepayers about local issues and the opportunities for reform. The Minister confirmed what we already have experienced, that current LG system is broken, hence enabling many councils and MAV to breach compliance and good governance with little penalty consequences. That would change with the Minister’s new program for improving the LG Act and other associated laws. RV also worked with a few groups, to submit a response to the LG Act review, which is now published as item 191 in http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission. Many ratepayer attendees has asked the Minister questions. These questions have been passed to the Minister’s staff in December and indicative responsive time is between late January and before February. For those who provided an address, the answers would be posted. Regardless, when RV receive the Q&A, we will publish them online on our website and send our network members email notifications.
LGV has released the https://knowyourcouncil.vic.gov.au/ website – a great resource for ratepayers and investors to know about the profiles and performance of all 79 Victorian councils. This website uses performance indicators linked to an important performance management standard, called the Local Government Performance Reporting (LGPRF). LGV plans to further improve this standard, to increase more transparency and accountability through reporting councils’ performance in different and high impact areas. RV is once again invited to sit in the LGPRF committee, to help improve the performance indicators and reporting. For more information about the LGPRF program – click here.
Several projects in the planning pipeline are now ear-marked for project development. The first two projects commencing in Q1, 2016 are:
Monitoring and reporting the quality of community engagement councils delivered as part of their application process for requesting capped rate variations. We will be releasing a survey and social media conversations about how local communities evaluate their council’s community engagement in compliance to the ESC guidelines, especially the community engagement reference guide. You and other locals play an important role in reporting how well your council has engaged with your community in explaining why they need to increase next years’ rates above the capped levels, what alternative trade-offs they have considered and the quality of public information they openly shared with you. RV will email you once we set up this new Fair Go Rate Monitoring and Reporting (FGRMR) system. You can preview a prototype in progress and give us feedback via firstname.lastname@example.org – click here to access the test system.
RV is now operating as a 21st century networked organisation of connected ratepayers and residents advocating for better good governance and service performance in all Victorian councils. To do that advocacy role effectively and sustainably, we aim to increase local presence and impact in every municipal city. We are now asking people in our networks if they would like to become RV ambassadors in their own cities. You have to be a group, either already incorporated or we can setup your group as a chapter in RV incorporated. Knox Ratepayers Association (KRA) and Monash Ratepayers Incorporated (MRI) has formally merged to form a regional Eastern Ratepayers (ER) Incorporated entity and continue to operate KRA and MRI operations independently as two separate chapters. The immediate benefits are that they reduce governance and administration, can share knowledge, resources and specialisations and leverage a wider, stronger and higher impact advocacy base to address common and local issues. ER is also working with Casey Ratepayers and Residents Association as an affiliate. Let us know if you would like to be a local RV ambassador in your area – email us at email@example.com .
During the year, we will update you with these projects’ progress and several other new ones currently in the planning pipeline. Have a successful 2016 year with your advocacy work and making LG a better collaborative system for all community, council and state government agency stakeholders.
President Ratepayers Victoria.