MOTION 9:  SOLAR POWER – VIABILITY ASSESSMENT

[ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Abstain

Ordinary Resolution – Proposed by: Xueshan Jia Co-owner Lot 1142

THAT the body corporate approve engagement of a solar company, who is a qualified solar energy company, at a no cost of bodycorp to have quota from solar company to install free solar system and battery funded by government renewable energy scheme on Level 3 of Southport Central Residential to provide electricity to the Residential pool deck and recreation areas including pumps and filtration equipment for three pools and two spas, Resident’s lounge, Function room, gym, sauna and steam room, lighting across the pool deck including paths, gardens and multiple BBQ locations – with any shortfall (for example at night) to be satisfied using energy supplied through the embedded supplier.

AND FURTHER

(a) the Body Corporate Committee engage at least 5 solar companies within 60 days of the AGM; and

(b) within 60 days of being engaged, the Solar companies provide a comprehensive written report on the viability of installing a solar system on the pool deck, the report to include an overview of the general design and estimated cost of supply and installation of a system of solar panels and battery system on top of existing roof of Gym ( more than 400m2 ), indoor pool roof ( more than 200 m2 ), conference room roof ( more than 100 m2 ), roof of Barbecue shed ( more than 100 m2 ), and perspective the North-East wall of the pool deck and several low level structures and plantrooms, and an estimate of the annual value of the savings in electricity costs.

AND FURTHER, the committee upload the quotas from 5 solar company to the Body Corporate Portal within 14 days of receipt or otherwise ensure the report is made available to all owners at no cost.

AND FURTHER, a motion be included on the agenda of the next General Meeting, following receipt of the quota, for owners to consider the adoption of the quota from each solar company.

Click here for more information 

---

MOTION 10 ELECTRONIC VOTING

[ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Abstain

Proposed by R Cartledge & M Lim, Lot 1255, I Aden, Lot 1265, M & A Walton, Lot 1346, J Butler Lot 22703, Xueshan Jia Lot 1142, D Hicks Lots 1195 & 31702, B Walker Lot 1104, T & P Sanhueza Lot 32001, R Manchip Lot 32002, C Griffith Lot 32803

THAT the body corporate resolves to introduce electronic voting to enable owners to vote online at all general meetings (eg Annual General Meetings & Extraordinary General Meetings);

FURTHER, the body corporate use an online voting system that complies with the Electronic Transactions Act (Queensland) 2001;

FURTHER, that online voting commence at the first meeting post 1 January 2025; AND FURTHER, that in addition to the usual information which must be contained in the Meeting Notice (as to where and when meetings will be held), owners be advised that they may vote using traditional methods, ‘attend’ meetings to vote in person, or vote online, with details of how to vote online clearly explained in the Meeting Notice.

Click here for more information

---

MOTION 11:  RESTORE THE GENERAL LEDGER TO THE BODY CORPORATE PORTAL

[ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Abstain

Ordinary Resolution- Proposed by R Cartledge & M Lim Lot 1255, I Aden Lot 1265, J Butler Lot 22703

THAT the body corporate resolves to direct the Body Corporate Manager to restore the General Ledger (in its previous interactive form) to the Body Corporate Portal.

FURTHER, in the event the Body Corporate Manager fails to restore the General Ledger to the portal within 30 days, the Body Corporate Committee thereinafter publish a Monthly Newsletter to all owners either including a link to the General Ledger and accompanying invoices, or attach a copy of that months General Ledger in PDF format including:

• the date of the transaction
• the name of the service provider
• the invoice number
• an interactive PDF to open the invoice
• the invoice amount

Click here for more information

---

MOTION 12:  BODY CORPORATE BY-LAWS

[ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Abstain

Ordinary Resolution – Proposed by: I Aden owner Lot 1265

THAT the current Community Management Statement (CMS), which includes the Body Corporate By-laws for Southport Central Residential, be uploaded to the body corporate portal within 30 days.

FURTHER, upon a new Community Management Statement being registered, it be uploaded within 30 days of being registered with Titles Queensland.

FURTHER, in the event the Body Corporate Manager fails to upload the CMS to the portal within the said 30 days, the Body Corporate Committee publish forthwith, a newsletter to all owners attaching a copy of the CMS in PDF format.

Click here for more information

Three fresh faces on the committee will make a huge difference. Currently, many aspects of our financial affairs are hard to come by. The general ledger, which details ongoing spending, has been removed from the owners’ Community App. We don’t know the current planning and cost of long-term maintenance as the last publicly available sinking fund report was 2018. Yet there is increasing rust around our community area. The gardens look dilapidated. Neglected maintenance erodes the value of your apartment. We continue to face massive legal expenses. Our three new faces will advocate transparency and accountability so that owners are in control of levies and spending. So please vote for them!

