Sure, you can stand for election at the next annual meeting. Be prepared to give a little speech about your concerns, what you would do differently, etc.

It does seem that management companies and boards often form little mutual admiration societies with each other, and forget entirely about the vast majority of shareholders who are funding the whole thing.

Hi PhilC, the board is the boss and makes the ultimate decisions. The managing agent is one of the board's several trusted advisers and as such, they need to be present at the meetings to report back and advise. All shareholders can certainly run for the board. We have experience working with shareholders that nominated themselves, you can reach us at 917.648.8154

It's typical for the manager or a rep from the management company to sit in on Board meetings - they're an essential piece of the monthly process.

If the Board is not making the decisions and the Manager is, that's a problem - it could be that since you're not in the meetings that you're assuming they are overreaching, but may not be. I would talk to the Board and ask them what their operational protocol is and how they make their decisions. The management company should bring the Board options based on the Board's prior requests, give their opinions, and then the Board is the entity to make the decision. The manager shouldn't be the one to make the decisions.

If you're unhappy with the Board and the way that they operate, you can throw your hat in the ring for the next election to join the Board and get the inside look.

Hi BBCA, you really have to consider a lot of things when asking this question. We've been steadily bringing in bigger buildings because we're providing more value for the dollar than some of the larger companies. Also, we're creating an atmosphere of customer-driven service and creative use of technology in working with our Boards to manage their properties, correctly.

Today, we released a document that can be viewed that is an overview of being on the Board for new members in a Cooperative (full link here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsbwu00j4h18gzo/Welcome%20To%20The%20Board%20-%20Cooperative.pdf?dl=0) .

We're giving out free information to anyone who wants to read / digest it and it's really having a great impact on our company's growth.

The Boards of these bigger buildings will really have to figure out what they want in the future; there will always be the huge companies that will never be replaced because they have name recognition, but for the mid-sized, extremely hungry companies such as mine, we're going to create a product (customer service is still a product) that will hope to sway you away. Then once we're hired to manage, we're going to do even better.

If you'd like to talk off-line to see what we're doing and what our cost structures are, please shoot me a note. I'm really available 24/7.

- Mark

Hi BBCA, that is very generous of Mark Levine to share this document, what a great resource! My firm is a consultant to Co-op boards and have experience helping buildings change their managing agents. We have our own proprietary benchmarks for costs as well. Call us at 917.648.8154

I'm not sure about the best, but it's difficult to imagine an outfit worse than Century Management. I can't possibly add anything to the consensus that has emerged on Yelp.

Completely agree. Even if one agrees that it is "cheap" now, interest rates are variable, and co-op boards / managing agent's don't have crystal balls, so they inevitably make the mistake of taking a mortgage at the wrong time or locking in a bad rate (maybe not this mortgage, but down the line, it will happen).

I tend to think that co-ops with mortgages should have a credible plan to become debt-free eventually, instead of permanently indebted. Shareholders should be educated about the policy, and able to meet assessments for capital projects. Doesn't have to work this way in every building, but it's a viable approach.

If shareholders *want* to have their property mainly financed with debt, fine, they can go get their own mortgage, quite possibly at a better rate than the coop.

So are you saying that if a Co-op has a House Rule which states that no one is allowed on the roof except in an emergency, rent-stabilized and rent-controlled tenants can frolic on the roof with abandon?

If they had access before the rule, then perhaps. Ask your attorney.
Also, frankly. all roofs should be open to use. Best space in NYC. The bldg next to ours built a simple wooden deck for 50k and everyone enjoys it. Esp nice at sunset.

Yes, it would be nice if all roofs were open to use. However, not all roofs are safe, the perimeter needs to have fencing or walls of adequate height (42" minimum?), and there is a liability issue present if someone tosses a ball or some other item (ie: bottle, can), and it goes over the roof into traffic or hits a pedestrian. Before converting to a coop, people used to line-dry their clothing on clotheslines on the roof. No more.

JG is correct. There are two main reasons why roof access is restricted, liability and durability. A lot of flat apartment building roofs today are not shingle and tar but epoxy membrane. These are much more water-tight and heat-reflective, but they puncture very easily causing very hard-to-find leaks. Membrane roofs are also very costly to repair. I've been on our roof and the view is spectacular, but as a board member I definitely do not want the aggravation, expense, and potential liability that comes with unrestricted roof access.

You just put in a raised wood platform island with fence.
So short-sighted to waste a roof. You can find any reason not to do it but having fun and improving everyone's quality of life overrides those.

I wish it were that simple. The "raised" wood platform has to be supported by something that either rests on or penetrates the membrane roof. Both create stress points in the roof that can allow water infiltration.

Have you checked on the cost of liability insurance and the regular maintenance work and costs associated with a roof deck? Not every co-op and condominium want to take those on, especially with the way real estate taxes have skyrocketed for Class 2 buildings.

