Anon - In my humble and non-legally-qualified opinion, you absolutely must discuss this with your board attorney as soon as possible. There may be interest and penalties associated with non-payment, even if you have not received any bills from the city in years. If that is true, and your attorney determines that you are liable for punitive charges, it will be a lot easier to get the City to reduce or eliminate them if you take the first step and voluntarily notify the City. If they eventually figure it out (and they will), they won't be so predisposed to working with you at that point.

At the same time you may able to negotiate with the City for a rebate of some of the charges based on their frontage calculations. Since you now have documented proof of your actual water usage, if the discrepancy is large there may be some grounds to negotiate. Of course, the City may simply tell you that this was the way it was done before direct metering and you're just outta luck. Discuss this with your attorney as well.

Consider the lack of invoices like tooth pain. It may not bother you for a while, but the longer you wait the more it will hurt in the end.

I am the President of a 111 unit co-op in Inwood, Manhattan. Our old patched roof was leaking into both public spaces and units (including my own).

In the past, the Board tried to do a quality job on its own (i.e. on the cheap) however the contractor didn’t finish the work, the co-op was unable to obtain a warranty and the roof needed patching. While doing a quality was the intent, it was unsuccessful in the end.

The Board and I had set our minds to doing the best job possible: hiring an engineer; repairing the parapets; replacing roof doors to code; replacing skylights; repairing the masonry on the elevator rooms and replacing the elevator room roofs; and replacing the insulation. The Board opted for a seamless covering too.

In the end, the roof looks fantastic, all of the leaks stopped, all of the units and public spaces were repaired and we use less energy for cooling. The engineers inspected, prepared the bid package and supervised the work. However, this process took longer and the Board spent time reviewing the engineer’s bid package for completeness. We used Rand. I would highly recommend them. The whole process took about a year and we already had the funds on hand (no assessment was necessary). It would have taken longer if we had to find financing.

The reason I say all this is - what is your reason for wanting to review the very lengthy engineer’s output: their report and/or bid package? Is it to litigate? Or are you offering to assist the Board with the process of repairing? Are you interested in how quickly the leaks stop (not a quick process if done right) or is your interest in making sure the job is done right the first time?

Remember that your Board is a group of volunteers. Offers of help are often well received while perceived threats elicit a defensive response. Put yourself in the Board’s shoes and see if a different track can get you the information you are seeking.

Good luck!

Did coop reimburse you for leaks in your apartment?

All units and public spaces were repaired at the cost of the co-op. No reimbursement was necessary.

The reason I am asking for the report is that I've had the same leak for 7 years. the board refuses to put anything in writing to tell me someday we will fix this. The management company wrote me winter 2012 saying we will fix this in the spring - never happened. The board needs to be accountable and put some thing in writing to indicate this will be fixed and they refuse. my ceiling is an eye sore and I can't sell or sublet my apt. in it's condition. I want accountability and for my burden a maintenance reduction.

As the report is necessary to determine the condition, future expenses of the building, and therefore the value of an apartment, it is unreasonable to withhold it. Caveat emptor.

First, please remember that I am not a lawyer. You need to check with your attorney for definitive answers.

That being said, I believe you have a right to ask every adult *occupant* to sign a release to do a background check. I also believe you have a right to ask for children's ages because you have a responsibility to provide window guards if there are children under 11 years old living in the apartment. Just be careful about when you ask anything about children; do so after you've determined that the purchasers meet your financial requirements. If you reject the purchasers for financial reasons after you've asked about children, they could turn around and claim discrimination.

Again, check with your attorney about what questions and releases you can ask for and when you can ask for them.

I don't believe you have a right to ask every adult occupant to sign a release to do a background check. Under the NYC roommate law any adult can have another adult as a roommate with no questions asked.
I do believe you have the right to ask for a list of people who will be residing in the apartment, and if minors, their ages.

Michael - You are correct. We do not do a background check on everyone who lives in the building. What we do during the purchase process is get releases from the purchasers and initial occupants (if they are not the same). Once we approve the purchase we do not run checks on any additional occupants. Thank you for pointing out the distinction.

