body corporate 200012 owners committee report...body corporate 200012 – committee report – march...

BODY CORPORATE 200012

Owners Committee Report

MARCH 2014

Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014

Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved of 52

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Table of Contents Summary

Introduction 5

Accumulated Funds

Overview 6

Notes 6

Construction Costs

Updated Costs 7

Notes 7

Additional Costs 8

Notes 8

Summary 10

Annual General Meeting

Overview 10

Election of Meeting Chairperson (motion 1) 10

Apologies / Proxies / Postal Votes (motion 2) 10

Confirm Minutes of Previous General Meeting (motion 3) 10

Confirm the Committee Reports (motion 4) 10



Confirm the Financial Statements (motion 5) 10

Audit (motion 6) 10

Election of Chairperson to the Body Corporate (motion 7) 10

Election of Committee (motion 8) 10

Delegation (motion 9) 10

Confirm 2014 / 2015 Budget (motion 10) 10

Insurance (motion 11) 14

Administration (motion 12) 14

Tax & GST Agent (motion 13) 14

Levy Collection Procedure (motion 14) 14

Summary 14

Construction Costs vs Accumulated Funds

Summary 15

Weathertightness Amounts Expended

Overview 15

Supplier Payments 16

Construction Update

Overview 17

Compensation Payments



Main Operating Levies 20

Main Operating Levies vs Utility Interest 21

Interim Distribution 22

Interim Distribution vs Utility Interest 22

Rubbish & Letterbox Facilities

Overview 23

GST Issues

Overview 24

Compensation Payments (cont)

Project Surplus 24

Project Surplus vs Utility Interest 24

Potential Compensation vs Utility Interest 24

Summary 27

Sales & Marketing Campaign

Overview 27

Committee Minutes

Committee Meeting Minutes November 2013 – March 2014 27



2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Introduction

This report covers the period November 2013 through March 2014. It is intended to provide

stakeholders with an update subsequent to the committee’s October 2013 report and further to the

informal stakeholders meeting 25/11/13. This report also consolidates various RWU notices.

Stakeholders are advised that the body corporate has now revised the construction programme to

take into account the delays associated with the first stage of the remedial works and the impact

that this has had on the programmed dates to the remaining stages. The revised construction

programme is:

Stage No. of Start End

No. Units Date Date

Stage (1) 18 09/09/13 01/07/14

Stage (2) 17 12/05/14 19/11/14

Stage (3) 23 23/10/14 13/07/15

Stage (4) 25 19/06/15 02/03/16

Stakeholders will recall that the remedial work to stage 1 of the development was due to be

completed 13/03/14. Stakeholders will now note that the revised date is 01/07/14 and that this

represents a 16 week delay. Details on the delays were noted on page 18 of the committee’s

October 2013 report and are further expanded upon in this report; however in summary the delays

are the result of unforeseen construction issues. Those stakeholders whose units are located in

the subsequent stages of the project are advised that the delays associated with stage 1 are

unlikely to be repeated to the same extent due to the fact that there should be no further

unforeseen construction issues and given that the solutions developed during the stage 1 repairs

can now be applied across the balance of the project.

This report also includes important information relevant to the 2014 Annual General Meeting (‘AGM

2014’) and which will be held 28 April 2014. The Committee is pleased to advise that it does not

propose to raise a levy for the 2014 / 2015 main operating budget. This will be met from the body

corporates accumulated funds. This brings the total compensation amount already distributed to

date to $1,240,105. Stakeholders are also advised that despite significant cost increases

associated with the remedial works the committee remains confident that there will be a substantial

surplus available for distribution upon completion of the project. That is positive.



3. ACCUMULATED FUNDS

3.1 Overview

The body corporate remains in a strong financial position with accumulated funds exceeding $16.2

million dollars and which at 31 March 2014 were represented by:

Current Assets Amount

BNZ - 000 Account 37

BNZ - PIE Fund 2,244,067

BNZ - Term Deposit (4.02% Maturing 19/06/14) 2,250,000



Interest Receivable 371,919

Proprietor Control Account (778,893)

Trust Account 1,476

16,088,606

Current Liabilities

Creditor Control Account 61,380

GST Control Account (190,384)

Resident Withholding Tax 6,697

(122,307)

Accumulated Funds 16,210,913

3.2 Notes

(a) At the date of drafting this report the body corporate had not received the BNZ PIE

statement for the final quarter of the 2014 financial year. The receipt of this statement

will improve the body corporates financial position with the addition of further interest.

(b) Payment of the proprietor credit balances is subject to the restrictions noted in

previous committee reports.

(c) The accumulated funds referred to does not include interest other than that which has

been accrued for the existing term deposits. Stakeholders will continue to benefit from

further interest as the committee manages various term deposit issues.



4. CONSTRUCTION COSTS

4.1 Updated Costs

Description Balance Notes

Naylor Love Construction Ltd 13,907,680 1

Building Contract Administration 757,022 2

Construction Observation 387,684 3

Project Management Fees 162,919 4

Timber Inspections 147,914 5

Maintenance Plan 7,073 6

15,370,291

Additional Costs 2,416,765 7

Total Updated Construction Costs 17,787,057

4.2 Notes

Stakeholders are advised that:

1. The figure for Naylor Love Construction represents the original contract sum

($16,185,663) vs payments to 31/03/14 totalling $2,277,983.

2. The figure for Building Contract Administration represents the original contract sum

($1,001,696) vs payments to 31/03/14 totalling $244,674.

3. The figure for Construction Observation represents the original contact sum

($419,175) vs payments to 31/03/14 totalling $31,491.

4. The figure for Project Management Fees represents the original contract sum

($230,000) vs payments to 31/03/14 totalling $67,081.

5. The figure for Timber Inspections represents the original contract sum ($180,000) vs

payments to 31/03/14 totalling $32,086.

6. The figure for the Maintenance Plan remains unchanged given that this work will not

be completed until the end of the project.



7. The figure for Additional Costs is detailed in the following section. This figure replaces

the Contingency Provision.

4.3 Additional Costs

Additional costs have arisen due to the unforseen construction issues referred to in the committee’s

October 2013 report. Further costs can also be attributed to additional work being required to

various infrastructure items. While some of this work is not directly related to the weathertightness

issues it been necessitated as a term of receiving code compliance certification. The body

corporate is also using this opportunity to undertake various outstanding long term maintenance

issues and at additional cost to the project. The costs associated with the matters referred to are

projected to total $2,416,765 (through to completion of the project) and are better particularised as

follows:

Description Amount Notes

Additional Timber Replacement 698,678 1

Bathroom Floor Framing 328,900 2

Bathroom Ventilation Units 15,417 3

External Deck Lights 35,133 4

Frame Saver to Roof Framing 20,589 5

Internal Painting 343,000 6

Kitchen Floor Coverings 190,000 7

ORG Replacement 92,681 8

Prolongation Costs 182,160 9

Rubbish / Letterbox Facilities 57,500 10

Security Lighting 48,344 11

Shower Mixers / Sliders 19,531 12

Stopcock Replacement 13,483 13

Structural Beam Replacement 462,492 14

Windows (Louvers to Sash Windows) - 91,941 15

2,416,765

4.4 Notes

Stakeholders are advised that:

1. The figure associated with additional timber replacement relates to a revised provision

to replace 90% of timber framing throughout the balance of the project vs the original

70% contract provision. Stakeholders are referred to pages 18 through 19 of the

committee’s October 2013 for further details on this item.



2. Similarly the figure associated with bathroom floor framing also represents a provision

to replace 90% vs 70%.

3. The bathroom ventilation units have exceeded their lifespan and require replacement

vs reinstatement. Stakeholders are referred to RWU 045.

4. The external deck lights have exceeded their lifespan and will be replaced on a like-

for-like basis vs reinstatement.

5. The figure associated with frame saver (to roof framing) represents a correction to the

measured schedule of quantities.

6. The move from 70% to 90% timber replacement has necessitated an increase in the

body corporate’s provision for its contribution to the internal painting of units. This

item is still being reviewed by the committee and further details will be provided by

way of a RWU.

