|
PRESENT: Paul Adams, Noel
Blencowe, Sam Grover, Fran Hoban, Hamish McCracken, Anna Morton, (observing),
Tony Morton, Vyv Rodnight, Maya Ward
APOLOGIES: Dot Hutton, Cathy
Nixon, Mara Ripani Chaired by Vyv Rodnight. Minutes by Sam Grover.
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. ADMIN
2.1 Minutes of meeting 4/2000
Minutes were accepted subject to amendment. SG will email TM to
clarify.
2.2 Treasurer's report
TM presented the August financial statement. We received another
$620 in memberships from 10 new members and spent $88.65 (largely on
a box of 100 stamps that will be used over time). Our assets at the
end of August stand at $1656.35. MW received a $100 membership from
Arnaud Gallois and will retain for petty cash purposes. TM will send
a receipt. VR noted that if receipts could be emailed it would save
on postage.
2.3 Progress of incorporation
No further progress. HM has provided NB with the information required
to amend the constitution.
3. PROCESS (Agenda items
were dealt with out of order.)
3.1 Murray Raff
HM reported that potential legal advisor Murray Raff will be meeting
with us next Wednesday (4 October) at 7:30 at CERES. We will discuss
possible legal structures for the group. MW will look in the CERES book
for a suitable venue.
3.2 Discussion papers for tabling
There were no new discussion papers.
3.3 Alternative cohousing sites
There was a lengthy discussion on this issue. HM pointed out the
importance of producing a discussion paper on our approach to alternative
site proposals. We should give a questionnaire to our members on site
criteria which would also feed into the work of the Design WG. VR suggested
revisiting the issue of why we sought alternative sites in the first
place, and how committed the group is to the Roberts Street site. PA
and HM suggested putting this on the agenda for the general meeting.
PA said his key 'dilemmas' related to the unity of the group, the focus
of people's minds and our limited energy and resources. PA has thought
hard about his own reasons for being involved and is fully committed
to this site, and is worried about us spreading ourselves out too thinly.
TM and AM agreed it is important to revisit this issue. MW referred
to the recent activity around the Rennie Street site, which seemed achievable
in the short term but fell through because we had no process for agreeing
on another site. There is a problem with bringing the whole group along
to a site and getting a decision, and it's hard to say who the group
really is when deciding on a site; does everyone have input or just
those who intend to live on the site? Perhaps we need to look at other
sites for economic reasons but nonetheless commit to the Roberts Street
site as our preferred end result. TM said we currently have about 20
full members and a similar number of supporting members, which would
represent about a dozen purchasing households after allowing for partners
and renters. MW said the group as a whole needs to be kept informed
of the membership situation. MW wondered whether it was possible to
invite everyone to an urgent meeting in the event that a decision needs
to be made on another site. Perhaps we have too many members for this
to be feasible. HM mentioned that other cohousing groups have 'equity
members' who have a financial stake in a site, and only they are involved
in financial decisions. Other models are possible. (FH arrived at this
point) VR called for everyone to speak on the issue. TM said he has
strongly held criteria for a site and would seek to have these in a
discussion paper; he is committed to the Roberts Street site but could
be persuaded to prefer another site on cost grounds. AM thinks it is
important to be committed to one site and focus on that, but to have
other sites in mind if the preferred one falls through. FH is not intending
to live in the cohousing and is not committed to any specific site.
MW needs to know who our 'equity members' are to get an idea of the
shape of the group; we should perhaps seek to identify a subgroup of
people who intend to live on the site, and social occasions are the
key to crystallising people's intentions. VR was concerned about the
small size of the Rennie Street site; location is not so important but
the site should be large in order to foster a diverse community. [unrecorded
contribution from SG, to be minuted] FH wondered whether the Committee
should be drawn from 'equity members' only. VR disagreed. HM thought
there should be a formal 'equity members' subgroup but only to make
decisions about money. PA agreed that there were important roles for
an 'energy group' as distinct from a 'money group', even if they eventually
merged.
4. DESIGN
4.1 Design outcomes from workshop
Paula will report on the workshop at a later date. There will be
a Design WG meeting tomorrow night at which this will be discussed.
4.2 Car parking
FH has had contact with some traffic engineers who had some ideas
on achieving a reduction in council car parking requirements. FH will
put together a draft proposal. The meeting thanked FH for this initiative.
5. EDUCATION
Nothing to report.
6. COMMUNICATION
6.1 Logo design competition
Nothing has happened on this yet. TM and PA will work on this.
(NB arrived at this point)
7. FINANCE
AT and NB met with Commonwealth Bank people. NB presented a brief
drawn up by PA using ideas from different sources, centred around a
project budget of $22 million with prospective sales of $24 million.
The bank found the $2 million profit margin 'funny' and had never seen
anything like it before. Normally a project of this magnitude would
sell for around $35 million. We would need $2 million up front in order
to go with them, and even then it would be tricky because a lot of risk
is involved. NB found this advice quite interesting. His idea is to
break up the project into stages, with the cohousing built last. Profits
from previous stages could then be ploughed into the cohousing, giving
us more flexibility there. This would however delay the cohousing development.
As part of 'Plan B', Robyn arranged a visit with the Department of Housing
and with Ecumenical Housing (a church group that develops social housing).
The church group could donate the land and keep a component as payment;
this would then be used for social housing. NB thinks we could work
out a package whereby Moreland Council gives us some money, Department
of Housing gives us some more and this would buy the land. He is putting
together a number of packages like this. Under this kind of plan we
would put in about $800,000. The Poola Foundation is also looking at
putting in some money towards the land. NB concluded that we are still
a long way from knowing where we are.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Letter from Arnaud Gallois
MW read out a letter from Arnaud who is a keen new member wanting
to help educate the group about cohousing. VR noted this is part of
the Education WG's brief; MW suggested Sharryn should recruit him. VR
will contact Sharryn about this.
8.2 Social gatherings
It was agreed that the group should have more regular social gatherings.
MW suggested the CERES Market would be an appropriate gathering place
as it would be regular, totally informal and on 'neutral' territory
rather than at someone's house. VR suggested that there should be other
social gatherings as well, involving just our group. There was much
agreement with this idea. MW suggested we could hang out on the CERES
lawn on a regular evening. NB suggested that people's houses are actually
good for social gatherings because you get to know people better that
way. VR volunteered his house. It was agreed that the first gathering
would be at 6pm on Sunday 15 October at Sam's place, 1 Stewart Street
Brunswick (near Sydney Road). Bring a plate.
9. CLOSE
The meeting closed at 7:45pm.
The next Committee meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday 11 October at 7:30pm, CERES.
|