Our boiler had been equiped with a dual fuel (oil/gas) burner when initailly installed, but only setup for #6 oil. We switched over to #2 oil and installed the gas piping as well a number of years ago. #2 does not require oil heaters and flow pumps running continuously to keep the oil liquid. The oil filters don't need to be cleaned daily and the boiler runs cleaner than with #6, so you don't need to clean the boiler tubes as often. We now run with a firm gas supply contract but keep the oil as backup, in the event of a gas equipment problem or if big price swings should take place. Only cost is oil tank inspections every 5 years and annual fire dept oil tank permit, which you already have.

1) Masonry Chimney liners are ok for oil to oil conversions
2) Converting to gas does require a chimney liner to be stainless steel or terra cotta.
3) INVEST in a UL & NYC DOB approved chimney liner assessment for <5k before spending 10's of thousands on a new liner.

10g stainless steel will run between 5 & 10k per floor.
***There is a UL Approved drop in liner that is 20g. This has 1/2 the life span of a10g stainless steel and is also 1/2 the price.

If the chimney is outside the building NO lining is required. How is chimney attached to building?

If you have been advised by Con Edison that gas is available, yet in order to bring it to your building significant infrastructure work is required at an insane cost call:

Ken Camilleri: Operations Manager @ ICF International

ICF has been contracted by Con Edison to look for "clustering" opportunities through NYC's Clean Heat Initiative. This is where the cost may seem prohibitive to convert one building, yet if there are a "cluster" of buildings in same area in same situation Con Edison is looking at it differently.
Call Ken @ 631-219-8288.

Hi,
My building converted from #6 in the late 70’s. We now use natural gas and we burn #2 only when it gets cold: maybe 2 or 3 times a year. During the subsequent years, our neighbors and our shareholders have benefitted with cleaner air, lower maintenance and peace of mind.

I read your post and I was dismayed that your building is thinking about doing ‘just the minimum’. Come on, convert to natural gas! Just think of the benefits: cleaner air; less traffic (no more nasty oil delivery trucks); and you will be ready for when the City next bans #2. Natural gas is locally produced (not imported) plus it is cheaper and likely to remain so.

I would read into you post that your building had a lot of deferred maintenance too (by doing ‘just the minimum’). If I am right, please take the opportunity to change the collective mindset and start doing the right thing.

I am not apologetic about the mocking tone of my post. My goal is to spur you to do the right thing.

Good luck (I perceive that you will need it)!

My building has a similar issue in that we have to change from #6 oil, but ConEd has a huge waitlist because of the high demand in converting to gas at the current time. We would love to convert to gas, but we can't wait 2 years until Con Ed is able to supply us. We are trying to get a dual burner so it can eventually burn both, but there is an issue with ConEd being so delayed. My building has no choice but to switch to another oil, probably #2, since we won't be able to get gas in the near term. Assuming many buildings are dealing with this issue...

We're in exactly the same situation. I agree with Steve in Inwood that switching to a dual-fuel system -- natural gas / #2 oil -- is ultimately the best solution. However, there are a number of practical issues to keep in mind.

* Burning natural gas requires relining your chimney. We've been quoted a cost of $1000 per foot (!) for the relining.

* Everyone knows that #2 oil is more expensive than #6, but it also has a lower heating value -- about 10% less in terms of BTUs per gallon. The slightly more efficient burn of #2 does not compensate for this difference. Our managing agent estimates an increase in heating oil costs of about 25% for a straight #6 to #2 conversion, which is another compelling reason for a dual-fuel system.

* The issues with Con Ed in switching over to gas are nontrivial, as the anonymous poster noted. There are both waiting time and cost issues.

* A full-blown conversion from #6 to dual-fuel is VERY expensive. Even with the savings from using natural gas, it will probably take you many years to recoup your investment.

Talk it over with your board, managing agent, and an external consultant if you feel that would be useful. Put a definite plan in place for the conversion, recognizing that a phased approach may be the most practical. For example, you could do a stopgap conversion from #6 to #4 (costs under $10,000) while putting a long-term assessment in place to pay for the switch to dual-fuel in three years or so. On the other hand, if you have the funds available, you could just go ahead and do the dual-fuel conversion immediately.

We hired an heating company to work with ConEd to switch from #4 oil to gas. If we go with Firm Ga (use of gas for a predetermined time), Con Ed will waive the cost of the street work of $42,000.00 and only charge $71,500.

We all know Oil is not dropping only increasing, so why keep Oil. Pay $71,500 Gas only or pay $113,500 to keep Gas and Oil. We also have Local law to expenses to consider. A touch decision.

Plus our Chimney is lined and ready for natural gas so no expense here.

It seems as though the agent is doing all the right things and, the board will no doubt benefit from his serving. The agent understands real estate, at least hopefully and should be able to guide and assist in many areas covered by board activities. Fair Housing laws are often at issue in screening and a well versed licensee should be able to spot an action that might cause the board problems in the future. I am always amazed at how few real estate professionals serve on boards. There must be transparency in their own transactions and recusal when called for. It sounds as though this is taking place.

