[Robert Hay]

Hi David

After the legislation is enacted the VG is required to furnish a valuation list. Have a look at page 87 of the draft legislation.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi David

Councils need to request a 2016 reval from the VG where they weren’t already scheduled to receive one, you would have received an email from the VG regarding this.
The legislation doesn’t require the VG to issue until after it is enacted.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Lisa

Section 560 says Crown land is rateable if leased, no lease no rates.

Looking at them on the web it looks like they are part of the NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust which manage of behalf of the crown so I can see why no lease exists.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Everyone

In the latest release of the operating manual a deadline of 31 December 2016 has been set for Council’s to advise whether they will use the Cost or Formula approach regarding their set up cost.

This can be found on page 22 of the manual.

Just be aware they state if no response is received it will be deemed that Councils are using the Formula approach.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Suzi

Its not mandatory with the word “if” being used in the Regs, however I don’t believe it would be the best course of action to issue a separate notice.

I do think the word is used to principally cover non rateable properties where you would not normally issue a rates notice.

Also remember this is only draft legislation and may change when enacted.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Suzi

Its under Section 9 “Form of Levy Notice” in the Regs that were issued.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Everyone

I have spoken to the VG and they will be issuing letters to Councils shortly regarding the GVal.

They advised that Councils will be able to indicate there preference for when they wish to receive their GVal.

All Councils will have a 01/07/2016 Base Date

They also encouraged Councils to take up the electronic issue of Valuation notices for Council properties.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Carla
Table 2a relates to Company title properties where instead of a person having separate title against a lot in a strata plan which in turn has a unit entitlement they buy shares in a Company.
Holding shares in the Company allows them to occupy a part of a building with one or more persons who also hold shares in the company.
The VG is requesting the share entitlement for each shareholder in the Company as unlike strata plans they do not know how the shares are allocated against each property.
If you want to know more about company title have a look at Section 547 of the LGA 1993.

Hope this helps.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Darryl

The Government will continue to make a contribution of 7.3%, this can be found on the Emergency Service Property website under the Council portal and is contained in the ESPL Webinar Presentation on the 5th September 2016. The funding mix remains the same and is shown on page 15.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Cherie

Two ESPL classifications can apply in the case of a property that is mixed development.

The same apportionment factor that is used for rating is to be used for purposes of the ESPL, dividing the land value between a Residential component and a second ESPL classification.

Cheers
Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Linda

By not providing the bins under the Development Consent, I would say that Council has effectively made the 120 litre service unavailable.

I’d be interested in other peoples opinions.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Everyone
Just a reminder that questions regarding the ESPL can be posted directly on the ESPL Council Portal
The link is http://www.emergencyservicespropertylevy.nsw.gov.au/
Username: council
Password: #emergency
Click on Contact Us and post your question.
Your question will then be sent directly to the support network that has been created to answer your question.
This will then be updated to the ESPL faqs and manuals as not all Councils maybe members of the Revenue Professionals and see the answers posted here.

Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Everyone

Please find amended response to Question 27.

We do not support this recommendation. Most Councils’ have adopted hardship policies and debt recovery policies which give consideration to ratepayers suffering genuine hardship with legal action being taken as an option of last resort to recover outstanding rates.

The use of the State Debt Recovery Office in the recovery of rates and charges and the options for recovery that they could provide as mentioned in the report would not add any new recovery options that are not already available to Councils through the use of debt recovery agents.

The report also notes that the SDRO has a recovery rate of 75%. Rates and charges are a debt on the land and therefore result in a 100% recovery rate for Councils.

A survey conducted by The NSW Revenue Professionals indicated that of the 72 councils who responded, 24,000 Statement of Liquidated Claims (SLC) were lodged (most lodged electronically) in 2015/2016. Of those 24,000 SLC’s lodged less than a quarter went to default judgement. Therefore we fail to understand how the draft report suggests that Councils recovery actions are placing a burden on the local court system. The figure of 24,000 SLC’s represents less than 1% of total ratepayers. This again shows that the current system is working well.

Councils’ should have a moral obligation in relation to recovering rates and charges as they are obligatory charges, not optional. Currently rates reminder notices and demand letters are issued to ratepayers free of charge. To add fines and fees to ratepayers who are already in financial hardship would go against these moral obligations.

We would question why IPART would consider taking such a prescriptive approach to debt recovery when the purpose of the reform is to give flexibility to councils’ operational tasks. Councils should have the control and the discretion to initiate legal action.

Placing debt recovery at a State level will take away the community aspect of Councils as most ratepayers wish to deal directly with their Council when making arrangements or negotiating rates payments.

Thanks
Robert

[Robert Hay]

Hi Everyone

Please note in Question 27, is being reviewed and the current response in the Draft should be ignored an amended response will be posted later today

Thanks
Robert

[Robert Hay]

Good Morning

Please click on the link below to view the Revenue Professionals Draft submission

Draft Submission

[Author]

Posts