I would rather borrow from a spiteful in-law than have my co-op borrow from a shareholder.

Even if your attorney, accountant and property manager give you a thumbs-up (and I'd bet a year's maintenance that they don't), doing business with friends is never a good idea.

Do business with a business whose business is making loans. If you borrow from a neighbor you'll probably be back here in a few years asking for advice on how to get out of the deal.

I have to agree that it's a bad idea to do business with friends. I don't know what the project entails but it could present problems with control as well. Not unlike the current TARP situation on Wall Street, if this wealthy shareholder lends the corporation money, she could feel entitled to control the project because she is providing the money and the board may feel obligated to agree.

You say that the amount is relatively small - with that in mind I don't think the savings you may realize is worth the potential risk to the relationship with your shareholder.

I agree with WAB that borrowing money from a SH for a capital project could also present control problems. The SH might want a say in how "her" money is spent. She might want to see contractor bids, have a say in deciding what contractor the project is given to, see and OK invoices for the work before they are paid, etc. Unless she is a BM or is on a committee for the project, there are aspects of this that she shouldn't be involved in. There are many ways the relationship between coop and SH could suffer in this situation, and the project could suffer too.

CDT: Legal issues aside, if your SH lends money to your coop, she's really lending it to all the SHs. I don't think it would sit well with them no matter how good the terms are. She may hold it over them, and unless she's a very community-conscious, selfless person, she expects something out of it. Maybe just having everyone say how wonderful she is, or maybe she wants to run for the Board and hopes SHs will vote for her out of guilt because she did something for them. I'd question the motives of anyone who made an offer like this. Just my opinion.

The best solution I have ever encountered was as brilliant as it was expensive: electric heaters under the sidewalk. On West 43rd Street. No matter the weather, there was never snow, ice, slush or anything worse than water on the concrete. I just walked by it, so know nothing about the installation or cost.

the question is: what is it?

A good super and a broom :-)

http://www.safepaw.com/

I am a reident manager, on day like today get your hose out and wash your side walk.Calcium chloride is a better alternative then rock salt.

Here's something that may help. It ran as part of Habitatmag.com's "Friday New Produsts" --

EnvironMelt Green De-Icer

http://habitatmag.com/publication_content/previous_new_products/environmelt_green_de_icer

In addition to the usual coat or raincoat for the dog, what about boots. They don't like it, but there are such things. As AR suggests, sweeping the sidewalks and ensuring that the salt is not dumped by the trees and shrubs. It will also damage their roots.

AdC

With all due respect, AdC.... ever try to fit a boot onto a small dog? Let alone FOUR of them? And try to keep them on their feet?

The salt being used by most buildings/supers is awful. Bad for the environment, bad for dogs, bad for trees/plants.... and most supers use way, way too much of it at the first sign of snow so they won't have to shovel anything.

right on man. it is so they dont have to shovel. that is the truth. plain and simple. it is terrible stuff - that salt.

While you may take these preventative steps to ensure that harmful chemicals are not used, your neighbors may not.

Each pet owner has to decide for themselves how much trouble they are willing to go through for their pet based on their own level of concern and love for their pet. I believe AdC is only adding a layer of protection for your pets safety, and I concur. If you decide to have a pet in the city you should be aware of the added menaces, perils and responsibilities that come with it… So if it means booties on the pup to help him & maintain his health, then why not?

And yes, supers do throw unnecessary salt to ease their workload; it is somewhat justifiable in heavier weather where the salt will be quickly dissolved. Although they should be using a greener alternative, the fact is that it is more expensive and many buildings would not approve of the super purchasing a $25 bag of the alternative (calcium chloride, etc..) over the $8 per bag of rock salt. My supers also keep sand on hand for lighter snow or ice days; afterwards it is swept up.

~AR

It is only a matter pf preference to set the meters back or not. I prefer not, simply because there is never an argument as to where the meter was last and billing is indisputable. You might want to try a third party reading company; I can provide you with some if you need.

Pictures? I have never heard of this; however, it may be part of your individual management contract. This is not typical though and may either not be received well from the management company or you will be charged extra for it.

Too many factors come into play with figuring cost; insulation, AC age and unit efficiency, desired or controlled temperature, outdoor temperature, etc... there is not real set rule of thumb.

There are also energy auditing companies (REAP Consulting, etc..) that can come in and do an audit for your building.