It seems as though the agent is doing all the right things and, the board will no doubt benefit from his serving. The agent understands real estate, at least hopefully and should be able to guide and assist in many areas covered by board activities. Fair Housing laws are often at issue in screening and a well versed licensee should be able to spot an action that might cause the board problems in the future. I am always amazed at how few real estate professionals serve on boards. There must be transparency in their own transactions and recusal when called for. It sounds as though this is taking place.

We had one serving for one meeting and then I asked them to resign (we are friends). And he did. Our situation is made complex since we own the former Sponsor’s units and are renovating them for sale. This same Real Estate Agent also sells the units for us on a non-exclusive basis.

The Board’s concern is not just actual conflict of interest but perceived conflict of interest from the perspective of someone outside the Board looking in.

That being said, we very much value the input of the real estate agent. In fact, we have sold three units at record high prices in the last two years after we had renovated the units. The Real Estate agent still attends meetings (as any shareholder can) and is asked for input at appropriate moments however he is excluded from all private discussions (as any other non Board member) including all selling/approving proceedings.

Steve

It's fine for a real estate agent to serve on the board, but I agree with Steve that it's very important to avoid any "perceived conflict of interest." When we updated our By-Laws a few years ago, we included a new section on conflicts of interest on the advice of our attorney. Here's an excerpt:

"Real estate brokers or salespersons, who are members of the Board, shall refrain from engaging in selling apartments in the building or participating in such sales, either directly or indirectly, as listing broker, co-broker or otherwise as an economic participant in such sales. ... No member of the Board shall vote on any matter, or participate in the discussion of any matter, in which the member has a financial interest, other than a general interest as a shareholder or proprietary lessee of the Corporation."

Fine if they do not handle or represent any transactions/sales in the property.definitely not fine otherwise, its inherently a conflict of interest. Additionally, like any other profession there are all types. The danger is: are they objectively, truly knowledgeable and experienced industry experts with sound, arms-distance advice, or of the typical lot who confuse their opinions with actual facts? The danger is that you can consider them to be 'the resident expert' and fail to search for other opinions.
Unfortunately over many years of sales, I have found the majority of Agents to be lacking professionally. The one's who are on top of their game, experienced, knowledgeable and do their homework have been extremely helpful, sometimes invaluable advisers; too many the rest have been a problem. The pro's have been decidedly in very short supply. With Coops, it is a problem as we are all 'difficult' as they prefer the ease of private home and Condo sales. Many do not like the extra effort it takes to do a proper match with a Coop corporation. Not every prospect is appropriate for a Coop purchase, many do not seem to understand this, and are negatively reactive. The problem is that the shareholder who is trying to sell suffers and is upset. Our problem is not bending over backwards to meet the sellers needs for a fast sale, it is meeting the fiduciary and appropriate needs of the Coop and it's remaining shareholders.
I would also be concerned about the perception issue as other Agents/Agencies might assume that he has an inside track and be less willing to sell into the building thinking they are disadvantaged. Before too long you will be underrepresented, I wonder how long this agent will remain on the Board if a pre-condition was that they couldn't work the building while on the Board? That would be no different than any other Board member not being allowed to be a building vendor while serving or affiliated with the Board. Why are they on the Board, to help the Coop, or themselves? There is only one correct answer.

This reply is too cynical to be accurate. No doubt there are agents who do not do a good job, but many are well trained, professional and fair. I have been in this business for four decades and can attest to this. If an agent wants to serve on a board, the criteria must be well defined and, of course, must recuse themselves from anything that might benefit themself. As to all members not being permitted to serve as vendors for their own building, this is not true. In many cases as long as there is full disclosure, the director might be in a position to help the community based on their own business experience. Again, the key to success is transparency. It is up to the board to act fairly in screening purchasers in order to dispell the myth that the board member is favored. This can be done and a well trained knowledgable agent willing to do the job properly can be an exceptional asset. I am always reluctant to agree with any statement that includes "all, or every". We really need to make a decision based on an individual set of circumstances, not some experienced by another that might or might not mirror our own situation.

Not cynical at all, after 24+ years of review, interview and refinement of process we have found that the average agent is very average. However, the real issue here is perception. If you have to start creating caveats, recusal and conditions in order to try and make it appear 'correct' then you are ignoring the perception issue that you are in the middle of engineering. Transparency is part of it, but transparency loses out to perception every time. As I stated before, a well trained and knowledgeable Agent is a tremendous asset and assistance. We have found that there are many more who consider themselves to be than they actually are in practice. Selling Coops is a lot more than just listing and showing. There are potential problems with Agents that sell in the buildings they live in, so far we have run into shareholder resentment, pressure, door-stuffers (especially after a shareholder death), social issues, Agent resentment, non-resident agent assumptions and resentments, competing Agents who live in the same building. The Board can't rule out an Agent's right to work a building, that is interference in free trade etc. We just get hit with the problems 'in house' can create,e specially of the Agent is fluffing up in attempt to give the appearance of an 'unofficial exclusive right/privilege, even though none exist. There are some buildings that have given exclusive representation and listing rights to particular Agents or agencies as well. So, cynical? nope, realistic based on actual experiences over a couple of decades plus on Boards, yes.

