- Ucol-shareholders - example.com

Working bee this Saturday (tomorrow) 10 am
by Rainer Beneke 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

Hi all We will need to shift some more of our stuff. That small tack of pavers needs to go with the other pavers. The timber in front of the garden shed door (center photo) needs to be re-stacked to allow for hoggen paving (a small strip in front of the container doors). Any hands welcome, Tim and I will be there as well. Can you please indicate if you can come. Thanks Rainer Please call me if you need an urgent reply. Rainer Beneke +64 21 144 7700

10 10

Site photos
by Maria Callau 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

Hello beautiful people!!!! Here are today’s site photos which evidence That we are on the way and very close to the end of our constriction stage... Most of the insides are done. The cleaners will be on site in the next couple of days getting the final touches ready before final inspection... It will be on the 1Feb for High st and Alva st houses. Followed by another final inspection for common house units and common grounds... Have a great weekend. Maria Maria Callau 021 1847490 Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Need official confirmation of settlement date; mortgage progress despite body corp delay?
by permacultureparadise＠gmail.com 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hi all Could someone please provide – or tell me how and where to find – an official statement about our settlement date being 19 February? I have had this in a text; couldn’t see it in last week’s draft meeting notes (which also had a wrong date at the bottom re the next meeting), and haven’t received final meeting notes from last week. My mortgage broker wants this confirmation of the date. I’ve followed all the emails about body corp etc. and am freaking out about how long this is all taking. Those of you who have mortgages pending conditional on those docs, are the banks okay about waiting? And how are you getting on Alex and Tim & Pip? The bank most likely to lend to me is Westpac, so I’m hoping that no-one else, or not more than one other household, are with them, otherwise they may not want another. Warm greetings from Kirikiriroa (Waikato), where I am living the tiny house dream with my daughter and son-in-law, as I’ve been homeless in Dunedin since moving out in the terrible rain on New Year’s Eve and beyond. Claire Ph: 027 293 1983

2 1

Discussion on Body Corp rules
by High Street Cohousing 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Last night a number of people (Miriam, Rainer, Sue, Marianne, Donald, Juan, Warren) joined the directors to talk further about the body corp rules. We established that everyone was wanting to produce a set of body corp rules that would satisfy the desire of banks to see rules which are "standard in all respects".The difficulty is to know what that looks like. One option is to stick with the operational rules set out in the Unit Titles Regulations ( https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0122/latest/DLM36957…); another is to continue with the rules we have been working on, removing a few more clauses identified as problematic. We are sending these options to our lawyer for advice - he is back from holiday on Monday and we will ask to meet with him as soon as possible next week. If option 1 is the way to go, most of the content of our current rules will move to the Toiora High Street Cohousing Membership Agreement. [This is not the body corp rules - we are allowed to mention cohousing!] Warren will produce a further draft agreement for us to go through on 30 January. We know that people need to be able to show the Body Corp rules to mortgage lenders, etc. We are working hard to finalise these, but I hope you can all understand that producing simplified rules is far from simple - while we have been asked for 'standard' rules, these don't really exist. As soon as we have received advice from our lawyer, we will use it to finalise the body corp rules. A huge shout-out to Min, who has been working through this maze for so much longer than the rest of us. After a week of paying close attention to it, I am tearing my hair out. Thank you for your willingness to keep on with this work, Min, and to help us reach the outcome we all need. I believe there is going to be a working bee tomorrow - details will be forthcoming, I'm sure. No, not the bricks, but some pieces of wood that need moving to allow access for some machinery. Watch this space! Anne

