Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Gilgal1 said:
You could also consider installing a coin-operated laundromat-style dryer, which residents could use by paying for electricity as they go.
Agreed that this is very reasonable. A pedant could say this runs into a potential problem. Google IT2505 for the tax ruling:
“Non-mutual income derived from what is defined as personal property of a body corporate is also subject to income tax. The term personal property relates to movable property or goods and chattels and includes such items as washing machines, driers, lawnmowers, garden hoses and money. An example of this would be income derived from non-proprietors (eg. Persons renting within a block of home units) using coin operated washing machines.
Another important aspect in relation to the income tax consequences of bodies corporate is that of income received from common property. Under IT 2505, a body corporate is not taxed on income it receives from common property. Rather, this income is taxed in the hands of the individual proprietors based on their unit entitlements.”
What this means is that tenants using the coin operated drier could cause the OC to have a profit. That would not be a problem except that the profit, being non-mutual, has to declared on every proprietors separate tax statement in proportion to unit entitlements, probably a few dollars each-a trivial nuisance. I would try to have the cost of the driers, their depreciation and the electricity etc. to just break even.
Also, in the ACT, the new Unit Titles Act prohibits Rules (Bylaws) that would prevent sustainability measures such as a clothes line for air drying. I would agitate for this if you don't have it already.
This Broncos17 said:
I am on our EC and I am surprised that people don't contact us. Recently the EC was “attacked” at an EGM …
Sadly, that is the pattern for us-some are more willing to communicate than others but it is always the EC's fault for 'poor communication'. We even were accused of poor communication when we recently called an information evening meeting so that we could communicate a complex issue just about as soon as possible after it happened, with an invited expert to explain and answer questions!
We have some accommodating, understanding and appreciative owners who will diligently, helpfully and reasonably get in touch about matters of interest or concern but many tend to be reluctant to bother the EC. Then we have some frequent communicators who (if not overtly complaining) always include a sarcastic sting in the tail of any superficially helpful comment to imply that the EC has in some way been negligent, fraudulent, partisan or worse.
You just have to be available for communication and keep spirits up by sharing the occasional bouquets around the committee.
We have an information booklet in a loose leaf binder in each unit (townhouse). The first page is changed each year and has, among other things, the name, unit number, phone number and email addresses of each executive committee member and their role (chair, treasurer, community fire unit chief, 'cluster reps' (we have units arranged in 5 clusters and try to get an EC member from each cluster, not alway successfully). Owners regularly email us on diverse matters. Some are more polite than others, as might be expected!
For what it's worth, our OC (105 townhouses) swapped to individual water metering years ago. It took some lobbying and discussion but people agreed in the end. We have 108 meters on site, 105 for the units and 3 in different areas of the common property. The OC pays the 3 bills, the 105 go to individuals just like in non-strata. We are in the ACT and the decision was made easier by having the meters all in place already on individual lines to each unit.
Jeff said:
Hi,
I'm new to this forum and I need some help. I am one of 3 on the EC and we are allowed to spend upto $1,500 on repairs to common property without the approval of the OC. Does the EC have to have a meeting (which the rules state takes a minimum of 3 days) before we can go ahead with an urgent repair to common property? What would happen if the repairs are over our limit (say $3000) Do we have to convene an EGM before we go ahead with the repairs? I am concerned that our hands are tied while all this time goes by.
Jeff
We had a situation where urgent work was required. There was enough money in the bank and if we did not do the work and a certain wall collapsed we might have been responsible for significant damage to private property or even killing someone. We (the EC) decided to get on with it. If, in the fullness of time, it turned out that we did not do it quite right, it could be fixed. Once work started and we were getting closer to a general meeting a couple of owners took exception to the work being done at OC expense. We got legal advice with a series of questions such as “What liability might the OC have been exposed to if we had not acted immediately on learning of a dangerous situation?”, and so on. The answers were very sobering! If your work is required on safety grounds I would get on with it to avoid serious liabilities. If it would save the OC some significant money to do some repairs now before it gets worse, but it is not a safety issue, I would make sure that the potential savings were clearly documented if it is not obvious and still get on with it. If neither of these apply, why not wait for the approval? Why does the EC have that money limit? Is that because you only have a maintenance budget of that amount approved at the previous AGM? I think the EC would have some latitude to go a bit over budget on some items so long as it is not grossly different from what was budgeted. I am a treasurer and some budget items will always be less predictable than others. I don't worry too much if a few items are a bit over or under if the expenses are justifiable, we have plenty in the bank in reserve and overall the budget is not grossly out.