7. Due to the majority of the timber framing supporting the kitchens being removed it has

become necessary to replace all existing kitchen floor coverings. Stakeholders are

referred to RWU 043.

8. The overflow relief gullies (ORG’s) are a part of the sanitary drainage system that

provides separation between each household unit and the buried drainage system.

ORGs are a New Zealand Building Code requirement and the installation must comply

with the code’s requirements. The existing ORG’s have to be relocated for the re-

cladding work to proceed however they do not comply with the New Zealand building

code requirements. The Council requires they be made compliant as part of these

works since they are being relocated. The modifications required to achieve

compliance include the provision of a trap and provision of a hose tap above the ORG

to keep the trap charged (i.e. provided with a water seal.)

9. The figure associated with prolongation costs represents the main contractors costs

associated with the delays to stage 1 of the remedial works.

10. The figure associated with the rubbish / letterbox facilities is a provisional sum for

these works. Further details are included later in this report.

11. The figure for security lighting relates to a committee decision to install 10 permanent

light fixtures to various locations throughout the development. This initiative is



intended to resolve the current situation where security lighting is provided by

residents through the use of adhoc lighting situated beneath front door canopies.

12. The shower mixers / sliders have exceeded their lifespan and require replacement vs

reinstatement. Stakeholders are referred to RWU 040.

13. The stop-cock valves have exceeded their lifespan and will be replaced on a like-for-

like basis.

14. The move from 70% to 90% timber replacement has necessitated an increase in the

body corporate’s provision for structural beam replacement.

15. The figure (saving) for windows represents a decision to dispense with any louver

windows in lieu of fixed sash windows.

4.5 Summary

Stakeholders will recall that the body corporate had allowed for a contingency sum of $1,781,515 in

its original construction costs data. Details of this were noted on page 6 of the committee’s

October 2013 report. Taking this into account the additional costs total $635,250 and which are

particularised as:

Description Amount

Additional Costs 2,416,765

Contingency Provision (10%) 1,781,515

Result 635,250

As noted earlier the body corporate has now removed the contingency provision from its

construction forecasts given it has now made revised cost provisions for all known items through to

completion of the project. Stakeholders are also advised that there are a number of provisional

items within the contract that are likely to be completed under budget and that these should

mitigate any new additional cost items.

5. ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

5.1 Overview



Stakeholders are reminded that the body corporate is now regulated by the Unit Titles Act 2010

and the Unit Titles Regulations 2011. In terms of AGM 2014 stakeholders are advised that the

committee has not received any additional motions requiring resolution and that accordingly the

meeting is predominantly procedural in nature.

5.2 Election of Meeting Chairperson (motion 1)

In terms of AGM 2014 the committee supports the election of Kareen Mackey (Crocker’s Body

Corporate Management Ltd) to chair the meeting. The committee encourages all stakeholders to

vote in the affirmative for ‘motion 1’.

5.3 Apologies / Proxies / Postal Votes (motion 2)

Given that this matter is procedural stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for

‘motion 2’.

5.4 Confirm Minutes of Previous General Meeting (motion 3)

For the reasons noted above stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for ‘motion 3’.

5.5 Confirm the Committee Reports (motion 4)

The committee produced reports dated October 2013 and March 2014 and encourages all

stakeholders to approve these by voting in the affirmative for ‘motion 4’.

5.6 Confirm the Financial Statements (motion 5)

Stakeholders are reminded that the committee approves the body corporates accounts at each of

its meetings. Supplier invoices are circulated monthly and retrospectively approved at each

committee meeting. Stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for ‘motion 5’.

5.7 Audit (motion 6)

The annual accounts are not audited pursuant to a resolution passed at AGM 2013. This

resolution will again be tabled at AGM 2014 pursuant to s132 (8) of the Unit Titles Act 2010. Given

that this matter is procedural stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for ‘motion 6’.



5.8 Election of Chairperson of the Body Corporate (motion7)

The body corporate has received one nomination for the appointment of the body corporate

chairperson. That nomination was for Don Scrimgeour. The committee encourages all

stakeholders to vote in the affirmative for ‘motion 7’.

5.9 Election of Committee (motion 8 – (a) & (b))

The body corporate has received one nomination for the 2014 / 2015 committee. That nomination

noted “that the current committee be reappointed” and accordingly stakeholders are encouraged to

vote in the affirmative for ‘motion 8’. This will result in Don Scrimgeour, Surendra Sharma, Neil

Meyer & Bert de Graff being reappointed to the committee in accordance with the provisions of

s112 (2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 and r22 and r24 of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011.

5.10 Delegation (motion 9)

Stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for ‘motion’ 9 to ensure that the current

management structure remains unchanged and pursuant with the provisions of s108 (1) of the Unit

Titles Act 2010. The duties of the body corporate chairperson are set out in regulation 11 (1), sub-

paragraphs (a) to (m) inclusive of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011

5.11 Confirm 2014 / 2015 Budget (motion 10) Overview

The committee proposes a reduction in the main operating budget for 2014 / 2015 of $14,057 (incl.

GST). Stakeholders are advised that while the committee does not propose to levy stakeholders

for the 2014 / 2015 main operating budget it is nevertheless important that this motion be approved

given that payment of the amounts referred to will be met from the body corporates accumulated

funds.

5.12 Confirm 2014 / 2015 Main Operating Budget (motion 10) Details

The committee proposes the following budget (incl. GST) for resolution at AGM 2014:

Description 2013

2014 Notes

ARC Monitoring Fee 1,000 - 1



Building Compliance (BWOF) 400 455

Caretakers Contract Fee 6,240 4,680 2

Committee Honorariums 1,600 1,600

CSM - GST Return Preparation Fee 575 920 3

CSM - Income Tax Return Preparation Fee 345 345

CSM - Management Fee 12,197 12,396

CSM - Trust Account Management Fee 575 575

Electricity (Common Areas) 1,000 1,000

Garden & Grounds Maintenance 4,500 3,120 4

General Expenses 1,000 500

General Repairs & Maintenance 2,000 1,500

Insurance Premium 48,250 49,959

Internet Services 650 350

Rubbish Removal 700 15,700 5

Valuation Fees 1,250 1,325

Venue Hire 2,000 300

Water & Waste 65,000 40,500 6

149,282

135,225

5.13 2014 / 2015 Main Operating Budget (motion 10) Notes

Stakeholders are advised:

1. That the committee has dispensed with a provision for the ARC Monitoring Fee given

no actual expense was incurred in either of the two previous financial years.

2. That the budgeted figure for the caretaker’s contract fee has reduced by a further

$1,560. This is the result of that contractor no longer having to return the rubbish bins

to units after council collections.

3. That the costs associated with Crocker Strata Management Ltd’s GST return

preparation fees have increased by $345 given that the committee has adopted to file

two-monthly returns vs six-monthly returns.

4. That the garden & grounds budget amount has reduced by $1,380. This is the result

of a previous restructuring exercise.

5. That the costs associated with rubbish removal represent a full financial year.

6. That the budgeted figure for water & waste takes into accounts that up to 25% of the

units within the development will be vacant at any one time during the remedial works

and which gives rise to significant cost savings.



5.14 2014 / 2015 Main Operating Budget (motion 10) Summary

Taking the above comments into account stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for

‘motion 10’ and pursuant to the provision of s121 of the Unit Titles Act 2010

5.15 Insurance (motion 11)


‘motion 11’.

5.16 Administration (motion 12)

The committee supports the reappointment of Crockers Body Corporate Management Ltd to the

position of body corporate manager and encourages all stakeholders to vote in the affirmative for

‘motion 12’ and pursuant with the duties prescribed in r11 (1) of the Unit Titles Regulations 2011.

5.17 Tax & GST Agent (motion 13)


‘motion 13’.

5.18 Levy Collection Procedure (motion 14)


‘motion 14’ and pursuant with s124 & s128 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.

5.19 Summary

While AGM 2014 is procedural stakeholders are encouraged to attend. Stakeholders are reminded

that the committee will participate in an informal meeting after AGM 2014 to discuss matters

associated with the remedial works.