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: Toiora High St Cohousing - Excess
by High Street Cohousing 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tina Gillan <Tina.Gillan(a)rothbury.co.nz> Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 9:13 AM Subject: RE: [Ucol-shareholders] Fwd: Toiora High St Cohousing - Excess To: High Street Cohousing <ucoldunedin(a)gmail.com> Hi Anne Thank you for your query. NZI have confirm the following: - They cannot reduce the standard excess of $2500 any lower - We can increase the excess to $10,000 however not really worth the while as they are only prepared to offer a 10% discount on the existing structure which equates to a discount of about $150. Regards Tina *Tina Gillan* *Senior Commercial Broker* QIB *DDI:* +64 3 470 3668 <+64%203%20470%203668> *ext* 3908 *M:* +64 21 988 159 <+64%2021%20988%20159> A referral is the best compliment I can receive. If any of your friends, family or business associates require assistance with insurance, please get in touch. [image: https://mail.rothbury.co.nz/rothbury_logo.gif] *Rothbury Insurance Brokers Otago* Level 2, Public Trust Building, 442 Moray Place, Dunedin 9016 PO Box 1321, Dunedin 9054 *T:* +64 3 477 8217 <+64%203%20477%208217>* F:* +64 3 477 6478* W:* www.rothbury.co.nz A disclosure statement is available on request or view here <https://www.rothbury.co.nz/images/uploads/brokers_pdfs/Tina.Gillan.pdf>. <https://twitter.com/RothburyNZ>[image: Linkedin] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/497926?trk=tyah&trkInfo=tas:rothbury> [image: twitter] <https://twitter.com/RothburyNZ> Download the My Rothbury app now [image: Google Play] <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rothbury.android> [image: App Store] <https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/my-rothbury/id928128044?mt=8> [image: Youtube] <https://youtu.be/0HHk590lua8> [image: Best Workplace] This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by email and delete this email from your system.

1 0

Star newspaper want to do a spread on Toiora
by Gay Buckingham 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hello everybody I sent the usual message to the Star re our open day next weekend (it has to be sent one week in advance of publication) and was rung by Shawn McAvinue, who said he would like to do an interview on site. I said I would have to refer the decision to the larger group, hence this email. He would like to do it asap as he takes on a new role in rural reporting on 1 February. Ideally this should go to a group meeting but given how much we have on our agenda for next week, how busy everyone is, and his time constraints, perhaps we could call for a (young!!) volunteer to meet him and be interviewed? If it was someone with a child that would be great, but perhaps a child or teenager might agree to participate with someone else, not necessarily a parent? I am happy to coordinate/communicate any offers. Gay Gay Buckingham +64 27 4544012 > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Shawn McAvinue <shawn.mcavinue(a)alliedpress.co.nz> > Subject: Re: What's On > Date: 21 January 2021 at 10:26:21 AM NZDT > To: Gay Buckingham <gaybuckingham(a)tuatara.net.nz> > > Hi Gay > > My business card as discussed. > > Thanks > > > > On 21/01/2021 9:08 a.m., Gay Buckingham wrote: >> Toiora High Street Co-housng Induction Day: >> Will be held on Saturday 30 January at 10.30. >> Participants are invited to stay on and share lunch with current members; >> Prospective attendees should email ucoldunedin(a)gmail.com <mailto:ucoldunedin@gmail.com> if they wish to attend. >> >> >> >> Gay Buckingham >> +64 27 4544012 >> >> >> >

2 1

Body Corp meeting
by Maria Callau 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hi all, Here is the last email I received from Stephen Edge reiterating what we have been saying. See below. Juan might be able to attend the meeting tonight. Maria Maria Callau 0211847490 SUR Architecture Limited Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Stephen Edge <Stephen.Edge(a)kiwibank.co.nz> > Date: 19 January 2021 at 8:37:29 AM NZDT > To: Maria Callau <maria(a)sur-architecture.com>, Andrew Long <Andrew.Long(a)kiwibank.co.nz> > Subject: RE: Update on our documents - UCOL > > > Ok thanks Maria – please keep the BC Rules completely standard, anything out of the ordinary could flag potential issues > > > Kind Regards, > > Maria Callau > 0211847490 > > SUR Architecture Limited > www.sur-architecture.com >

1 0

Fwd: Toiora High St Cohousing
by High Street Cohousing 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