While this forum is open to all, and you don't have to register to post, Habitat's policy is that if you are going to criticize a company, you need to identify yourself. The forum is designed to help board directors, not to provide a platform where anonymous posters can slur companies.

It helps neither boards nor residents if only some of the information is available.

There's an old saying that buildings should change the managing agent after a few years. This is usually said of old, that is pre-war coops which are small and trying to keep costs down. Opinions?
http://www.thecriticalmom.com

I agree that managing agents should be changed now and then, especially if they become complacent and don't have the gumption to deal with issues.

Managing agents should be changed periodically especially if same board is in power for years - when you have same management firm and board there are no checks and balances

I asked earlier, but maybe the question got lost. The building that I live in is looking to change management companies. Any suggestions on who to look to? Are there any that we should keep away from?

I guess this is going to sound like a plug but when we were looking to change agents Habitat was a wealth of information. I went to their yearly issue on Managing Agents and made a list of names after determining which agents managed buildings similar to our size, in our borough, in the price range we were looking for. Then I read the archived articles on what to look for in a managing agent and shared them with the rest of the Board. We then held interviews and ended up hiring our current agent. As for checking references, the agent we had, from a well respected managing agent family who had been with our co-op for many years, would have probably received a good one from members of our Board before it was discovered he was stealing large sums of money from his buildings. No names mentioned, he is out of business now, but you can also read articles in Habitat's archives and what to watch out for and insure for.
Hope this helps some,
Chris

The Council of NY Cooperatives (CNYC) publishes an annual directory of Co-op and Condo services. There is a section on Property Managers. You can contact CNYC for a copy or go to http://directory.cooperator.com

I agree with your post. I could be that a lot of management companies support this web site (and we dare not discuss bad practices?)

Bob

Bob, That's a mouthful and true. Stand back and don't discuss bad practices, just let them continue. How awful.

I don't know what the original post was and now I am curious. Is there any chance that it can be reposted?

John, If I remember correctly, it was nothing more than one poster's screed about some contentious issues with a managing agent. There was no useful information.

Steve, I disagree, it was useful information, if there is a problem with any managing agent people should be aware. If you read Carol's email it was taken down because there was no name attached to it and I agree with Bob, never shall we speak of bad practices and Why Not?
To John, let's hope that the information gets out so everyone is aware of certain practices. Possibly that person will re-post and not make it anonymous.

Thank you Steve,

I was curious about the posting because our building is looking into new Management Companies. Any suggestions? Any to keep away from?

Lee - I understand your point and in principle I don't disagree. Carol's stated reason for taking down the post was the lack of ownership. However, I bet there were a number of other unstated reasons such as legal liability for defamation, and also the simple desire to not have this forum become a way of engaging in any vendettas. Nothing drives away good contributors faster than having to slog through threads and threads of flame-wars. I am sure sponsor support was also a consideration, as you noted.

In my opinion, if an individual feels strongly enough about perceived wrongs done to them, they should state the facts in an objective manner without naming names, and then provide a way of being contacted offline for more information, including the name of the organization. This way, the information is made available, and the author takes responsibility for her/his statements.

Unless your bylaws or other operating document dictate otherwise, how many and who should interview perspective purchasers is really whatever works best for the individual co-op. The full board definitely does not have to be present, but the interview should be more than a one-on-one unless circumstanced dictate otherwise. Some buildings have admissions committees made up of non-board members, with just a single board member as the chair.

The size of the building and the turnover rate are two important factors. If you have hundreds of units and there is a contract signing on a weekly basis, the interviews should be shared by all board members or handed off to a dedicated committee. If your building has only 10-20 units and you have one or two sales a year, then it can be as many board members can attend.

Try to have all of the financial questions resolved *before* the interview. That way, if you decide to reject the purchasers because of finances you don't waste their time and yours, and you also avoid potential charges of discrimination based on appearance, personality and other perceptual traits.

The interview should be a friendly and informal getting-to-know-you meeting for both the board and the purchasers. In our building (73 units), we try to schedule interviews as soon as possible after the financial package is received. We do not wait for the monthly board meeting so as to accommodate mortgage rate lock expiration. We have a seven member board, and we usually have 3-4 members at the interview. Remember that the purchasers are usually very nervous at the interview and whatever the board can do to put them at ease gives them a much better feel about the building community, which carries over after they close.

