They had contacted our building last year. Everything sounded good - no cost installation and maintenance of panels, they would charge us a fixed flat rate guaranteed to be less or equal to Con Ed rates, and they would profit from excess power being sold back to Con Ed. After they did a site visit, we never heard back from them. Emails, phone calls, no response. No explanation.

I remember seeing a year or two ago an interactive online map based on a survey done by a City department which showed how much sunlight every roof in NYC received and estimating how much electricity solar panels could generate. You might try to find it and use it as a starting point if you're considering installing solar panels.

Does your building have annual meetings? Do you attend? Does the board distribute annual financial statements? Windows can be had for around $300 or so, but it depends on what quality you want, size, vinyl or wood may not be legal so you may need to go with aluminum. Any landmark designation issues? I don't know if your board would be swayed by a petition or not. The board is charged with operating the building and setting maintenance at an appropriate level to do that. Maintenance is often set low by the developer to encourage sales, then it has to rise to cover expenses, or else you have assessments or tap reserve funds to pay operating costs. Without knowing the overall building condition, budget, reserves, and other issues, it's hard to say that the windows are the top priority, although it sounds like it would be a popular project.

Our building is considering new windows, as they are in disrepair. Leakage testing during the LL11 work found that the faulty windows are causing water penetration into the walls. But it is obviously an expensive project. The lease clearly indicates that shareholders are not responsible for such repairs. Your coop should evaluate this consequence of having old windows.

Can I ask the verbiage in the memo and also how they were distributed (under door, via e-mail, etc.)?

Under the door and posted in the elevator:

"...When the contractors are working outside your windows, ...filters will be applied to the air conditioning units to trap the dust that escapes into the atmosphere. We recommend that A/C units be turned off during the day times when the contractors are working outside your windows, but if necessary MAY be turned on after the installation of filters by the contractor. Please note that they will not operate optimally with the filter in place, will draw more current & may even burn out the motor due to the restricted inflow of air..."

Having managed 12 Local Law 11 Projects I can tell you this:

"Stuff Happens"

Provided there is no threat of liquidated damages on the table, or some other circumstance, the contractor always pays for small things like a new a/c unit, or a new tree, or pressure washing of the sidewalk, whatever the case may be. As you know, an involved Building Manager comes into play by helping select the right contractor, keeping the impacted tenant(s) happy with a free a/c unit, the contractor happy by keeping these issues to a minimum and most importantly, the board happy.
-Gregg

I think that there a few different ways to look at this issue. The first would be for any non-personal information. I would lump disciplinary actions and warning letters, etc. in this category. The Board is effectively the employer of any building staff and a good amount of the time, they are the ones that have initiated the policy for writing employees up if they are not performing their jobs properly. I would think that the Board would have access to any and all job related or performance related memos, warnings, write-ups, etc.

If you have a written request from the Shareholders to view the documents, I'm not a labor attorney (or an attorney at all) but I would think that you should consult with the Coop's attorney to see what their recommendation would be. If there is personal information in those documents, you may be best served to redact any of that information and allow the Shareholders to review them in the Management office as they would any other corporate document. Again, consult your attorney to ensure that this is correct and that you must supply.

Once you get into any material that is personal in nature and extends beyond the borders of the employees specific job function (maybe there are personal details in their reports that are not in the best interests of sharing) I believe that those details should be redacted for all Shareholders, if reviewing.

I'm a frequent contributor the the forum and own a local Management company, Excel Bradshaw (www.ebmg.com) if you would like to reach out. mblevine@ebmg.com or 212-502-7048 x.201.

I would recommend Premiere Properties. They are a small firm, extremely responsive and on top of things.

I would recommend Matthew Adam Properties, Inc., 212-699-8900 Ira M. Meister.

I would recommend Andrews Organization,212 529-5688. Ask to speak with Divya Rashad.

Call Taube Management and ask for Joseph Taube (212)288-0757

I would recommend Premiere Properties. They are a small firm, extremely responsive and on top of things.

YOU can add ALLAREA MANAGEMENT to that list.

Currently on top of the worst managing agents on the list is Rachlin Management

Call Taube Management and ask for Joseph Taube.

One star only because I can't give zero. Totally ineffectual, sponsor controlled company that will lie, cheat and steal from owners to satisfy the whims of their sponsor masters. The staff will hide bills, provide erroneous data, and pretend all is fine until they hit you with an assessment. I can't understand why the Attorney General or other government regulatory group hasn't barred them from real estate.

One star only because I can't give zero. Totally ineffectual, sponsor controlled company that will lie, cheat and steal from owners to satisfy the whims of their sponsor masters. The staff will hide bills, provide erroneous data, and pretend all is fine until they hit you with an assessment. I can't understand why the Attorney General or other government regulatory group hasn't barred them from real estate.

I would recommend Century Management. They've revamped their entire style of business in the past two years and have been getting good reviews on Yelp since that. They have small buildings in their portfolio as well.

Are they in queens

Hi there. I don't think you need to worry not doing a background check on a current resident in this very specific situation will set a precedent against doing due diligence towards new members who have no prior relationship to the building. If this woman has been living in your building for twenty years there's no need to make her undergo a credit check, tax reports, etc. unless your goal is to make the useless former president jump through hoops, which you, as the new board, are entitled to do if you see fit and that's within the rules.

