They make money for the co-op.
They make it convenient for shrhlders. to do their laundry

What I meant was allowing shareholders to install washers and dryers in their own apartments. (We already have a laundry room with communal washers and dryers.)

You really need to know what your building rules regulations will be for those that are considering installing W&D. Questions such as.

1. Scope of work.
2. Will the building archict be involved.
3. How will the dryer be vented.
4. Who will do the electric and plumbing work?
6. What safety/preventive measures will be required (should the washer leak)
7. Is it possible to tie into a water source and waste line very easily?

You need to do your homework before you consider if is feasable. Good luck MRM.

I echo MRM's list. But I'd add that your shareholders and board need to come to an understanding about the future of these machines.

For example, a recent expensive renovation included a washer and dryer, moved for proper venting, etc. according to an architect's specs... all reviewed and approved properly by the board, as was its right. (There are apartments in the building with w/d, many installed outside proper channels in bygone years.)

But... the following board has now outlawed all w/d in individual units... and gone a step further. If the machine breaks, one can FIX it, but not REPLACE it - though a) in many cases, it will cost less to replace than to fix; b) it may be impossible to fix; c) it could be beneficial to replace with more efficient equipment.

Is this a sound policy? Isn't it a kind of breach of contract for a board to approve expensive plans -- and a year later, turn around and negate a lot of the resale value for the individual shareholder? Would it not have been more prudent for the board to announce that all w/d must meet certain plumbing codes, and if they do not, they must be updated to do so?

I would even understand a moratorium on new installations... but not allowing a shareholder to replace a broken machine seems punitive and a little silly.

i would think that downstairs neighbors be furnished with proof of adequate insurance.
The co-op is not responsible for damage. the w/d owner would have to pay for all the repair work,
you would need a auto-shutoff for the overflow.

Those sort of go without saying, if your board has any savvy at all...

When speaking about allowing washers/dryers in units is a complicated topic.

1) Does your building have suds zone? given what you said about the age of your building, I doubt it.

2) Since your building does not have a suds zone, I assume you also do not have a vent stack for the draining of the washing machine.

3) If you do allow Washer/dryers, who is supervising the work? to make sure that a legitimate plumber is doing the work as per the requirements that the buildings architect put together. Yes, your building should have guidelines that your house architect put together. And your architect would have to approve all requests.

Keep in mind that I have seen many things go wrong such as allowing washer/dryers to be installed without the proper prerequisites to prevent unwanted situations. I have seen custom kitchen cabinets get completely ruined due to suds coming up into the sink from the drain line. All because there is no suds zone/vent stack for the washing machines. Seek professional consultation before you open up a can of worm and then you will have a lot of unhappy residents.

We have a small 12 unit building in which 2 SH have bought portable washers that attach to their sink faucet. We have no rules in place for such appliances--at present there is no problem but if we all get the one, can we be setting ourselves up for waste line back ups and other problems? Who would we consult--there is no building architect.

We have the same issue coming up in our building. People in upstairs units have caused floods into their downstairs neighbors apartments because of a tear in the hose or the machine was filled to capacity and somehow overflowed and they didn't realize it.

Then we had some shareholders who figured if they were in a downstairs unit, it was okay because no one was beneath them if their machine overflowed. One such Shareholder had a major flood because of her washing machine and was upset that her homeowners insurance denied her claim because they ruled the damage to be due to her negligence in having the washing machine in the apartment.

That is something for Shareholders to think about regarding putting them in the apartments.

I had a similar problem in a property I managed. We documented any incident involving this particular (aggressive) dog and brought it to the management companies and board attention. The end result was the shareholder gave the dog to a relative that lives upstate.Have the management company write a letter to the shareholder informing them that you are aware of the problem and have your legal counsel look into it.You need to be pro active.

MRM

i don't understand the
question?
do you reside in your apartment and are a shareholder? or are you a owner of unsold shares that you wish to sell?
unsold shares can sell to anyone, and a shareholder can sell to anyone the board approves

It could be spread over a period of 11 month after it is declared. Please note that STAR is a reduction of taxes; so it stands to reason that the year goes for 12 months out of which you get the reduction. Consult the NYS assessor's office whose e-mail is given below:

http://www.orps.state.ny.us/star/cooperative_apartments.htm

If you get assessed when STAR is declared, it may be that the co-op did not collect enough money for taxes during the prior year and, in order to pay shareholders, it first needs to assess for the full tax not collected for the year. Frankly, I detest STAR in co-ops as it becomes the greatest Holiday Club ever invented.

