Current Page

[Merrick N Sniper]

Our AGM is coming up and PeterC and Whale have been helpful under another topic helping me prepare for the big night. I do hope they’ll also weigh in here.

Here are two items from the agenda, both put there by the current Executive Committee with advice from the Strata Manager. No paperwork was attached, No quotes. Nothing. Apparently it’ll all be made clear on the night. Apart from them obviously not being proof-read, I find them hard to follow. How can they expect to get these through? Especially the second, driveway one, worth fifty grand plus. Is is just me? Am I being unreasonable? (The first, power one, is about a few garages which are on-title and we, the OC, are expected to pay for power to be wired to them. Not everyone has a garage.)

Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTION

Motion: That the Owners Corporation specially resolved (sic) to provide power to garages in order that additional lighting can be installed and those that went (sic) to automate their own can do so. The aim is to have the power back to the lot owner (sic).

Item 16. DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT

Motion: That the Owners Corporation agrees to proceed with quotes for replacement of the driveway and that the most suitable contractor be chosen by the Executive Committee to have this works (sic) done. The repairs to driveway are deemed to be necessary.

Topic

[Sir Humphrey]

@Merrick N Sniper said:
Our AGM is coming up and PeterC and Whale have been helpful under another topic helping me prepare for the big night. I do hope they’ll also weigh in here.

I’ll try.

Here are two items from the agenda, both put there by the current Executive Committee with advice from the Strata Manager. No paperwork was attached, No quotes. Nothing. Apparently it’ll all be made clear on the night. Apart from them obviously not being proof-read, I find them hard to follow. How can they expect to get these through? Especially the second, driveway one, worth fifty grand plus. Is is just me? Am I being unreasonable? (The first, power one, is about a few garages which are on-title and we, the OC, are expected to pay for power to be wired to them. Not everyone has a garage.)

I agree that both seem reasonable things to try to do but the motions are woeful.

Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTION

Motion: That the Owners Corporation specially resolved (sic) to provide power to garages in order that additional lighting can be installed and those that went (sic) to automate their own can do so. The aim is to have the power back to the lot owner (sic).

Here is my very quick and dirty redraft:

Special Resolution: That the OC manages a contract(s) to provide power to all garages on the following conditions:

1) The EC must obtain three quotes from suitably licensed and insured contractors for the work and consult with relevant owners about details of the installation such as routes for conduit and cost.

2) The OC grants permission for the installation of cabling traversing common property by the most practical and unobtrusive route between each garage and the meter for each associated lot.

3) All costs associated with the installation shall be recovered by the OC as a debt from the benefitting lot owners. All future costs associated with the repair and maintenance of the individual power supplies shall be the responsibility of the owner of the lot at any time. The OC shall maintain the power supplies in a safe condition and may recover any necessary costs as a debt from the owner of the lot at any time. The lot owner must grant reasonable access to enable an agent of the OC to inspect, repair and maintain the power supplies. 

4) The power supply to each garage shall be rated at 32 Amps*. The EC has the discretion to approve a higher rating if the benefitting lot owner agrees to meet any additional costs. 

5) If any lot owner does not wish to proceed with an electricity supply to his or her garage at this time, they may do so in the future only on the same terms as above.

 

*Or some other specification. Check that this is reasonable with an electrician. I am thinking of one standard 15Amp outlet. That is robust enough to charge an electric car but is compatible with any standard 10A appliance and the other 15A would be ample to cover hardwired stuff such as lighting, an automatic door opener etc. Or perhaps specify as ‘sufficient for one 15A standard outlet, lighting and another load such as an automatic door opener.’

 

NB, In the ACT this might be done just by resolution of the EC as a ‘minor use’ of common property granted to the unit owner. I have exactly that for a power supply to my carport. In NSW. I don’t think there is that option so it would have to be a general meeting resolution (I think).

Item 16. DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT

Motion: That the Owners Corporation agrees to proceed with quotes for replacement of the driveway and that the most suitable contractor be chosen by the Executive Committee to have this works (sic) done. The repairs to driveway are deemed to be necessary.

If the driveway is common property and it needs urgent repair to maintain safety, then the EC might not even need a motion. The OC would be obliged to repair whether it likes it or not and the EC should get on with it. However, since it is AGM time and since this is not an unforeseen expense it should appear in the budget being presented to the AGM. If the budget were rejected but the work was necessary then the EC would have to keep coming back to the OC to explain that it is obliged to maintain the common property and must approve reasonable repairs. If that failed the EC could probably get a Tribunal order to give effect to the motion to fund the repairs. However, it shouldn’t come to that if the EC explains things well.

I don’t know how the sinking fund works precisely in NSW. In the ACT, maintenance of a driveway/road/paths on common property would be part of the sinking fund plan and all OCs are required to have a sinking fund plan by the Act. If the sinking fund does not have sufficient funds or the plan did not anticipate a driveway repair or it anticipated a very much lower amount than the cost that now seems likely, then the proper motion would be a motion to amend the sinking fund plan.

