There are many variables that can affect how long it takes for a board to complete it's review and schedule an interview. Most boards won't schedule the interview until the finances have been fully reviewed and approved. Some of the factors that can delay the review are:
* Complexity of the financials. Anything more complicated than straight salaries (W-2's) and standard bank and investment statements can require additional analysis. Not every board has a CPA on it.
* Completeness of the package. Did it include everything requested? Has the board or MA asked for additional documentation or explanations?
* Number of other purchases being evaluated by the board at the same time.
* Other major issues the board has prioritized over your purchase.
* Availability of board members and MA. It's summer, and people go on vacation.
* Concerns about your credit and background checks.

There are probably many other very legit factors affecting when the board is ready to interview. You might have your R/E agent or attorney contact the MA or whoever handles sales for the building and ask when they think they'll be ready to have the interview.

If there is a lot currently going on in the co-op or with board members, it could be delaying the financial analysis. Remember that board members are all volunteers who have day jobs, families, obligations, and other personal reasons for not being able to devote their full energy to a new purchase.

Hang in there. If time does become of the essence, have your agent or attorney communicate that to the board. Good boards will try to accommodate legitimate requests (like a rate lock expiration) because at the end of the day, you will probably end up being neighbors.

Thanks a bunch for your time on a detailed response. I would like to mention add some additional details on the topic, if that help in the context:

Positives:
1) Loan Commitment letter: We took an additional 2 weeks after going "In-Contract" to get a loan commitment letter issued. So the board package did include a firm loan commitment letter from the bank.

2) The additional detail that the board has asked since the package was sent to them is the monthly statement from June (original package was sent in May).

3) All the other basics looks solid: FICO Scores (810+ for all 3), job history, relatively small COOP with no other COOP purchases currently in progress in the building.

Negatives:
1) I moved to NYC from San Francisco, and my house in that city (SF) is now a full time investment property and even though rental income ($11K/month) is way more than the mortgage ($6.5K/month ) of the property. There is a valid monthly money commitment involved from me on that.

2) The board did ask about my plans to "continue" the rent the place, although I'm sure they know that San Francisco, is one of the most intense rental markets in the country.

So in summary, I wonder how much of the delay is due to the above (investment property) scenario.

Thanks again for your response. I'm hoping for the best and keeping your suggestion in mind, I have asked my RE agent to contact the Board on when the interview date be available?

thanks,

Thanks a bunch for your time on a detailed response. I would like to mention add some additional details on the topic, if that help in the context:

Positives:
1) Loan Commitment letter: We took an additional 2 weeks after going "In-Contract" to get a loan commitment letter issued. So the board package did include a firm loan commitment letter from the bank.

2) The additional detail that the board has asked since the package was sent to them is the monthly statement from June (original package was sent in May).

3) All the other basics looks solid: FICO Scores (810+ for all 3), job history, relatively small COOP with no other COOP purchases currently in progress in the building.

Negatives:
1) I moved to NYC from San Francisco, and my house in that city (SF) is now a full time investment property and even though rental income ($11K/month) is way more than the mortgage ($6.5K/month ) of the property. There is a valid monthly money commitment involved from me on that.

2) The board did ask about my plans to "continue" the rent the place, although I'm sure they know that San Francisco, is one of the most intense rental markets in the country.

So in summary, I wonder how much of the delay is due to the above (investment property) scenario.

Thanks again for your response. I'm hoping for the best and keeping your suggestion in mind, I have asked my RE agent to contact the Board on when the interview date be available?

thanks,

No way to know for sure why there is a delay, but my co-op would certainly want to get more details about your SF rental property situation.

The co-op may be concerned about your ability to pay your $6.5K monthly mortgage commitment, even if there is a "valid monthly commitment" from you. Not sure what your "valid monthly commitment" entails. Maybe the Board is still checking that out.

Your Board may feel nervous about this large financial obligation. Even though it's SF and the rental market is strong, any Board would have valid reservations about this situation.

Since you say this is a relatively small co-op, each shareholder has a larger impact on the bottom line when compared to a larger co-op. This may be weighing on the Board's mind.

Just guessing at the possible reasons, besides all of the excellent information that Steven provided to you.

Good luck

I agree completely with Marty's thoughts about the property in San Francisco. As the one who does the detailed financial analysis for my building, the most important assets are those that can be easily and quickly liquidated to help meet maintenance obligations. If you lose your tenant, you not only lose the income, but you effectively "acquire" an additional $6.5k monthly debt.

If you find the board is concerned about your ability to meet your maintenance obligations, a suggestion I would make is to offer to put a minimum of a year's worth of maintenance into escrow. That guarantees the board will receive their monthly income from you, and eases the concerns of your being a burden on the rest of the shareholders.

I have someone. Let me know how to get in touch with you

Sorry to hear about your situation. I know gas leaks can take a very long time to locate and repair to the satisfaction of the Dept of Buildings, but a full year sounds very excessive.

There are a few solutions I can think of.