AdC

Thanks for your help AdC! I totally agree with you, the STAR program seems to be a Holiday Club for my co-op. We have an assessment every year (even after maintenance increases)! Guess it's a difficult habit to break.

I hear this all of the time. Do nothing so that you know nothing. Not great advice. Isn't it better to know so you can plan? An engineering report costs so little – get it done.

If I may ask, what does this report typically include beside the obvious boiler ?
I've been trying to convince my fellow board members for years without success ... who knows, this year might be my lucky year.

Thanks

ALWAYS better to know what's ahead, whether you're a board member or shareholder (or both).

Just DO NOT use Rand Engineering

If you can't post using a name, please don't post negative comments about specific firms.

We used Rand for our roof re-do... and while they weren't perfect, they got the job done.

if they weren't perfect as you say, why hire them. i do not cars if he posts anonymous if it saves anyone aggravation. I pay for a professional job. When people are spending other people's money, they seem to forget that . i don't. if there is a reason to not use the company
i listen to WNYC and i like the show on Leonard lopate , once a month , home inspectors father son team, They seem to know what is going on. I have worked in construction type job, there are more ways to rip somebody off if you dont know the game, and aren't bought out.
coop= your going to be ripped off if your board does not have challenging abilities.

is unobtainable.

Our roof got done on time, with very few cost overruns (which were offset by savings in other areas). The job was professional, and considering our board was brand-new and thrown right in the fire, Rand was patient, communicative, and thorough.

In other words, they got the job done.

doing the job one was hired to do is not perfection, it is fulfilling a contract /work order.
i notice that people who are spending others people money, don't care too much how the job is performed and the quality of the work. it sounds like your work was performed satisfactory, That is good.
i expect quality work when ever i am paying for it to be done and would hope my board did the same, but i know that is not true. workers leave people apartment doors wide open, 3 x in 3 days, the owner is out and at work and comes home to a open , not unlocked ,open door at 6 pm and the workers left before 5pm. another day the worker is on another floor the door is open.did the same with a couple people in the building. workers paid to remove their construction debris and old tiles, stuck it in between the walls and floors , so when there is a leak , the extra weight causes a bigger problem. of course the MA likes these people and will rehire them,so you have to read between the lines

...that how do you know it isn't a COMPETITOR of Rand's posting that negative comment. Unscrupulous businesses post unsubstantiated negative comments about their competition all the time

why do they not want an eng report? Is it for their own self interest , not the good of the building? Are they planning on selling in a couple years and are worried the report will be used against them in resale value.
Is the manging agent the sponsor and is steering the BOD away from a Eng report, since it may open up a can of worms and possible fraud. do you want a building full of dumb people that didn't hire a home inspector that would have told them the real deal.
maybe a home inspection report is better than a enf report. Knowledge is good, it may show that the sponsor had a fraud company provide the AG office with a report for plan acceptance. sticking ones head in the sand for resale value is what people that are looking at their current resale value.

The managing agent is the one who says that it isn't necessary because whatever the engineer finds, has to be then disclosed on the financial statements, and that could cause 'problems' if anything significant is found. The managing agent isn't the Sponsor.

I agree knowledge is good and it is better to be aware of the state of the building, but I am also concerned about what he says (the need to disclose in the F/S). That's why I was curious if having to disclose everything is really is a big issue or if it will have a negative impact on our financials.

I would ask a CPA about what is a required disclosure in an audited financial statement - not a managing agent.

I applaud you for pursuing this line of inquiry, & suggest you trust your own instincts more than your agent’s advice.

If the engineer does find a serious condition, are you going to be upset because it has to be mentioned in your financials? Or will you be gratified because you’re able to prevent a catastrophic failure...or at least enabled your building to plan & fund efficient repairs?

Remember:

1—The agent is hired help, & works for you. Board members are fiduciaries, & MUST do what’s right for the building. I’ve seen far too many board members blindly accept agent recommendations without asking basic, common-sense questions.

