Did You Know: Con Edison, through the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program (MFEEP)is offering to cover 70% of the project cost, up to $20,000.00 for the installation of an Energy Management System (EMS).

Can you confirm the details of the program? This seems like a great oppertunity, but would like to understand the process and limitations. Whats your contact info?

Thanks

My 111 unit Co-op has applied to be in ConEd’s interruptible natural gas program for two years in a row, was accepted and yet when the bills come, the rate is not changed. This is without any explanation from ConEd and the PSC seems unable to assist. The interruptible natural gas program is a program whereby when it gets cold, we stop using natural gas and use #2 fuel oil instead (requires a dual fuel boiler). In turn for doing so, we should have received a slightly lower price for natural gas.

ConEd’s credibility issue are of its own making. I am frankly tired of wasting any more mental energy on any ideas coming from them. I simply do not think that they will uphold their portion of the program.

Steve,
Are you still purchasing your gas from Con Edison or have you found a marketer to do business with? Also, has your bill been reviewed by a 3rd party.

Call or email me: 631-796-9287 or eric.michaels@1energygroup.com

Before you contact me if it makes you more comfortable look up my company: Platinum Energy Group aka SNS Energy and/or call NYSERDA, National Grid, Con Edison, the Public Service Commission, and the DOB. Verify we are who I say we are then contact me. Your gas bill needs to be reviewed and rate verified. If the current rate is incorrect Con Edison, via the PSC is required by law to go back at least 36 months...and refund the overcharges. Seems like it wouldnt be possible, yet I am telling you that no utility wants to mess with the PSC.

Also, Con Ed. sponsors numerous energy efficiency programs, yet the programs are only as reliable as the actual implementation contractors. Their Small Business Direct Install Electric Program is fantastic because a company called WILLDAN is managing it, the same with their MFEEP program...terrific because AEA is managing it.

I talked enough...need to breath.

As of this afternoon NYSERDA has received less than 65 applications for their 6.5 million dollar Carbon Reduction Emissions Program. They are offering incentives up to $175,000.00 or 80% of the project cost for those multifamily buildings who currently use #6 heating fuel who want to convert to either natural gas or #2 heating fuel. The incentives are based on the reduction of emissions thus switching to gas will land you the greatest incentive...if you meet the additional requirements. It is a great program and one worth looking at.

A standard gas conversion project, NOT including any fees associated with bringing gas to the building usually range between 35,000 and 55,000. This includes the distribution of gas from point of entry in a building to the boiler & conversion from #6 burning to #2 heating oil burning capacity. NYSERDA's program will cover up to 80% of the project cost...including if necessary any fees associated with getting gas to the building.

Please email or call me if you have any questions. I can provide you with references and numbers at NYSERDA, Con Edison and National Grid where you can call to verify both my claims about the incentive program and verify our incredible track record across the board in all 5 NYC Boroughs.

Have a great weekend
Eric

Typically the bylaws only state the the board can strip a member of their officer position, not remove them from their seat entirely. The bylaws usually state that the majority of members at large can remove entirely.

If you're stating that the sponsor removed without majority vote of all shareholders, this may be contrary to the bylaws. If they hold a majority in the building's shares, you may want to run it by an attorney who specializes in coop condo law.

the sponsor holds the majority of the votes and during the elections he voted our board member out. out

How long has your building been a co-op? Is it brand-new? Or has the Sponsor held the majority of shares for years?

Agree w/Mark. Even if sponsor holds a majority, "voting out" a board member would have to take place at a properly noticed meeting open to all owners. If that's what happened--& unless your by-laws contain a specific provision reserving some board seats for election by non-sponsor members--it sounds like what the sponsor wants, the sponsor gets.

I'd be surprised if there is no such provision; sometimes they kick in to transfer control to owners after X years, regardless of remaining sponsor interests.

As for effective date, unless otherwise specified election results are effective immediately.

I would not think so. You set the hours, not him. If you need him more at around 4pm than at 12pm, then tell him.

You should have the Superintendent/Resident Manager write a warning letter to that doorman and another letter reminding the entire staff what their hours are. And if it happens again they will be suspended. Everyone should take their lunch break during their shift and not leave early.

