Typically, the lease and even the by-laws stipulate the "fee" for failure to make payment in a timely manner.

We have felt, at times, we wish to increase the fee for each month "late", e.g.: $25, first month, $50 second month, etc., but our corporate counsel has indicated that we are thwarted by the wording of our proprietary lease.

By the way, our monthly arrears total rarely, if ever, exceeds 1.5% of our projected monthly income.

Yes, you're right on all points. Although a managing agent is certainly free to suggest a good lawyer or accountant, the final choice is the Board's. The lawyer/accountant is answerable only to the Board, though you may want to have your managing agent talk with them on occasion: "Please have our accountant take a look at the so-and-so problem."

On a related point, we changed our managing agent two years ago but kept both our lawyer and our accountant. No one squawked and everything has been fine.

Thanks so much for your response. That's what I thought.

And why is it a good practice to have those two entities (management on the one hand, counsel + accountant on the other hand) at a remove from each other?

Did you change management companies, or did you just get a different agent with the same company? What do you mean when you say that no one squawked?

Thanks again.

Keeping management, attorney, and accountant as three separate entities ensures that there is no hint of a conflict of interest. For example, if your attorney is your managing agent's brother, and your managing agent recommends a lengthy and costly consultation with his attorney-brother, that doesn't look so great -- even if everything is completely in order. You should avoid even the *appearance* of possible impropriety.

Yes, we did change management companies and not just agents. We've been very happy with the change. "No one squawked" in the sense that our new agent, old lawyer, and old accountant all made the transition very smoothly and professionally -- no problems and no complaints.

By the way, I like Bill S's comment about having an in-house lawyer. Our former Board president is a real-estate lawyer and he's a great first resource before we go to the coop's official lawyer.

Keeping management, attorney, and accountant as three separate entities ensures that there is no hint of a conflict of interest.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

You should avoid even the appearance of possible impropriety.
Exactly.

↑ Sorry, I was anonymous there.

We have a CPA firm that is just dynamite. We did employ one of the big name accounting firms, and we switched several years ago. The new firm specializes in co-op and condos and I see a night a day difference in knowledge and diligence.

We have a house counsel. In actuality it is an attorney who lives in the building and who handles the tasks such as closings and letters to those residents who violate rules or who are in arrears (very few and very low amount). Occasionally, this attorney will handle some litigious matters. For unusual cases, we may obtain the services of a specialty law firm, but not in all situations.

Paul;

You have a point.

I, as a board member, would like to see the service user surveyed.

Carey

I agree, Paul. There is a definite need for an objective source of information on management companies. Making sure that a good — and honest — management company is in place is probably the most important thing a board can do for a building. There is so much opportunity for corruption around real estate and the building industry that it's not even funny.

I also think that Will has a point when he says that a lot can be learned from reading various management companies' responses to the green issue.

I also agree that much can be learned from mgmt firm replies to a specific question. But I don't agree that listing mgmt firms with the worst ratings would necessarily be helpful or productive.

A low rating may not be because a mgmt firm doesn't do well. There may be personality conflicts which can't always be explained - they just "are". A board's demands may be too high. Some BMs may be difficult to work with and a mgmt firm may resign the account if they don't get cooperation from them. There are, of course, mgmt firms that aren't very good or have "questionable" practices. But ratings could be low for very subjective reasons, which isn't fair to a mgmt firm.

IMO, to find a good mgmt firm, find out what types of bldgs they manage and what their speciality is, if any. Get recommendations if possible. Interview firms and call their references. When we interviewed mgmt firms a few years ago, we asked for references for bldgs they currently manage. We ALSO asked for contacts at a few bldgs they NO LONGER manage. We found that to be a good way to get a fair cross-section of opinions and evaluations of the firms.

Good points.

I do think it would be helpful if something like this existed for management companies/managing agents:

http://avvo.com/

Paul,
You are correct. The present survey is of no value. It is made for the Management Companies.

If they want to help the Board it would show which Companies got the worst ratings.

