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

Tue Dec 3 16:59:43 EST 2013

I will send a notice to all residents tomorrow suggesting that the car
will be towed first thing Thursday morning if it remains.

I check with 501,502 and 503 and no one owns the black car.

________________________________________________________ 
George Ziri | Operations

Building Facilities Management Solutions Pty Ltd

Direct: 0400 300 242 | Facsimile: 9547 3132 | PO BOX A2319 SYDNEY SOUTH
NSW 1235

visit us www.bfms.com.au <http://www.bfms.com.au> 

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On
Behalf Of Brook Beves
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013 9:01 AM
To: 'Rob Willett'; ec at 200william.com
Subject: Re: [200William-EC] Quotation: 200 William Street,Woolloomooloo
- Parking Locks

I am a definite YES at option B cost.

FYI as at 7.15 am this morning, the same black Peugeot remains in the
same Visitors parking bay and has not been moved in weeks and despite
the issue of Breach Notices, letters and  notes under their windscreen
(including attempting to buzz their unit which they don't answer), the
offenders just laugh at our attempts to have the vehicle removed.
Perhaps George could arrange a tow truck to have it removed out onto the
street?

Brook

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On
Behalf Of Rob Willett
Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013 11:08 PM
To: ec at 200william.com ec at 200william.com
Subject: [200William-EC] Quotation: 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo -
Parking Locks

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: ec-bounces at 200william.com <mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com>
[mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com <mailto: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 <rob at robadda.com
<mailto: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 +94 766 88 92 98
<tel:%2B94%20766%2088%2092%2098> 

5.5 HOURS BEHIND SYDNEY / 10.5 HOURS AHEAD NEW YORK

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/081df743/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20317 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/081df743/attachment-0001.jpe 