Hi guys, Having heard and discussed with maria briefly of yesterday’s decisions; here is my bit as a shareholder . Terribly BAD!! That we ate now about to settle and with all the effort and stress that this caused in many of us and we rush up on decision of this caliber . I’m not wanting - and wish is the same for all of us - to delay settlement but in the same way I don’t think anyone else has the right to all of a sudden and in an open forum out conditions and expenditures just like that . PLEASE I WANT TO GET SETTLEMENT WITH NO NEW OBSTRUCTIONS . Then we can discuss in the group those large decisions on how we do and spend extra money .
Regards
Juan Puricelli Sur Architecture 022 6585021
On 4/06/2021, at 12:09 PM, Alex King alex@king.net.nz wrote:
On 4/06/21 10:37 am, Maria Callau wrote:
2 comments:
As a member of the PCG and of the BC I would like somebody present in the meeting to comment on the following:
- Where is the evidence that the M units pergolas were included in the original contract?
I understood we had agreed that the PCG was going to go through the plans to establish exactly what was included. From what I remember Pergolas for the M units & Covered Areas for the D units were no in the original plans. I have been telling this to both: the M units and the D units. Both items are of similar weight. I can also see that there was a disproportion of D units shareholder at the meeting yesterday.
From what I was told, there were drawings with extensive groundworks and a large pergola outside M3. Not sure about M1. There was never a drawing with covers for the D units.
To an extent what is included in this list and what is excluded is a judgement call, as there may have been contradictory information around.
Our S&P agreements state that the houses would be as drawn/specified in the project information. If you can identify and review the project information plans and they are clear that the M3 pergolas were excluded, then you could approach the directors about it, but we intend to write the letter over the weekend as Gay has requested it prior to settlement.
Also regardless of what was on the drawings, Gay has expressed that she believes a pergola outside M3 and M1 is a matter of fairness in comparison with other (A and H). Again, what is included and excluded from this list is a matter of judgement. I can't be sure what different people have told Gay at different times, and therefore what expectation she has taken from that and whether it is "reasonable" for her to expect a pergola or not, even if one didn't appear in the project information.
Talking with Sara, what she primarily needs is a cover outside her door for wet weather, the same as the D units. Again, I'm not sure if the project information included a pergola outside her unit or not. I suspect even though the letter talks about a pergola outside M1, Sara may want to swap a pergola for a D-unit style cover. That probably needs further working out.
Although I felt this letter wasn't necessary, because we had been, and were continuing to work these issues in group meetings, I also agree it's good to be clear. It's good to make a decision and move on.
Given that the group agreed to ask the directors to write this letter before settlement, that is what will happen unless you or someone else particularly wants to push it. Alternatives to doing as we agreed last night might be to:
appeal to the directors and ask us to hold off sending the letter until the group has reviewed the decision, since you were not at the meeting and you wish it to be reviewed. That would delay the letter post settlement (for some people) and may not meet Gay's need for certainty. (Actually I'm not sure if Gay is one of the ones settling on Tuesday, but I guess she could be asked to delay her settlement to the 10 days which would give us until the 17th) Better in my view would be to hold a mediation type meeting over the weekend including Gay, Sara, some directors and some of the D unit people so everyone can express their needs and we can try to negotiate a better solution that meets everyone's needs. That could follow an NVC process, I believe that is a great way to resolve these things, and Kristin knows how that's done. Do you see the letter as a "good enough" solution Maria, or do you want us to revisit it?
(Also regarding "included in the contract," note that the contract with S&W is a different thing than the S&P contracts with buyers, what was in the drawings for S&W were not necessarily the whole story of what was promised to the buyers.)
- How can we approve expenditure on an open forum?
I thought we needed to be notified about this before the meeting. The BC recommended not to approve any expenditure until we know how much money is left from contingency. We are very close to that stage and will be able to evaluate/report on the amount.
Are you talking about the pergolas for M3, or the divider benchtop in A6?
If you are talking about the M3 pergola, then if it is in the S&P contract promised to the buyers, the the company is obligated to provide it and it must be done ahead of other expenditure like the kitchen which was optional. If it is the benchtop divider in A6, then it is a discretionary item out of contingency and we did agree to it despite our general recommendation (to wait until Nicola reports back to us with a contingency figure.) It is not urgent to do this so you are perfectly within your rights to ask to review it at the next meeting since you weren't there. We did talk about how these spending items should be on the agenda so people know it is coming up, and agreed to re-commit to doing that in future. But on balance we were comfortable because we knew people can appeal the decision in this case.
Your comments will be welcome. Thanks, Maria
Thanks, Alex
Kind Regards,
Maria Callau 0211847490
SUR Architecture Limited www.sur-architecture.com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:32 PM Sandy & Frances Ross sfross@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Please come back to me with any amendments or additions.
Thank you.
Frances_______________________________________________ Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
The directors were asked to give Gay assurances about the pergola outside her house, before settlement. To be fair Gay has been asking for this for a while, it was not a sudden thing. I was under the impression that what had been said in meetings would be enough reassurance, but Gay was wanting something more in writing. In response to Gay, we (directors) could:
* refuse (but it is reasonable to be clear on things before settlement) * agree as directors, but it is not fair for the directors to give undertakings to individuals without the rest of us knowing about it. * take it to a meeting to decide, which is what we did.
I did ask Donald to put it on the agenda, but it was very late because Anne and I had only been discussing it on the day of the meeting. I have been busy with UCOL matters which is eating into my time including my work time. I'll be glad when settlement is done and even more so when the company can be wound up.
