December 5th 2010
(information passed on from Aunty Karyn - please let me know if this isn't correct).
Aunty Rangi has been to the Maori Land Court to get information in regards to building on the land and the % of share holders that need to approve the erection of a building - The Maori Land Court states it needs to be 75% of land shareholders.
Everyone's responses re: the building approval form
December 5th 2010
Hi there,
please find below every one's (received so far) responses to the Building Approval Form:
Your Name: Sally Pewhairangi(via website) October 31st 2010
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: YES
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: YES
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. YES
Your Name: Kara Vidler (via website)
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES / NO - Yes, however this is dependent on the type of building and what it is etc. What options are available that have been discussed? Of these options which are the most cost effective? Have these options considered future maintenance and upgrading costs as a continuing expense and are these options viable for those who may only visit the mahia once every four/five years?
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: YES / NO Yes, however this is dependent on what options are on offer. Whilst I appreciate you have all the information, I would like to have more information on what options are available. In addition, what type of limitations would this incur on future buildings? Is there a possible option for someone to contribute financially at a later stage? Or for those who do not contribute financially can they use the building however pay a higher rate per use, which would contribute to the overall maintenance, costs in the future? Is it possible to look at these options?
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: YES / NO No. I think that we need to look at the future implications that the building may incur on other landowners. Whilst I believe that those who financially contribute will look in the best interest of the landholders, any decisions made about the building may impact on the overall land thus limiting the non-financial contributors. Can another building be erected on the site at a later stage, would council building costs be different etc? We need to ensure that a building erected will not have any adverse affects or limitations on any future generations who may wish to build as well.
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. YES / NO Yes however the landholders should be kept informed of any decisions regarding the building.
Any other comments: Whilst this is a good base questionnaire for creating discussion about this land and what options are available, I think that more information would be required if there are any decisions that need to be made. I don't want to feel as though I signing up for something that I don't really agree with it. I want to ensure that some of these options are viable for descendants who live overseas, considering that we live in Australia. Key issues that we need to consider here in Australia include whether it is viable for us to provide capital upfront and continuing maintenance costs when we are only going to use the facilities/land/building once every four/five years for one/two weeks at best?
Your Signature: Kara Vidler Dated:24 November 2010
Your Name: Tracey O’Sullivan (via website)
Firstly I agree with all of Kara’s comments and I’m adding extra comments that I have been considering
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES / NO Yes, But I am also currently not a shareholder, just a descendant of one. As Kara said it is also dependant on what is decided to being built.
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: YES / NO Yes, But as I am not a shareholder I will need to protect my interests a bit closer. Will financial contributing give me an even amount of opinion on the development of the block? The worst case scenario for me is to contribute towards the capital costs of setting something up then the land being given to someone else, and not myself or my children or my grand children. Some of these issues need to be address for me to move forward but under the right circumstance I am willing to contribute.
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: YES / NO No, I agree with Kara’s comments. I also would like to add that there should be limitations to what the non financial members can make decisions about as some decisions are relevant to their interests, but the colour of the inside walls etc in not relevant for their opinion etc.
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. YES / NO Yes, agree with Kara’s comments. Any other comments: Some important questions that I think need to be addressed.
Sorry guys, I have seen how money can split families and if we cover all bases then we can move forward in building whilst securing strong family relationships the land currently in equal shares? And if mum decides to gifts Andrew and myself some of her share do when then have an ‘equal’ share or is it then portioned?
When deciding on the building does there have to be unanimous agreement from all shareholders that we move forward with a building, type of building, etc, etc? Or is a majority vote? Are the shareholders happy to have descendants of shareholders involved with the decisions of building? Or are we here to give opinions and money and the end vote being available shareholders only?I also think we need to set up a trust or do a constitution and set some guidelines to make some rulings on how decisions are made, then it can be decided on how the buildings will be used and costs to non financial members and descendants. I also think we need to set this up asap before we can move forward. I also think there should be a yearly contribution fee where this can help establish a bank account towards any possible costs but also to help with the administration costs that is involved with distributing information etc. therefore not leaving a financial liability to anyone who is involved with getting information and sending it out, eg. Scanning, copying, postage etc. I think if we can decide accurately now how things are done then we aren’t leaving a mess for future generations.
