Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
In my experience in a large townhouse development with many trees, high hundreds of dollars is the cost to remove smaller trees. A moderate gum tree might be around $1200-$1500 and a big one about $2500. On over 11Ha with a lot of trees planted in the 1970s and some remnant bush, our trees budget has stabilised at around $8,000 but can vary up and down by 50% depending on what happens in a particular year, but there is always something.
There might be differences between state and territories legislations about how specifically detailed the financial reporting must be. Where I am (ACT), the Act does not specify financial reporting to be as detailed as you describe. It sounds like what you have in your papers would be sufficient. On this our Act just says: “For a notice of an annual general meeting, the notice must include a copy of … the annual financial statements of the corporation to be presented at the meeting … the general fund budget.”
I was treasurer of our OC for quite a few years. Our managing agent’s software produced reports that any committee member could access electronically at any time. One report ‘Income and Expenditure’ showed totals for expenses against each line of the budget, so for example, we might have a line for ‘tree maintenance’ and a budget of $12,000 and part way through the year we could see that we had spent $2,345 of that budget. Another report ‘Account Payments’ had a breakdown of every payment. That report might show that the $2,345 was comprised of two separate dated payments to a tree surgeon with short descriptions. ‘Tree surgery’ might be one and ‘tree removal’ might be another.
As treasurer, I would include the final Income and Expenditure report in the financial papers presented to the AGM but I did not include the Account Payments. On one occasion when a predecessor did include Account Payments, the meeting bogged down in minutiae such as why there was a payment of $23.86 against one line of the budget but then -$23.86 appears lower down. [Answer: the managing agent put a payment in the wrong spot and the treasurer asked to have it moved to the right category of spending.]
As treasurer, I found it more useful to owners to present a more user friendly ‘Treasurer’s Report’ that would draw attention to and explain anything unusual, that explained what was covered under some of the less clear budget line names, and commented on over or underspending on some lines and gave reasons for changes in the proposed budget for the coming year. Eg. I might write something like ‘This year we removed one substantial tree and engaged a tree surgeon to remove limbs from another that were overhanging a unit. Although these works did not use all of our budget for tree surgery, the proposed ‘trees’ budget for next year remains at $12,000 because we anticipate further work will be required along the southern boundary of the site.’
As an owner, you are entitled to view any of the records of the OC, so you could ask for a copy of the Account Payments report to be sent. If the managing agent and/or committee don’t want to send it to you, you can at least demand to view it at the office.
As for levies, another report that the managing agent’s software produced for us was ‘Unit Balances’. The managing agent should be able to tell the meeting if everyone is up to date with their levies. If they are not doing the accounting to keep track of that, what are you paying them for?!
The Act also says (Again, this is in the ACT, what you have might be similar or different) “A notice of a general meeting for an owners corporation must state … whether the person notified is entitled to vote on all (or any) motions at the meeting, and if not, why not … Note Section 3.20 explains who is entitled to vote on which kinds of motion. For example, if an amount is owing to the corporation in relation to a particular unit at the time of the general meeting, no vote may be cast by the unit owner (or anyone else) for that unit on any motion requiring an ordinary or special resolution.” So, clearly it is up to the committee or managing agent preparing the meeting notice to know if anyone is in arrears. I would expect there are similar provisions and expectations elsewhere. The managing agent should be able to say if an overdue levy payment has been received before the start of a meeting.
When I was treasurer, I generally omitted the ‘Unit Balances’ report from the financial reporting for the meeting and instead just included a statement that everyone had paid their levies and was therefore entitled to vote. Sometimes there was a little bit of sleight of hand in choosing to do that. We usually had a handful of units with unit balances that were listed in arrears but the amounts were trivial, usually less than $10. This happened because sometimes people would have paid their last levy exactly as they were asked to on their levy notices but did so slightly late. The consequence was that their account would have a month or two’s worth of penalty interest applied that they did not yet know about. It did not compound and would be included on their next levy notice and then generally paid. It was not worth chasing those owners for a few dollars that would be received soon enough. Clearly these people had paid their levies and it would have been unreasonable to deny them voting rights over what was often a matter of cents to a few dollars. Since there was ‘An amount was owing to the corporation’ and we had one pedant who would have insisted each year that a handful of people should be disenfranchised on account of owing trivial amounts, it was better, I thought, to say ‘All are up to date with their levies, so all can vote’ and leave the Unit Balances report out of the meeting papers.
That would not work in the ACT. Where I am the Act says “… A person entitled to vote at a general meeting of an owners corporation must not— (a) appoint a proxy for more than 1 year after the day the appointment is made …” but other states may be different and often are.
While I can find excessive perfume smells annoying (eg. the lady next to me at a recent concert I attended), I have to feel a little scepticism when OP’s concern over perfume in washing extends to “the building across the road from us”, unless the road is very narrow and the buildings are tall and wide.
I am reminded of an instance when one person’s concern over the noise of an air-conditioner inhibited that person’s neighbour from using it, even when his elderly wife was terminally ill in mid-summer. The person claimed special sensitivity. The sound level, objectively measured with a sound level meter only a few meters from the compressor, was barely above ambient on a day with a light breeze and well below noise limits set by reasonable standards.
That said, we could all do with fewer unnecessary chemicals added to detergents and the like.
Ah. I missed that ‘Vicres’ might have suggested Victoria (slaps forehead). So, Victoria has some distinction like the ACT’s class A and class B units?
In the system I am familiar with, class B, is generally townhouses, generally horizontal strata, and the unit owner is responsible for repair and maintenance of the structures. IE. my roof and walls are mine to maintain. In the case of a party wall with an adjoined neighbour we have a shared responsibility for the wall.