FlatChatFan said:
Thanks for culling the advertisements and promotions Jimmy.
My partner did a TAFE course for pest “control” and said that basically things that actually kill termites, etc. are toxic for humans and pets as well.
The important thing is to try to keep the little pests out of a property and not put out a 'welcome mat' for them.
Make sure ventilation spaces are open, keep soil and vegetation away from boundary walls, dry out damp areas, or even better, don't let places get wet that were not designed to be that way.
For ordinary houses a termite barrier can be dug around the property but urban high rise is another matter.
Nothing is perfect.
Yes and no. I have some background in this area as a biochemist who has generally worked with insects. Some termite toxins are very specific to aspects of their biochemistry that vertebrates just don't do. Other insecticides are more general. Either should be handled with caution just in case but there really is some very clever targeted chemistry. One example is a toxin that inhibits the formation of chitin, the major component of the rigid exoskeleton of arthropods (insects, spiders, crustaceans) but it not used by vertebrates at all.
On the other hand I agree that the best precaution is to fix up any leaking shower recesses and pipes, ensure subfloor spaces are well ventilated, scraps of wood left by builders are tidied up etc. Inspect regularly.
I am writing from the ACT. I would recommend that you mine the recently amended ACT legislation for ideas. I made submissions to the review on problems we encountered trying to get some sustainability measures in place. I am pleased to say that every one of those issues was addressed in pretty much the way I recommended in the new legislation. Feel free to quote any of the below in submissions to the NSW review. And take heart, sometimes democratic processes do work!
If anyone wants further detail please get in touch. In particular, think of the benefits if, embedded within the load, there was solar generation on the roof of every strata building across our cities. This would seriously save some money for the strata buildings but also reduce the need for new generation and distribution upgrades to cope with air-conditioning loads. This saves money for everyone else too. Much of the increase in electricity costs if for infrastructure upgrades and very little is for various measures such as the renewable energy target, in spite of the rhetoric of some pollies. For obvious reasons solar electric output tends to track air-conditioning loads pretty well.
See https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2011-41/default.asp for the ACT legislation.
In particular see Section 23. It says an OC can approve sustainability equipment on the common property with a single, ordinary resolution. A plan must be presented that covers how it is to be financed, any easements required, a maintenance plan, the costs and long term environmental benefits, but if you cover all that in a plan it can be voted on once and simply. Previously this might have required different classes of motions for its various parts.
The sustainability infrastructure can be held ‘in trust’ for the owners, rather than as ‘agent’. The point of this bit is that any feed-in tariff you might earn from solar PV is taxed differently depending on the relationship between the OC and the owners. When it is ‘agent’ income in respect of the common property is taxed in tiny slices in the hands of individual owners who will be on different marginal rates or might have effect on a pension. In any case a nuisance and not an equal benefit to all owners. As far as I know our OC was the first to get a tax ruling on this question and were able to feed that to the review of the Act.
The ACT legislation has always had a ‘prohibition on business’ section. This was the only bit that had been anticipated by the local pollies as an impediment. The tax office gave us a ruling that our proposed PV system would not be business because it was of a scale that matched our costs for utilities (IE we could cover our electricity costs by making as much electricity as we use) and not on the much larger scale of typical commercial electricity generation. This has been picked up in the Act so that PV on this scale even when profitable via feed-in tariffs is explicitly not contravening the prohibition on business section. However, the Act also includes a note suggesting the mechanism by which PV on a grander scale could be installed. IE a route is left open for every large building to have commercial scale generation across the roofs.
Elsewhere the Act says that an owners corporation can use funds from the sinking fund for the above if the sustainability infrastructure is an improvement of the common property that was anticipated as part of a properly constituted sinking fund plan.
Also, the Act prohibits Rules (By-Laws) that prevent sustainability measures. IE you can’t ban a clothes line or curtains/blinds that insulate well or solar hot water or electricity.
Good Luck!
We have a store room on common property that is used to store some tools and equipment for our grounds maintenance people and a few other bits and pieces. It is locked and unavailable to owners generally to store whatever they like. It does have quite a bit of spare space and I would say an owner might rent half of it (say) from the OC. Just storing your stuff which prevents storing other stuff would be like getting a 'special privilege' which in the ACT requires an unopposed resolution. By paying rent the entire OC continues to get the opportunity for 'use and enjoyment' from this bit of common property. That would be my amateur legals.
