We have been told that 90% owner occupied is considered a good investment. The reasonsing behind this is that live-in owners will vote FOR improvements and care about the daily maintance of the Building. And since they are not making a profit, as are subletters, they care more about keeping the cost down..IE: Maintance...

You may want to consider substancially raising sublet fees, not only to discourage subletters,,, but to make money for the building.
VP

I live in a building where they don't even charge sublet fees nor do they know who's subletting or not. We have a building full of renters and it seems shareholders just do as they please when they want to sublet. Management doesn't check the board doesn't seem to care or check? What do you do in a situation like that. We have people in our building we have never seem before. That's quite upsetting when we could be collecting money and dissuade this from happening.

Yonkers -- See my >>Reply to Yonkers<< 4/23 post. If your Lease says SHs OR their children, etc., the children can live there alone. If it says SHs AND their children, the SHs must live there at the same time - but if SHs haven't lived there at the same time you've set a precedent, trying to prevent this in future will be near impossible, and courts most likely wouldn't rule in your favor on this.

Anonymous -- If your mgmt and board don't care or do anything about sublets, you have no sublet fees, and you have a lot of residents you don't know, you have to replace your board with SHs who will take remedial action. As long as you have a board that does nothing to correct these problems, nothing will change. Also, mgmt works for the board/coop and if mgmt is as negligent on this issue as your board is, a new board that will set things right should also change the mgmt company.

Read your Bylaws. Ours states that an apartment cannot be sold as an investment, and the owner cannot sublet for two years after the sale.
Check to see what the Bylaws say about changing bylaws. Also, the MangAgent works for YOU. You may want to remind him of this. Also, as an owner, you are allowed by law, to see the records of ownership. The MangAgent is required to make available to you, and you may check in person the stock-certificts. YOU are an OWNER, and have the right to know who you are in business with.
Most of all, start the Eamil trail. Get as many Emails as possible, and communicate with other shareholders. Keep it business-like and non-peraonal. As oppose to statements ask question? IE. Is it legal to.....?

They wont like to put things in writing, but Email is your most powerful tool. VP

op here, always a problem logging in.thanks for the response.
i requested a copy of the shareholders list, was told by the manging agent i was not authorized, i told him i dam well was, he said he had 20 years experience, yada yada, i had the shareholders list within a week. about a year later, another long term shareholder, called and asked for the shareholder list, the manging agent told her he she was not allowed to have it, she fought with him, since i had prepped her and she got it.
this shows the type of characters i am dealing with , every rock i turn over i find bs, self dealing or manipulation. i am very worried i am going to find a lot worse.
i think this past annual meeting 2009 they wanted to pass a unannounced change through. the managing agent put up flyers all over the building about giving your proxys to a baord member if you were unable to attend.
i know that the correct wording is give your proxys to a shareholder. this was the first time in over twenty years, that "boardmember" was used, all manipulation. The annual financial report for the june 2009 annual meeting arrived 3 days after the meeting. For over 20 years we always had the financial report well before the annual meeting. however the year before we had a big discussion over 27,000 zero drop error, that the board president still refuse to state when it was discovered. i have a good suspicion that he never informed the other board members or the treasurer
so i guess in 2009 he didn't the financials discussed.
To the other poster, read your proprietary lease, ch 14 . if it says the shareholder and son, grandparent, thst means the shareholder still has to live there. If it says "or" then they can live there without the shareholder. Most say "and"
out board president states that the grandparent and children can live ther without the shareholder, he makes up his own rules as he goes along. i have too much on my plate , and the few new resident shareholders , seem to be scared to do anything.
i think one tactic may be to inform the shareholders who are legally subletting and paying sublet fees, to give them the info, maybe they will decide why should they pay if 15 other people are not paying. The unsold share people just want lower prices so they wont care.
i did see a payment that i need to check into in the new mortgage we obtained from the bank that the owner of the management company is on the BOD, and the pres of the coop board is an investor. according to the laws , the president of the co-op board should not have voted. i am sure he did vote.