~AR

I am resident manager for a mulit unit building, I am not familair with the meters that you have described . If there are meters, setting them back to zero should not be the issue, what needs to happen if that every week someone should be taking a reading, then every 2 weeks so we can try and see the consumption of energy; then we begin to compare them and if this month is alot higher then last month then yes we have an issue at hand. Pictures speak a thousnad words, but in this case i dont see what it cant do a weekly/monthly log needs to be implemented. As far as question #3, I have and use a great a/c company I will be more then happy to provide you with the info, who will assess the situation and advise you on what you need to do.

The idea of charging more sounds ridiculous!

The space occupied by the individual is the surface area. This happens to be the same no matter how you slice it.
My only contention is, I hope those with exposed beams do not start complaning of more noise and dust coming from the unit above.

Good luck!

AdC

My only concern was the one raised earlier: if this shareholder will now have more area (cubic feet) to heat, all shareholders will be paying to pump more heat into that one apartment. Fuel prices are low this winter (compared to last year, anyway) but don't count on them staying low.

If the ceiling the shareholder wants to remove/adjust is original to the building, then I think it's fair to ask them to pay more.

Two corrections need to be made to earlier posts. Sherman asks if shareholders don't own their apartments "slab to slab." The answer is no, shareholders do not own property. They own stock in a corporation; those shares give stockholders the right to occupy an apartment, but the apartment itself belongs to the corporation.

Second, if we're referring to the maintenance fee, shareholders are not charged by square feet. The size of an apt is certainly part of the formula, but it also includes such things as the number of bathrooms, and which floor it's on.

Intangibles count too, like how nice the view is. Think of it this way -- if Apt 12A and 12B both have 1,100 square feet, four rooms, one bathroom and the same view, would they both have the same number of shares if 12B had 20-foot ceilings while 12A had 9-foot ceilings? Clearly, the apartments aren't the same even though the "footprint" is the same.

Did the shareholder in question ever requested authorization from the Board to do the type of work described? As AR mentioned before, would the removal of the ceiling violate any code. If the apartment is sold would the co-op insist on re-installing the ceiling or would the new shareholder assume the responsibility for any issues pertaning to the removal of the ceiling.

Regarding your heating of the extra space, I would not think this would be a great issue, specially being on the first floor. Yes, heat rises and the living space may be cooler than the exposed beams. But the space gained may not be more than a 10" to 12". I also assume that the shareholder did not expose all beams in the rooms and the entire length of the beams, but certain rooms and areas to avoid exposure of heating distribution pipes (which could contain asbestos) and electrical wire conduits that may be part of the structure.

As AR states, charging more for the apartment means issuing more shares for the apartment and this would be a great ordeal. Finally, this is the type of work that the Board should review and ask the questions before providing authorizing similar work n to avoid after the fact questions.

AdC

Ridiculous on the face of it - check your Proprietary Lease.
People are charged for square footage, not cubic footage; raising maintenance fees for people who take off a ceiling to get more cubic footage would be charging them more for having the same space!

While a lot depends on the language of the lease, original construction details of the co-op are critical. For example, are ANY utilities now exposed that had been concealed by the drop ceiling? Air supply or return ducts, plumbing pipes, electric conduit, etc? If so, this was a working plenum space, & the owner did, indeed, annex common area. If no utilities are found, it's possible drop ceilings were added after construction, & any owner removing now is simply reclaiming space that's already theirs.

There's little question that an apartment with 9' floor-to-ceiling height would have greater value than the same apartment with 8' ceilings, just as the same apartment on a higher floor or with other amenities is typically worth more. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the Board to consider this question.

However, the simple & equitable solution would be for the Board to declare that all owners have the right to utilize this "newly discovered" plenum space, provided that they acquire permission & follow all proper procedures for having the work done.

I know this isn't comparable, but ...
In my (old) building with a sloping roof, a top-floor shareholder wanted to remove his ceiling eliminating the space between it and the underside of the roof, which would have raised the height of his ceiling to over 10 feet at its highest point. The board refused its permission to do so. The board members didn't agree on a single reason. My concern was that with that much more cubic volume in the space, the existing supply of heat would not sufficiently warm the apartment, especially since it was right under the roof, and we'd get complaints that his apartment wasn't warm enough.