I definitely believe there should be some type of rating systems for management companies - however who will put together the information - board or Habitat or maybe both - Boards should have good information in helping them chose a mangement company and that is not available now - but would Habitat put it on their boards or should it be done off -
We have had quite a few problems with management companies that I do not believe anyone has discussed
Management company did not pay our payroll taxes for a long time - we got stuck with IRS bil, and it couldn't have been just our coop
Management company paid employees off books - no building employee qualifies for this treatment per IRS law - problem is if employee is injured or gets sick they are not entitled to Disability or Workers Compensation - both NYS laws - therefore major lawsuits could come
Management companies put subtractions on the disbursement account for bills that were not paid -
Then there is problem of transfers to reserve accounts - are those watched
Bottom line how many boards check their financial information from management companies and are qualified to know this, and please do not rely on your accountant because management companies cannot do this without participation of the accountant -

You are correct. Just look in the magazine and see the constant change of management company. They tell you what bldg. they just signed up with but we do not know how many bldgs got rid of them. A survey of bldgs listing the management agencies they got rid of would tell a board alot. for example if a good number got rid of XYZ Company I think we would get the idea that it might be wise to stay away from them.

I may be wrong but there may be legal issues with a survey listing mgmt firms that bldgs got rid of. If bldgs give them low ratings for mismanagement, criminal acts (kickbacks, fraud, etc.) they have to support it with evidence. Habitat isn't the forum for this. Publishing claims against mgmt firms without proof of misdoing might be considered libel. Also, a published survey has little purpose if it state things like "we didn't like the property agent's attitude" or "they didn't return phone calls quickly enough." Comments like these are too subjective.

Per my 9/20 reply here on this subject, a board/committee should interview mgmt firms, get references for bldgs they manage AND get contacts at bldgs they no longer manage. Maybe talk to contacts at the former mgmt firms and see what they say about the bldgs that terminated them. There are always two sides to every story. A coop/condo's lawyer can also check if there are criminal records or pending litigations against a mgmt firm.

Most definitely rating system would be useful. My coop has also experience management co. not paying payroll taxes Now socked with huge bills from IRS and having difficulties in trying to establish for which quarters we have or have not paid. In addition to management, accountant should have realized the problem yet presented audited financials attesting the financial soundness of the coop. What about ratings for accountants?

to Larry - maybe you and I and some other shareholders who are experienced these problems could get together to discuss what can be done about it - Definitely the accountant and management company should be held liable - has your coop done anything about that - and also where were the board members during this time - The President, Treasurer, etc, why did they not know and do something before everything got out of control

I agree and I don't agree. This current survey is of what experienced management executives think in response to a question which was excellent this year. Our board wants to go green at our 65 unit co-op in Queens. Several of these responses included information on ways to address issues that crop up and some warning signs tool. For Free! So it was of value to us. Your survey idea might be good too, but it's a different kind of survey. If you have any suggestions for Habitat, you might benefit by writing a note to the Publisher cott@habitatmag.com.

We are a 500 unit high rise.

We raise our maintenance every year.

After all, costs rise every year. Why fool people and then face a battle royal.

Small increases every year are better than a whopping increase every three years.

By using the above formula, all residents can plan their personal budgets very effectively. This reduces adverse feedback.

Our maintenance increase is from 3.0% to 3.9% every year.

We have an assessment every year as we have capital improvements based on our outside engineer’s assessment of our facilities (updated every two years).

We have no underlying mortgage.

We don’t borrow for capital improvements.

I think it is irresponsible to NOT raise the maintenance 3% per year and not have a capitol improvment program and be saving towards it.

So basically, you're contemplating opening a service station for this one consumer...

I have some questions:

Why wouldn't the user pay for the installation? It's entirely for his/her convenience, yes?
And shouldn't the resident be billed for the work? He/she would be the only one using it, no? Future users could buy in, I suppose, but if you have only one person requesting it, and thus only one person using it...

