The New York Council Of Cooperatives issues a pamphlet every year with comparisons of coop maintenance charges of is member's buildings broken down into several subcategories.

For apartment buildings the comparison is done on a per room basis and for loft buildings on a per sq foot basis.

It's probably the most accurate way to compare them.

Keep in mind that the square footage of an apartment has it's tricks as well.
Some include the partition walls, others the closets and some the outside building walls.

Our co-op starting tracking square footage/maintenance stats about five years ago when shareholders complained about our "high" fees. We discovered that our co-op, though slightly above average for our area, was still a very good value where maintenance is concerned, especially important in the larger apartments.

Don't forget that the fees also reflect the cost of the underlying mortgage. That varies from coop to coop so it is very hard to compare other than in a very general way.

Lol - not a chance. Building layout, location and service load issues have a huge impact. For example an 111 unit Coop in one building with doormen verses an 111 unit Coop in three buildings with doormen are very different from a cost perspective.

In my opinion, be very careful in making comparisons like this.

Deciding whether or not maintanence is high is extremely subjective. There is no scientific method to determine it. Appraisers would be the first ones to tell you this. However, it is a good idea to look at the ratio between maintancence and sq. ft selling price. That gives you a broad perspective on your building and others.

Hope this helps.

http://www.thepinehurst.org/resources/ManhMaintWeb.pdf

The sponsor should be responsible for the same expenses per unit that shareholders pay. Items such as taxes and plumbing as you mention should be pro rated per unit except for any work done within a unit. That is the personal responsibility of the unit owner as is in most cases the heat. Check your conversion plan to see if there is an exclusion for the sponsor. If that is the case, you are stuck.

You can start eviction proceedings, following the course laid out in the Proprietary Lease. If it does not say that you have to have a face to face meeting in the Prop Lease, you should be ok to begin. Run it by your Cooperative's attorney, should you still be concerned about it.

The cause of the eviction is important. Is it for lack of payment or through a history of non-compliance of rules which will cause the termination of the lease and eviction?

Eviction for lack of payment requires a judgment from court prior to eviction by a marshall. Non-compliance with rules requires major issues, and possibly an whole legal procedure with court involved. Face-to-face communications most likely took place with management, in court, etc.

No one can be evicdted without judgment from court.

Well, it all depends on your Proprietary Lease. In the case of our property, we just went through eviction proceedings for a year of non-payment on maintenance. We went through out lawyer who got the eviction approved. The unit actually was to go to auction at town hall, but the day before the bank that holds the mortgage for the unit paid us the delinquent maintenance so they wouldn’t lose the mortgage. The bank was then able to sell the unit and we are actually going to be interviewing the prospective owner tomorrow.

If the issue is for delinquent maintenance you may want to have your lawyer contact their bank. The bank might pay the delinquent maintenance instead of lose the mortgage and then add the difference to the mortgage. That way you don’t have to worry about it and it becomes the banks problem.

Note that the standard Aztech recognition agreement requires that you notify the shareholder's bank if the shareholder falls three months behind in maintenance payments. Furthermore, if the bank chooses to pay the overdue charges on behalf of the shareholder, you must accept the money.

Our coop never had evictions before, and now we've got two possibly brewing. One has set up house in a deceased relative's apartment but has not applied to live here and is not paying monthly maintenance; and another who sublet from a shareholder and is not paying him. We have no role in that situation (the shareholder is paying the maintenance), but are watching it closely. Our lawyer is dealing with the squatter. It's painful that people seem to feel it's okay to take such advantage.

ummmm... I don't get why your board sent a notice to cure a "non-nuisance causing dog" to a shareholder of any age in the first place, especially if there are other dogs in the building.

If I were your Board, I'd pay the fees and count myself fortunate she doesn't file a harassment suit... from what you describe, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

What was the purpose of asking a long term tenant with a non nuisance dog to give it up? What was the point? I assume you want to be a no pet bldg? That being said, I've never heard of a bldg that would ask someone to give up their pet rather than not allowing new pets. If a board made a rule that all tenants now must upgrade their electric, would the board require that all current shareholders bare the expense to upgrade or leave? Boards should tell their attorneys what to do not the other way around.

I agree. Pets are family and are known to be mentally and physically therapeutic, hence the service dogs at nursing homes, hospitals, schools, etc. To force someone to give up a pet is asking them to leave the building too.