Bingo! You put your finger on a very important issue, that is, space volume and sufficient heat. We have two units with 12 foot ceilings in our building, They have always been cold, but it's gotten worse as the windows age. Our engineer did a calculation and they were 5,000 BTUs short of having sufficient radiation to heat the place. Corp had to install larger radiators. Some SHs on other floors are considering opening up their ceiling for aesthetics and we may have them sign an alteration agreement saying they do this at their own risk and if their heating fails, they have to upgrade radiators on their own.

Folks,

Does not a shareholder own the apartment slab to slab and wall to wall? The co-op owns inside the wall and the owner owns the paint and outward, to over simplify.

But, the shares are typically allocated based on floor size within the unit as bounded by the walls regardless if useable or not, e.g.: walls and columns are not subtracted from the square foot calculation and the elevation, floor within a building, e.g.: higher equals more shares.

A unit owner is thus not encumbered in modifying an apartment save with the provisions of the bylaws and house rules. As for charging more for “improvements”, in this case removing a drop ceiling, it is out of the question and just a bit incredulous.

But, if the dropped ceiling is used as a fire break or sound buffer, then the corporation can assert that the drop ceiling cannot be removed. This is the corporation’s only recourse.

We don't know what "slab to slab" means at this building. IF the dropped ceiling defines a working plenum, then the shareholder's space likely begins with the paint on the underside of that sheetrock, while the corporation owns the plenum. This detail is critical.

The larger point is that dealing with each apartment case-by-case would be as silly as trying to increase the % of building maintenance paid by those with a little extra headroom. Make a building-wide decision to allow, then move on.

Given that attention is paid--as has been rightly pointed out by others--to issues of adequate heat, noise, etc., then no shareholder will be measurably inconvenienced or financially burdened by anyone's individual ceiling choice.

Slab to slab or slab to "drop ceiling" ----
Who is responsible for the drop ceiling?

Is it the corporation? If yes, then the resident may not remove/alter without permission and stipulations.

Is it the shareholder? If yes, then this is a simple alteration within a unit and most often, the corporation is not involved save to ensure that insured and licensed contractors perform the work.

Hi, Sherman,

As someone in the real estate business, I feel obligated to point out a common error you made. A Co-op owner does not, in fact, own any part of his/her apartment (not counting the furnishings, of course).

When you buy into a co-op you buy shares in a corporation. The corporation owns the building and all the apartments in it. Your shares grant you the right to live in one of the apartments as long as you sign the lease (that's the proprietary lease).

Since co-op shareholders don't own their apartments, the corporation determines which alterations are made and under what circumstances.

It is important to note with this information you have provided that while the Co-op (or higher governing Corporation as is in some cases) owns the building in entirety, the resident Shareholder has purchased shares entitling them to a long term, almost perpetual Proprietary Lease Agreement for use and occupancy of a specified area, which clearly states and defines the area that the resident shareholder is leasing and responsible for. The borders of this Leased area, which is typically plaster to plaster on a horizontal level and flooring substrate to plaster on a vertical plane (making no mention here of elec, plumbing, etc.).

Consequently, the Co-op would either have to amend the particular lease to include the given areas, which would then require a reallocation of shares, maintenance, etc.. and is more trouble than it is worth for a small indenture as this, or it may sell permanent usage/easement to the Leaseholder for a single payment with no share allocation. This is usually the best way to go, and is typical of may similar situations we have done.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, I am still somewhat opposed to this particular idea because of the liability concerns and potential future problems that are sure to arise. Good Luck.

~AR

Allot of good insight from others here.
A couple of thoughts…
Who keeps the long term liability? I would only add that the Board should seek some form of indemnification from the shareholder. It would have to be treated on the level of performing your own plumbing alterations within the wall.. the SH now owns it and all issues arising as a result of the alteration.

With regard to the financial remuneration, for what they will get, it is probably best to forgo it and limit their liability as much as possible by simply permitting the alteration with an indemnification and full understanding by the SH that they may be required to restore it back to its original condition should it create a problem, in any of the mentioned areas ort be some violation of building or fire code, etc..

Also word into the agreement that “… permission does not constitute legitimacy of any kind… it is the SH sole responsibility to ensure that this alteration is compliant with all state, city and local building codes, etc…” or something to that effect.

~AR

Ellen, I've found a Habitat article about this very thing. You might want to check out "Your Ceiling -- Or IS It?" at

http://habitatmag.com/publication_content/habitat_s_purchasing_primer_news_for_new_buyers/your_ceiling_or_is_it

Operating expenses are never to be funded by a mortgage. It is a death spiral.

