Welcome to Ratepayers Victoria Incorporated, advocating for Collaboration, Accountability & Transparency. Our 2022 vision is a future where Victorian ratepayers are highly connected, value adding and engaging to increase their councils’ and state agencies’ propensity to achieve higher council rates affordability and local liveability. Our blog highlights the latest news and issues affecting ratepayers. Visit our Facebook.
Ratepayers Victoria Inc
To all Ratepayers and Residents
Ratepayers Victoria is concerned at the increasing violence across our suburbs
Ratepayers Victoria seek the support of Ratepayers and residents to lobby Governments to address our out of control street violence.
A letter of support on your letter head expressing your concerns would be appreciated.
The recent assault of a female police officer who was kicked in the head and the courts action with a slap on the wrist was an insult to our Police Force in Victoria.
Note the thug was on probation at the time of the assault.
His history was as a 17 year old at the time of the assault of serious criminal offences, including aggravated and attempted aggravated burglaries and car theft.
The police Association stated that it added insult to injury when the thug was bailed after just 4 days in custody.
This is an example of what disrespect is like for our police
It is time for action, the courts are a disgrace and are not providing justified punishment to suit the crime.
Jack Davis President RPV
Just received a Xmas assault
Christmas eve at approx 7.15pm a 45 year old male going for his daily walk was a assaulted by a 16 year old youth on drugs.
It was witnessed by approx 10 young adults and to their credit, gave assistance to the adult victim who had been belted around the head and upper body and had his mobile and wallet stolen.
One young person contacted the local police, ambulance and the victim’s father.
Police and Ambulance attended. Five (5) Police vehicles and two (2) Ambulances.
Luckily one of witness got the car’s registration number of the car, that the offender got into, and gave it to police.
The victim was taken to hospital and was released approx 3.00am Christmas Day.
The police new the vehicle and went and visited the owner of the vehicle, who gave the Police the name of the culprit.
The culprit has been charged with theft and destruction of an expensive mobile phone, and the theft of money from the wallet.
The youth faces the children’s court.
The police say he will get a slap on the hand because of his age; he also has other charges to follow.
The victim spends 6 hours in hospital in a lot of pain.
He is out of pocket with Loss of his phone and the money stolen from his wallet. Plus he now feels uneasy going for his daily walk.
The family thanks all the people who helped the victim.
It won’t be long before, rate payers and residents will take their own action as the magistrates and government are toothless.
Who can blame them?
Monash Council spent $1.2 million and have nothing to show for it.
I recently viewed the council meeting of Tuesday 12th December 2017 on internet and was totally disappointed in the blatant abuse of Ratepayers Funds in regards to the Central Carpark at 281 Springvale Road Glen Waverley.
We considered the facts presented at that council meeting by Cr Saloumi to be of a major concern to the Ratepayers of Monash.
It was noted that approximately $1.2 million has been spent on this project to consultant when only 1% are in favor and some 99% are against the development of the central open space site. At this time no work on the site has occurred
One could argue till dooms day about the for and against of this council proposal.
Facts are it has raised the communities concerns that it is not accepted by the majority of Ratepayers.
It is our committee decision that the proposed project should be abandoned and no further waste of Ratepayers funds on the central carpark proposal should occur
President Ratepayers Victoria Inc.
To all ratepayers groups and Victorian Ratepayers
The state government is planning to take over all town planning applications
Ratepayers will have no right to appeal in fact you will not even be notified of any planning applications
The first you will be aware of any development is when the builder starts building on a vacant block
For more info contact Ratepayers Victoria Inc
PLANNING CROSSROADS – “SMART PLANNING” (?) BY STEALTH
The Andrew’s government is planning by stealth massive changes to Victoria Planning Provisions that will significantly expand the number of planning applications exempt from permits including medium and high density developments in our residential suburbs.
Previously VicSmart was introduced for minor developments but the government is proposing to expand VicSmart to massively increase the number of planning applications that will be exempt from permits including medium and high density developments in our residential suburbs. Residents rights of notification and objection will be eliminated thus locking out residents and councils from having any say in new developments in their local neighbourhood.
Planning Minister Wynne has appointed a consulting firm to develop a new planning scheme. Property and professional groups are represented on technical reference and advisory groups but there will be NO resident representation.