---

Xueshan “Jimmy” Jia (for chairperson)

I am a highly skilled professional engineer, with a PhD in material engineering and Master of Engineering Science. I bought into Southport Central 5 years ago and have a deep understanding of critical issues facing our community. I am well connected and want to bring my professional experience, dedication and sharing spirit to the committee and the complex and propose positive change. And we need to be far more open with owners on how we spend their moneys.

---

Isabella Aden (for the committee)

As an owner and resident for the past 22 months, my interest in body corporate matters has grown. My 20-year tenure in education has honed my skills in collaboration, communication, and listening. I consistently advocate for fairness and equity in all facets of life. As an avid gardener, I’m aware of the importance of maintaining our complex. I offer a fresh perspective and impartial opinions on important issues affecting Southport Central. As T Fuller said: “Good is not good where better is expected.”

---

John Butler (for the committee)

I’ve been a resident since 2013 and have body corporate committee experience as a chairperson, secretary & treasurer. I’ve been on government, international, university, professional & community committees and was federal president of my professional association. I graduated from Canberra University, with post graduate qualifications from QUT.  I have worked in all levels of government, including as department head, have lectured at universities, represented Australia at WHO, and led a government trade mission to Indonesia & Thailand.

---

How to vote

Complete Management Group should have sent you this AGM notice. The notice includes your voting paper. You need to fill it in, sign it, & either email the completed voting paper to secretary.cts35751@completemanagementgroup.com.au, or post it to The Secretary CTS 35751, c/- P O Box 3571, Australia Fair, Queensland, 4215 before the AGM on October 31. You must be an owner to vote.

TO AVOID VOTER FRAUD, DO NOT ACCEPT A PARTLY FILLED IN BALLOT PAPER FROM ANYONE.

The Body Corporate Manager (BCM) is responsible for maintaining the Body Corporate Portal, which until July 2023 included a ‘Financials’ tab which let owners inspect, for example, the body corporate ‘General Ledger’. It disclosed, in near to real time, all payments made by the body corporate to service providers and allowed associated invoices to be inspected.

In July 2023, the BCM was advised that certain invoices on the General Ledger would not open and asked that she correct the problem. In response, she removed the ‘Financials’ tab entirely from the portal and has not reinstated it. This is despite requests to do so.

Transparency in body corporate financial management promotes accountability. When such information is openly shared, owners can see how their contributions are being used. This creates a sense of ownership and encourages owners to take greater interest in body corporate affairs, which can help prevent financial mismanagement.

Annual body corporate expenditure usually exceeds $4 million! Responsibility for authorising payments for all goods and services is in the hands of the committee, which is comprised of unpaid volunteers.

Restoring the General Ledger to the portal will enable ALL owners to oversight body corporate expenditure throughout the year, in ‘real time’. They will be able to question transactions, as was the case until July 2023 when the General Ledger was removed in questionable circumstances.

Legislation provides that all members of the committee must be allowed access to the body corporate’s records, without payment of a fee.

If the BCM is unable or unwilling to reinstate the General Ledger on the portal, the Committee is equipped to publish a Monthly Newsletter to all owners, with a link to the General Ledger including invoices, or attach a copy of that month’s General Ledger.

Global warming has and will continue to be a major cause of extreme weather disasters. Clean energy is the only way to save our environment for future generations.

We should take advantage of the government’s clean energy scheme to reduce the carbon footprint in our community and to save money at the same time.

Both solar panel and battery system can be subsidized by the government’s clean energy scheme.

We have total of more than 800 m2 of existing roof area on the level 3 entertainment area that is empty and available for installing solar panels. This includes more than the 400 m2 roof area on top of the gym building, more than 200 m2 of the indoor pool roof, more than 100 m2 of the conference room roof, and more than 100 m2 of the barbecue shed roof.

The removal of the trees along the length of the northeast wall on Level 3 has created an opportunity to install a line of solar panels atop the length (of almost 140 metres) of the 1.5 metre high parapet/wall. We could add another 200 m2 solar area.

Using solar to provide electricity for the recreation facilities would not result in any direct savings on electricity bills for individual apartments, but it would reduce the overall cost of providing electricity to common areas which in turn would reduce body corporate electricity costs and thereby produce saving for owners.

We estimate that solar panels could generate more than 100kw and the saving could be more than $65,000 per year.

Installing solar also is an opportunity to invest in our own complex and demonstrate a commitment to reducing energy costs. There are numerous environmental benefits of solar panels including the generation of clean, renewable energy and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Are there maintenance costs for solar power system? No, solar companies provide a 10-year warrantee for system and a 20-year warrantee for the panels.

Is there any compliance issue with AS/ANZ 3000:2018? Not at all. AS/ANZ 3000:2018 is an electrical wiring standard. All solar panel system and battery system are designed in compliance with AS/ANZ 3000:2018. It is not a question at all.

Solar companies are legally responsible to install the system per the AS/ANZ 3000:2018 requirement.

Voters should be wary of the motives of entities with commercial interests who want them to ‘sign’ completed voting papers.

