[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Mick
We have a link on our website for individuals only, both agents and businesses need to make changes in writing, however they often try on-line. All requests are linked to the property by the person making the request, its a mandatory field and are reviewed before being processed. These are all stored in Pathway.
All written request are stored in our EDMS against the property and sometimes the name, but always the property. We only ever search by property and our records team are aware of the importance. Sometimes, but not normally we will register a CoA mostly they are registered by our records team.
Over the phone requests are recorded on a pro-forma form and once completed by our NAR officer they are scanned and registered against the property. We have regular meetings with records to ensure proper practice is being maintained and they pretty good at keeping things up to date.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Glynes
I don’t think there is a mechanism to add a charge for his purpose on the rates and charges notice within the current legislative framework.
I am aware that a lot of effort is being applied to trying to do so but unfortunately at this stage councils do not have discretion to add a line item on rates and charges notices.
It may worthwhile having a look at the posts under SoC click here

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Dallas
We have been consulting with our Communications team about a welcome letter from the Mayor but not had a lot of traction.
For a number of years now the sector has been engaging with State Government entities to try and receive additional contact points on the NOS. This has recently started up again but no time frames agreed to yet.
A significant number of ratepayers that we took formal recovery action against had not updated their address with us between purchase date and recovery, so we came with the attached, which we send to all new ratepayers at the time of receiving the NOS transfer.
We use Pathway and the ‘update my details’ form on our web is linked into the Pathway customer request module. Selecting the property is a mandatory field so changes are always linked back to the property, we also ask for current mailing address for confirmation purposes. We vet all requests and don’t allow agents or businesses to make changes on line, and follow-up with the applicant if necessary (or discrepancies).
During our debt recovery process we extract the phone numbers and email address from our NAR based on the information provided.
Hope this is helpful.

NNO

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Kim
Yes, all the amendments regarding new or proposed changes to Sections 515, 555, 556 and 558 are to commence on proclamation, they have not yet commenced.
The NSW Government will probably make regulations or such other instrument that allows councils to identify what land can be categorised ‘Environmental’ and what land is subject to an un-funded conservation agreement, I know they are working to resolve the issue.
I am unsure when proclamations will be made and when these items will be resolved.
Importantly the amendments that have commenced can now be seen on the NSW Legislation website.
I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

• This reply was modified 5 years ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Simone
Nothing yet but would be interested to hear from them. All of ours are Business, they have don’t have any Residential lots.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Fiona
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this on Friday. If the category name in the two (or more) former councils were the same then you do not need to re-categorise or send letters. If the former category was say, Residential – Township ‘A’ and the new category is proposed to be just Residential then you really should send notice of a category change. However if the category in both former LGA’s was ‘Residential’ then there is no need to notify.
It is important to note that whenever a council proposes to change a category or re-name an existing one the new category needs to be declared prior to making the rate (see Section 514 and Section 520).
Accordingly I think you should send letters out prior to making your rates to any ratepayers who’s category is going to change.
Hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Circular issued today:

OLG Circular 21-07

Regards,

Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Mel,
It is my understanding that there are no limitations on the levy provided council meets the OP and Annual Report requirements as per the Bill.
Therefore; ‘does this mean the total cost to council can be covered particularly if there are activities council is required to facilitate outside of its normal functions?‘ – Yes. ‘Would this include engaging contractors to complete works allocated to councils’, possibly, it will depend on the works, services, activities or facilities being provided and the project undertaken.
The difference between 495(4)(b) and (c) is, (c) allows for partial funding of an intergovernmental agreement that is also partially funded by another entity. Accordingly a project may be partially funded by another arrangement and the balance is funded jointly by councils and a government entity.
Remember councils may take this option and it is only were joint funding is being provided by a government entity (defined).
I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

• This reply was modified 5 years ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Andrew Butcher]

Please find attached the Bill that has passed through both houses and is now awaiting Assent by the Governor.

Passed by both Houses

Schedule of Amendments – Local Government Amendment Bill 2021

Also please note that the amendment that has been referred to as allowing greater transparency on rates notices, so the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) imposed by the State Government is clearly identified and no longer hidden inside the total rates item does not allow for any changes. The Act has been amended referencing the Fire and Emergency Services Levy (FESL) which has not commenced.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Thanks Robert, your comment is 100% correct, great solution.
The OLG is currently re-writing the SOC to accommodate changes such as the 10year catch-up provision, so be prepared for this.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Great to see council’s looking into this matter. Cherie is correct to ask the questions in her post and I would be interested in hearing about any such modelling.
Attached is the NSW Revenue Professionals submission to IPART.

NSW Revenue Professionals submission to IPART Rate Peg to include population growth

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Alisha
I don’t have an unprotected spreadsheet to send. I know the OLG is in the middle of re-writing the current the one to take into account the catch-up change, from 3 to 10 years so they may be willing to share the old one un-protected, will ask.
I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Mel
This new paragraph relates to the current IPART review of the local government rate pegging system to consider population growth.
In the review terms of reference the Premier has asked IPART to recommend a rate peg methodology that allows the general income of councils to be varied annually in a way that accounts for population growth and whether a ‘growth factor’ should apply to each individual council or whether cohorts of councils should be established for this purpose.
Hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

The Bill was tabled today (16/03/2021) into the Legislative Assembly.

You can view progress through the Legislative Assembly here: Local Government Amendment Bill 2021 (nsw.gov.au)

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Brad

We received a similar application (about 5yrs ago) from a PBI (not Anglicare) and only granted an exemption on the part that is used for a benevolent purpose.
In our matter the circumstances are, 250 non-benevolent units + 50 high-care (including palliative and dementia ward in a separate building) all on the same parcel of land. We applied to the VG for a separate valuation under Section 556(3) and granted exemption on the high-care only.
If the PBI challenged I think we would need to reassess our position as precedent from the Community Housing v Clarence case provides that any land belonging to a PBI is for the purposes and therefore exempt.
No doubt you have established that the social housing is all leased at reduced market rent, affordable housing is not exempt.
Hope this is helpful, happy to discuss further in necessary.

Regards,
Andrew

• This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Author]

Posts