Thank you for the email.
I am currently preparing the agenda for the Annual General Meeting. From your previous emails, the following motions will be included on the agenda.
No.12 That under Division 3 (Restrictions on Spending), Section 80A (1) shall continue to be deleted:
Division 3 Restrictions on Spending
80A Limit on Spending by Executive Committees of large strata schemes
(1) If a specific amount has been determined as referred to in section 75 (5) for expenditure on any item or matter, the executive committee of the owners corporation concerned must not, in the period until the annual general meeting next occurring after the determination was made, spend on the item or matter an amount greater than that determined amount for expenditure on the item or matter plus 10 per cent.
(2) The owners corporation of a large strata scheme may by resolution at a general meeting remove the limitation imposed by subsection (1) generally or in relation to any particular item or matter.
No.13 That the Owners Corporation, by SPECIAL RESOLUTION, pursuant to Section 47 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, rescind the previously registered Special by-law 8:
The Executive Committee of the Owners Corporation are hereby granted the power and authority to approve the acquisition of additional Common Property and the appropriate expenditure from the Sinking Fund providing that the amount of such expenditure shall not exceed 10% of the Sinking Fund balance at that time.
Could you please confirm this is correct.
As per your email below, I will forward your inquiries on to the Executive Committee accordingly.
Kind regards
Simon Wicks
Raine & Horne Strata-Sydney
Level 1, Building D, 240 Beecroft Road Epping NSW 2121
http://www.bcms.com.au/
-----Original Message-----
From: SP52948 owner
Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 6:55 PM
To: Simon Wicks BCS Strata Management
Subject: Request for an official reply: Strata Plan 52948 - 15 September 2011
Hello Simon,
In accordance with the NSW Strata Management laws, I submit the following questions that have to be answered in written form.
Soon we will have an Annual General Meeting and this is the right time to clear up the backlog of unresolved activities.
I direct the questions to the current executive committee. I will concentrate on actions for the last 12-odd months only. There is much more that is prepared for questioning when and if the owners' corporation approves my motion for discussions.
To make sure we all understand the current status: the questions raised by me for the Treasurer on 17 July 2011 (and many other issues presented to the committee before) have not been answered in any form.
The reasons for the delays have not been provided either. It is obvious that the lack of action is fully approved and encouraged by the committee members. We can safely conclude that the questions for the Treasurer were NOT ANSWERED OR ADDRESSED IN MORE THAN REASONABLE PERIOD OF EXACTLY TWO MONTHS NOW.
Hence, this email is addressed to the committee directly. Please acknowledge that the request has been forwarded to them straight away:
a) Over the last five years, has any member of the current or previous executive committee (those that might have left two-three years ago, for example) AND their families (including defacto relationships) received any direct or indirect financial compensation from the owners' corporation? If so, I need the full details of the financial transactions: when, why, amount, and who approved it.
The examples of direct compensation would be work related to financial audits, or work on web site setup, or discounted strata fees for the units they own, and similar.
The example of indirect financial benefit (which might not be directly payable to them in person, but still constituted conflict of interest that should be declared) might be a project that benefits some company in which given member of the committee (or their families) have shares, active roles as directors or managers, and so on.
b) The full summary of BBQ area cash collections over the last five years (in fact, over the last 14 years). Who collected it, where is that money used for, and where is it logged in bookkeeping and balance sheets?
c) Who, and by what authority, decided not to thoroughly check the damage to two phases for the electricity supply to lift on Block A? I recommended a fair and proper process for it on the 2 February 2011 and to this date no answers were provided:
Liftronics to confirm if during their maintenance contract time there were any damaged cables (if so, how come they had never reported it in the previous years!?);
ThyssenKrupp to confirm if there were damaged cables WHEN they won the maintenance contract;
EnergyAustralia to confirm that the damage to cables were caused (or not) by any power surge;
Any electrical contractor that might have worked in our complex in the period between June and September 2010 to confirm if they caused the accidental damage.
One of the above parties is a definite answer from whom to claim the recovery of around $40,000 that the owners at Macquarie Gardens spent on the new cables.
Officially Submitted: 14 December 2010, 2 February 2011, and many times more!
Financial loss to owners: $40,000 (subtract GST if we can recover it)
d) What is the state for insurance claim for the blown window frame in Unit on level 5 Block C?
Officially Submitted: 30 September 2010, 16 July 2011, and many times more!
Financial Loss to owners: At least $5,000 to $8,000 (subtract GST if we can recover it)
e) Who, and by what authority, decided not to notify owners about the raised security risks when the unneeded replacement of fire door leversets was completed?
I provided a thorough investigation about the whole project that shows little benefit to owners. And more than just loss of money, many owners still have the original knobsets on their outside doors in the towers. I believe the same key that opens those knobsets used to open the fire doors (nobody from the committee did not even attempt to prove me wrong!).
