[Darryl Telfer]

David, your life will never be the same having previously been protected from the world of water and sewer (and the engineers involved!).

Anyway – yes, perfectly allowable in my opinion and is the way many water authorties (local council or otherwise) operate.

[Darryl Telfer]

Hi Janette

It appears you are looking at S718(1) i.e. the expenses of the council incurred in connection with the sale.

I have only ever applied external service provider costs, but these need to be justifiable/defendable – Council should have appropriate procurement policies/practices to ensure you get “value for money”.

Sale for unpaid rates is an extremely time consuming and resource hungry exercise – you may be able to claim internally incurred costs but you would need to keep excellent records and again be able to justify/defend these. I recall during the FESL exercise (that was so much fun) we kept time/attendance records on FESL work and costed it to a project so we could track the cost of that debacle.

Its probably easier to outsource what you can, as you can easily justify those costs through the procurement process (best value for money).

Best regards

Darryl

[Darryl Telfer]

Hi Lee,

Your Topic heading mentions university whilst your post talks of a public charity, proposing to use the land for educational purposes.

Robert is (IMO) correct re university exemption not applicable under 556 (1) (h) as the land is not “vested” (again IMO).

Looking at possible exemptions under 556 (1) (h) “land that belongs to a public benevolent institution or public charity and is used or occupied by the institution or charity for the purposes of the institution or charity”;
Presumably the purposes of the leasee/public charity includes “education” – regardless though any exemption here is thwarted by the “belongs to” part as nowhere in the Act can I see that a lease (other than of Crown Land maybe) constitutes “belongs to” (there may be case law somewhere that overrides this view).

I can’t think of any other provisions under which that an exemption could be provided – once it is leased or sold, it ceases to be exempt per the LGA Dictionary definitions of Public Place and Public Land.

FWIW I think it matters not that the leasee has made the request. The Act simply sets out what is/isn’t exempt and I believe its up to Council to apply the provisions based on the information provided to it, regardless of its source.
Its a mute point anyway – so please forgive my ramblings.

Best regards

Darryl

[Darryl Telfer]

Hi Maria,
You may wish to consider saving yourself some effort and ask them if they are seeking an exemption, otherwise
per s516 the dominant use still applies.
If yes, than you should ask the owner to provide details of tariffs charged to determine if they fall within the gazetted tariffs under S516 (1A) (a) i.e. amount and whether they are full or part lodging – and also if they meet the 3 tariff paying occupants residing continuously for 3 consecutive months requirement under S516 (1A) (b) – that could be difficult to determine if the facility has just opened so perhaps review in 3 months/before 30/6?
Its really your/Council/management decision as to how often you would review/reconfirm. If its a reputable operator I think yearly is a bit unnecessary.
Vacant accommodation i.e. less than 3 occupants/3 months is covered in S516(1A) also i.e continues to be regarded as a boarding house if it subsequently becomes vacant.
My first step (not necessarily anyone else’s) would be to check if they intend to apply for exemption – and save potentially all the above nonsense (sorry, process).

[Darryl Telfer]

Resurrecting an old thread.

Would be most appreciative if you have procedures that you’d be prepared to share. We (Central Darling Shire) already have a policy that provides for restriction following a number of notices to be served on owner and occupants etc.

Our policy also provides for disconnection if flow restriction does not bring about account settlement. Disconnection is provided for in the regulations however the Office of Local Government Debt Management and Hardship Guidelines state a decision to restrict water supply must be consistent with the Local Government (General) Regulation and allow sufficient water use to maintain personal hygiene.

Thanks in advance.

[Darryl Telfer]

If a committee was charged with determining hardship applications, I suggest including an officer from a Community Services area of Council to ensure the assessment process has (and importantly is seen to have) balance with input from someone independent to finance.
We did this once before at a Council Skye will be familiar, to address claims of hardship caused by a rate structure change. This was before that Council had a hardship policy so the “committee” was not “formal” but I believe it added balance to the matter.

[Darryl Telfer]

I had one of these a couple of years ago at another Council. If I recall correctly, ATSIC’s lending functions were managed by The Indigenous Bank of Australia (IBA) – took some research at the time but I did find something setting out how ATSIC’s functions had been allocated to other bodies.

[Darryl Telfer]

Is there a LGA legislative, regulatory or best practice provision for adjusting water usage charges in the event that a water meter is proven (by appropriate independent test) to be outside the acceptable tolerance of =/- (4% per clause 158 of The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005)?