Maioha Pepuere (via website)
Hi Jo this is Tups speaking. Thank you for your input and the questionnaire.I agree to the erection of a building on the above whenua and financially contributing to it.I agree to persons who contribute financially to make decisions.
Chaz Salmon... (via website)
Your Name: Chaz Salmon I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: Yes as long as it is a fair share for everyone eg. we are all paying the same amount and have the same entitlements.
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: Yes.
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. Yes however approval should be sought from all landowners and landowners should be informed of decisions.
Your Signature: Chaz Salmon Dated: 29 November 2010
Hi there,
please find below every one's (received so far) responses to the Building Approval Form:
Your Name: Sally Pewhairangi(via website) October 31st 2010
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: YES
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: YES
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. YES
Your Name: Kara Vidler (via website)
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES / NO - Yes, however this is dependent on the type of building and what it is etc. What options are available that have been discussed? Of these options which are the most cost effective? Have these options considered future maintenance and upgrading costs as a continuing expense and are these options viable for those who may only visit the mahia once every four/five years?
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: YES / NO Yes, however this is dependent on what options are on offer. Whilst I appreciate you have all the information, I would like to have more information on what options are available. In addition, what type of limitations would this incur on future buildings? Is there a possible option for someone to contribute financially at a later stage? Or for those who do not contribute financially can they use the building however pay a higher rate per use, which would contribute to the overall maintenance, costs in the future? Is it possible to look at these options?
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: YES / NO No. I think that we need to look at the future implications that the building may incur on other landowners. Whilst I believe that those who financially contribute will look in the best interest of the landholders, any decisions made about the building may impact on the overall land thus limiting the non-financial contributors. Can another building be erected on the site at a later stage, would council building costs be different etc? We need to ensure that a building erected will not have any adverse affects or limitations on any future generations who may wish to build as well.
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. YES / NO Yes however the landholders should be kept informed of any decisions regarding the building.
Any other comments: Whilst this is a good base questionnaire for creating discussion about this land and what options are available, I think that more information would be required if there are any decisions that need to be made. I don't want to feel as though I signing up for something that I don't really agree with it. I want to ensure that some of these options are viable for descendants who live overseas, considering that we live in Australia. Key issues that we need to consider here in Australia include whether it is viable for us to provide capital upfront and continuing maintenance costs when we are only going to use the facilities/land/building once every four/five years for one/two weeks at best?
Your Signature: Kara Vidler Dated:24 November 2010
Your Name: Tracey O’Sullivan (via website)
Firstly I agree with all of Kara’s comments and I’m adding extra comments that I have been considering
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES / NO Yes, But I am also currently not a shareholder, just a descendant of one. As Kara said it is also dependant on what is decided to being built.
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: YES / NO Yes, But as I am not a shareholder I will need to protect my interests a bit closer. Will financial contributing give me an even amount of opinion on the development of the block? The worst case scenario for me is to contribute towards the capital costs of setting something up then the land being given to someone else, and not myself or my children or my grand children. Some of these issues need to be address for me to move forward but under the right circumstance I am willing to contribute.
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: YES / NO No, I agree with Kara’s comments. I also would like to add that there should be limitations to what the non financial members can make decisions about as some decisions are relevant to their interests, but the colour of the inside walls etc in not relevant for their opinion etc.
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. YES / NO Yes, agree with Kara’s comments. Any other comments: Some important questions that I think need to be addressed.
Sorry guys, I have seen how money can split families and if we cover all bases then we can move forward in building whilst securing strong family relationships the land currently in equal shares? And if mum decides to gifts Andrew and myself some of her share do when then have an ‘equal’ share or is it then portioned?