2—The agent says an engineering study “could cause ‘problems’ if anything significant is found.” Knowledge of significant issues never causes problems. Rather, that knowledge gives you choices, & allows you to plan effectively. It’s lack of knowledge that causes problems.

3—A real problem would be if, because you’ve followed the agent’s advice to make like an ostrich, you’re surprised when you have to announce a big assessment to deal with something that’s worn out. Or, much worse—if there’s a failure resulting in injury. In either of those instances, exactly how have you served the interests of your association?

4— An absence of needed repairs & capital improvements is not what makes a set of financials “clean.” Auditors will deem your statement “clean” if there are no fiscal irregularities or unexplained/suspicious items. A footnote on your financials can explain that the warranty on your roof has expired & the engineer says it has 3-5 years of useful life remaining; your audit will still be “clean.”

A recent law requires every owner in the state, when selling a 1-4 family home, to make detailed, affirmative statements to the buyer about its condition. A loophole allows sellers to “buy” their way out with a $500 credit to the buyer, but the intent of the law is clear. When you accept the role of fiduciary for a building comprising dozens, or hundreds, of families, is it really OK to perform to a lesser standard, saying “the Board has opted not to conduct a study; the Board chooses not to know"?

Pretend NY has no auto inspection law. If your dealer says “don’t inspect your car because you might find that something major needs replacing soon,” how would you react? If he says “you should especially avoid inspection because you might sell the car soon, & if you find something like a fractured hydraulic line that could cause brake failure, you’d have to disclose that to the buyer”…what would you do?

The image of fiscal health you present to prospective buyers is important, as is keeping your common charges reasonable—but should you really let that concern trump your need to know that the building is safe? You also must ensure that your reserves are sufficient; how is it possible to state that they are, without conducting a thorough assessment of your infrastructure?

Whatever your motives for serving on your board, you surely believe you can do a good job, & make good decisions—for your family, for your neighbors, & for your collective investment. If others are so concerned about short-term fiscal impact or liability that they won’t objectively assess building conditions & implement necessary maintenance & repair protocols, they have no business becoming board members.

More here: http://condocoopowners.org/repair-replacement/

Hear, hear! Great post, thank you.

Thank you.
Our building is the PosterChild for bad advice from the MangAgent -- and worst.

Its difficult for Board members to understand that the Agent works for the Board and they have NO vested (financial) intrest in keeping our cost down.

Until Board members understand that they are running a business and the PropAgent is not thier friend, we will coninue to pay.

VP

C/CS - thank you very, very much for such a detailed explanation...your insight helped me tremendously (as did others on here).
You completely opened up my eyes as to why the report is so important by your examples, and now I know what I need to do! Thank you so much...as a new Board member, I'm still learning, but this helped tremendously.

Many thanks for taking the time to write your response with such details...very helpful...

For those B/M who believe that the MangAgent is watching your finances -- read this (below) from the NYTimes. This upscale NYC coop lost millions -- where was the ManagAgent?

The bottom line? It was the Boards legal responsibility to keep up with the Coop Finances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/realestate/30cov.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The board President holds the power. He/she controls the managing agent. The agent does what the board President says as if not the agent or management company gets replaced (loss of management fee). This is not rocket science. How do I know, I have witnessed it over and over. Of course they are a few companies that terminate their contract rather than being a puppet.

FS

Would your managing agent prevent you from pursuing HVAC/DHW upgrades through NYSERDA's Multi Family Energy Performance Program? Not likely and since a Level II Energy Survey is required before NYSERDA will approve the funding I suggest you take this course. There are no legal obligations to implement the recommendations of the study and you will have a detailed list of at least energy related projects. In this case you would likely have to pay a small fee as it appears that you have no intention of implementation.

any ideas on how long after the co-op plan was accepted can a occupied apartment be sold as unsold shares.
i have the original owner list from 20 years ago, i think one of the holders of unsold shares, sold the apartment to this person, long after the plan as finalized and accepted, we are talking years.
when unsold shares are sold they are no longer unsold shares.
anyone know what type of lawyer specializes in share owner issues?
could the answer be in the the by laws or proprietary lease? i have read both many times,and dont remember seeing it, don'tit may be referred to as some other legal term

