[Darryl Telfer]

Thanks Ravi.

Also thanks Andrew for your intervention in the background.

Looks like we have it sorted.

[Darryl Telfer]

Wyong Council did this some years ago, against staff recommendations, increased rates by 2.5% when rate peg was 3.5%. The next year (possibly after a Council election, not sure?), the Council took up the extra 1% from the previous year’s catchup. True story!

[Darryl Telfer]

I think such a “rebate” could be provided for under section 356 but as above a legal opinion is advisable.

[Darryl Telfer]

Adding to Robert’s comments above, which I 100% agree with, I would firstly discuss with the appointed agent (assuming there is one appointed).

There may be covered in the legislation/regs/best practice guidelines etc under which they operate.

[Darryl Telfer]

Thanks Pete

[Darryl Telfer]

Having just received notification of a conservation agreement entered under Part 5.20 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, have reviewed the above posts (thanks to all those who have contributed) and the legislation.

I can see from the legislation that the agreements can be terminated under s5.10 “by consent of the Minister and all the owners” or “by the Minister, without the consent of the owners”.

I read this as meaning that the agreements are not time limited from the outset.

I may have missed something here so is anyone would like to point in the right direction, or if someone has actually viewed an agreement with an end date, please let me know.

[Darryl Telfer]

I recall having to request VG to provide new Attributable Values at each Reval for those with postponed rates. May be worth checking??

[Darryl Telfer]

We are missing the SOC/Statement of Compliance tab (where Responsible Accounting Officer and GM) confirm the workpapers have been completed for audit.
Maybe I missed the memo on this change, if so happy to be pointed in the right direction/ ideas on how this can otherwise be addressed.
At this time we may just copy and paste form last year’s return – and update dates etc.
@Andrea – ours Statement Report page has the fields in the $000’s

[Darryl Telfer]

Hi Carmel,

Your post brings back some very very baaaad memories for me.

Of course the usual Special Rate requirements under the LGA would first need to be met including having Council form an opinion around benefit etc per S495

I made a presentation on this subject to the RPNSW annual conference at Terrigal in 2016 – basically a “what not to do” case study. I don’t have a copy of that presentation now but the NSWRP exec team may being able to track it down among the conference program for that year. Anyway, in a “long form” summary, this is what it was about.

The former Wyong Shire Council had just introduced such a creature (Special Rate on short term rentals) when I started there in 1996, a special rate levied on 3 classes of properties being:
1. those categorised as Business within a suburb, lets call it suburb A
2. Major facilities servicing tourism within Suburb A and several surrounding suburbs – with specific definitions of the properties including major shopping centres, hotels, motels, service stations, caravan parks – can’t recall everything exactly, and;
3. Residential properties within 3 or 4 suburbs (around and including suburb A) used and/or available for short term rental (as per your question).

This group (3) proved very problematic and time/resource hungry to administer. An initial “opt out” survey was issued to owners of residential properties in the defined suburbs, where the mailing address was not the actual property (i.e. potentially non owner occupants. Those that did not respond were subject to the special rate.

Despite the Special Rate being clearly set out on each annual rate notice, and the fine print explaining the appeal against levies process (who reads those anyway!) thereafter, we had many ratepayers appeal against it over the following years, some 10 or more years later, demanding refunds for previous years etc. Along the way we tweaked the internal processes to alert new owners, monitor for changes in addresses (to or from the property), new developments/DA but this just added band aids to a festering wound.

All of this goes against one of the basic principles of rating I have come to appreciate – the principle of not creating a monster!

The real problem was “proving” the properties were/were not used and/or available for short term rental – at this time AirBNB wasn’t a thing and even the internet wasn’t widely used so evidence was hard to get. This resulted in substantial inequities i.e. the honest ones would accept the levy and move one, others would contest it and via stat dec state it was NOT used for short term rental etc. Of the remainder, no doubt many were just weekenders for occasional family use but if they gave a stat dec, it was virtually impossible to challenge it. Over time the revenue from that group slowly diminished.

After 10 or maybe 15 years (of pain) and with a change in management within Council, we were able to convince Council that it just wasn’t worth the effort and the special rate was dropped from short term rentals with that revenue simply added to Council’s Ordinary Rates.
From memory we did this when a reval happened and a change from base rate to minimum rate was implemented, but the average extra on all other ratepayers was less than $2 p.a. from memory (of course the reval and change in rate structure disguised this).

My advice remains – Don’t do it!