When deciding on the building does there have to be unanimous agreement from all shareholders that we move forward with a building, type of building, etc, etc? Or is a majority vote? Are the shareholders happy to have descendants of shareholders involved with the decisions of building? Or are we here to give opinions and money and the end vote being available shareholders only?I also think we need to set up a trust or do a constitution and set some guidelines to make some rulings on how decisions are made, then it can be decided on how the buildings will be used and costs to non financial members and descendants. I also think we need to set this up asap before we can move forward. I also think there should be a yearly contribution fee where this can help establish a bank account towards any possible costs but also to help with the administration costs that is involved with distributing information etc. therefore not leaving a financial liability to anyone who is involved with getting information and sending it out, eg. Scanning, copying, postage etc. I think if we can decide accurately now how things are done then we aren’t leaving a mess for future generations.
Maioha Pepuere (via website)
Hi Jo this is Tups speaking. Thank you for your input and the questionnaire.I agree to the erection of a building on the above whenua and financially contributing to it.I agree to persons who contribute financially to make decisions.
Chaz Salmon... (via website)
Your Name: Chaz Salmon I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Rangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders: YES
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put on the Rangi Pepuere block: Yes as long as it is a fair share for everyone eg. we are all paying the same amount and have the same entitlements.
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site: Yes.
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land. Yes however approval should be sought from all landowners and landowners should be informed of decisions.
Your Signature: Chaz Salmon Dated: 29 November 2010
From Andy Morgan, November 3rd (via Facebook)
I think its a great idea:Were not putting in any cash unless our situation changes, I support that financial members have the say in the building and would love to see the oldies using it before they move on. We would get down there every couple of years and have no problem in paying to stay there and i cant remember the rest but you guys have my support to get a building on there asap. I hope this helps and we send aussie love to your whanau. cheers
From Jim and Karyn (via post)
Your Name: J and K Pewhairangi
I agree to the erection of a building/s on the Pangi Pepuere block by financially contributing land shareholders - YES - Jim, YES - Karyn
I would like to contribute financially to a building being put int eh Rangi Pepuere block - YES - Jim, PROBABLY - Karyn
I agree that the persons who contribute financially can make decisions about what type of building can be erected on the site - YES, Jim, YES - Karyn
I agree that any buildings erected on this site will be managed separately from the land - YES - Jim, YES - Karen
Signed: .J Pewhairangi and K Pewhairangi 09.11.2010
From Rangi Morgan (via email) 25th November 2010
Yes I would love a building on the Rangi Pepuere Whenua and will make some contribution to it dependent on how much is required. I think that all shareholders and next generation who are interested should have an input of ideas for the building. Am sending some pamphlets back for the Aussies to look at, to see if they have any preferences or ideas.There will be more dialogue regarding this. Final decision will be by vote of shareholders if no solution can be reached amicably, is what I think. I do not agree the building and land be managed separately,but would suggest a committee of shareholders and contributors with a deed or charter set up.
Hi!
There has been much discussion and years of planning and leg work involved in getting the partitioning of the 'Rangi Pepuere' block at Whangawehi finalised.
Over this time, there has also been discussion regarding a building of sorts being erected on the site.We wanted to have an open forum where information can be placed and updated, so I have created this website – http://www.whangawehi.blogspot.com/.
We hope this information will be shared, discussed and added to, and, hopefully we will be able to move forward.
So, take a look through this document to find out where our (Uncle Jim and Aunty Karyn's family) thoughts are regarding the building project. Please feel free to use the comments at the bottom of the first website page to respond, or, write or email - it would be great to hear your thoughts.
Cheers!
Jo
Jo Pewhairangi
There has been much discussion and years of planning and leg work involved in getting the partitioning of the 'Rangi Pepuere' block at Whangawehi finalised.
Over this time, there has also been discussion regarding a building of sorts being erected on the site.We wanted to have an open forum where information can be placed and updated, so I have created this website – http://www.whangawehi.blogspot.com/.
We hope this information will be shared, discussed and added to, and, hopefully we will be able to move forward.
So, take a look through this document to find out where our (Uncle Jim and Aunty Karyn's family) thoughts are regarding the building project. Please feel free to use the comments at the bottom of the first website page to respond, or, write or email - it would be great to hear your thoughts.
Cheers!
Jo
Jo Pewhairangi
Meeting Minutes
NZ Rangi Pepuere Whenua Shareholder Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Where it states in these minutes “NZ Shareholders” and “we” it relates to the two shareholders present.