Stakeholders are also reminded that they are able to view copies of the Unit Titles Act 2010 and

the Unit Titles Regulations 2011 through the body corporates website.



6. CONSTRUCTION COSTS vs ACCUMULATED FUNDS

6.1 Summary

Stakeholders are advised that based on the revised data contained in this report the project

continues to forecast a surplus and which is better particularised as:

Description Amount

Accumulated Funds 16,210,913

Construction Costs 17,787,057

GST Refunds 2,320,051

Surplus / (Deficit) 743,907

Stakeholders are further advised that this result is conservative. It is based on six months of actual

construction activity along with significant provisions for various items and which have been

extrapolated through to the balance of the project. The result is also conservative given that the

body corporate has not made provisions for:

(a) Interest on future term deposits and which will likely exceed > $150,000.

(b) GST refunds associated with the balance of the proprietor control account credit

balances and which total $101,594.

(c) Cost savings associated with various provisional sums in the contract and which will

likely exceed >$200,000.

7. WEATHERTIGHTNESS AMOUNTS EXPENDED

7.1 Overview

Stakeholders are advised that the total amount expended (incl. GST) at 31 March 2014 was

$6,468,386 and which is better particularised as follows:

Consolidated Amount

Construction Costs 2,277,983 Building & Design Consultants 1,318,155



Building Consent Fees 110,680 Engineers 26,981 Expert Witness Fees 89,609 General Expenses 2,376 Insurance Fees 90,183 Legal's (main litigation) 1,588,108 Legal's (s48 Scheme / Boundary Encroachments) 102,418 Legal's (various) 109,492 Professional Fees 47,972 Project Management Fees 545,948 Surveyors 80,406 Temporary Repairs 76,050 Valuers 2,025

6,468,386

7.2 Supplier Payments

The amount expensed at 31 March 2014 includes payments to the following suppliers:

Description Amount

0508 Any-Junk 1,600



ABL Cabling Solutions 1,996 Alexander & Co Ltd 413,728 Auckland City Council 110,680 Brian Carter Consulting Engineer 22,151 Bruce Gray Barrister QC 3,577 Canam Construction Ltd 11,500 Chester Consultants Ltd 1,725 Commercial Building Inspection Services 10,399 Committee Expenses 74,472 Cook Morris Quinn 109,492 Crockers Strata Management Ltd 31,759 Crombie Lockwood 90,183 Design Generation Ltd 1,418 Dr. Song Shi 11,859 Farrow Maintenance Services 2,595 Forensic & Industrial Science Ltd 31,503 Gribble Churton Taylor Ltd 23,690 Grimshaw & Co 1,249,881 Grove Darlow & Co 102,418 Inside Out Painting Services Ltd 4,498 Insite Design & Development Ltd 10,370 James & Associates 398,686 Janus Facades Pty Ltd 3,000 Kauri Contractors 6,204 Kensington Swan 338,227 Kris Rossouw 3,145 Martin Plumbing & Gas Services Ltd 3,517 Maynard Marks Ltd 890,546 Mercury Energy 776 Mt Hobson Properties Ltd 863 Naylor Love Construction Ltd 2,277,983 Norman Williams 12,158 Olivershaw Ltd 2,185 PKF Ross Melville 16,163 Rawlinson's Surveyors 57,302 Ross Betts Builder 970 SAS Consulting Ltd 11,548 Seagar & Partners 2,025 Shanahan Architects 13,881 Splish Splash Butyl Waterproofing 36,922 Strata Title Administration Ltd 41,030 Telco Asset Management 4,830 Water Works 2004 Ltd 1,828 Yeomans Survey Solutions 23,104

6,468,386

8. CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

8.1 Overview



While there have been delays associated with stage 1 of the remedial works progress is being

made and the following images note some this progress since construction to stage 1 commenced

09/09/13.

8.2 Timber Replacement (Walls & Floor Joists)

8.3 Timber Replacement (Bathrooms)

8.4 Insulation Replacement

8.5 Window Joinery Installation



8.6 Timber Replacement (Roofs)

8.7 Roof Installation (Colour Steel Roofing)

8.8 Roof Installation (Eaves)



8.9 Cladding Installation

9. COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

9.1 Main Operating Levies

During the 2012 & 2013 AGM’s the committee recommended that stakeholders resolve not to raise

levies for the main operating budget but instead remit payment of these expenses through the body

corporates accumulated funds. At AGM 2014 the committee will make a similar recommendation.

Stakeholders are advised that this initiative has meant that each has directly benefited from

compensation totalling $454,720 and this is better particularised as:

Description Amount

Main Operating Levy 2012 / 2013 170,213

Main Operating Levy 2013 / 2014 149,282



Main Operating Levy 2014 / 2015 135,225 454,720

9.2 Main Operating Levies vs Utility Interest

In terms of the compensation amount noted above stakeholders are referred to the following data

for details specific to their unit/s.

Unit Unit

Compensation Unit Unit

Compensation

Number Entitlement Amount Number Entitlement Amount

A 1.09091 4,961 AQ 1.11818 5,085

B 1.07273 4,878 AR 1.11818 5,085

C 1.33636 6,077 AS 1.11818 5,085

D 1.33636 6,077 AT 1.11818 5,085

E 1.85455 8,433 AU 1.36364 6,201

F 1.09091 4,961 AV 1.38182 6,283

G 1.09091 4,961 AW 1.13636 5,167

H 1.09091 4,961 AX 1.13636 5,167

I 1.39091 6,325 AY 1.13636 5,167

J 1.35455 6,159 AZ 1.07273 4,878

K 1.28182 5,829 BA 1.07273 4,878

L 1.53636 6,986 BB 1.09091 4,961

M 1.35455 6,159 BC 1.09091 4,961

N 1.35455 6,159 BD 1.09091 4,961

O 1.04545 4,754 BE 1.01818 4,630

P 1.04545 4,754 BF 1.07273 4,878

Q 1.04545 4,754 BG 1.07273 4,878

R 1.81819 8,268 BH 1.13636 5,167

S 1.15455 5,250 BI 1.11818 5,085

T 1.11818 5,085 BJ 1.28182 5,829

U 1.37273 6,242 BK 1.30000 5,911

V 1.12727 5,126 BL 1.23636 5,622

W 1.34545 6,118 BM 1.25455 5,705

X 1.34545 6,118 BN 1.21819 5,539

Y 1.36364 6,201 BO 1.03636 4,713

Z 1.63636 7,441 BP 1.20909 5,498

AA 1.37273 6,242 BQ 1.08182 4,919

AB 1.17273 5,333 BR 1.50000 6,821

AC 1.14545 5,209 BS 1.04545 4,754

AD 1.15455 5,250 BT 1.04545 4,754

AE 1.15455 5,250 BU 1.00909 4,589

AF 1.13636 5,167 BV 1.00909 4,589

AG 1.15455 5,250 BW 1.00909 4,589

AH 1.11818 5,085 BX 1.24545 5,663

AI 1.13636 5,167 BY 1.04545 4,754

AJ 1.30000 5,911 BZ 1.04545 4,754



AK 1.30000 5,911 CA 1.29091 5,870

AL 1.11818 5,085 CB 1.29091 5,870

AM 1.11818 5,085 CC 1.06364 4,837

AN 1.11818 5,085 CD 1.06364 4,837

AO 1.36364 6,201 CE 1.37273 6,242

AP 1.36364 6,201

9.3 Interim Distribution

Stakeholders will also be aware that the committee has set aside $785,385 as an interim

compensation distribution through a credit to each proprietors account.

9.4 Interim Distribution vs Utility Interest

In terms of the compensation amount noted stakeholders are again referred to the following data

for details specific to their unit/s.