The first and most expedient but most expensive would be for all aggrieved shareholders to join together and consult with an attorney. Simply being contacted by an attorney representing shareholders might be enough to jolt the board into action. A "lawyer letter" might be all that's needed.

After that, consider putting up a slate of shareholders to replace the board at the next annual meeting. If that is too far in the future, consult your co-op's bylaws to see how to remove board members. Again, just the potential for such an action might shock them into action.

If the board's actions are for the reasons you believe, you will be faced with increased board hostility and probably retaliation. In my opinion, working with a lawyer is your safest option, because your attorney will protect all your interests.

Remember also that the board cannot unilaterally dissolve the co-op corporation by selling to a real estate speculator. Doing something like that would require a supermajority of shareholders voting in favor. The exact requirements should be in your proprietary lease. Even if they could sell the building to an investor, all proceeds from the sale would have to be distributed to all shareholders based on the number of shares each owns.

Boards have been known to attempt very underhanded tactics. You know best what vibes are being given off by the board when it comes to fixing the gas leak and increasing maintenance. Even if you're only able to get 10-15 shareholders together, the cost per shareholder for consulting an attorney would be minimal, and the value of the consultation, priceless. :-)

Best of luck to you.

I can't understand why your board would subject themselves to no gas for a year, unless they all have electric stoves. Your board is also included in increased maintenance. Why are you the only concerned share holder?
Please contact: James Ratliff 438 4th St. Park Slope 718-768-0025 you can consult him for free. He is the best.
I would call National Grid and find out the truth about the shut down. Also rally your fellow share holders, you can have your co op remove your board. Sounds like somethings going on with your finances. Let us know what James has to say. Best of Luck

Assuming you live in a co-op or condo and not in a rental, in my opinion, there is definitely a problem if the work is performed within whats called the "envelope" of your apartment - the four boundary walls, floor, and ceiling, and any plumbing or wiring done for your unit's benefit directly outside of the envelope. If you own the unit, the work by the unlicensed super is being done at your discretion, and that could cause problems for you with the Dept of Buildings.

If the work is done to a system owned by the co-op corporation or condominium association, like common electrical feeder lines and/or plumbing, I would think there is a problem if the person doing the work is not licensed, but I'm not 100% sure.

If you live in a rental or want more information, try starting at the Dept of Buildings website. Other contributors on here may also have more definitive information.

Liability issues. Favoritism issues. Distractions from the actual job and daily maintenance issues. Don't allow it. Period.

You have to refer to your bylaws for specific procedures. My bylaws require 20 percent of shareholders for petition, a date time and place and purpose of the meeting set by the shareholders not the board or management company. No other business shall be discussed except as stated in the notice that accompanies the petition.

Check out this podcast

https://www.habitatmag.com/Podcasts/When-People-Use-Their-Power

I don't know if it's required by the DOF, but my co-op breaks it down on the maintenance statement.

I've never heard of it NOT being broken down individually.

The DOF does break it down separately when they send the list to your management group. There's no reason why it shouldn't be broken down on your maintenance statement.

I'd recommend trying to get as many shareholders to sign one letter that insists on a maintenance statement breakdown, and then send a copy to your Board and your management company.

Good luck.

Thanks, sounds like a plan!

I agree with Marty's response. You might be able to go on the Dept of Finance's website for more information, or to find out who to contact for more information.

In my building, we issue the abatements during a single month along with a corresponding assessment to recover the funds we won't receive due to the abatements. Each abatement (Real Estate, STAR, Veteran, etc) is individually noted on the invoice as a credit against that month's maintenance, and the amount of the assessment is noted as a debit against the maintenance.

Although we received confirmation via email of a correction to our statement, we don't want to issue checks to shareholders until we have the actual revised statement and those checks must be issued by June 30th. I wrote to the DOF yesterday and here is its response: "We expect to mail revised 17/18 coop tax benefit letters in late June."

Thanks, the response I received was "They are mailing one more revised breakdown in JUNE and if the corrections are not on that letter to contact them again".

Has the co-op received the credits from the D.O.F. but without the breakdown letter the P.M, doesn't know how to distribute them?

Our P.M. is playing possum and telling the shareholders they have to contact the D.O.F.

Just thinking, if they have the credits, they should know something is wrong and take action.

Did you receive the final revisions? Our co-op has not..

If your board/managing agent refuses to address this matter I would contact your insurance company. This can also cause mold. Unlike our co op our neighbor has broken her toilet 2xs leaked down to the neighbor and guess who picked up her bill? Yes we all did, why she is part of the favorites. She refuses to get a handicap toilet and hits it with her wheelchair. So we have to pay and she gets off free and clear. When you call your insurance company they will advise you what can be done. Best of Luck

Probably the safest way of dealing with the upstairs neighbor you describe is to get your insurance carrier involved immediately. They've probably dealt this this kind of situation before and can advise you how to proceed.

As for the bedbugs, I think if you call 311 and lodge a complaint, they will send a Dept of Buildings or Board of Health inspector. If bedbugs are discovered, the agency will oversee the remediation. In this regard, the board has certain mandated responsibilities that the agency will enforce.