MINUTES:
- Meeting Management and processes
· Discussed and approved meeting processes (format included in papers)
· Agreed unamamously to use this process.
NOTE to Oz Whanau – we are not suggesting you take up this process we felt we (NZ Shareholders) needed a system that helped us to move forward.
- Previous Meeting
· Approved the minutes (including amendments) of the previous meeting
Updates from previous minutes:
a) Dave Miller Sewage System Investigation
- Unless there is a decision on the buiding we don’t think there is any need to go ahead with this at this stage.
3. Willy Smith land use
· Correspondence and background re: Willy Smith tabled (sent out to shareholders with last minutes).
· ACTION: In May JIM AND KARYN will check that the pipes are disconnected.
3. Building Budget
· Confirmed financial contributions per shareholder - At todays date - Jim $10,000, Mere $Nil
· Financial situation could change closer to the building dates but it was felt that it was good to guage where shareholders are at with their financial contributions.
· NZ Shareholders like the idea of seeing everyone contribute what they can and pool it into one kitty. With everyone (no matter how much they put in) having equal shares in the building.
- Aussie Minutes
- Discussed minutes (Oz Whanau Minutes Tabled)
- RESPONSES:
2: Financial Contributions:
- NZ Shareholders would like it noted that anything presented in the minutes is presented on behalf of all NZ shareholders present at the meeting not only ‘Uncle Jim’s Whanau’
3. Management Systems
- Management Systems: Mere agrees with Maioha and Jim that there shouldn’t be a trust.
- NZ shareholders present would prefer (at this stage when there are only 9 shareholders), a shareholder led committee guided by a Constitution or Management Guidelines. Prefering Management Guidelines over a Constitution.
4. Voting System
- Mere: would like the voting to be kept open, one vote per shareholder no matter what size the shares are.
After much discussion Jim agrees. Therefore NZ Shareholders agree with the proposal of a majorty vote of 5 shareholders.
ACTION: OZ WHANAU to agree to move forward with this voting system. We propose a review of this system to take place every two years, when shares are handed down, or when it is deemed to be not working – whichever comes first.
ACTION: We propose that both Oz and NZ Whanau progress with this approach from April 30th 2011. OZ WHANAU to dis/agree
5. Sewage System
We think that only building owners should pay for any sewage investigations.
See 2 a) above for further discussion about the Sewge System.
- Removable Building Option
· Jim, Maioha, Mere and Karyn looked at a removable building option keeping an open mind in regards to the type of building could be put on to the land. This would be a cheaper option all though no further investigation was done to see if it would fit in with the Wairoa council guidelines.
· No further action to be taken
- Lawyers Fees to be paid
BACKGROUND:
In July 1st 2010 Rangi Jim and Maioha went to Whangawehi to discuss with Glorine and Erik the boundary fence and the sheds that were encroachng onto the easement. They came to an agreement on the fence line but not the buildings. Jim said he would seek further advice.
On July 14th at Tups’ home, Mere, Rangi, Tups, Jim and Karyn discussed the buildings and what the next steps should be. Karyn suggested they ask Ron Barber (Lawyer, Wilson Barber and Co) and everyone agreed.
Rangi left the following day and on the 16th Jim, Tups and Karyn visited Ron Barber (Wilson Barber co). They took in the diagram they had from the surveyor showing the fenceline and also the letter form the Maori landcourt showing the petitioning had been finalised and the access way was to be kept clear at all times. They wanted to find out what the legal situation was in regards to the building encroachments.
Seven months after this meeting with Ron Barber on March 8th 2001, Rangi Pepuere Whenua received an invoice for $480 + GST (at 15% is $72.00) = $552.00.
This invoice was presented to all shareholder for payment.
· Email from Rangi received 22nd March. Email tabled.
Summary: Rangi expressed that she was unhappy with the invoice as she was unaware that the Lawyer was going to charge for his services. She also wondered why a lawyer was required as she thought we would of been able to come to the same conclusions given the information we had and with further consulatation with Glorine.
Aunty Rangi pointed out that she wasn’t prepared to pay for future costs without quotes and consultation with all shareholders.
· Karyn replied to Rangi by email. Email tabled.