FYI - from Tina about her ongoing negotiations with NZI Anthony had got a copy of information for insurance companies prepared by Formance, the people who made our SIPs panels, and Tina will be forwarding that to NZI. The document sets out very clearly the difference between our SIPs panels (structural) and traditional non-structural panels which are what current insurance policies are based on. Anne ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tina Gillan <Tina.Gillan(a)rothbury.co.nz> Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 7:10 PM Subject: RE: Toiora High St Cohousing To: High Street Cohousing <ucoldunedin(a)gmail.com> Hi Anne Thank you for the attached this was not on my file, so I have forwarded to NZI. Where we are to date: *Excess:* I approached NZI to ask if they would reduce the excess for *window glass and fixed porcelain breakages* (e.g. toilet bowl/hand basins/bath) - they have advised No (whiteware forms part of contents insurance). I have now re approached NZI for the second time to see if they will reduce the $2500 excess, as this is my second attempt regretfully if they advise No again then we will need to accept the excess is $2500. *Common House*: We have received confirmation the Foamed Plastics Insulation Panel Endorsement *does not* apply to the Common House *Foamed Plastic Insulating Panel Endorsement (attached)* You may recall in our discussion I wanted to approached NZI and have this endorsement more suited to a “domestic” situation as opposed to the attached which is more suited to an Industrial/Commercial situation In principal NZI have agreed to do this but this is something they need to work through - I have diarized to follow up in a months time with NZI. Kind regards Tina *Tina Gillan* *Senior Commercial Broker* QIB *DDI:* +64 3 470 3668 <+64%203%20470%203668> *ext* 3908 *M:* +64 21 988 159 <+64%2021%20988%20159> A referral is the best compliment I can receive. If any of your friends, family or business associates require assistance with insurance, please get in touch. [image: https://mail.rothbury.co.nz/rothbury_logo.gif] *Rothbury Insurance Brokers Otago* Level 2, Public Trust Building, 442 Moray Place, Dunedin 9016 PO Box 1321, Dunedin 9054 *T:* +64 3 477 8217 <+64%203%20477%208217>* F:* +64 3 477 6478* W:* www.rothbury.co.nz A disclosure statement is available on request or view here <https://www.rothbury.co.nz/images/uploads/brokers_pdfs/Tina.Gillan.pdf>. <https://twitter.com/RothburyNZ>[image: Linkedin] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/497926?trk=tyah&trkInfo=tas:rothbury> [image: twitter] <https://twitter.com/RothburyNZ> Download the My Rothbury app now [image: Google Play] <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rothbury.android> [image: App Store] <https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/my-rothbury/id928128044?mt=8> [image: Youtube] <https://youtu.be/0HHk590lua8> [image: Best Workplace] This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by email and delete this email from your system. *From:* High Street Cohousing <ucoldunedin(a)gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:41 AM *To:* Tina Gillan <Tina.Gillan(a)rothbury.co.nz> *Subject:* Toiora High St Cohousing External mail - think before you click Hi Tina Attached is a document from Formance, the manufacturers of our SIPs panels, prepared for insurance companies. I presume you already have a copy. A question: when you said you were seeking a lower excess for "windows and whiteware", what is included in 'whiteware'? I immediately thought of appliances, but you mentioned toilets and basins. Could you tell me what is covered by this term in insurance terms? We still have not been notified of when the building contract will be complete, though on site they are talking about the end of January. We will let you know as soon as we have a date. Warm regards, Anne

4 5

bc and cohousing
by Roz Wilson 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Warren has prepared the amended version for us to discuss on 30th. But the body corp is still changing and set to change more. Would it be more logical to discuss body c on 30th and get that finalised so warren can make any more necessary amendments to the cohousing agreement. Otherwise we are discussing a cohousing agreement that might change within days. By the time we get to discuss the body c it is going to be 28th, or 30th. If we settle on 19th as suggested we are running out of time for people to go back to the banks and show them simon's letter and, if necessary the body corp, and get mortgages in time for settlement. Banks may advertise instant answers but think so far the banks have been much slower. Am sure co op kept their group waiting for weeks for an answer. regds roz

