Why don't you suggest to the board that the tree be removed? You can write an email stating the negatives of having the tree there. If the board believes that the tree should not be removed, they should provide you with a rationale for that decision (e.g., it might be too expensive as far as the board is concerned). If you do not like their decision, you can always run for the board. Owner dissatisfaction with the way the board runs the property is often the reason people join their building's board.

This is so wrong on so many levels. Of course, the co-op would be liable and exposed to all kinds of legal trouble if something bad were to happen as a result on unlicensed and unqualified Board members fiddling with potentially dangerous equipment.

The obvious question for you to ask it why are they doing this?

The answer is always "follow the money." Is the Board trying to save money by turning down the heat? Why would the Board be fiddling with the wiring? Is there something wrong with the wiring?

Or are they doing something with the wiring to save money or perhaps the wiring is not up to code and the Board's trying to avoid issues with that problem. If so, get an electrician in there to find out.

You should be asking the Board directly about this situation if you have absolute proof that what you'e claiming is true. If it's true, then you should contact building management and the co-op's attorney to put them on notice how dangerous this situation is for all shareholders.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Marty - I fully agree with every point you made, and thought of one more that may be the most insidious of all - whoever is doing the fiddling is trying to illegally tap off the electrical and boiler lines to obtain the service for free. Like giving a neighbor your streaming passwords so they can use the service without paying.

I seem to remember a building blowing up in Manhattan or the Bronx because the super was trying to tap into the gas line for whatever reason. Take as many photos as you can of the area in question to document the work being done and any damage the work causes.

Thank you both for your thoughts.

Even if they’re licensed when they worked they’re not on the board for that and we have plenty of money for a contractor or Super to handle any and/or repairs. That’s why we pay a lot of maintenance. I don’t pay all that maintenance for Mickey Mouse work besides that it’s beyond dangerous should something go wrong.

And yes you’re correct about the building in NYC and those involved were charged.

Pooh - Steven's point of illegally tapping for electricity and gas is an excellent one.

A question for you...Are gas and electric included in your maintenance? If not, then Steven's theory becomes much more plausible.

If gas and electric ARE included in the maintenance, then the motives for doing this become much more murky. Why would they be doing this?

No gas and electric is not included.

I will find out why this is being done.

Pooh - Please keep us posted on this very important issue. Thanks.

Our 36 unit building is getting roof/facade work done of around $700K.

What’s a reasonable % fee for both the architect and the management company for the project? I’d like to have a ballpark of what’s normal so I can ensure we’re being dealt with fairly. Are there any considerations the board should be aware of going into this project. None of us have experience with this. Thank you.

OMG! 700K is not the last of the bill. We are doing the same thing now, and it's like we are a cash cow for the engineer, and construction company. Every time we get inspected, there is something else they fine, which means a Change of order invoice, and more money. We have an old bldg, and it has been neglected for YEARS! I am not really surprised it need a lot of work. We have 187 units, so our cost are over 1 million. We are a coop, and the cost fall on the SH's. It's rough. If we ever get finished with this project. I hope we won't have to go thru this my stay here. Sorry I wasn't much help, But I feel your pain!

Based on your description of the meeting and the board in general, the best advice is to hire an attorney. If you take *any* action on your own you'll only sink deeper into the quicksand.

If things are as bad as you portray them, I'm sure other shareholders are similarly aware. Talk to them. See who is willing to contribute to hiring an attorney.

Put together a full slate of candidates for the next S/H meeting. The more like-minded people who run the better the chances of getting one or two on the board.

Check your bylaws but I believe you're entitled to receive a full list of shareholders and their mailing addresses. Ask for it. Even if you don't use it, it will throw a scare into the incumbent board.

Form a private group for your coop on facebook. Make it as tightly closed as you can with tight verification. This is where the list of S/H from the M/A comes in. You are *not* required to give membership to anyone who asks, no matter how many free speech demands are made.

Do a one-page flyer and slip a copy under each apartment's door letting S/H's know about your Facebook group.

Finally, and this is a longshot, contact the NY Attorney General's office. They are so overworked that you may not hear back for months, but at least get on their radar.

I feel your best, albeit most expensive option is to discuss the situation with an attorney to see if you have any basis for litigation. Find one who specializes and co-op and real estate law, and not the least expensive one. You get what you pay for, just like the suggestions I'm giving you now.

Good luck!

