BODY CORPORATE 200012 Owners Committee Report...Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March...
Transcript of 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 Page 2 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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 3 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 4 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 5 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 6 of 52
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
BNZ - Term Deposit (4.34% Maturing 19/09/14) 2,000,000
BNZ - Term Deposit (4.50% Maturing 01/09/14) 10,000,000
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 7 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 8 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 9 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 10 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 11 of 52
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’.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 12 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 13 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 14 of 52
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)
Given that this matter is procedural stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for
‘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)
Given that this matter is procedural stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for
‘motion 13’.
5.18 Levy Collection Procedure (motion 14)
Given that this matter is procedural stakeholders are encouraged to vote in the affirmative for
‘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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 15 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 16 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 17 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 18 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 19 of 52
8.6 Timber Replacement (Roofs)
8.7 Roof Installation (Colour Steel Roofing)
8.8 Roof Installation (Eaves)
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 20 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 21 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 22 of 52
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
Number Entitlement Amount Number Entitlement Amount
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 23 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 24 of 52
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 Unit Unit
Compensation
Number Entitlement Amount Number Entitlement Amount
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 25 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 26 of 52
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 Unit Unit
Compensation
Number Entitlement Amount Number Entitlement Amount
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 27 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 28 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 29 of 52
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 30 of 52
[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
4.11 P. James sought approval of NT Solutions invoice 10012209 ($39.10) for that firms
attendances to renew the body corporates domain name.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]
4.13 P. James sought retrospective approval of Water Care Services invoice 28/08/13
($4,488.52).
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
4.14 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer $225,000 (29/08/13) from the body
corporates BNZ on-call account to the CSM trust account.
[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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 31 of 52
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
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.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
4.19 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer $150,000 (21/10/13) from the body
corporates BNZ on-call account to the CSM trust account.
[B de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
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.
[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 32 of 52
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.
[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
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.
[B de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
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.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 33 of 52
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 34 of 52
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.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
6. Maynard Marks / Naylor Love Construction
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 35 of 52
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.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
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]
6.4 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I002963 ($7,736.99) for
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.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]
6.6 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003082 ($27,186.00)
for weekly contract administration services during September / (partial month). P. James
noted that this invoice represented a partial charge for September.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
6.7 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003084 ($3,772.00) for
timber inspection and analysis during September. P. James noted that this invoice
represented a partial charge for September.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 36 of 52
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.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
6.10 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003134 ($45,310.00) for weekly
contract administration services during October.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
6.11 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003136 ($18,608.46) for timber
inspection and analysis during October.
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
6.12 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003214 ($6,369.28) for architects
observations and additional design services during October.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
6.13 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003213 ($573.68) for disbursement /
reimbursement claims during October.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 37 of 52
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.
[B de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 38 of 52
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.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 39 of 52
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.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
8.4 P. James sought retrospective approval of Cook Morris Quinn’s invoice 13364 ($3,225.75)
for that firms attendances to reviewing the contract documentation between the body
corporate and Naylor Love Construction Ltd.
[B de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
8.5 P. James sought retrospective approval of Cook Morris Quinn’s invoice 13508 ($3,340.75)
for that firms attendances to the outstanding litigation matter.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
8.6 P. James sought retrospective approval of Cook Morris Quinn’s invoice 13786 ($4,060.65)
for that firms final attendances to the outstanding litigation matter / litigation fees v
defendant compensation payments.
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 40 of 52
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.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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]
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 41 of 52
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.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
4.6 P. James sought retrospective approval of WHAM Design’s invoice MV4591 ($345.00)
being that firms fee for ongoing attendances to the body corporates website.
[S Sharma / B de Graaf / Carried]
4.7 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer $640,000 (26/02/14) from the body
corporates BNZ PIE account to the CSM trust account.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 42 of 52
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
4.9 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer $420,000 (31/01/14) from the body
corporates BNZ PIE account to the CSM trust account.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
4.10 P. James sought retrospective approval of Water Care Services invoice 21/01/14
($2,894.35).
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]
4.12 P. James sought retrospective approval of Auckland Council invoice 577557 ($599.86) for
the lodgement fee associated with amendment application 3.
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
4.13 P. James sought retrospective approval of Property Caretakers invoice 707831 ($360.00)
for that firms ongoing attendances to temporary repairs.
[N Meyer / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
4.14 P. James sought retrospective approval of Water Care Services invoice 24/12/13
($2,594.68).
