[200William-EC SP67851] SP 67851 - Remote for garage access.

[Ed Sainsbury]

Robin,

My position is that there is a special levy coming and that this would need to increase to do other works. The priority should be structural repairs, such as the water issues. 

I would not be happy with the security risk of un-specified remotes, given the risk of theft of cars and property from the garage area.

I will work on the new budget to include the special levy once all the quotes are in. 

Regards,
Ed
Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Jul 2016, at 2:16 PM, Matt Perkins <matt at spectrum.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin see bellow.
> 
>> On 8/07/2016 12:29 PM, Robin Patrick wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Just two items I just wanted to clarify:
>> 
>> 1. As we all agree, are we in a position now to engage the engineers for the quotes regarding the water issues stemming from the roof and in the basement/car park? Is there a hurdle that is stopping this? Next steps?
> Patrick has issued work orders to the engineers to progress to the next step. There is nothing further the EC needs to do in this matter until they report back. Ed will then need to asses the budget and see how big the levy need be. Then we can put forward some motions for an EGM and schedule it. All owners would then vote with a likely yes as it's work is either ordered by NCAT or essential in keeping the building in good order. Owners  would then be sent a bill based on their entitlement units for their portion of the special levy and work can begin in rectification.
> 
>> 2. Does anyone have any objections if I ask Darren to gather more facts about remote controls for the garage door. I understand the recommendations that were made previously by the police but I would like to understand the cost implications and also the pros and cons to represent back to the EC. Over the last 2 months I have had to call the police twice as there have been people lurking and shooting up next to the garage door, hiding in the stairwell as you pull in. It wasn't until I was hanging out of my car on one instance that I saw them come out. It scared the life out of me and every-time I pull in late I am now worried about being car jacked as I open my window/step out to hit the sensor. Again, I would just like to gather more facts to present back to the EC to have a conversation with all the detail available.
> We have been over this one quite a few times. Mr Laforest put a motion forward at the last AGM which you attend where  it was voted down by the owners group. I will go over it again.
> 
> a) The budget is very  tight. There is likely to be a special levy in the order of $100,000 + to fix the water problems in the building. Apartment's at the front of the building are now taking on water.  There is no room to spend on anything that is not essential.  To be blunt. You will personalty be perhaps $5k out of pocket this year or next.  Do you really want to spend more.
> 
> b) Kings Cross Police advised the building 6 years ago when there were cars  being stolen from the building at a rate of 3 or 4 a year to disconnect the remote controls. The reason is that people leave them in their cars. When they do a thief need only break into a car to steal the remote they can then easily get a car out of the building. If they want a particular car they need not steal that cars remote but find one in another car just to get the more valuable  car out.  People were finding it hard to get insurance for cars parked in the building due to the high risk of cars being stolen from 200 William.   Since we disconnected the remotes only one car has been stolen and the thief had the keys after scaling the building and stealing them from the owner's apartment.  There have been no cars stolen since the remotes were disabled by breaking into a car alone.
> 
> c) The system is not unique to each owner. All remotes are the same. As such there is no way to disable a remote if an owner looses the remote or moves out without returning it. The result is more access to the building without any check's and balances.
> 
> d) Peoples movements can not be tracked.  People can not be held responsible for damage within the building if we can not track them by their keys. A remote is not traceable. For example if someone runs into the roller door we are unable to track them back to an owner.
> 
> e) There are more expensive systems that can track users and single remotes can be disabled. But it does not mitigate  a) and b) and the last quote we had was around $10k for that system.
> 
> I have also seen people in that stair case but none have ever bothered me. They likely just put their head up to see if you are going to bother them. To me it's more of a problem with the urination on the door that we have to replace every year which costs us money. If there was a solution to fix that would be good. But again the solution needs to cost no money. Because we dont have any.
> 
> Run away budgets and endless Special levy's will only serve to devalue our apartments.  Given there is a likely apartment price crash approaching over the next 1 ~ 3 years due to the over supply in our area. Out of control spending will very likely push apartment values in 200 William to an all time low. Ed is in a better position to give us a budget appraisal then I however I do not believe now is the time to spend on peripheral matters.
> 
> Darren's hours are limited per month on the time he spends with out building under the management contract. I believe his time is best spent following up the water problems.  The remote issues has been raised and defeated each year for the last 4. I do not believe we need to go over it yet again.
> 
> 
> Kind Regards
> Matt.
> 
>