It was really unfortunate that you weren't able to be at the meeting and have input into the decision. I'm sure we can talk over the weekend informally, and everyone can come to a decision on whether they will approach the directors to reconsider this, or let the letter be sent as agreed.
Thanks, Alex
On 4/06/21 12:33 pm, Juan Puricelli wrote:
Hi guys, Having heard and discussed with maria briefly of yesterday’s decisions; here is my bit as a shareholder . Terribly BAD!! That we ate now about to settle and with all the effort and stress that this caused in many of us and we rush up on decision of this caliber . I’m not wanting - and wish is the same for all of us - to delay settlement but in the same way I don’t think anyone else has the right to all of a sudden and in an open forum out conditions and expenditures just like that . PLEASE I WANT TO GET SETTLEMENT WITH NO NEW OBSTRUCTIONS . Then we can discuss in the group those large decisions on how we do and spend extra money .
Regards
Juan Puricelli Sur Architecture 022 6585021
On 4/06/2021, at 12:09 PM, Alex King alex@king.net.nz wrote:
On 4/06/21 10:37 am, Maria Callau wrote:
2 comments:
As a member of the PCG and of the BC I would like somebody present in the meeting to comment on the following:
*1. Where is the evidence that the M units pergolas were included in the original contract?* I understood we had agreed that the PCG was going to go through the plans to establish exactly what was included. From what I remember Pergolas for the M units & Covered Areas for the D units were no in the original plans. I have been telling this to both: the M units and the D units. Both items are of similar weight. I can also see that there was a disproportion of D units shareholder at the meeting yesterday.
From what I was told, there were drawings with extensive groundworks and a large pergola outside M3. Not sure about M1. There was never a drawing with covers for the D units.
To an extent what is included in this list and what is excluded is a judgement call, as there may have been contradictory information around.
Our S&P agreements state that the houses would be as drawn/specified in the project information. If you can identify and review the project information plans and they are clear that the M3 pergolas were excluded, then you could approach the directors about it, but we intend to write the letter over the weekend as Gay has requested it prior to settlement.
Also regardless of what was on the drawings, Gay has expressed that she believes a pergola outside M3 and M1 is a matter of fairness in comparison with other (A and H). Again, what is included and excluded from this list is a matter of judgement. I can't be sure what different people have told Gay at different times, and therefore what expectation she has taken from that and whether it is "reasonable" for her to expect a pergola or not, even if one didn't appear in the project information.
Talking with Sara, what she primarily needs is a cover outside her door for wet weather, the same as the D units. Again, I'm not sure if the project information included a pergola outside her unit or not. I suspect even though the letter talks about a pergola outside M1, Sara may want to swap a pergola for a D-unit style cover. That probably needs further working out.
Although I felt this letter wasn't necessary, because we had been, and were continuing to work these issues in group meetings, I also agree it's good to be clear. It's good to make a decision and move on.
Given that the group agreed to ask the directors to write this letter before settlement, that is what will happen unless you or someone else particularly wants to push it. Alternatives to doing as we agreed last night might be to:
- appeal to the directors and ask us to hold off sending the letter until the group has reviewed the decision, since you were not at the meeting and you wish it to be reviewed. That would delay the letter post settlement (for some people) and may not meet Gay's need for certainty. (Actually I'm not sure if Gay is one of the ones settling on Tuesday, but I guess she could be asked to delay her settlement to the 10 days which would give us until the 17th)
- Better in my view would be to hold a mediation type meeting over the weekend including Gay, Sara, some directors and some of the D unit people so everyone can express their needs and we can try to negotiate a better solution that meets everyone's needs. That could follow an NVC process, I believe that is a great way to resolve these things, and Kristin knows how that's done.
Do you see the letter as a "good enough" solution Maria, or do you want us to revisit it?
(Also regarding "included in the contract," note that the contract with S&W is a different thing than the S&P contracts with buyers, what was in the drawings for S&W were not necessarily the whole story of what was promised to the buyers.)
*2. How can we approve expenditure on an open forum?* I thought we needed to be notified about this before the meeting. The BC recommended not to approve any expenditure until we know how much money is left from contingency. We are very close to that stage and will be able to evaluate/report on the amount.
Are you talking about the pergolas for M3, or the divider benchtop in A6?
- If you are talking about the M3 pergola, then if it is in the S&P contract promised to the buyers, the the company is obligated to provide it and it must be done ahead of other expenditure like the kitchen which was optional.
- If it is the benchtop divider in A6, then it is a discretionary item out of contingency and we did agree to it despite our general recommendation (to wait until Nicola reports back to us with a contingency figure.) It is not urgent to do this so you are perfectly within your rights to ask to review it at the next meeting since you weren't there. We did talk about how these spending items should be on the agenda so people know it is coming up, and agreed to re-commit to doing that in future. But on balance we were comfortable because we knew people can appeal the decision in this case.
Your comments will be welcome. Thanks, Maria
Thanks, Alex
Kind Regards,
*Maria Callau* 0211847490
*SUR *Architecture Limited www.sur-architecture.com http://www.sur-architecture.com/
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:32 PM Sandy & Frances Ross <sfross@xtra.co.nz mailto:sfross@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Please come back to me with any amendments or additions. Thank you. Frances_______________________________________________ Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz <mailto:Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz> https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders <https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders>
ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz
-
Alex King -
Juan Puricelli