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

[Robin Patrick]

Thanks Ed.

Thanks for responding. I'm definitely conscious of the costs coming up too,
and I agree, an unspecified remotes are not a solution to the problem.

However I'm hoping to uncover a solution that addresses the security
concerns (both car jacking and car theft) and that will be a neutral or
minor costs to the building.

Seems silly not to just see what the options are.

Thanks

Robin

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Ed Sainsbury <edsainsbury at ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20160710/81a2d99c/attachment.html