Unit Unit

Compensation Unit Unit Compensation


A 1.09091 8,568 AQ 1.11818 8,782

B 1.07273 8,425 AR 1.11818 8,782

C 1.33636 10,496 AS 1.11818 8,782

D 1.33636 10,496 AT 1.11818 8,782

E 1.85455 14,565 AU 1.36364 10,710

F 1.09091 8,568 AV 1.38182 10,853

G 1.09091 8,568 AW 1.13636 8,925

H 1.09091 8,568 AX 1.13636 8,925

I 1.39091 10,924 AY 1.13636 8,925

J 1.35455 10,638 AZ 1.07273 8,425

K 1.28182 10,067 BA 1.07273 8,425

L 1.53636 12,066 BB 1.09091 8,568

M 1.35455 10,638 BC 1.09091 8,568

N 1.35455 10,638 BD 1.09091 8,568

O 1.04545 8,211 BE 1.01818 7,997

P 1.04545 8,211 BF 1.07273 8,425

Q 1.04545 8,211 BG 1.07273 8,425

R 1.81819 14,280 BH 1.13636 8,925

S 1.15455 9,068 BI 1.11818 8,782

T 1.11818 8,782 BJ 1.28182 10,067

U 1.37273 10,781 BK 1.30000 10,210

V 1.12727 8,853 BL 1.23636 9,710

W 1.34545 10,567 BM 1.25455 9,853

X 1.34545 10,567 BN 1.21819 9,567

Y 1.36364 10,710 BO 1.03636 8,139



Z 1.63636 12,852 BP 1.20909 9,496

AA 1.37273 10,781 BQ 1.08182 8,496

AB 1.17273 9,210 BR 1.50000 11,781

AC 1.14545 8,996 BS 1.04545 8,211

AD 1.15455 9,068 BT 1.04545 8,211

AE 1.15455 9,068 BU 1.00909 7,925

AF 1.13636 8,925 BV 1.00909 7,925

AG 1.15455 9,068 BW 1.00909 7,925

AH 1.11818 8,782 BX 1.24545 9,782

AI 1.13636 8,925 BY 1.04545 8,211

AJ 1.30000 10,210 BZ 1.04545 8,211

AK 1.30000 10,210 CA 1.29091 10,139

AL 1.11818 8,782 CB 1.29091 10,139

AM 1.11818 8,782 CC 1.06364 8,354

AN 1.11818 8,782 CD 1.06364 8,354

AO 1.36364 10,710 CE 1.37273 10,781

AP 1.36364 10,710

10. RUBBISH & LETTERBOX FACILITIES

10.1 Overview

At AGM 2013 stakeholders resolved to adopt the committee’s rubbish & letterbox facilities

proposal. This proposal involved implementing a centralised system and would involve the body

corporate creating two new rubbish disposal areas adjacent to the existing letterboxes.

Subsequent to AGM 2013 the committee implemented this proposal on a temporary basis. The

committee is pleased to report that without exception the feedback has been positive and

accordingly permanent facilities will now be constructed pursuant to the resolution passed at AGM

2013 and in junction with the remedial works.

The images above represent an artist’s impression of the proposed Harold Street facility. The Mary

Street facility will be similar in appearance. The committee has decided to amalgamate each of the



existing letterbox and temporary rubbish disposal areas into new purpose built structures. These

will be covered and include lighting. Signage will be placed on the front of each structure directing

visitors to the body corporates website. The structures referred to will be built towards the end of

the remedial works and commissioned in 2016. The committee has allocated $50,000 to complete

this work.

11. GST ISSUES

11.1 Overview

Stakeholders are advised that the IRD has not responded to the body corporates submission on its

issues paper. Notwithstanding this the body corporate changed its GST filing cycle from six-

monthly to two-monthly to capture GST refunds in a timely manner. Stakeholders are advised that

the body corporate has now filed and received payment of significant GST refunds and remains

optimistic that it will continue to do so throughout the balance of the project.

12. COMPENSATION PAYMENTS (CONT)

12.1 Project Surplus

Despite the delays and the additional costs referred to in this report the project continues to

forecast a surplus and which is now conservatively noted as $743,907.

12.2 Project Surplus vs Utility Interest

In terms of the project surplus stakeholders are referred to the following data for details specific to

their unit/s.

Unit Unit


Compensation


A 1.09091 8,159 AQ 1.11818 8,363

B 1.07273 8,023 AR 1.11818 8,363

C 1.33636 9,995 AS 1.11818 8,363

D 1.33636 9,995 AT 1.11818 8,363

E 1.85455 13,870 AU 1.36364 10,199



F 1.09091 8,159 AV 1.38182 10,335

G 1.09091 8,159 AW 1.13636 8,499

H 1.09091 8,159 AX 1.13636 8,499

I 1.39091 10,403 AY 1.13636 8,499

J 1.35455 10,131 AZ 1.07273 8,023

K 1.28182 9,587 BA 1.07273 8,023

L 1.53636 11,491 BB 1.09091 8,159

M 1.35455 10,131 BC 1.09091 8,159

N 1.35455 10,131 BD 1.09091 8,159

O 1.04545 7,819 BE 1.01818 7,615

P 1.04545 7,819 BF 1.07273 8,023

Q 1.04545 7,819 BG 1.07273 8,023

R 1.81819 13,598 BH 1.13636 8,499

S 1.15455 8,635 BI 1.11818 8,363

T 1.11818 8,363 BJ 1.28182 9,587

U 1.37273 10,267 BK 1.30000 9,723

V 1.12727 8,431 BL 1.23636 9,247

W 1.34545 10,063 BM 1.25455 9,383

X 1.34545 10,063 BN 1.21819 9,111

Y 1.36364 10,199 BO 1.03636 7,751

Z 1.63636 12,238 BP 1.20909 9,043

AA 1.37273 10,267 BQ 1.08182 8,091

AB 1.17273 8,771 BR 1.50000 11,219

AC 1.14545 8,567 BS 1.04545 7,819

AD 1.15455 8,635 BT 1.04545 7,819

AE 1.15455 8,635 BU 1.00909 7,547

AF 1.13636 8,499 BV 1.00909 7,547

AG 1.15455 8,635 BW 1.00909 7,547

AH 1.11818 8,363 BX 1.24545 9,315

AI 1.13636 8,499 BY 1.04545 7,819

AJ 1.30000 9,723 BZ 1.04545 7,819

AK 1.30000 9,723 CA 1.29091 9,655

AL 1.11818 8,363 CB 1.29091 9,655

AM 1.11818 8,363 CC 1.06364 7,955

AN 1.11818 8,363 CD 1.06364 7,955

AO 1.36364 10,199 CE 1.37273 10,267

AP 1.36364 10,199

12.3 Potential Compensation Payments v Utility Interest

Based on the revised data contained in this report the committee anticipates that the total amount

of compensation will exceed $1,984,012 and details of this are better particularised as:

Description Amount

Main Operating Levies (2012 – 2014) 454,720



Interim Distribution 785,385

Estimated Project Surplus 743,907

1,984,012

In terms of the total potential compensation data stakeholders are referred to the following for

details specific to their unit/s.

Unit Unit


Compensation


A 1.09091 21,644 AQ 1.11818 22,185

B 1.07273 21,283 AR 1.11818 22,185

C 1.33636 26,514 AS 1.11818 22,185

D 1.33636 26,514 AT 1.11818 22,185

E 1.85455 36,794 AU 1.36364 27,055

F 1.09091 21,644 AV 1.38182 27,415

G 1.09091 21,644 AW 1.13636 22,546

H 1.09091 21,644 AX 1.13636 22,546

I 1.39091 27,596 AY 1.13636 22,546

J 1.35455 26,874 AZ 1.07273 21,283

K 1.28182 25,431 BA 1.07273 21,283

L 1.53636 30,482 BB 1.09091 21,644

M 1.35455 26,874 BC 1.09091 21,644

N 1.35455 26,874 BD 1.09091 21,644

O 1.04545 20,742 BE 1.01818 20,201

P 1.04545 20,742 BF 1.07273 21,283

Q 1.04545 20,742 BG 1.07273 21,283

R 1.81819 36,073 BH 1.13636 22,546

S 1.15455 22,906 BI 1.11818 22,185

T 1.11818 22,185 BJ 1.28182 25,431

U 1.37273 27,235 BK 1.30000 25,792

V 1.12727 22,365 BL 1.23636 24,530

W 1.34545 26,694 BM 1.25455 24,890

X 1.34545 26,694 BN 1.21819 24,169

Y 1.36364 27,055 BO 1.03636 20,562

Z 1.63636 32,466 BP 1.20909 23,988

AA 1.37273 27,235 BQ 1.08182 21,463

AB 1.17273 23,267 BR 1.50000 29,760

AC 1.14545 22,726 BS 1.04545 20,742

AD 1.15455 22,906 BT 1.04545 20,742

AE 1.15455 22,906 BU 1.00909 20,020

AF 1.13636 22,546 BV 1.00909 20,020

AG 1.15455 22,906 BW 1.00909 20,020

AH 1.11818 22,185 BX 1.24545 24,710

AI 1.13636 22,546 BY 1.04545 20,742

AJ 1.30000 25,792 BZ 1.04545 20,742

AK 1.30000 25,792 CA 1.29091 25,612

AL 1.11818 22,185 CB 1.29091 25,612



AM 1.11818 22,185 CC 1.06364 21,103

AN 1.11818 22,185 CD 1.06364 21,103

AO 1.36364 27,055 CE 1.37273 27,235

AP 1.36364 27,055

12.4 Summary

Stakeholders should be pleased with both the compensation paid to date and the total potential

