[Susan Pardy]

Hi Lee,
We were just talking about this a minute ago (also in relation to DP downloads, etc).
All we are going to do is make sure that the information downloaded by one officer is distributed to the other Council office, with each Council office then responsible for processing the information relevant to their former-Council area. It’s not a great solution, but I think it will have to do in the short term.
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Cherie,
That was what I was thinking too in trying to work out a workaround. I originally thought that 25(4) was about parcels of land that were not categorised the same, but after having a conversation internally we are thinking the same as you … that clause 25(4) suggests that we can have different methodologies of calculating rates (Av/Min/Base) for land that is categorised the same.
Thanks kindly for your input.
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Susan,

I have been thinking about this all weekend and I have an issue that I can’t logically reconcile. I will try to get it out, and see how I go about explaining my issue and see if anyone can help me work around it…

I think the idea of items 1-4 is an attempt to give Council a way to use our current rating structures in the new financial year. I read “rating structure” as the use of categories, sub-categories, ad-valorems, minimums and bases. So it sounds to me that the current sub-categories and methodologies for levying rates from each category and sub-category need to remain unchanged.

However, if the New Council needs to “make” a rate by resolution of the New Council, I don’t know how we go about the “catch-all” categories of Farmland, Residential and Business (ie. where you must make a rate for Farmland, Residential and Business for those parcels of land that do not fall within a sub-category). Presently, both Council A and Council B will have their own “catch-all” AV/Min/Base. So does that mean that New Council needs to and can only have one “catch-all”? For example, I can’t see how New Council can “make” two different Farmland rates because that would contravene the Act (the New Council can only have one Farmland rate – there can’t be one for Former Council A and Council B … and I can’t find a way to sub-categorise them; and even if I did, would creating new sub-categories which contravenes the rules (2) and (3) that the sub-categories can’t change). This problem (as I see it) extends to Residential and Business also … there are parcels which don’t get sub-categorised and are therefore rated as per the “catch-all” category: but how do two catch-all categories come together if we can’t change rating structures?

I might be way off track, but figure it’s worth us all putting in our ideas here on this forum, so if anyone else has anything to add (or can help me find the solution to this issue) please let me (and all of us) know.

Cheers
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Ken,

In the proclamation document it says 22(1): The day by which a new council must have an operational plan is 1 August 2016.

I read that as being one, singular plan for the new Council, not two plans which incorporate the new Council … ? Can you please shed some more light on this…?

Thanks
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Tracey,
I am thinking along the same lines as you. If the Opn Plan is not adopted (and rates and charges “made”) prior to 1 Aug then 1st inst due date will be extended to be the same as 2nd inst.
Otherwise, working backwards I have estimated that we would need to get the Opn Plan adopted and rates and charges “made” by 15 July in order to allow for a week of testing and levying and a week for data at the mailhouse (so that service is achieved by 1 Aug). This would mean that the Draft Opn Plan would need to go to Council approx. 24/06 to allow for public exhibition 28 days. That’s only 6 weeks from now, I’m not suggesting it’s doable or feasible but that’s the scheduling that I have come up with if a Cncl wanted to avoid missing out on the first inst payments coming in to Cncls in Aug.
Is this the same scheduling you guys have come up with?
Cheers,
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Michael,
We don’t have an urgency fee due to ordinary turnaround times being sufficient (and trying to be flexible when required)
Thanks Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Emma,
Sorry for delayed response. We do have online credit card payments, but at the moment this is limited to rates and water/sewer accounts (not sundry debtors, certificates, etc). We setup through the bank (we use CBA) and the ratepayers use their Biller Codes and Customer Ref numbers on their bills (much like BPay). The receipting process on our end is all pretty automated where we get a report of receipts and they are uploaded in a batch file.
Cheers
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Thanks Ken and Tracey. We haven’t been using base stock for a number of years now and so we have the flexibility for change to our notices when the time comes.

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Susan,
Just out of interest (to see if I can help), what finance system are you using?
Thanks Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Linda,
I am not a specialist in the area of sundry debtors, but I have been led to believe that in the Act being silent on interest on sundry debtors whilst being specific in relation to rates and charges that it is exclusive in its absence. Also, I haven’t reviewed consumer credit legislation in many years so am not certain whether this is accurate. I would love to hear from any Councils that have received legal advice or found conclusive evidence that interest on sundry debtors is permissible as we currently do not charge interest.
Thanks,
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Trevor,
If you could confirm that the car park is owned by the religious group and was only used for the purposes of providing car parking to Church-going parishioners, then yes, I would provide the exemption under 555(1)(e) as it is “used in connection with” the said church.
Cheers,
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

A follow up for anyone who would like to see the PDF version, it is now available online: http://law.ato.gov.au/pdf/pbr/cr2015-067.pdf

Thanks
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Tim,
This is the wording from the register:
“To abandon or write off rates and monies due to Council provided that any single total amount so abandoned or written off shall not exceed $100.”
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Tim,
In our delegations register I have authorisation to write off amounts up to $100 (but realistically I don’t have the need to write off this much in practice … it’s usually just the odd few cents or small debts at the end of the year)
Cheers
Susan

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Anita,
Under Sec 710 Council is obliged (in relation to postal service of notices) to post the letter “to the last known place of residence or business or post office box of the person to be served”.
So as long as you sent to the notice to the last known address, whether returned or not, the notice is deemed to be served.
However, if the notice is then returned to sender, I am not aware of any legislation that states that you are obliged to investigate the correct address. However, I would propose that it would be in your interests to do so in order to ensure accounts are not accumulating overdue rates and charges when it is clear that Council was aware that the ratepayer did not in fact receive their notice (because it has been returned to you).
For mail returned to sender, we also do our best to proactively contact the ratepayers and advise of the circumstance and request a change of address be completed, and then accordingly post the returned notice to the new address.
I would be interested to hear if anyone else has any alternate viewpoints on this, or whether generally all Councils follow up RTS mail on the basis of customer service and trying to ensure accounts are paid in a timely manner?
Thanks,
Susan

[Author]

Posts