I completely agree with Jake. As difficult as it is, you must raise the necessary funds for your taxes and all other operating expenses through your maintenance or other sources of income that your building may have. At the same time make sure that you have engaged with a Certiorari attorney to protest your valuation on an ongoing basis.

WAB and JAKE,
Thank you for your response. Very helpful. I will pass it on to other board members. Best, FD

You might as well finance your electric and fuel bills for the next 10 years also and eventually the debt burden will be so great that the value of the apartment will drop to next to nothing and you will be struggling to pay a 25,000 per month maintenance bill on your apartment...

Sounds almost like the United States budgeting practices that put us all in the spot we are in...

Not beating a dead horse here, but.. Don't do it!

~AR

we have these in our building-During a power outage a wife brought her husband down in the chair. He had recent knee surgery and could not walk the stairs. Great item to have even if its not a matter of life and death!

...and other interesting things are all the time in the Previous New Products section. We love it! We get ideas from it.

There's a whole article specifically about tax-commission assessment reductions here on this site.

Go to http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_content/2009_january/web_exclusive_adaptations/tax_appeals_for_condos_specifically

I read this article (& the related pieces in this month’s Habitat) before posting my question. If there are answers here, I can’t find them.

The closest thing to relevant advice is in the Editor’s Note, where a Board is cautioned to “insulate itself from any controversy between current and former owners” & to “consult with your attorney about how to deal with this.” I had pointed out this potential problem...but it’s a peripheral concern.

The basic question is how to properly allocate a Board-negotiated, building-wide cash refund of property taxes. I believe a straightforward answer exists, but have not seen the question addressed in any of numerous publications about the tax certiorari process.

I do not think this is a matter which should require legal consultation, 1 property at a time.

It sounds as though your question IS a straightforward one: how to allocate a refund of taxes paid, by the corporation on behalf of all Shareholders, on an equitable basis. Since payment of taxes is done by the corporation, and could be allocated on a per-share basis to begin with, it would seem that refunding them on a per-share basis would be the fairest way.

For example, if you have 27,000 shares and your refund is $27,000, $1 per share would be allocated; a Shareholder having 600 shares would receive a $600 share of the refund.

While I agree that legal counsel (and its fees) isn't needed here, the Board might like to rethink the refund... that $27,000 would go a long way toward ameliorating the cost of a needed elevator upgrade, for example, or could earn substantial income if deposited with reserves.

Hope this was helpful.

Thanks, RLM, but as you'll note in my response to Harvey, payment of taxes in condos is NOT done by the corporation, but by the individual apartment owners. The owners do, however, typically grant the Board [via the By-Laws] the power to hire counsel & pursue tax certiorari appeals on behalf of the collective owners.

While it may, indeed, be tempting for an Association to apply refunds toward capital projects, doing so would amount to an allocation by ownership shares...which probably won't be in proportion to the way the taxes were paid.

I misread this as a co-op....

While I am in a coop and each unit has an allocation of shares representing both the unit and the common areas, I am ignorant as to how condos allocate common charges. Perhaps, any tax rebate should be allocated or pro rated in the same manner, e.g.: the percentages used to apportion common charges.

We are working towards converting from coop to condo and I know we plan to retain the shares per unit as the medium for allocating common charges.

This article gives us some food for thought.

Thanks all.

Thanks, Harvey, but condos are fundamentally different in that each apartment is a taxable piece of real property. The building doesn't pay tax on the residential units--it's paid by the individual owner-occupants [or investors].

Allocation by ownership shares would not return tax monies in proportion to the way they were originally paid.

Have you consulted with the condo accountant as to the way it should be distributed?

I think you have the right idea when you state the following:

In refunding directly to owners, the substantial headache of determining actual taxes paid on each unit--so that direct disbursement or credit is correctly allocated--should not be discounted. Will this process be reliably accurate? Should it be transparent, with results published or available to all owners?

However, more than taxes paid which may be abated by any of the programs, you should ook into the assessed value of each unit so that you may come up with the right amounts per unit.

AdC

This is not 1 building, but many. There are accountants in each camp; some must be wrong.

As for assessed value: let's say you & your neighbor have identical apartments. Your neighbor is elderly, disabled, & a permanent resident, meaning he receives STAR & other tax breaks. It's your 2nd home, & you're young & healthy...you have no abatements.

The condo negotiates a tax refund which works out to $1,000 for your unit. Adjusted proportionally for the lower taxes your neighbor actually paid, he would get $650. Do you think it's fair, then, for him to get the full $1,000, based on assessment alone?