Good luck.

I had a water leak from an upstairs neighbor who let his defective toilet overflow, due to dementia. He was a renter with no insurance. But I contacted my insurance company immediately. They were wonderful. They promptly sent an adjuster, then the contractor I selected, cleaned and dried out the apartment...footed the bill for a hotel room, even paying for meals and damaged possessions. Offered several repair options..

Westchester doesn't have 311, wish we did, it is an outstanding system.
I had it worse, board/managing company was informed of fire hazard in a owners apartment multiple times. Every time i saw his adjacent apartment neighbor we would talk about when we would get burnt out, then at 315am it happened, it has been over a year and the building is still not rebuilt , all apartments involved, 60 apartments displaced. Most Homeowners insurance policy's only cover 1 year of relocation payments, something for coop owners to look into, since rebuilding an apartment building requires a lot of permits , and in this area, it will not be accomplished in a year.

Perhaps the entire confrontation would not have occurred if our # 1selling Basement Watchdog Water Alarms to instantly detect water leaks was behind the toilet?
Why not email jerry@glentronics.com to learn our purchasing programs?
www.basementwatchdog.com
www.stopflooding.com
“It’s not if but when”

My experience with assessments is that your statement is correct. Everyone must be assessed at the same rate, which is usually done on a $$ per share assessment.

Assessments are used to raise a certain amount of working capital to cover either an existing or anticipated expense. It is calculated by taking the amount to be raised, divided by the number of co-op shares, divided by the number of months over which the assessment will be levied. Period.

There is no logical or fiscally viable reason why a board should knowingly reduce the amount of money an assessment brings in by offering <b>any</b> sort of a discount or reduction.

At the end of the day, the full amount of a properly calculated assessment will need to be raised. If a 5% prepayment discount is offered, and every shareholder prepays, where will the last 5% come from? Another assessment? And if only some of the shareholders can afford to prepay, there is no faster way of pitting neighbor on neighbor than the appearance of financial favoritism, legal or otherwise.

Prepayment discounts on assessment obligations is a very bad idea.

If the prepayment avoids the building borrowing money for a portion of the assessment, thus lowering the interest charged to the shareholders (b/c if an assessment is happening, it is likely to be paying back a loan), why wouldn't a discount be offered?

In the outlier scenario you describe, your only choices may be a 2% LoC draw or a 2% bribe. However, in my humble opinion, if a co-op has so little money in it's reserve accounts that they are forced to use their line of credit to initially cover an unanticipated expense, then the co-op has far greater fiscal issues than whether or not to offer shareholders an inducement to advance the money.

They way this is *supposed* to work is a co-op maintains a minimum of about three month's worth of maintenance income in their reserve account. If the co-op get hit with an unanticipated expense, the reserve funds are used to cover the expense. Then, the board imposes an assessment to replenish the reserve account in an orderly manner. The LoC is untouched and there are no unnecessary interest payments.

The reason it's *supposed* to work this way is to avoid the exact scenario described here. Whether the LoC has a 2% interest rate or the co-op offers a 2% prepayment discount, the co-op is still short 2%. With the LoC, all shareholders equally share the pain resulting from poor fiscal management. With the prepayment discount, the class of shareholders who can afford to prepay the assessment reap the advantages while the class of shareholders who can't afford to prepay are penalized.

This scenario is akin to a firefighter trying to put out a blaze before the hose is connected to the hydrant. If the fire truck doesn't carry some emergency water, nothing's going to initially come out of the nozzle. If the co-op doesn't have any reserve funds, they'll be forced to borrow money to cover their emergency, either from the LoC or from shareholder largess. Either way, they'll be paying more than they have to.

Sure, but lecturing folks when they are in the midst of an emergency repair situation is not helpful. Clearly OP hasn't given the full extent of the situation but, if it is the case that a coop need an LOC draw in order to make a repair, then it is what it is. No one is short 2% since you only borrow the money that is needed (essentially the shareholders that need to loan the money) and that amount is shared amongst those who did not pay in advance. The interest cost is not incurred if the money is borrowed so there is no "2% short" as you describe.
"With the prepayment discount, the class of shareholders who can afford to prepay the assessment reap the advantages while the class of shareholders who can't afford to prepay are penalized." And this is completely fair if ALL shareholders are given the same opportunity to prepay at a discount or borrow over time. Folks who pay upfront lose their foregone interest earnings on the money. If I know I have to pay a 12,000 assessment over a year and can earn >2% monthly after tax, I would not pay upfront, even if I had the money. You wouldn't make this argument against increases in maintenance payments if a set of shareholders could afford it and another set could not.

Let's say there is an emergency assessment and the Board uses a line of credit and pays 2% of the loan in interest monthly which determines the assessment per share. If a shareholder were to pay in advance, why should they pay the interest? Every other shareholder is taking out a loan via the Board while some shareholders can choose to not take the loan out and thus be discounted the cost of interest on the assessment. Charging them the same assessment would advantage all the other shareholders over the one who paid early by lowering their interest costs at the earlier payer expense.