Correction on previous description of this gaff: I just found out the pet owner the Board Pres went after is a tenant of a rent-stabilized unit that is still owned by the sponsor. Our Prez made the sponsor threaten legal action. Are we still liable for tenant's legal fees or can she only present them to the sponsor for reimbursement. She knows it is our Pres that started this harrassment. There are shareholders and tenants alike with cats and dogs--are cats considered the same as dogs in a no-pet building?

Virtually every Proprietary Lease has a clause that requires a shareholder in default to pay the coop's legal fees in dealing with that default. (This is often Paragraph 28.) Real Property Law Sec. 234 says that any such clause implies a reciprocal obligation on the part of the coop. In other words, if the coop defaults on the lease, then the coop has to pay the shareholder's legal fees.

I'm not a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you owe the shareholder her legal fees. It is absolutely clear that she is protected by the Pet Law -- you admit that "everyone knows" she had the dog for "many years" and there was no nuisance -- so you had no legal basis for demanding that she get rid of the dog. This could certainly be construed as harassment. I'd pay her legal bills in a hurry, along with a fervent apology.

You should of course check with your coop attorney before doing anything. I say this mainly because it doesn't sound like you consulted your lawyer the first time around. I can't imagine any attorney advising you to go after a longtime pet who wasn't a nuisance, since you would clearly be in the wrong.

Well I guess my Board gets the gaff of the century award for this one. It was instigated by the Board President. It's a partially sponsor-owned building and there are some rent protected tenants who have long term esa pets and I think Prez was trying to set the tone for making the sponsor remove his tenant's pets. I heard the sponsor did something similar to some of his stabiziled renters but that was probably in a move to try and get the units back. I think the renters are demanding legal fees back too. I thought that since we dropped the action and never actually served the owner with eviction papers that it meant we were not responsible for legal fees since it was never a real lawsuit that we lost. I know if we lose we pay SH fees, but we dropped it, right? Still think we have to pay?

Again, I'm not an attorney, but when the board told the shareholder she had to get rid of her pet, you violated her right of quiet enjoyment, regardless of whether any lawsuit was involved. This is a default under the lease and the shareholder would certainly have a legitimate claim for any legal fees she incurred. If you balk at paying these fees, I would expect the shareholder to go for the jugular and sue you for everything she can think of. She'd probably win.

As I said, we made a big mistake listening to the Board President. I think it was personal mission he was on and thought that we should uphold the no pet policy to set an example for the rest of the SH who want dogs and also to provoke the sponsor into holding up his end with tenants that have pets. I hope we get off with just paying her current legal fees.

Thanks all,

Words fail me as to the stupidity and incompetency of this board. The board member who suggested this action should immediately resign. This is yet another example of boards overreaching their power to harm people they don’t like. I hope the owner sues the hell out of you personally.

It happens all too often unless there is a watchdog (fogive the pun in this circumstance) watching over "my-agenda" board members. One will get something into his or her head and watch out -- with a strong enough personality that director can talk over, scream over, and win over the majority. Calmer heads do not always prevail, unfortunately. Board members should try to remember that this is not about what "they" like or don't like -- it's about the co-op and the shareholders in general.

This sounds like pure fee generation on the part of the attorney who started this suit. I live in an upscale co op on the Queens/Nassau border and (in my iopinion, gotta put that in so he doesn't sue me)our rather ineffectual attorney started about a dozen "illegal dog" suits. He dropped all but one, yet, we must pay for the expense of the dropped litigation. This is the same attorney who orchestrated having to go to court for a recount after an election whereby I lost by 806 shares out of 5 million cast. He then proceeded to bring in one of Donald Trump's attorney's to prevent me from getting the ballots for a recount I was willing to pay for. I was awarded the right, but by then the new election was here. This little fiasco cost the shareholders $86,000. I paid $5,000 to my attorney. These attorney's have to be stopped and made accountable for their actions and fees. Boards have to have members who understand the law and will question the actions of both the lawyers and accountants. Without knowledgable board members we are at the mercy of those on our payroll. If Senator Liz Krueger's bill were passed, we would at least have a government agency to assist us. Will everyone with complaints please talk to their elected officials about supporting Senate bill 7958 to start an ombourdsman agency for co ops and condos.
Thank you.
A fellow disgrntled shareholder who wants to make a difference.