1 0

Re: [Ucol-shareholders] BC Rules simplification
by Maria Callau 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hi all, >From what I understood, Min and Frances were given the task to simplify the rules to satisfy the banks. We had a very long meeting on Sunday and several emails after that... Now a meeting is suggested for tonight. Min can't make it to this meeting and I am not sure if Frances can... I wasn't part of the group that was given this task and attended Sunday's meeting to support the process/discussion as Min suggested I could come around... I am not sure what process we are following... Maybe Frances and Min can guide us through the next steps needed... (?) Kind Regards, *Maria Callau* 0211847490 *SUR *Architecture Limited www.sur-architecture.com On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:53 PM Catherine Spencer <cmspencer.nz(a)zoho.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The directors are meeting tomorrow evening at 7.30 at Anne’s. > I suggest anyone who wishes to discuss this further and is able to come > along or zoom in at the usual zoom address at 8pm do so. > Please indicate if you are coming, by reply all. > > Many thanks, > Catherine > > > On 20/01/2021, at 7:27 PM, Y Lee <yblees685(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Point by point... in red > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 18:46, Alex King <alex(a)king.net.nz> wrote: > >> I note Stephen says "All the decisions needing to be made are for the >> Group to make, not me." I feel that he's just being diplomatic, because >> per your and Anne's emails, we are basically doing everything SEdge has >> even remotely suggested. (yes, I am feeling grumpy about this) >> >> *Cohousing Membership and rules* >> >> He also says "the sale & purchase agreement will contain a clause binding >> the new purchaser to enter into the cohousing agreement" Agree >> >> I note that Earthsong BC rules require signing up to their co-housing >> rules indirectly, via the following wording requiring membership: >> >> 1.1 Definitions: "Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood" means the unincorporated >> society of >> Earthsong owners, residents and associates which meets regularly and >> manages >> the day to day affairs of the Earthsong community. >> >> 2.27 Duties of Proprietors: Become and remain a member of Earthsong >> Eco-Neighbourhood. >> >> I note the current draft (Body Corp Rules -ToioraHS-v9.3 2021-Anne) we >> require signing up to our cohousing rules as follows: >> >> 3f Owner's Obligations: signing up to, and complying with the Toiora High >> Street Membership Agreement. Where the owner is a Territorial Authority or >> Social Housing Provider, an individual shall be appointed to act as a >> contact or representative. >> >> (the requirement for tenants to sign the cohousing agreement has been >> removed) >> >> So we should decide if we want to require membership in the BC rules (I >> call this the belt and braces approach). If we do, we should decide >> whether we want to do it the Earthsong way "you must be a member", or the >> way we have it currently "you must sign up to the rules." Semantics. >> There is no difference since signing the agreement = becoming a member. I >> prefer to keep the requirement to sign up to the Agreement (become a >> member), but if this has to go, then say it clearly and I will take it out >> of the document. If there is an option to keep, then please leave it alone. >> >> I'm in favour of not requiring it in the BC rules, instead we all sign up >> anyway and future sales are covered by sale and purchase agreements. But >> if we want to keep it, the way Earthsong have done it is that their >> Membership Agreement is more "hidden." The BC rules don't mention their >> Membership Agreement. Sooner or later with our agreement, a bank will ask >> to see the cohousing agreement. Yes they will. But we just need to get >> past this first round of Mortgages. Later on, we should have a precedent >> of receiving bank mortgages, and a lending history. Also, My impression is >> that Warren intends to keep the Toiora Agreement fairly simple, and leave >> alot of the operational matters with various working groups to organise / >> document separately. For example, there will be a Maintenance group, but >> the maintenance working bee process would not be written in the Toiora >> Agreement. This means we should have a Toiora Agreement that is fairly >> non-confronting for the banks to see. >> >> *Voting and decision-making of the Body Corporate* >> >> The Earthsong BC rules say: >> >> 9.9 Powers of Body Corporate: The Body Corporate may from time to time >> and by a