Yonkers &#150; Your coop has a lot of issues. Are you on the board? If so, talk to the coop attorney. If you had 80% resident SHs who weren&#146;t holders of unsold shares/investors, why do you have so many now who sublet and don&#146;t pay sublet fees, and why do some have &#147;permission&#148; to sublet and pay sublet fees?

This is one issue, but any SH who lives or lived in the coop isn't a holder of unsold shares/investor. If they sublet, they must pay sublet fees or any other fees SHs are subject to, and comply with all policies, rules and procedures SHs are subject to.

You can&#146;t resolve all your issues alone. Try to get a few resident SHs to work with you Non-resident SHs may not too supportive, especially regarding paying sublet fees, etc. Your &#147;team&#148; (you and the SHs you get to help you) should look for people to run for the board. It sounds like your board (the president?) is a major problem. Voting the board (or the president) out, or at least getting a board majority that will insist on seeing financials, vote down questionable things, etc. is probably a needed first step. Talk this up before your next annual meeting/election. You said you have the SH list. Have your team compose a well-written, clear, positive letter to all SHs telling them the coop&#146;s financial stability has been deteriorating and it&#146;s time for change to turn things around.

If you have tangible proof of board misdoings it's to your advantage, but don&#146;t say outright the board or president is &#147;shady&#148; or doing anything illegal if you can&#146;t prove it. Talk up the coop&#146;s problems, but don&#146;t just focus on them. If, as you said, you have repeated assessments, etc., your SHs know the coop has problems. Focus on solutions.

Some SHs don&#146;t get involved in the coop because of careers, family, etc. and don&#146;t have the time and energy for it. That&#146;s true in all buildings. But others think trying to change things won&#146;t do any good (because of the board/whatever). Convince them things can be changed to everyone's benefit.

It isn&#146;t easy to win over apathetic SHs, but it can be done. I admire you for wanting to pull your coop out of the hole it seems to be in. I don&#146;t know if my reply is of help, but go for it, and good luck!

To escape from Yonkers - we have practically the same problem in our coop which is an original - We have many relatives, children, parents occupying the apartments and the Owner left years ago - The problem is that a board member who controls the board keeps stating that rentals are illegal per corporate documents but that is not true, and that relatives are not renters - However rentals are allowed when approved by Board so we have the renters but no fees and worse no documents which would protect all the parties and also we are not allowed proxies - Some board members have challenged her but her people do not understand - however if pressed I wonder what the rent stabilization board would say about what is being charged because I believe some of these rentals are paying all the assessments and increases that the shareholders are charged and they are usually 8%+ to a year when we had 25%+ which would be against rent stabilization law, and the others who just rent, what are the Owners charging and also the NYC Dept of Finance who gives us the credits on our RE taxes for abatements to those apartments when the Owner is not in apartment,(afterall it is the apartment and the Owner who have qualified for those -does anyone have ideas as to whether this approach to the board would make a difference

NYARM.com

Contact Margie Russell at NYARM (212) 216-0654

If you have any type of water leak the building should take care of this prompltly as this is in their best interest from a financial point and a prevenative maintenance one. If you rent in a COOP, then you really need to speak to your landlord regarding your maintenance issues. If you were in a rental building where all of the apartments were rental then yes your maintenance issues should be addressed by the building staff in a timely manner.

I am a renter in a co-op bldg & my apt is not a sublease apt. Can the co-op board continue to keep going up on my rent until i can no longer aford to pay it?

Regarding the water leak, you are correct. My co-op board is dysfunctional. If you only knew the half.

adt: If you're a renter in a rent-stabilized apt - not a sublet tenant in a coop shareholder's apt - the coop has no right to collect rent, maintenance or whatever they elect to call it from you, let alone raise it.

The coop can only deal with a shareholder's coop financial matters. If you don't pay your rent, only the landlord who owns the apt you live in can go after you for it, and he's the only one you should pay it to. Similarly, if a sublet tenant doesn't pay rent to the shareholder of his apt, the coop can't go after that tenant. The coop can only collect maintenance from shareholders. If a shareholder can't pay his maintenance because his sublet tenant doesn't pay his rent, that's an issue the coop has to resolve with the shareholder.