The first indication you will get is when a block of flats is commenced next door and you and your council will not be able to do anything about it. You will be locked out completely.
Undoubtedly, political donations from the investment and development industry have had a major influence on this government plan. Of course, $8 million received annually in land related tax revenue
has some influence as does politicians’ personal investment in property and development. BUT as usual we residents are being totally ignored with no opportunity to have a say.
Well, what can you do about it? There is an election in 1918 and suggest you make the politicians understand the consequences of their actions.
How about sending Planning Minister, Richard Wynne, a copy of our Residents Bill of Rights (RBR) demanding that he takes note of our demands or otherwise……..? firstname.lastname@example.org
Take action or we are in trouble. Many of you have put in submissions and of course that is now closed, but don’t let it stop you from taking more action. Contact Wynne or your own MP and tell them what you want.
President Ratepayers Victoria Inc.
Ratepayers Victoria Inc Mayor election
I encourage all ratepayers to view the link of the Meeting of Monash council on 15th November 2017 to elect the Mayor
In my opinion it was a farce, Cr klisaris live in Malvern and has never resided in Monash.
The election was labor dominated any opposition to Cr Klisaris nomination was silenced and declared out of order.
The monash leader will not report on the inappropriate behavour of councilors ??
You be the judge watch the election of the Mayor on the 15 November 2017
President Ratepayers Victoria Inc.
Ratepayers Victoria are calling a expression of interest meeting to see if RPV can set up a ratepayer group in Geelong
Ratepayer Groups are set up to assist our ratepayers when a problem occurs between a ratepayer and their council
If there is no ratepayer group at your council ,the ratepayer is on their own for assistance
If there is a ratepayer group at that council then your ratepayer group can assist and advice the ratepayers
When 21st November 2017
Where 7-13 Beauford Ave , Bell Hill Post
Any inquires contact Frank Sullivan 0438555805
Has great pleasure to announce that RPV are intending to form a ratepayer group in Bendigo
RPV have called a public meeting in Bendigo to gauge public interest
Ratepayer Groups are formed to assist our ratepayers
When 7th December 2017
Place Quarry Hill Community Hall
Hamlet Street Quarry Hill .Bendigo
Any further information please call 0438555805
Well, Well, Well. Nice to hear the facts from someone who knows the calcs. Who knows better than him ?? Definitely a good informative read. As we all know one doesn’t need a smart brain to be a Politician in Government or Opposition. This I have to pass on to as many Australians I know, hoping they will pass it on to inform us the Australian voters, most of us who don’t know, while the Politicians would have us worry about minor issues, like same sex marriage and other minor issues. Well worth reading.
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.
This is an excellent piece for anybody who needs to be educated about Australia’s Coal driven power houses.
Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.
Written By Terence Cardwell mailto:email@example.com%20%3cmailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> The Editor The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example.
The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.
Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydroelectric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective; If you had a room 12 ft. x 12 ft. x 7 ft. or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
2017 Ombudsman report on council complaints
note page 40/ 3740 compaints copy link go to google and add link
George Reynolds, 19 Agnes Street, Beaumaris, 3193 P. 0430900822. E. email@example.com
Formal complaint to Auditor General. Annual accounts of Bayside City council.
The Auditor-General, State of Victoria.
35 Collins Street
Dear Mr Greaves,
I wish to revisit our earlier correspondence on the topic of the truth, honesty and fairness of the Annual Accounts of the City of Bayside. In this new complaint, the accounts in question are those prepared, published and certified by Bayside City Council for the year ending June 30th 2017. My understanding, from correspondence with the Governance Manager of the City of Bayside, is that you have certified these accounts without qualification.
I recognise that you have “taken the Fifth Amendment”, in your letter to me of 10th April 2017.Your letter states “I do not intend to address your (my) issues of contention again..”. This does not resolve the “truth, honesty and fairness” matter. Indeed, your “opinion, (that) the financial report presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bayside City Council …”, is questionable. IT IS MY FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BAYSIDE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30TH JUNE 2017, DO NOT PRESENT FAIRLY, THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF COUNCIL, AS OF THAT DATE.
