I need you to clarify what you mean by "when the complex paints, etc. Are you saying that the shareholders themselves do the painting and repairs? If this is the case, you are the first I have heard of. Repairs should be handled by the pros not the shareholders. Let us know.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

Hi there...thanks for writing. Yes, I do mean shareholders who paint...that is just one case. We are having some financial troubles so we hired a professional painter to do the bulk of the painting of the hallways, etc., but shareholders had to paint their doors, risers, etc. It was the only way to do it...and folks knew that. I am also just talking about involvement in general...because they are not around, the communication is infrequent and sometimes, because they rent out units, their interest/commitment levels are much lower.

> Join the conversation Comments (2)

Ahh, that's a horse of a different color. Actually, I commend your shareholders for pitching in. Mine would have brought down the house. I also presume there was some kind of vote for all this. That being said, ALL shareholders assume their portion of duty. If the absentee shareholder cannot do what is required him, then he should be able to pay someone else, be it another shareholder or outside (approved) person, to do his portion. The absentee can ask his renter but you should not as the renter is, in reality, not a part of the coop.
As for their interest/commitment, it is the nature of the beast. Yes, the rest of you will have to shoulder the burden, but then the absentees do not get to have a say if things are not to their liking. Keep us posted.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

Thank you all for this very helpful responses...and for laying out processes. Being a member of this forum is a life saver...much appreciated.

> Join the conversation

There are two separate issues here in your presentation, first do sub-lessors pay a privilege for the privilege and secondly, do they contribute to the contribution effort pool to the Coop. In our opinion, based on over 20 years experience, yes they (sub-lessors) need to pay a premium for the privilege. a surcharge of 10-15% of the monthly maintenance, collected monthly is entirely appropriate, but in many cases will require a super-majority approval vote if it is not already a part of your original bylaws, and no, you can't do this thru House Rules unless the mechanism is already present in the Bylaws.
Secondly, shareholder contribution to the ongoing effort to maintain and run the cooperative. It is my observation that the overwhelming majority of shareholders prefer to have it all done for them, and not have to actually make an effort personally, by serving on the board or actually working on projects, committees, teams whatever. Of the remainder a certain percentage are not ones whom should ever be on a Board because the are either single issue agenda types, don't get the concept of setting themselves aside for the sake of common good, have overarching issues, or lack larger perspectives as opposed to self gain, or are control and power freaks.
Some sub-lessors are committed to their Coop, and some are truly absentee. that's why you have a surcharge. Your subletting policy should reflect this and you need to make the sublet applicant criteria every bit as stringent as a purchase application. Either way you are shopping for neighbors, make it count. IF you involve your sub-lessee's in your building as neighbors, then they might contribute, if you ostracize or exclude them from the building community you get nothing.
You also need to hire licensed professionals and not turn your Coop into a do-it yourself/home handyman project. Unless you have shareholders who are actual professionals you will do inadequate quality work that will diminish the sales quality of your Coop. Your shareholder's are worth more, out there earning a dollar and using it to pay a pro, than taking the time off to do it themselves. Not anyone can paint, it is actually a skilled job, and prep for painting is even more so.

> Join the conversation

Hi, our governing documents allow us to charge a sublet fee - which we do, but we have kept it small @ $50 a month. Note – we have restricted subletting to 3 consecutive years out of every 5.
As a board member I find that absentee owners – those who either sublet, or those that allow family to move in under the provisions of our governing documents, are less active shareholders , less concerned, and often time and are not available during elections etc.
It’s a sad situation for us because we already have a large sponsor presence, so fewer purchasing shareholders occupying there apartments, the less leverage we have to drive building enhancements and improvements. We are hoping to remediate over time by encouraging purchasing shareholders to own and occupy their apartments – fees, restrictions, and assessments.
On a separate note – having shareholders perform maintenance functions is a creative solution to money troubles – but may invite further issues – such as potential litigation if someone gets hurt, and a lower quality end result. I suggest having an assessment which will raise funds for your complex in a uniform manner, and allow you to collect funds from owners that sublet – as most leases don’t allow sub letters rent to adjust to fees, assessments after its been signed. Just a thought or two... Good luck

> Join the conversation