I agree with Mike on this one. The purpose of the lunch break is to have something to eat/drink somewhere in between your shift.

MRM

Every building Superintendent/Resident Manager has the right to direct each staff member when their lunch period will be. What I would suggest is that your super, sit down with this doorperson and inform him/her that they are to take their lunch period at this time and not at the time they have been taking it at. I would document this conversation with this doorperson and insert it into their file. And if this person elects to ignore their direct supervisor and continues to take their lunch period at the end of their shift? now we are in a different game now it is insubordination. With insubordination, suspension then termination will not be diffcult. Also protect yourself, if you elect to go down this road, you might want to create and lunch schedule for all staff members.

After giving this more thought. If this doorman is taking his lunch break at the end of his shift and once the break is over he goes home right? I assume the porter? or the handyman? is covering the door during this time? what happens if the next scheduled doorman arrives late or even worse he is a no show/call or he calls in at the last minute! who is going to cover your door for the next 8 hours? the porter? the handyman? I am a reasonable person, our staff member many of them have families and with that things happen where certain situations present themselves where they must leave early for whatever reason. The key is to not allow it to get out of hand. But that is another story.

If the building is fully covered at all times by a staff member, and your other staff members all enjoy the same flexibility with one another when they need time off, or are sick... and other staff members aren't complaining... then what's the real problem?

A happy staff is a productive staff. If YOU had no flexibility in your job, would you be happy doing it?

Plus, it sounds to me as though the gentleman in question may have a second job. In this economy, it would be difficult for him to support his family if he lost that opportunity.

Please just TALK with the staff member if it's absolutely essential to make ANY change?

Happy Pesach to those of Jewish faith.

@ RLM- Everything you mentioned I practice with my staff, I am firm but fair. I am not sure if you ever managed a Luxury High Rise? one guy leaving early or not showing up can and will change the balance of service in the building.

I think people may be misreading the original question. The doorman does his full shift. He only opts not to take lunch until the last hour of his shift so he can leave early. It is obvious that either the porter or handyman filling in for that hour (instead of the earlier hour) worked an agreement with the doorman otherwise the doorman would have been stuck with his normal shift.

Sorry J, I still disagree with you. He is leaving the property before his shift officially ends. He should be taking a break, and not time in lieu off.

MRM.

check out NY State labor law. An 8-5 shift requires a break between 11 and 2 by law, in most cases. http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/faq.shtm

A doorman, or any employee for that matter, cannot choose the time of his lunch break.
The real problem is the supervisor allowing this to happen in the first place ( this = being a doorman taking his lunch break at the end of his 8 hours shift, ... barely legal ! ).

If that was allowed, not only the doorman is not in fault, but during his lunch break he IS free to do as his wishes, meaning he can stay or leave the building.

In a perfect world we would all be happy and live in peace. The same applies to the properties we manage. Managing a property is a team effort therefore there is a little bit of give and take. Have I allowed staff to go home a little early absolutely, would I allow someone to do this repeatedly, no. To allow someone to leave early on a continual basis shows favoritism. The rest of the staff will resent this. What happens when another staff member decides to cut out early and gets caught? To say someone needs to leave early for a second job? I say he/she knew what they were getting into in the first place and should have approached the super/RM in the first place rather than getting caught. I am sure all my fellow building mgrs will agree, bad bad idea.

Happy Easter to all my Christian friends.

MRM

You don't even indicate how the project will be funded, but I presume the building--not individual owners--is footing the bill. Generally, this should be classified as a cap improvement by the building's auditors, who should share with owners every year a total of all such improvements. Each owner--depending on his/her tax situation--is generally entitled to multiply the total building expense by their % ownership & add to their basis, reducing taxes on the eventual sale of their unit.

Auditors & Boards often don't bother to do a thorough job of calculating & reporting capital expenses; some don't do it at all. Summary dismissal/recall seems appropriate in such instance.

Additionally, NYSERDA & other programs might allow/award extra tax credits for major energy-saving initiatives such as you describe; it's worth investigating.

The condo unit owners were given their costs, not from the capital fund. The cost was based on the measurement of the windows to the unit, not shares. Being that it is an investment property (currently renting), it would be expense as opposed to addition to basis for residential owners.