I never tire of ready these posts. I have been in real estate for 40 years and love learning about the creative ways people dream up to beat the system. First, I can't understand how carpeting and parking spaces are paired. But that is another issue. To change rules to benefit a BM is certainly improper. Your question about where does it begin is the real dilemma. Were there residents who requested parking and didn't have carpeting? They should probably get first consideration. Then, how about all the money spent for carpeting simply because they wanted parking? Can they demand a sum fromt the board? Frankly, this whole issue sounds strange. But, no matter, rules should never be changed solely to accomodate a bm, manager or anyone else in a position of authority. Also, it might be a good idea to survey the community or ask for a vote. Residents do like to be included in decision making.
Dianne

Our condo board has three times submitted an amendment to obtain control over who owners rent their units to. Three times this amendment was denied by owners. Now management has submitted a memo stating that they must be notified if an owner decides to either sell or rent his/her unit. Management now also requires being notified of the real estate broker involved. Further management wants to be notified whenever the apartment will be shown as “this will allow management to have a better idea about when strangers will be walking through the building.” Since management doesn’t question when health aids and cleaning people walk through the building and prospective buyers and renters usually come with real estate agents who vet them prior to coming, further they must be over 55, my question is – is management overreaching since this matter has been voted down three times? Management goes on to say “these new policies are being implemented for your benefit.” The reason it was voted down is it’s because it’s not for our benefit but a power play by the board to make owners afraid not to vote for them.

When will coop's and Condo's get help to restrict the power the Board has over Shareholders? These horror stories are getting out of control. The Courts, politicians and all government agencies know about our horror and do nothing. Some people have no choice but to live in their coop and condo envirnment because they cannot afford to live elsewhere, what happens to them? What protection do they have, Board members go around threatning Shareholders, change rules with tighter restrictions to intimidate Shareholders into voting for them, this is a crime not to have a legal vote, it takes away their constitutional right and democratic rights. What a shame this is allowed to happen in a free,democratic,capitolistic country such as ours. I thought things like this only happen in a totalitarian county where dictators make all decisions as the Board of Directors depict in their actions. Why can't this be stopped communisim is certainly controlled.

I would certainly want an adequate explanation for those circumstances... do they have a cancelled check or transaction record showing that $108k payment? An accounting error would have a paper trail. Was the tax assessment appealed successfully, but only after the full amount was due/paid? Not unheard of.

Don't jump to a negative conclusion.... or an accusation that may be unfounded.

Hi,

This disparity looks ominous but isn't necessarily so. The City charges the larger amount but then it subtracts co-op abatements, STAR & senior credits so what the co-op (or mortgage company) pays is the net. The balance between the two is the shareholders, however, some co-ops assess that amount (mine doesn't).

I personally don't like that assessment as it is not an assessment on all shareholders equally, just to those with a credit due. In my mind, it tends to create two classes of shareholders so in my co-op, we just give it back as a credit on their bills.

I would suggest following the money trail. The funds are not in any way due to the managing agent unless that is in your management agreement (I sure hope not).

Presently many, if not most co ops recapture all or part of the abatement. However, it is unfair as you stated. A better and fairer way would be to assess each unit at a stated amount, perhaps, as an example 50 cents a share or whatever is necessary and in the month of the assessment recapture the rebate from those to whom it is due and expect personal payment from those who do not receive it. This would include any shares owned by the sponsor. We have been doing it successfully for years. The problem with this is the possibility of the elimination of the abatement. That will hurt many communities because those assessments are keeping many in a comfortable financial position.