Also, if you live in a rent-stablized apt, your landlord can't raise your rent whenver, or as much, as he wants to. Per NYC law, a landlord can only raise your rent 3$ with every 1-year lease or 6% with every 2-year lease.

adt. where is the landlord/owner of your apt? Why isn't he collecting your rent? Unless we don't have all the facts here, stop paying money to the coop and talk to your apt landlord.

Who are you renting from? If it's the sponsor -- where you would be under rent control or rent stabalization laws -- you should check with the DOB. Otherwise, if you are renting from an owner, you should have a sublet contract -- and they can charge anything they want.

Again, whomever owns the apartment is responsible for dealing with the water leak. Either having it repaired or notifying the Coop board.

I found out, because my bldg is under nyc hdfc, which is a housing program that is owned & operated by some of the tenants that are shareholders they can do what they want. A certain percentage of the apts have to be rented & another percentage are coop. The board can go up any amount they want on the renters & also charge what they want for the rentals. I thank you all for your responses.

Is the Coop your Landlord? If not, you have to take up your issues directly with the owner of your apartment.

If you rent from an owner -- its the owner who is passing the increses onto you -- and it is leagal for a Coop to have Sublet fees -- mostly to discourage owners from trying to run rental businesses in a coop.

If you have leaks etc, again its the responsiblity of the owner of the apartment. The OWNER has to contact the Coop or if the leaks etc, are not covered in the coop agreement, the owner is responsible for the repairs.

The Coop has the right to charge sublet fees. The idea of a Coop is NOT to live in a rental building, and in most coops, sublets are not allowed.
VP

Hello! My Co-op owns about 10 rental units. We obtained them after the Sponsor went bankrupt and we sell them when the renters move out. Rent goes up every year based on what the rent control board sets. I don't recognize your initials adt and so I hope you are not in my complex however if you have a leak, report it to the super. In resident/super relations and if you are not already doing this, I have found that a small tip either at the Holidays or on a small per service basis often helps (the same with other trade-people). If they do not respond within a reasonable amount of time, call the Managing Agent and/or a Board Member. Then if no response, call 311. If you live in 31 Nagle, 37 Nagle or 14 Bogardus Place, shoot me an e-mail and I will see to it that you get your leak fixed.

Good-luck!

wow
I see many violations and unlawful practices here. May I ask how many units the sponsor owns ( % ) ? How many seats does the sponsor control on the board ?

The building went co-op 1983
There are 57 apartments 29 are still owned by the sponsor and 1 is allotted to the super.
There are a total of 5 board seats.
Sponsor has 60% of voting stock, and has two members on the board, -- two are guaranteed by the prop lease so long as the sponsor owns 25% or more of stock and guaranteed at least one board seat so long as the sponsor holds 1 or more shares in the cooperative.

Our building uses cumulative voting, giving the sponsor a looming influence over the board.
I was voted in by the people last year. The reason for my posting is that I have approached several people about joining in an attempt to make further change, and they agreed that unless the board operations become more transparent and they will be able to participate in a meaningful way, they don&#146;t want to join, hence my original posting.
Under my insistence we have some major accomplishments &#150; we hired an engineer to conduct a building survey, improved the financial data provided in the financial reports, even they come so late.
There is much to do, at least If I can have a level of comfort that the board will proceed in good faith and be in compliance of the law, or governing documents, or at least some sense that we are following a process used by other boards, it would make a world of difference.

Thanks again, I appreciate any thoughts or feedback.

Cumulative voting gives you "the minority" an advantage actually.

You must inform the shareholders about the situation and rally them around a group willing to take over the board. With three out of five members, a quorum is reached. By the way, no decision can be made by a board without a quorum or majority. Meaning you can and should hire a new independent management company, a new attorney and a new accountant.

The sponsor shouldn't be in control of the building after all those years. By law, although a little unclear, a sponsor must sell his apartments at a regular pace.

But most importantly, you must take control of the finances of the building. You can't have a sponsor manage your building. There's a big potential for fraud and conflict of interest.