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
4.16 P. James sought retrospective approval to transfer $290,000 (20/12/13) from the body
corporates BNZ PIE account to the CSM trust account.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 43 of 52
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
4.17 P. James sought retrospective approval of WHAM Design’s invoice MV4532 ($690.00)
being that firms fee for ongoing attendances to the body corporates website.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
4.18 P. James sought retrospective approval of Water Care Services invoice 27/11/13
($4,108.65).
[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]
4.19 P. James sought retrospective approval of Auckland Council invoice 576859 ($551.07) for
the lodgement fee associated with amendment application 1.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 44 of 52
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.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 45 of 52
present to the previous discussion item and sought a similar resolution. Those present
agreed
[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]
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.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
7.2 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003514 ($7,341.60) for architectural
observations during February.
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
7.3 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003517 ($2,760.00) for charges
associated with the new rubbish / letterbox fence design.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
7.4 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003513 ($17,233.02) for design
services and engineers advice during February.
[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]
7.5 P. James sought approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003516 ($36,248.00) for weekly
contract administration services during February.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
7.6 P. James sought retrospective approval of Naylor Love Construction’s invoice 59492#05
($582,942.06) being payment claim number 5 under the construction contract.
[B de Graaf / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 46 of 52
7.7 P. James sought retrospective approval of Telco Asset Management’s invoice 90019620
($172.50) for ongoing matters associated with the ORG upgrade.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
7.8 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003487 ($303.18) for
disbursement claims during January.
[S Sharma / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
7.9 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003489 ($5,047.35) for
design services and engineers advice during January.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
7.10 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003491 ($36,248.00)
for weekly contract administration services during January.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
7.11 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003488 ($471.50) for
timber inspection and analysis during January.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
7.12 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003490 ($10,384.50)
for additional design services and engineers advice during January.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
7.13 P. James sought retrospective approval of Naylor Love Construction’s invoice 59492#04
($443,283.96) being payment claim number 4 under the construction contract.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
7.14 P. James sought retrospective approval of Telco Asset Management’s invoice 90019197
($1,035.00) for ongoing matters associated with various electrical infrastructure
modifications.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 47 of 52
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
7.15 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003347 ($349.94) for
disbursement claims during December.
[N Meyer / B de Graaf / Carried]
7.16 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003349 ($1,650.25) for
timber inspection and analysis during December.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
7.17 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003352 ($10,840.34)
for design services and engineers advice during December.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
7.18 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003348 ($5,219.42) for
architectural observations during December.
[N Meyer / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
7.19 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003350 ($27,186.00)
for weekly contract administration services during December.
[D Scrimgeour / S Sharma / Carried]
7.20 P. James sought retrospective approval of Naylor Love Construction’s invoice 59492#03
($265,737.60) being payment claim number 3 under the construction contract.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
7.21 P. James sought retrospective approval of Telco Asset Management’s invoice 90018949
($3,622.50) for attendances to matters associated with various electrical infrastructure
modifications.
[D Scrimgeour / N Meyer / Carried]
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 48 of 52
7.22 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003254 ($531.36) for
disbursement claims during November.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
7.23 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003256 ($7,584.26) for
timber inspection and analysis during November.
[D Scrimgeour / B de Graaf / Carried]
7.24 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003290 ($20,984.84)
for design services and engineers advice during November.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
7.25 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003255 ($36,248.00)
for weekly contract administration services during November.
[D Scrimgeour / S Sharma / Carried]
7.26 P. James sought retrospective approval of Maynard Marks invoice I003289 ($1,087.77) for
architectural observations during November.
[N Meyer / S Sharma / Carried]
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 49 of 52
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.
[B de Graaf / N Meyer / Carried]
9.2 Discussion and approval to replace the stage 1 shower sliders / mixers ($3,167.01) /
matters arising. A general discussion ensued.
[S Sharma / N Meyer / Carried]
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.
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 50 of 52
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.
[N Meyer / D Scrimgeour / Carried]
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.
[B de Graaf / S Sharma / Carried]
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 51 of 52
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. Remedial Works – Stage 1
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. Remedial Works – Stage 2
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
Body Corporate 200012 – Committee Report – March 2014
Committee Report – © Body Corporate 200012 – MVV. All Rights Reserved Page 52 of 52
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.
[D Scrimgeour / S Sharma / Carried]
There being no further business the meeting closed at 06:00pm