Agreed, the abatement is a tax equalizer for co-op’s which as it stands are set to expire at year end. Our co-op just starting assessing it on a per share basis as one of several assessments, and yes the sponsor pays out of pocket, while shareholders pay only if the abatement doesn’t cover. This feeds directly into our capital reserve fund – which is separate from our operating funds, and reserve fund.
We do this for many reasons, but chief among them is our building needs the funds severely as we have serious local law 11, elevator, and plumbing issues. – This is what happens when your sponsor is the managing agent and still owns 60% of the building 30 years after conversion (thats a seperate conversation).
As far as differences with the city --- it happens frequently --- so nobody should rush to judgment. Most of the tax abatement information is online at www.nyc.gov in the finance section.
Note that I have seen the city take upwards of 18months to adjust their roles from sponsor to owner which has an impact to the buildings entire tax abatement amount.
A second key point is how the abatement works which is not ideal – the city credits the co-op by reducing the tax liability – so rather than cutting the shareholders checks, they adjust what is owed, which then allows the co-op to pay a reduce amount – with the difference going to shareholders.
Here is another odd twist – many – not all buildings only count their reduced tax bill as the total liability/expense for budgeting which is not correct – as they are still paying the un adjusted total, just in two ways – city as tax, shareholders as abatement funding. --- This can lead to cash shortages, delayed abatement credits, and many of shareholders concerns.
One last note, NYC’s fiscal year starts July 1, it doesn’t sink with the calendar year which is used for many co-ops reporting, please keep that in mind with differences, disputes, etc.
I hope this helps.

By law, all assessments must be on a per-share basis. This applies to an assessment for the real estate tax rebate. STAR and Veterans' credits are quite different: they cannot simply be assessed back because not all shareholders receive those credits.

As an example, consider a mythical coop with every apartment having 100 shares and maintenance of $10 per share per month. Suppose that the real estate tax abatement amounts to $5 per share. The coop assesses ONLY this amount back. On the same maintenance bill, STAR and/or Veterans' credits also appear, leading to once-a-year bills like this (the credits are just examples):

No STAR or Vet: $1000 - $500 abate + $500 assess = $1000
STAR only: ($1000 - 500 + 500) - $100 STAR = $900
STAR and Vet: ($1000 - 500 + 500) - $100 STAR - $50 Vet = $850

This sounds complicated, but good managing agents can grind out these numbers in their sleep. The per-share assessment is the same for everyone, which is the only legal way to do it.

Good catch!
All MangCo are not the same and tend to be as good as the Board demands -- but the rule should be: Trust but Varify. Also, put EVERY question in writing, start the Eamil trail.

Too many B/M consider the MangCo and PropAgent thier friends, while forgetting that they are employees whose agnedas differs from the S/H's. and whose work needs constant review and scrutizing.

We are in the process of trying to find missing monies from our accounts from a few years ago. We also discovered that our previous MangCo took the easy way out and -- by discontinuing the (legal) practice of having non-union workers fill in for vacation/sick days, we lost -- in one year -- over $60,000 by paying regulars to fill in. Regular staff is paid Union scale+benifits+etc while non-union is pay only for the hours they work. Its extra work for the MangCo to keep the non-union pool of workers.

As we go into LL11, no matter how "nice" your MangCo or PropMang are, and professional the engeener-- read the contracts, engeeners reports, take a visual tour and ASK questions. Once the work starts those expensive "Change of Orders", become a cash flow for the engeener. We discovered overlooked work during a visual tour of the building with the engeeners report in hand -- also private work on a B/M apartment was included in the cost. Too often, Common Sense trumps the experts.

If you see that the MangCo is tring to discourage questions or intimidate B/M who ask too many questions -- remember that its YOUR Money, and YOUR building -- and ultimatley the Board, if you do not do your due-dillegence (sp), is responsible.

If this sounds extreme -- its because we have experieced it all, and our Coop has learned an expensive and hard lesson. TRUST but VARIFY!
VP

Does everyone know about this?

Discounts for Early Payment
Taxpayers who pay the "Everything You Owe..." amount on the Statement of Account coupon are entitled to a discount. For bills with due dates after July 1, 2010 (FY11), you will receive a reduction of:

1% on the full amount of your yearly property tax if you pay the entire amount shown on your bill by the July due date (or grace period due date).
0.66% discount on the last three quarters if you wait until October to pay the entire amount due.
0.33% discount on the last six months of your taxes when you pay the remaining balance by the January due date.
If you pay semi-annually you will receive the 1% discount if the entire amount owed for the tax year is paid by July 1st.

Thanks for the info, we have known about it but find if very difficult to move past the pay as you go structure we have in place. With our real estate taxes over 200K, only 57 apartments, and a large foot print of 70K square feet, we have no real way to boost accruals to save the funds needed to make the payment and realize the savings. If you can take advantage of the offer, Kudos!

