Marianne, you say you are confused.

I believe the meaning of the sentences you quoted are clear.  If you have a question of clarification around that let me know.

So I take it you mean you don't understand how or why we came to that decision.

To my mind, there is an issue with a lack of covered entrances which is common to both D & M units.

The pergola outside M3 was certainly on the plans issued in February 2018 (marked "Not In Contract") and therefore certainly had been discussed in 2018 and prior, so talk of a pergola outside M3 is not something that was started recently.

If anyone wanted to, they could dig into the history of the discussions around works around the M units and the D units.  I prefer to take the situation as we have it, look at what the needs are, and look forward to see what we can do about it.

Do you wish to red card the sending of the letter?  What exactly is your objection?

I am frustrated because I have been trying to listen to and accommodate the needs have heard.  I heard the following needs:

• A need for reassurance that the unfinished works would be completed (earthworks outside M units and steps outside C1 and C2).
• A need for covered entrances outside D & M units
• (people have stated they don't want the company to pay for anything not on the plans, but I'm not sure what the need was behind that.
• a need to follow process.
  
• My own need is to to make sure I do a good job as a director, which includes providing houses that are fit for purpose, which in my own judgement includes additional cover for M D & C unit entrances.
• My need for us to have clarity and agreement on these matters.

With these objections on the day before settlement, it demonstrates that we still don't have unanimity on how to proceed.  I am ready to give up on my desire to offer reassurance to people about the unfinished works through sending this letter.

I would like to request help on how to proceed, specifically:

• should the directors abandon the idea of sending a letter before settlement?
• how should we resolve the disagreement about how to proceed with the remaining works?

Thanks,

Hi Alex: I find these sentences confusing.

 

• “ A pergola in similar construction and size as the A and H unit ones outside M1 and M3, and/or entrance covers similar to those proposed for the D units, by agreement with the Unit owners.  The cost of materials for these pergolas or covers will be paid for by the owners.

In addition to the above, we also undertake to complete any further works such as the covers for the D unit entrances and any other works that were not on the plans but are seen as necessary and agreed to by the group decision making process.  These "not on plan" works will only be completed on the condition that the cost of materials will be met by the unit owners.”

The idea of pergolas for the M units was NOT on the plans and I don’t recall this being discussed at all until recently.

 

In contrast, the need for covers of the D unit entrances was noted a very long time ago and it was agreed that this would be looked at later, funds allowing, although D Unit people have understood for some time that most likely, we will need to pay for these.

 

Thanks for listening to feedback to date.

 

Regards,

 

Marianne

 

Marianne Quinn

 

Level 3, 115 Stuart Street, Dunedin

P.O. Box 20, Dunedin 9054

ph +6434773115 or 0211612050

 

 

 

From: Ucol-shareholders <ucol-shareholders-bounces@list.king.net.nz> On Behalf Of Alex King via Ucol-shareholders
Sent: Sunday, 6 June 2021 11:09 PM
To: Ucol-shareholders <ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz>
Subject: [Ucol-shareholders] Another letter from Directors

 

Dear shareholders,

At the last meeting we agreed for the directors to write to purchasers and detail a commitment to complete some unfinished work.  That prompted some questioning of the process as the item was not advertised on the agenda prior to the meeting, and some queries as to whether we had the list right.

As a result the directors met on Saturday and Maria was present at the meeting to assist us.  We agreed to some small modifications, the main one being that materials for the M1/M3 pergolas would be paid for by by the unit owners, while the work would still be done by the group.

While UCOL is promising to finish these works as a priority, we have to remember that we are proposing to do this by working bees, and we need good cooperation and engagement to achieve this.  The payoff for the group is that, by saving much of the cost of contractors for these jobs, we are making that available to go towards the kitchen and other stage 2 jobs we would not otherwise be able to do.

Since the group agreed to a specific text of the letter at our meeting last Thursday, I wanted everyone to have the opportunity to review the updated letter before it is officially sent.  I hope these modifications mean we now have something everyone can be happy with.

If you have any remaining objection or concerns regarding this letter, please contact the directors before 5pm tomorrow Monday.

Here is the latest draft letter:

Dear Purchaser,

UCOL undertakes to finish the site works, which remain unfinished on settlement day, at the earliest opportunity and in any case within 6 months of settlement.  Specifically, we agree to finish:

• The High Street steps outside C1/C2
• The fences between units in the back yards and on the boundary between private and shared areas around the common green as shown on the plans.
• Pergolas in the back yards of A and H units as shown on the plans.
• The earthworks outside M3 as was priced by Halls recently.
• The boundary fence between M3 and Montpellier Street.
• A pergola in similar construction and size as the A and H unit ones outside M1 and M3, and/or entrance covers similar to those proposed for the D units, by agreement with the Unit owners.  The cost of materials for these pergolas or covers will be paid for by the owners.

In addition to the above, we also undertake to complete any further works such as the covers for the D unit entrances and any other works that were not on the plans but are seen as necessary and agreed to by the group decision making process.  These "not on plan" works will only be completed on the condition that the cost of materials will be met by the unit owners.

Alex, Catherine, Anne and Susan
Directors,
UCOL