majority resolution amend these rules or make or promulgate >> additional rules, regulations and bylaws for the use and enjoyment of >> common property or any part thereof. All proprietors and their invitees >> shall comply with any such additional rules, regulations and bylaws. >> >> 10 VOTING PROCESS (INCORPORATING GROUP DECISION >> MAKING PROCESS): >> All matters to be determined by the Body Corporate at a general meeting >> shall, in the first instance, be determined by the Group Decision Making >> Process. If consensus is not reached on an issue then that issue shall be >> resolved by resolution in accordance with sections 97, 98 and 101 of the >> Act. >> >> >> So in other words, they make decisions at BC meetings by majority vote, >> but they go through the group prior to the BC meeting, with the BC vote >> being a formality. If consensus can't be reached, then the matter goes to >> a (normally 75%) majority vote as per the act. I disagree. "in the >> first instance" Earthsong uses the Group Decision Making Process. And if >> consensus is not reached, THEN they go to the Act. This is exactly how our >> process works, because I copied it. >> >> In this draft of the BC rules, we have no mention of decision making at >> all, which means decisions are made by vote as proscribed by the act. I >> quite liked the idea we came up with, but it does contravene what Stephen >> was asking for. I think we should get a legal opinion on it, because I >> don't like having things go to a vote at the BC meeting. I also note as >> Min says, non-owners don't get any vote in the BC meetings (or even the >> right to attend.) This is somewhat moderated I believe by the fact that >> all owners will be Toiora members, and our practice will be to discuss >> items at group meetings first. And we may be able to request/require >> members to vote at BC meetings in accordance with group wishes, again I >> believe we need legal advice on this. I think if you don's specifically >> write into the rules the Decision Making Process is to be used, then voting >> per Act automatically applies. How are you going to require anyone to vote >> in accordance with Group wishes? We sometimes can't even do this in Group >> meetings with full Group Decision Making going on. >> >> *Naming of things* >> >> Personally I object to renaming the "Toiora Cohousing Membership >> Agreement" to "Toiora Membership Agreement," and think that's beyond the >> scope we were set. May need more discussion. I thought we had to take >> out the word "Cohousing". What would you prefer to call it? >> >> Thanks, >> Alex >> > > Min > >> >> >> On 19/01/21 11:12 pm, Y Lee wrote: >> >> HI Anne >> In v9.3, I have changed owner's obligations 3f) to "*signing up to, and >> complying with the Toiora High Street Membership Agreement.*". *So there >> is no need to use "Toiora High Street NEIGHBOURHOOD" at all. * >> >> 22b (leasing a private unit) is removed. *Removing reference to any >> Group decision making means tenants making decisions for the Body Corp >> cannot exist.* >> >> >> >> In Schedule 1C - Decision Making Process - "When making decisions, the >> Toiroa High St Neighbourhood process will be used." If we change to >> this, then 1C can be removed, instead the definitions will say "*Toiora >> Decision Making Process **is the means by which the Body Corporate will >> make decisions under these Rules*" >> >> 26f (powers of the body corporate) now says"from time to time amend these >> Rules or make additional Rules, using the Toiora Decision Making Process" >> >> >> Changes made to version 9.3-Anne attached. (this is a third version with >> Anne's suggested changes made) >> I'll leave it to the rest of you which one to give Stephen Edge >> Regards >> Min >> >> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 22:04, Anne Thomson <e.anne.thomson(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Frances has suggested what I had already done, because I was frustrated >>> by the feeling that we all had our own ideas of what Stephen Edge really >>> meant, and it would be much quicker to ask him. >>> I sent the version Min produced on Sunday night, but taking out 'group' >>> in Group Decision Making. >>> >>> Stephen's response was : >>> "Thanks for sending this through but just to be clear I’m not directing >>> anything here. All the decisions needing to be made are for the Group to >>> make, not me. What I’m trying to do is to simplify things from a lender’s >>> point of view and therefore reduce the hurdles people have been >>> encountering with banks. >>> >>> From a lender’s point of view *ALL* references in the BC rules to >>> “decision making”, “cohousing”, “coloured cards”, etc need