What if your neighbor is a diplomat, or if the unit is owned by a nonprofit to house staff or guests...or as an office? They've paid no taxes--should they get a refund?

Multiply by, in some cases, hundreds of units in a building, & it can get complicated. Plus, some of the disparities can be quite sizable.

It would be nice to see a knowledgeable atty or accountant weigh in on this one.

It seems that you argue that those who get STAR, and other exemptions are not entitled to obtain their portion of the tax certiorari. Unfortunately, I disagree; if the unit were to change hands and all of those exemptions were gone, the assessed value of the units would remain the same. Your arguments seem to say that, because some people had no exemptions, you are in the obligation to compensate them for their lack of exemption by giving more to them through the tax certiorari refund. You seem to forget that a tax certiorari takes into account the overall assessed value of the property by compared to other property situated in your area.

Well, those who got STAR declared on their IRS forms the money advanced to them in the case of a shareholder. I guess in a condo as well as in a house, the owner only declared their discounted portion to the IRS as their tax burden. Consequently, those with less exemptions or none, delcared their larger payments of taxes as part of their IRS form.

Non-profits pay taxes for property, properties owned by a diplomat as a private citizen of a foreign country may pay taxes; however, the person may not pay income taxes and as a diplomat may enjoy inmunities of several nature. Now, property owned by a foreign country for the purpose of establishing an embassy may be another question. I don't think a residential building has to worry of an embassy in their apartments.

Consequently, consult the tax accountant and get guidelines that are unbiased when distributing the gelt.

AdC

I agree with much of your analysis, AdC: assessed value does not change, whether or not abatements are in place. When rate reductions are negotiated, all units benefit going forward from proportionately lower assessments...whether or not their taxes are paid fully, or reduced.

Refunds, however, are intended to return a portion of taxes paid to those who actually paid them. That's why a multi-year tax refund raises interesting practical & ethical questions for an owner who purchased mid-term; as discussed earlier, the issue of whether to share with the seller is best left to the individual owner, his attorney, & his conscience. Where abatements are concerned, however, the questions are much broader, more complex, & must be made building-wide by the Board.

Tax cert attorneys negotiate a lump-sum settlement for a building, based on what the unit owners collectively paid for the period in question. When the Board slices this pie, an equal portion given to owners who paid reduced tax for that period amounts to a WINDFALL, & it comes at the expense of their neighbors. Most owners I know, in most buildings I see, would not consider this fair.

You’re correct that all owners must declare to the IRS taxes refunded…just as they originally deducted taxes paid; this is true regardless of the absolute amount or proportional allocation. And you’re right that tax certiorari considers overall assessed value by comparing to like properties…but that comparison presumes a predictable mix of abatements in other buildings; at the macro level, there’s no discrepancy or problem. It’s when considering individual apartments--which a Board allocating refund monies must do--that inequities arise.

I maintain that Boards which decide to dump refunds into their capital reserves are delivering a windfall to some owners at the expense of others…& that allocating refunds fairly, apartment-by-apartment, is a thorny & difficult task. I remind you that I’ve seen diametrically opposed opinions from tax accountants for buildings in similar circumstances. They can’t all be right.

Depending on the size of the tax refund that you got under the tax certiari, the work seems to call for tons of recalculations that might not provide the expected rewards or great difference in refunds between those with abatements and the have nots. You may wish to investigate with one apartment with many abatements and find out how much such an apartment would differ from one with no abatements. If the jobs is worth it, then roll up your sleeves and prepare to work for several nights. This will get you the perfect distribution.

AdC

1--In one building I'm looking at, the refund is 6 figures...not small change, even when split among many apartments.

2--No question, it would take a lot of work to get this right.

3--As to whether it's "worth it," how could you or I--or any elected Board member--legitimately make that call for individual unit owners, all of whom have the right to be treated equitably?

This is why it's such a thorny question.

We signed a contract with a "partner" ten weeks ago and are still waiting for them to do the audit and for the state to approve our application. Are these delays normal? I mean, the government moves at the pace of molasses, but shouldn't a private partner be able to send out an engineer in less time than a fiscal quarter?

Can/will you say who the partner is? Or e-mail me off line if you don't want to be so jeeptop2000 at yahoo dot com

Yes I agree that is awhile but they say they are busy especially seince NYSERDA is putting a floor on the loan buy downs