If things get ugly with the sponsor, you could also hire an attorney to represent you and protect your interests.

David G &#150; If 29 of your 57 apts are still sponsor-owned, half your residents have no say in any coop matters because the sponsor still has the shares for their apts. You said your Prop Lease gives him 2 board seats as long as he owns 25% of the shares and 1 board seat as long as he owns 1 apt. Change will be very difficult if he still has so much control &#150; and manages the bldg too.

The first change I suggest is trying to amend the Prop Lease to change those terms. Check your Prop Lease and by-laws, or have an attorney do it. Don&#146;t take the sponsor&#146;s word for what they state. A shareholder vote is usually required to amend a Prop Lease, but some allow it with a board majority vote. If 3 of your 5 board members can vote to do this (2 obviously won&#146;t if the sponsor has those slots), you could get out from under the sponsor&#146;s thumb. Then it would be easier to make a lot of other changes. I think it&#146;s worth looking into this possibility.

You can arrange to have meeting done via a conference call. You can use SKYPE for the call and do it for free.
Also, all of your documents can be scanned into your computer and distributed to the full board.
Again it's relatively inexpensive and easy to learn.
You can feel free to get free advise from me regarding the above.
Barry

The Managing company works for you -- the Board! Your are paying them! If they cannot meet with you at the building -- (and it sounds like you have many other reasons) you should fire them. You will be overwhelmed with M/C who want to take their place.

Years ago, when we realized that the Board was not going to fire an unpopular M/C -- we wrote the S/H and this forced the board members who were resisting, to come around. Tell the S/H in a business-like manner how the Bylaws are being ignored, and the building is being run.

EmailPower: Collect S/H Emails, and start communicating directly with the Shareholders. Start a revolution!

Oh Boy, and I thought my building was the only one with underhanded practices. I agree, rally the s/h, email them, memo's if needed under their door. In my building many s/h are apathetic because of all the factions involved. Our board is divided, as stated cummulative voting gives a majority to one group. S/H must speak up and rally with you guys, especially the people on the board trying to do the right thing. It's difficult, we have board members that circumvent the By-Laws, we are still fighting like mad, it's a tough and frustrating situation. Some people join a board because they want control i.e., power, some for their own agenda, the board members who really care and work for all usually have the most difficult time. But again, Rally the S/H, let them know everything that board members do, how they vote on issues and how you vote on issues that will affect them and their pockets, etc. Managing agents, if not good, can also be a source of problems, we have that issue also. Good Luck.

It is my opinion (and don't we all have one) that the only way your Coop/Condo etc can be a success is if all are on board for the betterment of the property and do not have their own agenda. (Board,agent,super,staff etc working together)
Amen, Bob

You are correct, that's the only way to make it work it just doesn't happen that way. People, including Management, have their own agenda most of the time.

Start the Email trail,,, the Sponsor, ManCo and lawyers really take notice when things are in writing. Keep it business-like, nothing persoal and simple, dont accuse anyone of anything. Ask questions in your Emails: IE: Isnt it against the ByLaws to .......? Is ... a good thing for the S/H and fiscally sound?

AND CC everybody..Everybody. People trying to play-sneaky, dont like transparacy.

ALSO, we finally ralled the S/H when we pointed out that its thier Main that could go up, that its THEIR investment...This will take time, but once they see the trend, you will begin to see results.
VP

We were in the same boat
What we did was we hired an independent management company We hired Impact Real Estate Management One of the owners is an attorney. We legally we able to gain control from the sponser.

We have a similar situation and our policy is simple: Employees of the corporation must dedicate their "company time" to the building exclusively. No exceptions.

Our newsletter is delivered by email only or can be picked up at the community bulletin board.

I suggest you stay away from endorsing those newsletter that advertise other businesses. I would even go as far as making sure that the shareholders understand that the corporation and the board of directors DO NOT ENDORSE any company advertised on the newsletter or the community bulletin board.