compensation payable vs the (approx.) $1.6 million dollars each contributed towards progressing

the project during the initial stages. Compensation is uncommon in weathertightness projects.

Compensation in the amounts referred to in this report is unique.

13 SALES & MARKETING CAMPAIGN

13.1 Overview

Stakeholders will receive details of the body corporates sales and marketing campaign package as

part of the committee’s next six-monthly report.

14 COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

14.1 Committee Meeting Minutes Overview

For the purposes of this report the committee meeting minutes contained include:

November 25 2013 27

March 17 2014 40

Stakeholders are advised that subsequent to this report the committee is scheduled to meet 28

April 2014 and that the minutes of that meeting will be included in the committee’s next six-monthly

report. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the attached committee meeting minutes given

these may provide more detailed information other than what has been provided in this report.



14.2 Committee Meeting Minutes 25 November 2013

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING OF BODY CORPORATE 200012 – MOUNTVIEW VILLAGE HELD ON TUESDAY, 25 NOVEMBER AT 02:00PM AT THE HORSE & TRAP FUNCTION ROOM, MT EDEN, AUCKLAND

Present: Don Scrimgeour, Surendra Sharma, Bert de Graff, Neil Meyer, Peter James &

Darryl August for Maynard Marks.

1. Apologies

1.1 Nil.

2. Approval of Previous Minutes

2.1 The Minutes of July 22 were accepted as a true and correct record of that meeting subject

to matters arising.

[N Meyer / B de Graff / Carried]

3. Matters Arising

3.1 Nil.

4. Accounts

4.1 The chairman sought resolution to approve the accounts to 22/11/13.

[B de Graff / D Scrimgeour / Carried]

P. James noted that he had made significant changes to the GL Chart of Accounts to

enable owners to monitor the costs associated with the remedial works v the day-to-day

operating costs associated with the development.

4.2 P. James sought retrospective approval to place proprietor accounts in credit for their

share of the body corporates compensation package / matters arising.



P. James noted that repayment of any credit balance would be held in trust by the body

corporate to provide security for any individual owners internal works and that once a final

account had been prepared the credit balance would be used to offset this and that in

some cases owners would receive the difference between the final account v credit

balance and in other cases owners would receive an invoice where the work undertaken

exceeded the credit balance.

[N Meyer / D Scrimgeour / Carried]

4.3 P. James sought retrospective approval of Water Care Services invoice 26/07/13

($4,611.36).

[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]

4.4 P. James sought retrospective approval of 0508 Any Junk’s invoice 5488 ($930.35) for that

firms attendances to the removal of residents rubbish associated with stage 1 of the

remedial works.

[B de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]

4.5 P. James sought retrospective approval of 0508 Any Junk’s invoice 5496 ($669.30) for that

firms further attendances to the removal of residents rubbish associated with stage 1 of the

remedial works / matters arising (stage 1 cost overrun / residents rubbish removal

associated with stages 2 through 4 – alternative facilities). A general discussion ensued

regarding the future management of this item. Those present agreed that the body

corporate should maintain the status quo given it had now set a precedent with stage 1 of

the remedial repairs.

[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]

4.6 P. James sought retrospective approval to reinvest the body corporates $18,898,473 term

deposit (maturing 05/09/13) [a] $10,000,000 for 365 days @ 4.50%, [b] $4,500,000 for 183

days @ 4.15%, [c] $2,000,000 for 90 days at 4.05% & $2,178,416 being placed in a PIE

fund at 3.03%.

[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]

4.7 P. James noted that the body corporates $2,000,000 term deposit was due to mature

05/12/13 and sought approval to transfer this amount (plus net interest of $14,380.28) to

the body corporates PIE account until he had received an updated cashflow forecast from

the main contractor. P. James noted that on receipt of this data he would be in a better

position to consider creating a new term deposit.




4.8 P. James sought retrospective approval of Property Caretakers invoices 861390, 861394 &

861395 totalling ($1,100.00) and being for that firm’s ongoing attendances to various

temporary repairs.

[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]

4.9 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer $50,000 (02/08/13) from the body

corporates BNZ on-call account to the CSM trust account.

[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]

4.10 P. James sought retrospective approval of NT Solutions invoices 10012196 & 10012204

totalling ($113.35) and being for that firm’s ongoing attendances to the body corporates

website.


4.11 P. James sought approval of NT Solutions invoice 10012209 ($39.10) for that firms

attendances to renew the body corporates domain name.


4.12 P. James sought retrospective approval of Olivershaw Ltd’s invoice 300813 ($1,035.00) for

that firms opinion on the taxation treatment of the body corporates compensation package /

matters arising. A general discussion ensued.



($4,488.52).

[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]



[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]

4.15 P. James sought retrospective approval of Rubbish Direct’s invoices 00505161, 00505985

& 00507058 ($1,312.09 / month) for that firm’s attendance to rubbish disposal services

during July through September.




4.16 P. James sought approval of Rubbish Direct’s invoice 00508205 ($1,312.09) for that firms

attendance to rubbish disposal services during October.


4.17 P. James sought retrospective approval of WHAM Designs invoice MV4476 ($115.00)

being that firms fee for ongoing attendances to the body corporates website.


4.18 Discussion on short term GST matters / pending refund ($72,834.18) due November 2013 /

matters arising (refund pending). P. James noted that the body corporate had yet to

receive its latest GST refund but was confident that this would be processed albeit than an

audit was possible. P. James noted that he had changed the GST filing cycle from six-

monthly to two-monthly to ensure that future refunds could be placed in the body

corporates PIE account and which would result in further interest income.




4.20 P. James sought approval of Water Care Services invoice 29/10/13 ($2,738.47) / matters

arising (reduction in charges during the remedial works). P. James noted that these

charges had reduced considerably given that 18 units were now vacant as a result of the

remedial repairs.

[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]

4.21 Approval of Mercury Energy’s invoice 112-828-221 ($836.99) for the supply of electricity to

Naylor Love Construction / matters arising (non-approved connection). P. James noted

that the main contractor had opened an account with this supplier and in the name of the

body corporate without his consent. P. James advised those present that he had taken

steps to ensure that this would not reoccur.




4.22 Discussion on Naylor Love Retention Payments / matters arising (2016 Committee Issues).

P. James noted that while he and those present were likely to withdraw their services upon

completion of the remedial works in 2015 there would still be retention payments due to the

main contractor extending into 2016 and that a process would need to be put in place to

ensure that the body corporate was aware of these and retained sufficient funds on hand

from any final calculations associated with a possible distribution of any project surplus. P.

James undertook to canvas this item in the committees next six monthly report.

4.23 P. James sought approval to transfer $330,000 (26/11/13) from the body corporates BNZ

on-call account to the CSM trust account.


5. General Business

5.1 P. James sought retrospective approval to execute the agreement between the body

corporate and Naylor Love Construction Ltd 28/08/13.