That means: each of those units now has 16- to 64-fold increase in potential risk of being broken into because the same locks have been given to third party (locksmith), and quite probably will be reused somewhere else. The increased risk (which might or might not eventuate) is 16-fold if each tower had unique key set for the fire doors, or 64-fold if all four towers shared the same key set for the fire doors.
Officially Submitted: 3 September 2011
Subject: Why Fire door leverset installation in towers is a dubious business decision
Financial Loss to owners: $8,976 (subtract GST if we can recover it)
f) What is the cost to the owners' corporation for all activities in regards to, at the present time or indefinitely delayed, project to add a new footpath towards the Lane Cove Road? I know there were some expenditures, and the question is how much money has already been spent (council fees applications, engineering fees, consultancy fees, and so on).
In addition, the following answers have never been provided (I asked them back in February 2011 and repeated several times since then):
What does analysis of the frequency of usage for the proposal path show: how many owners are expected, on average, to use it? In other words, how USEFUL it is for the owners and does it INCREASE or DECREASE the value of the complex?
Are there any other factors against adding a third entrance to the complex? Did the committee review them?
What is the total cost of the design, build, support, and management of the new path (that includes the gate, weather-proof high-resolution camera, and others)?
Have the two quotes been provided for the turn-key solution?
Managing Agent and ALL members of the executive committee to confirm in written statement that there is no conflict of interest for each of them and that they are not, in any form, affiliated to the service provider that is chosen to deliver the solution.
g) In the latest minutes of the committee meeting it was noted that a single EC member introduced an energy supply broker to the strata manager. The broker arranged for a reverse auction of the electricity supply to be conducted on 25th of July 2011. This reverse auction resulted in improved savings to the owners corporation over the increases quoted by suppliers to the auction. The increase in costs are estimated to be approximately 7%, which is significantly less than ordinary household account increases.
In my response, I provided a thorough analysis of raised cost for electricity and water in the complex, and asked the following:
What is the cost per kWh that the broker negotiated? How much do we pay for the broker's actions? What is the cost of service availability charge? Are there any penalties if the contract is canceled?
Officially Submitted: 7 August 2011
Subject: Brief comments on minutes EC meeting held on 20 July 2011
h) Full details of all term deposits, maturity dates, interest rates, and amounts.
Officially Submitted: 28 December 2010 and many more times
Committee's and managing agent's response: Only a total amount in term deposits provided (no split figures and no interest rates and maturity dates). At the last meeting, they officially confirmed that the term deposits with the major bank were not as good and finally started making some changes.
Financial loss to owners: In the THOUSANDS of dollars
i) Tender process for the new managing agent contract. It was submitted on 11 April 2011 and 17 July 2011.
How, and through which methods, will the executive committee ensure that the legal, proper process is followed to grant new contracts on behalf of the owners' corporation.
In accordance with the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2010 under the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996:
QUOTE
Part 4, 14
Quotations required by large strata schemes
For the purposes of section 80B of the Act, the prescribed amount is
$30,000 in relation to any one item or matter (other than the seeking
of legal advice or the provision of any other legal services, or the
taking of legal action).
Note. Section 80B of the Act requires an owners corporation of a large
strata scheme to obtain at least 2 quotations for proposed expenditure
exceeding the prescribed amount in relation to any one item or matter.
END QUOTE
j) Why did we proceed with the security camera installation in the foyers when there were more important locations for them?
I submitted the following on 16 February 2011:
QUOTE
The security guards, who are best equipped to advise us, based on their
observations and monitoring every night, confirmed that these location
are of most critical importance to be covered by additional cameras:
Fire Door Block A (side facing townhouses)
Fire Door Block D (side facing Lane Cove Road)
Both sides of mailbox areas (number of stolen mail reported)
Passage between townhouses at the end where late Dr. Edye lived
We have six more free channels for cameras on the video recorder
PACOM PDR-1600. If we now add five more cameras, it means we will run
out of free ports for any future use (only one left).
In regards to increased awareness of the security issues, the
security guards actually complained of the primitive alarm system on the
fire doors in the buildings:
The sound is too low and often cannot be heard unless very close;
The sound devices can easily be ripped off the walls and door.
The security guards would actually like to see a higher-volume, more
robust sound-warning system.
END QUOTE
Officially Submitted: 16 February 2011
Subject: Security cameras in the lifts or basements
Financial loss to owners due to non-critical expenditure: $7,165.40 (subtract GST if we can recover it)
Please ensure that the written response contains acknowledgment ALL members of the committee have read and agreed with the contents of the official response to me. That is crucial from the legal perspective.
Thank you,