Can you run the conduit from this resident's branch line so that his/her meter covers electrical use? That would solve the immediate problem... of course, if/when the resident sells out, the new owner might not want/need the electrical outlet...

Why is the electric company refusing to submeter?

There really are NO outlets in the garage at all?
Are there lights in the garage?
Seems likely there are; wouldn't running a line from them be less expensive? And wouldn't there be an easy way to figure additional electrical use from past bills? Couldn't you just charge the resident the difference?

Just thinkin' off the top of my head -- don't envy you the problem.

Hey "RLM", good points as always

Resident meters are at quite a distance and it is not convenient to run new branch circuits, e.g.: 22 stories.

Resident contacted utility directly and that is response he received as to sub-metering.

Two reasons, that I don't want to attach convenience outlets from lighting circuits: (1) don't want to overload branch circuits as this universe of electric cars grow, (2) our lights are on generator and I don't need to overload generator.

As for funding, I'm thinking that the first user puts up a bond for the installation and as others avail themselves, they pay into the "bond fund" and the users receive a distribution as the universe grows. But, I need to think this through.

Electric cars have been around for years, and they remain about as popular as botulism. Despite considerable research, the battery problems have never been solved, meaning that both speed and miles-between-charges are severely limited. On top of that, the battle against the entrenched corporate interests in oil will be a difficult one even if electric cars manage to overcome their present limitations.

In short, if someone wants equipment for electric car recharging, that shareholder should be prepared to pay every dime of the cost. As you suggest, you might want to set things up so that the person will be partially reimbursed as other shareholders sign up, but the shareholder needs to understand that the reimbursement may be zero.

"As popular as botulism"? The only thing toxic here is your comment.

Major changes in technology typically take time, and a lot of people, in fact, are anxious for electric cars. Already, manufacturers can't keep up with the demand for gas/electric hybrids.

Using politically charged, right-wing-radio-style insult terms as if that makes your argument for you is just appalling. Please make constructive suggestions without the snide asides.

"A lot of people, in fact, are anxious for electric cars." Of course they are, in the same sense they're anxious for a cure for cancer. The problem is that after decades of intensive research, we have neither a cure for cancer nor an electric car that's viable for mass-market use. This is not for lack of effort or lack of a market: both are laudable goals that would simultaneously improve people's lives and earn many millions of dollars.

Progress has been made in both areas, but believing that either problem is on the brink of a general solution is not realistic. For this reason, I suggested to the original poster -- and reiterate now -- that any investment in electric-car infrastructure be solely at the shareholder's expense.

This is a technological opinion, not a political one. (I'm certainly no fan of "right-wing radio"!) I'd *love* to see a mass-market electric car that was functionally equivalent to a gasoline-powered car. In the meantime, there will be a niche market for hybrids -- but again, I would recommend that the extra expenses be paid solely by the (relatively few) shareholders involved.

Do we wish to become an electric car service supply station?

1. Electric automobiles as the world goes “green”

As you are aware, a resident raised the specter that with the advent of battery operated automobiles there is a need for a power outlet (receptacle) to recharge the batteries of such vehicles. Thus the co-op may be asked to develop a program to supply outlets in our garages and perhaps outdoor parking areas for residents to “refill” their batteries. In one’s private home, this is not a challenge.

