[Cherie Muir]

RIP Neil Charge. A pillar of our rating community, who leaves a significant legacy that will be with us for years to come. Chargie was always ready to help and share his proven wisdom.
Condolences to Neil’s family and his team at Camden and of course the NSWRP’s who were close to him. He will be greatly missed.

[Cherie Muir]

Hi Anthony. Thanks for your reply and info. I should have mentioned the Special Water Reading Cert – it is a stand-alone certificate here as well.
I also should have mentioned that we are two very distinct and separate teams here at Shoalhaven. Shoalhaven Water has 300+ staff, including a Water Revenue unit that is an entirely separate team to Council’s regular Rates Revenue team. So, presently we coordinate the production of one singular 603, between the two very different Revenue teams.

[Cherie Muir]

Many thanks Andrew

[Cherie Muir]

Hi Maria

Do you mean S.556(1)(h)?

If so, some additional considerations that you may or may not have covered off on already:

– do they own the land? Does it “belong” to them or another entity?
– what are their wind up provisions in their governing documents, i.e. if they go bust would their assets be distributed to a like organisation?

[Cherie Muir]

Hey Matt, thanks so much for the additional information. I was very excited to get these added but I’ll hang back for now. Thanks again

[Cherie Muir]

Hi Matthew

Thanks for the heads up here about getting MRCA results added to our DVA enquiries. I have the form at hand now to make the change for Shoalhaven. I note the form cautions about any change to the results output will lead to changes in our bulk batch xml result files (makes sense). Before I go ahead I’m keen to check:

1. if you or anyone else has ran into any bulk import challenges following this change,
2. what rating software are you using (we are on TechOne P&R ci)
3. did you change your result output to reveal the Special Rate Disability entitlement only, or did you include any other MCRA results (like Overall Impairment Points)?

Forgive me all these questions on an old post 🙂 Thanks in advance.

[Cherie Muir]

The 2025/26 permissible worksheets were published today for anyone who is yet to see the OLG Circular.
Available for download from the OLG Portal.

[Cherie Muir]

Good guidance, many thanks Ian.

[Cherie Muir]

Hey Trevor, Shoalhaven does not update on marriage cert or change of name cert – referring the customer to official channels to change their name on title.

[Cherie Muir]

Yes, thanks and appreciation to Andrew and NSWRP for pulling together a submission for this important matter.

[Cherie Muir]

Hey Dallas
Randwick did something small scale a good few years ago however not directly tied to individual property rates. The link to rating was an Environmental Program (of spending) entirely funded via an Environmental special rate. Part of that program of spend provided some monetary benefit/incentive to dwellings taking up solar (I’m sketchy on details). The Revenue Team looked after the special rate – not the program of spend tied to that special rate (and there were many elements of environmental spending).
Like other councils, Randwick looked at the mechanism of Environmental Upgrade Agreements at that time and chose not to go down that path.
If you wanted to talk to them, I’d chase up the Environmental Team at Randwick. They ran the incentive/program. I seem to recall that it was small scale (tokenistic even).

[Cherie Muir]

Thanks again Robert.

You’ve reached the same conclusion that another NSWRP has reached (the only other person I’ve badgered with this), i.e. ignore what the manual says in this case.

s.501 on its own very clearly refers to rateable land (as you point out above).

I think I have my answer. I really appreciate your time.

[Cherie Muir]

Hi Robert

Many thanks for the reply.

Yes. Service under s.501 is supplied to those properties like charities and PBI’s, exempt from Rates under s.556.
And we have charged the s.501 to these properties. Our Revenue Statement and resolutions of adoption reflect this.

My post above (which I now realise is quite poorly written), is me attempting to solidify the logic that s.555 exempt properties are exempt from s.501 charges, while s.556 exempt properties are not exempt from s.501 charges.

In reality we have charged the s.501 on both s.555 and s.556 properties and I’m seeking to confirm that I only have to remove it from the s.555 properties (fortunately only a couple), while remaining on the s.556 properties.

The business unit aligned with the s.501 charge want to write a policy re circumstances for the s.501 to be waived, so I need to sort out the exemption logic before they can seek to do that properly.

How am I looking Robert? Take if off s.555 properties and leave in on s.556 properties?

Thanks again

[Cherie Muir]

Shoalhaven doesn’t do verbals yet Dallas, but keen to arrange soon. When we do, we will not require copies of the PCC to be supplied. I believe Centrelink will want to validate your verbal set up and give it their nod before you go live. In my last interaction with Centrelink on this at another council it was clear to me that Centrelink do not expect that councils are collecting copies of PCCs.
For your verification (for your example above), providing you have their consent, I’d verify against the date of grant that will evidence the outcome you wish to grant.

[Cherie Muir]

Good question Dallas. Sometimes policies are unable to cover everything. Could the policy driver for not going back retrospectively be more about new applications (as opposed to cases like this one)?
Go with your instincts and if that is to provide the rebate retrospectively to ensure seamless entitlement in this case (so long as you have evidence of eligibility which I believe you do have), seek a once off decision outside of the policy and document that decision. Does your policy have a statement about a certain officer of council being able to vary the policy from time to time?

[Author]

Posts