In contrast, ‘Class A’ is generally vertical strata, typically blocks of flats/apartments, and you only ‘own’ the volume of air in the unit.
I assume you are in NSW, in which case I don’t know the answer. I would be looking to see if you have a provision like in the ACT’s Unit Titles (Management) Act s.25 whereby “An owners corporation for a units plan may, by special resolution, exempt itself from 1 or more maintenance obligations … if the exemption is not reasonably likely to have a significant adverse effect on (a) the appearance of the common property; or (b) the safety of occupiers of the units or of the public.”
Consistent with this provision, our OC adopted a rule (aka by-law) that required unit owners to maintain their individual paths and driveways that connected to the shared paths and roads: “The unit owner must ensure that their individual access structures do not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other unit owners or have any significant adverse effect on the appearance of the common property or the safety of occupiers of the units or of the public”, deliberately echoing the words of the Act. We did not want the OC to assume responsibility for people’s paths where they crossed a few meters of common property, especially as some were cheap but entirely adequate simple gravel paths/driveways while others were concrete or expensive pavers or stone or bitumen or involved steps etc.
I agree with JT. By all means take the issue on but be careful to always be scrupulously fair and accurate, even when the forces of evil are not. You win in the end by being seen to behave decently and honestly.
My neighbours generally dry their washing on clotheslines in their courtyards or balconies. As this has never bothered me, I can understand why your claim that you might suffer an adverse health effect may have been met with some scepticism.
There is also a middle course whereby the OC can give directions to the committee about how it should make a decision. For example, where I live, our ‘rules’ (ACT-speak for bylaws) allow the committee to approve unit alterations on behalf of the OC. However, there have been various general meeting resolutions over the years that constrain the committee. One constraint is a resolution that the committee must consult the owners of units that might be affected by the alteration, generally those that are immediately adjacent in all directions. A neighbour does not have a veto but the committee must make sure the neighbour has had a chance to see plans and comment. Other OC decisions constrain various details of style and materials that the committee can approve.
Why not just use the wording from the Act? That way, you can be sure you have it right.
I won’t get pedantic about ‘the abstention argument’ for NSW because I am in the ACT and NSW wording could be different. Where I am in the ACT, a special resolution requires:
“(i) the number of votes cast in favour of the resolution is greater than the number of votes cast against it; and
(ii) the votes cast against the resolution number less than 1/3 of the total number of votes that can be cast on the resolution by people present at the meeting (including proxy votes)”
or the same thing except by unit entitlements, if a poll is demanded.
In the ACT, if there were 100 people (or unit entitlements) present at the meeting (including by proxy) and 51 voted ‘yes’ (a majority in favour) and 32 (less than one third) voted ‘no’ and 17 people present at the meeting abstained on that particular motion, then the motion would pass.
NB. in NSW it is 1/4, not 1/3 opposed that can kill a motion, and the wording could be different anyway.
The point of a special resolution is to determine that there is not a substantial level of opposition (less than a third in the ACT or less than a quarter in NSW), not to determine the size of support beyond the requirement for a majority.
You could have a resolution like that. It seems to be intended to give assurance to a committee that they can do anything on behalf of the OC, except for things that the Act explicitly says must go to a general meeting.
Alternatively, you could resolve to direct the committee that certain specified sorts of decisions must come to a general meeting, even if that is not required by the Act. What might be reasonable for the whole OC to decide rather than the committee could vary from one place to another.
Then it would be up to the Owners (as the owners corp) to seek to have that money paid back.
Couldn’t it be done with one trip to the Tribunal? I would have thought that you could go to the Tribunal asking for:
1) a ruling that the expenditure of $X on Y on (date) was not properly authorised, and
2) if the Tribunal grants the ruling sought at (1) or some amendment thereof, an order that the expenditure be repaid to the owners corporation by (some named person(s)) by (some date), and
3) any amendment of the above orders or any other order that the Tribunal considers necessary or reasonable to resolve the matter.
People should know all year that the next AGM is likely to be close to 12 months after the previous one. When I was on our committee, we had various criteria:
-A date we could book our usual local venue.
-A date that suited the chair, secretary and treasurer.
-A date when the managing agent was available.
-We avoided Fridays, not just for the managing agent or religious sensibilities but also because people often socialise then or leave town or want to pack if going away for a weekend.
-We avoided school holiday periods when owners with children were more likely to go away or have visitors.
-We needed to leave enough time after the end of financial year to have the numbers finalised and decide on the proposed budget for the coming year, get meeting papers together and checked thoroughly with further time factored in for corrective action when the managing agent leaves something out in spite of our careful checking.
-We needed to stay before the last date after the end of the financial year when the meeting could be held (3 months, in the ACT).
-We always tried to get meeting papers out with substantially more notice than the statutory minimum (14 calendar days in the ACT) taking into account of when notices are deemed to arrive (7 working days) when sent by ordinary mail and the above-mentioned stuff-ups. We also needed to comply with a general meeting resolution from years earlier that the EC gives 4 weeks notice, rather than the 2 or 3 weeks minimum notice (in the ACT, depending on the class of resolutions). In practice, we aimed to get papers sent just over 4 weeks before the meeting date.
By the time we worked through those constraints, we would usually be down to only one or two days when we could have the meeting.
I mostly agree with LP. An owner might have a reasonable interest in being assured that the committee is keeping enough of an eye on things to ensure that structural work is consistent with the OC’s approval and has any other necessary approvals. The latter might be particularly important for the OC’s insurance on the whole block.
If enough people disapproved of her behaviour they could vote against her appointment to the committee. The committee is elected. However, that would take someone prepared to stand up in a public meeting and speak in favour of voting against her rather than just appointing all the nominees with a show of hands.
In our OC, I only recall one person failing to be elected in such a manner. It was close and the vote had to be counted three times.