I believe you can call for a special meeting to remove members of the board. You need to check your bi laws and make sure you have 2/3 of a quorum. In my bi laws it states board members may be removed with or without cause.

Good luck

d made an excellent suggestion, but there may be special rules that need to be followed in order to hold the special meeting. There should be a section in your by-laws about holding a special meeting. Make sure you follow the instructions to the letter or else it won't be legal!

My co-op's Special Meeting section said...

"It shall be the duty of the President to call a special meeting of the Corporation as directed by resolution of the Board of Directors or upon a petition signed by 20% of the members having been presented to the Secretary. The notice of any special meeting shall state the time and place of such meting and the purpose thereof. No business shall be transacted at a special meeting except as stated in the notice."

The Board should not have to require a "working smoke alarm" The tenant should want and need one. I believe it is a requirement from the city to have a working smoke alarm. That's a no brainer. every unit should have a smoke alarm. I may be wrong, but I also believe that it may be a violation that the unit does not have a working smoke alarm. It can save a or many lives.

Thanks for your comment, but my question actually referred to the OWNER of the apartment, not their tenants. For example, we have one owner who is routinely delinquent in their payments, and who is hard to communicate with as they have an email that does not always work. I would like to add a rule that all OWNERS must have a working smoke alarm. My question was: Is that an appropriate rule to have?

I believe this answers your question:

https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/smoke-carbon-monoxide-detectors.page

It supersedes all proprietary leases and house rules that do not conform to its requirements.

I hope this helps,
--- Steve

I used to abide by the “in the walls” adage, but it may not be true. It depends on the language in your Occupancy Agreement (aka Proprietary Lease).

Before you get into arguments and/or pay any money, review your OA. You might not be responsible.

In my OA, it said the MEMBER (shareholder) is responsible for:

Replacement of electric refrigerator
Decoration and painting
Replacement of gas range/oven
Replacement of flooring linoleum
Replacement of all appliances and fixtures
Repair any and all damages to the apartment or co-op premises due to negligence, carelessness, or misuse by the shareholder or any occupants of the apartment.

It specifically states that the Corporation (the co-op) will for all other repairs besides the ones mentioned above.

In my co-op, the s/h would not be responsible for the cost of the faucet. It would be the co-op’s responsibility.

Check out the OA and keep your fingers crossed.

Good luck.

Ok that is really high. What is his hourly rate? It’s about $400.00? Your co-op needs a new plumber. Is this in NYC?

Thank you, Marty. Good idea, I will definitely read through the Proprietary Lease. But I know how the building manager is viewing this. One thing, however: I believe that faucets fall under "Replacement of all appliances and fixtures." I think a faucet is a fixture.
To be continued...

Yes, the coop is in Brooklyn. Unfortunately, the plumbing company is upstate. Thank you for your opinion.

A faucet getting clogged by debris from water shut-off is very common. It is a simple job and it is for the Superintendent to repair. If they elected to send a plumber for an out-of-the-wall repair like this then that was their mistake. Unless you asked for the plumber.... did you ask?
What is the full story and what is up with your super?
We have a corrupt one. It is terrible.
Who is your managing agent? They sound terrible.
We have Halstead. Not good.

God coops are the worst. And most managing agents.
It sounds like you have a misinformed board and a bad managing agent.
Firstly, I believe they legally have to give notice before turning off water.
Secondly, they should have sent the Super to restore the flow of water.
You do not say if your trap was clogged? Was it clogged?
But a trap below the sink doesn't have to do with the flow of water?
Thirdly, any well run coop should have alerted you you might be sent a bill before you say yes to the work.. And given the option to hire your own plumber. You did not retain these plumbers., the coop did.
No, it is not your bill to pay. Send a certified letter to mng agent and board president stating you are not responsible.

This issue is two folds: 1) Is the coop responsible if the sediments in the pipes reaches the faucets of the shareholders? Sediment in pipes is a normal occurrence so I would say that is not the Coop responsibility even if the sediment moved around because of a repair. 2) Is the coop responsible for the plumber's bill? From your description it sounds like you asked for a plumber and a plumber was sent to your unit. The Super could have handled this better but if you ask for a plumber and the job is not a coop issue, the bill is on you. About the bill amount: Unfortunately Coops can only hire vendors who carry adequate (very high coverage) insurance policies and the cost is passed back to the client. $400 for a house call is average in NYC these days. Next time ask the super to do the work and hand him a $20 (Yes, he should be paid because when he does something that is the shareholder's responsibility, the super is working for you, not the Coop.).