5.2 P. James sought retrospective approval of Crombie Lockwood’s invoice 423105

($90,182.72) for the contract works insurance premium / matters arising (budget amount v

final expense item). P. James noted that while he had previously budgeted $60,000 for

this item matters associated with the Christchurch earthquake had given rise to increases

in the insurance sector that were outside the body corporates control.


5.3 P. James sought retrospective approval to increase the remuneration received by his firm

to $100,000 (plus GST & disbursements) / annum for the balance of the remedial works

process / matters arising. P. James noted that he anticipated that his firm would receive

approximately $550,000 over the entire term of the project and which would equate (over a

ten year period) to remuneration totalling $55,000 / annum if that amount were amortized.

A general discussion ensued wherein those present noted that the results achieved vs the

fees referred to represented a considerable return on the body corporates investment.




5.4 Discussion on GST refund issues associated the remedial repairs / IRD Issues Paper /

body corporate submission / matters arising (Olivershaw correspondence 22/09/13). P.

James referred those present to Oliver Shaw’s correspondence and which reinforced the

body corporates position that it was entitled to claim and receive GST on the remedial

works. A general discussion ensued.

5.5 Discussion on alternative rubbish disposal & letterbox facilities / matters arising (proposal /

design cost / construction cost / remedial work costs recouping costs associated with this

item). P. James noted that the implementation of centralised rubbish disposal facilities had

been met with a positive response by the majority of residents and that accordingly the

committee needed to consider ways in which to future-proof these facilities. P. James

suggested that these facilities be incorporated into two central areas (to incorporate both

rubbish and letterbox facilities) and that he had received advice that in order to conclude

these matters any architectural fees would unlikely exceed $8,000 and that conversely any

construction costs would be unlikely to exceed $50,000.

P. James also noted that given that this item was not related to the various

weathertightness issues currently being managed by the committee that these expenses

be recouped through the body corporates main operating budget by way of two instalments

in 2014 / 2015. Those present agreed.

[B/ de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]

5.6 Discussion on further committee meetings / informal stakeholders meetings (03/02/14 &

21/04/14) / matters arising (21/04/14 incorporates AGM 2014 and falls on Easter Monday –

defer to 28/04/14). P. James noted that the AGM 2014 meetings had been inadvertently

scheduled for Easter Monday 2014 and therefore suggested that those meetings be

rescheduled to 28/04/14; subject to venue availability. Those present agreed.

P. James also noted that the informal stakeholders / committee meeting currently

scheduled for 03/02/14 was now subject to matters associated with the current project

delays and that he would revise future dates once those matters had been clarified.

5.7 Discussion on the treatment of the body corporates various compensation amounts (CMQ

correspondence) / future unit sales / matters arising (any compensation refunds / project

surpluses will become payable to a new owner prior to the project being completed). P.

James referred those present to Cook Morris Quinn’s & Oliver Shaw’s advice in relation to



the treatment of the body corporates compensation package. P. James noted that while

the ‘package’ was referred to as “compensation” it was technically a refund of historic

special levies and therefore subject to a GST adjustment.

5.8 Discussion on CSM’s site advertising request / matters arising (generic site advertising /

unit D). A lengthy discussion ensued. P. James sought to defer this matter by consent.

Those present agreed.

5.9 Discussion on security lighting / matters arising (proposal / costs). P. James noted that

while the costs associated with this matter remained an unknown quantity these

nevertheless did not form part of the remedial works proper and should therefore be on-

charged in two instalments as part of the body corporates 2014 / 2015 main operating

budget.


5.10 Discussion on cat doors / cabin lighting / door-bells (proposals / costs). P. James noted

that he had adopted not to reinstate any existing cat doors given that these were

idiosyncratic matters.

P. James also noted that he had adopted to dispense with any ‘door bells’ given these

were subject to owner’s maintenance and represented an unnecessary cost /

unenforceable maintenance item. P. James referred those present to the proposed ‘cabin

lighting’ proposal and suggested that it be adopted. Those present agreed with the

initiatives referred to.

[S Sharma / B de Graff / Carried]

5.11 Discussion on noise / disruption complaints / matters arising (stakeholder investor

communication issues). P. James noted that he had received a number of noise /

disruption complaints and that while he had dealt with these on behalf of the body

corporate it was evident that as a result of the remedial works a number of tenants had

either vacated or sought to renegotiate their rental arrangements with individual owners.

5.12 P. James sought retrospective approval to publish the committee’s six monthly (October

2013) report.


6. Maynard Marks / Naylor Love Construction



6.1 P. James sought to adjourn the meeting to enable committee meetings to visit stage 1 of

the remedial works. Those present agreed.

6.2 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I002857 ($2,770.55) for

reimbursement of various fees associated with the quantity surveyor.


6.3 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I002858 ($12,529.54)

for various ongoing charges associated with the quantity surveyor / matters arising. P.

James noted that while this invoice was initially disputed he had subsequently resolved that

dispute.

[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]


charges associated with the new fence design / matters arising. P. James noted that while

this invoice was initially disputed he had subsequently resolved that dispute.


6.5 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks credit I003036 ($9,157.01) for

charges associated with the new fence design / quantity surveyor charges / matters arising.

P. James noted that the disputed invoices previously referred to were resolved under the

credit note contained under this item.



for weekly contract administration services during September / (partial month). P. James

noted that this invoice represented a partial charge for September.



timber inspection and analysis during September. P. James noted that this invoice

represented a partial charge for September.




6.8 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003085 ($917.46) for

disbursement / reimbursement claims during September. P. James noted that this invoice

represented a partial charge for September.

[S Sharma / B de Graff / Carried]

6.9 P. James sought retrospective approval of Naylor Love Construction’s invoice 59492#1

($171,910.40) being payment claim number 1 under the construction contract. P. James

noted that this invoice represented a partial charge for September.


6.10 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003134 ($45,310.00) for weekly

contract administration services during October.


6.11 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003136 ($18,608.46) for timber

inspection and analysis during October.


6.12 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003214 ($6,369.28) for architects

observations and additional design services during October.


6.13 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003213 ($573.68) for disbursement /

reimbursement claims during October.


6.14 Discussion of Maynard Marks 10% fee on third party supplier invoices / matters arising

(potential cost saving to the body corporate ($70,000) to have suppliers invoice the body

corporate direct / liability issues / Maynard Marks position – renegotiate agreed fee deferral

where remedial works extend past 108 weeks)). P. James noted that he intended to

renegotiate the terms of the body corporates agreement with Maynard Marks to either

remove or reduce the amount charged by Maynard Marks for their fee associated with

processing third party supplier invoices.



6.15 Retrospective approval to proceed with the alternative fence design at a cost of

$165,346.89 (plus NLC’s 5% margin & GST) v contract provision ($250,000) / matters

arising (cost savings / stone columns / internal fences not currently included). A general

discussion ensued. P. James noted that the proposed cost savings were positive and that

a result he intended to explore the costs associated with replacing the fences and gates

within the internal parameters of the development given his belief that those owners should

not be unduly prejudiced. A general discussion ensured. Those present agreed

6.16 Discussion on matters associated with the body corporates position in relation to any

unlawful existing alterations (CMQ’s correspondence 03/10/13) / matters arising

(responses from owners associated with stage 1 of the remedial works). P. James noted

that he had met with some resistance from a single owner in stage 1 of remedial works and

that as a result he had sought legal advice and which noted that the body corporate was

able to rely upon the provisions of the s48 Scheme to enforce the removal of any ‘illegal’

works’ and that accordingly he had instructed the main contractor to proceed with the

removal of the illegal works associated with that unit.

6.17 P. James sought approval of Naylor Love Construction’s invoice 59492#2 ($277,317.18)

being payment claim number 2 under the construction contract.


7. Remedial Works – Stage 1

7.1 Discussion on the delays associated with progress to stage 1 including:

7.1.1 Increased scope of timber decay from 70% to 95% / matters arising (contract

document v outcome).

7.1.2 Redesign of structural elements, e.g., flitch beams and pozi struts.

7.1.3 Existing timber framing not being built in accordance with the original architectural

drawings.

7.1.4 Ground floor timber framed walls overhanging the existing icon foundation walls /

sections of the icon foundation walls being unsound or out of alignment / not

suitable to support the new load bearing walls.



