Effectively a 3 year contract it is not identified in the motion that attachments A & B are for a 24 month contract with a 1 year option.

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 For the attention of: The PBC secretary Royal Pines Resort Cambridge strata managers PBC and PBC Executive Committee Dated: 15 th April 2016 SUBJECT/S: i. RPR PBC - E.G.M 20 April 2016 ii. Agenda Errors and legislative non compliance iii. Motions (2) & (3) Out of Order The PBC administration costs/funds are paid for, by lot entitlement, by each village. PBC funds that are collected from each lot owner by each village. Therefore: Lot owners should not be lumbered with costs for contracts and motions that have failed to comply with legislative requirements (Manned Security) Lot owners should not be lumbered with substantial costs and levies for unfunded construction and developments that have not been properly identified with proper and accurate quotes and passed by motions that have not complied with legislative requirements (Security Gate Development) Lot owners should not be lumbered with costs for construction/improvements on the Secondary Thoroughfare that attempts to circumnavigate the requirements of the Secondary Thoroughfare By- Laws pursuant to the IRD Act as per security uniformity requirements. Lot owners should not be lumbered with potentially higher PBC sinking fund levies after PBC Committee ravages the remaining monies held in the Sinking Fund to meet these unfunded construction costs and then attempt to rebuild the sinking fund with higher levies from lot owners As Follows MOTION 2. Security Services Agreement (submitted by the Executive Committee) Motion 2 is to approve the Security contract for a period 1 May March 2018 (23 months) and refers PBC voting members to Attachment A and Attachment B in the Agenda Attachment A - Coastline Security Quotation and Contract proposes a 2 year contract plus 1 year option equaling a contractual period of 3 years. and, Attachment B - Prosek Security Quotation and Contract proposes a 2 year Contract plus 1 year option equaling a contractual period of 3 years. Effectively a 3 year contract it is not identified in the motion that attachments A & B are for a 24 month contract with a 1 year option. Motion 2 is contradictory and does not comply with legislative requirements; a body corporate cannot pass a motion subject to attachments where the contractual terms in the attachments differ to the terms proposed in the motion. The BCCM has continually invalidated motions, submitted by committees, where there is substantial differences or inconsistencies, with BCCM referees continually indicating a committee has a responsibility to clearly identify what is being proposed and failure to clearly identify what is being proposed is sufficient to invalidate a motion Body Corporate Support Services Terry Cook

6 MOTION 3. Security gates Upgrade - submitted by the executive committee is far more substantial than the Agenda attachments & motions has attempted to downplay by referring to the proposed works as an upgrade. What is identified in the documents (Attachment C read with Attachment D ) is that these are major improvements, developments and construction to the secondary thoroughfare, including roadworks etc. and therefore these works are captured by legislative requirements, which the committee has failed to comply with in its motions, attachments and funding proposals, as follows: Motion 3 (by ordinary resolution) contravenes the following sections of the IRD Act Section 150 (1) & (2). Section 150 (1) & (2) clearly legislates that any development and construction on the Secondary Thoroughfare must be passed by Special Resolution Section titled Statuary Restrictions on powers of the Executive Committee : Section 163 (2) (b) legislates that a PBC Committee must submit 2 tender quotes in respect of any work to be carried out. There are no tender quotes in the Agenda submitted by the committee, as an attachment to Motion 3. An estimation of stage 1 costs as contained in Attachment D is not sufficient for PBC members to make an informed decision. The committee has not provided any real information as to how the project (Stage 1 & 2) is to be funded other than vague references to the Sinking Fund. This is a total project as identified in Attachment C (Page 22) of the Agenda where continual references are made to Stage 1 and Stage 2. Motion 3 only refers to 2 security gates (Western & Lakeview) where-as there are 4 security gates to consider and should include the other Lakeview gate (gatehouse) and Eastern Gate if the PBC is to comply with its legislative requirements of the IRDA Act, BUGT Act and Secondary Thoroughfare By-laws (11.1) In reference to Secondary Thoroughfare By-Law 11.1, in QBCCMCmr 321 (13 August 2013) BCCM referee M.A Schmidt made Order 4 against the PBC and reference is made to para 47 as to the reasons for that order [47] It appears as though the PBC is currently providing security of two differing types to the East and West precincts of the Secondary Thoroughfare and further, is purporting to charge each precinct separately for the respective security service provided to that precinct. This is clearly contrary to law. The PBC has a legislated obligation of security uniformity and motion 3 fails to take into consideration that legislated obligation and orders made. The documents submitted (attachment C ) in the agenda reveal a clear intent by the PBC committee Not to comply with Secondary Thoroughfare By-Law 11.1 Not to Comply with Secondary Thoroughfare By-Law 11.1 as read with IRD Act section 179 (4) Not to comply with BCCM orders and advice in application The BCCM has continually invalidated motions where those motions do not clearly identify what is being proposed, including funding, of any proposed improvement or development, with the BCCM indicating a committee has a responsibility to clearly identify what is being proposed and failure to clearly identify what is being proposed is sufficient to invalidate a motion The Executive Committee may be relying on Para 26.1 (b) of the Secondary Thoroughfare bylaws to propose motion 3 by Ordinary Resolution - however pursuant to IRD Act Section 179 (7) A secondary thoroughfare by-law shall not affect the operation of any other Act or law. these are major improvements, developments and construction on the Secondary Thoroughfare and as such are captured by IRD Act Section 150 (1) & (2). Body Corporate Support Services Terry Cook

