[200William-EC] Parking Problems - WAS Quotation: 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo - Parking Locks

Tue Dec 3 11:07:03 EST 2013

Good work Matt and thanks for your research into this issue with the
solicitor.

I am totally in agreement to look further into this method of parking
control and costing.  It would appear a reasonable method of controlling the
parking spaces and I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation that the
building occupant go down to the garage and release the cable so their
visitor can park their car. The same would apply when the visitor leaves.
The same would be a reasonable scenario if a trades person was visiting.  If
a trades person is called by an occupant I believe it is their
responsibility to admit that person to their unit and ensure their
departure.  Should it be a trades person to attend to building issues (who
no doubt would have been organised by George) then other arrangements could
be made, eg:  leaving a key with AVIS.

These are some suggestions, but I believe Matt's proposal should be
thoroughly looked into.  Visitor parking has always been a contentious issue
with Strata Schemes and there is no easy solution,  particularly when the
luxury of an on-site concierge is not an option.  I do however believe that
it is a method of controlling/monitoring the Visitor Parking spaces without
denying people access.

Brook    

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On Behalf
Of Matt Perkins
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013 9:04 AM
To: ec at 200william.com
Subject: Re: [200William-EC] Parking Problems - WAS Quotation: 200 William
Street, Woolloomooloo - Parking Locks

Hi All,
 I know this email is long but please If I can have your attention to the
end we may be able to make some progress. Our EC roll is  important and If
you can not take the time to read and understand some of these email's I
respectively suggest that the EC is not for you.

I have received advise from a solicitor very knowledgeable in strata area
regarding this plan. I have also examined the original DA for 200 William
and the proposed plan can not go ahead.

The DA states that there are 5 spots for visitors. This can not be changed
without council approval. Unlikely to be granted.  These spots must remain
freeley available for visitors. The way I understand it paid parking  is not
really an option we could grant licensees but it would require a very
complex change to bylaws and would likely fail an AGM/EGM/Council. It would
only cost us money. 

We could secure the visitors spots providing we had someone available 24/7
to come and open them however this seems unrealistic. We can not ask some
one to book them 24 hours in advance because this does not fit the
description of freely available. We have no concierge we can not operate the
building like we do.  

Given these restrictions I can not see how we can go ahead with any of these
options lawfully.  I have however come up with an alternate plan. It will
not allow user pays, however I believe it will fix the parking problems or
at least find it much easier to identify offenders and issue them with
breaches. 

I do not have any costings and have no idea of the numbers. I did not want
to waste time on it if the EC are not interested in it. 

There is a product called a Cable Gate. It's effectively a thick stainless
steel cable  securely locked between two steel posts position at either side
of the parking bay which provide an effective physical barrier. A motor
housed inside one of the posts drives down a latch releasing  the cable to
lay flat on the ground so a vehicle can pass over the top.  Once the vehicle
parks the cable is automaticly drawn back up and locked again inside the
post re-securing the parking bays.  

The Cable gate would be operated by our normal card swipe which we use for
access to the building. So It would require a resident to come down and
allow a visitor into the spot. They would also be required to swipe again to
release there car from the spot. Logs generated from the building access
control system could then be used to enforce 24 hour restrictions with a
clear indication of who let the visitor in and out of the spot and how long
they stayed. This could be used as evidence in any bylaw breech.
Appropriate sign's could be affixed to the swipe and gates that explained
the restrictions and that they are electronically monitored.  

I know this has been a long and complex email and I hope your all still with
me. This solution may not be within our budget but I do believe it to be our
best chance to keep parking fair without a concierge.  If the EC thinks this
idea may be viable I will assist George in providing a specification to be
quoted. 

Kind Regards.

Matt.

 http://www.cablegate.com.au/cg4.html

On 3/12/13 12:08 AM, Rob Willett wrote:

Hi all, 

Just reiterating, no one is closing off visitors spots, we are just securing
them to make visitors, guests, tradespeople accountable following numerous
complaints, especially from the EC, over the past months and indeed, years.
As discussed. So it can either be done, or not. It's not personal. I don't
really care. 

