Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
…Choosing the time unit occupants use higher load appliances is limited…
This is the bit that worries me about sharing any electricity tariff with different rates at different times. What happens if some are very diligent about shifting loads to times of lower cost while other can’t be bothered? Would it lead to discord? Is there a mechanism for equitable cost sharing? On a flat tariff it is easy. A simple kWh counter in line with each unit allows for pro rata sharing.
BTW. EV charging and water heating are substantial loads that can usually be shifted fairly easily.
In short, the buck stops with the EC. Yes, they are supposed to elect those office bearers from among their number (one EC member can have more than one executive function). Yes, the treasurer is responsible for those financial matters but the rest of the EC is responsible to oversee the treasurer and ensure that the treasurer’s functions are performed. So, the whole EC is responsible.
If the keeping of accounts is delegated to the strata manager, they should make the accounts available to the EC any time the EC wants to see the financial records. Ultimately, the buck stops with the EC.
What you propose is called an ‘Embedded Network’. The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has very stringent rules about how such an embedded network must operate. I think it would be doable but an early step to take would be to read their guidance.
Any fan that exhausts gases such as CO, CO2 etc will also exhaust fine suspended particles. Since CO2 is produced at the same time as those suspended particles, both should be exhausted together. It might be that the exhaust system is insufficient but any particles that are fine enough to stay suspended will behave like a gas.
I thought exhaust fans were required if not naturally ventilated but I don’t know. Perhaps look into getting set up for EV charging. The changeover to non-emitting vehicles will be slower but perhaps a better use of funds than retro-fitting exhaust fans now.
When we had an analogous situation, our EC let the selling real estate agent know that the owners had been issued with a ‘rules infringement notice’ re the unauthorised enclosure of common property (‘notice to comply’, I think, in NSW-speak). We had not yet reached the point of taking that on to the Tribunal before the unit was put on the market. The selling real estate agent was very diligent to let the more serious prospective purchasers know that the relevant unapproved fence had to come down and to make it clear where the boundaries were and the sorts of boundary treatments that were approvable under our rules. The new owners promptly fixed things up on moving in.
Do you have anything from 1971 that was specific to your site? If so, they might be no longer relevant or they might be worth keeping. They could be as minor as ‘bins must be housed in the enclosure to the right of the main entrance’ but worth keeping if they cover particular issues relevant only to you.
There might be some exclusive use bylaws that you should keep. Eg. Unit 3 has permission to have … extend 1m onto common property along the eastern side of the unit subject to maintaining … in a state of good repair.
Are there other things that have been perennial issues that have relied on the old ‘We have always done it like that’ as the justification. If there are actually very good reasons to have ‘always done it like that’, putting it in a custom bylaw might avoid having to re-explain it every few years. A lawyer might either draft appropriate bylaws to cover such matters or they might point out where that issue is covered in the Act making a bylaw unnecessary.
So, prepare a good brief for the lawyer explaining what you would like to get out of an update.
If you and your neighbour are both going to be in your units for the foreseeable future, why not just have an informal agreement that they let you use their space and vice-versa? That costs nothing and involves no-one else.
My thinking is more in line with JT’s. Strata developments are people’s homes and, ideally, form a community of neighbours whose interests go beyond getting a monetary return on a monetary investment. I agree that OC management should be business-like but it should not be without emotion. When dealing with people who are your friends and neighbours, it is best to make some allowances for people’s odd preferences, foibles and sensitivities. That is no excuse for preferential treatment, improper process or disregard for strata legislation but we are dealing with people in their homes, not purely financial investments.
Where I am, we have installed various community facilities and they have been great successes. People love having these structures in place that facilitate meeting their neighbours. To the few owners who were unimpressed, I say ‘Even if you never use them, if nothing else, they have increased the value of your property.’ They were worthwhile enough for that reason but the return on investment of social capital has been far more valuable than the crude monetary value of a unit.
The legislation would be the bit that requires the OC to maintain its common property. I am in the ACT so I can’t point to the relevant chapter and verse elsewhere but it is a fundamental provision in all strata legislation.