Yes, we save up all year, get interest on the savings and then pay it off all at once. We save/gain interest of about $3k a year.

I was in the same situation earlier in the season. I found out a neighbor didn't get heat and WE complained to the management office. Supers tend to pay more attention the management office than residents. So, find out if any of your neighbors above, below or next to you (depending your the route).

If you live in a co-op you can also take Corporation to housing court as the relationship of a Co-op to its shareholders is that of a landlord-tenant. In that instance, owners can file very cheaply at their borough's housing court against the corporation for lack of heat and a Board Member and counsel have to appear in court. It is best to register your complaints to 311 and have an inspector come out and take temperature readings so that a violation is issued. Good luck. It is the faster route to take when your Board and managing agent fail to remedy the problem,

Last month we rented an upscale Manhattan condo, through a reputable real estate firm.
The realtors repeatedly reassured us that heat was included in the pricey rent.
Now the owner has informed us that there is only one small baseboard unit that is provided with the rent; the remaining 2 bedrooms, kitchen, dining living areas are controlled by individual thermostats, providing forced air heat. The owner said the hear through this HVAC system will be billed directly to us by Con Ed,
I have emails from the realtors which clearly state that the heat is included in the rent. I would never have rented a high floor corner apartment with floor to ceiling windows, had I known that I would bear the cost of heat.
Do I have recourse?
Thanks.

Are you responsible for the radiators or is the building? (check your purchase agreement, if the rad is not considered common property, then you are responsible). If you are responsible (or even if you are not) I would suggest you call a heating company to inspect the radiator - it could be malfunctioning. If you are responsible, then you would pay for any repair. If you are not responsible for the rads, I would still get it repaired (if that what it needs), pay the bill, and then submit it for reimbursement.
Or, if the building is responsible, you can file a complaint with the City:
http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/renters/complaints-and-inspections.page

Hi,

Do you have steam heat or hot water? And if Steam, do you have two pipe or single pipe steam heat?

I would suggest making sure the valve that connects the convector to the pipes in the floor or wall is full open (for steam, it should never be partially closed anyway). Then, check the air valve on the convector. It should hiss to let the air out when the steam is rising and shut when hot. If it does not hiss, either your airvalve is busted and needs replacing or your convector is not getting any steam.

If hot water, then the valve in your unit needs to be bled too.

I hope these suggestions work :)

HabitatReporter here with a response from Eric Goidel, Esq., of Borah Goldstein Altschuler Nahins, & Goidel, P.C.:


"Unfortunately, if building personnel are unable to provide a permanent solution to the radiator problem, your only real remedies are to file a complaint with the City of New York Department of Housing Preservation & Development and if then unresolved possibly pursue a personal civil action.

New York City heat laws require that when the outside temperature falls below 55°F, between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., a landlord must provide sufficient heat to maintain apartments at a minimum of 68°F. Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. where the outside temperature falls below 40°F, heat must be provided such that an apartment has a minimum temperature of 55°F. A call to the City’s 311 line will eventually result in an inspector coming to your unit and taking thermometer readings. If the readings are not in compliance with law, a violation will be issued to the Board of Managers. Fines are significant and can quickly mount up. Unfortunately, in a condominium setting, a unit owner does not have the same ability to withhold their common charges as might a shareholder in a cooperative who could withhold maintenance. The failure to furnish heat would be a defense in a cooperative to a nonpayment proceeding. As there is no lease for a condominium unit and thus, no landlord-tenant relationship, the only ability that a unit owner has to obtain personal redress is to commence an action against the board of managers for damages. Damages however will seldom ever exceed the common charges owed for the period of time when the unit was without heat. Add to this the legal fees which the unit owner would incur and it often makes such an action economically impractical."

Excellent answer...& it illustrates another way in which condo owners lack important protections afforded to both co-op owners [because they're technically tenants] AND apartment renters.

With an ombudsman in place, condo residents wouldn't be faced with high costs & long delays to litigate for this basic human need. Shareholders & renters without heat can call 311 & get prompt action, with a violation letter usually bringing a quick remedy. The ombudsman would work in similar fashion, with similar results.

Condo owners concerned with attaining rights equal to those of other apartment residents should write to their state senator & assemblymember in support of the Ombudsman Bill, S. 395.