The Role of Local Government Inspectorate & Revise Rates Capping 2017-18 Guidance

On the 4 March 2017, we hosted our first 2017 community education forum to better understand:

  1. The role of the Local Government Inspectorate in the Victorian Public sector’s Integrity System for Public, presented by David Wolf
  2. ESC Revised Rate Capping Guidance 2017-18, presented by Andrew Chow.

We recorded these presentations and will upload the videos on this website and Facebook, when they are available.

Local Government Investigations & Compliance Inspectorate (LGICI)

The LG Inspectorate has been in operation since 2009 and with the return of Chief Municipal Inspector   David Wolf in July 2016, has been cementing its position as the lead integrity agency for local government in Victoria.

David’s presentation helped to clarity the responsibility and key function of the Local Government Inspectorate, which is to investigate concerns related to council operations including criminal or corruption offences involving councillors, senior council officers or any person subject to the conflict of interest provisions.  It is not just about any violations of the LG Act by Councillors, as many of us incorrectly thought so.

If you have complaints about council operations and breaches of the Local Government Act 1989, which relates to the following and leads to potential criminal offenses:

  • corruption incidents
  • misuse of position
  • conflict of interest
  • disclosure of confidential information
  • distribution of unauthorised electoral material

then go to the LGICI’s complaint reporting guidelines, available on its webpage.

The best way to submit a complaint is to complete an online form – click here to access it. The agency is keen to address ratepayers’ complaints and will advise incident reporters of follow-up evaluation decisions and actions.

Essential Service Commission (ESC)’s Revised Rate Capping Guidance 2017-18:

ESC Andrew Chow presented the Revised Rate Capping Guidance 2017-218 resources as he did to councils, to ratepayers.

There is a role for ratepayers to evaluate how well their councils comply with the Community Engagement Guidance, which requires councils to inform their communities not just tokenism information about their proposed higher rate caps, but also

  • the reasons for which the higher cap is sought
  • how the views of the ratepayers and community have been taken into account
  • how the higher cap is an efficient use of council resources and represents value for money
  • what consideration has been given to reprioritising proposed expenditures and pursuing alternative funding options and why those funding options are not adequate
  • the application’s consistency with the council’s long-term strategy and financial management policies.

These business case information must be disclosed to communities. Communities have an oversight role to check the community engagement compliance requirements are adequately met. If they know councils are eluding this compliance obligation, they should inform the ESC before or at the time their councils submit in their rates variation. ESC has a short time-frame to evaluate all councils’ applications and there may be insufficient time to address community feedback received late.

Ratepayers are already aware that some councils, such as Monash Council, are manipulating community engagement and making multi-million and biased and closed meetings’ project decisions now that will impact future rate levels in 3 or more years later. While some councils may elude informing their constituents of the future and longer term rate burden impacts of their larger project decisions now, little do they know that ratepayers can read & evaluate their councils’ 4 years forecasts of statutory financial ratios to understand whether future rate burdens prevail with their current large project intentions.

The Rates Capping policy require councils to consider long term forecasts in budget planning. However there is a loophole in the LG Act –  some councils  can be elusive in disclosing budget scenarios and long term forecasts publicly, because LG Act does not explicitly require them to do so. Reporting such elusiveness to the ESC now, will be considered when ESC evaluates these councils’  rate variation applications in the future.



Community Enagement & 2017-18 Rates Variation Applications

Councils who wish to increase next financial year’s rates will need to ensure they inform their community of their business case for raising rates above the cap.

The Essential Service Commission (ESC) has issued guidelines to help councils engage effectively with their communities, to ensure they provide top quality information, to ensure their communities become well informed of their councils’ decisions to increase rates above the cap.

The guidelines are available online for the public to view and understand the evaluation criteria ESC would use to assess whether councils have genuinely engaged with their communities. Ratepayers can assist to evaluate if their councils have followed these guidlines properly. If their councils have not, ratepayer advocates can provide the factual evidence to justify the non compliance and share with Ratepayers Vic to quality assure and facilitate forwarding community concerns to the ESC. They should also discuss the concerns with their councils, to agree improvements, while also taking leadership in fostering good community rapport with councils, helping them improve their organizational learning.

ESC is also presenting the guidelines to ratepayer groups who are interested to understand their councils’ obligation in community engagement, when they apply for rates variation this year. We are collaborating with ESC to discuss with our ratepayer networks these community engagement guidelines for councils’ 2017-2018 budget planning on 4th March 2017, at the Knox Council Offices, 511 Burwood Hwy, Wantirna South VIC 315. We are also having an earlier session with Local Government Inspectorate that day. Connect with our to keep up to date.

Regional/rural ratepayers groups can come together and contact Ratepayers Victoria (email to organise a similar workshop with ESC in regional Victoria.

RV Response to ESC Response to Peter Brown Report

Essential Service Commission (ESC) is the state government agency for overseeing compliance to the Fair Go Rates System (FGRS) aka rates capping policy. It called for an independent review of its implementation of the FGRS, which was conducted by Peter Brown. The review was completed in October 2016, with the publication of a review report.