Could you perhaps find 2-3 allies who would work on the courtyard garden with you? Perhaps you could offer to the committee that you would provide the labour if they agree to reimburse you for just the small cost of a few plants, some mulch, a bag of compost … Work out a budget of what you would need and present that to them.
Then, at the AGM, you don’t put a motion but you do give a short speech about how the OC really needs to accept its obligation to maintain the common property and put more into the grounds maintenance line of the budget, even if that means putting levies up a bit. Point to the improvements you have made to the courtyard and the small cost that was involved.
If they had not agreed to even let a few volunteers fix up the garden at very little cost, then you point that out at the AGM and shame them into letting you go ahead.
The motion can be defeated though right?
Yes. I would only do this if you have got the numbers having talked to neighbours. It is a way to force the hand of the EC.
I have been discouraged in the past to add a motion because it would have to go through the OC whereas I was told that if we informally discuss the plans, then the EC could allocate funds within permissible limits for the gardens.
Yes. If the EC could be persuaded to use some of an existing budgets for grounds maintenance, that would be preferable. It depends whether there really is sufficient money in the budget or not. The motion would be a way to ensure there was enough.
Is the OC obliged to keep the gardens in a state they were when I bought 15 years ago?
There is a general obligation to repair and maintain any aspect of the common property and that includes the grounds. That might not mean exactly as it was 15 years ago but the gardens should not be simply neglected. An advantage of a motion could be to set out what the OC wants its gardens to look like. Some people might be happy with gardens that look a little wild while others might want lawn you could play bowls on. It depends what people want and that could change over time.
You could put a motion to the next general meeting to be put later in the meeting after the acceptance of the EC’s proposed budget. The motion could be along the lines of:
That the 2023-24 budget be amended by 1) the addition of $X for the refurbishment of the courtyard garden to be spend in accordance with the attached proposal and 2) an increase in the total annual levy by $X in order to leave the rest of the budget unaltered, and that future budgets include a sufficient allocation for the on-going maintenance of all common property garden areas.
The attached proposal could detail the one-off costs needed to get the garden spruced up in the first year.
DON’T go there …
Seems like a reasonable set up. The OC has sensibly left all the administrative burden and the ownership of depreciating assets in the hands of separate entity. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, the OC presumably has a time limit on the contract set up by the developer.
Sir Humphrey said:
EV owners will set their cars to pause charging between 5 and 8PM to avoid the time of typical peak demand
We investigated and found that our peak demand was hot afternoons. Air-conditioning uses far more kWh than stoves because once the AC is running it’s left on until bed-time (or all night in some cases). Meanwhile, refrigerators run for a few minutes and stoves are turned off after an hour or so.
So perhaps any permission to draw current for EV charging should allow for the weather!
Sure. The peak can vary from season to season and place to place. A load management system would sort things automatically and is probably part of an ultimate solution. However, shorter term, ad hoc solutions for the first X% of plug-in vehicles can work and buys time to work out what is really needed for the building, to educate owners, build support and save up for what might be needed. While all this is happening, you don’t need to hold people back if you don’t let them pull too much current and avoid adding to a reasonable guesstimate of when the building peak would be.
I generally agree with pebeaco. I would add that it is often quite feasible to have ad hoc arrangements for the first few EVs in a building. It is very unlikely that allowing an inexpensive installation of a few 10A power points will over-load a building. If in doubt, get an agreement that the EV owners will set their cars to pause charging between 5 and 8PM to avoid the time of typical peak demand. You could have an agreement that the EV owners will pay an estimated amount based on milage or an electrician could put a simple, cheap kWh counter in line with a power point so all parties can see and record exactly what was added to the OC’s account and arrange reimbursement.
Any permissions could be given subject to acknowledgement that they are temporary and may be revoked later when there is more demand for EV charging and the OC sorts out fancier charging arrangements, probably with a load management system that slows or pauses charging when building demand is high but also allows faster-than-10A charging when building demand is low or few cars are plugged in.
I’d also point out that the new National Construction Code calls for this sort of load management system to be installed in new apartment blocks along with sufficient space on distribution boards and cable trays etc for all units to have charging in their parking space.