7.1.5 The proposed concrete nib walls (which are cast on top of the icon walls) are not

sufficiently designed and require review or redesign.

7.1.6 Redesign of the existing pozi strut rafters to some roofs where they are sagging

beyond the design limitations.

7.1.7 Redesign details required to splice repair portions of the existing pozi floor joists

affected by weathertightness issues (either through the exterior cladding or internal

water ingress issues arising from the bathrooms).

7.1.8 The few framed walls that remain (including some of the inter-tenancy walls) are

not plumb or straight. Further work is required to align these walls correctly for the

new cladding system to work.

7.1.9 Engineering details are required where existing plumbing and drainage pipes have

been drilled or cut through the existing structural floor members.

7.1.10 Some roof lines have a change in levels which have not been identified on the

consented drawings. – New Roof Heights

7.1.11 Council’s requirement for 2 degree falls to decks despite it having agreed to a 1.5

degree fall as part of the building consent process.

7.2 P. James noted that given that the committee had now attended to site and seen first-hand

the issues referred to that the committee simply acknowledge the project delays. Those

present agreed.


7.3 Discussion on matters associated with the project delays referred to / matters arising (costs

/ impact on stage 1 owner’s / future stages / stage overlaps). P. James noted that any

delays associated with the completion of stage 1 would result in direct costs to those

owners and that he was endeavouring to mitigate those issues. P. James also noted that

delays to the commencement of future stages now appeared to be inevitable.

7.4 Discussion on window joinery / schedules / matters arising (replacement of louver windows

with opening casement windows). A general discussion ensued. P. James concluded by



noting that there were potential cost savings exceeding $80,000 and that this item

remained WIP.

7.5 Discussion on Last Planner Meeting. P. James noted that he had attended a meeting with

the main contractor and all sub-contractors; and which was facilitated to ensure that there

was a commitment from each party to the project as a whole.

7.6 Discussion on Project Coordination Meetings (PCG’s). P. James noted that he continued

to attend the fortnightly PCG meetings and that his attendance appeared to be beneficial in

so much as decisions were able to be made without the need for protracted reporting.

8 Cook Morris Quinn

8.3 P. James sought retrospective approval of Cook Morris Quinn’s invoice 13175 ($2,995.75)

for that firms attendances to the agreement between the body corporate and owners for

repairs / improvements to individual units.



for that firms attendances to reviewing the contract documentation between the body

corporate and Naylor Love Construction Ltd.



for that firms attendances to the outstanding litigation matter.



for that firms final attendances to the outstanding litigation matter / litigation fees v

defendant compensation payments.


8.7 Discussion on matters associated with various outstanding settlement issues. P. James

sought to table discussion of this matter confidentially. Those present agreed. P. James

concluded by noting that the body corporate has now concluded all outstanding litigation

matters.



8.8 P. James sought approval of Cook Morris Quinn’s invoice 13801 ($2,765.75) for that firms

attendances in relation to the removal of owners illegal works and various building consent

matters.


There being no further business the meeting closed at 05:30pm.

14.3 Committee Meeting Minutes 17 March 2014

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING OF BODY CORPORATE 200012 – MOUNTVIEW VILLAGE HELD ON MONDAY, 17 MARCH 03:00PM AT THE NAYLOR LOVE SITE OFFICE, MT EDEN, AUCKLAND

Present: Don Scrimgeour, Surendra Sharma, Bert de Graff, Neil Meyer, Peter James &

Darryl August for Maynard Marks.

1. Apologies

1.1 Nil.

2. Approval of Previous Minutes

2.1 The Minutes of November 25 were accepted as a true and correct record of that meeting

subject to matters arising.


3. Matters Arising

3.1 Nil.

4. Accounts - General

4.1 The chairman sought resolution to approve the accounts to 14/03/14.

[D Scrimgeour / S Sharma / Carried]



4.2 Discussion on GST issues / current GST refunds ($150,456.31). D. Scrimgeour queried

whether or not the historic GST issues had been resolved. P. James replied noting that

while the IRD had yet to release its decision on the issues paper previously referred to the

body corporate continued to receive payment of its GST refunds. P. James noted that

there would in all likelihood be an IRD audit of a body corporate GST refund at some point

in the future and that this would be procedural.

4.3 P. James sought retrospective approval of Rubbish Direct’s invoices 00508205, 00509048,

00509966, 00511021 & 00512065 ($1,312.09 / month) for that firm’s attendance to rubbish

disposal services during October 2013 through February 2014.


4.4 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer BNZ term deposit 00003 ($4.5 million

dollars) to the BNZ PIE account on maturity 03/03/14.


4.5 P. James sought approval of Water Care Services invoice 19/02/14 ($3,384.31). N. Meyer

noted that the water charges appeared to be tracking well against the revised budget.

Those present agreed.


4.6 P. James sought retrospective approval of WHAM Design’s invoice MV4591 ($345.00)




corporates BNZ PIE account to the CSM trust account.


4.8 P. James sought retrospective approval of ABL Ltd Group’s invoice 16436 ($448.27) for

that firms attendances to the SKY / MATV system. P. James noted that these repairs were

not related to the remedial works being undertaken by the main contractor.








($2,894.35).


4.11 P. James sought retrospective approval of Property Caretakers invoice 707629 ($900.00)

for that firms supply of a concrete slab to the temporary Harold Street rubbish area.


4.12 P. James sought retrospective approval of Auckland Council invoice 577557 ($599.86) for

the lodgement fee associated with amendment application 3.


4.13 P. James sought retrospective approval of Property Caretakers invoice 707831 ($360.00)

for that firms ongoing attendances to temporary repairs.



($2,594.68).


4.15 P. James sought retrospective approval to place $1.5 million dollars on term deposit with

the BNZ (3.76%) 18/12/13 through 18/03/14.







4.17 P. James sought retrospective approval of WHAM Design’s invoice MV4532 ($690.00)




($4,108.65).


4.19 P. James sought retrospective approval of Auckland Council invoice 576859 ($551.07) for

the lodgement fee associated with amendment application 1.


4.20 P. James sought retrospective approval of the Horse & Trap’s invoice 251113 ($319.00)

being venue hire charges associated with the 25/11/13 committee meeting and informal

stakeholders meeting. P. James noted that where future committee meetings were not

followed by stakeholders meetings those meetings would be held at Naylor Love’s site

office to reduce venue hireage costs.


4.21 P. James sought retrospective approval to release payment of the body corporates

compensation package (levy refund) to units N & V / matters arising. A general discussion

ensued.


5. Budget 2014 / 2015

5.1 Discussion on CSM’s 2014 / 2015 fees / matters arising. P. James noted that despite

requesting CSM to provide their fee estimate for 2014 / 2015 he had yet to receive that

data. P. James also noted that CSM had attempted to invoice the body corporate ($1,800)

for additional work but that after he had challenged these charges the invoice was

withdrawn.



5.2 Approval of the Project Directors main operating budget for 2014 / 2015. P. James sought

to defer this item by consent given he was waiting on cost advise from CSM in relation to

that firms fees and the body corporates insurer. Those present agreed.

5.3 Discussion and resolution not to levy the 2014 / 2015 main operating budget vs the body

corporates accumulated funds. A general discussion ensued. Those present agreed that it

was preferable not to levy owners while the body corporate remained in a strong financial

position.


6. General Business

6.1 Discussion on the body corporates website / matters arising. P. James noted that while the

website incurred expense to develop and maintain it provided a valuable tool in terms of

the resources that it contained. P. James reminded those present that the website also

provided significant cost savings given the body corporate no longer printed hard copies of

the various reports and other documents that it produced.

6.2 Discussion on AGM 2014. P. James sought to defer this item by consent. Those present

agreed.

6.3 Discussion on further committee meetings. P. James noted that there would be a

committee meeting 28/04/14 commencing at 04:00pm and at which point further dates

would be set. B de Graff noted that he would be overseas during June.