to be deleted – >>> everything needs to be completely standard, no exceptions whatsoever. >>> >>> To preserve the past 7 years work and to maintain the cohousing >>> neighbourhood the cohousing agreement becomes the pivotal document that >>> everyone signs. When a Group member eventually sells their unit, the sale & >>> purchase agreement will contain a clause binding the new purchaser to enter >>> into the cohousing agreement and also agreeing to use the same clause in >>> their sale & purchase agreement when they eventually sell. This is what >>> Earthsong have been doing and it seems logical to me people in the UCOL >>> Group will be happy to do this. >>> >>> I guess there’s always a risk someone will go rogue and not include the >>> “cohousing agreement clause” in their unit sale & purchase agreement but to >>> my way of thinking this is probably a low risk, i.e. if the community is >>> happy and thriving people will want to be a part of it – both sellers and >>> buyers." >>> >>> >>> A possible way forward which I want to run past Stephen Edge: >>> >>> We take out all references to the group (as Alex suggested) replacing >>> them with 'Body Corp'. >>> >>> In 3f (owners obligations) we say "becoming a member of Toiora High St >>> Neighbourhood" >>> >>> In 22b (leasing a private unit) we say "ensure that any tenant becomes a >>> member of Toiora High St Neighbourhood" >>> >>> [These are both based on Earthsong body corp >>> rules] >>> >>> In 26f (powers of the body corporate) say "from time to time amend these >>> Rules or make additional Rules, using the Toiora High St Neighbourhood >>> process". >>> >>> In Schedule 1C - Decision Making Process - "When making decisions, the >>> Toiroa High St Neighbourhood process will be used." >>> >>> >>> I will send these suggestions to Stephen in response to his email. >>> >>> >>> Stephen has said that all reference to decision-making should be removed >>> - I am going to ask Simon Milne (or since he is on holiday, Chris Hawker >>> who is his designated alternative) whether, if no decision making process >>> is specified, there is an automatic default to the voting set out in the >>> Unit Titles Regulations 2011 ( >>> https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0122/latest/DLM36957…) >>> This we do not want. >>> >>> There has been a suggestion that we meet again one evening this week. I >>> can do that - and I would very much like Stephen Edge to be able to phone >>> in to that meeting if at all possible, because otherwise we will continue >>> to go round in circles each with our own idea of what he means. >>> >>> Sorry (a bit) for acting unilaterally. We are not following our process >>> at all at the moment, which is not helping. And email, as many people have >>> said, is pretty useless for this sort of discussion. >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:25 PM Sandy Ross <sfross(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> I am sorry to come into this late. We have had families arriving since >>>> Monday morning and that has taken precedence. >>>> >>>> Going back to Stephen Edge’s email and his request that we remove the >>>> covenant and simplify the BC rules so that they become more standard. He >>>> explains this as taking out all reference to decision making (group >>>> decision making?) and cohousing. We decided to keep a reference to >>>> cohousing in our Vision Schedule A and our process of decision making has >>>> been greatly simplified in Schedule C but group decision making still >>>> appears in our document: v 9.2 >>>> >>>> Perhaps we should send this version through to Stephen Edge, asking him >>>> specifically if we have simplified enough in the area of *decision >>>> making* to appease the banks. If we get a No, we should work on >>>> further simplification. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Frances >>>> >>>> On 19/01/2021, at 12:51 PM, Y Lee <yblees685(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Alex, >>>> occupiers should been removed completely from the definition of owners >>>> in v9.3. >>>> Sorry i missed that. The rules will only apply to owners, unless stated >>>> otherwise in the body text. >>>> >>>> I don't have time to meet again until the weekend. >>>> Min >>>> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 12:17 pm Alex King, <alex(a)king.net.