P.S.: I work near the Dept. of Finance's Manhattan Business Center at 66 John Street and just tried to get copies of the appropriate forms there. I was told that they didn't have them and the forms were available only by mail. Thanks a lot.

Has anybody figured out how to get this form? I called 311 but they told me it would take 7 days for somebody to look at my request, and by then I'll miss the new 4/12 deadline.

I found forms for previous years at the link below (unfortunately you have to pay to download the form);

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10580802/Exemption-And-Abatement-Application-For-Owners-Exemption-And-Abatement-Application-For-Owners---New-York

Try this link
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/forms_reports/property_forms_condo_coop.shtml

Carol, thanks very much for the link, but those appear to be the forms for the co-op corporation to file for the abatement for the whole building. The form that's proving hard to find is the one for an individual shareholder to dispute the designation of non-primary residency. We're now up to about 10% of the apartments in our building saying they ARE primary residences, despite the DOF's claims.

It appears to me that the website says that a letter will be mailed to you if Finance believes that you will be phased out since it is NOT your primary residence. I would think that letter would include the necessary form to contest their records. It does not appear to me that everyone must complete it in order for benefits to continue.
.
Phase Outs for Owners Currently Receiving the Abatement - DEADLINE EXTENDED
If you are an owner who is not using the unit as your primary residence and you received the abatement in 2011/2012, your abatement will be phased out. Non-primary resident owners include units that are held solely by a trust. We will mail you a letter soon letting you know if you no longer qualify for the abatement. Responses to this notice should be mailed by April 12, 2013 to:

NYC Co-op/Condo Abatement
P.O. Box 1194
Maplewood, NJ 07040

JG, you're right that DOF says they will send the appropriate forms to any affected residents. However, we have three residents in our building who want to contest the DOF's finding of primary residence, but they all say they received no forms at all in the mail. The only way we know about their non-primary status is through the DOF's summary sheet sent to our managing agent. These shareholders want to submit the required form, but they don't have it.

The DOF has posted the letter on their website. You can find it here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/downloads/pdf/coop_condo_abatement/coop_condo_fact_sheet.pdf

Unfortunately, althought they say the necessary form is "on the back of the posted letter", it isn't. Here is the paragraph about contesting the primary residence ruling. If you do not receive the letter and/or the form, I would suggest you send your own letter to the address listed, certified, return receipt requested, stating that you wish to contest the ruling but never received the necessary form. That may preserve your right to protest.

"NOTICES
We will be sending notices to individual co-op and condo units that are no longer eligible for the abatement.We do not want any property that is owned by a primary resident individual to lose the abatement. If you are an individual owner of this unit and it is your primary residence, please complete and return the Primary Residence Verification on the back of this letter by April 12, 2013. This will ensure that you maintain the abatement. Responses to the notice should be mailed to:
NYC Co-Op/Condo Abatement
P.O. Box 1194
Maplewood, NJ 07040
Responses can be sent by certified mail, if you wish."

Thank you, Steve. It does indeed look like the DOF intended to include the form at the link you mention. "Please complete and return the Primary Residence Verification ON THE BACK OF THIS LETTER" - with no such form included in the .pdf!

Confusion seems to be rampant on this issue. Here's a similar discussion on StreetEasy: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/34260-nyc-finance-letter-with-nj-address

I'm reviewing my coop's 2012/2013 CO-OP TAX BENEFITS notice dated March 4, 2013. Almost (but not) all of the units with no STAR credits are flagged with a small * to the right of the co-op abatement amount. The last page of the package is a special notice, stating that those * units may no longer qualify for the abatement per NYC records. Co-op managment has until Apr 1, 2013 to report any discrepancies of ownership that occurred on or prior to Jan 5, 2012. Contact coopabat@finance.nyc.gov with any questions.
Shareholders application for personal exemption at nyc.gov/ownerexemption has info, 2013/14 due date was 3/15/2013. No form available other than for dropping exemptions.

Hi Linda. I understand your concerns. The only municipal law or regulation I am aware of is a recently enacted law in NYC regarding rentals of less than 30 days. I don't know if it applies to condominiums or cooperatives, though.