6.4 Discussion on rubbish / letterbox facilities ($50,000) / matters arising / costs vs construction

budget vs main operating levy. P. James noted that while he had initially suggested that

this cost be levied to owners in the 2014 & 2015 main operating budgets his position had

changed given the body corporates strong financial position did not necessitate the need to

raise levies. It was agreed that this cost would now be met from the body corporates

current accumulated funds but accounted for separately.


6.5 Discussion and approval of the exterior lighting / security scheme ($48,343.61) / matters

arising / costs vs construction budget vs main operating levy. P. James referred those



present to the previous discussion item and sought a similar resolution. Those present

agreed


6.6 CSM’s site advertising request. P. James suggested that the committee dispense with

further discussion on this item given the potential monetary gain was unlikely to justify the

distraction. Those present agreed.

7. Accounts - Maynard Marks / Naylor Love Construction / Various

7.1 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003512 ($221.12) for disbursement

claims during February.


7.2 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003514 ($7,341.60) for architectural

observations during February.


7.3 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003517 ($2,760.00) for charges

associated with the new rubbish / letterbox fence design.


7.4 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003513 ($17,233.02) for design

services and engineers advice during February.


7.5 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003516 ($36,248.00) for weekly

contract administration services during February.



($582,942.06) being payment claim number 5 under the construction contract.




7.7 P. James sought retrospective approval of Telco Asset Management’s invoice 90019620

($172.50) for ongoing matters associated with the ORG upgrade.



disbursement claims during January.



design services and engineers advice during January.



for weekly contract administration services during January.



timber inspection and analysis during January.



for additional design services and engineers advice during January.






($1,035.00) for ongoing matters associated with various electrical infrastructure

modifications.





disbursement claims during December.



timber inspection and analysis during December.



for design services and engineers advice during December.



architectural observations during December.



for weekly contract administration services during December.






($3,622.50) for attendances to matters associated with various electrical infrastructure

modifications.





disbursement claims during November.



timber inspection and analysis during November.



for design services and engineers advice during November.



for weekly contract administration services during November.



architectural observations during November.


8. Accounts – Construction Costs vs Accumulated Funds

8.1 Discussion on construction costs / additional costs vs the body corporates accumulated

funds / matters arising / provisional sums vs contingency provisions. P. James noted that

while there had been a significant number of additional costs arising from the remedial

works to date there had also been a number of savings and that the body corporate

continued to forecast a surplus at the completion of the project. P. James also noted that

data forecasting was currently being hindered through the way in which the body

corporates quantity surveyor was treating various provisional sums and contingency items

and that he intended to meet with all relevant parties to address these issues to ensure that

he had the data required to maintain accurate forecasts. A lengthy discussion ensued.

9. General Weathertightness Constructions Issues



9.1 Discussion and approval of the ORG works ($92,680.80) / matters arising. P. James

referred those present to discussions held at the previous committee meeting and

concluded by noting that this work was required to ensure that the body corporate received

code compliance certification at the end of the project.


9.2 Discussion and approval to replace the stage 1 shower sliders / mixers ($3,167.01) /

matters arising. A general discussion ensued.


9.3 Discussion on kitchen cabinetry issues / matters arising / costs vs provisional sums vs

owners. P. James noted that while the body corporate would meet the costs associated

with any damage caused by removing and reinstating the kitchen units individual owners

would be required to meet the costs associated with repairing wear and tear issues. Those

present agreed.

9.4 Discussion on kitchen floor issues. A general discussion ensued. Those present agreed

that the Project Manager should continue to oversee this item.

9.5 Discussion on window treatments. A general discussion ensued. P. James noted that the

main contractor did not wish to participate in this initiative due to the logistical issues and

that accordingly he would manage this item.

9.6 Discussion on external electrical junction boxes / matters arising. A general discussion

ensued. Those present agreed that the Project Manager should continue to oversee this

item. P. James noted that while this item was aesthetic in nature it was also coupled with

various outstanding repair and maintenance issues.

9.7 Discussion on common area driveways. A general discussion ensued. P. James noted

that he would liaise with D Scrimgeour before placing a formal proposal to the committee

for resolution.

9.8 Discussion and approval to extend the new external courtyard fences to include the internal

fences within the development ($69,120.41) / matters arising. P. James referred those

present to previous discussions on this item and sought resolution to proceed as noted. P.



James reminded those present that there was no additional cost to this item given the cost

savings that had been carried over from the external fences.


9.9 Discussion and approval to replace the water meter stop-cock valves ($11,724.58). P.

James reminded those present that this item related to general repairs and maintenance vs

the remedial works but that in order to isolate various units from the main water supply the

stop-cock valves needed to be replaced given their deteriorated condition.


9.10 Discussion on non-weathertightness costs vs construction budget vs main operating levy /

matters arising. P. James noted that a number of unexpected items had arisen during the

remedial works that while not directly related to these works nevertheless had a financial

implication on the project and that some of these items had already been canvassed at this

meeting. P. James noted that while the committee had now resolved to meet these non-

weathertightness costs from the body corporates accumulated funds vs levying owners he

would split these costs to ensure that they did not impact on budget forecasts associated

with the remedial works and to ensure that these are reported on separately.

9.11 Discussion on cat doors / door bells / matters arising. P. James noted that the body

corporate would not reinstate these items. A general discussion ensued.

9.12 Discussion on burglar alarms / matters arising. P. James noted that given the age and

condition of the existing burglar alarms these would not be reinstated as part of the

remedial works given no supplier was prepared to provide a warranty and that accordingly

owners would be provided with a wireless replacement option given this would not impact

on the progress associated with stage 1 of the remedial works.

9.13 Discussion on new vanity units (square option) / matters arising. P. James noted that the

square bathroom vanity unit chosen by some stage 1 owners did not fit the existing

bathroom configurations and that this matter remained WIP.

9.14 Discussion on bathroom ventilation issues / matters arising. P. James noted that the

existing bathroom ventilation units were beyond their useful lifespan and that as a result



the body corporate would provide owners with a default option and an option to upgrade

this unit. P. James noted that this item remained WIP.

9.15 Discussion on graffiti issues / matters arising. A general discussion ensued. P. James

noted that this item remained WIP.

9.16 Discussion on Naylor Love retention payments / matters arising (2016 management

issues). P. James reminded those present that a mechanism would have to be put in place

to ensure that the body corporate retained sufficient funds on hand to meet the final

retention payments given this would become due after the remedial works had been

completed.


10.1 Those present adjourned the meeting to enable a site inspection to occur.

10.2 Discussion on construction delays associated with stage 1 / matters arising. D. August

provided those present with an overview of ongoing delays associated with stage 1. A

lengthy discussion ensued. Those present agreed that given the size and scale of the

project delays were inevitable and that all steps that could be taken were being taken to

mitigate the delays referred to.

10.3 Discussion on revised completion date for stage 1 (01/07/14). D. August advised those

present that the completion date associated with stage 1 had now been revised to

01/07/14.

10.4 Discussion on cost implications ($182,160.00) / matters arising. P. James noted that the

project delays referred to had given rise to an additional cost of $182,160.00.


11.1 Discussion on the commencement date for stage 2 (10/05/14) / matters arising. P. James

reminded those present that irrespective of the delays to stage 1 the repairs to stage 2

would commence 10/05/14.

11.2 Discussion on relocation of the Harold Street letterboxes / rubbish disposal facilities / new

concrete slab / removal of garden area / matters arising. P. James noted that it would be



necessary to relocate these facilities to the wall adjoining unit BI and which would

necessitate the removal of the remaining planting in this area and the installation of a new

concrete slab.

11.3 Discussion on stage 2 owner’s internal schemes package / meeting 07/04/14. P. James

noted that this item remained WIP.

11.4 Discussion on stage 1 vs stage 2 overlap logistical issues / matters arising. P. James

advised those present that the overlap between stages 1 & 2 had given rise to various

unwanted logistical issues that he was now in the process of managing.

12. Cook Morris Quinn

12.1 P. James sought retrospective approval of Cook Morris Quinn’s invoice 13939 ($433.35)

for that firms attendances to matters associated with Auckland Council.


There being no further business the meeting closed at 06:00pm

body corporate 200012 owners committee report...body corporate 200012 – committee report – march...

Documents