We allow pets in our co-op, and do not penalize them with a surcharge. Dog owners are expected to clean up after their dogs if there is an accident. So there is no inconvenience to others, and if a shareholder had an aggressive dog, we would deal with it separately - we haven't had that experience. One person called a dog "vicious" because it didn't sit down in an elevator. That is a sign of fear in the person, not aggression in the dog. Some residents are afraid of dogs, so if that person is already in an elevator, the dog owner might wait for the next one or take the stairs so as not to cause an unnecessary problem.

Grace it is not about the pets but the owners being responsible for them in the first place. Most buildings have guidelines/house rule which I would hope unit owners would adhere too. I am not sure if you have policies in place regarding pets. It maybe something to look into drafting guidelines etc. Hope this helps.

MRM

It's actually the pump that needs replacement. There is no tank on the roof of the building.

Try contacting Steven Silver at American Pipe & Tank 718-736-6618 they do all types of tanks.

Steve,

Im impressed, good for you to make the swtich. We have also switched to metered billing and acheived substantial savings.

Your a large complex, we are a small building 57 aparts & 8stories -- our annual water bill is just under 50K... I think something is incorrect and have requested a DEP audit, hope it comes soon...

Has anyone decided to bill shareholders directly for water usuage?

My building (115 apartments) did it in 2008. Our bill then was between $50,000 and $60,000. Under metered billing, it's now about $30,000. We have a company monitor our usage, and it says our frontage bill would have been lots more than $50,000 by now.

Anything out there for buildings running #4 oil wanting to convert to gas or dual fuel?

Hard to comment without knowing the scale of the problem. How many units? Cost to repair known issues? [You HAVE secured an engineer's report, right?]

Knowing the ratio of legal costs to repair costs [they rarely scale at the same rate], & how these expenses will amortize per apartment, can be important for making sound decisions.

Separately--why did the AG break off pursuit after accepting your case?

The press is a hard thing to "manage"; sometimes it's like letting a genie out of its bottle. Here's a current case where owners were sharply divided on that strategy...& a splinter group proceeded without accord [too soon to know how this story ends]:

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/03/24/disgruntled_northside_piers_buyers_declare_war_on_toll_brothers.php

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2011/03/window_pains_at.php

Another key factor is whether the developer is out of the building, or still owns units [& is on your board].

More info, please...

Hi...so, if you can imagine the multiple structural issues in new construction...then those are the ones we have. These began shortly after the units began to sell..the sponsor, who was, I think, still on board for a bit of that, addressed some and then disappeared. The sponsor is no longer involved.

We did everything from engineers' reports to photographs...we provided the lawyer with every piece of proof we had...the AG worked with an internal engineer who, it was clear, had a bias toward the developer, and chose to identify a few issues. While we were pursuing our case, many other key structural elements began to decline...bad roof (also not insulated), flooding in basements because of the absence of proper plumbing and check valves (which we are installing now), broken pipes that have caused severe internal leaks, poor pointing on the brick that allows water to seep into the apartments, poorly installed wiring...the list goes on...

I think, though, the AG, once the sponsors did not respond to the subpoena, decided it was a lost cause. (We also thought it was against the law to not respond to the AG! Well, so much for justice!) We had public officials contact the AG's office.

And, personally, I think our high-end lawyer (who will remain nameless) took us for a bit of a ride.

So, now we are trying to catch up on our expenses while also tackling repairs. I feel like there is no oversight of developers...and if this is happening all over the city, why isn't there some activity around that ? I think I might have to organize a group.

Yes, the press issue is what you describe here...but we have a small complex...only 15 units...

Thx.

I understand your issue, we have one also. New construction, bad defective construction. Get the press involved, have the press call out the AG, and all agencies and developers, don't know if it will do much but getting a group together and pursuing that avenue on TV and other outlets will bring attention to others in the same position and hopefully embarrass all agencies including the AG for not taking a stand, including inspectors at the DOB.

It is a risk if anyone wants to sell a unit but perhaps if publized via a news story or in print the offending parties at least have respond. Also see if you can get NYC building inspectors involved - there may be violations the developers will be required to address. What is your management company doing - maybe consider a new company that has experience in this area. good luck