The first place you should look is your condo's operating documents. There might be restrictions in those documents you can enforce. Also ask your condo's attorney. She/he should be able to answer any concerns you have. Condos are more like private property than co-ops, so your options may be more limited. Your organization's attorney is your best source for this kind of information.

Steve thanks for responding. We will take your advice.

Hi,

While I am not a STAR expert, I believe that some categories of STAR recipients have to reapply every year. Also, if your income tax return is reporting a different address, then you may lose the STAR credit because it is assumed that your co-op is not your primary residence.

It sounds like your co-op is assessing the STAR credit. If that is the case then you will likely have to pay that and I don’t think you can go back and correct things with the City & State.

April 1st is the deadline this year for the next TWO years. Be sure to reapply by April 1st.

Good luck!

Your PL is very clear on this, "...if the condition requires prompt action, notice of less than 30 days may be given or, in case of emergency, no notice need be given." The board has the right and obligation to determine if prompt or emergency action is required, with little or no advance notice needed. You probably would not prevail in a legal challenge.

Remember that I am not a lawyer and any legal opinions I may render are worth what you pay for them.

it seems to say that they can give less than 30 days notice if it is "prompt" but they still have to give notice i.e. give the shareholder fair notice that the shareholder should remedy - no?
besides the fact that - it would have to actually be prompt .
Also what is some of the work is standard work in a building usually performed by staff like grouting a tile area that leks through a wall or replacing a faucet washer? If it is work usually performed by staff - how can the building hire a contractor and give no notice or an option to remedy?

it seems the lessee only give "no " notice if it is an emergency - shareholder have a right to remedy a non-urgent condition correct? IE a condition not harming any public area or a neighbor..? In the case of HPD viola ions, the coop would have o tell the shareholder what was their responsbility to fix and demand that remedy first - right? Like, say , peeling paint in an apartment with no kids.

Most situations are not so black-and-white. Using your example of an apartment with peeling paint and no kids... Let's say that the reason for the paint peeling is because of water seepage, and there is valid suspicion of the formation of mold, maybe toxic. The apartmentowner may think no one else in the building is being harmed, but the board believes otherwise.

Each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits without a one-size-fits-all kind of response.

in one case, no mold in my neighbors apt. just peeling paint.
the city happened to notice it while inspecting another issue (in fact, a leak the coop neglected and refused to to address) - the resident had about six weeks or more per city to cure but the coop, wiht no notice at all or request to remedy or of mention of responsibility just came in with no 30 day or other notice. the neighbor would happily have hired their own painter. thoughts?

Each situation is different, obviously. If the City was inspecting something, there may have been more involved with the leak and peeling paint than is obvious on the surface. Questions which come to mind (but I'm asking rhetorically) are is there a possibility that the peeling paint contains lead and is therefore a very serious health issue? Had your neighbor been approached by the board about the peeling paint before this that you are not aware of? Did the City threaten to fine the Co-op if the peeling paint was not corrected? Had there been any previous issues between the board and the shareholder where the shareholder had been uncooperative?

It sounds like there could have been better communications between the board and the shareholder, but again, these kinds of situations are not always black-and-white or obviously to an outsider.

It could also mean the building simply has a lousy, overbearing board that the shareholders as a collective need to discuss and do something about at the next annual board meeting.

"Prompt" could have many meanings. One example of the need for "prompt" action would be a bedbug infestation. The board may give the shareholder 7 days to call in an exterminator and have the situation remedied or else the board will call in the exterminator and bill the shareholder for the expense. A case where a board does not and should not give any notice is the discovery of a gas leak. The board has an obligation to take immediate action to stop the leak.

Remember that the building staff are employees of the building corportation and their job responsibilities are defined by the board. The board has the authority to restrict what an employee may and may not do in an individual shareholder's unit. There are many cases where an employee tried to be a good person and make some repair in a shareholder's apartment only to have the repair backfire and the shareholder tried to hold the Co-op responsible. There is also the question of liability should an employee get hurt while performing non-board sanctioned task in a private apartment. Boards are cutting way back on what they allow their staff to do, even so-called "traditional" tasks.