|
PRESENT:
Paul Adams, Noel Blencowe, Sam Grover, Fran Hoban, Hamish McCracken,
Mara Ripani, Vyv Rodnight, Adam Tiller, Maya Ward
APOLOGIES:
Dot Hutton, Cathy Nixon, Tony Morton Chaired by Maya Ward Minutes by
Paul Adams
1. WELCOME, ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES
Brief discussion on everyone’s wellbeing and feelings about S11 and
WEF.
2. ADMIN
2.1 Minutes of meeting 3/2000
The minutes of the previous Committee meeting were accepted.
2.2 Treasurers Report
No report
2.2 Progress of Incorporation
The changes required by the Office of Fair Trading shall be submitted
soon.
ACTION: NB to resubmit.
3. PROCESS
3.1 Discussion papers for adoption
3.1.1 Discussion Papers Process
HM gives brief summary of this discussion paper. SG explains that an
important reason for having discussion papers is that they "…help people
to know where we’ve been." HM moved that we accept this discussion paper.
Ratified conditionally: if anyone has amendments for this discussion
paper, they are to inform the Process Working Group (WG). In future
discussion papers are to be ratified by the relevant working group before
being submitted to Committee meeting for ratification. HM explained
that discussion papers hold power, they are a formal record. SG suggested
that the Process WG facilitate the writing of discussion papers. This
means that any WG can approach the Process WG to assist in writing a
discussion paper.
3.1.2 Membership, Structure and
Decision Process
HM gave brief summary of this discussion paper. Enquires about Merri
Cohousing are to be directed to Communications WG. An ‘Info Pack’ should
be handed out to newcomers by someone. This should be the Education
WG.
ACTION: VR and PA to continue to follow up ‘info pack’.
ACTION: All to read this discussion paper, awaiting feedback from Education
WG. NB suggested Item 40 be expanded to include broader fees such as
for consultants etc., but not for the purchase of land.
ACTION: HM to revise Item 40 VR and MW highlight that this has been
discussed in a previous meeting.
3.1.3 Meeting Procedure for Fun
and Function
Nothing said about this discussion paper
ACTION: SG to include this discussion paper with above discussion paper
(3.1.2)
3.1.4 Investors and Renters
- Two models of ownership
HM gave brief summary of this discussion paper.
ACTION: HM to follow up the loan component of the models of ownership.
HM discussed the comparison between ‘strata title’ and ‘title in common’.
‘Title in common’ may be a lot cheaper for people than ‘strata title’.
A good website that explains a lot of this is the ‘Cohousing Resources
Guide’ at www.cohousing.org. NB queried how the ownership model would
work with rent payers and whether this was a good idea. HM said that
rent goes towards paying off the loan, then when this is paid off, it
generates money for the group whereby we are the in effect our own landlords.
When you leave Merri Cohousing, you sell your shares, the longer you
stay, the more your shares are worth. HM compared paying rent with paying
off your own mortgage, but in this instance paying off the Merri Coho.
mortgage. SG compared different types of return available - market rates
etc.
ACTION: HM to arrange meeting with Murray Raff to discuss further. HM
also to talk to AT.
3.2 Discussion papers for tabling
No new discussion papers were received.
3.3 Progress on Business / Financial
Plan
NB reported that NB, TM and AT are currently putting together a financial
plan. NB and MW met with ULA, Adrian Robb (AR), about getting finances
to pay for a business plan. AR would like to give us money but can't
find a way to justify it. MW suggested to AR that they could finance
a study of a generic Cohousing Process - urban community initiated housing.
In the end they said that there wasn't really much that they could do.
The approximate cost indicated by ULC to prepare a Business and Financial
Plan is $17,000 HM asked what CAA are doing to help, NB said that they
are still looking into it.
3.4 Alternative Cohousing sites
PA presented a site that is for sale in Rennie Street, Thornbury. Double
block with old weatherboard church in the middle of it. Owned by Pres.
Church. $300,000 per block. For Sale by Tender, early Oct. HM wants
to define the location of potential Merri Cohousing sites in terms of
radius from CBD. HM wants to set up site criteria for selecting sites.
ACTION: Design WG to follow up site criteria in design workshops (Sat
16th)
MW suggests a WG is set up to investigate this site.
ACTION:. SG, FH, MW, PA to meet after workshop on Sat 16th.
HM said that he and PJ are looking at other sites, warehouses etc. in
the Collingwood area. We should be publicising other sites that we are
looking at. MR suggested that looking at other sites may jeopardise
funding from MCC. FH suggested that staged building may be a cost reduction
technique. NB to explore this further. 4. FINANCE This was covered in
the item above.
5. DESIGN
5.1 Design / Visioning Workshop
MW explained how Design WG, made up of PA, MW, Ben North and Livia Logiudice
met last Wed and developed a plan for the workshop. MW and PA explained
that two tasks were set for participants to complete before attending.
This was to prepare people for discussion. Process WG to be Part 1 of
the workshop and Design WG to be Part 2. VR suggested that the Design
WG should determine how many sessions are required and set some sort
of timeline. SG reminded us that Cohousing was an extremely long process
and we need to focus on this.
ACTION: Design WG to determine timeline and plan next workshop
5. EDUCATION
5.1 Cohousing Information Session
AT reported that HT and SM had a good information session. A couple
of people showed keen interest.
ACTION: AT to follow up advertising
ACTION: PA to check on emailing bulletin about Info. Sessions.
ACTION: MR to collate a good flyer to be handed to interested people.
6. COMMUNICATION
6.1 Logo design competition
No action so far
ACTION: TM and PA to organise design competition for logo.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Design for Business and Financial
Plan
NB suggested that we should proceed with developing a masterplan/design
that can be used to base the Business and Financial Plan on. It was
agreed that this was a good idea. PA had reservations about how flexible
a Business and Financial plan would be, how much could be changed after
it was set in place?
ACTION: NB, MW, PA to arrange meeting to proceed with design.
9. CLOSE
Meeting closed at 9:45pm
|