My evidence for this contention is as follows:
1. There is a fundamental flaw in the Local Government Model Financial Report (LGMFR) at paragraph G25. This paragraph states that “monetary and non-monetary contributions are recognised (as income) when council gains control over the contribution”. It quotes AASB 1004
12-15 as its supporting referenced Accounting Standard. However, the Standard has three qualifications for recognition as income. These are:
– the entity obtains control of the contribution, and
– the economic benefits … will flow to the entity, and
– the amount of the contribution can be measured reliably.
ALL THREE QUALIFICATIONS MUST BE MET SIMULTANEOUSLY. (Note that AASB 1004.13 also states “Contributions that are Income exclude contributions by owners”.)
2. Bayside City Council, in common with many others, exploits the defect at G24. Council claims contributions as income when they meet the single control requirement. Despite failing to meet both the “economic benefit” and the “reliable measurement” criteria, Council claims, as income, the surplus revenue collected from the General Rate payments. (How can surplus revenue provide an economic benefit?)
3. In your letter to me dated 2 February 2017 (Reference 10.09.03/1 Item1a) you ignore the first paragraph in the accounting policy note. This lists, in the policy note, the recognition of income requirement as stated in AASB 1004.12. You then go on to assume that (all) revenue is recognised as income, despite the fact that some revenue, particularly the General Rate Surplus, fails to meet the triple test in AASB 1004.12. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, AT s165 AND s141(c) MAKES PROVISION FOR RATE REVENUE NOT ABLE TO BE RECOGNISED AS INCOME, TO BE RETURNED TO THE CONTRIBUTOR.
4. The LGMFR, at Box 1, para 6, on page 5, also states “In the event of any conflict between the requirements of the LGMFR and the requirements of the AAS, the requirements of the AAS take precedence.”
I am thus able to claim, on unquestionable evidence, that any Council stating that a rate revenue surplus becomes Council Income, is misappropriating ratepayer funds.
I will leave aside the question of which sectors of the 2017 Annual Accounts of the City of Bayside demonstrate Error or Fraud (EoF). That is the function of a competent Auditor, not a financial analyst. However, as an analyst, I suggest that:
1. The Comprehensive Income Statement is clearly defective. It would be better prepared in the format set out in AASB 101.103. Note that an expenditure on depreciation represents a transaction involving owner contributions. AASB 1004.13 prevents owner contributions being recognised as income.
2. An income statement needs to be assembled, and balanced, for each and every asset. Each income statement must then be reconciled with the Source of Funds estimate required by Regulation 10 (1)(b) in the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations, 2014.
3. The individual asset statements then need to be consolidated into four Standard Income Statements representing the four streams of revenue open to Councils, namely:
– General Rate
– Municipal Charge
– Special Rate
– User Fees and Charges
(Standard Income Statements were required prior to 2014, but not correctly utilised).
4. Finally, the four Standard Income Statements be consolidated into a Comprehensive Income Statement.
5. Note 31, the cash statement, needs critical review. It is the repository of the unspent and misappropriated funds. (The misappropriated funds are spent on providing cheap goods and services to the User Fee stream). This Note is also defective (in Bayside) in failing to provide “restricted funds” to meet the outstanding leave liabilities.
I trust that you will give due consideration to my complaint. I will be copying this letter to a number of other authorities concerned with “Rate Capping”. I have previously raised these General Rate issues with Bayside City Council, the Essential Services Commission and the Environmental and Planning Committee of the Parliament; they will be advised of the issues above.
Bayside Ratepayers Association.
agvbcc021017; rev1; 041017. Author GR.
Ratepayers Victoria, Inc. (A0040924M)
Membership Application/Renewal: 1/7/2017 to 30/6/2018
Organization (if relevant) _________________________________________________________
Phone _______________________ Mobile _______________________________
In the event of my admission to membership, I agree to be bound by the rules of the Association for the time being in force, to pay annual membership dues as determined by the association, and to work cooperatively with the other members.
Membership Fees: $10 Pensioners $20 Individuals $40 Organization
Additional donation optional $____________________
Cheque/Money Order /Cash or
Bank deposit to: Ratepayers Victoria Inc.
BSB No: 063 855 Account No: 10127765
Whittlesea branch________________________________________Mail To:
8/1248 North Road Oakleigh South 3167