The motion would amend the plan to anticipate the driveway repair in the current year, to anticipate a cost (need not be precisely right, just a reasonable estimate), and to amend the schedule of sinking fund levies to return the sinking fund to the planned balance over a few years. EG. if the driveway is expected to cost in the vicinity of $50K then that would be the amount in the amended plan. Then, for example, the motion would also amend the schedule of sinking fund levies to increase by $10K for each of the next 5 years of the plan to return the plan to the previously anticipated balance to cover other anticipated expenses. 

That approach supposes the OC has sufficient funds in the bank to spread the cost out over a few years (which is a fair way to manage things). Another approach for the same end would be for the OC to resolve to take out a strata loan, to not exceed some limit but sufficient to fund the driveway repairs. 

Another option is that the levies, just this year increase to cover it. However, a resolution to determine exactly what those levies are should be somewhere in the meeting agenda for any AGM. A one-off big jump in levies in one year is exactly what sinking fund plans are intended to avoid. It is also fair that owners across many years (past and future) cover the costs of maintenance, not just those who happen be unlucky to be owners in the year when a bunch of expensive repairs became necessary. 

At the least, the motions should say that the quotes are attached to the meeting notice, or give the amount, say whether the cost shall come from the Admin fund or sinking fund. Is that covered elsewhere perhaps by having the cost included in the budget? If so, approving the budget would seem sufficient. 

So, yes, this seems like it might all be reasonable but a bit slap-dash and does not inspire confidence.

I hope that helps,

Peter.

Quote

[kiwipaul]

Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTION

I agree with all that PeterC says but in NSW this sort of thing needs a byelaw to be registered to ensure future owners don’t come back to the OC for maintenance of this extra cabling.

So what PeterC proposes as a motion should instead be approved as a bylaw as it seems to cover all of the issues. This is not a problem because it is the same proportion of the vote to approve a new bylaw as to approve improvements.

The cost of registering a new bylaw is a couple of hundred $ which I think the Strata should pay for to eliminate future problems. Their is no requirement to spend more money on getting a lawyer to draw one up for such a simple change, just common sense.

Quote

[Sir Humphrey]

@kiwipaul said:
Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTION

I agree with all that PeterC says but in NSW this sort of thing needs a byelaw to be registered to ensure future owners don’t come back to the OC for maintenance of this extra cabling.

So what PeterC proposes as a motion should instead be approved as a bylaw as it seems to cover all of the issues. This is not a problem because it is the same proportion of the vote to approve a new bylaw as to approve improvements.

The cost of registering a new bylaw is a couple of hundred $ which I think the Strata should pay for to eliminate future problems. Their is no requirement to spend more money on getting a lawyer to draw one up for such a simple change, just common sense.

In the ACT, depending on whether the EC judged it to be defensible that this is a ‘minor use’ as defined in the Act, it might be done by the EC. However, for the reasons you say of transparency and not being lost in the mists of time, it could also be done as a special resolution that is registered with the Land Titles Office and so able to be found by anyone buying in. 

As a catch-all, our EC is proposing an amendment to our rules (aka bylaws) that would say (more elegantly) that anything installed on common property that is only for the benefit of one unit must be maintained in a safe condition by the unit owner at their expense, regardless of whether the item was approved or not, and the OC has the power to make it safe and charge them. 

Quote

[kiwipaul]

@PeterC said:

As a catch-all, our EC is proposing an amendment to our rules (aka bylaws) that would say (more elegantly) that anything installed on common property that is only for the benefit of one unit must be maintained in a safe condition by the unit owner at their expense, regardless of whether the item was approved or not, and the OC has the power to make it safe and charge them. 

That seems like an excellent idea if it’s legal in ACT. But in NSW I don’t believe it would work because it conflicts with the NSW Strata Act

65A

(3) If a special resolution under this section does not specify who has the
ongoing maintenance of the common property concerned, the owners
corporation has the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance.

If a bylaw conflicts with a higher law the bylaw looses and your intention is to transfer general responsibility to lot owners, responsibility that the Act in NSW says resides with the strata.

My problem is with this bit maintenance of the common property concerned, in your bylaw you are not specifying which is the common property and so it conflicts with the NSW act and so is invalid.

I feel the NSW Strata Act dumps to much responsibility onto the strata for the actions of irresponsible owners.

Quote

[Sir Humphrey]

kiwipaul said That seems like an excellent idea if it’s legal in ACT. But in NSW I don’t believe it would work because it conflicts with the NSW Strata Act

We had our proposed rule (bylaw) checked by a strata specialist lawyer who said it was OK, here at least.

Quote

[Author]

Replies