Pay up and learn from your mistake. Not sure who on the board is making these bad decisions. Common sence should prevail when making a decision. Having said that common sense and boards is a rarity in my time in building mgt.

MRM.

Are those Walter Pidgeons? :)

We have swarms of gulls and other birds that fly from one roof to another and bless us with their droppings on window ledges, fire escapes that windows open onto. Do birds "drop" while flying or do they have to be roosting on the roof to leave massive amounts of poo like they do certain times of year? Our mgmt says there is nothing to do to attenuate this problem. Any suggestions? Also, is it the co-op's responsibility to clean ledges, fire escapes?

There's a "Previous New Product" that may help, at http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Previous-New-Products/Bird-B-Gone-Bird-Jolt-Flat-Track

Might be other, similar stuff if you go through the "PNP" list

We used a product called "bird be gone". These are safe, non-toxic, non- whatever spikes that we put on our roof. We have not had a pigeon problem since we installed them. If you put them where the pigeons tend to land, they cannot do so because the spikes are in the way. They move to another location. Bye, Bye, Birdie.

It is obvious that those on your board are self serving (power corrupts) and do not care about the operation of your property. In 17 years of building management sad to say I have yet to see a board that is not self serving.

MRM

I gather you are a board member. If this is the case, you need to need to discuss this at a board meeting. Be open and frank as to how these actions present a conflict of interest. Be ready to persuade other board members to see the point if they are short sighted and has not seen the problem and to confront it. To be part of the Board and not bring issues of this sort is complying with a breach.

If you are just a shareholder, you may test the air in a very vailed manner. You may wish to find how they think and if what you see may affect them in some way. If the large majority of shareholders do not see it, then you may be in a co-op where ëverything goes!

Termination of lease means the person ceases to be a shareholder.
The shares are claimed/owned by the corporation.
It's the equivalent of a foreclosure.

The co-op does not quite end with the unit. It has to inform the lender if there is a mortgage on the shares and the lender claim the unit. Otherwise the process continues until the unit goes on auction before it is taken over as part of co-op property.

AdC

We encountered this last year. Our attorney filed the Notice of Default and commenced proceedings. The unit was auctioned. Relatives of the Shareholder were still occupying the apartment. An investor bought the unit at auction (with the knowledge that the unit was occupied). The investor wound up taking the occpants to court and having them evicted.

Your best bet is to have the corporation's attorney handle everything from start to finish to get them out and make sure that everything is handled legally and properly.

Of course. The person may abstain for subjective reasons as well.

Local Law 11 is one big factor this upcoming year.

We are treating LL 11 as "capital".

I am not an accountant, but to my knowledge, LL 11 is not typically a capital expence as it is maitenance, if you couple the work with some desired improvement you may be able to work it in.


~AR

You're absolutely right! Local 11 is maintenance work and payment of taxes indicates on the work that this is maintenance.

I think the idea persists that if greater than $5K, it must be capital expense.

Great question.. Like to see more answers!

I am doing budgets for about 17 buil;dings right now and my average increase this year is 5-7%.. last year was much higher.

~AR

We are in the process of reviewing our current budget and planning for 2011. We continue to see a rise in utility, water/sewer and labor costs. We also have the potential based on today’s oil price for higher energy costs in the future, along with continuing need to meet regulatory requirements – water backflow preventers, elevator code changes, local law 11, and new green laws. Discussions about maintenance /assessments are underway.

Add in the following factors, we have seen a sharp rise in arrears since July with no return to normalization expected until at least Q1 2011, and it hinders our ability to raise the funds for operations or capital improvements.

We also have some major façade and terrace work that needs to be completed – a refinance of our underlying mortgage can not be completed until 2012 due to a lock out period, so we will be under stress and probably pay higher rates to obtain alternative funding.

One last factor we have in our building that impacts our decision making– lack of resident shareholders living in the building:
We have 57 apartments (29 sponsors) 28 purchasing shareholders
Out of the 28 purchasing shareholders. (5 have relatives living there and 4 are being sublet and 2 are empty as the families live here part time) we are down to 17 (29.9%) apartments that actually owned and occupied by purchasing shareholders.

This makes it much more difficult to educate shareholders about our financial needs and improvements to the building and raise maintenance and assessments.

So where does that leave us…. We will probably raise the maintenance a nominal amount and need an assessment, but very well may not be around to implement the proper budgeting and use of funds.

If anyone has any thoughts or comments, please let me know.

Thanks