SaL is absolutely correct and your reasons for hesitating are also correct. You should not use corporate personnel to distribute any form of solicitation or communication that is not corporate business coming directly from the board or managing agent. We take it one step further with a policy in our house rules prohibiting solicitation of any kind in our common areas or door-to-door. Bottom line...you should not grant ANY of those requests, no exceptions.

We were confronted with the same problem.

And advised by our M/A company -- that if we allow one, we have to allow all. Therefore, we incerted in the house rules, that the Coop Board will not approve of, and the staff will not assist in the distribution of pamplants/advertisments/or announcments. Also, these materials cannot be left in the lobby.
We do have a Board in the Laundry room, on which S/H can post announcments etc....without restriction.

We have a prively published S/H Newsletter, which has noting to do with the Board and is sent out by Email.

We notified all Shareholders of this new House Rule, and this resolved the problem.

VP

We only distribute to shareholders on co-op letterhead that information which is pertinent to the operation of the building, e.g.: Board actions, financials, health, security, operational notices, water shut down, pool operations, health club membership, cable TV bulk rate changes and safety. Some letters are only sent after counsel reviews the contents. Note there may be a semantic challenge but bear with me.

All our letters are just that, letters to shareholders in the strictest sense. There is no chatty "news". There's no advertising. There's no real; estate news. There's no news of shops opening or closing in the neighborhood.

Bottom line, there are no "newsy" newsletters. There are no contributing articles by anyone. There are no letters to the board.

There is absolutely no distribution of election material. Incumbents and candidates must employ the USPS. Nothing may be posted anywhere, nothing may be distributed under any door.

But do note that all distribution of the shareholder information letters is via maintenance staff under the door to save postage.

Residents may not distribute anything under the door at any time. Residents may not place a letter even to one other resident under any door

The Board, per the by-laws, sends the annual meeting and election of board members notice via US mail. This is the only "notice" via USPS. The required 1099s for taxes and any interest expense (we have no underlying mortgage anymore) are also sent via USPS.

Local merchants are banned from in-house delivery if they distribute materials onto any resident's door or the mail room. If a merchant is banned, the resident must come down to the doorman to pick up food and other deliveries. Word gets around and we have nil distribution of flyers anywhere.

Very important consideration: by not making any exceptions of any type at any time, our actions are entirely defensible. There is no precedence of exceptions for anyone to seek an exception. This sure eliminates much rhetoric and debate.

http://www.condolawnetwork.com/twin_rivers_NJ_Supreme_Court_decision_reasonable_restriction_individual_rights_affirmed_condolawnetwork.html

And you can search the Internet for even more details.

Don't know if this is just coincidence, but there's an article about this here that just went up, judging by the date, on Friday:

http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_content/web_exclusives/new_fire_safety_paint_code

In addition to this, there is the new EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule takes effect on April 22, 2010...The Renovation Rule requires that the entity performing the work must be an EPA certified firm.

You you have a little over 2 months to comply with the FDNY ruling

http://rsanyc.org/articles/newepaleadregs.html

I have just mandated that all superintendants, painters and contractors that do work for us submit their proof of EPA certification before being permitted to work again in the buildings.

REAPCO: 877-799-6810
and NY Restoration are 2 EPA Certified companies painting our halls, lobbies and standpipes right now... both excellent.

Best
~AR

Can anyone recommend a certified firm to paint our condo's standpipes in Bkyn?

You also have to have a NYC Buildings Certification of Compliance form filled out and kept on the premises.

Never do not give them nothing, they are supposed to advise you and help you threw the woods. Thats why yu pay them for their management.

Zero dollars to the mgmt agent.

Glad to hear your MA is earning its fee!

Show your appreciation by renewing the contract.

Any other line is blurry.

The managing agent can negotiate a good deal for you, or a better one, depending on how the relationship with the building is.
Do you go out to eat and not tip the waiter if the service was good? Or if they went the extra mole and performed tasks not in the regular line of duty? God no, they may spit in your food next time!
Well, contract negotiation is not in the typical management contract and the manager did do work he was not paid to do, and if he/she negotiated a favorable contract, then, yes, I believe a gratuity is in order.
That small gratuity can save you hundreds of times that in the future when other oportunites are now brought your way...or not!

