Page 1450 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Residents often contact the opposition frustrated about how much they are paying despite trying to be careful about how much water they actually use. Older residents or young residents who live by themselves are subsidising families who may be using more water, for example. The inequity of the situation is even worse in situations where both residential and commercial units have their water usage measured by the same water meter. Owners of residential units are often slugged with huge water bills even when they are taking steps to conserve water.
The current unit titles legislation allows individual owners to install their own water meters but only after the passage of an unopposed motion. This is nearly impossible to secure because those owners who are using more water may not agree to go out of the pooled arrangement. Some owners have spent years trying to persuade other owners to agree to individual water meters with no success, and they are understandably frustrated. The possibility of getting an individual water meter installed for a commercial unit is even less likely.
This bill reduces the threshold for allowing installation of an individual water meter to a simple majority. This will mean that a majority of owners in a unit complex can decide that an individual water meter is allowed. Reducing the threshold to require a simple majority will allow more owners to choose to install an individual meter while still giving the majority of unit owners the power to reject such a proposal.
In discussion with stakeholders it has become clear that water usage is a major problem in mixed-use buildings or facilities. I have been told about several buildings where residential units are significantly subsidising commercial units. In one case the total water bill doubled after a bar opened in the complex. People living in the apartments above the bar had their water bills double despite not using any additional water themselves. Under the present legislation there is no way to force the owners of the bar to pay for what they are using.
For this reason, my bill includes a provision to allow a special resolution which requires a two-thirds majority to require a sub-meter to be installed for a unit. This means in the situation I mentioned that the owners of the residential units could agree to force the owner of the commercial unit to install a sub-meter and be correctly charged for the water that is used.
My bill also allows the owners corporation to recover administrative costs where they are responsible for administering water meters. In some cases it would be possible for sub-meters to be read by Icon Water and the bill will be sent directly to the owner. However, in some cases this will not be possible. In these cases the owners corporation will be responsible for determining how much each unit is required to pay. This may involve extra time and expense for the owners corporation and it is only fair that these costs be recovered.
Another change included in this bill is a provision for water to be charged through a bill rather than in advance through a budget. This means that owners are required to pay for what they actually use rather than having to pay up-front and potentially overpaying and going into credit. This will also mean that the owners corporation does not have to repay owners for an overpayment for their contributions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video