Cl 135(2) of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2018 provides specific direction i.e.

If, on being tested, a meter registers 3% or more above the quantity of water passed through it—
(a) an adjustment proportionate to the percentage of error is to be made in the reading objected to and in any further reading up to the time of removal of the meter, and
(b) the water supply authority is to bear the expenses of the test.

However I am unable to find anything in the LGA or the regs.

Thanks

[Darryl Telfer]

Just my view FWIW. Its new to all of us and I am sure there are a lot of different opinions.

The legislation clearly places additional (legislative) onus on Council to ensure legal action is the last available option. As usual, more legislation means more work – but we are in an unusual situation at present.

As Anne has suggested, there doesn’t appear to be a definition of “proceedings”.

Looking at the legislation (a dangerous but sometimes necessary pastime);
1. S 747AB refers to commencement of proceedings for the recovery of a rate or charge under s 712

2. S 712 (3) states “In any proceedings for the recovery of a rate or charge, a court may decide any matter that is called into question and that is relevant to the determination of the proceedings, even though the matter would otherwise be beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”

To me this (s 712 (3)) indicates that “proceedings” in s 747AB means court/legal action so I would not be doing anything that mentions court action, unless Council has considered the 4 points at s 747AB (a) to (d) i.e. arrangements, financial counselling, mediation, deferral or waiver etc.

What Andrea suggests re a demand letter being a Notice of Intent is valid – if the demand states legal action will follow then the demand is effectively the “commencement of proceedings” (and if you aren’t going to take legal action then don’t threaten it).

On the other hand, I don’t believe Council’s should be prevented from sending reminders and asking for payment – it would be irresponsible to not do these things. However s747AB effectively enforces the concepts of engagement that are promoted through the OLG Debt Management and Hardship Guidelines. Unless that engagement occurs (or all reasonable attempts to engage have failed), there is no way Council staff could report to Council that the 4 points under s747AB have been properly considered and recommend to Council that “proceedings” commence (via demand / Notice of Intent).

So what do we do until 26/9/2020 (or later date as regulations may determine)??.
I’d suggest still sending reminder notices then start engaging with any ratepayers that still haven’t paid or made an arrangement within the allowed time – and effectively check off the 4 points at s747AB (arrangements, financial counselling, mediation, deferral or waiver etc) before getting Council endorsement to go a demand/notice of intent and beyond (if that’s appropriate for you/your Council). If you have a relief package an/or hardship policy/procedure, then you are in a better position to consider the 4 points under s747AB.

[Darryl Telfer]

Central Coast Council have some information on their site that may help

https://www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/news/land-revaluation-and-what-it-means

[Darryl Telfer]

I think it is advisable to obtain applications from Mr and Mrs Ratepayer/Pensioner – if they are both eligible. By having both on the books, the rebate can continue uninterrupted without having to seek a new application from the surviving partner when (as is assured for us all) one partner passes away.

[Darryl Telfer]

If anyone has been through this process in recent years, would you mind contacting me directly please? Interested in understanding the approximate costs Council would incur in the transfer process, conveyancing costs (assume it is a little different to a normal sale/purchase transaction, stamp duty etc – aside from the write off of any residual rate debt of course.
And other information that might assist.
Thanks in advance.
Ph 08 8083 8914 or email telferd@centraldarling.nsw.gov

[Darryl Telfer]

Thanks for the online and offline responses folks, great information, even better now its shared 🙂

[Darryl Telfer]

Technically you could charge for contaminated recycling under s502 but (actually its a big BUT) as previously mentioned its just not viable (can’t prove who contaminated the recycling once bins are on the street) so would be more trouble than value.
Efforts would be best focused on community education – with messages including the cost of contamination perhaps.

[Darryl Telfer]

All good advice above. Just to add to this,

s546of the LGA states

How is a rate or charge levied?
(1) A rate or charge is levied on the land specified in a rates and charges notice by the service of the notice.
(2) The notice may be served at any time after 1 July in the year for which the rate or charge is made or in a subsequent year.
(3) A notice that is required to effect an adjustment of rates or charges may be served in the year for which the rate or charge is made or a subsequent year.
(4) The notice may include more than one rate, more than one charge and more than one parcel of land.
(5) It is not necessary to specify the name of the rateable person or the person liable to pay the charge in the notice if the council does not know the person’s name.

In my view s546(2) is the authority to back date the rates to 2014 as you have done – unless (as discussed earlier) Council has previously represented another position of course.

[Author]

Posts