If you prohibit a real estate licensee from serving, who else do you prohibit? Do you make a list of acceptable and unacceptable professions for board service? This is a big red flag for discrimination lawsuits. It seems much more workable to have guidelines on actions of the board, confidentiality and disclosure agreements that are signed by all members and not determine which professions are acceptable. Are you aware that "lawful occupation" is a covered class under fair housing and might be somehow the basis for legal action against a board. It might be far fetched and then again it might not.

You've missed the point completely. You don't prohibit people from serving, you prohibit people from doing business with the corporation while they are serving. An Agent representing shareholders is, for all intents and purposes doing business with the building thru the shareholders, and profits by the approval of their work efforts. That can be viewed as collusion, self-dealing, using the friendship and working relationships with other Board members for unfair advantage in the review process, etc. There is no arm's distance relationship, no barrier, no wall. Recusal is nonsense really, as it obviates the existence of the personal relationships, and won't withstand the inherent skepticism of any affected party or the court. They can serve on a committee maybe, but on the Board while actively doing business in the Building, and inherently giving the impression, by virtue of their being a Board member that a shareholder selling will do better by using them, is an unfair, unspoken advantage. This isn't brain surgery. Appearances are a form of reality, and it automatically colors the other Board members in the process whether you like to admit it or not. Perception is always it's own special reality. There's a whole world of apt. buildings out there to make a living from, you don't need to be on a Board and do business in the same building. You can advise and consult without that. Your advice might be invaluable, but being on the Board undermines the legitimacy of the service rendered. It leaves the Board and the Agent open to a level of questioning that is both unnecessary and destructive to the level of trust the work requires from everyone. No matter how small the Coop, there will always be a few who will question it. IT's the sad side of human nature, but too often isn't off the mark either. There are enough articles on self-dealing each year in Habitat to prove that otherwise. Regardless of the pride you have in your professionalism, integrity and character, it doesn't mean that someone, wrongly, will still question it anyway, just because of perception issues. Unless there aren't enough decent, qualified people to even fill the seats, one shouldn't undermine oneself that way. It diminishes the value of your contribution, and that would be a shame and a loss to the building.

You make a good argument, but I don't agree simply because there can be rules of recusal as well as sanctions for misuse of authority, etc. Being familiar with the difficulty in finding good board members, it seems unbusiness like to have knowledgable people on the board and not allow them to do business therin with full disclosure and recusal. We are just not going to agree on this matter and I do not want to discourage willing people from serving. Going back to something I mentioned earlier though, if your community needed to buy millions of dollars worth of widgets and a board member, being in the widget business, could save the community a great deal of money, would you refuse to do business with her also? How would you handle that situation and why would it be any different from a real estate agent?

Hope this isn't too late -- We had a terrific experience with Champion on a gas conversion. Very fair prices, terrific service. They were highly recommended to us.

Hope this isn't too late -- We had a terrific experience with Champion on a gas conversion. Very fair prices, terrific service. They were highly recommended to us.

Hope this isn't too late -- We had a terrific experience with Champion on a gas conversion. Very fair prices, terrific service. They were highly recommended to us.

We've used BlueWater Plumbing for a few years now for our backflow preventer annual inspections. They also do sprinkler inspections as well as installations for both. Haven't had any issues with them.

Hi...thank you so much. I contacted the company today.

Big Apple Fire Sprinkler.Been using them for about 4 years now. No complaints. You can look them up on the web. Their based in Queens NY
Owner name is AL, Tell Charles Harper sent you his way.

Good luck

The D&O policy probably covers you and your expenses. You should file the claim with the insurer.

Hi,

For our co-op, we are very careful not to de facto create another class of shares by allocating one way for one item and then another way for another item. I would strongly suggest that the STAR Credit be given back on a per share basis.

Good luck!

Do you also charge each unit based on shares for common electricity use, water, sewer, heat, hot water, etc? Usually that's taken into account by charging maintenance, which divides up the annual common costs based on shares. I would credit the shareholders the amounts provided by the town, not basing it on shares. I believe STAR is considered to be a tax reduction and is reportable on your tax return.

If you have not already I would suggest posting a notice in the laundry room and have management send a memo to shareholders (you can explain why). This message also needs to be conveyed to domestic help where English may be a barrier. (Friendly reminders go a long way)

MRM

in this bldg they are normally taken upstairs to offload the folded clothes, not a big deal as long as they bring them back down after uploading . The wash cycles are spread out enough that 30 minutes or less round trip is not going to matter. You also have to have the right amount of carts for the number of dryers.
soon there will be locating devices , like iphones and itouch ,smartphones use that you will be able to hide in the tubing.

Some stores attach long poles to the shopping carts so they won't fit through the doorways. Might work for laundry carts too. A 10' length of 1/2" steel electrical conduit (EMT) is probably under $5, plus a few clamps, might do the trick.