1) Calculate the *total* dollar amount of the full abatement. Include all abatement components such as R/E tax, STAR credit, and Veterans Credit into this single dollar amount.

2) Divide the total abatement dollar amount by the total number of co-op shares.

3) Board approves a one-time shareholder assessment in the amount of the value calculated in step #2, per share.

No shareholder will receive the exact amount from the abatement that they are being assessed per share. Some will have a net gain and others a net loss.

This is due to the incomparable way the abatements and assessments are calculated. DOF abatements use alchemy and voodoo chants to decide how much each unit (apartment) will receive as an abatement.

On the other hand, the assessment the board authorizes is on a strictly per-share basis. By corporate law, every share in a co-op must be treated equally. Thus each share owned by all the units must be assessed the same amount, to the penny.

For example, lets take Unit 7D which owns 100 shares. The DOF, without any further explanation, sends the managing agent a spreadsheet showing Unit 7D is to receive an abatement total of $900.

After doing the Total-Abatement/Total-Share calculation, the managing agent reports to the board that to break even, an assessment of $10 per share. Doing the calculation:

$10.00 per-share * 100 shares = $1,000 total assessment

we find that Unit 7D will have a net loss of $100 ($1,000 - $900). The owner of Unit 7D's shares will be hopping mad, but there is nothing the board can do. The differential is due to the ways the abatement and the assessment are required to be calculated.

Good luck!

Thank you Steven for this detailed answer. Having served on many BODs over the years, I’m very aware of how the co-op tax assessment can be treated. Some years it was all returned; others we had a special assessment per share. The current BOD is preparing next year’s budget and obviously can’t decide now what to do with the abatement next year. The new Board will decide that.

My question is if the abatement is shown as an expense on an upcoming budget, should it also not be shown as income, balancing each other out.
Thank you.

Hi marym - Thanks for letting me know about your board experience. I tend to assume most members have little board experience.

I checked our most recent audited financials for the answer to your question. Our accountant classifies the abatement as a refund of Real Estate taxes. It is definitely *not* income, which could have tax consequences.

The corresponding shareholder assessment is listed as being used to fund operations.

All of this is handled by our CPA. You might want to check with your co-op attorney to find out how they deal with abatement and assessment

The Board has the legal authority to change the resale policy whenever they feel it's necessary for the good of the co-op. That's within their rights as a Board. Remember that the Board was elected to represent the interests of the shareholders and to make decisions on behalf of the shareholders.

If you are not happy with the Board's decisions and policies, you have every right to ask the Board about them. If you feel that you can do a better job than the current Board as far as making decisions that affect the co-op, then run for the Board and work to help the Board make better decisions.

Having said that, the Board should have notified all shareholders about the change in Resale Policy since it can affect every shareholder. That's a potential issue that you can run on - "I will do a better job than the current Board in communicating with shareholders about important matters like this."

Good luck and keep us posted.

This is an HDFC and the resale provisions should be in the By-Laws. If so, it would take a vote of the shareholders to change the resale policy. Read the By-Laws carefully and see what they say on this subject.

I actually need to change my comment above. What the Board has done is not change the resale policy but probably added provisions to the application process. Therefore, it would have the authority to do this without shareholder approval.

Thanks all for the feedback. I reread the documents, including the By-laws, which clearly states that "The Corporation have entered into or shall enter into a Regulatory Agreement with the City of New York, acting by and through its Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("Regulatory Agreement"). The Regulatory Agreement contains restrictions and requirements concerning, among other things, renting and subletting, right of certain tenants, restrictions on shares of individual units, increases of maintenance charges, assessments, transfer fees, primary residency, management training for directors, and reserve funds. The Regulatory Agreement has been or will be recorded against the building and the Corporation, which will be subject to all the terms and conditions obtained therein."
To me, it sounds like each shareholders should have been given a copy of the Regulatory Agreement (for the record, we were not), since the RA is referenced in the By-laws. And maybe I'm taking it too far in my interpretation, but since we have to abide by that agreement, only the City of New York could change that agreement (including the resale policy). As mentioned the current resale policy was never shared with the shareholders (the board admitted to it when asked during a recent meeting of the shareholders and they didn't want to discuss it, because they claimed that it wasn't the right time, since most shareholders didn't even have a copy of it). And yet, at least one apartment is currently on the market with this new resale policy handed out to perspective buyers.