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We didn't reach agreement at our meeting. (We did reach agreement on >>>>> some points, such as removing the word consensus, and simplifying the >>>>> decision making procedure.) What happened was that I raised a query about >>>>> the concept of the group and whether it was consistent with what Steven was >>>>> asking us to to. The comments to that were, 1. It's too difficult to >>>>> remove, and 2. Lets put it aside while we go through the whole document, so >>>>> we are aware of everywhere it occurs. >>>>> >>>>> By the time we got to the end of the document some people had already >>>>> left and others had to go, and the meeting was concluded without addressing >>>>> the point in substance. >>>>> >>>>> So subsequent to the meeting, I went through the draft Min sent out >>>>> with the changes we had agreed, and identified the work that would be >>>>> required should we agree to take the group concept out of the BC rules. >>>>> >>>>> Agreement having not yet been reached, we have not yet completed the >>>>> task we were set. >>>>> >>>>> I am happy to either continue by email or to re-convene a meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Having done the further work on it, I think we can address higher >>>>> level questions like: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Do we need the BC rules to require signing the Cohousing >>>>> Membership Agreement, and will that be acceptable to the banks, or is there >>>>> another way? >>>>> 2. Do we agree that removing the concept of the group is necessary >>>>> for appeasing the banks, and is it a great hardship for us to do it? >>>>> 3. Of the different versions we have, which do we want to send >>>>> through? If we send one through where we have identified items we're not >>>>> sure will be acceptable to the bank, should we identify those and ask for a >>>>> specific response? Or just send it without commentary and see what Stephen >>>>> reacts to? >>>>> >>>>> My own opinion is that we should not be trying to "get things past" >>>>> Stephen. He is on our side, we should be quite open with him. The reason >>>>> is that it's not Stephen we need to get to agree with it, it is the retail >>>>> arm of Kiwibank and the other banks, and their lawyers. So while we might >>>>> be able to sneak something past Stephen which still has cohousing in >>>>> camouflage, it won't do us any good if mortgages are refused down the line. >>>>> >>>>> My own opinion is also that we should be able to retain cohousing and >>>>> the group in Appendix 1 including the word "Cohousing", and we could put an >>>>> expectation of signing the Cohousing Membership Agreement there as well. >>>>> This is because it won't be legally binding there, and so I would be >>>>> willing to push the banks hard that they should be able to accept that. It >>>>> means we aren't hiding who we truly are despite the banks not wanting to >>>>> put any obligations on purchasers in a mortgagee sale. >>>>> >>>>> Why do we need to be finished today? Have we committed to a deadline >>>>> for supplying it to someone? I am frustrated when we do a rush job of >>>>> things, it only comes back to bite us later. I prefer to give things the >>>>> consideration they need, especially important documents like the BC rules. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, I don't understand why, when we say owners we exclude >>>>> occupiers (since we still have the wording: >>>>> >>>>> “*Owner*” means the person(s) registered as owner of the unit, and >>>>> for the application of these Rules also includes occupiers? >>>>> >>>>> (Things that are being considered to be changed from "the group" to >>>>> "owners" are very few and relate to building related things like putting >>>>> aerials on the exterior of buildings. These could be dealt with by >>>>> delegation to a committee to avoid having to have a special BC meeting. >>>>> And if people really want, we could have a clause in the Cohousing >>>>> Membership Agreement saying that members who are on the BC committee will >>>>> follow any directions of the groupin the exercise of those powers, like we >>>>> do with directors currently.) >>>>> >>>>> I also disagree that the Cohousing Membership Agreement doesn't have >>>>> legal standing. It does. It doesn't have the same remedies and >>>>> enforcement options as the BC rules do (e.g. the tenancy tribunal,) but it >>>>> is a legal contract by my understanding. >>>>> >>>>> If we accept what I think the banks are telling us, which is that they >>>>> don't want membership of couhousing to be made compulsory in the BC rules, >>>>> then we _may_ want to get our lawyer to look at the Cohousing Membership >>>>> Agreement, and give us advice on the legal enforcability of it. (Or we may >>>>> want to just trust people to stick to rules they have agreed to.) >>>>> >>>>> I would be happy to continue our meeting on Thursday evening, when the >>>>> directors meeting is scheduled. I'm not sure what else of urgency there is >>>>> on the directors agenda. Although this would need to be agreed also by >>>>> Anne and Catherine. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alex >>>>> On 19/01/21 9:29 am, bluefrog wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not yet please. I need to do the final changes to v9.2 first need to >>>>> change to Decision Making Process. >>>>> Will be ready tonight >>>>> Min >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Anne Thomson <e.anne.thomson(a)gmail.com> >>>>> <e.anne.thomson(a)gmail.com> >>>>> Date: 19/01/2021 9:26 am (GMT+12:00) >>>>> To: Maria Callau <maria(a)sur-architecture.com> >>>>> <maria(a)sur-architecture.com> >>>>> Cc: Yu-min Lee <yblees685(a)gmail.com> <yblees685(a)gmail.com>, Catherine >>>>> Spencer <cmspencer.nz(a)zoho.com> <cmspencer.nz(a)zoho.com>, sara >>>>> <ferreirasara(a)yahoo.com> <ferreirasara(a)yahoo.com>, alex(a)king.net.nz, >>>>> Ucol Sue <taysue70(a)gmail.com> <taysue70(a)gmail.com>, Ucol Frances >>>>> Sandy Ross <sfross(a)xtra.co.nz> <sfross(a)xtra.co.nz> >>>>> Subject: Re: Minimal Version of BC Rules v9.3-minimal >>>>> >>>>> I will do this >>>>> >>>>> Qnne >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 9:20 am Maria Callau, <maria(a)sur-architecture.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> we need to do this today. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maria Callau >>>>>> 0211847490 >>>>>> SUR Architecture Limited >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19/01/2021, at 7:22 AM, Y Lee <yblees(a)orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Not true Catherine >>>>>> I read your comments to Alex's email as well >>>>>> 3f about owners signing the Toiora Agreement has been left in, for >>>>>> example >>>>>> >>>>>> *The rest of what was removed is what is required to be consistent >>>>>> with removing "Group" from the document* >>>>>> It certainly makes the BC rules more "standard" by focusing primarily >>>>>> on owner's rights. >>>>>> >>>>>> *I would suggest we retain the firearms policy in both Documents* >>>>>> I will edit *v 9.2* to change "Group Decision Making Process" to >>>>>> "Decision Making Process", but otherwise retain "Group. >>>>>> >>>>>> We will have two versions. *Give v9.2 to Stephen first* (containing >>>>>> all other references to Group) >>>>>> If he say's more needs to be taken out, then give him v 9.3-minimal >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to do the above this week. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Min >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18/01/2021 10:22 pm, Catherine Spencer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> This version is not acceptable to me and takes only into account Alex’s email. >>>>>> >>>>>> I find this process really distressing and that we are now trying to discuss things by email, which favours those who have time to write, the earlier the better and those who have access to the facilities to do so. With email we “push our own barrow” rather than listen and modify our ideas and find ways forward together. As such it is not inclusive, nor does it create those inspired solutions we were so good at making at the beginning of the project. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to reconvene a face to face meeting or at least a zoom, and I am happy to share my zoom with anyone, who does not have access. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonetheless I acknowledge the extra work you have put in Min to produce this version, when I know you are stressed and pushed for time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Catherine >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18/01/2021, at 9:58 PM, Y Lee <yblees685(a)gmail.com> <yblees685(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the absolute minimal version, with everything taken out as Alex listed. >>>>>> Yellow is from Alex's "remove" list >>>>>> Blue is what I had to change to make the document consistent >>>>>> >>>>>> Effect: >>>>>> The minimal body corp essentially allocates all decision making rights to the owners (body corp). Non-owner occupiers have decision making roles only as far as owners allow / do not object. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: the Toiora (cohousing) Agreement has no backing from government legislation the way Body Corp rules do. If we are to enforce cohousing, then the Toiora Sale and Purchase Agreement will have to have some REALLY BIG TEETH - more than normal S&P agreements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Min >>>>>> <Body Corp Rules -ToioraHS-v9.3 2021-Minimal.docx> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

Ucol-shareholders