7 Therefore Motion 3 does not comply with legislative requirements and should be immediately ruled out of order to save more upheaval with BCCM applications. Lot owners should not be lumbered with substantial costs and levies for unfunded construction and developments that have not been properly identified/approved with proper and accurate quotes. Terry Cook As Power of Attorney Lot 31 South Shields GTP 2995 Via bcsupport@my-netsite.com REFER ATTACHED SECTIONS OF GOVERNING LEGISLATION OF THE IRD ACT Reference Section 150 (1) (2) 150 Community facilities on secondary thoroughfare (1) A principal body corporate may develop or construct facilities, for the use of persons who lawfully occupy land within a residential precinct, on (a) the secondary thoroughfare; or (b) land leased by the principal body corporate under section 149. (2) The development or construction must not start until authorised by the principal body corporate by a special resolution. (3) The principal body corporate must maintain the facilities Reference Section 163 (2) (a) & (b) 163 Statutory restrictions on powers of executive committee (1) Unless (a) otherwise determined pursuant to a special resolution of the principal body corporate; or (b) authorised by the Minister in an emergency; or (c) consented to by such persons entitled to vote at a general meeting of the principal body corporate who represent an aggregate lot entitlement of not less than 75% of the aggregate of all lot entitlements recorded in the principal body corporate roll; AND (2) In respect of any proposed expenditure which, under subsection (1), the executive committee is not entitled to undertake the executive committee shall (a) submit the proposal for determination at an extraordinary general meeting of the principal body corporate convened for the purpose of, or for purposes which include, consideration of the proposal; and (b) if the proposed expenditure is in respect of work to be performed or the purchase of personal property submit at least 2 tenders to that meeting with the proposal. Reference Section 179 Secondary Thoroughfare By-laws (7) A secondary thoroughfare by-law shall not affect the operation of any other Act or law. Reference Section 179 (4) Without limiting the operation of any other provision of this Act, the secondary thoroughfare by-laws for the time being in force bind the principal body corporate, each member of the principal body corporate and each proprietor and any mortgagee in possession (whether by himself or herself or any other person), lessee or occupier, of a lot within the residential precincts to the same extent as if those by-laws had been signed and sealed by the principal body corporate, each member of the principal body corporate and each proprietor and each such mortgagee, lessee and occupier respectively and as if they contained mutual covenants to observe and perform all the provisions of those by-laws. Body Corporate Support Services Terry Cook

8 Attempts to resolve the matter of the PBC failing to comply with Secondary Thoroughfare By-law 11.1 In 2013 made application to the BCCM - QBCCMCmr 321 (13 August 2013) Defended the appeal against the orders (4) QBCCMCmr 321 (13 August 2013) lodged by Bell Park (Bill Bradley - PBC Nominee PBC Executive Committee member) Acted as committee member for the Security Sub Committee including compiling (as members of the Sub Committee) the findings and recommendations (attached) that were presented to the PBC Executive Committee in mid The PBC Executive Committee has ignored or set aside those findings and recommendations. s attachments dated 15 th April 2016 sent to all PBC Executive Committee members with little or no response received from the PBC Executive Committee or its secretary