Sue:
Like you, we too believe making an exception in this case could create a precedent for other long-time residents to seek shareholder or co-shareholder status. But we also agree with Minneapolis that a long-term resident shouldn't encounter the same level of scrutiny as would a new applicant.
For this reason we typically suggest co-ops have or adopt a provision that provides an expedited, simplified and reduced fee process for a long-time resident who requests to be added to an existing share, as in the cited case. The process we recommended usually includes a review of the resident's occupancy experience within the cooperative, among other things.
However, an exception should not be a "seat-of-the-pants" event. It should be codified (with a set of standards to be met) as a written addition to the co-op paperwork -- subject to attorney review -- then voted upon favorably by shareholders to better ensure a majority agreement with the change and to help safeguard against forgetfulness or preferential treatment playing a role when the exception is implemented.
The exception should be structured so that it does not become a new member application loophole.

Adding a second party to the stock certificate should be akin to approving a buyer. In the event the original party should pass away, can the second party maintain the maintenance payments? I can't think of any of the units we sold with 2 names on the share certificate where the sale would have occurred without the combined wages. Would you allow a couple to add their 18 year old? Parents move out, and leave the teen behind, legally entitled to live there.... As a minimum, assets and liabilities, life insurance and employment, credit history should be examined.

I guess you would need some of the popular accounting firms (cpa's) that do coop and condo audits to review the financials that they prepare and count up their annual reports to find out. Maybe that's a question for the Cooperator to ask when they mail out next year's COOP Expo invites.
At this time, the estimation is not required by any laws. It is also not free. The board would need to hire an engineering firm to examine all the properties from roof to basement, curb to curb and estimate what repairs are needed short term and estimate the useful life of major items, such as boilers and other HVAC equipment, plumbing, electrical, roof, retaining walls, etc. and project the replacement and repair costs down the road. You would need to do this probably every 5 years or so, to keep up with completed projects, aging and deterioration.
A reserve fund is your money, in excess of the current operating expenses. Few people want to contribute extra for the rainy day. It's one thing to have to pay via assessment for window replacement that would benefit you short term, it's another to sock the money away for that new boiler needed in 15 years, probably after you've moved out.

What happens when the developer and property manager fail to maintain proper records and disclose monthly reports to the homeownerrs? Hiding accounting and auditing information is a violation of constiutional rights. There appears to be a need for an ombudsman saparate from the AG's office that maintains the offering agreements as the REAL PROPERTY LAWS in New York do not currently operate to protect the homeowner.
Hense when 5 leaks appear in the same spot because a doorman , handiman or unlicensed plumber fix's a leak painting over it what happens is MOLD!

What happens when the board and developer fail to hire a proper engineer and hide a video that was done internally to assess buildingwide deficiencies totally over 7 million dollars? Hiding material information from homeowners and others is illigal and should be stopped. A borad and president have a fiduciary responsability to act in "GOOD FAITH" and report the necessary information to its homeowners. In this case witholding matierial infrormation about toxic MOLD is also dangerous and acts a pusblic nuisance to its owners, tenants and any other buildings the develper owns and operates.

Chetrit Sold $1.6M Condo Full of Mold and Mice, Resident Claimshttp://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140324/midtown/chetrit-sold-17m-condo-full-of-mold-mice-resident-claims-lawsuit
""They defrauded me," Schottenstein, who has the autoimmune disease lupus and cannot enter the apartment without wearing a surgical mask, told DNAinfo New York. "This was supposed to be all new plumbing, new electrics, new mechanics. And that was not the case."

Real Estate Mogul Chetrit Takes Heat from Quinn & Tenants Over Hotel Violations
http://jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3696:real-estate-mogul-chetrit-takes-heat-from-quinn-a-tenants-over-hotel-violations&catid=116:real-estate&Itemid=299=


A.G. Schneiderman Files $1.3 Million Lawsuit Against Real Estate Developer For Selling Defective Condos
"“Purchasers have a right to full and accurate information about what they are purchasing, and should be able to rely on the representations contained in an offering plan when making a significant investment. We are seeking restitution for the purchasers who were ripped off, in addition to strong penalties for the developer who defrauded them.”

Why hasn't the AG office removed the OFFERING AGREEMENT that is in fraud, failure to place new pipes, plumging, mechanics in one of their buildings? Clearly this is a black and white issue why isn't there action here?

The board should have insurance against theft - check with insurance company - also did you report theft to police?

Inasmuch as theft is a serious matter, are you sure the money was stolen or, as your message title suggests, is it some sort of unintentional "screw-up"? Instead of theft, could it be the result of underestimating future repair needs during the budgetary process?
If you believe it was stolen or otherwise illegally used, discussions with the police and NYS Attorney General would appear to be indicated.
Do you know when the money was first thought to be missing? Your message implies it occurred around 2008. If so, over the last six years the depleted reserve account would be expected to be noted in bank statements, treasurer reports and/or annual budgets. If you haven't done so already you may want to request the opportunity to review such documentation.
Also, when we establish organizations similar to yours we put accounting techniques into place that help guard against one person having full access to funds. You may want to inquire as to the techniques your condo employs.
Hopefully the situation you face can be resolved without a significant maintenance charge increase.

Usually the Proprietary Lease states that an unrelated party can stay in the unit but that is primarily when the Shareholder is in the unit as well. Most Prop Leases also call for an immediate family member to be able to occupy the apartment without the Shareholder there and this will not be considered a sublet.

What you are proposing to do is not within the reasonable language of these clauses and is more along the lines of subletting. If you do leave the apartment and this is not an immediate family member you are no longer taking advantage of the roommate law, but are creating an illegal sublet situation. Although there is no formal sublet policy in place right now, your Prop Lease is probably worded that all sublets must be approved, in writing, by the Board (Lessor), so if you do go through with this, they can probably still take issue with it and bring legal action for the illegal sublet.

Sorry to be the wet blanket.

par 14 prop lease "and" clause= shareholder and family member, not "or" family member