In the past, in some locations, these entities have contacted owners in relation to voting at the Annual General Meeting, invited them to ‘sign’ completed voting papers and advised them that once signed, to submit their voting papers in the manner stated on the voting paper.

Lobbying in relation to body corporate matters is not specifically regulated by legislation. But those persons who engage in such conduct in pursuit of personal and/or commercial gain, know that such conduct is contrary to the spirit and intent of the legislation.

They have intentionally misled lot owners to believe it is permissible for another party to fully or partially complete a voting paper on behalf of the owner. It is NOT.

In the case of Bayview Residences, the Body Corporate Adjudicator concluded that:

“If an owner simply signs a voting paper when someone else has ticked ‘yes’ or ‘no’ against each motion then the owner is not completing their voting paper themselves . . .” and declared those votes invalid.

Make your vote count. Please take a few minutes to read the voting papers and vote in favour of the results you want – not what someone else wants.

WANT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT A MOTION?

In the case of Ipomoea Court the Body Corporate Adjudicator said: “Each lot owner has 21 days’ notice of the motions on the agenda. If he or she wishes to find out more about a motion, he or she may contact the proponent of the motion, or the committee.”

Take time to read the AGM motions and if the explanatory notes are not clear, submit your questions to the Body Corporate Manager (cmg@completemanagementgroup.com.au) before you vote.

In 2019 four trees in our level 3 recreational area were proving problematic.

The trees had been planted in a very large purpose-made concrete planter box/garden bed located forward of the indoor pool. However, they had grown too large and for structural and safety reasons, had to be removed. Shrubs in the garden bed, like those planted elsewhere on the pool deck, were also removed.

This left behind a large planter box full of soil.

All that was ever needed was to top up the soil and replant shrubs – in keeping with the original ‘approved landscaping plans’ designed to complement the otherwise mostly tiled area. A timber deck was the last thing ever needed on the pool deck.

However, it’s what we got. The timber deck was inappropriately installed on top of an unstable garden bed at a cost of around $30,000. This was despite there being an abundance of space across the pool deck for more deck chairs and lounges if required.

Now, just four years later, the entire timber structure has been removed and is being replaced by, surprise, surprise, yet another timber deck – the cost of which has not been disclosed.

The committee says more than 10 cubic meters of soil were removed from the planter box and the drainage wastes cleaned. Only time will tell whether water seeping through the deck will fully drain or pond below in the planter boxes, smell and attract mosquitoes etc.

There’s also the obvious safety hazard posed by the absence of a balustrade. People unfamiliar with the area could tumble from the upper paved level onto the timber deck below. Will this be addressed this time around?

The photos put into perspective what was once a beautiful, gardened area. The abundant shade has disappeared, and we’re left with an incomplete, very expensive mess.

We residents of a Gold Coast highrise are now subject to the new high rise apartment tax which means an increase of council rates of up to 50 percent.

The rationale is that higher floors and penthouses are full of well healed types lying on their banana lounges, half asleep and dreaming of how they intend spending their spare loot. Let’s tax these rich, idle dudes, the council seems to be saying.

The reality is that many Gold Coast high-rises are owned by seniors and pensioners and they are rented by migrants and students attending any of the three local university campuses and TAFE.

It’s odds on that investor owners will simply pass on the rate increases to them and renters will be slugged again.

The council argues that it’s unfair that an apartment on the top floor with a sensational view is rated the same as an identical apartment on the ground floor. It argues that the top floor apartment is worth more money, so it should incur higher rates.

However, some apartment owners on high floors may have a lousy view. They may overlook an industrial estate or a busy highway or be situated next to another high rise where their view is someone’s kitchen or lounge.

Those apartments will be slugged the same surcharge as other apartments on the same floor, but their apartment is worth less due to their lousy view.

We could quite granular about this. What about different rates for different views? Is a view of the ocean worthy of being taxed more than one of the Gold Coast hinterland? What if one apartment enjoys a 180-degree panorama, and another just a 10 percent view? What if you face east and enjoy beautiful sunrises? Should you pay more? Maybe a different rate for facing south and facing north (more sunny days) because it attracts more prospective purchasers and a higher price?

In the end, this “view tax” is as arbitrary as the “window tax” introduced by William III in England and Wales in 1696, and by Napoleon Bonaparte in France and the annexed Netherlands in the early 1800s, as a massive revenue raising measure for his wars.

The window tax applied to the area of windows and, in some instances, the number of doors in your home. But it began to be abolished in the 1850s when people were getting ill due to poor ventilation in mouldy houses with their windows boarded up to avoid the tax.

Yes, some legislators were wiser then than now. Sadly, 170 years later, some bright spark has seen value returning to a discriminatory tax that’s not unlike that window tax. Instead of being taxed for what you look through, you are taxed for what you look at.

The council should reconsider this as a half-baked idea.