I feel your best course of action is to contact your board's attorney because there are multiple issues in play with this. Besides the list you provided, your proprietary lease needs to be reviewed to see if it has any provisions for a shareholder making any sort of modification to what is common property (the roof and the support structure above the ceiling of the apartment. You need to check if the transfer of common property is even permitted under the PL. If so how is the transfer accomplished? Do new shares have to be issued to the shareholder? If they can, how are they to be valued... I think you can see where this is leading.

For something like this you want to get it done right the first time to save yourself a lot of heartburn later on. You can properly bill the shareholder who wants to install the skylights for the legal work.

Remember, any legal advice you receive here is worth exactly what you pay for it. Good luck!

I don't see any comments here. As a board member of a co-op where the super is 65+ I am also interested in this subject. I welcome any information or how others have handled a similar situation.

It is up to them and so long as they are still able to perform and do their basic job functions.

They tend to step down in their early 60s.

Many building supers are pushing 60 currently. I have 6 out of 12 supers that are in their late 50s.

It will be an interesting shift once they retire in mass.

A Superintendent job has turned more into property manager role. The next generation will need to be more tech savy in addition to knowing building systems, the endless amount of local laws and knowing how to avoid building violations.

I agree, as long as the super can physically perform their duties. They are staying. If a super is living rent free, let's face it that is all the more reason to try to continue working. Where is a person 65+ going to find a job to sustain today's economy? That also depends on how long he has been working. 25-30 years okay,(with a pension) but if they came into the job late, they may see it beneficial to stay working longer.

Sounds like my coop!

Call 311 / HPD for any neglected repairs. That helps.
Keep everything in writing.

This is a similar story in too many coops, but calling 311/HPD is bad for the coop owners/shareholders/you. It can bring increased violations which are then on your dime. I know this is easier said than done, but work to replace the board. Start talking to other shareholders, see if they are equally dissatisfied, and then run for the board. But you need to be organized and get your ducks in a row before you do that. Good luck.

Bring it all up at the next Annual meeting.

Also the Super is in a Union (I’m assuming) and if he’s screaming at an owner write him up/document it and maybe ask to have a meeting with Super/Board/and his Union/Management company.

Doesn’t keeping the windows open waste heat and it’s cost effective?

What about installing a thermostatic radiator valve. This adjusts room temperature by using air to reduce or increase the amount of steam that warms your radiator.

Opening of and closing of heating valves , and opening windows to cool off due to excessive heat is nonsense , and who's telling you this is ignorant .

A thermostatic valve , with a sensor ,and a proper steam trap will do the job
Your Management must be paying big bucks for heating ....
10 to 20% of outside air is recommended too.

Thanks for the input..

Before responding to your individual questions, let me state that I see a number of potentially serious conflicts of interest. I feel your board will be well served to consult your attorney before allowing any of these transactions to take place. The legal requirements regarding conflicts of interest have recently been made more stringent so a consult would be in your best interests.

Remember, I Am Not A Lawyer!

- is it appropriate for a Super to hire a relative to be a porter so then a direct report?

I don't see anything inherently inappropriate, but a family relationship will definitely complicate an employment relationship. Especially if you're a union building with all the rules and requirements around discipline and termination. Related family members tend to let things slide a little more than non-related and you'll have to be careful the relationship doesn't build resentment.

- is it appropriate that a Super buys a unit even though the co-op pays for his unit? So either he flips the purchased unit or has a relative live in it? So then becomes an employee besides a shareholder.

Ask your attorney for advice. It will definitely be a complex relationship between the board and the Super and may require additional agreements such as occupancy and/or resale agreement.

- is it appropriate that a managing agent purchases a unit in a co-op and then flips it?

Up to the board if they want to approve the sale. MA can't buy without board approval so the board has final discretion if a sale is allowed.

I hope this helps.

Perhaps try to get your co-op board and shareholders to amend your proprietary lease to limit sublets of units until the buyer has owned the unit for two years. This prevents investor owners who only seek to rent the unit or place someone in the unit who is not the buyer.

We have 187 units of which 56? are rentals. A porter was living with a renter, then rented an apt in the bldg.in his own name. Now we can barely find him working in the bldg. WE (the board) have been told he's been seen many times during the day in the apt. The sponsor who rented him the apt. claims he could not discriminate. I personally think that is a total conflict of interest. I agree. A super should not be allowed to purchase within the coop they work in. We are looking into everything.

You should not have turn to this site for a problem like this. Get a solid property manager and if you still are not sure,
get a lawyer.

I agree.

Remember, the advice you receive here is worth every dollar of what you're paying for it.

Engage with competent professionals

Is the property manager also managing the sponsors units?

From what you wrote, it sounds like your board is trying a reasonable approach to meeting the potentially draconian requirements of LL97. LL97 can have very serious financial consequences if the efficiency limits are not met. I read some of the Cozy Covers website, and their approach to improving energy consumption efficiency makes sense.

To answer your question about under what law does the board have the right to do what it is doing, I recommend you read about the "Business Judgment Rule". The BJR gives boards very wide latitude to impose rules and guidelines as long as the imposition is done in good faith and applies to all shareholders.

In your case, the board is attempting to meet the dictates of LL97 using a low-cost solution, and the BJR gives your board the right to use whatever measures are available to them to obtain full compliance. The alternative for your building may be a major heating system overhaul or replacement and believe me, you do not want to see the maintenance increase or assessment for that.

Please don't consider the measures your board may use to achieve full compliance as "punishments", but look at them as a form of "fiscal attitude adjustment."

Thanks steven424 for your response. The only thing I'll add is that the bullying,dictatorial nature of the threatening notice,we received is disturbing to me, but I appreciate your insight.

You're welcome. Without meaning to sound facetious, have you considered running for the board, or putting together an opposition slate of candidates? I know in some buildings the incumbent boards try to put up roadblocks to any challenge of their power and authority, but that is really the only way to change the status quo.

Good luck to you!

In the case of our 12-building co-op, the Cozy covers have now been installed in at least 80% of the units. Thus the Co-op has met the standard of the law and need not worry about being out of compliance. Despite that, as shareholders we agree that the board has the right to require Cozies to be installed in remaining units, if it so chooses. However, this would means requiring some shareholders to demolish thousands of dollars of custom woodwork and other installed renovations — shelves, cabinets, etc, and in one case, a wall. The board is saying that individual shareholders must bear the cost of demolition and replacement alone, and to accept the corresponding reduction in value of their units and the loss of habitability and enjoyment during this work. It is saying that individuals must find and contract for these changes and complete them by Jan 2023. Moreover, it has established a near deadline (July 1) for committing, beyond which shareholders will be fined. It threatens legal action against shareholders who do not meet these deadlines, and has refused thus far requests for a meeting with those affected. We regard this policy as a wildly inequitable special assessment on a minority of shareholders, requiring them to pay far more than their proportionate shares for a co-op–wide project. We hope that the board will reconsider granting exemptions to shareholders who can document their built-in renovations, saving the co-op as well the unnecessary expense.