ESC has responded to this review report, see The conclusion is:

“The community consultation required for applications should not be a standalone process to satisfy a higher rate cap application but rather part of councils’ ongoing planning and consultation processes outlined in the current Local Government Act and further expanded  within the proposed new Act”.

Synopsis of RV Response

(Click here for the full report):

Ratepayers Victoria has reviewed both reports and agreed with most of ESC responses. We also highlighted additional recommendations to:

  1. Include a representatives of the community in any pre-application submissions, especially to verify with evidence that community engagement was satisfactory
  2. The provision of a model chart of account should be a first and high priority for improvement.
  3. Councillors and officers should have to attend compulsory training on the subject of participative democracy and their community engagement performance be monitored by LGV
  4. There is a need to define and measure value for money, to improve compliance to the best value principles in the LG Act
  5. Participatory budgeting should be a future mandatory, to enable collaboration with the community in planning council budgets.

RV disagrees with several responses, notably we see no value but more risks if:

  1. Councils are advised of ESC’s decisions regarding the rates application before public release of the final decisions
  2. Councils are provided a copy of the final decision and an opportunity for a debrief and comment prior to public release
  3. ESC presumes that if a mayor signs off that the criterion concerning community consultation on the higher rate cap has been undertaken in accordance to the framework
  4. Councils are given at least 2 opportunities within the calendar year for Councils to apply for a higher cap.

RV Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry of the Fair Go Rate (Rate Capping) Policy


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)

  1. Risks to the critical services and infrastructure provided by councils around the state as rate capping is implemented;
  2. Risks that council debt along with other charges, fees and levies, will be increased to compensate for rates being capped at the rate of inflation.
  3. Risks that wage increases for council employees at levels far beyond the CPI will see pressure to cut services and infrastructure maintenance to close the gap between revenue and expenditure.

These risks arise primarily because it is perceived that:

  1. Councils’ operating costs cannot be in lock step with the CPI because councils and their peak bodies view their expenditures comprise a very different ‘basket’ of goods and services;
  2. State Government do not adequately fund councils to localise state services & infrastructures and expect councils to recoup the cost of delivering these amenities to local communities.

To date, there are 2 inquiry reports published so far.

Third Review:

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.

Local Government Systematic Gaps: Causes & Effects


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:

  1. Self-directed operating autonomy that duplicates and increases inefficacy in the LG system
  2. Growing appetites for escalating rate rises , without adopting more modern practices of budget planning and management
  3. Leadership cultures often lacks practice competency of good governance principles in council conduct, decision making and implementation.


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:

  • are more well informed and professionally astute;
  • have higher expectations of democratic civil participation and rights
  • want to see more transparent good governance compliance evidence in council affairs;
  • expect to see more socially responsible and best value for money community-outcomes resulting from council decisions and service provisioning.

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.


Inquiry Reports: Analysis Shortfall & Gaps

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.

Legacy Systematic Municipal Financial and Service Management Gaps

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.

Peak Bodies Self Interests

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.

Rates Affordability: A Needed Social Responsibility

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.

Creative Cost Shifting Games

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.

Infancy Good Governance Competency

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:

  1. continue their legacy status quo and without a good governance conscience when monopolising and dictating municipal service provisioning and pricing;
  2.  jeopardise very quickly rates affordability and equity for many Victorians.

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.

Press Release: The Truth is Out There

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:

  • media and community communication strategies, to create a series of related news and messages to social engineer people into believing that rates capping has caused more harm than good to councils and their communities, e.g. like cutting out the school crossing services,
  • diverting council funds to support collaborative projects with peak bodies, which duplicate state services e.g. the Alliance For Gambling Reform
  • many internal cost shifting tactics, to ensure the parts of council-budgets constrained by rates capping are reduced or kept unchanged, in order to minimize rates reduction. For the next financial year, some councils have already and blatantly introduced new or increased existing charges, fees and differentiated rates that are not affected by rate capping.

 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?


Results of Councils’ Rates Variation Applications

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.

Councils’ Growing Insurgency Against Rate Capping

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.

The financial justification of Casey’s rates variation application:

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:

  • Over geared working capital ratios, which again are significantly above peers and all councils average (150 – 200% is good practice targets in LG, industry rule of thumb is 150%

  • Over maintaining unrestricted cash reserves, which again are significantly above peers and all councils average. Good practice is under 100%.

Its financial performance indicators also revealed the Council has ample capacity to:

  1. Repay the principal and interest amounts of  its loan exposure, which is anticipated to grows by about 10%, from  ~36% to under 45% of its rate revenue, in the next few years;
  2. Improving  its assets renewal position in the right direction, ie aiming to achieve 90.96% next year, however it plans to reduce capacity to 84.32% by 2019/20.

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.

Bagging Rates Capping

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:

  • bag the policy’s implementation;
  • justify publicly service cutting in councils and
  • winch about laborious cost-benefit justification and compliance effort in apply for rates variation.

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.

To access:

  • RV’s presentation to the legislative inquiry into rates capping, please click here.
  • The official transcript of the presentations and Q&A dialogue is presented, please click here.


Rates capping and service threats

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.

$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. “