The Glen Waverley Uniting Church PSALTERLink to PropertyCommittee > CouncilAgenda20221017 > CouncilMinutes20221017
15 & 17 Southdown ave Manse usage options
With both Alanee and Neil, now having confirmed and locked in removal dates (28th Oct/5th January respectively), it seems appropriate to begin to consider in more detail our next steps related to the manses as they are vacated, and what, if any, works need to be done. We will be performing a formal manse inspection shortly after they have left, with them, as is required by UCA regulations. Although those dates are locked in for furniture relocation, Alanee and Neil have both been advised we are in no urgency for them to vacate, and that they are to feel free to transition out of the houses as and when it works for them.
The Property Committee has determined that during the time the manses are vacant or unoccupied, we will be disconnecting the gas but maintaining electricity (with AGL via Church Resources as they are providing an excellent option) and Internet, to monitor the Solar systems that will remain on and security cameras in use.
We believe the congregation has 5 main options to consider for both or either of the manses. Although refurbishment will need to be done at some time, that can be delayed or deferred until such time as a more final decision on their use is possible.
The options/considerations are:-
1. Leave vacant until JNC work is completed AND a Placement has been secured.
Although this seems obvious, the key issue here is that it is now “unusual” for a placement to accept a manse location attached to a worship complex. The more common option is that they will have their own property they wish to continue to live in, and therefore we would be required to pay a manse allowance of around $19,000 p.a. OR they may wish to rent an alternative property eleswhere and receive the manse allowance, paying any rental difference themselves. It needs to be remembered, we are not allowed to force a placement to live in our manses. We can of course “negotiate”. None of these options are possible until the JNC has completed its work and the congregation has made a call for a placement. This could be an outcome of upwards of 18 months given our Presbytery current resource availability however, we would recommend that until JNC has at least made a call, the manses should reman predominantly vacant, and we take the opportunity to do minor refurbishment works as identified in a calm and considered manner. We could offer them to (maybe) adult members of our congregation as free accomodation in return for caretaking and maintaining, and on the understanding that they may have to leave at short notice depending on the JNC outcomes. It would be expected they pay for utilities, but that would be a part of the negotiations.
2. Offering the manses to Presbytery/Synod as per UCA Property procedures.
UCA regulations require a congregation to first offer any vacant manses to Presbytery and/or Synod prior to making any other long term decisions on the property. This was the case with 19 Southdown manse that has a Placement of another congregation in residence. That congregation pays us the manse allowance, as per Synod annual determination, and they are responsible for Water/Power/Heating but we pay Council Rates (rubbish etc). Again, this could not really take place until the JNC has a finalisation of tasks, and so interim tenants as in option 1 above from the congregation would be helpful. Currently, there is absolutely no demand for properties by Synod/Presbytery for this purpose. So we may have difficulty taking this option.
3. Rent the manses to another UCA entity - i.e. Uniting
When we know their long term availability we could approach Uniting to see if they have homeless clients who could make good use of two homes. They would be ideal for a family placement. We would “lease” the properties to Uniting who would be responsible for the tenants. The lease terms are set by Synod. They would be expected to pay Water/Power/Heating as above, and possibly a small rental as agreed with Uniting. As this would be seen as clearly continuing the use of the properties along the activities of the congregation and more importantly UCA, we do not believe we would create a Land Tax or Council rating issues. We could also defer any major refurbishments until such time as we had a placement. This does not mean do nothing, it just means the nature of any refurbishment would be based on "must have" rather than "nice to have” and so would be a lower cost task. I also believe this option would be warmly received in Synod and Presbytery.
4. Commercial Rental.
This should be a “last option” in my view as it comes with higher legal responsibilities than the other options as we would be bound by the Residential Tenancies Act. We would certainly be paying Land Tax and full Monash Council rates. We would also place ourselves at risk of tenant quality and ultimately difficulty to remove the tenants, but hopefully this can be avoided by due diligence and careful rentals. It would provide us with significant income, after expenses, as we are offering two modern centrally located properties. Synod - Property Services would have to approve this option as we do not own the properties, they do, and this would come with significant other management overheads. It is not an option I would be seriously considering. If rental is desirable, the above option with Uniting is far more attractive.
5. Sell the properties
This is an option floated by some in the congregation. It is a possibility, however we would be up for the cost of title changes, as the 3 manses are all on the same title as the worship complex. We would need Synod - Property Services approval and they would also be entitled to a significant portion of the funds, in fact probably all of the funds, if we did not have an approved specific project to redirect this funding. And that would usually, but not exclusively, be another property or a long term mission activity. But it is an option. I do not recommend that option for serious consideration, as we would never be able to retrieve those assets.
My recommendation is options one and/or three. But an interim caretaking option would provide excellent security.
Church Council needs to give the Property Committee some direction on what they would like to see happens to the manses from 28th October this year, as it is closely associated with the work of the JNC to which we have no access to their current deliberations, timetable and discussions.
Thank you