Best
~AR

As a managing agent myself, I would refuse this offer. My relationship with a client is based on trust and even if the client feels we deserve it, it is the building's money. I would rather go out to lunch, dinner or a drink than accept a gratuity.

I recently negotiated a deal with a rooftop vendor who was going to pay us a months commission on a new lease beginning at 1600 per month with 5% escalations every 3 years...

After going back and forth with them for 2 months, in addition to doing additional investigative work to find out how badly they needed my specific location, I negotiated a starting rent of 2500, two months commission, and 4% escalation every year.

At this, the board decided to offer me the additional month that I negotiated... I graciously accepted.

Now, I always pride myself on my integrity and honor and I see no wrong with accepting this. It maintained the desire to go over and above on a continuous basis and cost the building nothing.

The familiar entitlement thinking I see on this tread is the same mentality that withholds paying a super, handyman or some other employee extra money for doing something well... next time, he will not go out of the way for you... It's as much the money as it is the knowing that what your doing is appreciated and not expected; and while a drink or dinner is nice, at the end of the day, it does not pay the bills.

You will always lose good assets (in any business) that way. Unless that is your motive, or your MA is a real pri@K, or you are overpaying to begin with, I never see any reason to treat any worker unfairly.

~AR

AR

Congratulations on an outstanding job for your client - really, really well done.

And I have no quarrel with bonuses; I believe in them firmly, myself.

Here's the blurry line I mentioned in my previous post, and since it's been misconstrued, let me clarify:

No bonus for the particular project savings. None.
A bonus, instead, at the end of the year, for a job exceedingly well done/contract more than fulfilled... presuming the quality of the entire year was of the same caliber (and in your case, I have no doubt it is).

In this way, there's absolutely no question about kickbacks tied to particular vendors/services - which is where the problem began so many years ago, and mushroomed into ruined reputations and lives.

Absolutely agree with RLM. You can't serve two masters. If there's the possibility of the MA promoting one vendor over another because one will give him/her a bigger commission, then that's a conflict of interest.

Yes, offering bonuses at the end of the year for a job well done is a typical goodwill gesture for retaining good employees.

But a project-by-project commission just invites the same sort of kickback corruption that HISTORY shows will ALWAYS creep in -- maybe not with this or that particular managing agent, but endemic to the industry.

And let's face it, particularly in this economy, no employee is indispensable. All of us have to go the extra mile to keep our jobs. What makes an MA any different from the rest of us? Talk about an entitlement mindset. If this MA doesn't feel like negotiating the best deal for his client without the incentive of a commission, then someone else young and hungry wiil.

My reason for the post is that in this particular case, there is no bidding, no alternate vendors, no room for preferential treatment to a particular vendor, etc...

RLM.. Notwithstanding my previous postings, I understand and do agree with your principle 110%...

Very well put ......"You can't serve two masters. If there's the possibility of the MA promoting one vendor over another because one will give him/her a bigger commission, then that's a conflict of interest...."

~AR

AR, the original poster said, "The board president wants to give HALF the money to the managing company." This is hardly a "small gratuity," to use your phrase. I don't know about you, but I've never given a waiter a 50% tip in my life. (Or maybe that should be a 100% tip, which would give the waiter and the restaurant the same amount of money.)

More importantly, it's the building's resources that Verizon is paying for. The original poster is asking about an equitable division of the payment for those resources. Are you seriously claiming that it's fair to give half the payment to a person who has no ownership interest in those resources, while all the actual owners COMBINED receive the same amount? Just imagine the uproar if a board member tried to pull such a stunt: "I negotiated the contract, so I get half the money while the rest of the shareholders get the other half."

On a more general note, waiters and cab drivers derive a significant portion of their income from tips, and everyone knows this. Tipping on a per-transaction basis is quite reasonable: the interaction is complete at the end of the transaction and you may never see the person again. With regular employees, however, an annual bonus makes a lot more sense to me.

