How is the money saved it has to come from somewhere
If they are doing it without assessments where does the money come from
How high is maintenance Is maintenance increased to build these funns

The money comes from the budget. It is the same total amount of money as if you paid the bill broken down to several payments during the year or if you paid it all at once. The difference is that if you pay it by JULY - and all at once - you save thousands of dollars.

This can work in a 'rich' building where a substantial reserve fund exists or can be created if everyone deposits $$ into it. Our taxes are around $275k after STAR and coop credits this year, with a budget of about $850k and $200k in reserves. You try to collect an extra $250 per month per unit in a squeezed middle class neighborhood to save $2750. And with banks paying maybe 1/4 of 1% interest, you're not getting much there.

I think this is a great tip that many boards are unaware of, I believe we will be pushing for this next year.

Hi Larry,

I was reading the posts and I came across some of my own writing – what a hoot!

My co-op is not rich by any means. We are located near Dyckman Street in upper Manhattan in zip code 10040. Our maintenance fees are approximately $1.10 per square foot. With that, we are also paying off our mortgage in 10 years.

Most co-ops pay their property taxes each quarter (some through the mortgage escrow fund). What is needed to set this up is having the funds for the other three quarters worth of tax amounts. We initially had some good financial news, so in the first year, we paid all of the taxes off in July and gained the discount only. Then in August, the co-op decided to set aside approximate 1/12 of the next year’s payment and so on, earning interest along the way and also earning the discount when paid in year two. This one time change (really an investment in our co-op) has paid up four years now. And those monthly savings are available as working capital in case of extreme need. This is our way of making sure the annual expenses are kept as low as possible.

Well that worked so well that we started the insurance and water/sewer self escrows when more good new came (likely a small property tax refund or similar).

The culture of the Board is what really changed however. Initially, there was the realization that we could change and save up ahead of time.

Then more action: we are now in year two of a semi-permanent assessment equaling 5% of the maintenance to save up for future needs. It was 2.5% in year one. I envision this to increase to 7.5% of maintenance next year and finally to 10% for year four and ongoing. Let’s face it; there is always a need for capital funds. This type of semi-permanent assessment sets the expectation with the shareholders that things will eventually break and this is the Board’s estimate of an owner’s long term financial commitment above and beyond maintenance changes.

Finally, in 2023 when the mortgage is paid off, we can drop maintenance charges even more.

So please don’t tell yourselves that we are “rich” or “special”. We just decided to do it and you can too.

Thank you for sharing the original post,

Steve

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/nyregion/cuomos-office-is-said-to-rein-in-ethics-board-he-created.html?ref=nyregion

Mr. Capoccia is a big donor to the Real Estate Board of NY and is a large donor to our Gov. Our building has been screwed by this developer and we have gone through a couple of HPD Commissioners, so that's pretty useless. Public Advocates office doesn't advocate for anyone and Consumer Affairs is another big black hole. Elected officials have received a ton of money from this developer so as seen on previous threads this man seems to be untouchable. Would love some reporter to do a story on this.

You mean there is a good and a bad way to fire someone? End result is the same "your fired". Hard to get a board member to talk as they need to be of sound character.

Bob.

Well, a couple did respond, and I spoke as well to an attorney, a property manager, the head of the RAB and two people at the union, so with all them plus background research I think we'll have pretty informative piece. I've been writing about this stuff for a dozen years, and even I learned some things!

I tis extremely imprtant to keep a paper trail of a Super's infractions. For example, how much overtime is breing charges and how often? Is he/she getting "bribed" (in the form of "tips") by outside contractors, very often "side jobs" are a big problem - building supplies can be used and the jobs are often during salaried time. Also what is the true background of the employee - always check for references with several prior board members. Sometimes a terminaiton agreement included a good reference. Scary but true.

What was the cause of the leak? If the leak was caused by something that is the coop's responsibility, the coop should take care of the repair. If not, the owner of the apartment causing the leak is responsible. Whether the insurance co. for either party is contacted or not is up to the parties. If it is the coop's responsibility, you need to decide who will do the repair and when access is available. If it's not the coop's responsibility, we usually let the parties work it out.

the point is - why is the work being done on a Saturday potentally with an uninsured party?

In my opinion: if you're running an honest operation, why not? You might want to stop the recorder when it comes to sensitive information.

The lawyer says this is a big screw up.

In my building we started with the original lease and years later we had to pay more for my shares and got a revised lease. Is this what happened to you?

That is confusing. A coop may issue only one copy of a lease and it must be current. How was yours revised?? it cannot be revised without a 2/3 vote of shareholders.

If the majority of the Board voted on this, your biggest issue may not be the issue itself, it may be the majority of the board. Have you thought of getting a few good people together and taking over the Board? Proving theft seems like such a short-term solution, and if you want to own and live there, perhaps taking a long-term, big picture solution and converting the building into an honest, transparent, well-run property would be a better one? Just a thought.

You mentioned reapply for STAR primary residents in 2014---do you know when in 2014? Like, is it for the 2013 year? Or from say July 2014 on? Do you happen to know exactly when we have to reapply for it 2014? Would greatly appreciate, as it's impossible to contact the Dept. of Finance. Marie

According to the STAR registration website, "Registration started on August 19, 2013 and will continue through December 31, 2013." This is the filing period "to receive the exemption in 2014 and subsequent years."

nyc is mailing information on how to re-apply to all owners.

The management co. provides the change of ownership info to the city. The new owner must apply for the STAR credit directly with the city and it will take effect based on the schedule.

Everything that JG says is correct. However, it's still iffy as to how the city will compute abatements for a partial year of primary residence. I recently read (in Habitat, I believe) that the city plans to snapshot primary residence as of January 1 and use that as the basis for the whole year. This will save them some headaches while creating migraines for everyone else.

For starters: since the city's fiscal year is 7/1 to 6/30, does the residence status as of 1/1/14 apply to the 2013-14 tax year or 2014-15? (The former, I would expect, but it's not clear.) More importantly, what about a primary resident who replaces a non-primary resident on January 2 and loses a full year of the abatement? Or a non-primary resident who takes over on January 3 and receives a full-year abatement that other non-primary residents don't get? Yes, you can certainly argue that buyers and sellers need to work this out at closing, but the city needs to be clearer on what it's actually doing.

Just a few more of the many questions on a bad compromise by our elected officials on a long-standing abatement that was itself intended as a short-term compromise ...

New owner as of June 2013 might have to pay the extra money because it works as follows:

The 50% abatement adjustment is for fiscal year 2012/2013 and is based on ownership on January 5, 2012.
The current billing year (july 1013-June 2014) is based on ownership on January 5, 2013.

They are eligible for the abatement for fiscal 2014/2015, which is based on ownership as of January 5, 2014 and will appear on bills beginning on July 1, 2014.

MNT, I believe you have it exactly right. Thanks for the concise summary and example. Of course I'm not the Dept. of Finance and have no special knowledge of their reasoning.

The explanation I was thinking about came from the Autumn 2013 newsletter of CNYC. Here's an excerpt - and again, I have no special way of knowing whether this is 100% correct:

"Note that property taxes bills [sic] for each fiscal year that begins on the 1st of July are based on a snapshot in time of ownership data on the previous January 5th. Thus the adjustments made retroactively for fiscal 2012/2013 addressed ownership of units and shares on January 5, 2012. Bills for fiscal 2013/2014 look at ownership [as] of January 5, 2013."

(Anybody know why the DOF chose Jan. 5 instead of Jan. 1? I had remembered that part incorrectly. Can the date change from year to year?)