It is important to do your research. A friend in an East side coop who just spearheaded a deck there said the insurance was not that much more. The roof deck can also be comprised of inexpensive pavers. Their roof is an enormous new boon to their building. Everyone loves it.

Hi, we manage about 60 coop and condo properties, so I've pulled some data for you on a per unit basis, some in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens.

Building 1: $78,400 / 50 Units = $1,568 per unit
Building 2: $6,700 / 18 Units = $372.22 per unit (small apartments)
Building 3: $78,300 / 120 Units = $652.50 per unit
Building 4: $14,400 / 30 Units = $480 per unit
Building 5: $55,000 / 80 Units = $687.50 per unit
Building 6: $68,800 / 149 Units = $461.75 per unit
Building 7: $34,100 / 80 Units = $426.25 per unit
Building 8: $61,200 / 60 Units = $1,020 per unit

Mark, Thank you for generously sharing this information, very much appreciated.

There are no statutes within the Non-Stock Corporation act or the Condominium Act that address directed proxies. Therefore, unless your association’s Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation specifically prohibit their use, your association should be able to use directed proxies.
The directed proxy should have the general proxy language, and it will also list each item up for vote and allow the owner giving the proxy to “direct” the proxy-holder how to vote on each item.
The use of directed proxies may help boost attendance-by-proxy at owners’ meetings, if owners understand that the directed proxy allows them to truly control their vote even in their absence.
(quoted from whdlaw.com)

Not specifically, although I know of a co-op in the midtown (grand central) area that had $35,000 revenue for a cell rental in 2012, so maybe that's a ballpark figure.

Seems like a worthwhile amount if you can get it!

We have roofs rented out to them on several locations and I've negotiated many of the leases. Depending on the need for the specific location, what they are putting up there (how many antenna stations, gas generator, housed or non-housed unit, etc), the site can be as little as 18,000 a year to 40+K with escalations and a signing bonus. It's a broad range so you'd have to do a little homework and negotiate the best deal possible from there.

There could be a "conflict of interest" if the Management company is taking the Board minutes, but here's how I resolve this with my Boards that we do this for:

1) Ask the Board to appoint the agent as the Assistant Secretary for the purposes of taking minutes.

2) Acknowledge in the Minutes that the Board of Directors acknowledges the inherit conflict of interest and after reviewing this, move to allow the minutes to be taken by the Manager in question.

3) The Manager will take the minutes at the meeting and should release them in Draft form to the Board of Directors / Managers within one day so that the topics of discussion are still fresh in everyone's mind and the points of interest on the minutes are accurately and completely reflected.

4) Whether or not the Manager or the Secretary are taking the minutes, the Minutes should be written with only motions noted, as they are a legal document. No points of conversation, opinions or detailed, private information should be shared.

Instead of going the legal route, I'd like to suggest an alternative approach. Write a letter to the board explaining why the vehicle is not registered in your name, that you are the primary user of the vehicle, and that you agree to accept full responsibility for any damage caused by the vehicle. Ask if there are any other terms and conditions the board would want.

I can see very valid reasons why the board would want to enforce this rule. If you decide to challenge the rule based on "waiver" and "selective enforcement", be aware that you will face a very uphill battle with the Business Judgment Rule.

Thanks for the input Steve. Doesn’t the Business Judgment Rule state that the B.O.D. are acting in good faith and making reasonable decisions?

How is it reasonable to take a parking spot away from long time shareholders who are still using the parking space that was never registered in their name, away from them to give to a new cooperative?

It’s not as if the senior cooperative is not paying or paying a lesser monthly charge for the spot.

Are you subletting the space? You say that the rule says the car must be registered in the shareholders name. Is this your car - do you own it?

Yes, we are all owners. Subletting is not allowed..

The car is not in my name. It is in a family members name. It has been that way for the past 10 years.

Sorry. You are renting to a non-resident.

Thanks for your input, however I disagree with you. I own the co-op and pay for my spot.

If the regulated apt is vacated, I believe that the apt. becomes unregulated (formerly under rent control or rent stabilization) and the coop proprietary lease, governing documents and house rules would then apply. Sponsor can then offer it for sale or rent at free market rates.
My coop goes a step further, if a current owner with a washer/dryer grandfathered in, sells, the washer/dryer must be removed. There is almost nothing worse in a building than water leaks.

BTW you should allow the new washers - they are very low on water usage now and you put in a a leak alarm tray below them that stops water in case of a leak.

Although a rule regarding parking spaces has always existed In rules & regulations not by-laws, my co-op has never enforced this rule.

Now a new board has decided to put this rule back into effect because there are many new shareholders that were promised parking spaces. Therefore unless a vehicle is registered in the shareholders name, they are no longer entitled to a parking space.

It seems unfair to take parking spaces away from long time shareholders especially since the co-op was aware that some shareholders did not have vehicles in their name.

I read an article on your site regarding " WAIVER AND SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT". If I understand this article correctly it states that if a rule has not been enforced for a long period of time it is null and void.
Is this correct?