Its not any percent of the income.
The ONLY monies we are talking about are not the rent or lease payments (that would be wrong), but monies that are specified and allocated solely for the commission I am speaking about.. the checks come specifically labeled "Signing Bonus" ... so to split this with the person who got it in the first place, where is the issue?

~AR

The original poster said, "Verizon gives a co-op building a $$ bonus for allowing access to install FIOS in the building." Assuming this is correct, it's a one-time payment made to the building as part a business arrangement. Why would *any* negotiator expect to receive a whopping 50% of this payment? That's not a "gratuity" by any stretch of the imagination. To reiterate: if a board member had negotiated the contract and claimed personal entitlement to half the money, there would be a justifiable uproar.

Another example: Our attorney came up with an excellent financial argument that helped us get more money when we sold our air rights. This financial issue went beyond the legal advice and consultation for which he was being paid. So by your reasoning, we should have tipped our lawyer $2,000,000 when we sold our air rights for $4,000,000. What is wrong with this picture?

I am certain your lawyer charged you his $250-$400 per hour for the consultation, so no additional remuneration would be expected.
The way you are seeing it and describing it, I would agree with your view ... however,
"Verizon gives a co-op building a $$ bonus for allowing access to install FIOS in the building."
Although that's what was written in the original post, the money is not for allowing access, nor is it standard, it is a signing bonus and labeled as such... therefore, I see it differently than you&#133;
Tomato or TOMATO... everyone is entitled to a diverse opinions, that's why this board exists......

Best
~AR

Half the money seems extremely high for a FIOS project. However, it all depends on the hours of involvement that the manager dedicated to this that you might think the person may be meritorious of some bonus, even a larger oner at the end of the year for his/her efforts if you were to offer one.

If you read the contract that you have with the management company, it may stipulate that the manager may have to be compensated for overseeing a capital improvement project. FIOS is a project whose installation may run into thousands for a property. In some cases, there is special drilling in basements, ensuring that all the holes are completely patched and the wire mold is appropriately placed and covered. If the installation work is done smoothly and well, it may be thanks to the coordination of the manager and the superintendent.

Many boards feel that these improvement projects do not take time to oversee, but they may consume time. Otherwise, Board members should be highly involved to ensure that the installation met your standards and to avoid further compensation to the manager.
AdC

this manging company leaves potholes in ped walk area in the garage, even after they have been reported to them by shareholders90 days latter and the trip and fall arwe still there.
simple preco patch/portland cement would fix it is hours

the same management company sent out a bulletin around the dec Holidays, stating it was customary to tip the ma, and the percentage that the board should tip him es also listed

You seem to have reasons not consider it necessary. I am answering a posting that could be very real and where performance of management is not in question or controversial. So, the answer is given for those who question whether management should get a tip for the efforts.

AdC

Splitting money with the management company or managing agent is for the birds! "For letting Verizon install Fios in the building" What if the Superintendent/Resident Manager were to "Get a commission every-time a contractor works in the building", you would be looking to can his ass and throw him out the door!

No one should be getting any bonus or kick backs because it is wrong!

Half the money seems extremely high for a FIOS project. However, it all depends on the hours of involvement that the manager dedicated to this that you might think the person may be meritorious of some bonus, even a larger oner at the end of the year for his/her efforts if you were to offer one.

If you read the contract that you have with the management company, it may stipulate that the manager may have to be compensated for overseeing a capital improvement project. FIOS is a project whose installation may run into thousands for a property. In some cases, there is drilling in basements and you wish to ensure that all the holes are completely patched with fire-rated caulking; also, you wish to have wire mold appropriately placed and covered; finally, there is liability in the event the workers are not careful in laying the cables on the floor without regard for residents. If the installation work is done smoothly and well, it may be thanks to the coordination of the manager and the superintendent.

Many boards feel that these improvement projects do not take time to oversee, but they may consume time. Otherwise, Board members should be highly involved to ensure that the installation met your standards and to avoid further compensation to the manager.
AdC

As a Managing Agent I feel this idea goes against the Code of Ethics as published by NYARM. The MA works for the building and as such should see that any money earned for the Coop/Condo should go to the coop/condo.