Summary: Karyn reminded Rangi that the reason they decided to go to the Lawyers was because they were unable to come to an agreement with Glorine. She acknowledged that no one at the gathering at Maioha’s (July 14th 2010) discussed getting quotes.
· After this invoice is paid Aunty Rangi (as per her email) will no longer contribute toward Scott’s share of Whangawehi related expenses. NZ shareholders will respond to this once Mere has been in contact with Scott and we know his position (see .8 of these minutes)
· Karyn noted that the invoice should be charged at 12.5% GST as the visit was before GST charges went up.
ACTION: This week KARYN will request an adjusted invoice to show correct GST.
ACTION: ALL SHAREHOLDERS: Once the corrected invoice is received it would be appreciated if shareholders could pay their portion (divided by 8 as per first invoice) of the invoice within 14 days. (estimated amount $540 total / $67.50 NZD each)
ACTION: This week KARYN is to Question the Lawyer why the invoice was sent so late
ACTION: ALL SHAREHOLDERS: in the future, quoting and consultation with all shareholders is to take place in regards to all expenditure.
Tabled copies of all correspondence from Wilson Barber and Co.
NOTE: Invoice, with correct GST, will be tabled at next meeting.
7. 6. Costs and Expenditure
· a) Jim and Karyn are happy to continue to cover the costs they incur travelling to and from Whangawehi and Wairoa City Council. All Shareholders need to decide at what point these costs will be shared.
· b) Maioha has given Jo money, stamps and envelopes to cover costs of printing and posting information to her.
ACTION: NZ AND OZ WHANAU to include a) in the agenda of the next meeting for more formal discussion.
8. 7. Scott Pewhairangi
· Scott is in Christchurch.
ACTION: MERE is going to try and contact him over this weekend. Mere will ascertain his position in regards to Whangawehi and will report back at the next meeting.
9. Moving Forward:
· Jo and Steve need to present a timeline in which the building needs to be confirmed if shareholders are to take advantage of their offer to donate the labour costs.
ACTION: JO to have these ready to present at the next meeting
· Based on the presented dates, Shareholders (if they want to take up the offer) will be able to put in place a dated guideline. This guideline could include establishing management systems as well ensuring other areas required by the building project are put into place. This guideline would also give shareholders a timeframe in which to save / come up with financial contributions.
· We have enjoyed the ability to communicate about Whangawehi with the Oz whanau via the meeting minutes. We feel this is a positive way to move forward and achieve outcomes. We would like to continue sharing information, comments and feedback this way. We are feeling like this process is helping us all to take steps forward and achieve things in a poitive way - we hope that the Oz whanau feels the same!
Meeting closed 4.30pm.
Rangi Pepuere Whenua Shareholder Meeting
Attachment#1.
Ideas for Meeting Management and Processes for the Tairawhiti arm of the Rangi Pepuere Whenua Shareholders.
These are some of the things that we do on the Board of Trustees at Phoenix and Jetson’s school...
Before the Meeting:
· Two weeks before each meeting we receive a copy of the proposed agenda and are given one week to make any changes / additions.
(In the agenda we also state desired outcomes – e.g. “Principal is seeking approval to upgrade computer system” and we work towards being able to achieve that outcome)
· One week before we receive the agenda and ‘the papers’ which are all relevant reading material / information for the next meeting.
· Before the meeting we note questions and comments on ‘the papers’ and ensure we are all up to speed with the information provided.
At the Meeting:
· We approve the minutes of the previous meeting noting any corrections / changes
· We work through the agenda ensuring everyone has a clear understanding of the material presented in the papers and work out ways in which to achieve the desired outcomes - we also allocate timeframes for discussion
· We record any Actions and Timeframes that need to be taken e.g. ACTION: Principal to get three quotes from relevant businesses for required upgrade TIMEFRAME: by next meeting
About a week after the Meeting:
· Copies of minutes are distributed for corrections
· (I would imagine after this we would send copies of minutes to all shareholders.)
This system works really efficiently and we are able to make progress quickly and in an informed way. Everyone is able to take responsibility as and when they are able to and we ensure that outcomes are achieved in a way that we are all happy with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)