[Darryl Telfer]

I think what you are saying Jason is that the VG won’t provide a valuation for any Westconnex infrastructure. If that’s the case then it can’t be rated as the LGA Dictionary defines a “parcel of land, in relation to rateable land, means a portion or parcel of land separately valued under the Valuation of Land Act 1916”.

Additionally, I understand that Westconnex effectively operate the toll roads on behalf of the NSW Government in some form of trustee capacity but that the NSW Government at all times retain ownership of the motorways i.e. Westconnex do not lease the land, they just maintain and operate it in return for the right to collect tolls.

So, even if the VG provided a valuation, a rate exemption would apply under LGA S555(1)(a) as “land owned by the Crown, not being land held under a lease for private purposes”.

Maybe not directly comparable, but if a council enters a contract with a private person/entity to operate and manage say a Council owned caravan park or swimming pool, it doesn’t make those rateable – different if leased of course but…

Just my unqualified legal interpretation.

[Darryl Telfer]

Hi David,

I have used consultants previously (long long time ago) and cost was borne by Council – that decision was intened to reduce likelyhood of “fallout” at the time, when a wholesale farmland review was performed after many years of not doing proper reviews.

IMO I would see it as a cost of managing Farmland generally.

I have had a look at the policies published here and found one that does provide for independent consultant reviews, from Mid-Western Regional Council Mid Western Regional Farmland Policy which provides for an independent review if proceedings are taken in the L&E Court, after an assessment against some very specific criteria.

“Where an applicant chooses to appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the categorisation, Council will obtain an independent review of the application”.

Not saying its a good or bad approach, just an approach I found.

At the end of the day, the idea is to reduce the risk of litigation (and get the right outcome of course) so it may be a up front expense that pays for itself – provided there is a well documented assessment process before it becomes an option. You don’t want to be referring every refusal for review.

Finally, hypothetically, how would you go about collecting the fee, bearing in mind the outcome of the review isn’t known until after its been commissioned.

[Darryl Telfer]

Here we go folks.

NSW to ditch current insurance-funded Emergency Services Levy

A hell of a lot of work was done on this last round before it was ditched at the 11th hour. Hopefully it will get over the line in a suitable format this time. There will still be plenty of work for Council’s to implement though (assuming it will move from insurance to rates).

[Darryl Telfer]

This is what we have used in recent years:

The subject property is sold for unpaid rates in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Section 713.

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Section 719, if the purchase money is insufficient to satisfy all rates, charges and other debts outstanding to the date of settlement, those rates, charges and other debts are taken to have been fully satisfied.

The purchaser will be liable for payment of the annual rates and charges levied, calculated on a pro rata basis, from date of settlement.

The rates and annual charges levied on the subject property for 2022-23 is $XXXX.XX.

[Darryl Telfer]

WARNING Long story follows but I do get to the question (eventually)

Prior to the OLG Debt Management and Hardship Guidelines being developed I understand there was a report by Justice NSW or a community legal organisation (or similar) around Council’s debt recovery actions. This report identified and criticised that Councils were responsible for a very large portion of claims through NSW Local Courts etc (30 plus% from memory). This report or something else which “drove” development of the OLG guidelines dealt with a much broader range of issues but the Local Court case ratio was a “highlight”.

Can anyone point me to this report or other background to the development to the OLG Debt Management and Hardship Guidelines?

Specifically, I am trying to find something with authority that deals with Council’s making payment arrangements that are insufficient to service recurring annual rates. We have a proposal before us along these lines (through a ratepayer’s legal representative) which claims (with evidence) that the ratepayer (on jobseeker) for Council to require more than what is offered “is frankly unsustainable and will place (insert ratepayer name here) in a grave financial position. It is equally unethical for Council to demand payments from (insert ratepayer name here) over and above” the amount offered.

Of course, we can refuse to accept the offer (on basis rate debt would increase year on year etc and place ratepayer in an ever worsening financial position over time) but I would like to back it up with some authority. Our view is that it would be unethical to enter such arrangement (that does not at least cover recurring annual rates).

If you’ve managed to read this, thanks!

[Darryl Telfer]

Thanks Andrew,

I was trying to keep the question as simple as possible (so it made sense to me (gotta be able to laugh at yourself).
In addition to being a residence (of the sister) the applicant also claims the property is “used or occupied for the purpose of religious teaching or training, and actually quotes/refers to s555(1)(e)(iii).

It was the “sister” part I was trying to clarify but I guess if it satisfies one criteria, that’s all they need to do.

Cheers.

[Author]

Posts