The other reason for wanting to secure them is to stop transients from
entering the car park ( has been a major complaint over the past 3 years,
especially from EC members )  ) and to stop tenants sub-letting their spots
and using the visitors spots. 

But the major reason is to fund the cctv system. We don't have a budget for
it and if we want to do it, we should raise the revenue from the buildings
available resources. 

Please folks: Forget any nasty and personal comments against me please. I
don't need it or want it. Simply give us a Yes or a No. If you vote yes, the
preferred option. A B C. If you vote no, great. But don't take your
misguided anger out on me. 

Majority will decide. Thanks for the feedback to date folks, but keep it
positive.

So far we Have:

Matt  TBA

Rowan TBA

Rob

          Yes

Di

          No

Brook TBA

Andrew TBA

Craig No

Dave

          TBA

Barnay TBA

IN SRI LANKA / CELL PHONE +94 766 88 92 98 

5.5 HOURS BEHIND SYDNEY / 10.5 HOURS AHEAD NEW YORK

On 02/12/2013, at 5:33 PM, CSCL <cscl at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Ridiculous to close off the visitor spots.  They are for visitors!!

We don't have an onsite manager.  Who would monitor the yellow triangles?
Rob - are you available to pop down each time?

My vote is a definite NO.

Cages - a good idea for revenue.

Regards,
Craig Laforest

From:  <mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com> ec-bounces at 200william.com
[mailto:ec- <mailto:bounces at 200william.com> bounces at 200william.com] On
Behalf Of Diana Dennison
Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013 9:22 PM
To: Rob Willett; ec at 200william.com; Matt Perkins
Subject: Re: [200William-EC] Quotation: 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo -
Parking Locks

Hi Rob,

Before we think of installing these things, have we considered the cost of
administering 'charged visitor's parking'? And who would do it? Is it
remotely worth it? Some visitors come for an hour, some come for the night.
What's the plan? 

I am sorry I can't keep it to a NO. 

Rob, I am a NO until the above issues have been resolved; you don't just
bung in yellow triangles without a plan. We're surely not planning to rent a
space on an overnight basis? We'll end up with locked empty spaces during
the day waiting for the booked car to arrive and nowhere for the one-hour
visitor to park. Madness. My last 2 visitors managed to park.

Please outline a sensible plan of action before going further. The cages are
another matter and good to go.

Why has no one asked the owner of the Peugeot to move it? I've just gone
downstairs and rung #502's bell but although someone answered, I couldn't
hear them or they couldn't hear em, so I'll leave a note asking Junior to
give me a ring and I'll ask him to get the car moved. 

best to all,

Di

On 2 December 2013 19:26, Rob Willett < <mailto:rob at robadda.com>
rob at robadda.com> wrote:

Hi there,

Following Friday's discussion re the Visitor parking, I have obtained a
quotation for 3 variations. Can you all please review and let me know 

1) You confirm that we go ahead with the installation

2) If you approve of the cost for A) $1140 B) $ 1760 of C) $2420

Can we please keep the responses short and sharp. 

FYI, I am a YES and B) $1760

Thanks Brook for being there to allow access for the tradesmen on Friday,
much appreciated. If we can get your responses quickly we can get this
underway and start work almost immediately. 

We can then start deciding the spare cages and how to lease them and the
amount we can charge. With the revenue streams for the cages and the Visitor
car spots will fund the security system and have no need to increase levies.

IN SRI LANKA / CELL PHONE  <tel:%2B94%20766%2088%2092%2098> +94 766 88 92 98

5.5 HOURS BEHIND SYDNEY / 10.5 HOURS AHEAD NEW YORK

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
 <mailto:EC at 200william.com> EC at 200william.com
 <http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec>
http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC at 200william.com
http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec

-- 
/* Matt Perkins 
        Direct 1300 137 379     Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd. 
        Office 1300 133 299     matt at spectrum.com.au 
        Fax    1300 133 255     Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
        SIP 1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au 
        PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu 
*/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/2ed83923/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16116 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/2ed83923/attachment-0001.jpe 