Hang in there. By the sounds of it you are winning. Problems we have had were caused because people were slack about the law, took an easy path which left a worse issue to be dealt with years or decades later, or people who backed off as soon as anyone objected even a little bit which just trained to bullies to expect to get away with being unreasonable. You will do everyone a favour by following through even though the legal processes are slow.
I would call a meeting of the EC, very formally, by the book etc. Pass resolutions and record minutes etc that the managing agent be required to provide copies of the decision to repair carports (since you can't find it in minutes), to disclose any other costs that might be pending etc. Meanwhile talk to the manager and make it clear you do not appreciate being kept in the dark, that you take your responsibilities seriously and so on. I'd show the manager you mean business and he/she should fall into line. If not, then think about appointing a new manager.
While you are at it, perhaps it is time to suggest that the hot water service goes on the roof and should be solar.
There seem to be some questions to ask. Is it really in your property or is there an easement of some sort on the title? I would have a look at the unit plan. Where I am there are areas people think are their private gardens but are actually common property on the unit plan. If it is on your lot how did it get there if it is not servicing your unit? If it is servicing the common property or multiple units any owner would have an interest in getting the leak fixed to save a big water bill. If it is the responsibility of the owners corporation but the leak is damaging your property you could point out that you could make a claim against the owners corporation. How do other owners get to use the tap if it is on your lot? There are restrictions on entering a lot without permission (I assume for NSW-there are in the ACT).
DaveB said:
Peter C is most likely from the ACT, where the legislation allows for Class B units. Unlike in NSW the Class B units structures themselves are, in theory at least, maintained by the owners, so the levies would be much less. Having lived in that situation in a group of 50, as the units aged it was very hard to get some recalcitrant owners to spend money on their properties, so some of the units presented a rather shabby appearance alongside their neighbours. It was possible to repair such properties at the expense of the owners corporation, and then enforce recovery, but why should other owners have to do this from their scarce communal funds? As the current owner of two units (townhouse and villa) in NSW I am much happier with the legislation here which allows an even standard to be applied thru the complex, and for economies of scale to be achieved when doing such things as a general repaint. On present value of property my levies would represent about 0.5% per annum.
Yes. I am from the ACT. I didn't realise NSW did not have the class A/B distinction we have. Here unit owners are responsible to maintain their class B units and the OC only maintains the common property although the OC insures the entire property. Unit owners generally only take out contents insurance.
Just as you suggest as perennial issue is that some units are poorly maintained compared to neighbours. Some of ours are a bit shabby and could do with some tidying up of weeds and cobwebs and a coat of paint. However, a worse issue to my particular aesthetic sensibilities is that some units owners repaint in not quite the standard colour or think that something quite different would be an improvement and then will not budge. We have an interesting and integrated architectural style that is not enhanced by having individual units draw the eye more than the overall shapes of groups of units.
JimmyT said:
I work on a very rough rule of thumb of annual levies being 1% of the value of the unit plus or minus, say, 0.3%, based the number of facilities the OC has to maintain divided by the number of units…”
I have to remember that one. As treasurer of our owners corp. I have some influence in setting levies and suggesting spending priorities. Our levies are about 0.2% of the value of a unit but I think we are very responsibly managed. We have plenty in our sinking fund. We have a few owners who dispute that which is a pain but we took professional advice and performed our own reality checks on that. We are just lucky that we actually have few major expenses to worry about. We are 'class B' units, townhouses, so most maintenance is down to individual owners. Most of the road through the property is a public road so we don't have nearly as much road resurfacing to anticipate as most places would have. All our services, electricity, water, sewer and such are in easements that belong to the service provider not us and each unit is connected individually. Consequently we do not have utilities that service multiple units to worry about. We do have large grounds but much is drought tolerant native grasses and remnant bush which does not need a lot of maintenance. We have some paths, lights, a tennis court and playground but they are not too expensive to look after split across about 100 units. The more I read about other strata issues the luckier I realise we are!
I mention this just to say there are exceptions to the most reasonable general rules!
Since it is not the AGM I don't see why the EC would have to call for other matters. Could they not assume that any matter serious enough to take to a meeting might have been brought to their attention already? However, now a meeting is called you and any other owner could check what the process is for adding any other matters to the agenda. If it is too late to put any resolution I would expect you could request that the meeting and the chair permits discussion of other matters on the night to give guidance to the EC before the next AGM.
I don't know about NSW. In the ACT a general meeting can be called any time the EC thinks it is appropriate (even to consider only one matter) or if 25% of owners request it (IE by petition). Otherwise an annual meeting is required.