2. The co-op challenges

A quick summary of challenges includes:
• There is a need to create rules changes that govern the use of such power receptacles.
• A methodology needs to be implemented to sub-meter and charge-back for the power usage.
• Target areas in the garages must be identified for such installations with the forethought that residents may be displaced from one parking spot to another within the same parking level.
• A feeder conduit and cable of suitable power carrying size connecting the electrical switch room in the south wing (fire pump room) to the target areas in the upper and lower garages must be designed and constructed.
• A branch distribution system (circuit breakers, conduits and receptacles) must be installed above a section of parking spaces with the idea that there may be growth in the years ahead.
• The receptacles need to have locking covers or some other encumbrance such that one resident does not inadvertently use the receptacle assigned to another resident.
• A sub-metering system must be installed for each “activated” receptacle to properly chargeback the power usage to the resident. The utility has indicated to the resident raising the question that it does not wish to provide the sub-metering service.
• Suitable sub-metering capture software and billing facilities integration must occur.
• A pricing model needs to be constructed such that co-op recovers the costs of monthly billing, e.g.: 5% to 10% surcharge on any computed bill or statement.
• Co-op also needs to recover any annual or recurring “maintenance” charges, as yet undetermined.
• Start up costs must be assembled upon completion of design.
• A funding model needs to be constructed.
• A “hold harmless” agreement between co-op and the resident needs to be written.

3. Premise for co-op

Co-op needs to be pro active “green”, but given the small or unknown population that may avail themselves of the service, co-op need not underwrite the installation and operating costs, unless the board so decides.
However, co-op may need to support those that wish to acquire vehicles that are dependent upon electricity.
Certainly, co-op will not have all residents absorb the transportation costs, e.g.: electrical usage, of a few.

4. Start-up costs

As noted there is a modicum of design and construction work to be accomplished among other tasks. This narrative is a quick estimate of cost types associated with initiating the service.

• Feeder conduit and cable from electrical switch room to lower garage.
• Tie cable to upper garage from lower garage, including drilling through the deck
• Circuit breaker panels and branch distribution system with locking receptacles to each parking location (e.g.: twelve) per garage level and twelve car parking area
• Sub-metering software. The premise is that co-op will not absorb the usage costs on the co-op building account.
• Sub-metering device, one per receptacle
• Sub-metering data capture cabling and integration
• Legal fees, e.g.: contracts, rules changes, etc.
• Filing and construction fees
• Insurance
• Estimated start-up costs (one vehicle to twenty-four vehicles)
• Sub-metering device, each additional vehicle and installation of same

5. Funding model

As the usage cannot be forecast, a funding model needs to be constructed such that residents availing themselves of the charging facilities effective liquidate the start-up and any expansion costs as well as the ongoing maintenance costs.

6. Buy-in, operating and departure rules

There will be a need to update the co-op rules to accommodate a resident’s buy-in, operation and departure. For instance, if a resident departs before recovering all buy-in costs, the resident abandons the “buy-in”.

Likewise parking space reallocation needs to be included in the new rules.

Interesting conversation. We'd like to do an article on this, even though it may not be a practical problem right now. Frank, could you email publisher@habitatmag.com with your contact info and we'll give you a call?

They work together. Anyone?? Hello. You all buy as a cooperative and save 10-15% plus big $ on service plans.

We have never disclosed the reason for a rejection.

We never interviewed a rejected applicant again.

We have never accepted "paperwork" for a rejected applicant for a second go-around.

All interaction is with our attorney, so there is never a “slip of the tongue”.

Sorry.

We too have rejected applications and did not then proceed with an interview. If challenged, we also do not offer any reason; not required. Having said this, we will issue a 'non-acceptance' letter upon request that reads like this (in form and substance):

(On co-op letterhead/date/to...)
As requested, this is a non-
acceptance letter in connection
with the sale/resale of co-op shares
vs. Apt. X at above address.

Please be advised that the Board of
Directors of X has not approved the
purchase application referenced above.

Sincerely,
(Name of Co-op)
(Authorized signature, i.e. President)

Have your co-op lawyer write the letter. Not only does that insulate you a little more, it means your attorney is on-board from the beginning in case the applicant become litigious.

Your coop should, by now, have developed form letters to respond to situations such as these... "our board does not disclose reasons for rejection, and the law does not require us to do so," blah blah blah.

Having a co-op lawyer formulate individual letters can add up to expensive (and unnecessary) bills.

Our board has not set any particular asset requirements. However, in recently reviewing our purchase application, we did make a distinction between liquid assets and nonliquid assets. We included retirement accounts (as well as other things) in the nonliquid asset category.