Blog Archives

fvHOSTnews first response to PMC's Gate Ballot

2/24/2021

FVHOSTNEWS - (unofficial - voluntary participation only)       February 22, 2021

Fellow residents of Friedberg Village:

I have just reviewed the letter from Priestley Management regarding the findings of the Gate Committee. I have been silent except to disseminate information which gives a greater measure of information for all to review. Many of you viewed the video posted several months ago. I have become quite aware of the negative effects of misinformation. Misinformation is not necessarily purposeful deception by any means. As an entrepreneur in the Computer Science industry, I fell victim at times to poor consulting recommendations which were given in the absence of complete information. The omissions were usually the result of insufficient research. When such omissions were my own fault, my firm absorbed the project overruns. However, I became quite savvy in these regards and made fewer and fewer less than optimal consulting recommendations.

This letter is simply to fill in the gap of a firm bid on a gate system which I had received from one of the three front-running contenders mentioned in Priestley’s letter. The proposal which was presented in the video you watched, was ignored by the Gate Committee and Keystone Builders, despite written attempts to present the optimal solution which cost was less than $34,000 including the $3,000 for electrical circuitry and $500 for poles for video surveillance cameras. The proposal included 4 cameras as opposed to the 2 mentioned in Priestley’s letter.

Having high credentials in information technology, including cybersecurity expertise, I contacted several firms regarding not only the technologies available, but also the most efficient ones. The proposal I personally developed and presented to the Gate Committee in their first meeting was the one I posted on the internet for all to review. The proposal was the result of several hours of research, the personal investment of over $1,000, and procurement of a video surveillance system and gate electronics systems and testing thereof. The only significant differences between my proposal and those of the Gate Committee were: a slide gate instead of swing gates and placement of the gate at a point on the entranceway that insured vehicular traffic control versus theirs installing gates up at the brick pillars. Granted, the gate up by Friedberg Church Road would be more aesthetically pleasing, but with a thousand feet of unrestricted access through the yards of homes on Rock House Road side. (And to be sure, villains do not have any compunctions about driving through yards or other breech-able obstacles to enable a clean get away.

Further, as per Priestley’s own statements in the past and at the Gate Committee’s first meeting, Keystone was committed to installing the gate pursuant to the advertising of the Village as a gated community. This offering helped sell the properties within and is a legal commitment on Keystone’s part to create a vehicular controlled access to the community. Further, from a legal perspective, the HOA has no authority to release Keystone from its legal obligation to the original homeowners who selected this community over others based on the promise of gated security. So, regardless of cost, Keystone is obligated legally to install a gate or other controlled access system. The proposal I have in hand from one of the leading vendors would cost less than the $33,000.

The $50 per month for cellular access to the gate access system would be less than 17 cents per home monthly and the $1,000 a year for maintenance would be less than 28 cents per home monthly! Windshield stickers priced $10 higher would cover all this. Further, I had personally committed to help create a Home Owners Security Team (HOST) and had volunteers already committed to be on it. This HOST group would have collectively been available round the clock for any gate failures and manual override to accommodate quick access in such an event. The 4 video cameras were personally tested to be affective to capture easily identifiable license plate numbers (at more than 50 feet in daylight or darkness) and placement that would prevent anyone from spray painting the cameras to render them useless! The surveillance system would have retained constant video for a rotating period of over two weeks! (Enough to give the authorities plenty of evidence to handily apprehend villains.

Here is the breakdown of the proposal I presented to the Gate Committee. (I did not give this breakdown to the committee as they seemed disinterested from the beginning and despite a couple of attempts to meet with one of the members (and the owners of Keystone) simply to pass along my details was met with absolute no response.):

$8,900.00   Roller Gate at the brick pavers’ split rail fencing

$15,247.50   Electronics to support RFID windshield sticker

$4,650.00   Video Surveillance (4 each - 8MP cameras)

$3,000.00   Priestley’s add-on for Electrical circuit (new gate location would be much less)

     $500.00   Priestley’s add-on for Camera poles

$32,297.50   Total cost

       $40.00     purchase of windshield stickers (not optional; one time; per vehicle).
        x 400   Approximately 400 vehicles to be taggeD
$16,000.00   (Total revenue)

- 5,150.00   (Keystone not legally required)

$10,850.00 (Excess to be deposited in a gate maintenance account)

This escrow account would be replenished by new autos tagged as new residents move in.
This escrow account would fund the cellular services required.
This escrow account would pay for the video surveillance system (4 - 8MP cameras tested).

This escrow account would in essence provide self-funding for the gate. The system would minimize inconvenience to all residents relative to opening the gate. The cost of the windshield stickers would be no greater than the pool access fobs we were all required to purchase in order to access the club house and pool.

   Credentials and commitment:

My education includes a major in computer science, a major in finance, a major in economics.
My experience includes my computer firm servicing over 600 companies a few of which are fortune 500 companies.
My commitment is to serve on the ‘HOST’ team and be available 24 hours a day, 366 days a year on-call for emergency calls for the operation of the gate and all related equipment as I have been on-call 24 x 7 x 366 for over 30 years for my computer firms’ clientele.

Respectfully submitted,

“Wheelchair BoB"

0 Comments

RFP (Request for Proposal) for Gate Sep 23, 2020

2/24/2021

0 Comments

Submitted to PMC's Gate Study Committee immediately following their first meeting
      prepared by: fvHOSTnews

Security Access Gate RFP (Request For Proposal) specifications

Slide Gate
   26’ x 4’ metal
   mounted 12 inches above grade
   1 foot per second minimum travel speed
   2 - Key pads for emergency gate access
       mounted 75+ feet from gate on each side (in and out bound)
   Access controls for both inbound and outbound traffic
   IR Gate Obstacle detection (no pavement wiring loops)
   Weather Resistant Outdoor Lockable Enclosure for all access control equipment

RFID Recognition of Windshield Stickers
   RFID readers with 30 plus foot sensing range
   RFID readers mounted 50+ feet away from gate on each side of gate
   RFID stickers in 26bit Weigand format
   RFID stickers in quantities of 500 and 1000 respectively (show up charge)

Internet/Cellular Gate Controller access
   limited to authorized residents by email address a & smart phone App

Video Surveillance:
   Minimum 2TB continuous recording
   Continuous recording
   Motion or Audio triggered recording
   UHD resolution recording 3172 x 1964 pixels
   UHD 8MP Video cameras (minimum of 4)
   License Plate recognition greater than 50 feet
   Night Vision with License Plate recognition greater than 50 feet

Gate Access Management
   Database of authorized vehicles / residents
   Database of authorized access by email address or cellular number
   Ability to enable or disable authorization
       by date range set by administrator
       until changed by administrator
   Ability to open gate from smart phone App

Gate Surveillance Management
   Manage Video configuration over IP
   Manage Cameras over IP
   Manage Video recording parameters (motion sensing, nigh vision, etc) over IP

Limitations:
   no monthly monitoring or usage fees for access controls
   maximum annual usage fees less than $150

Additional Quotations Required with bid:
   Cost of additional windshield RFID stickers
       per 100 count
       per 500 count
       per 1000 count

0 Comments

FVhostNEWS

fvHOSTnews first response to PMC's Gate Ballot

RFP (Request for Proposal) for Gate Sep 23, 2020

Author

Archives

Categories